Speed vs Quality- which is more important

[InTheBlack]

Patrick Sweeney said in another thread (IDPA vs IPSC):

>

The real question is, would your better hits have served you in a real altercation, better than their faster times with peripheral hits and misses?  No one could ever tell.  Probably, you were both so far past the bad guys power curve they would have all been toes up from either of you, with little or no risk on your end.

>

Which is a question much on my mind, since I'm a "training" style guy.

IMO getting _any_ hit on the target as fast as possible, followed up by a 0.20 second followup shot to COM, is the thing to train for.

I think the odds are that the first hit will cause at least enough involuntary reaction that he won't be able to get off a good shot in less than 0.20 seconds, by which time my second, much more accurate shot, will impact.  Giving me another 0.20 seconds of time to do it again.  I want to get ahead in the OODA cycle.

How much time would you "give away" in order to go from a peripheral hit to a COM hit, knowing that the time you give away might result in a hit on you?

[Jake Di Vita]

This past summer I took a class from Randy Cain. He's a fantastic teacher and I recommend him to anyone. During the class he said that speed does not win a gun fight. As a matter of fact, if we had anything out of a fist sized group in the chest then he said something about it. In my opinion, I'll take the extra .2 seconds on the first shot to make sure it's a kill shot, then I will progress from there.

The ultimate example of this is at the end of the movie Unforgiven. For those of you who have seen it, when Clint was in that gun fight, he was not going fast, but he was hitting his target while all of the others were just blazing away and missing. That is a great scene.

[InTheBlack]

I'm not talking about missing entirely, but I think even the noise, blast, and flash aimed directly at the average person will make him flinch.  We're talking about 7 yards max for this sort of thing.

I'd like to hear from people who have/have studied the experience of being on the receiving end of a bullet's trajectory to determine if the ordinary punk is able to remain oblivious to it and concentrate on aiming.

[Jake Di Vita]

I heard a story once where a cop and a perp were on a balcony about 7 feet long and 4 feet wide. Both of them fire whole mags at each other. When it was all over, neither was hit once.

[InTheBlack]

I can't understand courses of fire where you stand in the open and do 2body1head from left to right.  How many seconds does that give the guy on the right to draw a bead on you?

How about requiring that any shots on a second target be from cover or while moving?  Or at least after moving a certain distance, if you can't hit anything unless standing still.

[Mark Perez]

from ITB

IMO getting _any_ hit on the target as fast as possible, followed up by a 0.20 second followup shot to COM, is the thing to train for.

........I'd like to hear from people who have/have studied the experience of being on the receiving end of a bullet's trajectory to determine if the ordinary punk is able to remain oblivious to it and concentrate on aiming.

1.Are you are making an assumption that the BG's first round isn't effective?

In this 'field' I don't assume anything about an opponent.

2.The only time I was ever shot was when I was about sophomore age - result of an UD from a kid playing with a gun - a peripheral wound on the neck, non disabling-but  a bloody sight. Had to direct the idiots in first aid procedures,anyway a long and funny story [now] and I was conscience all the way up to surgery.

So regarding "the ordinary punk being oblivious" - yes I was.  

In  private training I've stood downrange beside the target facing the shooter-who is a very trustworthy friend- and had him fire singles ,doubles ,etc into the target , just to get a feel for seeing muzzle flash in different light conditions. Only needed to do that ONCE.

I think Ken Hackathorn did a similar drill with some of his advance level students-the snake drill or something to that effect.

We as defensive  shooters don't have the luxury of throwing any rounds out there in the hopes that we can make-up for poor marksmanship with follow on shots.

Bullet placement , imo, takes precedence over speed.

Quick and accurate fire is even better.

(Edited by Mark Perez at 3:26 pm on Oct. 22, 2002)

[Mayonaise]

Make your hits.  Everything else is supressive fire.

My 2 bits.

[shred]

Look into the true old-west gunfighters.  It wasn't the fastest guy to clear leather that won, it was the first accurate shot.  Wyatt Earp and co usually shot last.

[InTheBlack]

>

1.Are you are making an assumption that the BG's first round isn't effective?  In this 'field' I don't assume anything about an opponent.

>

Just the opposite; I assume the first round _will_ be effective, therefore _I_ want to be the one firing it.

So your experience of muzzle blast leads you to think that it would NOT affect the aim of the average criminal?

re suppressive fire-- That's what hi caps are for, as long as the rounds don't endanger anyone but a threat target.  Keeping the bad guy's suppressed while you run like hell if possible is the legal requirement in many places; you can't choose to find a superior position and engage them.

