Can you shoot them all good?

[David E]

I'm not talking about somebody that just claims they can, I've seen a lot of claims not backed up myself, I'm talking about somebody who actually has the ability to shoot 1" at 25 yards.

Ok, let's say that he can do 8 shots in one inch, but requires at least 10 minutes to do it. This is well beyond the time parameters of any recognized shooting discipline.

Is he proficient?

 

[mavracer]

Ok, let's say that he can do 8 shots in one inch, but requires at least 10 minutes to do it.

Why does it take him 10 minutes to fire 8 rounds?

 

[David E]

Why does it take him 10 minutes to fire 8 rounds?

He waits until the sights are super perfect before taking the shot.

(And why does it matter?)

 

[beatledog7]

The OP's question was about carry guns in "rotation," but the thread has wandered off.

My take: If you are carrying a firearm for SD, then you should be able to operate it without having to consciously think about how it works. Kind of like picking up a retractable pen and automatically thumbing the "action" then putting it to paper. Being able to shoot 1" groups at 25 yards is virtually moot because almost nobody will ever take a legitimate SD shot at 25 yards.

Put simply, operating an SD handgun involves clearing the holster (something that many ranges don't allow, but which we can practice at home), getting the front sight on target (something the shooter may not have time to consciously think about), switching off the safety if it has one and it was engaged (an option each shooter has to make), pressing the trigger (or, if the situation swiftly changes, deciding not to press the trigger), and putting put two or three rounds into a paper plate within a couple of seconds.

If a person can do this consistently, I'd say he or she is good enough. If he or she can do the above with any of a dozen different guns in rotation, that's still good enough.

 

[David E]

Being able to shoot 1" groups at 25 yards is virtually moot because almost nobody will ever take a legitimate SD shot at 25 yards.

Not the point, but change the distance to 7 yds or 10 feet if you want.

Put simply, operating an SD handgun involves clearing the holster...and putting put two or three rounds into a paper plate within a couple of seconds.

At what distance? Why a paper plate? Does "a couple of seconds" mean exactly two seconds, or two-ish? Would two rounds means just as much as three rounds in the same time frame?

 

[mavracer]

He waits until the sights are super perfect before taking the shot.

Why is there some physical or mental reason he is chosing to do this or is it just his choice to take that long?

And why does it matter?

Well if he shoot's 5 shots in 2 seconds from concealment then take 9 min 56 seconds because he is loading rounds into the mag through ejection port, because he (like you said) doesn't understand the function of the mag release and takes the last 2 seconds to rip off the last 5 putting all 10 rounds into 1". I'd say he's quite proficient, and if someone would show him how the mag release works you'd probably have a world class shooter.

Not the point, but change the distance to 7 yds or 10 feet if you want.

That's quite a step back in talent there, I'm quite sure most people recognize a difference between the skill required in 1" at 25 yards and 1" at 10 feet.

 

[David E]

Why is there some physical or mental reason he is chosing to do this or is it just his choice to take that long?

You're missing the point.

Well if he shoot's 5 shots in 2 seconds from concealment.....

No one said that he could.

I'm quite sure most people recognize a difference between the skill required in 1" at 25 yards and 1" at 10 feet.

But many people fail to understand important time parameters. Since this relates to "being good enough with defensive guns," speed is a critical element in the proficiency ("are you good enough") equation.

Taking the time to fire a 1" group at any distance is detrimental in most defense scenarios.

 

[tipoc]

You can "shoot them all good" if it takes four pages to debate it!

tipoc

 

[mavracer]

No one said that he could.

No one said he couldn't either, that'd be why I asked.

Taking the time to fire a 1" group at any distance is detrimental in most defense scenarios.

The time and skill required to LEARN to shoot 1" groups is hardly detrimental to ones ability to defend themselves.
You act like shooting bullseye is going to make a guy forget how to use a mag release.

 

[David E]

No one said he couldn't either, that'd be why I asked.

