Are we too obsessed with speed?

[Kleanbore]

Let's knock off the snide remarks.

 

[David E]

Oh snap, oh sting, really put us in our place didn't you. I'll just be over here crying myself to sleep, mired in my mediocrity. Along with about a thousand other average shooters on this forum.

You sell yourself and 1000 others short.

You, me and they are, simply by coming to this forum, better than the "average" shooter.

Maybe you need a different perspective.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by David E: You, me and they are, simply by coming to this forum, better than the "average" shooter.

I do not think that that is a given.

I know people who log in here who carry J-Frame revolvers that they haven't fired since they qualified for their CCW licenses.

People differ in terms of what they think the "average" shooter is. I try to get to the range about once a week, and I generally shoot at a B-27 target at seven yards (the targets are not illuminated when they are closer). I shoot rather rapidly, and I vary the number of shots in each string, and sometimes the time between shots.

I cannot draw the gun at my range.

I get most shots inside the nine or better, and all but very few inside the eight. I have just transitioned to a new carry piece, and that involves something of a learning curve, at least for me. I strive to get all shots into the upper chest area quickly. Sometimes I try for greater precision. I notice people in other lanes shooting tight groups slowly and others firing slowly and less accurately than I could throw darts in a pub after a few beers. Occasionally I hear someone firing faster than I do but hitting very poorly.

I have neither the interest nor the time nor the physical condition to try to get to a competitive level.

I worry less about whether I could score hits rapidly enough on a moving assailant at close range; more about being able to recognize a bad situation timely and react, draw, present, and fire in time; more about having a safe, clear shot when the need arises; and even more about addressing a malfunction in a "Tueller" situation.

Am I "better than Average"? I think so--I've been shooting handguns for about half a century, but not frequently until rather recently.

But then, it seems that every American man would like to think that he is at least better than average when it comes to shooting, driving a car, grilling steaks, choosing tires, judging beer, negotiating prices, and perhaps, judging from many of the posts I read, maintaining constant three hundred and sixty degree situational awareness.

Right now I am thinking a lot about refresher training--someone calling out what to shoot and when, and providing some coaching. When it cools off a little, I will do something about it.

 

[browningguy]

There is a lot of pontificating here and its really pretty simple.

The fastest guy to get rounds on target usually wins.

And for the guys that don't think the shooting games don't matter you are just fooling yourselves. If you can't be fast and accurate when it's a game you won't magically get that way in a real gunfight.

 

[David E]

I submit that the "average" gun owner doesn't come to this forum seeking out advice or just reading posts about guns. Why? Because they don't care enough about guns to spend the time to learn about them, much less how to shoot them better.

But it does depend how we ID the "average" gun owner.

There is average "gun owner," and then there is the average "shooter." They are not the same.

But I've met very few "shooters" that aspire to an "average" skill level.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by browningguy: The fastest guy to get rounds on target usually wins.

That's the way it works in screen fiction, but considering the realities of handgun wounding effectiveness, I would phrase it this way: the defender who fails to score sufficient effective hits quickly enough will almost certainly lose.

And for the guys that don't think the shooting games don't matter you are just fooling yourselves. If you can't be fast and accurate when it's a game you won't magically get that way in a real gunfight.

The shooting games do of course have an important role, but not everyone has the time or the health or the facility to participate in them.

But someone who has trained in the right things and who follows up his or her training with the right practice is much better suited for the worst kind of eventuality than one who has not and does not.

Having said that, I would remind everyone that the pistoleer who can draw quickly and knock down steel plates quickly without missing a beat is still not "there" if he or she is not also staying off the cell phone, surveying the area on all sides, and psychologically prepared to recognize and react to extreme danger without denial or disbelief.

My wife and I left a restaurant the other day to go to the car, and I suddenly realized that our path could take us into a trap, and that she would be in my way. We redirected ourselves quickly; in the event, there was no cause for alarm, but....

That should illustrate two things: the importance of situational awareness that we always talk about, and that there are distinct differences between shooting for a score at targets that are "down range" in a choreographed exercise and reacting instantly to a surprise attack from one or more unexpected directions at close range.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

While David E. stubbornly sticks to his position that speed over all, "a fast hit ended a fight quicker than a slow hit" I'm left wondering if those that advocate speed somehow believe if they are shot first they are DRT?

The biggest factor in surviving a gunfight is mental attitude and the will to survive at all costs.

I have known and seen several men continue to fight after being hit -- but with one exception, every one of those men died during or shortly after the fight.

A gunshot wound is not something you can shrug off.