Are we too obsessed with speed?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by couldbeanyone: "We" are the average shooter or the average member of this forum whichever you prefer.

I kinda doubt that either uses a shot timer very often or worries much about split times.

We are talking about self defense, .... I can keep them in the A all day long at 7 yards as fast as I can run the trigger, but I can't at 60 yards.

I don't think trying to shoot rapidly at 60 yards would represent a prudent investment of time and money.

If we are talking about self defense, isn't it much more likely that we will have to deal with someone who is much closer? Isn't it likely to prove more important to be able to recognize a threat, react, draw while moving, and score some hits very quickly before you are done in?

If the threat has moved rapidly to within three yards from where you had been walking before you start shooting, will your having practiced keeping them all in the A at 7 yards as fast as you can pull the trigger really help you very much?

 

[couldbeanyone]

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.

Of course Jerry would beat me, but the question is which way would Jerry miss more, slow or fast.

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.

By speed and accuracy at the ultimate, I mean for instance, shooting at a two inch bullseye at 25 yards, the faster you go, the harder it will be to hit that bullseye every time.

Shooting for defense, I could live with C hits, but my point is that if I don't hold myself to a higher standard during practice, my performance under fire isn't likely to meet that C zone standard.

If someone was to say it was ok that his gun only held 5 shots because he would just shoot em in the head, you would be the first one here to tell him about the fog of war and that the head is a mighty small target with adrenaline and tunnel vision and fight or flight. Rightly so. Yet on this thread you are acting like because you can do something in practice, that you are going to ,like a robot, automatically be able to do it under attack. It can't be both ways.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yet on this thread you are acting like because you can do something in practice, that you are going to ,like a robot, automatically be able to do it under attack.

I missed that...

 

[40-82]

couldbeanyone "I can keep them in the A all day long at 7 yards as fast as I can run the trigger, but I can't at 60 yards."

This statement rattled loose a question that I've been thinking about for a long time. A common response to being under fire from the reports I read is to return fire in the general direction of the incoming as fast as the person can empty his weapon. As far as I understand it, such a response amounts to a panicked waste of resources. I know anyone might miss his shot under enough pressure, but if there any value that anyone can see in letting go of a round that you didn't expect to hit its mark

 

[Ankeny]

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.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. The OP started out talking about splits and accuracy. The thread has meandered around a bit, but splits are pretty much a matter of vision, isolation of the trigger finger, and recoil management. Shooting splits are a simple concept, but that doesn't necessarily translate into easy.

I suppose draw speed is another "speed" topic that shooters become obsessed over. There comes a point when a shooter can only physically draw just so fast. The time to the shot can often be reduced by simply decreasing what is deemed visually acceptable to make the shot. In that case, accuracy requirements must also be reduced. I guess that's a long way to say even though the physical presentation speed remains the same, the time spent on the sights is reduced.

As far as getting an A zone hit just as fast as I can manipulate the trigger, that depends on the distance to the target. Obviously, if I am at a distance where I can get A's as fast as I can go...well duh. If that distance increases accuracy decreases. The time difference between being in control and just slapping the trigger as fast as possible isn't as much as some would think.

 

[David E]

We are talking about self defense, of course there is movement and very likely target transitions. I do not make your point. I can keep them in the A all day long at 7 yards as fast as I can run the trigger, but I can't at 60 yards.

I thought we/you were talking about self defense now?

But as far as shooting itself goes, there is something called "cadence." This is dictated by either the distance or the size of the available target. Or should be.

Not everyone understands that. If your Bill Drill at 5 yds is just as fast as your Bill Drill at 60, one if them is wrong. And it probably isn't the one at 5 yds.

 

[couldbeanyone]

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.

So, your contention is that at sixty yards that you can shoot an A as fast as a C? I only ask, because we are talking about self defense. If some fool starts shooting at me at any range between point blank and a thousand yards, you can bet that I am going to do my best to return fire. So don't give me the combat range is 7 yards line of thought.

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

Again, we are talking about self defense, not winning a match. If I miss a plate on a plate rack in a match, it doesn't matter, if I am fast enough. If I miss in a gunfight, it might have the unintended consequence of killing a five year old girl two blocks down the street. I REALLY wouldn't want that to happen.

One of my main points of this thread was, how much tighter might my standards have to be in practice, to get the results I want when the fur is flying and someone is shooting at me.

Nowhere, did I say I didn't want to be fast, I only said I think a lot of people might be better off practicing for self defence by limiting their speed to a level at which they can be sure of getting an A zone hit at whatever range. I say this because an A hit in practice will almost surely degrade with someone shooting at you in reality. Of course, I'm sure you will be along shortly to say that isn't true.

