How important is the draw?
- Thread starter 38snapcaps
- Start date
- Status
fastbolt
Member
Whoa, slow down a tad there MX5. If that's a compliment, I'm grateful ... BUT ...
I certainly don't think that way, and I respectfully suggest that you don't, either. I'll explain my reasons in a minute.
First ... 38snapcaps ...
I didn't intend to side track your thread, and hope my earlier thoughts were in keeping with what you asked. Personally, I think that while the fastest, proper draw & presentation IS a critical consideration, I think that Awareness & Avoidance is even more critical ... especially in non-L/E situations.
I think the proper choice of caliber /weapon for YOU is dependant in what YOU determine best meets your perceived needs ... and which weapon/cailber choice better meets those needs.
I also think the "fast draw" issue is possibly a bit overblown by folks that are paid to write magazine articles. Remember that article last year by a well respected author/trainer who determined it was faster to already have your hand ON the grip fo the weapon concealed in his pants pocket?
Okay ... MX5 ...
You need to understand that I haven't spent very much time out in the public ranges in the last few years, and most all of my range time has been at L/E ranges, both "in-house" and at any outside training classes I've attended ... and I haven't ever felt the desire to participate in IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action Events, etc., etc..
While I used to really enjoy shooting with my father in the country, when he was alive ... shooting, making coffee and stew over a campfire, and so on ... in the last several years my shooting activities have been focused almost exclusively on developing & improving my personal abilities, and my instructor knowledge & skills. This is primarily something I do to hopefully improve my survival in armed encounters, and the survival of the folks for whom I'm responsible to train.
Aside from the folks that come through our CCW classes, and who may participate in IDPA & such ... as well as a few of our own folks who enjoy frequent participation in these type of events ... I don't get to rub elbows with IDPA & IPSC experts, masters & such very much. Frankly, I don't have much of a clue how skilled the higher ranking IPSC & IDPA people are ... BUT I really, really doubt our basic shooting training & skills are imparting skills and abilities that are on a par with the really GOOD people that participate in these sort of things.
While I know I can consistently call & hit small wooden clothespins out to 13 yards ... (at which point the size of the clothes pin compared to the width of the front sight post limits MY accuracy, windage-wise) ... my bullseye target skills are sadly lacking. On a good day I can "maintain" somewhere between a 3-4" group when shooting 2-handed, unsupported at 25 yards.
On a bad day it's not worth mentioning. I'm working on it , if that's what you want to call it. 
It's really disappointing to be able to consistently hit the standard pepper poppers at 50, 75 & 100 yards, and then start getting "flyers" on the bullseyes at 25 yards.
The head instructor is an exception, as he's rubbed elbows with some really great folks over the years, and he's been doing it a while. Several years ago, when I asked him how he'd started working on achieving his fast drawing & shooting skills, he told me that he'd only had to properly perform "ten's of thousands" of correct repetitions in order to get a handle on it. Is that all? He suggested I start RIGHT THEN ... and he hasn't let up on me since then.
That day he drew and performed a "cold" concealment close-combat drill, and didit .77 seconds? I remember doing several of them after he walked off in the 1.2-1.6 second range, and being very happy with those times ... and only hit .9-1.1 seconds a couple of times. I couldn't do it in .77 ... even drawing from an unconcealed duty holster.
I'm NOT fast ... but I'm working on it.
Last edited:
There is no way to predict how a self defense senario might unfold. Therefore you prepare for the worst possible senario. In this case, you assume that you will be caught totally by surprise and have to produce your gun in the absolute minimum amount of time.
If you should ever have to use your gun in self defense and it doesn't turn out that way, you are ahead of the game. It doesn't work the other way around.
Of course in "real" life there are times when you can't conceal a handgun on your hip. You might be forced to carry in a pocket or whatever. This is not a good situation and you should try to keep it to a minimum, but there are times it can't be reasonably helped.
FWIW, I took the Frontsight basic defensive handgun course. The first stage of the final skills test was to stand on the three yard line, the targets turn and face you for 1.5 seconds, you draw from concealment and make a head shot. This is repeated five times. At the end of the four day course it wasn't a problem. I was wearing a coat, but plenty of other people did it with pullovers.
Train hard, fight easy.
If you should ever have to use your gun in self defense and it doesn't turn out that way, you are ahead of the game. It doesn't work the other way around.
Of course in "real" life there are times when you can't conceal a handgun on your hip. You might be forced to carry in a pocket or whatever. This is not a good situation and you should try to keep it to a minimum, but there are times it can't be reasonably helped.
FWIW, I took the Frontsight basic defensive handgun course. The first stage of the final skills test was to stand on the three yard line, the targets turn and face you for 1.5 seconds, you draw from concealment and make a head shot. This is repeated five times. At the end of the four day course it wasn't a problem. I was wearing a coat, but plenty of other people did it with pullovers.
Train hard, fight easy.
I doubt I'll be so lucky as to have the scenario I picture the most actually happen (as opposed to something I would never expect), but it seems in a holdup a smooth, quick draw would be very important. If your being held up and you think you should fight instead of submit then you can go for your "wallet" and come out with your gun instead. It wouldn't need to be fast (that would tip him off) but it would have to be smooth with no fumbling, practiced.
Now if you gave him the wallet hoping he would go away (hope is not a strategy ), then realized he now wants more than you're prepared to give (like your life
) now is where an extremely FAST draw would be required, you don't have a free move anymore. In any event, as someone scummy approaches you, you can't always avoid them and you can't always draw or put your hand on your gun either...most times they really do just want to know what time it is! Or maybe I have been targeted many times by these folks, but they decided to keep the ruse and move on to easier pickings...but I can't ever know that, so I remain vigilant...and practice my presentation skills.
Now if you gave him the wallet hoping he would go away (hope is not a strategy
), then realized he now wants more than you're prepared to give (like your life ) now is where an extremely FAST draw would be required, you don't have a free move anymore. In any event, as someone scummy approaches you, you can't always avoid them and you can't always draw or put your hand on your gun either...most times they really do just want to know what time it is! Or maybe I have been targeted many times by these folks, but they decided to keep the ruse and move on to easier pickings...but I can't ever know that, so I remain vigilant...and practice my presentation skills.fastbolt:
What I object to is the total horse pucky that I constantly read on the Web, especially when folks talk about benchmarks and time. First off, I am not talking turning targets. I am talking electronic timing, delayed start with hands at sides, above shoulders, or for that matter, interview position. I am also talking about par times, not some fluke.
Let's take the notion that a "reasonably trained shooter" can draw and put two to the body and one to the head in 1.1 seconds. That's absurd. It's total and absolute nonsense. Any shooter who can reliably do that drill that fast on demand is far from "reasonably trained'.
mete said, "A trained shooter, as we showed at the IPSC matches, can at close range (6') draw and fire and hit two rounds in one second." Precious few IPSC shooters will ever experience two shots in under a second on the draw, let alone pull it off in a match. In fact, the vast majority of IPSC shooters have never hit a sub one second draw on match day.
Serious students of pistolcraft know what is and is not a realistic performance level. Mozambique Drills in 1.1 seconds, and sub half second double taps (that would smoke Rob Leatham like a cheap cigar) are certainly something we can all aspire to, but the inference that a person isn't reasonably proficient if they can't perform at that level is insulting.
What I object to is the total horse pucky that I constantly read on the Web, especially when folks talk about benchmarks and time. First off, I am not talking turning targets. I am talking electronic timing, delayed start with hands at sides, above shoulders, or for that matter, interview position. I am also talking about par times, not some fluke.
Let's take the notion that a "reasonably trained shooter" can draw and put two to the body and one to the head in 1.1 seconds. That's absurd. It's total and absolute nonsense. Any shooter who can reliably do that drill that fast on demand is far from "reasonably trained'.
mete said, "A trained shooter, as we showed at the IPSC matches, can at close range (6') draw and fire and hit two rounds in one second." Precious few IPSC shooters will ever experience two shots in under a second on the draw, let alone pull it off in a match. In fact, the vast majority of IPSC shooters have never hit a sub one second draw on match day.
Serious students of pistolcraft know what is and is not a realistic performance level. Mozambique Drills in 1.1 seconds, and sub half second double taps (that would smoke Rob Leatham like a cheap cigar) are certainly something we can all aspire to, but the inference that a person isn't reasonably proficient if they can't perform at that level is insulting.
fastbolt
Member
MX5,
I think I understand now ...
First off, I didn't intend to be insulting to you ...
Secondly, there's "reasonably trained", and then there's "reasonably trained" ...
It depends on what sort of circumstances you're training for, I'd think.
We had occasion to have a couple of folks from a local shooting club on our range once. These guys were very, very good at different types of target shooting. Nothing that most of us could ever approach .. and they were giving us some good natured ribbing regarding the ridiculously close ranges at which we were requiring our people to shoot at targets (3-11 yards), and how poorly many of the "average" cops were able to achieve "accurate" groupings & hits (from their perspective).
We explained that it was a bit different to draw and fire at non-bullseye targets, from a holster, while standing in other than a Camp Perry style, but they seemed dubious. They were also curious, so we provided them with holsters and allowed them to try some of the simpler qualification scenarios, under the rather generous time limits we imposed as "maximum times" for our folks. It was a real surprise to all of us that the skilled handgunners suddenly had huge shot groups, and barely made it under the time limits. They were really surprised ... and we all started discussing what it might mean to all of us, and our various training goals.
My point is that it all depends on what you're training to achieve, and your motivation, I suppose ...
