Are we too obsessed with speed?
- Thread starter couldbeanyone
- Start date
- Status
Ed Ames
Member
I have a qualified answer to this question.
Yes, people are, within certain contexts. It is a product of our general obsession with speed in this society. How many people have told you the 0-60 or top speed of their car? Why? Because speed is easy to measure and compare, and our society places great weight on comparison.
Is our obsession with speed a problem?
I can think of one context where it has serious negative consequences. Practicing. To be clear, here: Practicing is different than physical training (exercise) in that it is focused on skills and awareness, not muscle definition. When a runner makes her 10,000th run around the track trying to shave another 0.01 seconds off her time she is not practicing, she is training or exercising.
Practicing is a matter of mental focus and deliberate action. Practice means giving your brain enough time to process what you are doing. Speed reduces the time your brain/nervous system has to build the skills you are practicing, directly reducing the quality of your practice. Speed is the enemy of quality practice.
This is not my personal theory. Practice is a relatively well studied area and there are more than a few books on the subject. Read a few and you will see that my position is far from original.
Practicing should be done with intensity, focus, and deliberation, not speed. Many people get that wrong.
As for defensive situation, I'd say what matters is (in order):
1) Definitiveness (can you decide what to do, and stick to what you decide?)
2) Awareness (can your recognize a situation where you will need to change your behavior/act for safety?)
3) Repertoire (skills: can you run away, can you use cover, can you use your car as a weapon, can you talk or posture your way out of trouble, etc?)
4) Capability (do you have a gun? do you have the mindset to use it?) - this is the subset of repertoire which can be exercised in a given scenario
5) Effectiveness (do you hit what you aim at? convince those you talk to?)
6) Sangfroid
Speed is relevant to many of those, but it isn't even on the list as its own thing because speed without correct action is noise.
Yes, people are, within certain contexts. It is a product of our general obsession with speed in this society. How many people have told you the 0-60 or top speed of their car? Why? Because speed is easy to measure and compare, and our society places great weight on comparison.
Is our obsession with speed a problem?
I can think of one context where it has serious negative consequences. Practicing. To be clear, here: Practicing is different than physical training (exercise) in that it is focused on skills and awareness, not muscle definition. When a runner makes her 10,000th run around the track trying to shave another 0.01 seconds off her time she is not practicing, she is training or exercising.
Practicing is a matter of mental focus and deliberate action. Practice means giving your brain enough time to process what you are doing. Speed reduces the time your brain/nervous system has to build the skills you are practicing, directly reducing the quality of your practice. Speed is the enemy of quality practice.
This is not my personal theory. Practice is a relatively well studied area and there are more than a few books on the subject. Read a few and you will see that my position is far from original.
Practicing should be done with intensity, focus, and deliberation, not speed. Many people get that wrong.
As for defensive situation, I'd say what matters is (in order):
1) Definitiveness (can you decide what to do, and stick to what you decide?)
2) Awareness (can your recognize a situation where you will need to change your behavior/act for safety?)
3) Repertoire (skills: can you run away, can you use cover, can you use your car as a weapon, can you talk or posture your way out of trouble, etc?)
4) Capability (do you have a gun? do you have the mindset to use it?) - this is the subset of repertoire which can be exercised in a given scenario
5) Effectiveness (do you hit what you aim at? convince those you talk to?)
6) Sangfroid
Speed is relevant to many of those, but it isn't even on the list as its own thing because speed without correct action is noise.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
Really? Based on what? All the street punks I dealt with or arrested weren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.
What assumption? I said if they DON'T cut and run, then that's where your multiple target transition training comes in.
Look up some YouTube videos titled "carjacker gets shot" or "clerk shoots robber," etc. MOST of the time, the bad guy tries to get out of there ASAP and does nothing else. Other times, the robber shoots while retreating. A few show the robber ducking behind the counter and taking shots over the counter with his gun raised up like a periscope. But dang few and show the robber trying to outflank the clerk who is shooting back.
Maybe your experience differs and you can show that hardened, tactically trained street thugs are more prevalent than the strung out punks looking for an easy score.
Please cite examples.
Not if you are practicing speed.
FWIW, most shooters don't understand the concept of seeing what you need to see in order to make and call the shot...and get to the next shot as quikly as possible. Splits are not nearly as important as transitions, etc.Ed Ames
Member
Even then.Not if you are practicing speed.
