Concealed Carry Response Time

[JerryM]

Double Naught Spy,
[So Jerry, if you come to my range, can you help me learn to make the double tap in the 1-1.3 second time in a non-real world gun range experience?]

NO, I can't because I cannot do that myself at the range. I'll just have to do the best I can if I ever find in necessary to use deadly force. I do not have a high confidence that I could do it in the real world in 2.5 seconds without reaction time.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I could do it in 1 second or so, or that it is easy. In fact, I do not believe that 1% could do it from cover in the real world. I leave some room for the Bill Jordans of the world, but they are few and far between.

If my memory serves me correctly, a friend whose son is a federal officer told me that one of the requirements was to draw and fire two shots at 10 yards in 1.5 seconds. Of course he had to hit the target. I found that I could l not do it unless my hand was on the gun. Even then I failed much of the time. My times were more on the order of 1.7 - 1.8 seconds. I guess I am just slow, but I know it, and plan for it.

Jerry

Jerry

 

[sendec]

2/10/1.5 is not in any fed qualification I have seen. 2/7/3.0 is in several. If a test cannot be passed by significant numbers of people who take it there is a flaw in the test or in the instruction, assuming students are motivated to pass it.

These kinds of exercises are interesting, but no more than that. They do not take into consideration the OODA loop type of analysis that is a requisite for gunfighting. There is also a practical limit on speed due to neurological and physiological constraints. Nerves and muscles only act so fast.

 

[444]

"These kinds of exercises are interesting, but no more than that."

IMO I think they do more than that. First of all, they provide valuable practice. Second, they give you a base line for a best case senario. Third, they give you a base line to see if you can improve your speed under ideal condtions.
Will all this matter in a real life or death situation ? There is no way to tell: it might or it might not. One thing I am pretty sure of is that it won't hurt.

 

[CZ52GUY]

The games might be fun, and the shooters superb shots, but the real world is much different, and that difference is time, and adrenaline. I suspect some very fast shooters would freeze and maybe not get off a shot. Others would do well but not at the speed they demonstrate in competition with their guns.

Actually Mike Dalton (champion shooter AND police officer) takes a different view. I read a good article by Mr. Dalton presented by one of his students who was teaching a class about competing. Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the article on line. The essence of his position was that learning to shoot fast and accurately made him a more capable police officer and better prepared for real life danger. To be sure, real life doesn't come with a buzzer, but the ability to shoot fast and strait while under some stress...competition helps you acquire those skills, and that can't hurt.

There are certainly many differences between competition and real life, but to paraphrase Brian Enos...I wouldn't claim a champion Olympic Swimmer was incapable of saving my life if I were drowning.

Stay safe,

CZ52'

 

[mpthole]

It seems to me that pretty much everyone is on the same page regarding speed when shooting in a "game" vs a real life self defense situation. As others have said, learning to shoot faster and more accurately surely can't be bad.

To be sure, real life doesn't come with a buzzer, but the ability to shoot fast and strait while under some stress...competition helps you acquire those skills, and that can't hurt.

Back in June of '03 I was having similar thoughts though (click here to read that thread) about "gaming" versus "tactical" shooting. And let me tell you... taking Matt's course improved my shooting without question. A year ago I didn't think I was concerned with making Expert or Master in IDPA. Now I know that I really can do it. I can taste it. I shot the classifier today and would have made Expert if it wasn't for two missed headshots (Stage 1, strings 2 & 4), that's how close I am... and now, going on to Master seems so much more "do-able".

Obviously, reaction times are going to be slower if you're just walking down the street or getting out of your car or whatever... I thinks that's a given. But, having the skills to put shots on target quickly shouldn't be discounted. It should give one confidence in their abilities. Having the proper mindset to put those skills and abilities into action might be another story. If anything, I think the "tactical" training helps develop the proper mindset rather than speedy hits on target.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[HankB]

We had a scenario a while back at an IDPA match which involved drawing from concealment and double-tapping a target at 3 yards. Out of about 35 or 40 shooters, only about 4 or 5 of us broke the 2-second mark. Nobody came close to the 1 - 1.3 seconds mentioned above, including Master-class shooters. (Timers are harsh in the numbers they reveal.)

Few shooters were using their "carry" rigs . . . many who use IWB or tuckable holsters on a daily basis switched to something like a Blade-Tech Kydex holster under a vest for the match. (Sure, this "kind of" defeats the spirit of IDPA, but it IS a game, after all.)

IMHO it would take a true "world class" shooter like a Leatham or Koenig to draw from concealment - using a real world concealment holster under a light jacket or vest - in 1 to 1.3 seconds.

And if they're using a "tuckable" holster which requires something like the "Hackathorn rip" to clear the garment, I believe even their times would go up.

