Are we too obsessed with speed?

[bsms]

Some of it depends on your opponent. If you shoot a man in the heart with a 44 Magnum, he has enough residual blood pressure in his brain to keep functioning for 10-20 seconds - plenty of time to take deliberate shots at you. If your bad luck included going up against a truly tough, determined guy, the ONLY way to prevent him from shooting you is a head shot, which is also a difficult shot to count on.

If you are in a gunfight, you ought to assume you will be shot before it is over. If not, you are as much lucky as anything else.

For my part, I don't live to shoot. I don't practice my quick draw and I don't shoot nearly often enough to hit accurately without at least a little aiming. Nor do I believe I am atypical of the average CCW person. There is about 0% chance that I could draw a concealed weapon and get a shot off in 0.5 seconds.

The one time I pulled a gun, I didn't have to shoot. Good thing, because a 6 shot 22 revolver isn't much good against 8 guys. That whole math thing, with 8-6=2. I did figure I would last long enough to shoot 1-2 guys in the face, and that was enough that day...they didn't decide any possible reward was worth the risk so I was able to walk away.

But if you pull a gun in self-defense, you are already in deep doo-doo. You have to be - you aren't legal in most states to shoot unless your life or someone else's is threatened. By definition, if you can't pull and shoot unless you are in danger of dying or serious injury, you cannot pull a gun unless things are pretty bad already.

If someone wants to do the constant practice to be both fast & accurate, fine. But if you are not inclined to spend a LOT of time practicing, you may have to trust to being tough and accurate. What no one can afford is to be inaccurate - so work on accuracy first, and then speed as time & opportunity allow.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Post #50....

I don't understand post #50.
Who would mock a forum member or PSC if the tactics or training methods worked?

Different people do different things with different gear/weapons different ways.
Are they wrong? Can they do it better? Who knows.

I don't go around being critical of what people carry or why they do certain things.
License holders or armed professionals who do that need to grow up.

Rusty

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Many threads on this forum about handgun defense always seem to come down to shooting as many bullets as fast as you can. If you don't have a 15 round magazine and can't empty your gun in 3 seconds your a dead man

There are two sayings to keep in mind:

In a gunfight, you don't run out of ammunition, you run out of time.

And

You can't miss fast enough to win.

 

[Arizonan]

Speed is fine, but accuracy is final!

 

[DT Guy]

I would prefer, given the choice, to land the first hit in a gunfight. Actually, I would prefer to land the ONLY hit...and so I hope to be faster than my opponent, and train accordingly.

After all, fast hits are really the ultimate ' tactical ', right?

 

[Bezoar]

well on "kosher". alot of what was kosher then, isnt now. but alot of what is called kosher today, would have created an unemployed cop in the OLD days.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Real gunfights, time, distance, hardware....

In a real critical incident, you(the gun owner or CCW license holder) will need to observe & assess the possible threat, draw or get the firearm ready, aim, then fire directly at the subject(s).
Your goal should be to drop the attacker quickly. Secondary bad guys(robbers) more than likely will move in on your flanks or try to get around you/behind you.
Training to move to cover or be ready to do a tactical reload & engage a second threat is smart.
To flee or leave isn't a bad idea either. You can get to safety then call 911 or alert law enforcement. I wouldn't rail against a license holder or armed citizen who left a scene but went to the police or their atty. Flight does not = guilt or misconduct.

 

[David E]

Your goal should be to drop the attacker quickly. Secondary bad guys(robbers) more than likely will move in on your flanks or try to get around you/behind you.

I disagree. What's likely is they'll run like the spineless punks they are. On the unlikely chance they don't, that's where multiple target acquisition skills come in.

Training to move to cover or be ready to do a tactical reload & engage a second threat is smart.

I don't obsess over getting to cover. I likely won't be alone and the result would be leaving people important to me behind with the goblins. Not gonna do it. What I would do, if the decision to shoot was made, is move away from my people to minimize them getting hit by incoming fire.

Likewise, I'm not going to worry about any "tactical reload," either. I'm doing a speed reload if one is needed.

To flee or leave isn't a bad idea either. ...

IF it's possible to do so safely, you betcha.

 

[murf]

slow is smooth, smooth is fast. the more you practice, the slower you feel and the faster you become.

becoming more proficient (whether accuracy, draw, tactical awareness, reload, etc.) takes quality practice. speed always increases with practice. don't worry about speed.

murf

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by David E: What's likely is they'll run like the spineless punks they are.

Do you have a factual basis for that belief?

 

[ATLDave]

speed always increases with practice. don't worry about speed.

That certainly has not been my experience. I've gotten into USPSA shooting over the last year. When I started, there were a number of shooters in the club where I shoot who were all at approximately the same level in terms of score/hit factor. Some of those guys were clearly taking the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" approach. Every action they took, from drawing, to firing, to reloading, was done with measured, controlled precision. They were very smooth. They were not measurably fast.

Some of the other shooters at the same overall level were trying to push speed (without losing control).

It's been about 9 months. The first population shoots about the same way they always did. The second population is measurably and empirically better. And it's not even close.

Focusing on being smooth has its role, but if you want to meaningfully increase speed, at some point you have to push it. Maybe you push it to the point of failure then back off 5%, and now fast feels smooth. But I don't think you'll ever get very fast without pushing it. Or at least most people won't, and I sure won't.

 

[ATLDave]

Do you have a factual basis for that belief?

A factual basis for the claim that most criminals will run if shot at? You seriously dispute that fact?

Well, one place we could look is the rate of defensive gun use compared to number of defensive shootings. There are orders of magnitude more of the former than the latter.

