FAST 2

[ToddG]

Bill Wilson's recent post about re-inventing the classic Bill Drill brought to mind something I've discussed with a number of students, trainers, and friends over the past couple of years about the F.A.S.T.: The one thing I really don't like is that the reload is at a known, planned spot.

So I am thinking about changing it and wanted some feedback. Ideally, what I'd really appreciate is if some of you guys might take the time to run a meaningful number (5-10 each) of two different variations so I can see if the delta in scores is so great that I'd have to change the baselines (Basic, Intermediate, etc.). I'd really like to keep the coin time the same even if it means new coin-hunters have a little harder time of things.

So the current version is from legitimate concealment, loaded with two rounds at 7yd: draw, two shots to the 3x5, reload from slidelock, four shots to the 8" circle. Two second penalty per miss on the first two shots, one second penalty per miss on the last four shots.

New version: gun randomly loaded with 3-5 rounds at 7yd: draw, two shots to the 3x5, four shots to the 8", reload when gun goes dry. Same penalties for misses.

In order for the data collected to have meaning you really need to have the mag in the gun random. If you cheat it a bit and know where the reload is going to come, you've really thrown the drill.

Set up the way it is, no one will ever get a lucky reload during the target-to-target. My biggest remaining question is whether the location of the reload during the body shots will have an impact on time. Will going 1R3 vs 2R2 vs 3R1 to the body change times?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can tinker around with this over the next little while and offer their insight.

[JHC]

But no random one in the mag. That was considerate. ;) This is really cool.

[BaiHu]

Perhaps to reduce guess-bagging (like that?), use 4-5 mags and load 3-5 rounds in each and then grab 2?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[ToddG]

But no random one in the mag.

I don't understand what you mean by this.


Perhaps to reduce guess-bagging (like that?), use 4-5 mags and load 3-5 rounds in each and then grab 2?

My thought for administering it in class is to tell students they need to have a fully loaded mag in their reload pouch and a gun with a round in the chamber but no mag. They bring me three magazines: one loaded with 2 rounds, one with 3, and one with 4. I randomly pick one and click it into their gun. Now neither of us knows when the reload is going to happen. It will take a little longer to run folks through this way.

Another option is to have them bring me a mag with five rounds in it and I'll take a few out and maybe put one back in out of sight of the shooter for the same effect. That will take even longer by a little bit but perhaps make things easier to avoid needing four mags each run.

The admin side of it really isn't important if the drill itself falls apart when run this way, though.

[BaiHu]

True. I believe JHC meant that it was nice of you not to make one mag have only 1 rd.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[JV_]

I don't understand what you mean by this.I think meant you are forced to transition from the 3x5 to the circle AND get in a reload (2 separate items), you'll never get lucky and have the transition merged with the reload.

[YVK]

In principle, I like it better unless something doesn't work out during the trials.

[JHC]

True. I believe JHC meant that it was nice of you not to make one mag have only 1 rd.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Exactly. And have to react, reload and return to the 3x5. :D

[ToddG]

OK, understood. Yeah, the idea is to keep it as fair as possible. Engaging the 3x5 twice is a greater burden than engaging the 8" twice; getting a reload in the middle of the two targets would be a lucky break. So the idea is to eliminate that. You'll know that you're going to get at least the first three shots before the reload.

[ToddG]

Note that the explanation says the gun will have 3-5 rounds in it to start, not the magazine. So it's one in the chamber and a mag of 2-4 (for a total of 3-5) plus a reload for the rest.

[CCT125US]

Not to get all gamer and all..... but would it be against the spirit of the test to fire the 3 rds and immediately do a reload? Hmmm, now that I type that out, never mind.

[jetfire]

I'll set it up and run it this week with the variations.

For dudes shooting solo, here's how I ensure I get random mags. I load three mags, one with 3, one with 4, and one with 5, then toss them into my range bag. Shake bag around, reach in, grab mag, insert into gun without checking it. Bingo, random reload point.

[Jason F]

I like it Todd - it's a nice way to shake up things to minimize "gaming" the system a bit (by knowing the reload point), but it should show true awareness, reaction, and manipulation skills. All while under stress (timer).

It will definitely make getting a coin time more challenging, but not significantly (IMHO).

I'm very interested to see what the results yield in terms of your new variance in times with folks running it in the v2.0 method.

[ToddG]

Not to get all gamer and all..... but would it be against the spirit of the test to fire the 3 rds and immediately do a reload? Hmmm, now that I type that out, never mind.

Stated drill is to shoot until pistol is empty and then reload, complete.

[GJM]

If the point is to create a "better drill," do whatever you want.

If the point of the FAST is to bench mark your own results over time and compare them to other shooters, the introduction of variability makes comparing results less relevant.

[Palmguy]

If the point is to create a "better drill," do whatever you want.

If the point of the FAST is to bench mark your own results over time and compare them to other shooters, the introduction of variability makes comparing results less relevant.

