Ron Avery Talks the Science of the Draw Stroke

[ToddG]

I think folks are over- simplifying the difference between simplicity and complexity.

Changing speed isn't changing the technique. All of my decisions bring the gun along the same practiced path and the only "modulation" (to borrow Gabe's term) comes from what I'm seeing through the sights.

Having a "free and clear environment, high% easy target draw" and a "cluttered environment, low% difficult draw" is totally different. Now I'm having to make a decision between two much different paths and, more importantly, that decision has to be made at least in part based on things other than my point of focus. I'm not making decisions about the target, I'm having to evaluate my surroundings before I choose which draw technique to use. And I have to make the right decision, under stress, while my attention is being pulled at by someone(s) with guns trying to hurt me or mine. Plus, now I have to practice two different draw strokes.

Gabe brought up a fumbled draw. That's a great example: if you fumble a draw it messes up your draw, right? That's tautological. We don't have "good draw technique" and "fumble draw technique." We fumble, it interrupts the proper practiced process, we make a correction, and drive on. It costs time. Even if you wanted to practice with your gun slightly askew on the belt to simulate a bad grip or something it's not the same because you're consciously planning for it.

I don't doubt for a second that guys who normally use the straight line/index type draw can draw when there is something right in front of them. My concern is whether they will automatically go to that less familiar technique when it's really needed and they don't have forewarning and a chance for a walkthrough before the action begins. One of the reasons various closer-to-the-body draw techniques were developed is because people did make mistakes and did have problems when they found themselves in less permissive spaces than a square range. Heck, I can remember being at a major IDPA match once and even though people knew they'd be drawing from underneath a table they still drew too low and bumped the table. So the SOs had to start specifically warning people about it in the stage description. Speed + stress + habit = falling back to training.

Do I think people can use their brains under stress? Absolutely. But that's not the important question. The important question is will they have the spare brain power -- on top of all the other things they must be thinking about in a fight -- to add "choose the best draw stroke" to the mix?

We ran a stage at a KSTG match a few months ago in which the shooter started lying face down on the ground. On the beep, he was required to roll over onto his side, draw, and engage a close target from that position. The number of people who fouled up their draws simply by being on their side with no obstructions, etc., was phenomenal. The number who tried to use a straight line draw and then had to pause for a noticeably long time to get things squared up was also phenomenal. ("Let gravity stop the gun" doesn't work great when gravity isn't pulling in the same relative direction you're used to) Folks who had a closer to the body draw stroke and who used a technique that got the sights in the eye line early were far less likely to fumble and had significantly better times. Again, this was a target that just about anyone could hit in less than two seconds just standing there... but it took some folks two or three times that to get off the first shot because their technique was optimized for one specific position.

Gabe also mentioned the close/contact distance problem. Agree 100% that for an appendix draw you have to make a change there. And it's something you do have to practice. It's a distinct disadvantage to the carry position. Personally, I find it a minor problem because (a) the stimulus for the decision to choose the different technique is still the threat rather than some other environmental factor and (b) the entire ECQC fight is dramatically different than the beyond-ECQC fight anyway so pretty much any technique that normally ends in full extension is going to have to change.

[Sal Picante]

To follow up on the walking analogy:

Take someone who's done a hundred thousand miles on a treadmill but never really had to walk on ice, point a gun at him, and yell Run! See how well he does...

Case in point:

[ToddG]

Case in point:

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that was the wig's fault.

[mikeg]

Contrast this with the draw stroke, which most people have not put thousands of hours into practicing in all the different possible conditions that might arise. The vast, vast majority of their experience is the shooting equivalent of walking on a treadmill in an air conditioned gymnasium. Take someone who's done a hundred thousand miles on a treadmill but never really had to walk on ice, point a gun at him, and yell Run! See how well he does...

This is an interesting view on the analogy, but I can't help but think that it contradicts a lot of modern day pistol training.