[Duane Thomas]

Robert A. Heinlein, in the Notebooks of Lazarus Long, said:

"Get a shot off FAST. This upsets him long enough to let you make your second shot perfect."

This seems to be the mindset you're putting forth. It's worth noting, great author though he was, RAH was a science fiction writer who was never in a gunfight. Someone who was in many gunfights, Bill Jordan, said (and I'm doing this from memory, but if it's not a direct quote it's only a word or two off):

"In the entire history of gunfighting, we have yet to record a single case of anyone being killed by a loud noise."

Now, Jordan was talking about missing - not, as you are, hitting but with less than lethal placement.

John Farnam, nationally famous firearms instructor, former Marine, Vietnam vet, cop, etc. has been in numerous affrays. His take on the matter (again I'm doing this from memory but this is pretty close):

"Plan on making your hits count, starting with the first one. Losers in gunfights don't usually run out of ammo. They run out of seconds."

Again, Farnam is talking about hitting right off the bat, and not missing. I've never really seen anyone with the approach you're talking about, of firing a peripheral hit to take your opponent off balance mentally, then settling down into accurate fire. It's an interesting idea, but does seem to ignore the fact that, under extreme stress, we lose most of our fine motor control. If the game plan is to fire a peripheral hit, when your heart starts pumping enough adrenaline to power a dragster and most of your hand/eye coordination goes bye-bye, that "peripheral hit" probably just became a miss. Misses don't solve the problem, and endanger innocent bystanders. Under extreme stress, it's all even highly trained shooters can do to hit their target in the chest. Deliberately loosening that standard of accuracy to include the entire torso for the first shot seems to me a very dangerous idea that will inevitably lead to a first shot miss.

My personal take on it, not that I'm in the same class with Jordan or Farnam, is that I want my first shot hitting the heart. It doesn't have to a perfectly centered through-the-heart shot. Anywhere inside a 4" circle in the upper/center chest will do me just fine.

Like I said, your idea here was interesting. It shows you're thinking and questioning conventional wisdom which is always good. Just in this case, I feel conventional wisdom is right. Start firing good solid chest hits right off the bat. Handguns in general are such pathetically underpowered, wimpy weapons that we should do our best to deliver what little power our bullets have where they will do the most good - or bad, depending on your point of view - right off the bat.

Brian did say we could talk about defensive stuff a LITTLE. And now that I've used up my allotted LITTLE, I will exit stage right....

(Edited by Duane Thomas at 9:05 pm on Oct. 22, 2002)

[Jake Di Vita]

The key to remember in this is that during stress as extreme as this, you will shoot the worst groups of your life. Full stop. End of story. Ergo, a fast fired first shot that would probably be a C or D hit if shooting at a stationary paper target, becomes a miss when shooting at a moving, living, probably pissed off target shooting back at you.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Thought experiment time:  We construct a reasonable scenario, then assess the outcome via differing methodologies.  Einstein meets DVC.

Scenario:  You wander into the local 7-11 at night to get milk, bread and lotto ticket.  You walk in the door to find three guys (worst case) at the counter, in a robbery.  You go for your gun.  (No thought, simple reaction, precipitating the situation.)

1)  You do as match experience has taught you, and hammer them, left to right (or r to l) with two hits each.  How long before the last guy takes his first hit?  (I know we're straying far from our competition shooting origins here, but stick with me.)

Given that you're in warp speed+ mode, what are the percentages that at least one of the two hits each takes is vital enough to do the job?

2)  You gear down to ensure a single center A hit on each one, not missing the 4" circle on the sternum.  How long before the last guy gets his?

Range testing will provide the answer, and you may be surprised.

[Mark Perez]

"So your experience of muzzle blast leads you to think that it would NOT affect the aim of the average criminal? "  ITB

I can't answer for the average criminal - but I'm not counting on psychological responses to MB to affect a persons performance ability. Otherwise ,we would all carry snub nose 44 mag's.

[InTheBlack]

>

never really seen anyone with the approach you're talking about, of firing a peripheral hit to take your opponent off balance mentally, then settling down into accurate fire.

>

Well, I'm HOPING the first shot will be COM, but I know from practice that my first shot has a larger "circular error probability" than my second shot.  I perceive myself firing that first shot while the muzzle is still more in motion, and also because my eye focus is still transitioning from far focus to front sight focus (or at least a closer focus as described in the Book).