I'm not sure that any of the three permutations of first mag load are inherently advantageous with respect to the others.

[JV_]

I don't understand why changing the reload to a semi-surprise reload makes it more difficult to compare results with other shooters.

You still have to engage the circle 4 times and get a reload in there somewhere. The only real way to cheat is if you know when the reload is coming ... but at that point you're not shooting the drill correctly.

[ToddG]

If the point of the FAST is to bench mark your own results over time and compare them to other shooters, the introduction of variability makes comparing results less relevant.

Which is the point of the thread.

If replacing an unrealistic skill (pre-planned reload) with a more realistic one (variable "time" reload) can be accomplished in a way that does't skew results then it's a net gain. If the placement of the reload does in fact impact performance -- say, hypothetically, that having 3rd in the mag turns out to be "ideal" somehow -- then you're absolutely right. More importantly it throws off the fairness of the drill in terms of being evaluative of shooters which is the original and still primary goal.

[Noleshooter]

I agree with GJM.

If, in the new drill, knowing when the reload is coming is cheating then every previous FAST score was cheating. I'd bet if you watched the previous coin holders runs that few (if any) of them were actually checking to see if they'd run dry and were just automatically reloading after the second shot. That is inherently faster and would certainly skew the results. I think it's a cool tweak, but I also think you'd have to trash all the old benchmarks.

[Archimagirus]

Please excuse my ignorance, particularly if this is something you have addressed in the past and I missed it. My perception of the FAST test has always been a bit skewed. By shooting the low probability targets first, aren't you already skewing the results? I would think the drill would be harder to run by shooting the 8 inch circle first, then the 3x5 card. By shooting the 3x5 first, my perception of the test after watching goes something like this.. Concentrate, Concentrate, transition and reload then yell "AMERICA!!!" and let loose. Ok, to be fair I never seen someone yell America after reloading but I think it would be awesome. I think running the FAST in the reverse order, it would better fit the situations people find themselves in defensively. Shoot the 8 inch circle first, with a reload somewhere in those first four shots then transition to the low probability target of the 3x5 card. I reserve the right to edit this post if someone with more knowledge makes me look both ignorant and stupid.

[BN]

Todd, I just ran FAST 2 several times and then FAST 1. How much detail do you want?

[JV_]

If, in the new drill, knowing when the reload is coming is cheating then every previous FAST score was cheating.I don't follow. The previous FAST didn't incorporate an unplanned reload. The new one is trying to incorporate an unplanned reload. Why does a new test, with different rules, invalidate the old?

I don't think anyone is saying we can compare scores of old FAST times to FAST 2 times, that's why Todd is calling it the FAST 2, and not just changing the rules and still calling it a FAST.

The difference from a planned to unplanned reload is about .3s for me.

[JHC]

I don't follow. The previous FAST didn't incorporate an unplanned reload. The new one is trying to incorporate an unplanned reload. Why does a new test, with different rules, invalidate the old?

I don't think anyone is saying we can compare scores of old FAST times to FAST 2 times, that's why Todd is calling it the FAST 2, and not just changing the rules and still calling it a FAST.

The difference from a planned to unplanned reload is about .3s for me.

+1 no more than if we adopt an El Prez II. It's just a new test. A better test IMO. Better insofar as measuring reaction and immediate action.

[MGW]

Why not keep fast and add Fast 2 as an advanced drill? Fast one is set up as a standard for all out speed and the ability to to reload and transition. Fast 2 becomes a reactionary drill for honing ability to react to the situation. Two completely different variables are being measured in my opinion.

This is coming from a guy that sucks at the fast drill so take it with a grain of salt.

[John Ralston]

The difference from a planned to unplanned reload is about .3s for me.

Don't forget the target transition, which technically doesn't happen in the FAST due to the timing of the reload.

From my perspective, the FAST is a Drill, while the FAST 2 is an Assessment. Drills by definition have a fixed set of rules, while an Assessment measures performance of a set of skills. You can use a drill as an assessment, but I don't think the opposite is necessarily true. Kind of like a math test vs a times table test...both are math but times tables are a known (a drill) and the test is an assessment of what you know about a math topic.

[ToddG]

If, in the new drill, knowing when the reload is coming is cheating then every previous FAST score was cheating.

Seriously? If tomorrow the NFL makes throwing passes cheating, does that mean every pass ever thrown in an NFL game was cheating?



I think it's a cool tweak, but I also think you'd have to trash all the old benchmarks.

Respectfully, that's why I was asking people to try it. We can all surmise and guess. I'm looking for data.

When no one had ever heard of or shot the FAST the benchmarks were pretty well tested and established. Now, as people run the drill a million times, those benchmarks are getting pushed. I never would have imagined people shooting it in the low 3's regularly and some even purporting to do it sub-3. It's sort of like the 10s El Prez. Once that meant something. Now, not so much. So if a surprise reload evens things out a bit, it might bring the existing benchmarks back into meaning. Or, it might require new benchmarks. That is what I am trying to figure out.


