Are we too obsessed with speed?

[David E]

Its fine for folks to espouse that you can have both extreme speed and accuracy at all times,

Most people, when trying to hit, take more time than is required for the shot.

but the reality is that the vast majority of people don't have unlimited practice time or budgets.

How much does it cost to dry fire? A LOT of gun skills can be learned/improved without firing a shot.

Just saying that get a hit might be a better mindset than HURRY!

Don't shoot until you WILL hit. Missing wastes time and ammo, neither of which can be squandered in a gunfight.

 

[CraigC]

Are we too obsessed with speed?

Yes.

The conclusion I drew from analyzing actual gun fights:

Speed from decision to engage to first hit on target: Very important.

Split time between hits on same target: Not as important.

Yep.

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

Yep.


'Some' folks seem to be VERY obsessed with speed and anything else be damned. Apparently also thinking that everybody else should be obsessed with speed to the point that you're not very serious if you are not obsessed with speed. Typical gamer.

 

[WestKentucky]

I expected this to be a bullet velocity thread. Either way I do believe people focus too heavily on speed. Let's analyze history a bit. In the days of old people who were "packin heat" did so with a scattergun or single shot muzzleloading handgun. If they missed they were subject to a well aimed timely shot. So there was more importance on getting a hit. Then comes twister guns, same setup but 2 shots now, less emphasis on accuracy, a bit more on speed. Now true double barrel shotguns and derringers, faster still and but same emphasis on accuracy. Then SA revolvers giving a safe carry between caps we have 6 shots quickly. This is when accuracy seems to suffer a big hit. Bring on DA revolvers and you gain more speed, then cartridge guns, until the autoloaders come about. Each historical step was taken away from accuracy and towards firepower at a fast rate of fire. Was this to take on multiple badguys? Likely not since most issues are 1-1 fights. It does take human error out of the equation, especially for the inexperienced, elderly, poor vision etc. the recent additions of light based aids in weapon lights and lasers helps overcome part of this and is starting a push back towards accuracy, especially with a pocket gun craze limiting available round count. So over time we went from a point of HAVING to make that first shot or be killed by badguy, grizzly, or mountain lion to being comfortable carrying 15 and assuming we are going to get a hit (by dumb luck sometimes) which seems preposterous. In a military setting that makes sense as covering fire to allow tactical movement but for joe blow, not so much. This is strictly people wanting the newest nicest military toy and justifying a want by calling it a need.


Now on the other side of speed is bullet travel which also is a ridiculous thought process. The 45-70 was big and slow and nearly put the American bison into extinction. Big gun big critter but to modern standards very low velocity. Similarly the 30-30 is slow but that 150gr bullet has taken a massive number of deer elk etc. So we needs a 4000fps rifle why? With handguns it is the same,we need a 2000 fps gun why? The 357,41,44,460,480,500 magnums aren't enough? Ok they are revolvers that limit is to 5 or 6 rds (see paragraph above again) so 9mm,45acp, 40 sw 9x23, 10mm 38super, 45gap...how are those not enough when the colt navy was plenty 150 years ago. I could go into discussion about penetration and expansion or explosion even but realistically a hit is a hit and it's putting the opponent down. For speed of projectile look up myth busters experiment at shooting into a swimming pool.

 

[BSA1]

Psychological vs. Physiological stops.

Certainly a human body can live on for a while (maybe even survive) after taking vital zone hits, but there is still a fairly strong case to be made that he who hits first tends to win. In a great many cases (no, not all of course) being shot is distracting and disheartening and at least forces the bad guy to reorient/re-acquire and that can buy you important fractions of a second to land the next shot and the next, and the next if need be.

Sure, most gun shot victims live through it. But a fast first hit -- even a 'C' hit -- followed up by three or four more 'A's and 'C's over the course of that first second decidedly stacks the game in your direction.

So, it isn't realistic to contend that a hit through the spinal cord is the only thing that counts, the only acceptable target zone, the only useful factor in stopping the attack.