The time and skill required to LEARN to shoot 1" groups is hardly detrimental to ones ability to defend themselves.
You act like shooting bullseye is going to make a guy forget how to use a mag release.

<sigh>

There are accomplished shots that couldn't care less about defense or even guns in general, but they can out 'em all in one hole.....if unpressured and unhurried.

But are they "good enough" when it comes to defensive purposes?

Being able to shoot tiny groups at distance slow fire does not mean they're worth a hoot when the shooting needs to be fast and accurate "enough" up close, probably on multiple, moving targets in low light.

 

[mavracer]

There are accomplished shots that couldn't care less about defense or even guns in general, but they can out 'em all in one hole.....if unpressured and unhurried.

Of course there are all kinds of shooter's out there I shoot Bullseye with several LEO a couple of which are trainers for the State. I'm sure they possess fine defensive skills.
I've also shot with USPSA competitors who could care less about defensive skills but were highly adept at slinging lead at a high rate. They have no idea how to draw from concealment.
I've also seen a ton of guy's who think they're accurate enough up close at speed, fail when they're thrown even a slight precision requirement.

 

[beatledog7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beatledog7
Being able to shoot 1" groups at 25 yards is virtually moot because almost nobody will ever take a legitimate SD shot at 25 yards.

DavidE: Not the point, but change the distance to 7 yds or 10 feet if you want.

Quote:
Put simply, operating an SD handgun involves clearing the holster...and putting put two or three rounds into a paper plate within a couple of seconds.

DavidE: At what distance? Why a paper plate? Does "a couple of seconds" mean exactly two seconds, or two-ish? Would two rounds means just as much as three rounds in the same time frame?

DavidE:

The fact that you asked these specific questions proves the point of my post--good enough is highly subjective, and the parameters are squishy at best.

 

[David E]

DavidE:

The fact that you asked these specific questions proves the point of my post--good enough is highly subjective, and the parameters are squishy at best.

Of course it's subjective! But let's be specific in our definition.

Using vague ambiguities to describe the skill level of "good enough" is pointless.

I suppose you can say specific guidelines are equally useless, but I find they provide a goal to achieve, then surpass. You can't do that with ill defined parameters.

I suggest that a very basic skill level of "good enough" is to start hands at sides, draw and fire two hits on a sheet of typing paper at 5 yds in 2.5 seconds. Repeat 4 times for a total of 5 runs, as you should be able to perform to this level on demand.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Can't you guys just accept that SOME of us CAN shoot them all good and leave it at THAT!

 

[David E]

Can't you guys just accept that SOME of us CAN shoot them all good and leave it at THAT!

Of course. But can you meet my suggested (easy) standard with ALL your carry guns?

Those that choose to carry a NAA mini revolver wrapped up in a handkerchief won't be able to.

 

[mavracer]

Can't you guys just accept that SOME of us CAN shoot them all good and leave it at THAT!

Apparently not. Apparently we have to use typing paper as a paper plate is for some reason a questionable target.

 

[beatledog7]

I suggest that a very basic skill level of "good enough" is to start hands at sides, draw and fire two hits on a sheet of typing paper at 5 yds in 2.5 seconds. Repeat 4 times for a total of 5 runs, as you should be able to perform to this level on demand.

Why not 3 rounds into a sheet of legal paper at 6 yards in 3.5 seconds? Or 2 rounds into a paperback novel at 4 yards in 2.0 seconds? Why only 4 out of 5? Why not 9 out of 10?

Since we cannot know exactly what "skill" one would have to perform to save his or life, any parameters we set are arbitrary. Practice whatever you wish, but remember that the best shot is one you managed not to have to take.

 

[David E]

Apparently not. Apparently we have to use typing paper as a paper plate is for some reason a questionable target.

Dang, you always do this.

I simply asked WHY a plate. THEN we'd need to agree what size plate.

A standard sheet of typing paper is, well, standard.