I also read a lot of the things posted on the internet about "standard minimum times, or "benchmarks", and constantly wonder where these things came from ... and am more than a little skeptical about some of them ... but I also compare them against our folks and our staff, as well as other instructors we work around. We also have a growing number of people that spend a lot of money, both of the agency's and their own, attending various nationally known shooting schools. This gives us just a small perspective.
This gives us a little comparison of how other L/E & some military people are able to achieve, and exhibit upon demand, various skills. We don't really have much interest in non-L/E "competition", because we more or less tailor our in-house training to mee the anticipated and peceived "needs" of our folks, based upon evolving information from shooting situations, as well as circumstances brought to us which have become a concern to many of our people.
Those folks we have who participate in non-L/E events like IPSC, IDPA & Cowboy Action Shooting over the years? Well, a couple of them are apparently very skilled at these events, and enjoy attending them frequently ... but which great ... but that hardly means that they can always do similarly as well in our training & qualification. I have no idea why that is ... it's just an observation from several years of watching such folks.
One of the things that got my attention recently, however, was when a couple of guys who'd spent a few thousand dollars at a couple of reputable outside training facilities, separately mentioned that they wondered why they'd spent all that money. This was after we'd spent some time helping them with a couple of skills issues with which they were having a little difficulty. Some additional range time & discussion resolved their problems right there, and their skills immediately improved to THEIR satisfaction. That's when they said they wondered why they'd spent so much money on outside training.
I certainly didn't have an answer to that ... but I did say that if they'd spend more time working on certain basics, that they'd probably be able to get more out of their outside training. Isn't that the case with all of us? I've always suspected that our "foundation" skills require constant reinforcement and refinement in order for more advanced skills to be properly absorbed and learned, let alone performed properly with any consistency.
The last outside training venue I attended included cops from all over northern CA, and we had folks of every imaginable skill level. It was a class intended to address some of the problems encountered by plainslothes & undercover cops, and was primarily a tactics & shooting class. The first day the instructors put everyone through what they considered as their "benchmark" for acceptable drawing and shooting skills ... menaing everyone had to draw their weapons from concealment, move offline from a target 5 yards distant and fire a 2-handed single shot to COM. Not 1-handed ... and not standing still ... and not "hip shooting". Everyone had to do the same thing, and everyone was timed.
The stated goal was to see how many folks could achieve what the instructors considered to be a minimally acceptable time, which was 1.5 seconds. Misses, failures to use 2 hands, use the sights or move offline from the starting position were considered failures to complete the drill as desired.
All but 3 people took longer than the desired 1.5 seconds to perform the drill. I was cursing myself for wearing my ususal cold weather range clothing, which is a heavy jacket with 2 sweatshirts underneath over long underwear ... one sweatshirt was zippered and open and the other was simply tucked up & around the belt holster, but partially draped over my weapon's grip. It must've been hilarious to watch me, but I managed to claw my weapon out from under all of my clothing and perform the drill in 1.23 seconds.
By the end of the week, when the drill was once again timed ... all but a few of the students were able to perform the drill in the desired 1.5 seconds, and I actually shaved off a couple fractions of a second. That's when I returned to our range and started focusing on concealment draws, and the rest of the staff become interested in it, as well.
Now, although the significant majority of our folks may not ever spend their own time & money to train outside their required qualification sessions, they're still required to demonstrate the ability to perform various situational reactions & drills for qualifications. Many of the "close combat" scenarios we use use involve some sort of drawinghanded, at one or more close range targets, generally starting at 3-5 yards. Over the years we've determined that the "average" person in our agency can consistently perform these drills within reasonable time limits, whether or not they're "interested" in guns, per se, and regardless of whether they ever seek additional practice.
A 3-5 yard "triple tap" can easily be done by even a minimally acceptable shooter in a maximum of 4 seconds ... and some folks that seek at least a little extra training can easily do it in the 2-3 second range. The few folks that claim to have spent time attending some outside training, and/or come to us asking for additional range time & training can often perform consistently perform this drill in sub-2 second times.
The head instructor naturally requires that his staff perform the drill consistently faster ... and without misses. But we're NOT, for the most part, "competition" people ... and generally don't have the opportunity to compare ourselves to anyone outside the L/E instructor field.
Nobody's required to start with their hands raised in the surrender position, either, although they are required to start with their hands in some "normal" positions. We don't walk around with our hands on the grips of our weapons in public, so it makes no sense to qualify that way, does it? Some of the non-L/E "competition" fans like to start with their hands clasped, or in some favored "training position", and we don't prevent that ... although we hope it doesn't cause a problem if they're caught "unprepared" in an actual situation, and their hands aren't where they "commonly" like to have them to "stage" for their draw & presentation. Sometimes I'll intentionally make them place their hands in some other position during qualification ... and if it causes them a "problem", THEN we discuss the relevance of what they're doing on their own time, to what they may encounter in their job ... and we spend some time on specific training to address their (and our) concerns regarding this issue ...
One of our current qualification scenarios requires that the person shoot 6 rounds in 6 seconds, at a stationary 7 yard target, while quickly moving approx 9 yards laterally toward a cover position. The "average" person has been able to perform the drill in average times hovering between 5-6 seconds, with less than the maximum number of allowable misses (it's a 70% course) ... and we've had a surprising number of folks able to perform this scenario for the required 2 repetitions ... in times between 3.5-4.5 seconds. That's encouraging ... and I can't do it much faster. My times with various weapons & calibers hover in the sub-3 second-4 second range.
These are folks I'd categorize as "reasonably trained", although they don't spend as much time on the range as they'd like, and when we talk with them we've generally learned that they don't spend a lot of time at outside ranges, for the most part.
Now, I'm sorry you felt insulted by my reference to being "reasonably trained". That wasn't my intention ...
I think that different folks are "reasonably trained" to different standards, and different expectations ... and there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm not ever going to be worried about my "performance" in competition, though ... and I KNOW the expert & master level competitors could easily "smoke" me on any given day of the week, and twice on Sunday ... but I DO woory about maintaining a reasonable level of proficiency in order to meet and address any threats during the course of my job duties.
Once, when working a plainclothes assignmenet with another instructor, we were at a residence for what was essentially a "civil" matter, and had no reasonable expectation of an immediate threat ... not any more than "normal", at any rate ... but we weren't there forthat kind of call.
As it turned out, one of the many people there was a man who decided, for whatever reason, to draw a small pistol from his pants pocket, in an apparent attempt to draw against my partner. He fumbled the draw, dropping the weapon to the floor at his feet, and quickly bent to pick it up, presumably to continue an assault on my partner. Before he could reach the dropped pistol at his feet, he discovered he was covered by 2 weapons. He decided not to force the issue. If I recall correctly, I think he received his Second Strike for that arrest.
That's why we train ...
By the way, I wish we had turning targets. All we have is a shoestring budget and ordinary timers, which we use for delay & immediate buzzers, and ordinary wooden & metal target bases & supports. That's why we try to get as creative as possible with what we have, and emphasize the basics, and how they can be effectively performed & constantly refined to reasonably perform in as many "realistic" threat (& no-shoot) scenarios as we can devise.
If you'd like, please feel free to either PM me, or use my email (so we don't run into the forum's word-count PM limitation), and I'd be happy to continue this discussion outside the thread. I always enjoy talking about these things with folks outside the L/E field since I don't get the chance to train with them much, and I'm often interested in discussing realistic training issues. That's one of the many ways I learn ...
Hope to hear from you,
fb
I think I understand now ...
First off, I didn't intend to be insulting to you ...
Secondly, there's "reasonably trained", and then there's "reasonably trained" ...
It depends on what sort of circumstances you're training for, I'd think.
We had occasion to have a couple of folks from a local shooting club on our range once. These guys were very, very good at different types of target shooting. Nothing that most of us could ever approach .. and they were giving us some good natured ribbing regarding the ridiculously close ranges at which we were requiring our people to shoot at targets (3-11 yards), and how poorly many of the "average" cops were able to achieve "accurate" groupings & hits (from their perspective).
We explained that it was a bit different to draw and fire at non-bullseye targets, from a holster, while standing in other than a Camp Perry style, but they seemed dubious. They were also curious, so we provided them with holsters and allowed them to try some of the simpler qualification scenarios, under the rather generous time limits we imposed as "maximum times" for our folks. It was a real surprise to all of us that the skilled handgunners suddenly had huge shot groups, and barely made it under the time limits. They were really surprised ... and we all started discussing what it might mean to all of us, and our various training goals.
My point is that it all depends on what you're training to achieve, and your motivation, I suppose ...
I also read a lot of the things posted on the internet about "standard minimum times, or "benchmarks", and constantly wonder where these things came from ... and am more than a little skeptical about some of them ... but I also compare them against our folks and our staff, as well as other instructors we work around. We also have a growing number of people that spend a lot of money, both of the agency's and their own, attending various nationally known shooting schools. This gives us just a small perspective.
This gives us a little comparison of how other L/E & some military people are able to achieve, and exhibit upon demand, various skills. We don't really have much interest in non-L/E "competition", because we more or less tailor our in-house training to mee the anticipated and peceived "needs" of our folks, based upon evolving information from shooting situations, as well as circumstances brought to us which have become a concern to many of our people.
Those folks we have who participate in non-L/E events like IPSC, IDPA & Cowboy Action Shooting over the years? Well, a couple of them are apparently very skilled at these events, and enjoy attending them frequently ... but which great ... but that hardly means that they can always do similarly as well in our training & qualification. I have no idea why that is ... it's just an observation from several years of watching such folks.