We are talking about the differences between psychological vs. physiological stops.

Psychological is destroying your attackers will to fight. Inflicting non-lethal pain is often a good way to cause this to happen. Hence a non-lethal and non-incapacitating gunshot causes the attacker to stop their attack immediately. It is a common occurrence in major hospital emergency rooms, especially on weekends to have adults come in with small caliber non-life threatening gun shots crying like a baby and carrying on about dying and then leaving for jail in handcuffs after the Doctor removes the bullet (for evidence, not medical reasons) and puts a bandaid over the hole.

However psychological stops are highly unpredictable and unreliable.

With physiological we are focusing on destroying the body’s able to continue to function. This can a be a lethal injury which will eventually result in death or a injury to the central nervous system which incapacitates the body instantly or in a very few seconds. In a gun fight obviously this is the most desirable goal.

The good news is in most gunfights the attacker perceives receiving any gunshot as being lethal and looks for a way out of the situation so minute of pie plate accuracy and a small caliber round will be sufficient.

It’s the attacker who is determined enough to follow through that is going to cause the most problems. Even with a heart shot it is going to take 30 seconds or more for the body to bleed out enough to lose enough blood pressure to rendered unconsciousness. Enough time for a determined attacker to finish his attack.

I have never brought in to the "one-shot stop" theory in handgun stopping power. That is why we carry guns that hold more than one rounds. All I want to happen when in a fight is for the attacker to stop right now. As you mention fast first hit -- even a 'C' hit -- followed up by three or four more 'A's and 'C's makes a lot of sense.

I like to think of wasp stings. One wasp sting for most of us is a minor thing (i.e a "C" Hit. Is there such a thing as a "D" hit?). A sharp sting and a little swelling. However there are folks like my Dad where a single sting can be lethal unless he gets treatment fairly quickly (i.e."A" hit). Now for the rest we can ignore that single wasp sting but it becomes a different story when there are a swarm of wasps. It doesn't matter where they sting it hurts a lot and I know enough stings can be lethal (i.e. a whole lot of "C" hits).

 

[Kleanbore]

Are we too obsessed with speed?

Who?

If one is attacked it is likely that the attack will occur suddenly and without warning. Responding with force before it is too late will require speed.

Assuming hits with a handun, it is likely that more than one will be needed to stop, and again, time available will be limited. Again, speed.

But misses are unlikely to help very much, and they can lead to disaster.

It becomes a matter of balancing speed and precision. How much precision will be needed will be situationally dependent, and the defender will have to decide that when the occasion arises.

 

[BSA1]

One thing that hasn’t been discussed is how time is interpreted by the victim when attacked. There are many stories of the victim reporting how slow he was to bring his gun into action and long the gun fight/ attack took before it ended. Whereas a very common report by witnesses of the same incident is the shots were fired so rapidly it sounded like a machine gun. The shooter often reports he did not achieve incapacitating hits until they forced themselves to slow down and focus on the front sight.

 

[David E]

'Some' folks seem to be VERY obsessed with speed and anything else be damned.

I've been very clear that fast HITS are what counts.

Or do you think a bullseye hit in 3 seconds is better than a bullseye hit in 2 seconds?

If so, explain why. If not, then you have no point.

 

[CraigC]

I didn't say speed was unimportant but it's never a good idea to be obsessed with a single aspect.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let's keep the heat down here, folks.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by CraigC: it's never a good idea to be obsessed with a single aspect.

True fact.

 

[Onward Allusion]

It's better to be fast and accurate instead of slow and accurate.

<curmudgeon_mode>
Conversely, it can be said that it is better to be slow(er) and accurate than fast(er) and inaccurate.

Just practice, practice, practice. When you're done. Practice some more. All this conjecture on "gee, is fast better than accurate...etc...etc.." is downright silly.

Strictly here in the States... How many civilians engage in firefights? How many CC holders will ever need to use it in the time that they are licensed? How many people will actually have to draw their gun in their lifetime? I can safely say that the majority of gun owners will never have to draw on anyone in their lifetime.