 

[David E]

Of course Jerry would beat me, but the question is which way would Jerry miss more, slow or fast.

Since this is now about self defense, that's the wrong question. It should be "which method will let Jerry win?

Shooting for defense, I could live with C hits, but my point is that if I don't hold myself to a higher standard during practice, my performance under fire isn't likely to meet that C zone standard.

I see this belief often: "If I can hit small at distance slow fire, then I can hit big up close, fast." Not really. If this is how he shoots all the time, then the shooter is teaching himself to go slow, regardless of distance.

you are acting like because you can do something in practice, that you are going to ,like a robot, automatically be able to do it under attack. It can't be both ways.

Where did I say that?

I will say that the more you practice something, the less you have to think about it.

 

[couldbeanyone]

Quote:
Shooting for defense, I could live with C hits, but my point is that if I don't hold myself to a higher standard during practice, my performance under fire isn't likely to meet that C zone standard.

I see this belief often: "If I can hit small at distance slow fire, then I can hit big up close, fast." Not really. If this is how he shoots all the time, then the shooter is teaching himself to go slow, regardless of distance.

How you get that out of what I said, I'll never know. What I said is I will slow down enough to always get an A. At five yards I won't have to slow down at all, at 25 yards I'll have to slow down some. But for me, all A hits when practicing for self defense.

 

[David E]

So, your contention is that at sixty yards that you can shoot an A as fast as a C?

Wow, you sure like introducing things at the last second, then act like it was in the OP when you don't like the responses.

But, yes, strictly speaking, you can shoot A's as fast as C's at 60 yds. But don't be confused thinking you can shoot A's at 60 yds just as fast as you can at 7 yds.

I only ask, because we are talking about self defense.

Yet, you keep bringing up 60 yds.

don't give me the combat range is 7 yards line of thought.

First of all, I never did. Second of all, I agree and have previously extolled the importance of being capable of long range accuracy with a handgun, regardless of the size or caliber.

Again, we are talking about self defense, not winning a match.

Shooting for your life is the ultimate competition. And speedy hits matter.

One of my main points of this thread was, how much tighter might my standards have to be in practice, to get the results I want when the fur is flying and someone is shooting at me.

I surely didn't see that point being made. What is your standard now?

If you have a 5 yr old girl down range, then change your angle or don't shoot. If it's more dangerous NOT to take the shot, then make sure you'll hit.

You seem to think that being able to shoot fast somehow requires shooting fast at all times.

I think a lot of people might be better off practicing for self defence by limiting their speed to a level at which they can be sure of getting an A zone hit at whatever range.

The best way to practice speed and accuracy is to find out how fast you can go and still hit. It doesn't "just happen," as many seem to think it does.

I say this because an A hit in practice will almost surely degrade with someone shooting at you in reality.

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the person, more than anything else.

When I was a cop, I had a fellow deputy tell me smugly that, "when bullets start flying, you're going to lose 20% in accuracy, so your 100% score today doesn't mean squat." But he somehow thought that his feeble 80% score would somehow remain unchanged.

 

[couldbeanyone]

Look folks all I am trying to say here is that there has to be a reason your AVERAGE person in a gunfight misses so much. I am reasonably sure it isn't because they are holding themselves to too high of a standard in practice or that they are shooting too slowly. Misses in a gunfight can have all kinds of consequences.

All I am trying to say is that unless someone has lots of REAL WORLD evidence that slower split times in a gunfight means certain failure, then holding ourselves to higher standard in practice MIGHT be worth considering. I don't ask you to agree with me, if you want to accept the occasional C zone hit in practice, power to you. I just asl that you don't misconstrue what I am trying to say.:banghead:

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by couldbeanyone: How you get that

[" I see this belief often: 'If I can hit small at distance slow fire, then I can hit big up close, fast.' Not really. If this is how he shoots all the time, then the shooter is teaching himself to go slow, regardless of distance."]​

out of what I said, I'll never know

David E did not tribute that statement to you; he simply made the observation. I think it is very valid and relevant to the discussion.

All I am trying to say is that unless someone has lots of REAL WORLD evidence that slower split times in a gunfight means certain failure...

Come now! Do you really believe that there have ever been any objective measurements of "split times" in a gunfight?

 

[couldbeanyone]

If you have a 5 yr old girl down range, then change your angle or don't shoot. If it's more dangerous NOT to take the shot, then make sure you'll hit.

You seem to think that being able to shoot fast somehow requires shooting fast at all times.

