comments on my article in Combat Handguns

[Duane Thomas]

Which is not what the article is talking about, neither not counting reaction time nor not hitting. This is interesting info for its own sake, I'm just not sure how much it really has to do with the assertion that any Master class shooter with a race rig can do a half-second draw, which, within the context of the OP's article, seems to mean from hands at side, including reaction time, using an electronic timer, from the beep to the first shot, and actually hitting what you do, in fact, aim at.

Now if he'd said sub-second instead of half-second I'd be right there with him. I'm going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt his verbiage was changed during the editing process, because I've certainly had that happen in my articles, as well - though blessedly not often, or to the point I wound up saying anything quite so extreme and obviously false.

[Loves2Shoot]

I interpreted what he was saying differently than what you did, but I concur, sub 1 or .75 would be more achievable. A sub 1 isn't that "amazing" and .75 (three quarters) is just an awkward title, so as a writer you can appreciate that a half second sounds cool

If he's seen folks do it, I'm not one to disagree with the possibility of it being able to be done from HaS, as I've been pretty close myself once upon a time and there are some fast folks out there.

[Duane Thomas]

I have it on good authority that any Master class shooter can do it if they use a race rig, and better shooters can do it with street appropriate gear. I can't imagine why you haven't already seen it a ton of times. Pun intended.

[StephensOutdoors]

I like it. The title grabs your attention. It has a good intro. The rest of the article provides good solid information and the read is smooth and fast. Coming from a guy who has been submitting querries and articles to newspapers & magazines for the past couple of years with only a few fishing articles to show for it ... any article that ends up on somebody's print is always a good thing.

[Loves2Shoot]

LOL, I hear where you are coming from.

I break down shooting into the parts and pieces and measure them, so I see how my initial impression of the words written had a different value to me. Sort of like on Myth Busters when they break down things with the high speed camera to separate actions/events. I've assumed for a long time that the draw could be done in .4-.5 if you were just measuring the actual draw and not the reaction to visual or auditory stimuli and the draw.

[Chris iliff]

Watched Matt Cheely go to a target at least 7 yards, from hands relaxed, at Area 5 two summers ago, and if I recall the timer said .91, anyway, below 1 second. Then took a Cheely movement class and at the end goofing off on a 23 ft. mini popper he consistently did that in the .6's. I remember he seemed a little dissappointed in one highish .6, like a .68 or something, and I thought, jeez, what's he want it to be? Should have asked him, maybe he'll chime in.

[pjb45]

Well, Scott is one of those high functioning GMs. His draws are quite good.

The fellows in the YouTube vid are quite good. They did not do a .5 second draw.

I agree with my learned colleague. An honest half second draw is not achievable. Maybe Max or Travis could pull one off semi-consistently. But mere mortals, I doubt it. That is the way I see it. Catchy title but misleading.