There are certain skills needed for speed. Practicing those skills is best done deliberately, slowly, mindfully, in high quality practice sessions. Once you have mastered the skills you can shoot for speed (so to speak) but if you skip the initial slow practice it will be much harder to build up real speed.
A person could argue that the rote repetition of skills at full speed is more a form of specialized exercise (building up the specific muscles needed) than practice.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
You missed his point.
He never said anything about skipping the skills required to be smooth and efficient. You introduced that just now as if to imply he was suggesting to bypass that step.
He basically said that to achieve speed, you need to practice going fast. He's correct.
Panzerschwein
member
Well I personally think speed IS very critical to defensive handgun shooting.
That's why I carry a Glock 18 w/ 33 round mag w/ 4 New York reloads of the same setup.
Works for me.
KIDDIN! All jokes aside, I feel that it's usually the person who gets the first and most accuratly placed shot in the vitals is the one who would prevail. Now if you can do that at a rapid pace, more power to ya', but yes I believe some are a little hung up on speed. It's important, but getting that first round on target quickly in the RIGHT area is much more important than pure firepower of the handgun in question.
As for the guy with the cap and ball revolvers, they might be antiquated compared to today's technology but they can still get the job done. With my Colt Navy .36 I can place a proven deadly projectile on target just as fast as a Glock with the first shot. They were and still can be effective defensive handguns though obviously they have been surpassed in overall effectiveness by modern designs.
JMHO,
YMMV.
That's why I carry a Glock 18 w/ 33 round mag w/ 4 New York reloads of the same setup.
Works for me.
KIDDIN! All jokes aside, I feel that it's usually the person who gets the first and most accuratly placed shot in the vitals is the one who would prevail. Now if you can do that at a rapid pace, more power to ya', but yes I believe some are a little hung up on speed. It's important, but getting that first round on target quickly in the RIGHT area is much more important than pure firepower of the handgun in question.
As for the guy with the cap and ball revolvers, they might be antiquated compared to today's technology but they can still get the job done. With my Colt Navy .36 I can place a proven deadly projectile on target just as fast as a Glock with the first shot. They were and still can be effective defensive handguns though obviously they have been surpassed in overall effectiveness by modern designs.
JMHO,
YMMV.
Ed Ames
Member
You mean to say you think he is correct. I get that.You missed his point.
He never said anything about skipping the skills required to be smooth and efficient. You introduced that just now as if to imply he was suggesting to bypass that step.
He basically said that to achieve speed, you need to practice going fast. He's correct.
I didn't miss his point, I disagree with him. I disagree with you too. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is either confused (missing a point) or dishonest (saying I was trying to imply another poster was bypassing stepps) but that is not to your credit and it is decidedly NOT high road of you.
There is a lot of research backing up my assertion that practicing at high speed, even if you think you are "practicing going fast" (and I disagree that "going fast" is a distinct skill one can practice), is neither efficient nor desirable.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
No, Ed, I said what I meant. He IS right. This isn't opinion or idle speculation, it is observed and experienced fact.
Based on what? What observed and experienced fact do you have that disagrees with him?
But....you did exactly that....
What's not high road is for you to add elements not mentioned then attack those elements to discredit the other person while trying to make your "point."
Oh? Cite some. And what do you mean it's your "assertion??" You mean you don't personally know?
Ed, I hate to ask, but can you cite your personal experience that qualifies you to speak with any authority on this topic? You disagree based on what personal experience, exactly?
You're either confused about what's being discussed here or misunderstanding that research you refer to, if it even applies here.
The speed which Ankeny refers to is known and practiced by ALL the top guns in USPSA and IDPA. Again, this is not idle speculation, but observed and/or experienced FACT.
Ankeny reached the level of Grandmaster in USPSA and you cannot reach that level by NOT learning how to GO FAST and practicing to GO FAST.
How about you?
I've taught 100's of people to accurately shoot faster than they ever thought they could before lunch time. Faster still after lunch.
How about you? What personal experiences do you have regarding shooting accurately at speed?
Last edited:
Ed Ames
Member
Technically, in English, it is called opinion. It happens to be your opinion, and you happen to think that your opinions are special, but it is still firmly opinion.
As I said, "going fast" is not a distinct skill. It is a result.
No, I expressed an idea you seem to disagree with, and as a result you are mischaracterizing my statement. Either that or my point of view is so different from yours that your biases don't allow you to understand the plain meaning of my words.
