My take on the "double tap."
- Thread starter Lurper
- Start date
- Status
Good point Ron,
I think in terms of the sight being on the target, not necessarily in the rear notch when I use the term sight picture. But in regards to seeing the front sight, it is like one long sight picture. Nice to hear from you again BTW.
Not necessarily. That is the whole point of training to shoot fast while using the sights. Once you reach a certain level you can use the sights as quickly as not. I prefer using the sights because that way I know where my shots hit.
I think in terms of the sight being on the target, not necessarily in the rear notch when I use the term sight picture. But in regards to seeing the front sight, it is like one long sight picture. Nice to hear from you again BTW.
Not necessarily. That is the whole point of training to shoot fast while using the sights. Once you reach a certain level you can use the sights as quickly as not. I prefer using the sights because that way I know where my shots hit.
Grump
Member
Good to know that. I would hope that the "total" you describe still has some way to distinguish your target from the backstop...unless you are shooting groups only, no regard for placement with the exercise.
IF your total focus on the intended impact point for the shots is on the target, with NO awareness or use of "any part of the gun as a visual reference", then I can't call what you do sighted shooting. That's why I'm interested in timed/scored results comparing your excellent results on-demand, with whatchaget repeating the exercise immediately afterwards with a physical visual barrier between your pistol and your eyes.
See, to me, peripheral vision counts as a plausible source of visual reference. My proposed experiment would isolate that variable and most likely prove/disprove the theory. Inconclusive results are usually possible, ya know.
I wonder if any psych/belief system effects would result in sighted-fire disciples doing *worse* on average than pointshooting disciples, under the visual barrier experiment...
To be really interesting, the exercise should be repeated at increasing distances for each shooter, until something like a 50% miss rate is reached. THAT could be interesting data!
Matthew Temkin
Member
The total darkness drill was just that..a drill.
It was something that I later saw in the book Combat Shooting for Police where the officers were trained to shoot fast enough as to light up the target with muzzle flash.
Again..not something I would do, but a most interesting drill.
I am sorry that you do not believe that one can shoot fast and accurate with total target focus.
If you are willing to come to NYC I would be glad to teach it to you.
Failing that you can come to one of my planned classes scheduled in the Fall. (I can also recommend a point shooting instructor who lives in las Vegas.)
Failing that we will have to agree to disagree.
It was something that I later saw in the book Combat Shooting for Police where the officers were trained to shoot fast enough as to light up the target with muzzle flash.
Again..not something I would do, but a most interesting drill.
I am sorry that you do not believe that one can shoot fast and accurate with total target focus.
If you are willing to come to NYC I would be glad to teach it to you.
Failing that you can come to one of my planned classes scheduled in the Fall. (I can also recommend a point shooting instructor who lives in las Vegas.)
Failing that we will have to agree to disagree.
Grump
Member
Matt, for me it's a question of how far away it still holds up without any visual perception of the gun's position.
In all fairness, I must modify/clarify part of my earlier challenge(s?). I believe and accept as plausible the proposition that any ghost of a visual index on the gun is far less important when the shooter is gripping the gun in the most-often-used stance(s). Consistent grip, good repeatable NPA, and well-trained physical awareness and experience will most likely extend the useful range of PS to most likely 15 yards, on an 8-inch circle of impact standard, and definitely on a "any hit on the silhouette" standard.
It's just that I've done a fair share of PS, and the results always dropped noticeably whenever I:
A. could not see the gun; or
B. The gun was so far out of the line of vision to make assessment difficult--below armpit level. At the hip and one-handed really sucked without visual input; and/or
C. Was not in my usual two-hand grip.
Total target focus works. I've done it and seen it. But it always seems to be with enough light to see the gun, or in a "standard" stance. Remove both of those advantages and performance seems to plummet.
In all fairness, I must modify/clarify part of my earlier challenge(s?). I believe and accept as plausible the proposition that any ghost of a visual index on the gun is far less important when the shooter is gripping the gun in the most-often-used stance(s). Consistent grip, good repeatable NPA, and well-trained physical awareness and experience will most likely extend the useful range of PS to most likely 15 yards, on an 8-inch circle of impact standard, and definitely on a "any hit on the silhouette" standard.