One of the things that got my attention recently, however, was when a couple of guys who'd spent a few thousand dollars at a couple of reputable outside training facilities, separately mentioned that they wondered why they'd spent all that money. This was after we'd spent some time helping them with a couple of skills issues with which they were having a little difficulty. Some additional range time & discussion resolved their problems right there, and their skills immediately improved to THEIR satisfaction. That's when they said they wondered why they'd spent so much money on outside training.
I certainly didn't have an answer to that ... but I did say that if they'd spend more time working on certain basics, that they'd probably be able to get more out of their outside training. Isn't that the case with all of us? I've always suspected that our "foundation" skills require constant reinforcement and refinement in order for more advanced skills to be properly absorbed and learned, let alone performed properly with any consistency.
The last outside training venue I attended included cops from all over northern CA, and we had folks of every imaginable skill level. It was a class intended to address some of the problems encountered by plainslothes & undercover cops, and was primarily a tactics & shooting class. The first day the instructors put everyone through what they considered as their "benchmark" for acceptable drawing and shooting skills ... menaing everyone had to draw their weapons from concealment, move offline from a target 5 yards distant and fire a 2-handed single shot to COM. Not 1-handed ... and not standing still ... and not "hip shooting". Everyone had to do the same thing, and everyone was timed.
The stated goal was to see how many folks could achieve what the instructors considered to be a minimally acceptable time, which was 1.5 seconds. Misses, failures to use 2 hands, use the sights or move offline from the starting position were considered failures to complete the drill as desired.
All but 3 people took longer than the desired 1.5 seconds to perform the drill. I was cursing myself for wearing my ususal cold weather range clothing, which is a heavy jacket with 2 sweatshirts underneath over long underwear ... one sweatshirt was zippered and open and the other was simply tucked up & around the belt holster, but partially draped over my weapon's grip. It must've been hilarious to watch me, but I managed to claw my weapon out from under all of my clothing and perform the drill in 1.23 seconds.
By the end of the week, when the drill was once again timed ... all but a few of the students were able to perform the drill in the desired 1.5 seconds, and I actually shaved off a couple fractions of a second. That's when I returned to our range and started focusing on concealment draws, and the rest of the staff become interested in it, as well.
Now, although the significant majority of our folks may not ever spend their own time & money to train outside their required qualification sessions, they're still required to demonstrate the ability to perform various situational reactions & drills for qualifications. Many of the "close combat" scenarios we use use involve some sort of drawinghanded, at one or more close range targets, generally starting at 3-5 yards. Over the years we've determined that the "average" person in our agency can consistently perform these drills within reasonable time limits, whether or not they're "interested" in guns, per se, and regardless of whether they ever seek additional practice.
A 3-5 yard "triple tap" can easily be done by even a minimally acceptable shooter in a maximum of 4 seconds ... and some folks that seek at least a little extra training can easily do it in the 2-3 second range. The few folks that claim to have spent time attending some outside training, and/or come to us asking for additional range time & training can often perform consistently perform this drill in sub-2 second times.
The head instructor naturally requires that his staff perform the drill consistently faster ... and without misses. But we're NOT, for the most part, "competition" people ... and generally don't have the opportunity to compare ourselves to anyone outside the L/E instructor field.
Nobody's required to start with their hands raised in the surrender position, either, although they are required to start with their hands in some "normal" positions. We don't walk around with our hands on the grips of our weapons in public, so it makes no sense to qualify that way, does it? Some of the non-L/E "competition" fans like to start with their hands clasped, or in some favored "training position", and we don't prevent that ... although we hope it doesn't cause a problem if they're caught "unprepared" in an actual situation, and their hands aren't where they "commonly" like to have them to "stage" for their draw & presentation. Sometimes I'll intentionally make them place their hands in some other position during qualification ... and if it causes them a "problem", THEN we discuss the relevance of what they're doing on their own time, to what they may encounter in their job ... and we spend some time on specific training to address their (and our) concerns regarding this issue ...
One of our current qualification scenarios requires that the person shoot 6 rounds in 6 seconds, at a stationary 7 yard target, while quickly moving approx 9 yards laterally toward a cover position. The "average" person has been able to perform the drill in average times hovering between 5-6 seconds, with less than the maximum number of allowable misses (it's a 70% course) ... and we've had a surprising number of folks able to perform this scenario for the required 2 repetitions ... in times between 3.5-4.5 seconds. That's encouraging ... and I can't do it much faster. My times with various weapons & calibers hover in the sub-3 second-4 second range.
These are folks I'd categorize as "reasonably trained", although they don't spend as much time on the range as they'd like, and when we talk with them we've generally learned that they don't spend a lot of time at outside ranges, for the most part.
Now, I'm sorry you felt insulted by my reference to being "reasonably trained". That wasn't my intention ...
I think that different folks are "reasonably trained" to different standards, and different expectations ... and there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm not ever going to be worried about my "performance" in competition, though ... and I KNOW the expert & master level competitors could easily "smoke" me on any given day of the week, and twice on Sunday ... but I DO woory about maintaining a reasonable level of proficiency in order to meet and address any threats during the course of my job duties.
Once, when working a plainclothes assignmenet with another instructor, we were at a residence for what was essentially a "civil" matter, and had no reasonable expectation of an immediate threat ... not any more than "normal", at any rate ... but we weren't there forthat kind of call.
As it turned out, one of the many people there was a man who decided, for whatever reason, to draw a small pistol from his pants pocket, in an apparent attempt to draw against my partner. He fumbled the draw, dropping the weapon to the floor at his feet, and quickly bent to pick it up, presumably to continue an assault on my partner. Before he could reach the dropped pistol at his feet, he discovered he was covered by 2 weapons. He decided not to force the issue. If I recall correctly, I think he received his Second Strike for that arrest.
That's why we train ...
By the way, I wish we had turning targets. All we have is a shoestring budget and ordinary timers, which we use for delay & immediate buzzers, and ordinary wooden & metal target bases & supports. That's why we try to get as creative as possible with what we have, and emphasize the basics, and how they can be effectively performed & constantly refined to reasonably perform in as many "realistic" threat (& no-shoot) scenarios as we can devise.
If you'd like, please feel free to either PM me, or use my email (so we don't run into the forum's word-count PM limitation), and I'd be happy to continue this discussion outside the thread. I always enjoy talking about these things with folks outside the L/E field since I don't get the chance to train with them much, and I'm often interested in discussing realistic training issues. That's one of the many ways I learn ...
Hope to hear from you,
fb
Last edited:
fastbolt
Member
MX5,
Oh yeah ...
I wasn't exaggerating in any way about the head instructor's speed and skills, but then I'd hardly qualify him as only "reasonably trained", either. I've finally got an "advantage" on him when it comes to precision accuracy, though, because his eyes are finally getting older, and he requires tri-focals ... although my sights are becoming less distinct than I'd like, too.
I can't even begin to touch his ingrained speed and properly performed skills, and I may not ... but I'm working on it, with his help.
I find it a little odd that his half-second, 1-handed double tap speed would be considered so rare, though. He doesn't compete, and he only practices with the rest of us. I guess I just don't "get out" often enough. Also, while I can't match his times, I've come within a quarter second ... infrequently, mind you ... but sometimes down in the .8-.9 second range from an UNconcealed holster, with my hands hanging fully extended and relaxed at my sides. I just can't do it with any consistency ... and we have some folks around here that are frequently faster than I am.
Oh yeah ...
I wasn't exaggerating in any way about the head instructor's speed and skills, but then I'd hardly qualify him as only "reasonably trained", either. I've finally got an "advantage" on him when it comes to precision accuracy, though, because his eyes are finally getting older, and he requires tri-focals ... although my sights are becoming less distinct than I'd like, too.
I can't even begin to touch his ingrained speed and properly performed skills, and I may not ... but I'm working on it, with his help.
I find it a little odd that his half-second, 1-handed double tap speed would be considered so rare, though. He doesn't compete, and he only practices with the rest of us. I guess I just don't "get out" often enough. Also, while I can't match his times, I've come within a quarter second ... infrequently, mind you ... but sometimes down in the .8-.9 second range from an UNconcealed holster, with my hands hanging fully extended and relaxed at my sides. I just can't do it with any consistency ... and we have some folks around here that are frequently faster than I am.
Let's take the notion that a "reasonably trained shooter" can draw and put two to the body and one to the head in 1.1 seconds.
END Quote
Cough Cough BullS#$T
I have seen people like Ron Avery Shoot and he was at one time one of the top 5 shooters in ISPC and the fastests I saw him draw adn fire 1 round at 3 yards was .75. I can not buy the fact that you expect the reasonably trained shooter to shoot a failure drill in 1.1 seconds. Sorry thats BS pure and simple.
Pat
END Quote
Cough Cough BullS#$T
I have seen people like Ron Avery Shoot and he was at one time one of the top 5 shooters in ISPC and the fastests I saw him draw adn fire 1 round at 3 yards was .75. I can not buy the fact that you expect the reasonably trained shooter to shoot a failure drill in 1.1 seconds. Sorry thats BS pure and simple.
Pat
Pat:
I took a competition class from Avery, he is indeed an awesome shooter. He's the National Champion (L10) that I was talking about.
On the Mozambique Drill (2 body, 1 head) we can take a look at the Double Trouble side match at the Steel Challenge. Double Trouble is two, twelve-inch plates at seven yards. The bottom plate is 2.5' above the ground, and the top (stop) plate is directly above it, 5' from the ground. A 12 inch plate is a liberal head. When Brian Enos was in his prime and set the record, his reliable par time on that drill was 1.2 seconds.