What happened to the thread that had those eye exercises -looking at beads on a string?  All the how-to posts seem to have been deleted.

Obviously training more to make the first shot better is a constant goal.

The points about real-life stress making all your shots less accurate are quite important.  However, it raises the question of what might happen to those of who train to "wait" until they get a really good sight picture.  Under stress, how much _longer_ will it take you to get off your first shot?  Will that extra time- an unknown amount- be enough allow the last one of those 3 stop-n-robbers to get a hit on you?

I think it was a Jim Cirillo article about his first encounter where he said that he recalls seeing every line of the engraving on his front sight.  Obviously he could have started shooting sooner if he had trained himself to "need to see" a mid-focus sight picture.

I noticed yesterday that when I switched from a black B25 reduced target with red center (12 x 23) to a buff IDPA paper target (22x34) at about 12 yards in dim indoor light, the groups on the IDPA target became much larger.  I believe that I'm keying my shot to when the muzzle is on the paper, probably because that's the level of resolution (mid-focus) my eye is giving me.  I was practicing draw & fire two, then mag change.  When I decided to practice head shots on the IDPA target, taking more time to aim (=focus), they were within the width of the head (but low-that's a different topic re 'convulsive grip').

I really wish I had access to one of those tiny cameras that can focus on the eye & study my point of focus in slow motion. Then compare it to professional shooters and see how they do it.

[Mark Perez]

re : Jim Cirillo

I'm guessing here - but I think the reason he was so focused on his sight was because he knew he was using such an anemic round (38 spcl rn) and had to guarantee a well placed hit.

ITB - very interesting topic you started here - well done.

(Edited by Mark Perez at 10:08 am on Oct. 23, 2002)

[InTheBlack]

re anemic rounds-- absolutely relevent.  I meant to include the aside that I'm using a 45ACP, the round designed after the failure of the .38 to stop the Moros during the Phillipine Insurrection.  The round reputed to take your arm off if it hits the bone.  Tell me _that_ won't distract someone's aim!

[tightloop]

ITB & Mark Perez

for the sake of accuracy, the Jim Cirillo incident was first published after some research Jeff Cooper had done about shooting without watching your front sight.  Jim used to carry two Mod 10 revo's and the incident in question was after he had shot 3 BG's during a police action.  Cooper asked him what he remembered about the incident and his reply was,"...I was staring at the front sight so hard all I remember was seeing the serrations on it."

Having shot personally with Jim, I can tell you that it did not matter if he was shooting a .38 Spec load, or carrying a 28 shot .38Super Blaster with red dot sight in some Star Wars holster, he got the job done.  And least you forget , that was when IPSC was a real man's sport where everyone shot heads up, no classes, basicaly box guns with iron sights.

Ed McGivern also shot .38 Spec, but was still able to shoot 5 shots into a hand print from 15 feet in .6 seconds with a revolver.  He also was able to make 70+ hits on a humanoid target at 600 yds with a 357.

It isn't the arrow, it is always the indian.

[tightloop]

In The Black

I have read and re read your post...Until yu have Seen the Elephant all the hypothsis is useless.  Call Jeff Cooper or Chuck Taylor and find out their opinion.  

I have Seen the Elephant twice and looking at the front sight saved my life both times; and no I didn't/don't feel the need for some abberation of mid range focus.  If you want to be a policeman that badly, get after it, but don't second guess what those who have survived shoot outs before you, might have done better or what neat gamer trick, you think,  might be of value now.

[InTheBlack]

Tight- why do you think that using varying focus types is aberrant?  Brian's 5 types are at least a useful way to communicate what one is perceiving.

My second shot is usually a Type 4 (seeing the sight lift in recoil), at least Type 3.  The first shot breaks while I am in the act of focusing from the target into the Type 3 or 4.

Brian doesn't give distances for the various types, but I'm doing this at about 12 yards in dim light.  Come to think of it, if my front sight were narrower I'd get much better contrast and maybe be able to focus quicker.

[tightloop]

There is lots of difference in shooting during competition and in a survival scenario.  Brian's book is great and provides a champions perspective on a huge number of topics but he will be the first to admit he hasn't the knowledge base on actual shootings that Cooper, Taylor, or Ayoob has.

And really, when it is REALLY happening, I don't think Brian or TGO would be thinking about mid range focal points or seeing the blade lift out of the notch.  You are just thinking about staying alive and killing them before they kill you.  You were talking about real life scenarios in the topic header, not competition shooting, and that is why I think trying to do the many things we do in competition will get you killed in a street situation.