If a five year old girl is two blocks down range in a gunfight, it his highly unlikely that you are even going to see her.

Never said that. Said I could shoot fast close up, and would slow down to whatever speed required to get an A hit at range.

 

[couldbeanyone]

Come now! Do you really believe that there have ever been any objective measurements of "split times" in a gunfight?

You know what I am saying. There have been plenty of gunfights won by slower delibarate fire, there have been plenty lost spraying lead out at machine gun speed and vice versa. I am finding precious little REAL WORLD evidence that one method is vastly superior to the other.

 

[David E]

Look folks all I am trying to say here is that there has to be a reason your AVERAGE person in a gunfight misses so much.

There is. He doesn't practice much.

Aren't all of us here striving to be better than average?]

 

[couldbeanyone]

But, yes, strictly speaking, you can shoot A's as fast as C's at 60 yds. But don't be confused thinking you can shoot A's at 60 yds just as fast as you can at 7 yds.

I guess this is why benchrest shooters always shoot so rapidly.

And speedy hits matter

Absolutely, and the key word is hits. We are supposed to be talking about what method of practice best insures these hits for an AVERAGE person.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by couildbeanyone: If a five year old girl is two blocks down range in a gunfight, it his highly unlikely that you are even going to see her.

David E's comment was, "If you have a 5 yr old girl down range, then change your angle or don't shoot. If it's more dangerous NOT to take the shot, then make sure you'll hit." It is very valid indeed, and very important.

In my opinion, the first thing that one should think after "Threat" and "Draw" is "Backstop".

I first saw that in writing when pax related an actual experience on The Firing Line. I then realized that that was exactly what went through my mind when I happened upon a robbery that was about to happen in a store.

If that is not part of your thinking, I suggest that you change your thinking.

[Moderator Hat] By inserting "two blocks" you simply became argumentative. Lets have more light and less heat here.

 

[couldbeanyone]

[Moderator Hat] By inserting "two blocks" you simply became argumentative. Lets have more light and less heat here.

I inserted nothing, if you actually read it I clearly stated "two blocks" in post 156. It could happen, and you can't see everything in that type of a situation, can you?

With this I will have to leave you for now, as I have what is lately an increasingly rare oportunity to go shooting.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by couldbeanyone: You know what I am saying. There have been plenty of gunfights won by slower delibarate fire, there have been plenty lost spraying lead out at machine gun speed and vice versa. I am finding precious little REAL WORLD evidence that one method is vastly superior to the other.

How would anyone have divined what you were thinking? You asked about split times. Aren't split times measured on the basis of hits?

What do you mean by "method"? Shooting quickly and stopping an assailant timely vs shooting slowly and hoping that that will suffice?

 

[David E]

I guess this is why benchrest shooters always shoot so rapidly.

This is getting predictable now.

If the BR shooters had their score divided by time, you can bet they'd shoot faster.

We are supposed to be talking about what method of practice best insures these hits for an AVERAGE person.

Maybe YOU are, but I am not. I do not want to be "average," and neither do my students.

If someone wants to take refuge in the safety of "average," where nothing is demanded or expected, then go ahead.

Good shooters leave "average" behind them rather quickly.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by couldbeanyone: ....I clearly stated "two blocks" in post 156. It could happen, and you can't see everything in that type of a situation, can you?

One more time: think BACKSTOP.

You may not always be a able to do that, but you have to understand that bullets do not run out of lethal energy in a short distance, and one cannot rely on a hit in lung tissue to stop one, either.

When one moves after recognizing a threat, one objective is to try to keep from being where the threat is heading; another should be to try to reduce the risk of collateral damage due to either misses or pass-through hits.

Your training should address that. Standing seven yards in front of a target you have been thinking about and shooting as fast as you can will not.

Try this: as you walk from the store or the restaurant toward your car, stay off the cell-phone and look around. Look not only at other people and what they seem to be doing, but look for cars, corners, alley openings, dumpsters, and other things that could conceal a surprise assailant.

Also try to be aware of who may be behind you.

Adjust your direction as indicated.

Does that sound extreme? Two years a go when I had a problem with mobility as I left a no-gun location, I noticed four or five rough looking people observing me intently and spreading out to different locations in the parking lot. Had my car not been in a handicapped spot right outside the building, I would have gone back inside.

I would not have done anything differently had I been armed. I do not like "gunfights".

But I digress. You are walking to your car. You are looking at people, places, and things. While you are looking around for a possible threat, consider what you would do should one present itself. That should include where and how you would move, and in what direction you might be able to fire if you have to, while exposing bystanders, seen and unseen, to minimum risk.