It's just that I've done a fair share of PS, and the results always dropped noticeably whenever I:
A. could not see the gun; or
B. The gun was so far out of the line of vision to make assessment difficult--below armpit level. At the hip and one-handed really sucked without visual input; and/or
C. Was not in my usual two-hand grip.
Total target focus works. I've done it and seen it. But it always seems to be with enough light to see the gun, or in a "standard" stance. Remove both of those advantages and performance seems to plummet.
Matthew Temkin
Member
Gump..if you really want to understand point shooting then this guy can show you the way.
May 12-13, 2007
Point Shooting Progressions
Boulder City, NV
Force on force training has proven beyond any arguement that the traditional shooting range methods are simply not suitable for reactive gunfighting. In this course, Suarez International Specialist Instructor Roger Phillips will teach you the "Fight Continuum". Roger has studied extensively with Suarez International. He has also researched virtually every threat focused shooting system for many years. This course distills it all into one well thought out and extremely applicable system that dovetails neatly into the regular Close Range Gunfighting matrix, presenting the full aspect of the integration of sighted and unsighted fire at CQB distances.
Duration: 2 days 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Ammunition: Approximately 1500 rounds (Minimum)
Requirements: Pistol, Carry Holster, 3 Magazines and Magazine Pouch, Range Safety Gear
Instructor: Roger Phillips
Location: Boulder Rifle & Pistol Club, Boulder City NV. http://www.brpc1.org/
$350.00 ENROLL HERE
May 12-13, 2007
Point Shooting Progressions
Boulder City, NV
Force on force training has proven beyond any arguement that the traditional shooting range methods are simply not suitable for reactive gunfighting. In this course, Suarez International Specialist Instructor Roger Phillips will teach you the "Fight Continuum". Roger has studied extensively with Suarez International. He has also researched virtually every threat focused shooting system for many years. This course distills it all into one well thought out and extremely applicable system that dovetails neatly into the regular Close Range Gunfighting matrix, presenting the full aspect of the integration of sighted and unsighted fire at CQB distances.
Duration: 2 days 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Ammunition: Approximately 1500 rounds (Minimum)
Requirements: Pistol, Carry Holster, 3 Magazines and Magazine Pouch, Range Safety Gear
Instructor: Roger Phillips
Location: Boulder Rifle & Pistol Club, Boulder City NV. http://www.brpc1.org/
$350.00 ENROLL HERE
Lurper:
It is my understanding that force on force training with air soft has shown that the traditional front sight press (square range stuff) is rarely (if ever) employed. That's not to say traditional methods wouldn't work if they were used.
Imagine someone asked you to shoot a really close range IPSC target multiple times as quickly as possible while immediately leaving "Box A". Both of us know many M class shooters who can shoot the target a couple of times while getting off the X, from their index, with visual inputs from the gun, in under one second while starting with hands at sides, holding a clipboard, etc. However, the average Joe is more likely to grip it and rip it with one hand, and then simply point the gun at the target while hauling butt to get off the X. As a result, there is a school of thought that suggests the way to go is to train to refine what most folks are most likely to do at the fight or flight response.
It is my understanding that force on force training with air soft has shown that the traditional front sight press (square range stuff) is rarely (if ever) employed. That's not to say traditional methods wouldn't work if they were used.
Imagine someone asked you to shoot a really close range IPSC target multiple times as quickly as possible while immediately leaving "Box A". Both of us know many M class shooters who can shoot the target a couple of times while getting off the X, from their index, with visual inputs from the gun, in under one second while starting with hands at sides, holding a clipboard, etc. However, the average Joe is more likely to grip it and rip it with one hand, and then simply point the gun at the target while hauling butt to get off the X. As a result, there is a school of thought that suggests the way to go is to train to refine what most folks are most likely to do at the fight or flight response.
This would be my counter to that argument:
You fight the way you train. Those that have the technique down will use it. That is the whole point of training. To master a set of skills to the point that you don't consciously do them. It's all about the mindset. So my question would be why not train the average Joe to become somewhat competent? I know that is a somewhat idealistic view. But, if I can do it anyone can.
You fight the way you train. Those that have the technique down will use it. That is the whole point of training. To master a set of skills to the point that you don't consciously do them. It's all about the mindset. So my question would be why not train the average Joe to become somewhat competent? I know that is a somewhat idealistic view. But, if I can do it anyone can.