BTW, some the guys like Leatham and Burkett have hit draws in the mid 5's. Of course they have monster splits so I imagine they can draw and fire two in around the mid sixes. If they could cut their actual time out of the holster in half they would be able to make those sub half second double taps no problem. The fastest draw I have ever seen was .58 seconds and I was running the timer. The guy doing the draw is a fellow Master class shooter and it was his personal best.
I took a competition class from Avery, he is indeed an awesome shooter. He's the National Champion (L10) that I was talking about.
On the Mozambique Drill (2 body, 1 head) we can take a look at the Double Trouble side match at the Steel Challenge. Double Trouble is two, twelve-inch plates at seven yards. The bottom plate is 2.5' above the ground, and the top (stop) plate is directly above it, 5' from the ground. A 12 inch plate is a liberal head. When Brian Enos was in his prime and set the record, his reliable par time on that drill was 1.2 seconds.
BTW, some the guys like Leatham and Burkett have hit draws in the mid 5's. Of course they have monster splits so I imagine they can draw and fire two in around the mid sixes. If they could cut their actual time out of the holster in half they would be able to make those sub half second double taps no problem. The fastest draw I have ever seen was .58 seconds and I was running the timer. The guy doing the draw is a fellow Master class shooter and it was his personal best.
BluesBear
member
If you're going to quote someone and then call BS at least keep the quote in context.
I think the sentences "That's absurd." and "It's total and absolute nonsense." sum up pretty well that he wasn't stating it as a fact.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
First, the draw is critical. That is how important it is. Without the draw during concealed carry, you have no gun in your hand to utilize. Assuming you do have to draw because you are threatened, chances are you are already behind the curve...meaning you are already in danger. The question then becomes one of whether or not you can draw quickly enough and places shot(s) on target(s) in such a manner so as to be able to overcome whatever deficiency you have from being behind the curve.
For concealed carry and not with your hand on the gun, a time of 1.5 seconds from the start stimulus (timer tone) to first shot on target, drawing from a belt holster is very quick. It is not impossible or unreasonable, but it will take considerable practice to be able to accomplish this on a consistent basis. For a standard, place your target at 7 yards, the proverbial 1.5 second distance. When you train, don't use powered down loads and don't verify that all your clothing and gear are in the exact position you want them in for the test. In the real world, holsters can move around a bit, shirts untuck and get grabbed with the pistol during the draw, you may catch your concealment garment during the draw, etc.
Also add to consideration that the 1.5 second time is a time for a prepared shooter who is waiting to draw on a known target that is stationary. In the real world, you will have to overcome some additional problems such as target and threat identification. One of the biggest delays I have seen in training videos of real life events is the delay experienced by the person who is trying to determine if the perceived threat is indeed a real threat or not. Is that really a gun or knife in the threat's hand?
Another delay experienced is one much like that experienced by recipients of flash-bang grenades by folks who are not expecting significant situational disturbance. Many folks are slow to react when something significant happens to alter the situation and contesxt going on around them. A classic example is of the folks who were present during the Atlanta Olympics when the bomb exploded. The first reaction of many who were present but were not immediately injured was simple surprise. The concept of the surprise being danger was much slower in coming and many folks did not comprehend the danger aspect until they noticed people fleeing toward them, away from the location of the bomb.
Put another way, in the real world, you may be able to draw your gun and fire the first shot on target in 1.5 seconds...but ONLY AFTER you have recognized the threat or overcome surprise. The 1.5 second time may increase to 3-5 seconds very quickly.
For concealed carry and not with your hand on the gun, a time of 1.5 seconds from the start stimulus (timer tone) to first shot on target, drawing from a belt holster is very quick. It is not impossible or unreasonable, but it will take considerable practice to be able to accomplish this on a consistent basis. For a standard, place your target at 7 yards, the proverbial 1.5 second distance. When you train, don't use powered down loads and don't verify that all your clothing and gear are in the exact position you want them in for the test. In the real world, holsters can move around a bit, shirts untuck and get grabbed with the pistol during the draw, you may catch your concealment garment during the draw, etc.
Also add to consideration that the 1.5 second time is a time for a prepared shooter who is waiting to draw on a known target that is stationary. In the real world, you will have to overcome some additional problems such as target and threat identification. One of the biggest delays I have seen in training videos of real life events is the delay experienced by the person who is trying to determine if the perceived threat is indeed a real threat or not. Is that really a gun or knife in the threat's hand?
Another delay experienced is one much like that experienced by recipients of flash-bang grenades by folks who are not expecting significant situational disturbance. Many folks are slow to react when something significant happens to alter the situation and contesxt going on around them. A classic example is of the folks who were present during the Atlanta Olympics when the bomb exploded. The first reaction of many who were present but were not immediately injured was simple surprise. The concept of the surprise being danger was much slower in coming and many folks did not comprehend the danger aspect until they noticed people fleeing toward them, away from the location of the bomb.
Put another way, in the real world, you may be able to draw your gun and fire the first shot on target in 1.5 seconds...but ONLY AFTER you have recognized the threat or overcome surprise. The 1.5 second time may increase to 3-5 seconds very quickly.
DNS:
Great post. I agree, a 1.5 second draw from concealment with carry gear is very good. For folks who have an electronic timer and a shooting friend to run the timer, they can try walking towards a target while their buddy starts the timer at an unknown spot. Walk laterally and have your timer suprise you. Try it while carrying something in your hands. For fun have your friend hit the timer as you are pullilng your keys out of your pocket. There are many variations to try out that can be fun and enlightening. Any departure from your practiced starting position will introduce increases in time. It might be suprising to learn just how much longer it takes to get that first shot off. Double, triple, quadruple...
Great post. I agree, a 1.5 second draw from concealment with carry gear is very good. For folks who have an electronic timer and a shooting friend to run the timer, they can try walking towards a target while their buddy starts the timer at an unknown spot. Walk laterally and have your timer suprise you. Try it while carrying something in your hands. For fun have your friend hit the timer as you are pullilng your keys out of your pocket. There are many variations to try out that can be fun and enlightening. Any departure from your practiced starting position will introduce increases in time. It might be suprising to learn just how much longer it takes to get that first shot off. Double, triple, quadruple...
MrChicken
Member
Seems to me...
1. bring the gun to the fight.
2. bring the gun INTO the fight.
Because of the situation, even the best level of awareness may not allow you more than a couple/few seconds. IMHO, if 3-5 seconds is your best draw, your in it deep.
1. bring the gun to the fight.
2. bring the gun INTO the fight.
Because of the situation, even the best level of awareness may not allow you more than a couple/few seconds. IMHO, if 3-5 seconds is your best draw, your in it deep.
Ryder
Member
I'll second that opinion MrChicken
Five seconds of presentation is too long when you're facing four bad guys that want to abduct you into their vehicle or drag you into an alley. I've had encounters where a swift sure draw would have allowed me to stand off this kind of thing. Threats and/or disparity of force from strangers are enough for me to react. Who says you have to wait till they show a weapon? You can get the drop on them in some cases. If they are armed it could very well boil down to a quick draw contest.
I know for a fact that I am personally handicapped with a three second "oh crap" lag before I can even begin to move. The realization that I've just crossed the line into mortal danger has a timetable all it's own. It's an adrenaline flood. Discounting jumpy instinctive moves in response to surprising circumstances this lag is unavoidable for me. But it's ok. It allows time to process the specifics of the threat and assess a safe plan of action. If this lag didn't exist I'd most likely be a danger to innocents.
My presentation time is about 1 second. I've been handling guns for so long that speed isn't a problem for me. As I see it my problem is slowing down once I start hitting that trigger. I'm working on controlling that with targets, but in a real situation, who knows? I imagine finding myself at slide lock and an empty magazine which is not necessarily a good thing in many ways.
Five seconds of presentation is too long when you're facing four bad guys that want to abduct you into their vehicle or drag you into an alley. I've had encounters where a swift sure draw would have allowed me to stand off this kind of thing. Threats and/or disparity of force from strangers are enough for me to react. Who says you have to wait till they show a weapon? You can get the drop on them in some cases. If they are armed it could very well boil down to a quick draw contest.
I know for a fact that I am personally handicapped with a three second "oh crap" lag before I can even begin to move. The realization that I've just crossed the line into mortal danger has a timetable all it's own. It's an adrenaline flood. Discounting jumpy instinctive moves in response to surprising circumstances this lag is unavoidable for me. But it's ok. It allows time to process the specifics of the threat and assess a safe plan of action. If this lag didn't exist I'd most likely be a danger to innocents.
My presentation time is about 1 second. I've been handling guns for so long that speed isn't a problem for me. As I see it my problem is slowing down once I start hitting that trigger. I'm working on controlling that with targets, but in a real situation, who knows? I imagine finding myself at slide lock and an empty magazine which is not necessarily a good thing in many ways.