If the purpose of the science of the draw stroke is to learn something that you can execute regardless of your mental/physical state, wouldn't it be beneficial to really focus on learning to shoot one hand, from the hip/retention, or two handed retention from the chest? And add in the real life aspect that you are going to be doing something with your weakhand/moving? It would seem to me that most people already practice two handed, perfect stance, arms extended draws(competition, or just in practice) and it seems to be the main focus of pistol shooting in most training programs... but few people and trainers seem to emphasis the importance of practicing for encountering someone while walking your dog with your leash around the wrist, or need to move your kids behind you while engaging the target with one hand... or more realistic, being a distance from the guy that would allow him to grab/move your hands and the gun away from where you are aiming.

Granted I am no expert in tactical pistol shooting, but this really is ALL I ever practice for when I do non competitive shooting... most people can shoot/draw two handed, but like your KSTG stage example showed, few people can execute anything when they do something they aren't accustom to (like rolling on the ground)

[mikeg]

Also, about varying the speed of the draw depending on the distance of the target... assuming we have the ability to draw two handed/full extended/aim... It would seem to me that getting out of the holster and on target as fast as possible would be important regardless of distance?

The distance of the target dictates what level of sight focus you need to hit the target. Acquiring your sights while you are projecting on the targets, with having everything in view/on target at full extension is the fastest way to shoot accurately, well established in the competitive shooting world. Does it not make sense to get the gun into this position(projecting out) as fast as possible, then on the way out/while you are projected, determine your level of sight focus? Would this not produce a faster shot, than drawings lower to accomplish the same thing? Even if it does take the same amount of time, would it not be beneficial to have the gun up and out sooner than later? That way you can shoot, even with the wrong sight focus level?

[beltjones]

Come on... you guys are both smarter than that and being purposely obtuse. But in contrast, I have never been to a "tactical" class that advocated the straight holster-to-eye line draw. I can think of plenty that specifically warn against it.

If you want to learn & practice a myriad of draw techniques that vary depending on target distance, size, movement, and clutter that's certainly your choice. Then all you need to do is pick the right one under the right circumstances on the fly under stress. Probably pretty easy for you. Me, I'm not really good at figuring out whether I'm six vs. eight yards from something especially when it's dark and one or both of us are moving around. I don't want to be thinking about whether the table or car or other barrier in front of me is close/tall enough to interfere with an angled draw. I don't want to be thinking about how my concealment garment might drag or catch differently for Presentation Style A vs Presentation Style B vs Presentation Style C Type 3 Mod 1.

All due respect to Avery, but a philosophy of I can modify it in the moment is a lot easier said than done. The whole reason we practice our draw thousands and thousands of times is so that we can execute it without thinking and without slowing down for a decision-making step.

There's also the issue -- as discussed in another thread recently -- of the "prep-squeeze" happening before you have visual confirmation that your sights are on target. I don't care who you are, if you think this is a good safe practice for preparing for a stressful fight in a crowded public place:

... I don't want to be nearby when you have to do it for real.

First, I don't think it's fair to cherry pick a still shot of the student to criticize the method of the instructor. Avery's instructions regarding trigger control were not to get on the trigger immediately after unholstering, but rather were not to be lazy with the trigger pull once he had a sight picture. If the student got on the trigger as early as it appears I would agree he was doing it wrong, but he wasn't doing it wrong because that's how Avery taught him to do it.

Second, Avery wasn't advocating changing the draw for every conceivable change in target or environment. He was showing a more efficient path from the holster to the target. The motion and speed don't change depending on the difficulty of the shot. The aiming and the trigger control do. The comment he made about changing if there were some obstruction shouldn't cause anyone to take pause. We all change plenty of movements with our gunhandling based on a host of factors. Why should the draw be different?

Consider this example: When transitioning from target to target, does anyone advise we use a singular technique that will work for all environments? Does anyone claim that it's best to retract the gun to position SUL between targets every time we transition just in case we encounter a singular instance where there is a wall or a small child or barbed wire or a Ming vase that we might bump or sweep? No. You transition from target to target, with the full understanding that if one of the aforementioned obstructions exists you will simply adjust your technique as the need arises.