David, I am not trying to discredit anyone. I disagreed with what someone said, and explained why. That is what we do when we discuss. It is you who ascribed motives that were both negative and imaginary.
Citation: Ericsson, K. Anders. "The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance." The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (2006): 683-703.
In the English language, "Assertion" means: a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
My assertion: practice should be done carefully and attentively, at a slower than maximum pace, to be effective.
The most relevant personal experience is that for years I did what you are advocating. I practiced fast because I wanted to be fast. And I was pretty fast, but I also regularly found myself up against walls where I could never seem to go faster, so I started reading up on the subject.
But if you want something more mundane: My typing speed is over 2x the average typing speed for male typists. Closer to 3x.
Or you have a cognitive bias that leaves you unable to accept a different point of view.
I can't speak for Ankeny, but when people start throwing around "by ALL," whatever they are claiming is usually more hyperbole than fact.
I couldn't possibly know what is known and practiced by all of any group (and neither could you), but I have read quite a bit about how to shoot faster, and most of it agrees with what I have been saying. Concentrate on quality skill development because speed is a result of mastery, not a form of mastery.
That has been my experience, too. My great "aha!" moment when learning to play the guitar, for example, was when I stopped trying to blaze through fingering exercises as fast as my nerves could twitch, and started paying attention to the details and nuances of what I was doing. Not so ironically, my speed improved too.
I can't really give a similar example for shooting because I didn't go through a push-for-speed phase with guns.
Again, I will let Ankeny argue his own points if he disagrees with me.
How about me what? Can I join a virtual "whose is longer" contest?
And that amazes me. Not that people can shoot faster...most shooters are very very slow...but...well, to be blunt, based on your persona here I wouldn't choose you as an instructor. It goes to show how online impressions are probably very different than real life.
You do realize that such personal experiences are utterly irrelevant to the subject, right? It is like asking an organic chemist to prove her credentials by telling you about cakes she has baked. But I'll play along.
I am a computer guy. My very first job, the first thing I ever did for pay, was to help with the development of a computer game which used a "light gun" as an input. Light guns worked in conjunction with raster scan CRT monitors (that's your old school television from before flat panels took over) to detect where on the screen the gun was pointed when a button (positioned where the trigger on a pistol is generally located) is depressed. So you point the "gun", push the button, and the timing of the electron beam in the CRT when it swept through wherever the " gun" was pointing tell the computer where the "hit" occurred. Over the months I worked on it, I of course had to use the game (can't really call it playing) frequently. Accuracy mattered because we were using smallish monitors and had to hit exactly the right spot for a hit to register. Speed mattered both because the targets moved and because in order to test something at the end of a level you pretty much had to play through the whole level. Being able to do that in a minute instead of the 20 minutes a player might spend was an important productivity skill.
Two things happened. First, probably due to bloating code from new features being added, the game got incredibly easy. I had to adjust the difficulty up several times. Second, I discovered that the manufacturer of the light guns was just doing a really shoddy job and the bleeping things broke after only a couple months.
Actually, three things happened. At the end of my development efforts the game went to a test group who reported the game as defective and unfinishable. None of the testers could even get through the first level. Upon hearing that I went to the test area, gathered up the testers, and with them watching I worked my way through the game in about 20 minutes. After some frank discussion, and an adjustment of the difficulty level back down, the testers had a few weeks to practice they could play through it in 90 minutes and it took me about 10.
I don't shoot IDPA or USPA, but I am fairly certain I was (and probably remain) the world grand champion ultra uber meister of that particular shooting game.
Interesting side note: And I never once practiced. I played the game thousands of times, sometimes several times an hour, working 12 hours a day, for blurred together months, but always to test the software. I made no effort to get better.
How about you? Do you have reasonable claim to being the best in the world at any shooting games?
As far as the loud smokey type of of gun, I am better than I was 10 years ago. Everyone thinks they are better than average though.
Last edited:
Their intellect is not all that relevant.
Sounds reasonable, but to predict behavior, or to assess likely behavior, one would have to do a more scientific analysis than viewing "some" videos and deciding what seems to happen "most of the time".
And the discussion was about multiple assailants. In response to Rusty Shackelford's statement "secondary bad guys(robbers) more than likely will move in on your flanks or try to get around you/behind you", you said that they would instead be likely to run. Maybe, and maybe not. The dynamics of a multiple attack may well be different. I said before, when one is referring to accomplices, each of the accomplices would have to first recognize that it is the victim, and not one of his compatriots, who is in fact doing the shooting, and then decide very quickly what course of action represents his best chance. Is it to try to overcome the shooter before getting shot, 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?