I call bs, big time, .77 second. That
was not from real concealment, from hands at sides on a hit for the head, at 3 yds (as per the rest of the claims) on an electronic timer. It MIGHT happen, ONCE, cause the guy "jumped" the timer's start beat, just perfectly, and elimintated his .20 second reaction time.
was not from real concealment, from hands at sides on a hit for the head, at 3 yds (as per the rest of the claims) on an electronic timer. It MIGHT happen, ONCE, cause the guy "jumped" the timer's start beat, just perfectly, and elimintated his .20 second reaction time.
what's the hand start position for
Steel Challenge, hand hovering just off of the gun? Those are speed rigs, guys, anywhere from .30-.40 second faster than from real concealment. Also, a 12" circle is a generous CHEST. It's many times more area than the 4" circle of the brain. Area = 3.14 x the square of the radius. The chest is only 12" wide vital zone, on a large, adult male, if he's nicely frontal to you. If he's sideways, and a skinny crack head, he's 8" wide. Which is one reason IPSC standardized on the 10" circle. It's an average of the 2 likely target sizes. It also represents the size of the target a man presents when he is head on, prone to you (for the Rifle stuff). I helped design the original IPSC targets, the "Item" and the "Option", in 1976
Steel Challenge, hand hovering just off of the gun? Those are speed rigs, guys, anywhere from .30-.40 second faster than from real concealment. Also, a 12" circle is a generous CHEST. It's many times more area than the 4" circle of the brain. Area = 3.14 x the square of the radius. The chest is only 12" wide vital zone, on a large, adult male, if he's nicely frontal to you. If he's sideways, and a skinny crack head, he's 8" wide. Which is one reason IPSC standardized on the 10" circle. It's an average of the 2 likely target sizes. It also represents the size of the target a man presents when he is head on, prone to you (for the Rifle stuff). I helped design the original IPSC targets, the "Item" and the "Option", in 1976
fastbolt
Member
Go back and read my earlier posting again, and you'll see that you're right ... in that it wasn't a precision/head shot from concealment in .77 seconds.
The drill being measured (for my benefit) was a "close combat" double tap to COM, from concealment (light weight garment which completely covered the holstered weapon), with his strong hand/arm held not quite fully extended at his side, and the holster was an "open top" type, lacking any retention strap or devices (beyond the trigger guard tensioning). The weapon was a cocked & locked 1911. He did it in that approximate time range (+/-.8 seconds, with the first & fastest being .77) a couple of times before giving me some pointers and leaving me to my own practice. I was trying to perform it with a TDA weapon, also from an open-top concealment holster, with the initial shot being fired by trigger cocking ... so supposedly, I should've had a slight advantage. Yeah, right ...
PAT, you're predictable as ever. Relax ... there might be more than a few other "unlikely" things happening in our area of endeavor, of firearms training, than you've yet had a chance to see. (Have you been a certified L/E firearms instructor for more years than you can count fingers on one hand yet? I was required to be apprenticed to senior instructors for more years than that, and that was AFTER I completed a FBI certified instructor's class. The class didn't make me one ... several years of supervised, hands-on work did it. Maybe.
I was only left unattended when I was humping ammo & emptying trash cans at the range.) I never personally SAW a close combat draw & fire drill done as fast as approx +/-.5 seconds ... until I DID see it.
I never SAW someone draw & fire a 1-handed double tap to COM from concealment in +/-.8 seconds ... until I DID see it.
I never PERFORMED a draw & fire from concealment, either 1-handed or 2-handed ... in times running from a .9-1.23 seconds ... until someone helped me LEARN how, and then somehow I DID it ...
I never drew from an unconcealed belt holster and performed a "triple tap" in times running as fast as 1.2 seconds, but as slow as 1.7+ seconds ... until I LEARNED how, and then practiced doing it.
I didn't embellish or exaggerate these things ... and I didn't make them up from whole cloth, either, to use a more polite turn of phrase. And, if the roles were reversed here, even if I were to suspect that someone was engaging in a bit of hyperbole, I like to think I wouldn't immediately do a "fast draw" of my own, stating a somewhat blatant opinion ... unless & until I was in a position to have an opportunity to SEE whether I was speaking a bit prematurely. But that's me ...
Now, at first I thought that the "issue" a couple of folks took with my postings was that I'd described some of our training as being "reasonably trained". Well, if you want to consider some of the folks who can perform specific "draw & fire" drills in the various times I related as being "very highly trained", or "outstanding", instead of just reasonably trained ... then fine by me. I disagree, but that's why we're all here, right? To share opinions ...
I still don't consider myself as very highly trained, but I'm more interested in results than labels ... and since I don't compete in sporting venues, like IPSC & IDPA, the performance of the skilled folks in those situations and circumstances aren't anything much more than interesting. It hasn't much of anything to do with me, or the specific training I've received, and have been told to impart, when I'm working as a part-time L/E firearms instructor. It makes me a bit envious, but that's normal.
Specificity of training for L/E has evolved a bit since the days of even PPC-type training. Many of the country's highest courts have given us decisions which have articulated what L/E firearms training should consist of in order to avoid being considered insufficient, or even negligent. The use of deadly force, and the attendant L/E firearms training, are High Liability concerns for L/E agencies and their officers.
It's also an Officer Safety issue. Toward this end, it's to be hoped that our training is determined by careful review of documented deadly force situations in which firearms were used by L/E, both personal experiences within agencies, as well as reported instances shared within the L/E community. Training & experience should be closely connected, and reflected within each other to some extent. Our training should be designed to impart skills to our folks that will help save their lives, and the lives of others.
Let's hypothetically suppose that there's a desired level of skill for L/E, in an imaginary agency ... and that level of skill is articulated as something able to be demonstrated by having the L/E people shoot their service weapons within a designated qualification course of fire, and meet a "minimum acceptable" standard of a 70% shot/hit ratio, and do so within certain determined time constraints.
The level of training should probably reflect these desires, and be specifically tailored to help the people achieve them. Some people will be better, but the "yardstick" for a minimum acceptable standard of performance will be the imposed 70% shot/hit ratio. All of the evolving training and "skills testing" (qualification) would be held to that "standard".
Now, does a L/E trained "shooter" need to be possessed of skills which are "competition grade"? No ... (but it wouldn't necessarily be a "bad" thing, would it?). Remember that many, if not most, L/E aren't even interested in guns beyond their employment. However, does that also mean that they CAN'T be trained to a reasonable skill level that allows many of them to exhibit seemingly "advanced dexterity & speed" of skill in specific, closely tailored circumstances? If not, why not?
The other day I was qualifying a guy who was using a thigh holster for a scenario that required a rapid, timed draw & fire resulting in a precision (head) shot. The maximum time allowed was 2.5 seconds ... the "average" range of time we've observed has been somewhere around a second under that limit, although many folks have needed the full amount of time. This guy was able to consistently do it in .9-1.04 seconds ... 6 consecutive times ... with a cocked & locked 1911.
He doesn't do IDPA ... he's another instructor, albeit a "junior" one ... and no, he probably couldn't do it quite as fast with a holster which doesn't position the weapon down on his leg adjacent to his hanging hand. That doesn't take away from his skill, though. I'm faster when I use my thigh holster, too, but it's not something I'd use in my primary assignment very often, so I focus most of my practice with a belt holster, both concealed and unconcealed.
Now, say for a moment that I've observed and timed ordinary, non-gun enthusiast L/E folks who can complete this drill in times of 1.2-1.5 seconds ... and after only little, if any, additional training beyond what we've been instilling in them over the last several years. Does this make them more than "reasonably trained"? We just want them to be able to demonstrate various skills, many of which are "specialized, with the goal of providing them with the ability to successfully survive, or "win" if you prefer, a deadly force encounter.
Now, obviously the requisite knowledge used to determine the legality and appropriateness of the use of deadly force, and strategic thinking, is always going to be involved in the lawful use of deadly force (firearms) by L/E ... obviously ... but that isn't always going to be used in each and every firearms skills "testing" (qualification). That's what in-service classroom training and Shoot-No Shoot decision making range testing is for ... Some qualification scenarios can involve the ability of a L/E shooter show the ability to have learned, retained & demonstrate certain shooting skills, abilities and physical coordination.
If you train someone to perform a skill with specificity, HELPING them learn and perform the skill ... and then REQUIRE them to demonstrate the skill under varying "range training" circumstances ... and remind them that their LIVES, or the LIVES OF OTHERS, may rest on those skills ... why would it be so surprising that a lot of them CAN do it?
Maybe a spin-off thread topic of "What do you consider to be reasonably trained & proficient?" would give us some more insight into how all of us think of ourselves ... and think of what it means to be "skilled" and "proficient" with our firearms. I suspect this will vary a bit from one person to the next, and also depending on the particular shooting venue being considered by each of us. Competitive (IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, Target, Silhouette, etc) ... recreational (everything other than competitive) ... hunting ... "defensive needs" (both L/E AND non-L/E) ...
military ... instructors of all kinds, and their students ... and so on.
It may also provide some interesting insight into what different people consider to be "sufficient" training experience, too.
Just a thought ... and I didn't participate in this thread to "prove anything", either ...
Some elements of this thread have taken on a tone I find to be rather too close to confrontation for enjoyment. If I wanted to engage in that, I can go to work each day and deal with the general motoring public and some of my peers.
Believe as you wish. That's one of things I go to work each day to protect ... and I'd hate to think you were wasting the freedom to do so.
I won't take it personally ... honest.
The hand position for Steel Challenge is surrender position with wrists above respective shoulders.
I think it's time for us doubters to stop being a pain in the neck. Just because the top competition shooters in the world can't perform some of these drills in the times posted is no reason to be snotty. Not all of the top shooters in the world compete. There are probably a lot of guys walking around who can smoke the hot rock IPSC guys without even breaking a sweat.
