Are we too obsessed with speed?

Ankeny said:

I didn't attribute that to you. I was simply making an observation.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I am perhaps a bit twitchy because it seems as though the people in this thread who think I am wrong think I am saying that (or some variation on that). I don't mind people thinking I am wrong for the ideas I hold, but it is ... frustrating ... when they think I am wrong for something that has nothing to do with anything I have said, or would agree with.

I suspect the "difference" in what we are saying really boils down to me differentiating practice and training (used in the "exercise" sense, not "being taught") as two phases of development which have different needs. I am something of a skill collector by nature so the distinction has practical and reoccurring value to me. Of course I, like everyone else, assume that something that has practical value to me would be useful to everyone, but perhaps the distinction is meaningless in your world.

It is always very reassuring to know the answer you want before you start asking.

40-82 said:

Imagine someone is leveling a shotgun on you at close range and your pistol is still holstered. You have to be very fast--even that might not be good enough--but a very fast miss is useless. The problem is always going to be that you don't know how much time you will have. To develop the discipline to know how much time you need to make a hit, take that amount of time, no more, and no less, is what we train for, but it's not easy even in practice. Missing at a high rate of speed may have less than no value.

Click to expand...

how would you fast draw a guy with a shotgun aimed at you?? You have watched to many steven segal movies.

I do find it interesting though, that it is pretty easy to find accounts of even ipsc shooters firing ten or so rounds and hitting nothing, then reminding themselves to slow down and getting a hit.

It is also pretty easy to find accounts of people getting killed while trying to reload after shooting their gun dry.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is advocating spray and pray tactics, nor that speed is everything. Speed is nothing without accuracy. Failing to hit your target makes speed completely irrelevant.

I do see your point though. You asked

Having said all of this, does anyone know of a documented gunfight that was lost because someone wasn't shooting fast enough split times? What say you?

Click to expand...

and got one actual answer and a lot ot discussion. However, your title and initial thoughts implied fairly clearly your feelings on the matter, that you do in fact think we worry too much about speed. Phrases like "too obsessed" can only be answered with opinions, as it is applying a value system to a theory that, thankfully, most people will never have a chance to test, and has an inherant opinion basis on your part.

I don't think anyone in their right mind could argue with

"If you choose to employ a firearm for self defense, and are forced to shoot an attacker because retreat will not be an effective means of self preservation, the quickest and most effective way to stop the attacker is to shoot he/she/it as quickly as possible and in a part of his/her/its body that is likely to cause an incapacitating injury."

However, hitting an attacker quickly, in ANY part of it's body quickly will be the fastest way to deter that attacker. Right? So....... obsessed? No, it is an integral part of defense. It's kind of like asking, "Are we too obsessed with steering our cars?" Of course not. We wouldn't arrive at our destination if we didn't.

So you really asked two questions. You asked for exampoles, but also a value based question in your title. I think you got exactly what you asked for.

Are there many examples of someone ineffectively protecting themselves because they did not shoot fast enough? Apparently not. Are we too obsessed with speed? No, because a lack of examples does not invalidate the theory that quick hits will stop a threat more efficiently than slow hits.

Nice tongue in cheek smart responce. Nicely dismissive. Wouldn't have asked if I hadn't thought that perhaps someone else knew of some real world, not IPSC gaming, related accounts of shootings

Click to expand...

Apparently not. Ergo, since the opinions of the other here aren't instructive, there is no reason for you to alter the opinion you started with.

We are on page six, and I have still gotten only things like, "truth be known, with proper technique, it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C." While this sounds nice, we all know this is not true. If it were, Jerry Miculek would never miss in competition.

Click to expand...

I think you might have missed the point. Or maybe two. But I'm probably wrong.

Practice whatever makes you feel confident and don't worry about others' opinions.

couldbeanyone said:

Wouldn't have asked if I hadn't thought that perhaps someone else knew of some real world, not IPSC gaming, related accounts of shootings.

Click to expand...

I recounted the IPSC shooter who was in Iraq and killed several people with relative ease, given his IPSC background.

We are on page six, and I have still gotten only things like, "truth be known, with proper technique, it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C." While this sounds nice, we all know this is not true. If it were, Jerry Miculek would never miss in competition. Try shooting an IPSC course of fire running as fast as you can go, then run it like you have all day. Which way had more A hits. I know, I know, you never miss the A zone at speed.

