PDA

View Full Version : Speed Control



Dagga Boy
03-01-2015, 11:02 PM
In an effort to build harmony by a bunch of folks trying to say the same thing in many threads on this forum, I think I found the right words. I was talking to GJM tonight and he brought up something that he observed shooting with Rob Leatham. He said that Rob is not wrapped up in a timer, and is not as mythological with his shooting as many of us credit him with, but that he has very much mastered the control of his speed. "Speed Control". Every bell, whistle and lightbulb went off in my head going "that's it". It is the pairing of words that works to describe what many of us having been looking for. Years ago while bickering like old women with Ken Good in epic threads (I am a vet of many an internet debate with some very smart folks), Ken and I got together in person. During our discussions about sight focus and "point shooting", etc. , we came up with "visually verified" as a term we liked to say what we were talking about. Different ranges, targets, conditions, liabilities, missions, events, etc. will all require a different kind and level of "visual verification" outside retention range. Poof, instant understanding.

Tonight, as soon as the words "speed control" entered the conversation, it became perfect for me, and I will be using it. It takes into account a couple of things. First there is Speed. It is such a divisive word. We know we need it, we can't often explain in any kind of terms how much or little. We have tried to use things like "split times" as some sort of numerical value, that is really worthless in the big picture. The key for me was control. We all agree we need some sort of "speed" in anything we do with a handgun (thrust of this forum, but works across the board), just like we also know we must use some level of visual input. The big variables will be "control" and "verification" and how we combine them. This is going to be totally situational. A high level competitive shooter working on pre planned wide open non-moving targets will use a totally different level of both control on speed and visual verification on sights as a LEO trying to work a complex, constantly evolving hostage problem in a tight apartment with a minority bad guy in a highly litigious State (yes, those are all factors today), versus a Special Operations soldier working in total darkness on NVD's way behind enemy lines against numerous heavily armed terrorists where teams are working faster than hey can really process. Then we have a homeowner finding an intruder in their home at 3:00am. All require very different levels of "speed control" and "visual verification". Some will share similarities, but all will require a process of both.

The two key words I like are "control" and "verification". Those are huge issues. "Speed" is something that can be technically trained to very high levels, especially when taught by experts in this area and combined with certain physical attributes. The key is how much control. I think many of us have tried to apply the controls needed for "our world" to others, and it does not compute. It is also very much in line with John Hearne's research in which people process things differently in their brains and how they control their rational and emotional responses. We have all suffered this battle. Equally, learning how to rapidly verify sights is another key and also very much based on running with emotion versus rational.

From a training standpoint, many of us have unlocked means to get different people to be successful in there various interests into solid results. My area of interest was first a small group of part time SWAT cops who did stellar work with a training methodology stolen from another group of very successful SWAT and Crime Suppression Teams. In my research, I found others doing the same thing with the same results. I eventually taught this same based program to a mid size police department in a busy area. Shootings went way down in frequency, results went way up when they did occur. As I look back now, what we essentially unlocked was how to teach in a way that Hardwired a set of speed controls (using accuracy expectations) to the visual verification controls that were all balanced with the high levels of accountability,constant assessment of shots and the situation that is ever changing and complex, and all tied to the legal, moral, and ethical expectations in that region. It is a "proven way" (not necessarily the only one), and from a purely research perspective, once my place and the place I stole the stuff from abandoned the training for those controls and verifications, both were back to the crap that comes from non-controlled emotional shooting.

Again, am totally good with other stuff working for other types of shooting or disciplines. Even competitively, the "speed control" and "visual verification" from USPSA to PPC to Bullseye, are totally different......yet both are required. Nobody succeeds at any of them without application of both to different degrees. The only outlier is World Fast Draw....which is really a very much physical game and the great ones are more like high level athletes in my mind.

I will leave this for tonight to hopefully let it soak in, but I am very happy in my own mind to have found a better way to explain what we are trying to do, and how to apply it.

SLG
03-01-2015, 11:13 PM
Speed control comes from seeing what you need to see and not accepting shortcuts. Not accepting shortcuts is emotional control. That is the very definition of on demand performance.

ToddG
03-01-2015, 11:14 PM
Again, another example of how easy it is for similar concepts to appear light years apart on the internet. The term I've used since I started teaching was "visual control of the gun."

GJM
03-01-2015, 11:25 PM
Darryl, I will add two comments relative to speed control, and then I am lights out.