I always thought that was a cop out. Training like that is training to a weakness. Of course it requires a lot of hard work to be able to do front sight, press while you're moving. I always thought people who trained that way weren't really training.
Jeff
Matthew Temkin
Member
Jeff ..you are assuming that training in a system that allows one to follow the body's natural reactions will result in poor accuracy.
And I will strongly disagree with that.
In other words, point shooting can be just as accurate as front sight press but with a fraction of the training time and ammo.
I do not agree that one will always do as he trains, since if that was the case then the police hit rate would be somewhere around 85%
Quite often the body's natural reactions override even extensive training.
(Which is why the Weaver Stance is rapidly falling out of favor.)
And to answer your question as to how a body would remember to point shoot as opposed to how to aim at close distance.
The answer is that with point shooting the trained response coincides with what the body WANTS to do, so "remembering" is not an issue.
I really hope that we can spend some quality range time this summer.
And I will strongly disagree with that.
In other words, point shooting can be just as accurate as front sight press but with a fraction of the training time and ammo.
I do not agree that one will always do as he trains, since if that was the case then the police hit rate would be somewhere around 85%
Quite often the body's natural reactions override even extensive training.
(Which is why the Weaver Stance is rapidly falling out of favor.)
And to answer your question as to how a body would remember to point shoot as opposed to how to aim at close distance.
The answer is that with point shooting the trained response coincides with what the body WANTS to do, so "remembering" is not an issue.
I really hope that we can spend some quality range time this summer.
Thanks Jeff, I was struggling with a better reply. I agree wholeheartedly.
Mr. T
That's exactly the same argument I could present about shooting the way I do. It's natural, it works the way the body is designed to. I agree that point shooting CAN be as accurate at close range. However, it isn't necessarily quicker or faster to learn. When properly trained, there is no "remembering" to it. Seeing the sight is an automatic subconscious process. In fact if you are thinking about the front sight, you cannot be shooting subconsciously. The amount of ammo necessary to train someone to use this technique isn't excessive and like every other technique, if one wants to maintain proficiency it has to be practiced. One can build and reinforce the technique without ever going to the range. This makes it easier to maintain and improve because you can practice anywhere.
As far as the correlation between training and police hit rate; there certainly is one, but it has nothing to do with either technique. Sadly, police training is dictated primarily by budget. The law enforcement and military communities have always lagged behind the civilian world when it comes to pistolcraft. They continue to teach techniques that are dated. It's all part of the bureaucracy.
Even now, more than 2 decades, hundreds of studies and irrefutable proof that show the mind doesn't know the difference between visualizing something and that same something happening, there are those in the shooting community who refuse to accept it. It works, it can be learned easily and practiced virtually anywhere.
Mr. T
That's exactly the same argument I could present about shooting the way I do. It's natural, it works the way the body is designed to. I agree that point shooting CAN be as accurate at close range. However, it isn't necessarily quicker or faster to learn. When properly trained, there is no "remembering" to it. Seeing the sight is an automatic subconscious process. In fact if you are thinking about the front sight, you cannot be shooting subconsciously. The amount of ammo necessary to train someone to use this technique isn't excessive and like every other technique, if one wants to maintain proficiency it has to be practiced. One can build and reinforce the technique without ever going to the range. This makes it easier to maintain and improve because you can practice anywhere.
As far as the correlation between training and police hit rate; there certainly is one, but it has nothing to do with either technique. Sadly, police training is dictated primarily by budget. The law enforcement and military communities have always lagged behind the civilian world when it comes to pistolcraft. They continue to teach techniques that are dated. It's all part of the bureaucracy.
Even now, more than 2 decades, hundreds of studies and irrefutable proof that show the mind doesn't know the difference between visualizing something and that same something happening, there are those in the shooting community who refuse to accept it. It works, it can be learned easily and practiced virtually anywhere.
Matthew Temkin
Member
You are confusing what works for you--a professional shooter with unlimited time and ammunition-- as opposed to what is needed for the vast majority of those in need of armed self defense.
Some professional shooters look down on cops/armed professionals who have limited time to train/practice.
I don't...especially because they place their butts on the line for us every day.
And with simple/combat proven/go with the flow techniques they can rapidly be turned into deadly enemies.