Click to expand...

You are confused.

You're taking one statement, misunderstanding it, then combining it with other factors.

Take Jerry. Stand him up in front of an IPSC target at 7 yds. Have him rip off 6 shots as fast as he can. All A's. He can do that all day for you. Fast.

As I said, with proper technique, it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C. The gun kicks, it settles back down where it was 14/100ths before and the second shot is launched and lands very close to the first one. This is verifiably true.

But a match doesn't consist of one target that's shot while standing in front of it. Instead, it involves multiple targets, movement (including targets), obstacles, awkward shooting positions that prevent "proper technique," etc, etc. ALL these things contribute to the difficulty of the match and the shots it requires. Add to that, each shooter is trying to multi-task as they run thru each stage at high speed. As a result, it's difficult to give each shot 100% focus and attention.

But stand them up in front of a single target at 7 yds, they'll rip off a sub two second Bill Drill all in the A zone. All day.

Look at the Bianchi Cup, as that's a better example. The time frames are fixed, so everyone has the same time to shoot their shots.

For the past 10-15 years, if you didn't shoot a perfect score, you didn't win.

couldbeanyone,

glad you asked the question. a lot of useful info given for an important topic.

your question is a loaded one. from the viewpoint of the loser of the confrontation, the answer is always "yes". from the viewpoint of the winner, the answer is always "no".

the quality that separates the two combatants is practice (which incorporates both speed and accuracy).

my opinion,

murf

I do find it interesting though, that it is pretty easy to find accounts of even ipsc shooters firing ten or so rounds and hitting nothing, then reminding themselves to slow down and getting a hit.

Click to expand...

True enough because there are all levels of IPSC shooters in the game. FWIW, many of the better shooters rarely think in terms of consiously slowing down or sprreding up when actually on the trigger. Their speed is dictated by other factors.

Kinda like driving a race car. You work on "smooth" and speed comes naturally.

Stand in one spot and draw and fire on a target at seven yards and you should easily be able to hit COM in 0.9 seconds. (Chip McCormick's been timed at just under 0.8, in his younger days.) In the real world, both you and the target might be moving--which is a whole 'nother ball game.

Having that front sight back on target quick-quick takes lots of practice as well as thinking through the process.

Accuracy with maximum speed is the deal. It's not one or the other; it's both. You work up to your own body's limit and that's as good as it gets.

Art Eatman said:

Kinda like driving a race car. You work on "smooth" and speed comes naturally.

Click to expand...

To a point. After which, you need to specifically pursue speed while maintaining accuracy.

Stand in one spot and draw and fire on a target at seven yards and you should easily be able to hit COM in 0.9 seconds. (Chip McCormick's been timed at just under 0.8, in his younger days.)

Click to expand...

I suspect he was faster than that. Today, there are guys in the .6's and .5's

Having that front sight back on target quick-quick takes lots of practice as well as thinking through the process.

Click to expand...

You want to reach the point where you don't have to "think" about anything, much less "through the process." Your goal is to be fully and keenly aware of what you're doing, but not having to clutter your mind thinking about any of it. You're simply monitoring your shooting. J. Michael Plaxco describes it well in his book, "Shooting From Within."

Agree, David E.

The .6s and .5s come from the newer style holsters, I imagine, as compared to the leather of the early 1980s.

Seems to me that at first, "thinking it through" gets you to the most efficient sequence. After that, it's practice and repetition which makes it reflexive. The so-called "muscle memory" of a sequence. Once you have that down, you can push yourself for improvement in both accuracy and speed.

(I hope that I've phrased all this halfway reasonable. )

couldbeanyone said:

I am not questioning that quick hits are better than slow hits.

Click to expand...

But you seem to argue that a fast hit cannot be the same quality as a slow hit. It can be.

But even so, here's an ideal bad situation as I see it: armed badguy demands whatever, putting you in fear for your life. You decide to draw. Just as you clear the holster and slightly rotate the muzzle, you put shot #1 in his ankle, shot #2 in his knee, shot #3 in his groin, shot #4 in his stomach, shot #5 center chest and shot #6 in the throat. I'm thinking that you won't need shot #7.

The question at hand is hits, quality of hits, mindset, and all of this under attack, not in a match.

Click to expand...

But your original question was "Are we too obsessed with speed?" Maybe you need a new thread for your new topics.