 

[JerryM]

I certainly agree that practice makes one more proficient in speed of drawing and shooting accuracy. Those skills can translate to better performance in the real world. My comments are not opposed to that, and the various games inprove one's abilities overall.

But I think that it also gives some a false sense of their capabilities under stress in a life or death situation.

I had a friend tell me yesterday that he could, using a carry holster, draw and hit 5 targets in 1 second. He shoots a .45 using 200 gr SWC at about 900 fps. I didn't tell him, but I do not believe that. I am going to get him to the range when I can, and see if I am mistaken in what I think people can do.

Anyway, I know I can't do that because sometimes, when I want to be humbled, I take my timer to the range.

Jerry

 

[CZ52GUY]

But I think that it also gives some a false sense of their capabilities under stress in a life or death situation.

That's a fair comment.

Competing is valuable to hone one's skills, but "warmed up" times are unlikely to translate to real world threat response times as most would acknowledge (including most competitors I know...including this one).

For entertainment purposes only :

http://www.midwesttraininggroup.net/images/video/billdrill.mpg

Stay safe,

CZ52'

 

[sendec]

Competition leaves out at least three important elements and always will.

The first is that the majority of gunfights do not involve shooting. That'll be tough to score,, when the display of a firearm or disengagement successfully resolves the crisis without rounds being fired. The NTI is the only event I have seen where a stage can be "won" without shooting.

Second is the emphasis on speed. Reality dictates that in a gunfight other things than shooting should take place, namely the appropriate use of cover, which will take extra time- indeed, one of covers' main benefits is that it buys of time to develop a response. Speed is fine, but accuracy is final. Clearly, one answer to the horrific miss rate in LE shootings would be to slow down, and concentrate on getting hits.

Third are sequence-specific stages involving multiple rounds per target. A stage which requires two or more hits per target invariable get shot in such a way that all those rounds are fired at once, when in reality we probably are better off in shooting each target once before determining who needs additional rounds.

My opinions only.........

 

[CZ52GUY]

re: Sendec

I think very few competition enthusiasts would suggest that competing is an "end all".

I would suggest that competition CAN influence the competitor's ability to develop their "mind skills" for each of the area's you described.

A skillful course designer will throw in some no shoots to help the competitor learn when not to shoot. Walk-through cancels out this advantage? Perhaps to some degree, but I know many competitors who have had the adrenalin flowing who were "surprised" by the no-shoot during a course of fire. Good instincts can be developed in knowing when to not engage a target. Fool proof? Not hardly, but it's part of the competition experience that is not readily apparent to some that adds value to this competitor.

The luxury of time and skulking around vs. taking the initiative is a debate I won't enter into here. However, I can speak from personal experience that "harnessed aggression" is the key to a successful IDPA stage. I've also seen PAR times effectively used to emphasize tactics over raw speed. I'd concede that more of this would be beneficial at times. However, in the end...competition is a game. It is intended to be enjoyable which makes people want to participate. There are tradeoffs to be sure, but on balance, I think few would argue that competing will ruin your tactical skills. Some do, but unlike Pavlov's dog, we are blessed by the Creator with greater cerebral capabilities. I'm not convinced you have to choose to be "tactical" or be a "gamer". In a real fight, I would suggest that harnessed aggression will be critical in that circumstance also.

I'm not convinced that one shot hits with a handgun makes tactical sense. I've heard some say that anything worth shooting once is worth hitting twice with a pistol. Given the ballistic limitations of a handgun, I see some sense in that. I doubt that any of us can predict with certainty how we would react in response to any given real life threat. Competing provides us the opportunity to react to many different simulated encounters. I think the key is to understand the differences, the benefits, the tradeoffs, and to get the most out of the competing experience.

I can say that I feel much better prepared to deal with real life threats having put in the practice time at the range and getting out of my comfort zone to subject myself to the "stress" of the buzzer and the scrutiny of the "peanut gallery".

Bottom line, I think nearly all of us would agree that the best threat response is to avoid the need to respond to a threat in the first place. No amount of range time, or shelf of competition trophies, or impressive listing of personal best times can substitute for prudent situational awareness and good judgment regarding situations one voluntarily exposes themselves and their loved ones to.

Stay safe,

CZ52'

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Most shooting work (practice, drills, training, competition, simulation) that improves your skills is going to be beneficial in a situation that requires that skills. Those can translate into real life, but there are some definite filters that affect performance.

Compeitotrs may or may not think their matches are the be all to end all when it comes to self defense. I don't know. I do know I have seen enough matches of the "real practical" shooters to know that none of them are ever shooting in a circumstance where they are threatened with injury or death. They start the stage knowing that even if they miss every shot, the only harm is to their ego. They don't have to actually neutralize a threat or worry about hitting real bystanders. They never seems to be bleeding before they start their response (as can and sometimes is the case in real life) or have to deal with a wounded spouse or child. Their hands and gun are not covered with blood. Plus, they seem to have explicit knowledge as to which targets need to be shot and how many times, nifty aspects often not fully apparent in real life.