By shooting the low probability targets first, aren't you already skewing the results?

How does shooting one target first, every time, skew the results? The test is what it is. There is a very specific set of reasons why you shoot the low% target zone first.


Todd, I just ran FAST 2 several times and then FAST 1. How much detail do you want?

The more the merrier. Specifically, I'd be interested in total times, reload times, and if the placement of the reload on the "FAST 2" affected total time in any meaningful way (i.e., did it matter if you started with 3 rounds in the gun versus 4 versus 5).


I don't think anyone is saying we can compare scores of old FAST times to FAST 2 times, that's why Todd is calling it the FAST 2, and not just changing the rules and still calling it a FAST.

Well, I may just change the rules and still call it the FAST, just as others have changed their tests in the past. It wouldn't be my intent to use both, though obviously others who liked the old preset way could continue to use it all they wanted.


From my perspective, the FAST is a Drill, while the FAST 2 is an Assessment. Drills by definition have a fixed set of rules, while an Assessment measures performance of a set of skills.

I don't see it that way at all. The FAST was always intended as an assessment/test and never intended to be a drill (skill-builder that you do over and over again). The change I'm thinking about doesn't alter that.

[jlw]

Is this going to take the place of the original FAST or be in addition to or an alternate to the original?

Understanding that fair is a place where cows and pigs win ribbons, one is a test of a known constant while the other isn't, and thus it isn't "fair" to compare the results as a single test.

[ToddG]

Is this going to take the place of the original FAST or be in addition to or an alternate to the original?

For my personal purposes -- what I do cold when I show up at the range, what I use when I teach, and ideally what I use when testing for a coin -- the new version would be the only one I use. That's why I'm trying to gauge just how big the impact is.

I'm ok, after all these years, of "raising the bar" a bit. Rogers changed their test years ago to make it harder (I think they upped it from under 100 plates to 125 and added a lot of the 1H stuff... in the process obviously they had to change the number of hits required to get Intermediate and Advanced).

The drill would still be the same for everyone. It would just be a little harder than it used to be.

[John Ralston]

I don't see it that way at all. The FAST was always intended as an assessment/test and never intended to be a drill (skill-builder that you do over and over again). The change I'm thinking about doesn't alter that.

Actually, after thinking about it, I was incorrect. Since you aren't supposed to sit down and shoot the FAST over and over it isn't really a Drill. Since you have to do it cold and on demand, it is also an assessment. I like the new twist myself.

[GJM]

I don't understand why changing the reload to a semi-surprise reload makes it more difficult to compare results with other shooters.

You still have to engage the circle 4 times and get a reload in there somewhere. The only real way to cheat is if you know when the reload is coming ... but at that point you're not shooting the drill correctly.

If you end up with five rounds loaded:

1) you know longer have a surprise reload coming.

and

2) I need a much less forgiving grip to shoot one round after the reload than to shot multiple rounds. No different than the grip required for a one shot draw versus the grip to do a Bill drill.

[ToddG]

If you end up with five rounds loaded:

1) you know longer have a surprise reload coming.

This assumes you're so switched on that you purposefully make a sub-optimal adjustment on the fly when you realize it. I'm willing to bet actual data shows that's unlikely.

[JV_]

If you end up with five rounds loaded:

1) you know longer have a surprise reload coming.But you're not supposed to know, right? The goal is to have a random number of rounds, between 3 and 5, in the gun when you start.

[JV_]

This assumes you're so switched on that you purposefully make a sub-optimal adjustment on the fly when you realize it.I don't think I could do that.

[jlw]

For my personal purposes -- what I do cold when I show up at the range, what I use when I teach, and ideally what I use when testing for a coin -- the new version would be the only one I use. That's why I'm trying to gauge just how big the impact is.

I'm ok, after all these years, of "raising the bar" a bit. Rogers changed their test years ago to make it harder (I think they upped it from under 100 plates to 125 and added a lot of the 1H stuff... in the process obviously they had to change the number of hits required to get Intermediate and Advanced).

The drill would still be the same for everyone. It would just be a little harder than it used to be.


It's your world and your coin, but it isn't the same test. In my view, which I concede is of little relevance, the old records would need to be retired. That doesn't mean the current holders would no longer be considered coin holders; rather, it would mean that you are rebooting things and starting over with a new record book.

[JHC]

I'm looking forward to this. When I shoot matches I get a fair amount of surprise reloads. Most of them actually. :D

[ToddG]

It's your world and your coin, but it isn't the same test. In my view, which I concede is of little relevance, the old records would need to be retired. That doesn't mean the current holders would no longer be considered coin holders; rather, it would mean that you are rebooting things and starting over with a new record book.

Rules change in games and standards all the time. People don't "retire the book" each time. There are some baseball stats going back a century that came about under completely different rules in completely different ball fields but they're still there.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely see where you're coming from. The test changes (becomes, presumably, a bit harder) and so folks who earn a coin in particular under the new rules have had to work harder for it. I believe this is counter-balanced, as I've said, by the fact that people who are chasing coins are now shooting the drill a billion times. The randomness added by the proposed change should counter that to some extent.