[InTheBlack]

Tight- Agreed.  How you practice will be how you react reflexively.  So I want to determine how what & how I should train to "see what I need to see."

Even though my taxes paid for a quarter-million dollar screen-projection simulator for the county police, I can't even rent time on it at night.  So I do what I can.

[Ron Ankeny]

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam by the tactical crowd for years. No one teaches the spray and pray method of tactical shooting; no one.

The roots of this sport, and IDPA, are founded on "tactical or practical" shooting. The objective is to get an "acceptable hit" as quickly as possible. Thus, the "flash sight picture", shooting by "kinesthetic awareness" and so on.

I would imagine the single most practiced drill is to draw and shoot a target with one round (or a pair) at 5 to 10 yards. I dry fire almost every morning doing just that. I also practice presenting a pistol from low ready, high ready, from kneeling, and from cover.

If you are proficient at these skills (B class or better), the hit is going to be acceptable and that doesn't mean a D on the low left corner. Best of all, it happens without concious thought after the desicion to act is made.

The reality is that a B class IPSC or Expert class IDPA shooter has better pistol handling skills (pure shooting ability) than the vast majority of folks on this planet. All other things being equal (and they aren't) the competition shooter should prevail if they have the mentality and decision making skills to compliment their pistol craft.  

This not intended as a flame, but anyone who has not resolved in their own mind what constitutes an acceptable hit, confused about what to practice, and is unprepared to act accordingly, has no business carrying a gun.

[Duane Thomas]

"However, it raises the question of what might happen to those of who train to "wait" until they get a really good sight picture.  Under stress, how much _longer_ will it take you to get off your first shot?  Will that extra time- an unknown amount- be enough allow the last one of those 3 stop-n-robbers to get a hit on you?"

Actually, we don't train to "wait" until we get a good sight picture. We train to get a good sight picture with such speed that the gun fires right as it stops moving into position.

"I think it was a Jim Cirillo article about his first encounter where he said that he recalls seeing every line of the engraving on his front sight.  Obviously he could have started shooting sooner if he had trained himself to "need to see" a mid-focus sight picture."

I've had the good fortune to train with Jim, and talk with him about this shootout on the phone for a few hours, and write an article on it. Jim was firing a .38 revolver at the top of a running man's head, which was all that was visible above store shelves as the guy was running away from Jim and toward a potential hostage cashier, while simultaneously firing at Jim - who hit with all three head shots. I don't really think Jim has any complaints on his accuracy OR speed.

"I'm guessing here - but I think the reason he was so focused on his sight was because he knew he was using such an anemic round (38 spcl rn) and had to guarantee a well placed hit."

No. Thinking about his gun's caliber/ammo was the furthest thing from his mind. Jim is firmly convinced that under extreme stress his subconscious mind took over his shooting and enabled that level of fast, accurate fire - there was no thought of anything else.

"re anemic rounds-- absolutely relevent.  I meant to include the aside that I'm using a 45ACP, the round designed after the failure of the .38 to stop the Moros during the Phillipine Insurrection.  The round reputed to take your arm off if it hits the bone.  Tell me _that_ won't distract someone's aim!"

The .45 "knocking out the Moros" is a myth I thought had been put to rest years ago. Historical records show those tough, fanatical, drugged-up warriors were equally unimpressed with the .45 ACP as the .38 Long Colt. Actually the .30-40 Krag rifle had a pretty crappy track record. The only hand held weapon with a good record of "Moro stopping" was a buckshot loaded Winchester Model 92 12 gauge shotgun. As for being reputed to "take your arm off if it hits bone"....come on, that's ridiculous on the face of it. Equal and opposite reaction. If the .45 put out that much energy it would also rip off the hand/arm of the guy firing it.

(Edited by Duane Thomas at 10:57 am on Oct. 24, 2002)

[Mark Perez]

"I've had the good fortune to train with Jim, and talk with him about this shootout on the phone for a few hours, and write an article on it. Jim was firing a .38 revolver at the top of a running man's head, which was all that was visible above store shelves as the guy was running away from Jim and toward a potential hostage cashier, while simultaneously firing at Jim - who hit with all three head shots. I don't reall think Jim has any complaints on his accuracy OR speed."

DT,

thanks for the input - this gives me an idea for an IDPA stage for our match this Sunday!

[Duane Thomas]

No problemo!