First, Robbie is all about discipline. He flat out told me on day one in December, that if I wanted to become a good shooter I needed to learn shooting discipline. In Robbie world, you get that discipline by following his program of stopping the gun, aiming and working the trigger. Short cutting that process may hook up occasionally but leads to hero or zero inconsistent results.

Second, Robbie thinks it is important to spend a significant portion of your training in an uncomfortable area where you can not guarantee the outcome. That is how you improve. However, and this is non-negotiable with TGO, you decide how you are shooting before each run not afterwards. In other words, you declare first, and then shoot accordingly. That forces discipline, with you controlling the speed dial in advance, as opposed to just deciding after. And, the way he has you pushing your envelope, is still adhering to stop, aim, jerk, but experimenting with how much you can shave from each step.

Dagga Boy
03-01-2015, 11:45 PM
It is funny how we use different means to ends. My motivation for discipline....."if you want to keep your job, doing well at this just became a priority"....we have different students:)

On the "uncomfortable area". We use the same process but different application as the goals for a shooter with us versus with Robbie. As an example, we use the two second standards to let students push to fail, then we dial them back to barely make it, then we dial them to guaranteed to succeed......and that is where we want to build a over-learned response from. Can that get faster with a shooter who trains more,of course. Would it get dialed back for a student who takes a year off...of course. The key is that for us, we want to use some very limited resources to work to set their "auto-pilot" and front loaded response. To use our aviation analogies.....I don't think pilots set their auto pilot to work at absolute max performance levels, or in this case, to run in the red. Should a highly motivated pilot work some time at the edge, sure. I just don't want the guy flying the jet I am on to run that on my trip (although I have been on some flights where the landing felt like a carrier landing ;)).

Gio
03-02-2015, 10:01 PM
Competitive shooters like to call it visual patience. I.e. see what you need to see, and don't press the trigger until you see it...BUT don't waste your time seeing more than you need to see, because that's slow and unproductive.

Dagga Boy
03-02-2015, 10:19 PM
Competitive shooters like to call it visual patience. I.e. see what you need to see, and don't press the trigger until you see it...BUT don't waste your time seeing more than you need to see, because that's slow and unproductive.

This is where the huge disconnect usually occurs between the competitive sports and street use......when there really does need to be. It is what I like about Speed Control. You have to see FAR more on a street shooting before you get to start the "surprise match". You need to see more on the street, but what many miss is then it does get to be sort of like the competitive side where you have to stop seeing more than you need to see. It is just a difference in a lot of focus changes and situational assessments. Essentially, a bunch of the same stuff, with different priorities and placement of the priorities. The biggest key is to get folks to maintain top level shooter emotional control and discipline on a street chaos problem. It can be done, but it takes work to put the shooting into the subconscious on one side as the priority is on problem solving. The other side needs to use discipline and control to stick with and execute "the plan". Both are hard if we let emotion control the speed.

MGW
03-06-2015, 01:57 PM
This is probably the most fascinating seven post thread I have ever read. Lightbulbs went off everywhere. There is a lot here for me to think about. Thanks for sharing this all.

Chuck Haggard
03-06-2015, 02:05 PM
I have had a chance to run really fast competition guys through problems they didn't get to game ahead of time, shoot houses, Sims, etc. I note they slow way down in how they run things when they don't get a chance to pre-plan the event.

In something like USPSA one gets to do a lot of the processing ahead of time, this of course speeds up the process once shooting starts. One would be a bad ass gunfighter if one knew ahead of time that Mr. Bad Guy was going to do X,Y,Z two minutes from now.

I like where this is going.

John Hearne
03-06-2015, 02:29 PM
We've said it before and I'll say it again. The speed that you can shoot is limited by the speed that you can form decisions via proper analysis. It is possible for the well-developed shooter to be able to shoot faster than one may need to properly analyze the situation.

I remember in my Uncle Scotty class, he related their experiences bringing outside, competition based instructors in to teach. When the high-speed guy was taken to the door of the shoot house - they'd ask questions like: how many bad guys? how many good guys? etc. They'd respond - we don't know. Once the high-speed guys had to run the full analysis process they were no faster than the SWAT guys who shot "slower."

Years ago, we ran an IDPA scenario in which you started with your back turned to four targets. One of the targets was a no-shoot and it was randomly changed with each shooter running the stage three times. Suddenly, the performance difference between the good shooters and the bad shooters really became less pronounced. The faster shooting guys were still faster but the difference was markedly reduced.