That requires a quick decision by someone who, if he has already served time, has likely trained for hours on end for the occasion, and it will likely spend upon mental health, level of desperation, distance from the defender, where the participants are who can see what, and other circumstances.
If shooting, or shooting at, one assailant does the trick, great. But I don't think one can assume that that would be the likely outcome. One has to assume that the perps were already in close quarters when the trouble started; the second ones may well be even closer after the first shots are fired; and fleeing may not seem to be the best choice for the perps at the time.
Who knows what will happen?
One thing we do know is that is is more likely than not that there will be more than one of them.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
I'll keep it simple.
Ankeny responded to:
By saying:
Ed said:
Ed needlessly introduced qualifiers and prerequisites, implying that Ankeny and everyone else is unaware of them. Nowhere has anyone suggested one should go fast before you have the proper movements down.
As I and others have said, speed doesn't "just happen" by itself. It must be specifically and properly pursued. If Ed kept hitting walls, then he probably wasn't practicing properly. His research book notwithstanding.
I mention Grandmaster because most people understand that to reach the rank of GM, not only do the fundamentals need to be mastered, but the added element of speed is required.
Speed, as in shooting fast, is a fairly simple concept, but is very misunderstood, as we see here. Trying to discuss the concept on a forum is difficult enough without someone wanting to argue why the sky isn't really blue.
Ankeny responded to:
By saying:
Ed said:
Ed needlessly introduced qualifiers and prerequisites, implying that Ankeny and everyone else is unaware of them. Nowhere has anyone suggested one should go fast before you have the proper movements down.
As I and others have said, speed doesn't "just happen" by itself. It must be specifically and properly pursued. If Ed kept hitting walls, then he probably wasn't practicing properly. His research book notwithstanding.
I mention Grandmaster because most people understand that to reach the rank of GM, not only do the fundamentals need to be mastered, but the added element of speed is required.
Speed, as in shooting fast, is a fairly simple concept, but is very misunderstood, as we see here. Trying to discuss the concept on a forum is difficult enough without someone wanting to argue why the sky isn't really blue.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
Let's look at the various ranks of USPSA, as I think it might help understand a few things.
Let's take the classic shooting drill, the El Presidente as currently set up. Three IPSC targets, spaced one yard apart from each other are 10 yds down range. The shooter faces up range (back to targets) with wrists above shoulders. At signal, the shooter turns, draws, shoots each target twice, does a speed reload and reengages each target with two shots each.
So, turn, draw, 2-2-2, reload, 2-2-2. There are 60 points possible.
Let's compare the speed required for the top of each class. We will presume Limited and Production Division times, as that's the type of gun most folks here carry. We will also presume all 60 points are earned, since they typically are.
A "D" class shooter at 40% shoots it in 13.89 seconds. Most people start out in D class.
A "C"class at 60% shoots it in 9.25 seconds. A quick aside here: once upon a time, 10 seconds clean was considered "very good." In fact, I won several non-IPSC shooting matches, scored 100% on our quarterly qualifications, etc, while I was a C class shooter. I'd say that a high C shooter is a better shot than 90% + of typical gunowners.
A "B" class at 75% shoots it in 7.40 seconds.
An "A" class at 85% shoots it in 6.54
A Master class at 95% shoots it in 5.85 seconds.
A Grandmaster at 100% shoots it in 5.55 seconds.
Starting out, there's a lot of "fat" that can be quickly and easily cut out....if you know where to start.
But as you improve, the fat gets harder for you to spot and harder to trim, since you don't know where or what it is. (Even if you read some research on the topic)
But there's a way to do it!
But I'm not really discussing how to improve from 95% to 100%, but about how to cut out the big chunks of fat that'll take folks from a 40% skill level to 60% or higher.
I don't know about you, but I'd love to increase my skill level by 50%
Never shoot faster than you can hit.
Speedy accuracy matters at a match, but it matters in a gunfight more.
Let's take the classic shooting drill, the El Presidente as currently set up. Three IPSC targets, spaced one yard apart from each other are 10 yds down range. The shooter faces up range (back to targets) with wrists above shoulders. At signal, the shooter turns, draws, shoots each target twice, does a speed reload and reengages each target with two shots each.
So, turn, draw, 2-2-2, reload, 2-2-2. There are 60 points possible.