And can keep that skill with limited practice.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree while doing our own things.
Some professional shooters look down on cops/armed professionals who have limited time to train/practice.
I don't...especially because they place their butts on the line for us every day.
And with simple/combat proven/go with the flow techniques they can rapidly be turned into deadly enemies.
And can keep that skill with limited practice.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree while doing our own things.
I think what you are missing Mr T is that I can teach them my system just as quickly as you can teach yours. And I can show them how to maintain proficiency with virtually no range time or ammo costs.
I do not have unlimited time or ammo, I am currently running two small businesses and can only get to the range once a week (twice in a good week). I don't look down on anyone, particularly those in the military/law enforcement communities, nor should my comments be construed as such. Those are simply the realities of the community. Through the years, I have made several good friends, done ride alongs and been involved in situations with those in the L.E/military community. At a key crossroad in my life after leaving the military, I chose to become a shooter, not a Law Enforcement Officer. It's a decision that I do not regret. However, what I do find troubling and consider more than valid criticism of those in the community is the mindset that if it's not done our way, if it's something new that doesn't come from within the community, if it even sounds like something that is hard to understand, it can't be good. Many in the law enforcement and shooting communities hold that attitude. Where I'm from, that's just called close-mindedness.
I do not have unlimited time or ammo, I am currently running two small businesses and can only get to the range once a week (twice in a good week). I don't look down on anyone, particularly those in the military/law enforcement communities, nor should my comments be construed as such. Those are simply the realities of the community. Through the years, I have made several good friends, done ride alongs and been involved in situations with those in the L.E/military community. At a key crossroad in my life after leaving the military, I chose to become a shooter, not a Law Enforcement Officer. It's a decision that I do not regret. However, what I do find troubling and consider more than valid criticism of those in the community is the mindset that if it's not done our way, if it's something new that doesn't come from within the community, if it even sounds like something that is hard to understand, it can't be good. Many in the law enforcement and shooting communities hold that attitude. Where I'm from, that's just called close-mindedness.
Lurper was kind enough to post a great video, with clear and easy to understand instructions. He also stated that this is what works for him and many great shooters, he never said his way was the ONLY way. If some of you are so opposed to this method, video, or thread, instead of criticizing them, why not make your own video so that those on the board can decide what they like better. The bottom line is that talk is cheap fellas, and this gentleman was kind enough to go out of his way for us in the hopes to help those that want helping, by making his own video, not ripping off something from youtube or some other website, he then took the time to post it, and explain his method. Its rare that anyone puts that kind of energy into a thread, whether you agree with his opinion or not, he should be applauded not put down.
Matthew Temkin
Member
A NYPD buddy of mine once commented that police work is the only profession where those with zero experience believe that they have something of relevance to offer/sell to streetwise cops.
I am sure the same is true in the military.
Everybody with a camcorder and a blackbelt believes that his system has the magic bullet of effectiveness and reduced liability.
As is the case of so many competition shooters.
My questions to any of these gurus is.."How do you prove it?"
"What combat proven track record does it have?"
"Will it work for the minimally trained?"
The cops who I know want something that comes from a real world background and with verifiable combat success.
So if a non LEO/military vet answers that, "It wins in competition" or, "Well, for centuries Ninja warriors.." or something along similar lines then that, IMHO, is a fast turnoff.
In short, they want someone who not only knows what to do, but has actually done it.
If you want to call that close-mindedness, then be my guest.
I am sure the same is true in the military.
Everybody with a camcorder and a blackbelt believes that his system has the magic bullet of effectiveness and reduced liability.
As is the case of so many competition shooters.
My questions to any of these gurus is.."How do you prove it?"
"What combat proven track record does it have?"
"Will it work for the minimally trained?"
The cops who I know want something that comes from a real world background and with verifiable combat success.
So if a non LEO/military vet answers that, "It wins in competition" or, "Well, for centuries Ninja warriors.." or something along similar lines then that, IMHO, is a fast turnoff.
In short, they want someone who not only knows what to do, but has actually done it.
If you want to call that close-mindedness, then be my guest.