[Archimagirus]

How does shooting one target first, every time, skew the results? The test is what it is. There is a very specific set of reasons why you shoot the low% target zone first.

That's why I pled a certain amount of ignorance at the beginning of my post. Can you point to where the reasoning was previously documented, or explain here why the low % targets are first? I promise I am not trying to troll or be a jerk, I just want to better understand and I do that by asking questions. Thanks for taking the patience and taking the time to explain now or previously.

[ToddG]

codisimo -- Not at all, dude. No worries.


Q5. Why do you take the head shots before the body shots? Wouldn’t it make more sense to do it in the opposite order?

The F.A.S.T. is not a tactical drill, it’s a skills test. The order and number of shots for each target is very specifically thought out.

The first shot from the holster is to the small target. This guarantees that the shooter can make a precise shot on his very first try. For shooters with Traditional Double Action (aka DA/SA) guns, this also guarantees they don’t jerk through the DA stroke.

The second shot measures the shooter’s ability to balance speed and accuracy against a small target.

[BaiHu]

Todd,

Without sounding like a kiss-ass, I think this is a great change for the following reasons:

1. In my own work, watering down the 'curriculum' has lowered the achievement bar which breeds false confidence, bs stats and when fantasy crashes into reality, people are really good at blaming others.
2. When people start abusing the 'test' or 'assessment' and turn it into a 'drill', that's like teachers simply teaching to the test. A student knows nothing other than how to fit the round peg in the round hole. It teaches them nothing about the math or geometry that makes those shapes work, nothing about the tools that make the peg or the hole and nothing about the physics that surround it all.
3. If the bar was never raised, we'd still be living in caves and staring at the stars wondering which 'god' turned the lights off.

[CCT125US]

What is the percentage break down among the three levels in class? Percentage of students vs. coin holders?

[SLG]

I see what GJM is saying. Its not that you would consciously alter your grip to game the test, its that if you do your reload after the 5th shot, then you know you only have one more shot to make after the reload, and the grip you take will likely be no better than if you just did 1R1 drills all the time, instead of 1R2. Not a choice, just a fact of life.

[BN]

I had a chance to run these today. I was shooting my CZ Custom DA/SA CZ75 out of a Blade-Tech holster under a 5:11 vest.

I am going to post average raw times. I had a few misses here and there but my accuracy is not what we are testing. ;)

I did as Todd suggested and loaded 1 round in the gun, loaded 2 rds in 1 mag, 3 rds in another mag and 4 rds in the last mag. I had a full mag to reload with. I shuffled the mags without looking, clicked 1 mag in the gun and put the others in my hip pocket. The reloads were always a surprise. I didn't try to count rounds to be aware of how many rounds would be left in each set. I am going to call each set of 3 runs a set.

I had to abort the first 2 runs because as soon as I had shot the first 2 shots on the 3x5, I dropped the mag and reached for a reload. :( Training scars???

It was a little hard to get in my head what to do. My first 2 sets of FAST 2 were not as good as the second 2 sets.

The first 2 sets of FAST 2, I had a raw average time of 7.15. Ave time with miss penalties was 7.81.

I then ran 3 runs of FAST. Ave raw time was 5.90 and ave time with miss penalties was 6.57.

The second 2 sets of FAST 2, the ave raw time was 6.7 and ave time with miss penalties was 7.70.

Then I ran 3 more FAST. The ave raw time was 6.22 and the ave time with miss penalties was 6.89.

There was around a one second difference for me between the 2 drills. The difference is in the transition and splits. My times to draw and fire first 2 shots was about the same for both drills. My reloads were only .15 faster on the original FAST, so there wasn't much difference. The transition added time and the splits were a little slower on FAST 2. You can really get going on the splits when you are firing 4 shots in a row on the original FAST. :)

This is a good drill, but I don't think the times will transfer over from FAST. They are 2 different drills that test different things.

[CCT125US]

Also to fairly evaluate this change the shooter would have to replace the first mag rd count back into the bag. Meaning with a rd chambered, you would then start with a mag with 2rds, 3rds and 4rds each time. If you just depleted the bag o' mags you would in theory know when to reload on the third run. Unless you had multiple mags with the possible rd count.

[Mr_White]

A few thoughts:

I like the regular FAST and this new one sounds cool too.

I think the new version is going to be a solid .5 to .75 or more slower, between the surprise reload and replacing one of the body splits with a downward transition. That's my guess but I am certainly interested in trying it and seeing how it actually shakes out for me.

Unless my prediction is wrong and the FAST1 and FAST2 somehow turn out to have equivalent times, I would definitely view them as two separate tests and my initial thought would be that I'd like to see separate records and standards and the FAST2 Wall of Fame for them. Interested to test it in any case.