Let's compare the speed required for the top of each class. We will presume Limited and Production Division times, as that's the type of gun most folks here carry. We will also presume all 60 points are earned, since they typically are.
A "D" class shooter at 40% shoots it in 13.89 seconds. Most people start out in D class.
A "C"class at 60% shoots it in 9.25 seconds. A quick aside here: once upon a time, 10 seconds clean was considered "very good." In fact, I won several non-IPSC shooting matches, scored 100% on our quarterly qualifications, etc, while I was a C class shooter. I'd say that a high C shooter is a better shot than 90% + of typical gunowners.
A "B" class at 75% shoots it in 7.40 seconds.
An "A" class at 85% shoots it in 6.54
A Master class at 95% shoots it in 5.85 seconds.
A Grandmaster at 100% shoots it in 5.55 seconds.
Starting out, there's a lot of "fat" that can be quickly and easily cut out....if you know where to start.
But as you improve, the fat gets harder for you to spot and harder to trim, since you don't know where or what it is. (Even if you read some research on the topic)
But there's a way to do it!
But I'm not really discussing how to improve from 95% to 100%, but about how to cut out the big chunks of fat that'll take folks from a 40% skill level to 60% or higher.
I don't know about you, but I'd love to increase my skill level by 50%
Never shoot faster than you can hit.
Speedy accuracy matters at a match, but it matters in a gunfight more.
Ed Ames
Member
Dave, you continue to misconstrue that statement. Repetition will not make your claim more valid.
Let's saysome one makes a statement like this
Statement: "X is not the enemy of Y if you are Ying X." This is the statement I was addressing.
Examples:Speed is not the enemy of practice if you are practicing speed. Chocolate is not the enemy of diet if you are dieting on chocolate.
In order for that to be true, X must be something which can be Yed. For example, chocolate must be something you can diet on. If it is not, the statement is nonsensical.
In the context of speed and practice, practice applies to skills. A person who is trying to logically expres (vs simply declaring) that speed is a quality of skills rather than a skill itself, and thereby show why the statement is wrong, would say something like this:
"There are certain skills needed for speed. Practicing those skills is best done deliberately, slowly, mindfully, in high quality practice sessions."
I did not introduce qualifiers and prerequisites. I disagreed with the premise that speed is a skill which can be practiced independently of other skills. I described how you properly "practice for speed", which is to say you practice the skills needed to be fast.
I disagreed. Politely, and with reasons explaining why. This should not be so mind boggling.
GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
It's pretty obvious we're obsessed with the idea that we must choose to either be fast OR be accurate.
Vern Humphrey
Member
In defensive shooting, as in many other things, perfection is the enemy of good enough.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
And by so doing you disagreed with something he did not say, espouse, promote or believe.
We call those people "C" class.
Ed Ames
Member
Not that it matters, but why are you speaking for him? He said something I take to mean he believes you can "practice speed". I disagree with him. Now you are telling me what he believes. Does he want you doing that?
Another put-down?
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
I spent quite a bit of time saying that "C" class shooters are better than 90% of typical gunowners, so how is it a putdown?
To clarify, C class is about where people end up if all they do is practice the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" concept. It'll take them past 90% of everyone else.
But there is more to be learned beyond C class.
To clarify, C class is about where people end up if all they do is practice the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" concept. It'll take them past 90% of everyone else.
But there is more to be learned beyond C class.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
To answer the original question, "Are we too obsessed with speed?"
If you go faster than you can hit, then you're too obsessed.
But most people can hit faster than they think, so the goal becomes hitting with increasing speed.
I think most would agree that a fast hit beats a slow hit.
If you go faster than you can hit, then you're too obsessed.
But most people can hit faster than they think, so the goal becomes hitting with increasing speed.
I think most would agree that a fast hit beats a slow hit.
Ed Ames
Member
What does "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" have to do with anything I said?
I said, "There are certain skills needed for speed. Practicing those skills is best done deliberately, slowly, mindfully, in high quality practice sessions." How did you get from there to me saying, "slow is smooth and smooth is fast"?
Smoothness is, in that context, a measure of/synonym for efficiency. For a given amount of applied strength, greater efficiency will be faster (less wasted effort/time). However, What does it mean to have a smooth perception of your target? Nothing. The most time-critical skills are mental, not physical, and therefore "smoothness" doesn't apply. They are still skills, and still need high quality practice.