Edit mode on. I see fastbolt and myself posted at the same time so I'll expand on this a bit. Some of the times listed in this thread are faster than what guys like Leatham, Enos, etc., consider to be the limits of human function. That is, there is stuff in this thread that the very fastest competition and exhibition shooters in the world just can't pull off. When I see times posted with a nonchalant and cavalier attitude that I know are unrealistic, I struggle with not hollering BS.
fastbolt, this is not a personal attack so don't take it that way. When I see things posted like a 1.1 second failure drill as as expectation from a reasonably trained shooter out of carry/duty gear I just roll my eyes and wonder what planet that came from. Two rounds out of duty/carry gear in under half a second? That would make TGO look like a freaking sloth. I am sorry, I just can't relate...
Now that's something I can relate too. That's very realistic from any speedy pistolero. Of course, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of doing the failure drill in 1.1 now would he?
I think it's time for us doubters to stop being a pain in the neck. Just because the top competition shooters in the world can't perform some of these drills in the times posted is no reason to be snotty. Not all of the top shooters in the world compete. There are probably a lot of guys walking around who can smoke the hot rock IPSC guys without even breaking a sweat.
Edit mode on. I see fastbolt and myself posted at the same time so I'll expand on this a bit. Some of the times listed in this thread are faster than what guys like Leatham, Enos, etc., consider to be the limits of human function. That is, there is stuff in this thread that the very fastest competition and exhibition shooters in the world just can't pull off. When I see times posted with a nonchalant and cavalier attitude that I know are unrealistic, I struggle with not hollering BS.
fastbolt, this is not a personal attack so don't take it that way. When I see things posted like a 1.1 second failure drill as as expectation from a reasonably trained shooter out of carry/duty gear I just roll my eyes and wonder what planet that came from. Two rounds out of duty/carry gear in under half a second? That would make TGO look like a freaking sloth. I am sorry, I just can't relate...
Now that's something I can relate too. That's very realistic from any speedy pistolero. Of course, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of doing the failure drill in 1.1 now would he?
not a chance. Such men could be making
100k $ a year, having a ball, teaching, writing, making videos. The guy aint even said what sort of timer was used, etc. He's talking thru his hat. repeat hits at about .14 second, yes, with a lot of work. .17 second, without all that much work at all (using a good 1911). However, a reaction, draw, and 2 hits, in .77 sec, from concealment means the reaction, concealed draw and hit was done in .60 second. That makes it most likely a full, or partial "jump" of the timer, reflected in the fact that his other times weren't as fast (if it ever actually happened at all.
I've popped times under .80 second, now and then, for a chest hit at arm's reach "range, using a lw Commander in a belly rig, under a hung out T shirt, and my reaction time was about .19 second back then, when I was about 30 years old. That was using the weak hand to clear the shirttail, so the strong hand could draw and fire. I was never able to come much closer than .10 second slower, using an FBI rig and "little finger brush" sort of clearing-motion, with the strong hand. I did a lot of studying under Bob Arganbright and Ron Bright, a couple of old time Fast Draw western style shooters, about sheer speed of movement. Bob has written the holster column for Combat Handguns for many years now. There's a lot of ways to "cheat" at such things. Munden got so good at it that they changed the rules of Fast Draw, just for him. They threw out the category of "self start" timing, and made everyone include their reaction times.
100k $ a year, having a ball, teaching, writing, making videos. The guy aint even said what sort of timer was used, etc. He's talking thru his hat. repeat hits at about .14 second, yes, with a lot of work. .17 second, without all that much work at all (using a good 1911). However, a reaction, draw, and 2 hits, in .77 sec, from concealment means the reaction, concealed draw and hit was done in .60 second. That makes it most likely a full, or partial "jump" of the timer, reflected in the fact that his other times weren't as fast (if it ever actually happened at all.
I've popped times under .80 second, now and then, for a chest hit at arm's reach "range, using a lw Commander in a belly rig, under a hung out T shirt, and my reaction time was about .19 second back then, when I was about 30 years old. That was using the weak hand to clear the shirttail, so the strong hand could draw and fire. I was never able to come much closer than .10 second slower, using an FBI rig and "little finger brush" sort of clearing-motion, with the strong hand. I did a lot of studying under Bob Arganbright and Ron Bright, a couple of old time Fast Draw western style shooters, about sheer speed of movement. Bob has written the holster column for Combat Handguns for many years now. There's a lot of ways to "cheat" at such things. Munden got so good at it that they changed the rules of Fast Draw, just for him. They threw out the category of "self start" timing, and made everyone include their reaction times.
fastbolt
Member
Well he does make more than that ... he does write ... he does teach, but only L/E ... but he won't make videos. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he does have "fun", to some extent, because why the hell else would he still be doing it? Since he's close to retirement, I've suggested he seriously consider writing a book, or at least a series of articles for public dissemination, and while he teeters on the edge of agreeing that it might be fun ... he always says that there are other folks out there that can write the same, or better, things.
I don't take any of this personally MX5, but thanks for thinking to mention it ...
Wella, that's an interesting observation in this instance, as thinking about it, we've always discussed ways to try and avoid being so far "behind the reaction curve" when it comes to starting off "last" in a sudden armed encounter. I hadn't looked at it quite in that perspective, and would suspect that you're probably correct to some degree that my friend has developed many "shortcuts" to enable him to make up for lost time when essentially reacting to an already presented action. Since we're trying to ingrain simple survival skill, though, and not concerned with participating in a game where the field is expected to be "level" for the participants, I'm only concerned about enhancing advantages. It's not exactly "cheating", you know.
I think an example of what you're describing is how he was working with me recently, and showing me how to unobtrusively position my hand near the strong-side edge of my unbuttoned sport coat in preparation for a reach, sweep, and draw movement. Not hardly starting with my ahnds above my shoulders, is it? But it's also not something that would necessarily alarm any ordinary member of the public who might be watching, either, if I were anticipating a potential immediate siutation where I might wish to draw my weapon ... Would it be considered "cheating"? Would it make it more likely I could cut a couple of hundredths of a second off my draw & presentation time? I damned well hope so.
I doubt I could "perform" to the same speed if I were required to assume a predetermined static position, with my hands raised in a uniformly accepted manner. But that's okay, isn't it? I'm preparing for one type of situation, and the fastest competition shooters in the country are preparing for another, and must adhere to rules which "levels" the field for all contestants. Sometimes I'll prepare for a draw event, timed by another instructor, standing with my hands in my jacket pocket. That slows me down ... but I've been known to stand with my hands in jacket pockets when wearing a car coat. I've also practiced drawing while standing with my hands in my slacks pocket, as if I was caught reaching for keys, money, etc., and "unprepared" to draw my service weapon.
I've watched one of Munden's videos. Speed and specialization of an almost inhuman nature ... artistry, if you will ... except he IS human, and there will probably be another person who can not only equal his speed, but perhaps better it. Is Munden faster than what Enos considers as the maximum limit of human phsyical reaction and movement? Hey, different sport, different circumstances and skills.
I read one of those interview statements (from a magazine article), where I think it was Enos discussing his opinions about the limits of human function and reaction time. The next person who is faster in competition, and has a different opinion, will probably be quoted, too. In the meantime, it appears Enos is greased lightning, walking around on two legs.
Also, while "self starting" with an older PACT timer (which we still use) CAN lend itself toward an anticipation of the buzzer, and sometimes create a false sense of confidence if someone "jumps" the timer signal ... we try to minimize that trend by often timing each other, out of anyone's peripheral vision, and making it more than a little difficult to anticipate a buzzer signal. It's especially easy to forget that a buzzer can go off WHILE another person is talking to you ... or you're turning to see if the guy with the timer simply forgot and walked off ... and THEN it goes off. No excuses allowed ... or at least considered valid, at any rate. Don't think we don't do that to each other ... out of professional courtesy, of course, and in order to help each other. It helps make you able to "multi-task", at least in the controlled "range environment", at any rate.
Well, damn ...
... I didn't mean to "sound" nonchalant & cavalier, because it's taken a reasonable amount of work, effort and time to achieve those skill levels. That's one of the disadvantages of the internet. No voice inflection. Maybe I should've said that if a cop can be trained to perform some "limited" skill or other, and do, so in what may be considered on the far side of the learning curve, than how "hard" could it be to train anyone else to be able to do it? What's "reasonable training", anyway? I think that this is a phrase that creates some confusion. If I consider spending 20-40 hours a month WORKING the range, and it's generally understood that TEACHING is a good way to improve your OWN skills ... and I spend a fair amount of time doing just that ... AND I spend a fair amount of time each session working on enhancing and perfecting my own skills ... AND I consider that amount of time to be a "reasonable amount of training & practice" ... then why isn't it just that ... FOR ME?
Another reason I don't consider myself as more than reasonably trained is because I'm NOT able to demonstrate those skill levels that would match what I read about in the competition articles and reviews. I CAN'T knock down 6 plates as fast as I can double tap a single standard size pepper popper ... or faster. My split times have only averaged in the wide range of .12-.2+ seconds for most drills that require rapid follow up shots. My measured reaction time can run as long as .2-.3 seconds, and I just turned 51. But does that necessarily mean that someone better than myself ... someone who is only a L/E instructor and not a competitor ... can't perform certain limited & specialized draw & fire skills VERY FAST, or that they can teach me to perform those same type of skills fairly fast ... and train other folks to be able to do it fairly fast ... after only what we consider a reasonable amount of specialized training?