Some may get those rockin' 1.3 second double taps on a target of known disposition where the decision to draw and then the decision to shoot is made long before you even get to the start position - as obviously the target doesn't attempt to surrender during your draw - all you know is that you gotta shoot it.

 

[CZ52GUY]

re: D'N'Spy

Compeitotrs may or may not think their matches are the be all to end all when it comes to self defense. I don't know. I do know I have seen enough matches of the "real practical" shooters to know that none of them are ever shooting in a circumstance where they are threatened with injury or death. They start the stage knowing that even if they miss every shot, the only harm is to their ego. They don't have to actually neutralize a threat or worry about hitting real bystanders. They never seems to be bleeding before they start their response (as can and sometimes is the case in real life) or have to deal with a wounded spouse or child. Their hands and gun are not covered with blood. Plus, they seem to have explicit knowledge as to which targets need to be shot and how many times, nifty aspects often not fully apparent in real life.

I can only speak from my own experiences with Buzzer Beating and dealing with the Carboard Menace and their especially nasty allies, the Steel Scourge . Thankfully, blood on my hands has only been from cutting them on the lip of a mag' or by scraping it against a barricade...a band-aid usually does the trick. I think the value proposition of competing is what you make of it. The attitude you take...the trade offs you understand, the commitment you make to getting the most out of it. There are real world parallels that can translate if you look for them and seek to apply them properly. There are undeniable differences that are frankly intentional (and most welcome).

I think that many times we seek to validate our own experience or "world view". I only offer my perspective that others may benefit from those experiences and observations. Your experience may vary.

Stay safe,

CZ52'

 

[444]

Over the years, there have been many threads or parts of threads discussing the value of competition as training for "real life". In all these threads there are people who believe that since these shooting games are not "realistic" they are of no value at all and maybe even be totally negative.
In a number of these threads I have asked the question: Ok, let's assume that is the case. I have to assume that you have a better alternative. You must have a realistic training method that is better, so let's hear about it. For some reason, this question has never been answered. Shooting on a square range might not be realistic. Shooting IDPA or IPSC might not be realistic. But I submit that it is better than doing nothing. I also submit that it is better than what 99% of the people out there are doing for training.

There are two big things that I think competition gives you. #1) the results are there for all to see. There are no do overs. Your imgaination of how well you shot doesn't come into play. You get one chance and the results are cast in stone. #2) You are almost always shooting against the clock. And, again, the reading of that timer is there for all to see and your imagination can't make up for it. The most valuable thing about IPSC is it's motto: Speed vs. Accuracy. Those two things are always competitng to help you or hurt you. You have to shoot as fast as you can, but only within the bounds of acceptable accuracy. You can't miss fast enough to win. You are always trying to shoot faster and with more accuracy. When these two things get out of balance, the result is there for all to see. When you improve either or both, the results are there for all to see.
Just as many on this thread imply, people can tell us how fast, or how accurately they can shoot. But competition demands that they do it in front of us, on demand, with legitimate tools with which to measure the results.

 

[DRZinn]

I've done the 2 shots, seven yards, 3 seconds thing plenty, usually not from concealment, and plenty can't even do that. Warmed up.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dunno. I was just out today with a timer. I believe I could draw from concealment and fire one shot at about 10 ft in about 1.6 secs, sometimes less. This is a Smith 1917 revolver with 3 1/2 barrel. I dont consider myself exceptional in any way and think most experienced shooters should be able to do much better than that.
Shooting at 7 yards is a poor experiment to extrapolate for a knife fight. I would think that the knife fight would occur in under 10 ft(probably more like 6 feet) , the gun would be held at the hip in retention and aim would be secondary to getting the shot off. One would likely be off-balance and no doubt grip wouldnt be the best. A lot of autos (esp the 1911s) would have trouble going bang in those situations. It is a great argument for a snub as regular carry.

 

[sendec]

Aim cannot be secondary to getting the shot off - A fast miss always loses.

 

[The Rabbi]

Aim cannot be secondary to getting the shot off - A fast miss always loses.

At under 6 feet it would take some doing to miss. Im not saying it cant be done but deliberate aiming in those circumstances is, imo, a mistake. I would take a fast miss to a hit that came 5 seconds too late.

 

[David Blinder]

Several years ago, two cops were in an elevator when they recognized a wanted felon who got on. 48 shots later, not a single bullet would was to be found on any of them.

 

[OF]

At under 6 feet it would take some doing to miss.