Mr T
You have read enough of my posts to know that I have been in several armed confrontations and am also a veteran (LRRP- hence the nickname). I have as much or more experience than the average LEO in that arena. Not only that, but as I have posted, I have trained in several different styles of shooting including point shooting. I have trained or trained with members of some of the most elite military and police units in the world. There are operators who risks their lives everyday using this system. So, I don't know how much more of a track record you require to give it credibility. Yes, they were taught by competitive shooters. Shaw, Leatham, Jarrett, Garcia and several others have taught many SPECOPS units, SWAT teams, etc.
The attitude that just because one is not a cop one doesn't know squat is what will keep those organizations sucking hind tit when it comes to shooting technique. The sad part is that most of the rank and file would welcome better training and technique if given the opportunity. But the closed minded bureaucrats won't allow it.
I respect your skill, your opinion and your views. You would be weclome to break bread at my table anytime. Just please don't imply that I am not a veteran or lack experience. Our views are not as far apart as you may think.
You have read enough of my posts to know that I have been in several armed confrontations and am also a veteran (LRRP- hence the nickname). I have as much or more experience than the average LEO in that arena. Not only that, but as I have posted, I have trained in several different styles of shooting including point shooting. I have trained or trained with members of some of the most elite military and police units in the world. There are operators who risks their lives everyday using this system. So, I don't know how much more of a track record you require to give it credibility. Yes, they were taught by competitive shooters. Shaw, Leatham, Jarrett, Garcia and several others have taught many SPECOPS units, SWAT teams, etc.
The attitude that just because one is not a cop one doesn't know squat is what will keep those organizations sucking hind tit when it comes to shooting technique. The sad part is that most of the rank and file would welcome better training and technique if given the opportunity. But the closed minded bureaucrats won't allow it.
I respect your skill, your opinion and your views. You would be weclome to break bread at my table anytime. Just please don't imply that I am not a veteran or lack experience. Our views are not as far apart as you may think.
Last edited:
Grump
Member
I'm not a veteran or LEO, nor do I play one on TV.
I *was* going to post a polite decline of the BC NV course because I, at this point, cannot afford the time investment of two full days, prefer to keep my Sundays free for other engagements, and barely have 1,000 rounds of ammo in stock for my preferred pistol which I've planned to expend over the next year.
Therefore, the offer that I learn to understand pointshooting through:
is respectfully declined at this point, though the $350 course tuition is a BARGAIN!!! I'm tempted, but confused as to how this level of intensity in training squares with:
I betcha that you could take any two sets of 5 shooters with equivalent initial skills, put the first five through a Temkin-style course of 2 days, 1500+ rounds, and put the other five through Lurper's methodology for 2 days, 1500+ rounds, and get virtually identical final results. Furthermore, I believe that the Lurper group's times/scores would not change significantly if they re-shot a test course of 1- to 17-yard targets with sightless guns, and the Temkin group would have a similar result with a re-shoot where they looked for the sights for every shot.
I will probably never be a 1,000-round per month, 4-session per month handgun shooter. But I *will* continue to work on smooth presentations, nonstandard stances and movement for shots 10 yards and less, and a two-hand index and both sighted and unsighted shooting for 10-25 yards with movement on half those shots. I also value the careful 50- and 100-yard shots and will continue to run a few rounds at those distances.
Both systems appear quite capable of building blazing speed and accuracy. The round counts bandied about, however, approach...well, you choose the word, because I'm finding too many that fit.
I *was* going to post a polite decline of the BC NV course because I, at this point, cannot afford the time investment of two full days, prefer to keep my Sundays free for other engagements, and barely have 1,000 rounds of ammo in stock for my preferred pistol which I've planned to expend over the next year.
Therefore, the offer that I learn to understand pointshooting through:
is respectfully declined at this point, though the $350 course tuition is a BARGAIN!!! I'm tempted, but confused as to how this level of intensity in training squares with:
I betcha that you could take any two sets of 5 shooters with equivalent initial skills, put the first five through a Temkin-style course of 2 days, 1500+ rounds, and put the other five through Lurper's methodology for 2 days, 1500+ rounds, and get virtually identical final results. Furthermore, I believe that the Lurper group's times/scores would not change significantly if they re-shot a test course of 1- to 17-yard targets with sightless guns, and the Temkin group would have a similar result with a re-shoot where they looked for the sights for every shot.