As long as you can hit, you're not too obsessed with speed.

couldbeanyone said:

Even with no more practice time than I have available, I can keep them all in the A zone on a single target to the limit of my arthritic trigger finger "all day long".

Click to expand...

Then....you make my point.

I have seen Jerry Miculek miss on a plate rack while standing dead still on more than one occasion. If you don't believe me, there are examples on youtube. He wouldn't have missed these plates slow fire.

Click to expand...

Nor would he have won the match. But you're introducing target transitions and a pretty small target at at least 10 yds.

How do I know, because I wouldn't have missed them slow fire.

Click to expand...

Think not? Add some pressure to the mix and that might change. Even if true, Jerry would beat you every time, even with a miss or even two.

The point is that speed and accuracy at the ultimate limit are in conflict with each other.

Click to expand...

Ok, this is an interesting statement. I'm going to surmise that "speed at the ultimate" is going as fast as humanly possible, accuracy be damned. But what about the "ultimate limit of accuracy?" Do you mean placing each shot directly on a shirt button? If it's the slightest bit off center, did you fail the quest for "ultimate accuracy?"

When it comes to shooting for defense, defining an acceptable target is essential. You may only accept a shot that hits the second shirt button. I accept "C" zone or better. Clearly, it's easier to hit a larger target faster than a tiny one.

And, what Jerry can do really has little to do with the average mortal can do. I was only using him to show that the ultimate accuracy of even the best will degrade when pushed to the limits of their speed.

Click to expand...

You misrepresented the point, but Jerry's "degraded" accuracy is still better than some peoples slow accuracy.

If you think I am going to sit here and allow you to be condescending to me with your, " poor little feller has got himself confused, he just don't understand how good we really are" attitude, I assure you that you have misjudged me.

Click to expand...

You called me a liar but you think I'm the offending party.....interesting.

I said it doesn't take any longer to shoot an A than it does a C. Then I explained why that is.

I am well aware of just how fast and accurate the top flight shooters are. I am also aware that these same shooters will occasionally miss shots at speed that they would never miss at a sedate rate of fire

Click to expand...

Again, that wasn't your original question. Do you think they'd win shooting at your speed? Are they "too obsessed with speed?"

I came here to have a nice discussion, but if you want to continue to be condescending and talk down to me like I just fell off the turnip truck, we can go at it till this sucker gets locked. Your choice.

Click to expand...

Go at what, exactly?

I'm saying that if you can hit the target at speed, then you're not obsessed with speed.

I knew a guy that asked how I shot a stage once. I told him my time and that it was clean. He scoffed then bragged about how he'd shot the stage faster than I did. He forgot to mention the 3 misses and 2 no-shoots he had.

Now HE was too obsessed with speed!

couldbeanyone,

gotta have thick skin around here. nothing personal intended.

speed and accuracy only conflict if you let them. they should compliment each other.

and, i think, we are not obsessed with speed. we are obsessed with winning. to win, one must be faster and more accurate than your opponent. if you are obsessed with speed only, you will lose. if you are confident that accuracy without speed is sufficient, you will lose.

winning is just human nature. probably why there are six pages to this thread.

murf

gotta have thick skin around here. nothing personal intended.

Click to expand...

The other option is the ignore feature. If an individual drives you to the point of distraction place that person on your ignore list.

At close range a trained shooter can get accurate enough hits at his top speed. Either he is fast enough to solve his problem or he isn't. He's doing his best and there's isn't time to think about speed vs. accuracy. He reacts as he is trained. When the distance begins to open up, the relationship of speed and accuracy begins to get interesting. At some distance depending upon the level of ability of the individual shooter he will need to slow down to make the hits he needs. To hit his target he will have to slow to a level of speed that probably won't stop an opponent of unknown abilities from getting one or more shots off. That's the moment of truth, when you learn whether your mental discipline is strong enough to take the time you need because you know that none of your misses can help you.

couldbeanione said:

I am not questioning that quick hits are better than slow hits. The question at hand is hits, quality of hits, mindset, and all of this under attack, not in a match.

Click to expand...

So what exactly are you questioning???

Seems to me that it should be pretty obvious that hits are better than misses, higher "quality" hits (more probability of a stop) are better than lower quality hits, and a winning mindset is better than a losing mindset, whether in a match or under attack.

What's your question?