[jlw]

Rules change in games and standards all the time. People don't "retire the book" each time. There are some baseball stats going back a century that came about under completely different rules in completely different ball fields but they're still there.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely see where you're coming from. The test changes (becomes, presumably, a bit harder) and so folks who earn a coin in particular under the new rules have had to work harder for it. I believe this is counter-balanced, as I've said, by the fact that people who are chasing coins are now shooting the drill a billion times. The randomness added by the proposed change should counter that to some extent.

Yup, and Roger Maris got an * because he got 162 games whereas Hank Aaron only had 144.

By the same token, bowl games used to not count in the season stats in college football. Now they do. The problem is that the records from bowl games prior to the rules change weren't added to the records of those who played in those games. The stats are skewed. There are players who are shorted yardage and tackles and receptions, etc, that they are not credited with in single season and career stats, but they are compared to players who had "extra" games.

You are starting a new test. It should be a separate test that replaces the old one, but its your test; so, my opinion is no relevance other than I felt like typing it.

[Archimagirus]

codisimo -- Not at all, dude. No worries.
Thanks for the clarification, that does make sense. That being said, I stand by my other comment, I want someone to film their old or revised FAST run and while shooting the final four shots, scream, "AMERICA!!!!" like Will Ferrell in The Other Guys.

[ToddG]

What is the percentage break down among the three levels in class? Percentage of students vs. coin holders?

I don't have that info in front of me. Students to students-who-are-coin-holders is 1 in hundreds.


I see what GJM is saying. Its not that you would consciously alter your grip to game the test, its that if you do your reload after the 5th shot, then you know you only have one more shot to make after the reload, and the grip you take will likely be no better than if you just did 1R1 drills all the time, instead of 1R2. Not a choice, just a fact of life.

The other option would be to reduce the variable so it's either 3 or 4 total in the gun to start, meaning you'd do two head, one body reload three body or two head, two body reload two body. It would reduce the variability which could be argued either way (easier to game if you're really that switched on, I suppose, which I still think is a minor point) but now everyone needs a good grip after the reload.

Bill, I really appreciate the data. That's a far greater delta than I expected. Hopefully others can add more and give a wider range of skill levels and raw runs.

Another issue that arises with the change is that the distance between the 3x5 and 8" becomes a factor, and suddenly the 8.5x14 FAST target becomes easier than the Q-PTC, etc. So I'd have to say all official runs need to be done on my Q-PTC, which I can certainly pull off but it makes it harder for other folks to get an "official" score (since you have to buy 100 of the targets at a time and most people aren't going to do that just to shoot one drill).

[BaiHu]

Can't you just give the distance grin 3x5 and 8" and guys like me can cut it and separate it?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[ToddG]

I also thought it was worth pointing out that some rules have changed already during the existence of the FAST, especially in terms of winning a coin:

At first, the only way to win a coin was to shoot the drill cold. You had to load up somewhere other than near the target, no sight picture or any of that silliness. Walk up, buzzer, success. One run, all or nothing. The first three guys (me, SLG, Sevigny) were the only ones who did it that way. After that, I needed to incorporate it into classes and wanted folks to have a chance at a coin at the end of the day.

So for a while we did "two in a row" out of only two tries in a day, but it didn't have to be cold. No one ever won a coin under that standard. A multi-time IDPA/USPSA champ who tried two or three times finally basically said "If I can't do it, who do you think is going to win a coin?" The existing coin holders discussed it and agreed that a "best two out of three in a day" was a fair standard, though obviously more forgiving than the original "cold" standard. Since then, that's what has been used.

There are some changes coming for testing/coin-earning regardless of whether the drill itself changes, mostly in terms of how many chances folks will get and establishing a more formal start position that should keep folks (especially aiwb shooters) from starting with their hands an inch from the gun.

[GJM]

I see what GJM is saying. Its not that you would consciously alter your grip to game the test, its that if you do your reload after the 5th shot, then you know you only have one more shot to make after the reload, and the grip you take will likely be no better than if you just did 1R1 drills all the time, instead of 1R2. Not a choice, just a fact of life.

That was my point. My draw to one shot is .10 faster than my draw to a Bill drill at the same distance, because I need a different grip to shoot six shots fast and accurately than to shoot one shot.


I would be tempered to call this new drill something else other than FAST (whatever) and dispense with coins or things that try to make it into another FAST. The FAST came at a point in time, and caught on not just at PF but with shooters on many forums. I know I have shot just two FASTests since the beginning of this year, and they weren't even legal as I was open carry and shot them to the upper IPSC A and lower IPSC A instead of a 3x5 and 8 inch circle. Speaking to Gabe tonight, he hasn't shot many more than me, and for the record, Gabe is the second biggest FASTbagger on PF. In times past, we were shooting a half dozen FAST at every range session. There was also a time when Stoeger and Vogel were trying to one up each other leading to Ben's 2.76 +/- FAST, but I hardly hear mention of a FAST elsewhere now. I just don't believe the FAST has the same buzz today as it did in times past, and I suspect a FAST 2 will have even less traction. The FAST is something special, will have its permanent place in the history of practical shooting, and it would be a shame to have a FAST 2 fizzle and dilute the original FASTest.