After this latter part of the thread started getting a bit focused on the examples I listed, I asked the head instructor why he never got involved in IPSC when he was younger. He seemed puzzled by my question, as we don't often discuss non-L/E "sporting shooting" ... so I specifically asked him why he never capitalized on his drawing speed & skills. He admitted he was interested in IPSC for a while when he was young, but lost interest when the fastest person he encountered for draw & fire skills (from an unconcealed holster) was only able to do a consistent repetition in approx .75 seconds, with a revolver. He said that at that point in his L/E career, he was more interested in developing a faster speed, if possible, and turned to other training, leaving the idea of competition behind. I never knew that ...
Maybe he finally achieved what he had originally desired after his claimed ten's of thousands of diligently performed draw & presentations.
Maybe MY perspective is skewed here ... and I've been working under the guidance of someone the likes of which I'll rarely encounter again ...
MX5 ... That other instructor who's able to do the "head" shots in .9-1.04 seconds (the last times I measured for him a couple of weeks ago)? I've also timed him for a triple tap in the 1.5+/- second range, when we were spending some "down time", in between qualifications, engaging in some of our own practice. That's reasonably fast ... if you don't mind me calling it "reasonably fast".
As he spends more time on our instructor staff, and gets some more practice with the other staff, I fully expect him to gain some small amount of additional speed. On any given day, it's a toss-up which of us is "faster" in any given circumstance on the "range". I wouldn't want to bet against him reaching and breaking the guesstimated 1.1 second time limit I threw out ...Naming names is fine ... but have you guys looked around and seen some of the younger folks that are being attracted to L/E, and I'd suppose competition, and how FAST some of them are? I may not get out much in the world of sporting shooting venues, but I'm seeing some really fast people start to appear in L/E circles. I think we're going to be reading about a lot of new names in the next few years ... and we probably won't be reading about some of the names of folks that can approach, equal or maybe even exceed times that are considered to dominate the competition circuit ... if they don't choose to "compete". Who in their right mind would willingly choose a L/E career over the money, fame and travel of a professional competitor, anyway?
I don't know ...
In the meantime, I'll continue to work on developing the fastest and most accurate skills I can. I still want to come home at the end of each shift, and I've drawn against a suspect that had already tried to draw his weapon at very close range. I worry about that ... and I don't want to come in "second place". What's wrong with that? Where's it written in stone that I, or anyone else, can't expect to be faster ... in some very specialized circumstances ... than other folks that only draw against other competitors all the time?
fastbolt
Member
Another thought occurred to me, and I should've thought to mention it in regard to how I perceive reaction speed ... and it involves the "awareness" aspect of this thread content ...
While I don't have the sheer speed of ingrained response for drawing that my friend & mentor has, I look at "reaction speed" from a slightly different perspective ... and balance it one way against the awareness of potential opponent's actions, versus another way for signaling a programmed response during "range times".
By this I mean that by the time I entered L/E, I'd already had a bit over 10 years in the martial arts, as both student and teacher. That was more than 22 years ago. During that time I've not only continued my interest in the arts, but I've deliberately cultivated "crossover" with my firearms usage when at all possible. I'd considered it prior to entering L/E, but the requirement wasn't really pressing since I didn't carry firearms for defensive purposes as part of my daily life.
While I may not have the desired sheer speed I'd wish when it came to physical skills with drawing and presenting my service weapons, I've applied established training principles to improve my speed/skill ... but I've also fallen back on the ability to "read" a potential suspect's "telegraphing" of physical movements in the same manner I used to make of it when facing unarmed "opponents". This has been directly applicable when facing suspects in confrontations, and I'd guess it's fair to say I've relied on the ability to subconsciously & subliminally "read" when someone was considering a hostile act against me, and seriously thinking about following through on it.
As much as we've discussed how "anticipating" a timer signal on a sterile range may be a mixed blessing ... creating the potential for "real" & "false" confidence when it comes to reaction time & "speed" ... there's hardly ever been a audible signal presaging a physical attack in most of the threats I've encountered over my career. Okay, not unless you want to count name calling, shouted threats and inarticulate yelling in some cases.
Once a fellow asked me if I really wanted to see a "Code 3", and then calmly tried to stick a Chicago brand boning knife in one of my sides, swinging hard enough to seemingly be intending to drive it out the other side. He missed ... but he missed primarily because while I was "hearing" his vocal threat, I'd already seen the knife appear in his hand, and I became aware of the subtle changes in his balance and body's movement that was required for him to launch his attack on me. I wasn't armed, but we both survived the encounter, and I won't guess what I would've done differently, if anything, if the same situation occurred today and I was armed. Being armed carries a significant responsibility, both legally and morally, and it's never quite the same as it is on a sterile range.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while I may not have been blessed with the same "speed" as some other folks I read about ... but I've tried to constantly work on it ... I've come to rely on some of the awareness of people's body language and demeanor, gained from the arts, to get occasionally get the "jump" on a potential attacker, at least to the point of being "prepared" for a movement. I guess you could call it "cheating", if you'd like ...
Naturally, the Orient & Decide part of the OODA loop still has to be addressed when it comes to determining whether a forcible response is actually lawful and appropriate... and that's where the knowledge, experience & training regarding the laws governing the use of deadly force comes into play, as well as adhering to existing policy & procedure, obviously ... but for me, this is about the same as taking a preliminary defensive "positioning of advantage", in strategic preparation of a response, and then deciding whether or not it's appropriate to actually deliver the strike.
Not the best analogy I could come up with, but it's what has worked for me. This doesn't result in either an obvious adoption of a preparatory "pose", or the needless and inappropriate display of a service weapon. But it does generally result ... for ME ... in the awareness/preparatory action sequence often occurring without anyone else being the wiser. Sometimes it's cycled through the entire phase, including the more specific Orientation and Decision phase, if you liken these things to the OODA loop, even before my partner has become aware of a potential problem.
If I could only rely on my innate or practiced "speed", and couldn't take advantage of the level of awareness I've trained to acquire ... I probably wouldn't sound nearly so "nonchalant and cavalier", even though I wasn't deliberately trying to sound that way.
I guess this may explain why I sometimes seem to do better when reacting to other shooters on the line, when we're "sharing a timer" signal for certain training purpose, instead of listening for the timer signal myself. I suppose I could technically be "faster" concentrating on just the audible signal, but I've always preferred those situations where I could "react" to another person's body language and subtle shifting of balance. Does that make any sense?
Sure, I've worked hard to apply the same training & conditioning to performing various aspects of the arts to drawing, presentation, shooting, balance, recoil recovery & management, movement, body/weapon synergism, and so forth ... but I also thought that was probably true of other martial artists, or other folks who had various physical action interests & pursuits, away from work and the range.
I'm not sure I would've thought to stop and look at this, at this time, without the interesting comments that have occurred in the recent posts. Sometimes the "ordinary & obvious" things ... for each of us ... are the easiest things to overlook and under-appreciate, or even "miss" entirely ... and require outside perspective. Perhaps I'm making use of personal advantages of which I'm not always aware ... and the same may be true for my friend, the head instructor.
Don't bet your money on me if DO decide to engage in weekend competition after I retire, though ...
Thanks.
While I don't have the sheer speed of ingrained response for drawing that my friend & mentor has, I look at "reaction speed" from a slightly different perspective ... and balance it one way against the awareness of potential opponent's actions, versus another way for signaling a programmed response during "range times".
By this I mean that by the time I entered L/E, I'd already had a bit over 10 years in the martial arts, as both student and teacher. That was more than 22 years ago. During that time I've not only continued my interest in the arts, but I've deliberately cultivated "crossover" with my firearms usage when at all possible. I'd considered it prior to entering L/E, but the requirement wasn't really pressing since I didn't carry firearms for defensive purposes as part of my daily life.
While I may not have the desired sheer speed I'd wish when it came to physical skills with drawing and presenting my service weapons, I've applied established training principles to improve my speed/skill ... but I've also fallen back on the ability to "read" a potential suspect's "telegraphing" of physical movements in the same manner I used to make of it when facing unarmed "opponents". This has been directly applicable when facing suspects in confrontations, and I'd guess it's fair to say I've relied on the ability to subconsciously & subliminally "read" when someone was considering a hostile act against me, and seriously thinking about following through on it.
As much as we've discussed how "anticipating" a timer signal on a sterile range may be a mixed blessing ... creating the potential for "real" & "false" confidence when it comes to reaction time & "speed" ... there's hardly ever been a audible signal presaging a physical attack in most of the threats I've encountered over my career. Okay, not unless you want to count name calling, shouted threats and inarticulate yelling in some cases.
Once a fellow asked me if I really wanted to see a "Code 3", and then calmly tried to stick a Chicago brand boning knife in one of my sides, swinging hard enough to seemingly be intending to drive it out the other side. He missed ... but he missed primarily because while I was "hearing" his vocal threat, I'd already seen the knife appear in his hand, and I became aware of the subtle changes in his balance and body's movement that was required for him to launch his attack on me. I wasn't armed, but we both survived the encounter, and I won't guess what I would've done differently, if anything, if the same situation occurred today and I was armed. Being armed carries a significant responsibility, both legally and morally, and it's never quite the same as it is on a sterile range.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while I may not have been blessed with the same "speed" as some other folks I read about ... but I've tried to constantly work on it ... I've come to rely on some of the awareness of people's body language and demeanor, gained from the arts, to get occasionally get the "jump" on a potential attacker, at least to the point of being "prepared" for a movement. I guess you could call it "cheating", if you'd like ...
Naturally, the Orient & Decide part of the OODA loop still has to be addressed when it comes to determining whether a forcible response is actually lawful and appropriate... and that's where the knowledge, experience & training regarding the laws governing the use of deadly force comes into play, as well as adhering to existing policy & procedure, obviously ... but for me, this is about the same as taking a preliminary defensive "positioning of advantage", in strategic preparation of a response, and then deciding whether or not it's appropriate to actually deliver the strike.