I'm a civilian. I am a documented carrier and in the past an undocumented carrier. So, I probably carried for 25 plus years. I grew up on the SW Side of Chicago and lived around Chicago for probably the first 10 years of my adult life. In that time, I've had to draw TWICE. Never did I have to fire a single shot. Granted, I have been lucky. For everyday civi life, be aware of your surroundings and be viligent. You are very unlikely going to have to fire a single shot.

</curmudgeon_mode>

 

[CraigC]

I can safely say that the majority of gun owners will never have to draw on anyone in their lifetime.

And I think we must keep this in mind at all times. Being prepared is one thing but I refuse to be obsessed with something that is such a remote possibility.

 

[David E]

I didn't say speed was unimportant but it's never a good idea to be obsessed with a single aspect.

Fast accuracy is not a single aspect.

 

[CornCod]

This topic set me to thinking about great lawman shooters of the past. Jim Cirillo of the legendary NYPD Stakeout Squad and survivor of 16 gunfights, shot three perps (killing one and incapacitating the other two) in a late 1960's grocery store encounter. The crime scene cops concluded that he shot the robbers in three seconds at 75 feet with obstacles with a Model 10 Smith. He was a big Police Pistol competitor, along with a lot of the other men in his squad.

On the other hand, the legendary Wyatt Earp was a strong believer in taking your time and pausing a bit before pulling a trigger. Cirillo, remembering his grocery store encounter, felt a strange sense of detachment thinking to himself "hey look, I just shot my revolver, ain't that something."

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Onward Allusion: Strictly here in the States... How many civilians engage in firefights? How many CC holders will ever need to use it in the time that they are licensed? How many people will actually have to draw their gun in their lifetime? I can safely say that the majority of gun owners will never have to draw on anyone in their lifetime.

I'm sure that very few people indeed will ever have to fire a firearm in self defense.

The issue is one of basic risk management.

The likelihood of one particular individual being attacked on any given day is far less than remote.

The likelihood of one or her being attacked, or threatened with violent harm, during his or her lifetime is considerably higher. Rather small, but probably much higher than than remote. Depends upon one's age and lifestyle and where one goes and when.

The potential consequences are severe--perhaps very severe.

The effort required for mitigation is not very high.

That, and the severity of the potential consequences, make mitigation prudent.

All of the same things can be said about accidental injury or choking, poisoning, fire in the home or automobile, and so on.

Should the occasion arise, not having the means to deal with it could be disastrous.

I have had to produce a weapon for self defense on three occasions. All occurred many years ago in extremely low risk circumstances.

I did not have to shoot.

But there are no guarantees, and I choose to avoid putting myself into a position of helplessness.

 

[David E]

On the other hand, the legendary Wyatt Earp was a strong believer in taking your time and pausing a bit before pulling a trigger.

No, he didn't pause. He "took his time in a hurry," which is very different than "taking your time and pausing a bit before pulling the trigger."

Kleenbore, I don't know who said it first (a THR poster) about why he carried a gun when the odds of actually needing it were so low:

"It's not the odds, it's the stakes."

 

[CraigC]

And I think we can avoid putting ourselves in a position of helplessness without obsessing over whether our splits are .26 or .46 seconds.

The biggest difference in all of what we consider to be successful gunfighters (folks like Cirillo, Askins, Threepersons, Hardin, Hickok, Hamer, etc..) was not that they were very fast. They were certainly fast enough but the difference is that they were deliberate. They made the decision to take another's life very quickly and once that decision was made, there was no turning back.

Spending your life obsessing about splits might make you a better IPSC shooter but if you hesitate when it comes time to take another human's life, none of it matters. We ain't cold-blooded hitmen on an `80's cop show. We're fathers, sons, brothers and uncles. Killing folks ain't our business. You certainly need to be proficient enough to get the job done but the outcome of that very rare gunfight will be more determined by what's between your ears than what's in your holster or what's on your IPSC score card.