40-82
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 527
DavidE,
Fascinating post about the El Presidente. Times change. I remember winning an El President in an IPSC match. I believe the year was 1980. My time was 9 seconds, and I definitely remember that I did not have all A hits. Everyone there was stunned that anyone could shoot so fast and keep everything on the paper. The next year at an indoor range too small for everyone to stand inside and watch the competitors shoot the El Presidente stage, I heard what sounded like a continuous roar of shooting come from the inside range area. I assumed it was someone emptying his gun downrange without a serious attempt to hit the targets, throwing the match maybe out of frustration. I was wrong. It was Don Middlebrooks shooting an El Presidente in 7 seconds. Within a month in my practice sessions I was beating that time, as measured by a hand held stopwatch. From the times you've posted I see that speed and accuracy that were unheard of then are now commonplace.
Part of what I needed to get as far as I did, ordinary as it is now, was the belief that it could be done, that and at least a quarter of a million 45 ACP bullets dropped out of a two-cavity mold. We all worked pretty hard in those days with what would now be considered primitive equipment. The wife of one of the best competitors I shot against told me once that the sight of RCBS Green made her ill. Apparently her husband had insisted that she crank those handles more than a few times.
I agree that slow and smooth is the safest way to master fundamentals, but at some point a shooter has to decide if he is content with what he has or whether he wants to push for more.
Fascinating post about the El Presidente. Times change. I remember winning an El President in an IPSC match. I believe the year was 1980. My time was 9 seconds, and I definitely remember that I did not have all A hits. Everyone there was stunned that anyone could shoot so fast and keep everything on the paper. The next year at an indoor range too small for everyone to stand inside and watch the competitors shoot the El Presidente stage, I heard what sounded like a continuous roar of shooting come from the inside range area. I assumed it was someone emptying his gun downrange without a serious attempt to hit the targets, throwing the match maybe out of frustration. I was wrong. It was Don Middlebrooks shooting an El Presidente in 7 seconds. Within a month in my practice sessions I was beating that time, as measured by a hand held stopwatch. From the times you've posted I see that speed and accuracy that were unheard of then are now commonplace.
Part of what I needed to get as far as I did, ordinary as it is now, was the belief that it could be done, that and at least a quarter of a million 45 ACP bullets dropped out of a two-cavity mold. We all worked pretty hard in those days with what would now be considered primitive equipment. The wife of one of the best competitors I shot against told me once that the sight of RCBS Green made her ill. Apparently her husband had insisted that she crank those handles more than a few times.
I agree that slow and smooth is the safest way to master fundamentals, but at some point a shooter has to decide if he is content with what he has or whether he wants to push for more.
40-82,
so, how did you get from 9 seconds down to 7? was it just the realization that you could go faster, a change in your shooting methods, a new weapon, or just a whole bunch more ammo down range?
how to get quicker is much more important to me than just saying i need to get quicker. any help with the "how" of getting quicker is greatly appreciated.
murf
so, how did you get from 9 seconds down to 7? was it just the realization that you could go faster, a change in your shooting methods, a new weapon, or just a whole bunch more ammo down range?
how to get quicker is much more important to me than just saying i need to get quicker. any help with the "how" of getting quicker is greatly appreciated.
murf
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
I don't think we are too obsessed. Speed is an important part of defending yourself and family. That being said, I think murf put it really well with
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
40-82
Interesting that once you know what's possible, it becomes motivation to improve your own skills.
I remember shooting a stage that started with 3 fairly close targets. Everyone, including me, sounded like:
bang, bang.....bang, bang.....bang, bang.
Until Ron Petersen with his stock Sig 226 went:
bangbangbangbangbangbang
Each shot as fast as the one before, even tho he was transitioning between targets after every second shot.
Learned a lot from those 6 shots 25 years ago.
Murf, get the Jerry Barnhart tapes, read Enos and Plaxco. You'll break thru that wall pretty fast. (no pun intended!)
Interesting that once you know what's possible, it becomes motivation to improve your own skills.
I remember shooting a stage that started with 3 fairly close targets. Everyone, including me, sounded like:
bang, bang.....bang, bang.....bang, bang.
Until Ron Petersen with his stock Sig 226 went:
bangbangbangbangbangbang
Each shot as fast as the one before, even tho he was transitioning between targets after every second shot.
Learned a lot from those 6 shots 25 years ago.
Murf, get the Jerry Barnhart tapes, read Enos and Plaxco. You'll break thru that wall pretty fast. (no pun intended!)
- Status