[jlw]

That was my point. My draw to one shot is .10 faster than my draw to a Bill drill at the same distance, because I need a different grip to shoot six shots fast and accurately than to shoot one shot.


I would be tempered to call this new drill something else other than FAST (whatever) and dispense with coins or things that try to make it into another FAST. The FAST came at a point in time, and caught on not just at PF but with shooters on many forums. I know I have shot just two FASTests since the beginning of this year, and they weren't even legal as I was open carry and shot them to the upper IPSC A and lower IPSC A instead of a 3x5 and 8 inch circle. Speaking to Gabe tonight, he hasn't shot many more than me, and for the record, Gabe is the second biggest FASTbagger on PF. In times past, we were shooting a half dozen FAST at every range session. There was also a time when Stoeger and Vogel were trying to one up each other leading to Ben's 2.76 +/- FAST, but I hardly hear mention of a FAST elsewhere now. I just don't believe the FAST has the same buzz today as it did in times past, and I suspect a FAST 2 will have even less traction. The FAST is something special, will have its permanent place in the history of practical shooting, and it would be a shame to have a FAST 2 fizzle and dilute the original FASTest.


What he said.

This FAST2 smacks of New Coke.

[ToddG]

This FAST2 smacks of New Coke.

I guess I'd say I agree, except that I wish I'd done it this way from the beginning because I do think it makes for a better drill.

As for the FAST "fizzling" or whatever, that could certainly be. I think it just hit an attention high point when a few folks were making a big deal out of the back and forth between Vogel and Stoeger. The fact that I haven't taught in about a year and a half and thus opportunities for coins & pins have all but gone away probably doesn't help, either. I still know quite a few agencies/teams that use it as well as other instructors so I don't think it's faded into history completely just yet. :cool:

[Casual Friday]

I think it's a horrible idea. Why? Because I suck bad enough as it is at the original FAST, which is easier than FAST #2. Maybe for us short bus kids, the original FAST could still be utilized. Or, there could still be the coin for the original FAST, and a different coin for FAST 2? I don't know, maybe I'm just rambling here...

[hossb7]

The new drill doesn't negate the skills that the original demands. Drawing with two precise headshots, a reload, and speed shooting are all excellent components - especially with the time criteria. As others have already said, the new version is only changing the anticipated reload to a "surprise" reload. I think it can be a good alternative version but I don't see the first one going away - at least it won't leave my drill book.

[BN]

For those of you wondering about how to load your mags. This is the way I did it and it worked great.

Load Magazine number 1 to capacity. Load mags 2, 3 and 4 with 2, 3 and 4 rounds respectively. Chamber 1 round from mag 1 and take mag 1 out of the gun and place it in your mag pouch. Shuffle Mags 1,2 and 3 without looking. Click one of the 3 mags in your gun without looking and place the other 2 in your back pocket. Make your first run, then remove mag 1 and place it back in your mag pouch. Take one of the remaining mags from your hip pocket and click it into your gun. Make your 2nd run, then remove mag 1 from your pistol and place it back in your mag pouch. Take the remaining mag from your hip pocket and click it into your pistol and do your final run.

I used an IDPA target with a 3x5 card stapled to the head.

I've only had one "official" try at the FAST and I happened to be shooting a revolver that day. :(

[jlw]

I guess I'd say I agree, except that I wish I'd done it this way from the beginning because I do think it makes for a better drill.

As for the FAST "fizzling" or whatever, that could certainly be. I think it just hit an attention high point when a few folks were making a big deal out of the back and forth between Vogel and Stoeger. The fact that I haven't taught in about a year and a half and thus opportunities for coins & pins have all but gone away probably doesn't help, either. I still know quite a few agencies/teams that use it as well as other instructors so I don't think it's faded into history completely just yet. :cool:

I should have trimmed down the quote as I don't think it has fizzled as I still see mentions of people having it as a goal. It is a "brand" and generally messing with an established brand is a bad thing. If you are going to do it, make it a clean break.

[GJM]

I should have trimmed down the quote as I don't think it has fizzled as I still see mentions of people having it as a goal. It is a "brand" and generally messing with an established brand is a bad thing. If you are going to do it, make it a clean break.

I agree. And for the record, what I said was:

The FAST is something special, will have its permanent place in the history of practical shooting, and it would be a shame to have a FAST 2 fizzle and dilute the original FASTest.

[Noleshooter]

I'll be at the range tomorrow and give it a shot.



I don't follow. The previous FAST didn't incorporate an unplanned reload. The new one is trying to incorporate an unplanned reload. Why does a new test, with different rules, invalidate the old?

It doesn't invalidate the old scores, you just can't compare them as apples to apples.