I'm not saying not to continually refine your motor skills. The brain loves recency when it comes to picking which motor program to run. But, the longer I study this stuff, the more I believe that you reach a point of diminishing returns more quickly with speed than accuracy.

KevinB
03-06-2015, 03:20 PM
And folks wonders why DB teaches the way he does.

John - I think you hit the nail on the head - and why SMU's and the higher level LE teams preach accuracy. However the motor skills - aligning gun, reloads, stoppages etc if those are able to be done "subconciously" - then you have a lot more brain cells able to be devoted to the tactical issues at hand.

Folks always like to reiterate outrunning your headlights - and what is true in driving, is super true when trying to problem solve a "dynamic or potentially dynamic encounter".

You can sim these events with well scripted FoF - or FATS stuff (or if you have the live fire video stuff) and it's very easy to see folks shooting faster than they can process, and making misses, or bad shoots. The best methods are (IMHO) done with video on video - with time to draw, time of shots, results of shots etc all recorded and analysed.

Chuck Haggard
03-06-2015, 03:36 PM
Paul Howe talks about this stuff as well in his book. Making the correct decision is the tough part, and takes the most time, IMHO

Mr_White
03-06-2015, 03:40 PM
The speed that you can shoot is limited by the speed that you can form decisions via proper analysis.

Yes. And the speed that you can shoot is also limited by how fast you can fire accurately, subsequent to making that decision. Training to have a high ceiling of speed allows one to back off to comfort zone/guaranteed/on demand but still be faster than others when it comes to the physical motions themselves, which are, as you correctly note, only enabled by the decisionmaking.

And confidence in gunhandling and shooting may help allow 'emotional headroom', so to speak, to avoid shortcutting or short-shrifting the critical decisionmaking process that comes first. I think there are a lot of people who aren't straightened out on say, very efficiently engaging from a vision-unobstructed ready position, and then block their vision with the gun trying to get ahead on the technical part, which undermines the decisionmaking that has to come first.


It is possible for the well-developed shooter to be able to shoot faster than one may need to properly analyze the situation.

It's also possible for a person who emphasizes decisionmaking and control in shooting to make the same mistake. The simulator (MILO or something) scenario you related a while back where you made a proper decision to shoot but didn't execute correctly comes to mind (Bill Drilled a target too difficult for you to do that, and tossed a miss.) Your decisionmaking was obviously good. I think that would be aided by technical practice with a variety of shooting problems so that you can shoot correctly and efficiently for the problem at hand. To a major point of the original post of this thread, that means practicing to shoot the sights and use visual patience in doing so. It does not mean to practice trying to be fast or trying to be slow, specifically. Those are byproducts of a correct technical process.

Since you were there, did anyone shoot without penalty at the Rangemaster match? Honest question. Do you know if anyone did? Decisionmaking wasn't even part of the equation in that match, right?


I'm not saying not to continually refine your motor skills. The brain loves recency when it comes to picking which motor program to run. But, the longer I study this stuff, the more I believe that you reach a point of diminishing returns more quickly with speed than accuracy.

Skill development is not ultimately about speed. Nor is it ultimately about accuracy. A person can learn to shoot/gunhandle almost as quickly as they can, in a relatively modest amount of time training and practicing. A person can also learn to shoot almost as accurately as they can, in a relatively modest amount of time training and practicing. The refinement from there is to learn to maintain a very strong combination of a person's available accuracy, at speed, and further, execute at that level with consistency.

The internet is a hell of a thing though, isn't it? If you talk about and emphasize decisionmaking, it can read like you are dismissing technical skills (even if you say otherwise.) If I talk about and emphasize technical skill, it can read like I am dismissing decisionmaking (even if I say otherwise.) I don't think either is actually the case. Let's sing Kumbaya next :)

Chuck Haggard
03-06-2015, 03:48 PM
I put a number of rounds into the neck on the paper targets at the RM competition, unfortunately that's exactly where I was aiming, forgot they were suing the target with the box inside the "milk bottle".

The scenario event was a two rounds COF for me.


Agreed that better shooters, combined with better processing, means one can be faster. I note less skilled shooters often know it, and try to get an edge be sneaking the gun up, or getting a finger onto the trigger. This can lead to very bad things happening.

Mr_White
03-06-2015, 04:36 PM
less skilled shooters often know it, and try to get an edge be sneaking the gun up, or getting a finger onto the trigger. This can lead to very bad things happening.

