Rockrivr1 said:
Here's my questions. I know that different situations will dictate what you do when having to draw and fire, but overall what is better? Is it better to be fast and hit the bad guy, even if it's in the arm, leg, shoulder etc or is it better to be a little slower and get center mass, potential kill shot, with the first round?
By being faster I'm thinking I'll get the first shot off, which will give me a better chance overall. Danger is the bad guy is still on his/her feet and may have time to retaliate. By being slower and taking better aim, the bad guy/girl may have time to react and put me at a disadvantage.
What is better is that you don't get shot, stabbed, etc. It doesn't do any good to get off the first shot that misses, hits in a non-life threatening and non-incapacitating location, or to get off the first shot that mortally wounds but not incapacites your opposition if the opposition is then able to shoot you.
The recent classic case is the one of Mark Wilson in Tyler, Texas who fired from behind cover at the armored guy with the rifle who was shooting people on the square. Wilson got off the first shot in regard to the confrontation between himself and the guy with the rifle. He shot the guy several times before the guy returned fire, but all were non-vital hits as he was wearing armor. I haven't been able to verify, but apparently Wilson did score one penetrating hit that was below the man's armor, but that did not incapacitate him. The guy with the rifle then shot and killed Wilson.
Point? Wilson was faster than the guy and his first few shots were accurate by being in the guy's armor-covered chest, so no damage and it was a bad shot that did harm, hitting below the armor. Comparatively speaking Wilson was faster than the other guy and his shots were mostly accurate, but Wilson lost the fight and lost his life.
Platt of Platt and Matix was mortally wounded before he shot and injured several FBI agents, killing 2 or 3 of them. Mortally wounded but not incapacitated people can still kill you regardless of how fast and/or accurate you are.
People say the #1 rule of a gun fight is to have a gun. No. It is to not get shot.
Preacherman said:
"Speed's fine, but accuracy's final."
Infidel said:
"You can't miss fast enough to win."
-- Clint Smith
I like these quotes. They are conceptually simple, often made, and seem to be solid reasoning, but are too simplified to necessarily be correct in a given situation. Both of these comments were comments more times than I can count while taking classes at Thunder Ranch.
The first is a misquote of Wyatt Earp who is attributed with saying, "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." The change of 'everything' to 'final' gives the impression that a proper shot on a specific location will be what ends a fight. It is an interesting concept when applied to handguns where calibers are anything but final on a consistent basis.
The problem with the quote is brought to light above where it was noted that there is going to be some compromise between speed and accuracy. There may be a few in the world where they can shoot full speed with absolute accuracy, but those folks are few and far between. For the rest of us, increased precision in firing (consistently) results in increased time to properly align the shot. For the rest of us, there is going to be a pretty good time gap beween when we can shoot and then the gun is on target and we make it fire into that precise desired location. The longer you take to make your shot, the greater your chances of a better shot, but also the greater the chance that the opposition will be able to shoot you. So, accuracy means nothing if you are not able to get your accurate shot off before the opposition downs you.
The bottom line for the Earp quote, then, is that it does not take into account the amount of time that may be required to make the shot or the risk from threats to the person attempting to make the accurate shot.
In regard to not missing fast enough to win, that is just plain old gun propoganda. I am amused and bewildered when I hear people chanting the mantra of "You can't miss fast enough to win." The statement is far from being any sort of absolute truth. If this was an absolute truth, then warning shots would never have any affect on the opposition, nor would missed shots. Suppression fire would not work either since those shots would be missing the opposition. However, we do know that warning, missed, and suppression shots can have significant impacts on the opposition, but psychological and not physical.
It was either in Robert Waters' first edition "Best Defense" book or in a gun rag discussing self defense from which this story became known to me. Basically, an old lady heard some guy trying to break in her front door. She grabbed her .25 acp and when the guy managed to get part way in, she was waiting for him and fired a single shot, scoring an excellent one shot stop that resulted in the intruder taking flight. She missed the intruder and the slug was embedded in the door trim.