I don't think anyone is saying we can compare scores of old FAST times to FAST 2 times, that's why Todd is calling it the FAST 2, and not just changing the rules and still calling it a FAST.

After the clarification (at least how I'm reading Todd's post) do you still feel the same way?




Seriously? If tomorrow the NFL makes throwing passes cheating, does that mean every pass ever thrown in an NFL game was cheating?


That's not what I'm saying. Everyone who ran the original FAST had an advantage (knowing exactly when the reload is coming) that is specifically illegal in the new test. I'm saying you just can't compare the two apples to apples because they had an advantage that would be considered cheating in the new test.

Peyton Manning's stats blow Johnny Unitas' stats out of the water, but we can't compare them based on stats. It was a different game with different rules. It's OK, and I like the football of today a LOT better than old school (excluding all the crazy head contact rules from the last couple years) football. It's more competitive and more exciting, but it's different.



At the end of the day I think it's cool (not that my opinion matters in the least) and is a more realistic drill.

[jlw]

I agree. And for the record, what I said was:

The FAST is something special, will have its permanent place in the history of practical shooting, and it would be a shame to have a FAST 2 fizzle and dilute the original FASTest.

Okayden. What he said... again.

[CCT125US]

One issue I have with my speed is counting the rounds. If I run to slide lock it is always faster than counting shots. It's almost as if my mental round counter slows down the trigger. So my nit pick question is if throwing an extra round to 8" incurs a penalty or if the clock stops at round 6? I hope to actually shoot this tomorrow and gather some more thoughts.

[ToddG]

Some thoughts:

First, I'm certainly still interested in data if folks want to give it a go.

Second and perhaps more importantly, though, I think you all have collectively convinced me not to mess with the "official" FAST as it exists and as I use it in class/tests/etc. So this would not replace the FAST but rather become a variant to be used for things other than classification, pins, coins, etc.

If the delta had been a third of a second, I would have been willing to accept that. But Bill's actual data matches up to Gabe's mathematical estimation in a way that strongly suggests the delta will be significantly greater.

If frogs had wings I'd go back in time and do the surprise reload version from the beginning. But you guys have definitely convinced me that trying to change it now would be a mistake.

[JHC]

I hope you give this one a new name. Maybe "Not as FAST". In all my training every premature slide release for the last year or two has been during the reload of a FAST. (clue) Before the gurus chime in "software issue", yeah, no kidding. ;) Todd's described the same phenom on the topic.

Since it is a TEST, there is not much reason to shoot it slower than all out; most of the time anyway. The preplanned reload in the same place all the time in such a short, high speed test creates a more artificial condition where the shooter is releasing the mag and pulling the gun rearward as soon as they break the 2nd shot.

I can see moving to the "Not as FAST" as the go to test to shoot cold and rarely if ever shooting the original because the method of hauling ass through the original's reload has such a different mental component than any reload one would encounter in a practical defensive application.

[ToddG]

JHC -- Sure. How about the Complex? :cool:

One in chamber, mag in gun has 3-4 live rounds plus one dummy round, dummy round must be #2, or #3 in mag. Must TAP and RACK on dummy round, just racking = fail.

Draw, fire two to head, four to body, two more to head. Clear malf and reload as needed.

edited to add: There are so many variables this wouldn't be consistent enough to be "fair," but it would certainly be a more challenging set of tasks with a lot less ability to preload the complete shooting task into your brain at once.

[ToddG]

Actually, we can make it even more Complex.

Round in chamber.
Mag in gun has 2-4 rounds.
Spare mag has remainder of rounds to get total of 10 live rounds (so 5-7 total depending on how first mag is loaded); plus one dummy round. Dummy round cannot be first or either of last two rounds in mag (so malf doesn't come in middle of head shots).

On buzzer, draw, two to head, six to body, two to head. Reload and clear malf as necessary. Clearing malf must include tap & rack, merely racking is a failure.

Basically, it's a lot like the Farnam Drill but with tougher accuracy standards and multiple target zones. Also, I wouldn't require moving during the reload or malf clearance because there are complex factors (like working on a team or with an armed partner) that could dictate staying in place as a better option sometimes.

[rob_s]

I'm with George.

Among other things, and this comes from several years of running a lot of random load drills and stages, if you shoot your fourth round without a reload, it's not a surprise reload anymore.

Yes, you can fool some of the people most of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

[Jason F]

Todd-

I like your idea of the COMPLEX - but, here's a question.

Does running some drill like that, in one of your classes for instance, in essence warm you up for a FAST test at the end of the day? Of course the morning FAST would still be cold. But I'm wondering if someone might get their panties in a bunch because folks now would possibly have this similar drill during the day, in essence prepping them for the late day FAST (though more complex, and random, so I would disagree with them that this is a good warmup)?

I think it's a great idea though - even for just regular range work because by making it random it will keep the shooter on their mental game to maintain time standards. You can't just sit back and run the gun as fast as possible, but you have to be thinking while you're running the gun fast. And thinking with a gun is always a good idea.