Why should the draw be any different?

The real crux of the "education" of young Cory is a path from the holster to the gun that requires less effort than other techniques. If you want to criticize the instruction, that's probably the thing to address.

[joshs]

He was showing a more efficient path from the holster to the target.

He was showing a shorter path. Why do you assume that it is more efficient? If this were true, wouldn't the most efficient way to drive around a race track be to take the shortest route?

I've personally found, and I know a lot of others who have found the same, that a draw that brings the sights into the eye-target line earlier provides the fastest hits across a wide range of targets of varied difficulty. So, for me, I would consider this type of draw to be more efficient.

[beltjones]

He was showing a shorter path. Why do you assume that it is more efficient? If this were true, wouldn't the most efficient way to drive around a race track be to take the shortest route?

I've personally found, and I know a lot of others who have found the same, that a draw that brings the sights into the eye-target line earlier provides the fastest hits across a wide range of targets of varied difficulty. So, for me, I would consider this type of draw to be more efficient.

I don't think the metaphors really advance the discussion at all. You saw what happened when someone compared drawing to walking. It wasn't helpful and it just lends itself to setting up straw men to knock over.

Of course, you also could have said something like "cooking a steak on extremely high heat would do it faster, but would you want to cook one on the sun?" See? It's not that helpful. I could also spend pages talking about "the line" on a race track, and how skilled drivers can easily adapt to changes in which line to drive based on what car they're in, the condition of their tires, the weather, etc. But then we wouldn't be talking about shooting, so I'll skip it.

Back to the point, he was showing a path that required less effort. It was shorter, that's true. But Avery specifically said that the efficiency is a byproduct of economy of effort. So compared to what Cory was doing before it was faster, required less effort, and seemed easy to learn.

I've personally found that there are a plethora of different gun handling techniques. Each technique seems to have its acolytes, so I don't think a survey is a great way to determine which is best. When you say "this type of draw", what are you referring to? Yours? Cory's? If its yours, well, I don't think anyone mentioned yours. If it's Cory's, then Avery's instruction clearly resulted in a dramatically improved outcome.

[joshs]

My comparison to racing was only meant to show that using the term "efficiency" without having well defined inputs and outputs is problematic.

Perhaps efficiency isn't really that helpful of a term when evaluating technique. There are too many variables that people weigh differently to isolate one input and one output and determine the effect of a change.

[orionz06]

I don't think the metaphors really advance the discussion at all. You saw what happened when someone compared drawing to walking. It wasn't helpful and it just lends itself to setting up straw men to knock over.

Of course, you also could have said something like "cooking a steak on extremely high heat would do it faster, but would you want to cook one on the sun?" See? It's not that helpful. I could also spend pages talking about "the line" on a race track, and how skilled drivers can easily adapt to changes in which line to drive based on what car they're in, the condition of their tires, the weather, etc. But then we wouldn't be talking about shooting, so I'll skip it.

Back to the point, he was showing a path that required less effort. It was shorter, that's true. But Avery specifically said that the efficiency is a byproduct of economy of effort. So compared to what Cory was doing before it was faster, required less effort, and seemed easy to learn.

I've personally found that there are a plethora of different gun handling techniques. Each technique seems to have its acolytes, so I don't think a survey is a great way to determine which is best. When you say "this type of draw", what are you referring to? Yours? Cory's? If its yours, well, I don't think anyone mentioned yours. If it's Cory's, then Avery's instruction clearly resulted in a dramatically improved outcome.

The movement of the gun may require less effort (time) but what if picking up the front sight requires more effort (time)? I think, based on the limited window into Cory's life we have, that anything that is not over deliberate YouTube training would be an improvement. This video showed that and it showed he was capable of doing so, despite appearing to dislike what Ron was saying. I would bet money that if he tried a third type of draw he could touch the 1.00 second mark too. I would like to see the same video and shooter/instructor from a few yards back or on a smaller target.