I will probably never be a 1,000-round per month, 4-session per month handgun shooter. But I *will* continue to work on smooth presentations, nonstandard stances and movement for shots 10 yards and less, and a two-hand index and both sighted and unsighted shooting for 10-25 yards with movement on half those shots. I also value the careful 50- and 100-yard shots and will continue to run a few rounds at those distances.
Both systems appear quite capable of building blazing speed and accuracy. The round counts bandied about, however, approach...well, you choose the word, because I'm finding too many that fit.
Yeah, well . . . we can quibble about "definitions and semantics" until Hades issues ice skates. Regardless what it's called, you want two well placed shots, center of mass if you can get it.
The larger caliber the firearm, the longer it's going to take to get that second shot back on the target -- BUT . . . that first well placed shot is going to stop the show if the caliber is sufficient.
I've practiced "double taps" with a 44 mag. 4" bbl Smith. That second shot takes some time to line up. Also, most of the time the target moves significantly from being hit with the first shot. Half inch diameter, half oz. chunk of lead at 1600 fps will do that. And even two-handed, the gun is over my head from the recoil on the first shot.
I have a 32 ACP pocket pistol, NAA Guarian, a knock off of the Seacamp. I think the bullet is 60 gr. JHP. Sights on this gun may as well be filed off. They're more for snagging in the pocket than for aiming the gun. My "target range" for this gun is 6 feet, more or less. Strategy is "stick the gun in their face, empty the mag, and run like hell." Seriously, this gun is designed/intended for point shooting, no sights, no aiming. And I can shoot out the full 7 rounds (6 + 1) without much recoil, reaiming, recovery. Target is going to be close enough that I can pistol whip them when the mag is empty -- if needed.
I carried a Springfield Ultra Compact for a while. I don't like "cocked/locked" carry, but also, the gun is big for CCW, and takes some recovery to get off a second round at the target. Similar issues with the J-Frame 357.
I like a sub-compact 9mm. I don't plan to "aim" much and not going to use it in a "tactical fire fight." But for CCW carry/defense, it's light, practical, easy to use and relatively fast to recover from the first shot and get a second shot on the target. I practice this drill at 7 yds on a human silhouette with a 9" paper plate marking "center of mass." -- That's what the local sheriff's dept. uses for defense drills at the range. Only they go with a Glock 22 in 40 Smith -- which I find a bit clunky for CCW.
The larger caliber the firearm, the longer it's going to take to get that second shot back on the target -- BUT . . . that first well placed shot is going to stop the show if the caliber is sufficient.
I've practiced "double taps" with a 44 mag. 4" bbl Smith. That second shot takes some time to line up. Also, most of the time the target moves significantly from being hit with the first shot. Half inch diameter, half oz. chunk of lead at 1600 fps will do that. And even two-handed, the gun is over my head from the recoil on the first shot.
I have a 32 ACP pocket pistol, NAA Guarian, a knock off of the Seacamp. I think the bullet is 60 gr. JHP. Sights on this gun may as well be filed off. They're more for snagging in the pocket than for aiming the gun. My "target range" for this gun is 6 feet, more or less. Strategy is "stick the gun in their face, empty the mag, and run like hell." Seriously, this gun is designed/intended for point shooting, no sights, no aiming. And I can shoot out the full 7 rounds (6 + 1) without much recoil, reaiming, recovery. Target is going to be close enough that I can pistol whip them when the mag is empty -- if needed.
I carried a Springfield Ultra Compact for a while. I don't like "cocked/locked" carry, but also, the gun is big for CCW, and takes some recovery to get off a second round at the target. Similar issues with the J-Frame 357.
I like a sub-compact 9mm. I don't plan to "aim" much and not going to use it in a "tactical fire fight." But for CCW carry/defense, it's light, practical, easy to use and relatively fast to recover from the first shot and get a second shot on the target. I practice this drill at 7 yds on a human silhouette with a 9" paper plate marking "center of mass." -- That's what the local sheriff's dept. uses for defense drills at the range. Only they go with a Glock 22 in 40 Smith -- which I find a bit clunky for CCW.
Matthew Temkin
Member
Lurper..I was not referring to you.
In fact someone such as yourself..who has both real world and competition experience..is someone who I would seek out for instruction.
But I still stand by what I posted.
In my old job..court officer..we were constantly being given guidelines and equipment designed by people who had no inkling as to the realities of violence.
