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.
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.