If most criminals run at the mere sight of a gun, why would you expect them to be braver in the face of actual fire?

 

[David E]

slow is smooth, smooth is fast. the more you practice, the slower you feel and the faster you become.

becoming more proficient (whether accuracy, draw, tactical awareness, reload, etc.) takes quality practice. speed always increases with practice. don't worry about speed.

murf

To a point, that's true. But to progress past that point, the various elements of speed must be specifically addressed and practiced.

 

[David E]

Do you have a factual basis for that belief?

Are you saying the typical street punk, once their intended "easy mark" starts shooting/killing their pal(s), is going to initiate a tactical outflanking maneuver instead of beating feet outta there???

I guess the bad guys in your area are more disciplined and have more tactical training than most miscreants.

 

[Hurryin' Hoosier]

I have always placed great store in the advice of Sir Winston Churchill:

"Economy of effort. Never stand up when you can sit down, and never sit down when you can lie down."

 

[murf]

totally agree. your metronome idea is a perfect example of a method to increase speed.

speed and precision are inversely proportional. practice will increase both, but the shooter gets to decide what speed/precision ratio they want for a given scenario.

one still needs to adopt a process, or method to "get proficient".

i still say: slow is smooth, smooth is fast. (just me)

atldave,

maybe the ones that didn't get "speed" need to be shown how to get out of that rut. no matter how long you practice "wrong", it will never be "right". maybe the slowbees need a bit of "right" instruction.

murf

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Depends? if you shoot IDPA or USPSA speed is far more important to you.

That's odd, because I've found through experience that accuracy wins IDPA matches. Most shooters will shoot a stage in 12-17 seconds. Of course, if the 12 second guy racks up 8 seconds in thrown shots and the 17 second guy only gets 1...

The slower guy won.

See it happen time after time.

 

[ATLDave]

atldave,

maybe the ones that didn't get "speed" need to be shown how to get out of that rut. no matter how long you practice "wrong", it will never be "right". maybe the slowbees need a bit of "right" instruction.

Maybe. However, while I'm no expert and not really qualified to be passing judgment, their technique seems fairly sound. They don't seem to have a whole lot of wasted motion... it's just that the motion isn't fast. Their draw is simple and economical.... it just looks like it's filmed and played back at half speed. It's super smooth. And quite slow.

But, hey, it's OK with me. I'm waxing them nearly every week, so they can keep on being smooth if they want!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Who was it that said; speed's fine but accuracy is final?

Bill Tilghman, "The Marshal of the Last Frontier." He was one of Oklahoma's "Three Guardsmen," and put down the old Indian Territory outlaws.

My father and grandfather knew and worked with him.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by David E: Are you saying the typical street punk, once their intended "easy mark" starts shooting/killing their pal(s), is going to initiate a tactical outflanking maneuver instead of beating feet outta there???

I do not think there is such a thing as a "typical street punk".

I am questioning the wisdom of relying on the assumption that they will do so.

Such an assumption assumes, in turn, the following:

• that the accomplices will recognize in the heat of the moment that the victim is in fact the one who is doing the shooting; there is an example in the Rangemaster "Lessons fom the Street" DVD in which a perp thought otherwise and walked right into it;
• that the accomplices are, at least to some extent, rational people; and
• that each accomplice will conclude that his best strategy at the time is to try to outrun the bullets of the defender rather than attacking in the ways in which he has trained in the prison yard.

I guess the bad guys in your area are more disciplined and have more tactical training than most miscreants.

Again, do you have a factual basis for characterizing "most miscreants" in that manner?

 

[murf]

i'm no expert either. just know what has worked for me.

murf

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by murf: speed and precision are inversely proportional. practice will increase both, but the shooter gets to decide what speed/precision ratio they want for a given scenario.

Absolutely, and if your holes are closer together than they need to be, you are shooting too slowly.

 

[ATLDave]

Kleanbore, I read David E's comment to be about likelihood. Not about whether it would be true in every case. Extrapolating from the likelihood to every situation would be assuming. Simply stating the most common/likely/typical behavior is not "assuming" anything.

Again, we know that the number of defensive gun shootings is a tiny, tiny fraction of defensive gun uses. The mere sight of a gun is sufficient most of the time. So saying it is likely - not certain, as you seem to be reading - that most criminals would run upon being taken under fire seems to be true beyond any reasonable dispute.

 

[murf]

yes, the inverse is also true. the shooter needs to be aware of this and adjust accordingly.

murf

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ATLDave: Simply stating the most common/likely/typical behavior is not "assuming" anything.

Stating that something is likely does require an assumption.

Again, we know that the number of defensive gun shootings is a tiny, tiny fraction of defensive gun uses. The mere sight of a gun is sufficient most of the time. So saying it is likely - not certain, as you seem to be reading - that most criminals would run upon being taken under fire seems to be true beyond any reasonable dispute.

I think you are missing a very important point.

Criminals will generally, and probably almost always, but not always, cease and desist and leave upon the point of a gun. I have had that happen three times.

But once the shooting starts, a criminal would have to first recognize that the victim, and not one of his compatriots, is in tact doing the shooting, and then decide very quickly what course of action represents his best chance. Is it to try to overcome the shooter, or to outrun bullets? Would he have any chance at all of doing the latter? Does he stand any chance at all of escaping without the defender's car and/or family member as a hostage?

A quick decision by someone who has likely trained for hours on end for the occasion, it will likely spend upon mental health, level of desperation, distance from the defender, and other circumstances.

I think it is a big mistake to generalize about criminal behavior.