For example my old blackjack was eventually replaced by a Kubotan.
Along with the most useless holds and locks designed around this stupid toy.
My police friends have similar tales of woe.
And I am sure that our military personnel have their own horror stories.
In fact someone such as yourself..who has both real world and competition experience..is someone who I would seek out for instruction.
But I still stand by what I posted.
In my old job..court officer..we were constantly being given guidelines and equipment designed by people who had no inkling as to the realities of violence.
For example my old blackjack was eventually replaced by a Kubotan.
Along with the most useless holds and locks designed around this stupid toy.
My police friends have similar tales of woe.
And I am sure that our military personnel have their own horror stories.
Double taps and reaction time...
I have a question; the split time in a double tap/controlled pair/name it what you will is very small; on the order of 0.15 to 0.25 seconds for most decent shooters, I'd expect. Human reaction time averages about .25 seconds, with some of the fastest people getting down to .145 (see http://www.fastdraw.org/fd_draw.html for top times, http://getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html to test your own reaction time). You may say "I saw the sights line up, then I pressed the trigger" but that appears on the face of it to be physiologically impossible. It seems to me that in order to overcome your insufficent reaction time, you have to anticipate the shot well in advance of the sights lining up, and what you perceive as "front sight, press" on the second shot (and maybe even the first) is not a sequential event, but rather the results of two parallel events.
Unfortunately, I can't come up with an easy experiment to check this; I've tried two controlled shots onto different, nearby targets and I can hit them both with about the same speed as I can two shots into a single target, but then it's just as easy to anticipate the sights intersecting the second target as it is to anticipate the recovery from the first shot. The only thing I can think of (but don't have the resources to rig) is to have a random signal trigger, say, .05 seconds after the first shot that would tell you whether or not to fire the followup shot; this would force a decision, and I'll bet that you wouldn't be able to stop that second shot in time, because you'd have committed to the second shot before the signal happened.
Comments welcome--this isn't a critique of anyone's views, just my attempt to reconcile what appears to be a discrepancy between perceptions and reality...
--scot
I have a question; the split time in a double tap/controlled pair/name it what you will is very small; on the order of 0.15 to 0.25 seconds for most decent shooters, I'd expect. Human reaction time averages about .25 seconds, with some of the fastest people getting down to .145 (see http://www.fastdraw.org/fd_draw.html for top times, http://getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html to test your own reaction time). You may say "I saw the sights line up, then I pressed the trigger" but that appears on the face of it to be physiologically impossible. It seems to me that in order to overcome your insufficent reaction time, you have to anticipate the shot well in advance of the sights lining up, and what you perceive as "front sight, press" on the second shot (and maybe even the first) is not a sequential event, but rather the results of two parallel events.
Unfortunately, I can't come up with an easy experiment to check this; I've tried two controlled shots onto different, nearby targets and I can hit them both with about the same speed as I can two shots into a single target, but then it's just as easy to anticipate the sights intersecting the second target as it is to anticipate the recovery from the first shot. The only thing I can think of (but don't have the resources to rig) is to have a random signal trigger, say, .05 seconds after the first shot that would tell you whether or not to fire the followup shot; this would force a decision, and I'll bet that you wouldn't be able to stop that second shot in time, because you'd have committed to the second shot before the signal happened.
Comments welcome--this isn't a critique of anyone's views, just my attempt to reconcile what appears to be a discrepancy between perceptions and reality...
--scot
Last edited:
The reason your experiment won't work is because it requires a conscious decision to fire a shot. If you try to shoot consciously, your times will be much slower.
re: Sight picture
Two things:
1. If you slow a film down to 24 frames per second, you can see each distinct frame. You eyes and your mind can see that fast, so it is well within your physical capabilities do see the sight that fast.
2. It really isn't seeing 2 seperate sight pictures as much as it is never losing the sight picture. You track the sights during recoil. This means you keep the front sight in focus and centered in the rear notch. When you see the target behind the sight, you trigger the shot.
There are many ways to demonstrate the difference. Some teach to shoot in cadence. The problem with that (aside from most white guys not having rythm) is you fire the shot in a rythm regardless of where the sights are. The opposite proof is to watch my Bill Drill video. You will see that some of the splits are .16, some are .13, yet all hit the "A" zone. That irrefutably proves two things: I am not shooting in cadence and the sights were aligned in the "A" zone.