That is a giant problem to overcome in training new (defensive) shooters. Every time, it is like I destroyed their minds and told them up was down and night was day, but it is fact. Before you can shoot, you gotta decide to shoot. Before you can decide to shoot, you need to see something that tells you it is time to shoot. In order to make that decision as efficiently and correctly as possible, vision must be UNOBSTRUCTED, with gun out of face and eyes and mind on evaluation until the decision is made. Then, and only then, it's time for the sights and trigger.

The nagging question I have, is how much the above is responsible for the trigger finger violations out in the world among people who are not straightened out on that necessary process. My suspicion is that the answer is, a LOT.

SLG
03-06-2015, 05:23 PM
I remember in my Uncle Scotty class, he related their experiences bringing outside, competition based instructors in to teach. When the high-speed guy was taken to the door of the shoot house - they'd ask questions like: how many bad guys? how many good guys? etc. They'd respond - we don't know. Once the high-speed guys had to run the full analysis process they were no faster than the SWAT guys who shot "slower."

Years ago, we ran an IDPA scenario in which you started with your back turned to four targets. One of the targets was a no-shoot and it was randomly changed with each shooter running the stage three times. Suddenly, the performance difference between the good shooters and the bad shooters really became less pronounced. The faster shooting guys were still faster but the difference was markedly reduced.


I removed the parts I agree with completely.

As for the rest, my experience has been different. Good tac guys ask the same questions before every hit, or they aren't good tac guys. Search warrants, arrest warrants and hostage rescue all get those questions asked.

I have also not found tac scenarios to markedly change who the obviously better shooters are. Raw speed may be less distinguishable, (though often not) but speed of accurate hits, especially on the move, has always stood out to me. Having done this with the best tac guys on the planet, I feel confident in my experience, and my speed. A lot of factors go into how fast you can process info and make correct decisions, and that is critical. Once the decision is made though, fast accurate hits are more noticeable among the best shooters.

BTW, I've also done this with what I might politely term "less than the best tac guys on the planet." If a SWAT team was coming to save my family, I'd want to know which team before agreeing to it. SWAT is not SWAT all the time, everywhere.

Chance
03-06-2015, 05:31 PM
Paul Howe talks about this stuff as well in his book.


It is possible for the well-developed shooter to be able to shoot faster than one may need to properly analyze the situation.

"I teach a five-point discrimination process that involves looking at the 'whole person' first and then the hands. Why? Routinely we are being taught to shoot faster than we can think. The use of the mechanical safety adds one more step before taking a human life. This is important because I have many officers who look at hands first and then go to center mass and let the round fly, only to look at the whole picture a split second later, finding it was a friendly officer. In high stress situations, the safety can become a lifesaver." - Howe in an article here (http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/mp5_safety.PDF).

John Hearne
03-06-2015, 05:34 PM
Skill development is not ultimately about speed. Nor is it ultimately about accuracy. A person can learn to shoot/gunhandle almost as quickly as they can, in a relatively modest amount of time training and practicing. A person can also learn to shoot almost as accurately as they can, in a relatively modest amount of time training and practicing. The refinement from there is to learn to maintain a very strong combination of a person's available accuracy, at speed, and further, execute at that level with consistency.

The internet is a hell of a thing though, isn't it? If you talk about and emphasize decisionmaking, it can read like you are dismissing technical skills (even if you say otherwise.) If I talk about and emphasize technical skill, it can read like I am dismissing decisionmaking (even if I say otherwise.) I don't think either is actually the case. Let's sing Kumbaya next :)

I hate to sound curmudgeonly but.... Fifteen years ago, I had a lot of free time and a fairly generous ammunition budget. That is simply no longer the case and my training resources are now fairly scarce and I'm trying to figure out how to maximize them.

Jeff Cooper had a great concept called PII or "Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments." This was the concept that "This peculiarity lies in attributing importance to measurable deviations so small as to be meaningless." I'm always trying to figure out what is a PII in training and what offers a consequential improvement. To this end, I've been working on the non-shooting areas of improvement - grip strength, eye exercises, etc. - activities that I can perform while driving to and from work and don't "cost" anything.