That might extend beyond five blocks--think backstop.

 

[Iggy]

Never mind.

 

[[email protected]]

In my expierence as a LEO, situational awarness is the most important factor. Having that head start of knowing whats going on around you and being prepared before the threat becomes an immediate threat.
A few years ago a federal agency was nice enough to let us use their "FACTS" machine for training. This is a computer program that uses a projector display that plays a video and we had to respond to the situation that was being played. If it was a shoot situation, or if we thought it was, we had a handgun that had a laser that the program picked up. The replay would show where the shot hit, if it was a fatal shot, and who shot first (suspect or you). It was a little unfair because the program assumed that it the suspect got a shot off first, it assumed that you had gotten hit and was down, but it served its purpose in showing the facts of a shooting.
It really showed the importance of our reaction time. For example one of the senarios we were required to handle was a situation inside a residence that involved two subjects. One subject we were attempting to arrest and the other appears from another room with a handgun drawn, but held down to his side. This person was not super fast and his movements were actually quite sluggish, but if we waited until the first instance that he began to raise his weapon to shoot, he always got a round off first even when we had our laser gun pointed directly at him. This really drove home to me how important a reaction was too slow and we needed to act instead of react.
Other people may disagree with me but I believe in the theory that there are two types of shooting. One is target shooting where you make slow deliberate super well aimed shots. The other is combat type shooting where the shots are faster, but are still aimed. You trade off that extra margin of accuracy for faster shooting. If you already shoot poorly it's only going to get worse though.
You also have to factor in your bodies response to a life or death situation. as your blood pressure rises (it will), you loose fine motor skills. You will also lose some hearing and you will develope tunnel vision. How much of these abilities you lose depends on several factors and they can get progressively worse depending on the situation and how long it lasts. Simple tings like smoothly pulling a trigger without moving the sights on target goes unnoticed. That respiratory pause between shots, well your body is trying to suck in as much air as it can. If you want to duplicate real life in your trainning then put on your shooting glasses first so they will get nice and fogged up. Put a straw in your mouth and breath through the straw. Then do some rapid cardio running, push-ups, jumping jacks, and them run to the firing line to see how well you shoot. Have a friend place an unknown to you object beside the target and be honest to yourself if you really saw it or not as you shot.

 

[couldbeanyone]

Quote:
Posted by couldbeanyone: ....I clearly stated "two blocks" in post 156. It could happen, and you can't see everything in that type of a situation, can you?
One more time: think BACKSTOP.

You may not always be a able to do that, but you have to understand that bullets do not run out of lethal energy in a short distance, and one cannot rely on a hit in lung tissue to stop one, either.

When one moves after recognizing a threat, one objective is to try to keep from being where the threat is heading; another should be to try to reduce the risk of collateral damage due to either misses or pass-through hits.

Your training should address that. Standing seven yards in front of a target you have been thinking about and shooting as fast as you can will not.

Try this: as you walk from the store or the restaurant toward your car, stay off the cell-phone and look around. Look not only at other people and what they seem to be doing, but look for cars, corners, alley openings, dumpsters, and other things that could conceal a surprise assailant.

Also try to be aware of who may be behind you.

Adjust your direction as indicated.

Does that sound extreme? Two years a go when I had a problem with mobility as I left a no-gun location, I noticed four or five rough looking people observing me intently and spreading out to different locations in the parking lot. Had my car not been in a handicapped spot right outside the building, I would have gone back inside.

I would not have done anything differently had I been armed. I do not like "gunfights".

But I digress. You are walking to your car. You are looking at people, places, and things. While you are looking around for a possible threat, consider what you would do should one present itself. That should include where and how you would move, and in what direction you might be able to fire if you have to, while exposing bystanders, seen and unseen, to minimum risk.

That might extend beyond five blocks--think backstop.

All excellent advise. However, you have just bought grocerys, you cross the parking lot wonderfully aware of everything around you, you start to put the grocerys in the trunk and the bag breaks. You now mutter under your breath and bend down to pick up the fallen items, now Murphy being who he is, is when you are attacked. Is everyone and everything still where it was when you bent over? Think back stop is great advice, but how about we think DON'T MISS while we are at it?

 

[couldbeanyone]

Quote:
We are supposed to be talking about what method of practice best insures these hits for an AVERAGE person.
Maybe YOU are, but I am not. I do not want to be "average," and neither do my students.

If someone wants to take refuge in the safety of "average," where nothing is demanded or expected, then go ahead.

Good shooters leave "average" behind them rather quickly.

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.