Personally, I'd rather face a dilettante with an AK47 or even a high level competition shooter who says he doesn't hunt because he's not "into gore" (Taran Butler), than Tom Threepersons or Charles Askins with a single action revolver.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Speed/accuracy....

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


I didn't know "speed" or throwing lead down range was a major issue in 2014.
Unloading your 6 shooter or 19 shot semi auto pistol in 2 seconds is neither smart or impressive.
You need to learn how to fire then assess or gauge if more rounds are needed.
The recent Wilcox incident in Las Vegas NV shows why looking all over or scan for threats is critical too.

To me, there's nothing impressive about "quick draws" or how fast you can shoot. You need to hit what you are aiming at.
That takes time $$$ and practice.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by David E: No, he [(Wyatt Earp)] didn't pause. He "took his time in a hurry," which is very different than "taking your time and pausing a bit before pulling the trigger."

Let's also keep in mind that what law enforcement officer might have done under some circumstances is probably not very relevant tot the rest of us. Earp and other of his ilk pursued suspects. Jim Cirillo waited for them.

We do neither. We try to avoid being jumped by them by surprise. And wham we fail....

 

[Onward Allusion]

CornCod
This topic set me to thinking about great lawman shooters of the past. Jim Cirillo of the legendary NYPD Stakeout Squad and survivor of 16 gunfights, shot three perps (killing one and incapacitating the other two) in a late 1960's grocery store encounter. The crime scene cops concluded that he shot the robbers in three seconds at 75 feet with obstacles with a Model 10 Smith. He was a big Police Pistol competitor, along with a lot of the other men in his squad.<SNIP>
"

OMG, you mean he did it with a REVOLVER??? Say it ain't so?! I don't believe you! There's no way anyone can do that with a REVOLVER!

 

[CraigC]

And a lot of what was considered kosher in the late 19th century would be considered murder today.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by CraigC: And a lot of what was considered kosher in the late 19th century would be considered murder today.

Good put.

 

[CraigC]

Which is to say that somebody with a gun in their hand, looking for a specific person to kill them has a decided advantage over the one being pursued. If the decision has already been made, it doesn't take much speed to round a corner and shoot somebody.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by CraigC: Spending your life obsessing about splits might make you a better IPSC shooter but if you hesitate when it comes time to take another human's life, none of it matters. We ain't cold-blooded hitmen on an `80's cop show. We're fathers, sons, brothers and uncles. Killing folks ain't our business. You certainly need to be proficient enough to get the job done but the outcome of that very rare gunfight will be more determined by what's between your ears than what's in your holster or what's on your IPSC score card.

There is perhaps even more truth to that than that which is at first evident.

It goes to how one should train.

Can you draw and fire quickly enough? Try a Tueller drill.

Can you clear a jam quickly an without looking? That could prove important.

Though it is unlikely that any one of us will be faced with either eventuality, it is a matter of the severity of the consequences.

Split times? One can get far too focussed on some things.

 

[David E]

When I met Cirillo and took his classes, he was using a Glock, altho I made him a custom holster for his 2.5" K-frame. (He said the holster was "perfect," as it accommodated his limited range of motion.)

I am amazed at how many people that see the words "fast hits" or "fast accuracy," but read "shewt as fast as yew can, hits be damned!" No one is advocating spray and pray.

When I was a cop, I pointed my gun at a lot of people. I was ready to shoot each one if they required it.

One night in my district, a disturbed man decided to kill the cops that showed up one night. Except for the determination and SPEED of one of the officers, both would've been killed instead of one. (Who didn't wear a vest)

In a recent "Ayoob Files," an IPSC competitor, who would've been mocked by some on this site, found himself in Iraq guarding a back door. Long story short, he killed several Iraqis pretty fast and pretty easily. He later remarked that the shooting challenge itself wasn't that difficult. In fact, he'd been challenged more at the matches he shot.

Hits count. Speed counts. It's risky to ignore either one.