You might be surprised. Not saying you need a full-on sight picture, but don't underestimate the difficulty of making a good hit at close distances under stress.

- Gabe

 

[The Rabbi]

I wouldnt overestimate it either.

For every general proposition in the gun world there is some real-life counterexample. I am sure there is some story out there about the guy shot in the head with a .50BMG who survived just fine.
But these anecdotes add absolutely nothing, imo, to the discussion. Freak accidents and happenings are just that: freak occurences. My view is that to prepare for them all is an impossible task. We can only go on what generally is the case and prepare for that. Anything else is just nach-schlepping.

 

[Ktulu]

There are certainly many differences between competition and real life, but to paraphrase Brian Enos...I wouldn't claim a champion Olympic Swimmer was incapable of saving my life if I were drowning.

CZ52GUY, the problem with that statement is that the Olympic swimmer might just loose his own life on his false confidence. Swimming fast and saving drowning people a very different then one another. The same goes for shooting. The IPSC national champ's confidence in his ability to use a gun just might be what gets him killed.

That quote is from Enos' book Practical Shooting - Beyond Fundamentals. I've read the book and for the most part I agree. If forced into a gunfight, I would much rather be a national champ then a gun-control chump.

 

[CZ52GUY]

re: KTULU

I think the point Mr. Enos was making was given the circumstances, being able to swim fast can't hurt.

Being able to shoot fast and accurately won't get the IPSC shooter killed...using poor judgment might, but the argument that competition instills bad judgment or irreversably negative conditioned responses is not one I subscribe to.

Many NASCAR drivers manage to drop their kids off at school without crashing their cars. Their skills on the track could very well make them better defensive drivers. Does that make them invulnerable on the road? Absolutely not. But the idea that competition is a negative for real life defensive situations ignores the reality that you need to be able to shoot strait, and that a fast hit on the BG is not a bad thing.

Do some risk putting on a false mantle of invulnerability as the result of competing? I'd argue that error in judgment is more about character than gaming participation. If somebody things they're a "bad-brass" shooter...gaming is unlikely to add to or take away from that perception...same would be true from adding "insert-tactical-school-here" advanced course work.

Real life is about using your head and applying your skills effectively when needs be. I don't pretend that vanquishing the Cardboard Menace makes me a "bad-brass gunslinger". I do know it makes me better prepared for real life SD than sitting on my couch watching the boob-tube.

Stay safe,

CZ52'

 

[CZ52GUY]

You might be surprised. Not saying you need a full-on sight picture, but don't underestimate the difficulty of making a good hit at close distances under stress.

I'm generally surprised on a monthly basis at how often I manage to miss a shot I know I can make...and I'm out their practicing every week.

There's a certain master shooter who competed at our regional in August...he generally wins his division and this year was no exception...using a revolver (he was shooting SSR) from about 6 feet in low light with a flashlight, he missed an IDPA target outright.

The stage was 3 targets 6 feet away, seated at bench with only a keyboard and reading light. Flashlight and borrowed revolver on shelf under work area (simulating desk drawer). Revolver was borrowed to give "unfamiliar gun" training and so that we could hold the low-light in our 50 year old indoor range (frangible only...provided to all competitors as part of entry fee). At buzzer, retrieve light and revolver and put 1 on each left to right, then 1 on each right to left (shots 3+4 end up as DT for most shooters).

He ended up down 6 for that stage...and that's facing cardboard and the only stress being a buzzer and the peanut gallery. If he shot that stage 99 more times, I'd wager he probably would be down 0 at least 90 times, or better.

I was down zero with nice tight pairs, but I was slow...slow enough that his down 6 still beat my down 0...fairly easily...none of us know for sure how we'll react to any given situation. Some luck (or Providential protection depending on your world view) is hoped for.

In the end, I think all we can do is pray and prepare diligently.

Stay safe Gabe,

CZ52'

 

[sendec]

One of the ironies of firearms training is that as one gets closer it is "easier" to miss a preferred point on a target. Ive seen this with both shotguns and handguns and attribute it to too much speed and too little use of sights.

 

[Ktulu]

I think the point Mr. Enos was making was given the circumstances, being able to swim fast can't hurt.

You're right it can't hurt unless you dilute yourself into thinking that it can help. Thinking, that because I'm a fast swimmer, I know anything about being a lifeguard just might get me killed.

The thing is IPSC and IDPA don't prepare you for a gunfight anymore than racing people in a swimming pool prepares you to be a lifeguard. While having these skills doesn’t hurt, thinking that because I can do one thing I can do the other just might get me killed.

Games are games and some of the skills you learn or hone in playing those games might help you in related fields in conjunction with the proper training. The error in judgment comes from thinking otherwise not from gaining or practicing the skills.