 

[David E]

Why not 3 rounds into a sheet of legal paper at 6 yards in 3.5 seconds? Or 2 rounds into a paperback novel at 4 yards in 2.0 seconds? Why only 4 out of 5? Why not 9 out of 10?

If you have another standard to suggest, by all means, do so. Please be specific.

I offered a basic one I find reasonable to establish a "good enough" baseline. IE; it's a threshold, not the end point.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Simple standard is all rounds fired end up in the target. The more holes the faster the blood drains out.

 

[mavracer]

I offered a basic one I find reasonable to establish a "good enough" baseline. IE; it's a threshold, not the end point.

Why do you have the need for every one to conform to your baseline?
Why can't "we" simply pick what ever target we want to represent the vital area of a torso (since those too come in a variety of sizes) and a distance that represents a reasonable SD distance and let the timer dictate a baseline?

 

[David E]

Why do you have the need for every one to conform to your baseline?

For several posts, I suggested that "we" need to define "good enough." A few did, then I suggested one with specifics instead of it being open ended like the others. In post #94, I said that if anyone had a different standard they'd like to include, then by all means, please do so. I certainly don't expect everyone to conform to my baseline, simple tho it is.

Why can't "we" simply pick what ever target we want to represent the vital area of a torso (since those too come in a variety of sizes) and a distance that represents a reasonable SD distance and let the timer dictate a baseline?

Again, by all means! But, unless you provide specifics, how can anyone set it up or compare performances?

Many people want to see how they stack up on a given standard, or even if they can pass it. Setting up your own, if unskilled and/or inexperienced, can easily mislead the shooter into thinking he's much better than he is.

 

[mavracer]

I suggested that "we" need to define "good enough."

You can't. lot's of other people here get this part.

But, unless you provide specifics, how can anyone set it up or compare performances?

You compare it to your baseline, with practice you'll ingrain all the motions into muscle memory and get faster and more accurate improving the odds you'll be good enough.
You're an accomplished shooter. Why the need to assume everyone is.

"unskilled and/or inexperienced" "thinking he's much better than he is." "their sub-mediocre ability"

It really seems that you have a need to define "good enough" so that you can tell everyone else they're not.

 

[David E]

You can't. lot's of other people here get this part.

Sure you can. Getting folks to agree is another matter.

You compare it to your baseline, with practice you'll ingrain all the motions into muscle memory and get faster and more accurate improving the odds you'll be good enough.

Compare it to you'd baseline how, exactly?

You're an accomplished shooter. Why the need to assume everyone is.

"unskilled and/or inexperienced" "thinking he's much better than he is." "their sub-mediocre ability"

I don't, but if and until a shooter takes a "test," he can never measure his skill.

It really seems that you have a need to define "good enough" so that you can tell everyone else they're not.

The standard I suggested was a fairly easy one. I'd be surprised if most folks reading this couldn't pass it.

Again, the OP was "are you good enough with all of them?" How to tell? If you're punching snake eyes at 7 yds in one second with a 5" 1911, but carry a sightless .380 you can't hit the broadside of a barn with in ten seconds, I submit you're not "good enough" with the .380

 

[mavracer]

Sure you can. Getting folks to agree is another matter.

Then exactly how good is good enough?

Compare it to you'd baseline how, exactly?

Do I really need to explain how to subtract. If the first time it takes 5 units of time to shoot X rounds at Y yards and then you practice and it takes 4 units of time to shoot X rounds at Y yards. 5 - 4 =1 so you're 1 unit faster.

Again, the OP was "are you good enough with all of them?" How to tell? If you're punching snake eyes at 7 yds in one second with a 5" 1911, but carry a sightless .380 you can't hit the broadside of a barn with in ten seconds, I submit you're not "good enough" with the .380

So you shoot a sightless 380 as well as you do a 5" 1911?
I'll assume not, since I assume you are human.
So does that mean you can't be "good enough" with a 380?