The real difference in what you are describing is the difference between an action and a Reaction.
re: Sight picture
Two things:
1. If you slow a film down to 24 frames per second, you can see each distinct frame. You eyes and your mind can see that fast, so it is well within your physical capabilities do see the sight that fast.
2. It really isn't seeing 2 seperate sight pictures as much as it is never losing the sight picture. You track the sights during recoil. This means you keep the front sight in focus and centered in the rear notch. When you see the target behind the sight, you trigger the shot.
There are many ways to demonstrate the difference. Some teach to shoot in cadence. The problem with that (aside from most white guys not having rythm) is you fire the shot in a rythm regardless of where the sights are. The opposite proof is to watch my Bill Drill video. You will see that some of the splits are .16, some are .13, yet all hit the "A" zone. That irrefutably proves two things: I am not shooting in cadence and the sights were aligned in the "A" zone.
The real difference in what you are describing is the difference between an action and a Reaction.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
OK. This is Strategies and Tactics.
Title describing the subforum:
Jeff's instructions guiding its mission:
The mission of S&T is not training ourselves to shoot so fast we bypass our ability to think and make conscious decisions about the appropriateness of the rounds we deliver.
Shooting subconsciously means removing your conscious mind from the process. That is the single most important survival mindset you can develop. Your conscious mind is what tells you: be afraid, you could get killed, or you have been shot, you are supposed to die. This is crucial to survival.
When you shoot subconsciously, you quiet the little voice in your head that talks or sometimes screams at you. It is the voice that puts limitations on what you can think and do. It is what causes us to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. IF that isn't crucial to survival, I don't know what is.
The time for conscious thought ends when you have made the decision that your life is in enough danger to warrant employment of a firearm for defense. Once you make that conscious decision, you should be on autopilot (subconscious). Saying someone should shoot consciously is akin to telling them that they should assess the damage from each shot before firing another. The ability to put lead on the target quickly is the surest way to remove the threat and ensure the good guy's survival. I would think that any technique that would increase the odds of survival would be welcomed. FWIW, many of the top competitors in the world (Leatham, Shaw, Jarrett, myself and others) have taught these techniques to some of the most elite military and police units in the world. Obviously they see a lot of merit in the techniques or they wouldn't pay to learn them then carry them over into their operations.
In the past I have run into several in the shooting community who because of their own limitations refuse to believe that people are capable of certain feats. Once they see proof that it can be done, they decide to attack the messenger. They do that by trying to convice others that "competition has nothing to do with combat", which is absurd. The mechanics of shooting are the same no matter what the target or environment is. You line up the sights and press the trigger. The technique that allows you to do that in the most expeditious manner is certainly applicable in the "real" world and appropriate discussion of training techniques and methods.
Having said all that, I will comply with the requests to no longer post in Strategies and Tactics.
When you shoot subconsciously, you quiet the little voice in your head that talks or sometimes screams at you. It is the voice that puts limitations on what you can think and do. It is what causes us to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. IF that isn't crucial to survival, I don't know what is.
The time for conscious thought ends when you have made the decision that your life is in enough danger to warrant employment of a firearm for defense. Once you make that conscious decision, you should be on autopilot (subconscious). Saying someone should shoot consciously is akin to telling them that they should assess the damage from each shot before firing another. The ability to put lead on the target quickly is the surest way to remove the threat and ensure the good guy's survival. I would think that any technique that would increase the odds of survival would be welcomed. FWIW, many of the top competitors in the world (Leatham, Shaw, Jarrett, myself and others) have taught these techniques to some of the most elite military and police units in the world. Obviously they see a lot of merit in the techniques or they wouldn't pay to learn them then carry them over into their operations.
In the past I have run into several in the shooting community who because of their own limitations refuse to believe that people are capable of certain feats. Once they see proof that it can be done, they decide to attack the messenger. They do that by trying to convice others that "competition has nothing to do with combat", which is absurd. The mechanics of shooting are the same no matter what the target or environment is. You line up the sights and press the trigger. The technique that allows you to do that in the most expeditious manner is certainly applicable in the "real" world and appropriate discussion of training techniques and methods.
Having said all that, I will comply with the requests to no longer post in Strategies and Tactics.
- Status
Similar threads