Not the best analogy I could come up with, but it's what has worked for me. This doesn't result in either an obvious adoption of a preparatory "pose", or the needless and inappropriate display of a service weapon. But it does generally result ... for ME ... in the awareness/preparatory action sequence often occurring without anyone else being the wiser. Sometimes it's cycled through the entire phase, including the more specific Orientation and Decision phase, if you liken these things to the OODA loop, even before my partner has become aware of a potential problem.
If I could only rely on my innate or practiced "speed", and couldn't take advantage of the level of awareness I've trained to acquire ... I probably wouldn't sound nearly so "nonchalant and cavalier", even though I wasn't deliberately trying to sound that way.
I guess this may explain why I sometimes seem to do better when reacting to other shooters on the line, when we're "sharing a timer" signal for certain training purpose, instead of listening for the timer signal myself. I suppose I could technically be "faster" concentrating on just the audible signal, but I've always preferred those situations where I could "react" to another person's body language and subtle shifting of balance. Does that make any sense?
Sure, I've worked hard to apply the same training & conditioning to performing various aspects of the arts to drawing, presentation, shooting, balance, recoil recovery & management, movement, body/weapon synergism, and so forth ... but I also thought that was probably true of other martial artists, or other folks who had various physical action interests & pursuits, away from work and the range.
I'm not sure I would've thought to stop and look at this, at this time, without the interesting comments that have occurred in the recent posts. Sometimes the "ordinary & obvious" things ... for each of us ... are the easiest things to overlook and under-appreciate, or even "miss" entirely ... and require outside perspective. Perhaps I'm making use of personal advantages of which I'm not always aware ... and the same may be true for my friend, the head instructor.
Don't bet your money on me if DO decide to engage in weekend competition after I retire, though ...
Thanks.
fastbolt
Member
wella,
I've been considering starting a new thread relating to the bridging of some martial arts and some of these aspects of firearms use. Hardly a "new" subject, by any means, but one that has become of interest to me during the last several years while working on some material for a book on certain aspects of the arts. While having a friend with a bit more background in the arts (and who is also a L/E firearms instructor for one of our state agencies) proof read some of my earlier material, he noticed something which interested him.
It was that with some of the thoughts and experiences I'd included, in order to better explore some lines of thinking, involved a crossover of some aspect of physical & mental distention during movement (think bladed weapon) to a recent firearms training experience. While I'd only included the firearms related material to help me explore some thoughts in a free-form pattern of thinking, I actually planned on deleting them as I came closer to whatever I was going to accept as a final working outline. It was a bit surprising to discover that out of the initial 1400 pages of material, that a few hundred pages actually included a lot more firearms training ideas and observations than I'd realized.
I'll explain a little better when I figure out what I want to find out from other folks, and post the new topic ...
In the meantime, I wasn't actually referencing "drawing" by reflex. That's no more useful than using a simple reflexive action to assume some "guard", or stylized defensive stance, when training in the arts. Sure, it might coincidently be useful, but then it might just as well provide a "stop action" target for an opponent, too. It can also be an indication to anyone watching that it's a sign of action without proper awareness. Jumpy, at any rate.
What I meant by achieving a "positioning of advantage" was to trigger a specificity of heightened mental awareness, due to observing a series of "telegraphed" physiological mannerisms and demeanor/behaviorial signs that indicates a potential opponent has gone beyond "thinking" about some form of overt aggression, and has exhibited changes in balance, breathing, muscular tremors/tensioning, ... and all of the other subtle, or not-so-subtle ... things that often presages some sort of physical attack by folks about to engage in unreasoning violent actions.
Back when I was working with a couple of dojos, I remember noticing that even the more careful students of intermediate ranking ... shodan & nidan ... were often unable to achieve anything close to a consistent condition of mushin when facing an "opponent" they considered of similar ability and skills. They were seemingly unable to consistently control ALL of their physical mannerisms related to both physiological "preparation" for some initiation of movement, sutble as it may be for the better students ... or else they were unable to realize how their mental preparedness for impending "attack" was often mirrored in their facial expressions, eye movements, breathing lowering (diaphragm distention), skin flushing, changes in their eyes/gaze, etc., etc..
You know the signs ... some folks may simply shake with pent anger, clench their fists and start to lean in, and some folks will very obviously visually "target" you ... and those are the simplest and most obvious early signs to even untrained folks.
Some advanced students, as they worked on their yodan or godan, learned to imbalance the aggressive intentions of "lesser" skilled students/opponents by attaining very subtle shifts in their own state of balance, which disrupted the focus of their opponent/student's imagined avenue of movement, or else caused them to respond in such a manner that they were "slowed" in their desired line of movement by having to assume a slightly different physical positioning and mien ... meaning it further revealed their "inner mind", creating the opportunity for the advanced student to refine "reading" their opponent's unrealized "intentions" ... to the advantage of the more advanced student. Perceptual awareness which exerted an influence on the opponent, even if the influence was on a subconscious level, and even if it only caused the opponent to make several "adjustments" in their proposed line of attack.
In a very real sense, that was one of things I felt I'd probably experienced when that fellow attacked me with the boning knife, tried to position himself for a follow up attack, stared at me for several moments, but then decided to back off and leave. It took me a few years to think it through, though, as I was barely more than an intermediate student myself when it occurred.
That's what I mean by attaining a positioning of advantage, although it sounds like you had a mental image of someone jumping back and "drawing their gun". No biggie ...
As I figure out more of what I hope to learn from folks in my proposed thread, whether they have any martial arts background or not, I hope you keep any eye out and consider participating in the thread.
later,
fb
I've been considering starting a new thread relating to the bridging of some martial arts and some of these aspects of firearms use. Hardly a "new" subject, by any means, but one that has become of interest to me during the last several years while working on some material for a book on certain aspects of the arts. While having a friend with a bit more background in the arts (and who is also a L/E firearms instructor for one of our state agencies) proof read some of my earlier material, he noticed something which interested him.
It was that with some of the thoughts and experiences I'd included, in order to better explore some lines of thinking, involved a crossover of some aspect of physical & mental distention during movement (think bladed weapon) to a recent firearms training experience. While I'd only included the firearms related material to help me explore some thoughts in a free-form pattern of thinking, I actually planned on deleting them as I came closer to whatever I was going to accept as a final working outline. It was a bit surprising to discover that out of the initial 1400 pages of material, that a few hundred pages actually included a lot more firearms training ideas and observations than I'd realized.
I'll explain a little better when I figure out what I want to find out from other folks, and post the new topic ...
In the meantime, I wasn't actually referencing "drawing" by reflex. That's no more useful than using a simple reflexive action to assume some "guard", or stylized defensive stance, when training in the arts. Sure, it might coincidently be useful, but then it might just as well provide a "stop action" target for an opponent, too. It can also be an indication to anyone watching that it's a sign of action without proper awareness. Jumpy, at any rate.
What I meant by achieving a "positioning of advantage" was to trigger a specificity of heightened mental awareness, due to observing a series of "telegraphed" physiological mannerisms and demeanor/behaviorial signs that indicates a potential opponent has gone beyond "thinking" about some form of overt aggression, and has exhibited changes in balance, breathing, muscular tremors/tensioning, ... and all of the other subtle, or not-so-subtle ... things that often presages some sort of physical attack by folks about to engage in unreasoning violent actions.
Back when I was working with a couple of dojos, I remember noticing that even the more careful students of intermediate ranking ... shodan & nidan ... were often unable to achieve anything close to a consistent condition of mushin when facing an "opponent" they considered of similar ability and skills. They were seemingly unable to consistently control ALL of their physical mannerisms related to both physiological "preparation" for some initiation of movement, sutble as it may be for the better students ... or else they were unable to realize how their mental preparedness for impending "attack" was often mirrored in their facial expressions, eye movements, breathing lowering (diaphragm distention), skin flushing, changes in their eyes/gaze, etc., etc..
You know the signs ... some folks may simply shake with pent anger, clench their fists and start to lean in, and some folks will very obviously visually "target" you ... and those are the simplest and most obvious early signs to even untrained folks.
Some advanced students, as they worked on their yodan or godan, learned to imbalance the aggressive intentions of "lesser" skilled students/opponents by attaining very subtle shifts in their own state of balance, which disrupted the focus of their opponent/student's imagined avenue of movement, or else caused them to respond in such a manner that they were "slowed" in their desired line of movement by having to assume a slightly different physical positioning and mien ... meaning it further revealed their "inner mind", creating the opportunity for the advanced student to refine "reading" their opponent's unrealized "intentions" ... to the advantage of the more advanced student. Perceptual awareness which exerted an influence on the opponent, even if the influence was on a subconscious level, and even if it only caused the opponent to make several "adjustments" in their proposed line of attack.
In a very real sense, that was one of things I felt I'd probably experienced when that fellow attacked me with the boning knife, tried to position himself for a follow up attack, stared at me for several moments, but then decided to back off and leave. It took me a few years to think it through, though, as I was barely more than an intermediate student myself when it occurred.
That's what I mean by attaining a positioning of advantage, although it sounds like you had a mental image of someone jumping back and "drawing their gun". No biggie ...
As I figure out more of what I hope to learn from folks in my proposed thread, whether they have any martial arts background or not, I hope you keep any eye out and consider participating in the thread.
later,
fb
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