[ToddG]

rob_s: Having run a ton ]of surprise reload drills myself and for students over the years, all I can say is that if you're that quick and conscious about realizing when the reload is happening on one opportune run, that's exceptional. I don't think enough people could pull that off, especially if they're working as hard as possible on the drill BEFORE the reload, to make the rare "perfect counter" a problem.

Jason: It's not prep for the FAST any more than a lot of other things we do in class, like work on 2 to the 3x5. :cool:

[JHC]

But I'm wondering if someone might get their panties in a bunch because . . .

Ha!!!! Like taxes and death!!! ;)

[JHC]

JHC -- Sure. How about the Complex? :cool:

One in chamber, mag in gun has 3-4 live rounds plus one dummy round, dummy round must be #2, or #3 in mag. Must TAP and RACK on dummy round, just racking = fail.

Draw, fire two to head, four to body, two more to head. Clear malf and reload as needed.

edited to add: There are so many variables this wouldn't be consistent enough to be "fair," but it would certainly be a more challenging set of tasks with a lot less ability to preload the complete shooting task into your brain at once.

That'll do. lol

[BN]

Something I just thought of. Will FAST 2 need to be an 18 round exercise compared to FAST being a 6 round exercise? With the 3 runs and staggered mag loading, it would seem to me that a shooter would need to do all 3 runs for a valid test.

[BaiHu]

What if you called it 'Code Orange'?

[ToddG]

While I do like that, there's a certain synergy between "FAST" and "Complex," don't you think? :cool:

Perhaps Code Orange could be when you do Complex once 2H, once SHO, and once WHO. Though for some people that might reach the level of Code Brown.

[BaiHu]

Well played. I just wonder if 'complex' is too common a word. I think it needs an acronym, b/c in the end, it's seemingly a more well-rounded version of the FAST. Something like Dynamic Awareness Test? Surprise Awareness Skills/Test? Tactical Dynamic Test? Dynamic Awareness of Fundamentals Test?? Although DAFT sounds funny, it sounds like a rhyming partner to the FAST and if you've passed the DAFT test, you're no fool to proper gun handling skills.

Just playing around....

[warpedcamshaft]

How about:

Dynamic
Enforcement of
Fundamentals
Ensuring
Constant
Awareness of
Tactical
Elements

D.E.F.E.C.A.T.E.... Oh wait... Oh... Sorry, bad idea.

[rob_s]

Bill Wilson's recent post about re-inventing the classic Bill Drill
Where can we find this post? I'd like to read it.

[LOKNLOD]

Just playing around....

On the topic of labored acronyms -

Quintessential Universal Immediate Combat Kinetic Intervention Estimator - the QUICKIE
Optimized Skill Heuristics Intermediate Test - the OSHIT.
Kinetic Intervention Tactical Test, Normalized - KITTN.

[BaiHu]

I wasn't playing around in THAT way...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[hossb7]

Where can we find this post? I'd like to read it.

3rd page in the Bill Drill times thread: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?10834-Bill-Drill-times&p=206310&viewfull=1#post206310

[Mr_White]

I like Complex.

I like treating it as a wholly separate thing rather than a revision of the existing FAST.

I think the FAST is, by this point, one of the legitimate metrics for measuring the included skills and tasks and I think it has a place at the convergence of the tactical and the technical. I like that the FAST can continue in its present and essentially classic form, which is clearly held by many people in a place of esteem as a standard of measurement. Leaving the FAST just as it is also allows Complex to be even further adjusted and explored, as is being talked about.

[BaiHu]

How about:

Complex
Reactive
Accuracy &
Fundamentals
Test

[AJZ]

On the FAST2, have you considered starting from a fence or "surrender"?

[ToddG]

On the FAST2, have you considered starting from a fence or "surrender"?

I think the FAST2 died on the vine. Complex does everything I wanted to accomplish and as so many others have pointed out doesn't dilute the original FAST.

I've been toying with allowing the FAST to be begun from a high fence (would need to define) as an option; with Complex I think I'd definitely allow it.

[JAD]

I like that you're looking at this. Preplanned reloads bother me. In the spirit of, I will start randomizing my 1r2 into an xr2.

[Corey]

Some thoughts:

First, I'm certainly still interested in data if folks want to give it a go.


I took the average reload time for 6 runs of the FAST and it was 2.20 seconds. I ran the FAST 2 today for 10 runs and had an average reload of 2.80 seconds. I also found it difficult to do because I am so programmed to reload after the second shot on the FAST so I had to throw away several runs because I started to reload early. Even when I didn't try to reload too soon my transition was very slow because I was having to pay attention to not reloading and that made my overall times slower then expected.

I also ran the G&R Tactical Drill #2 and my average reload was 2.69 seconds. By the time I did that drill I was getting a little better at surprise reloads, but still much slower than a planned reload.

Todd, if you are interested in all the numbers from my 10 runs, let me know and I will pm you with them.