My whole goal is to figure out how to maximize my likely performance in a real world fight (both on and off duty) within the resource constraints that confront me. I am not saying that shooting better (faster and more accurately) is bad, simply that I don't have the resources to reach my theoretical obtainable maximum. (I've had concealed draw stroke times hovering around 1.10 but could not maintain that long term with the resources I had)

It is thus important to me to know what to do next. If I can draw and hit an 8" circle at 7 yards in 1.5-1.7 seconds, is it the best use of my resources to reduce that time or to reduce the target size. One emphasizes speed and the other accuracy, and the perfect world answer is both but I'm not gonna do both.

Again, I'm not saying better isn't better, just that I need to figure out how best to spend finite resources.

Jay Cunningham
03-06-2015, 06:58 PM
This is an example of what a PF thread can look like.

Bravo.

GJM
03-06-2015, 08:48 PM
Interesting discussion. I am going to put this in terms of bears.

Some days it is most important to be accurate. Some days it is most important to be fast. Some days it is most important to be carrying the right equipment. Some days it is most important to be good at understanding bears and assessing the environment. Some days it is most important to be lucky. Some days you are going to get hurt, regardless of your speed, accuracy, equipment and experience. It is really hard to know in advance, which skill is going to be most important in terms of not getting hurt.

I have no quarrel in how others decide for themselves. Me, I just try to do the best I can at each of the things (speed, accuracy, equipment, experience) I can control, while hoping for luck to help with the things I can't control.

SLG
03-06-2015, 08:57 PM
In response eto GJM's post, I have to say that at whatever speed I decide I need to go at for a given problem, accuracy always comes first. Especially talking tac stuff (or bears, imho), accuracy is never sacrificed for speed. This would bring us back to the on demand discussion, but more directly, the tac guys who don't shoot at a high level (most) will be slow and accurate, or fast and inaccurate. The first is preferable, and usually enough to do the job. The latter is unacceptable, and is partially a selection issue, partially a training issue.

Failure2Stop
03-06-2015, 09:04 PM
"I teach a five-point discrimination process that involves looking at the 'whole person' first and then the hands. Why? Routinely we are being taught to shoot faster than we can think. The use of the mechanical safety adds one more step before taking a human life. This is important because I have many officers who look at hands first and then go to center mass and let the round fly, only to look at the whole picture a split second later, finding it was a friendly officer. In high stress situations, the safety can become a lifesaver." - Howe in an article here (http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/mp5_safety.PDF).
I follow the same in threat ID.

From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff

ToddG
03-06-2015, 09:46 PM
We've said it before and I'll say it again. The speed that you can shoot is limited by the speed that you can form decisions via proper analysis. It is possible for the well-developed shooter to be able to shoot faster than one may need to properly analyze the situation.

Anyone can shoot faster than he can properly analyze a situation. IME, better shooters have better see speed which means they can observe the problem sooner/faster and they also obviously have better technique which means once the decision has been made they can deliver faster/more accurate hits. So the only variable is the decision-making process. If someone can prove to me that better shooters are worse decision makers I'd like to hear the argument.

The best example I can give is from a national low-light IDPA match I ran (abysmally) in 2001. One of the stages was specifically intended as a gotcha to screw up the fast shooters. As the shooter navigated a blacked out "house," one steel target caused another target to pop up behind a window. Now, every single pop up target I have ever seen at any match has been a shoot/threat target. But this one was a no-shoot. My expectation was that all the top shooters would be so programmed to assume it was a shoot target, and would engage it so fast that they'd miss the fact that it was a no-shoot.

Not a single Master-class shooter fired on the pop up target. Many less skilled shooters, including LE and mil competitors, did fire upon the target.

The guys who had developed excellent see speed were able to observe & orient faster than the others, which meant they made the right decision and knew that correct action.


I remember in my Uncle Scotty class, he related their experiences bringing outside, competition based instructors in to teach. When the high-speed guy was taken to the door of the shoot house - they'd ask questions like: how many bad guys? how many good guys? etc. They'd respond - we don't know. Once the high-speed guys had to run the full analysis process they were no faster than the SWAT guys who shot "slower."

No faster to finish the entire exercise or no faster to engage and eliminate specific threats? If it took both types of guys 2min to get through the house that's all well and good. But if the "faster" guy was able to incapacitate the threats faster and with less exposure to incoming rounds I'd say that was far more important. Again, as others have said, once the decision to fire has been made the guy with better hard skills has an advantage. Being able to shoot faster & more accurately is always a benefit.


Years ago, we ran an IDPA scenario in which you started with your back turned to four targets. One of the targets was a no-shoot and it was randomly changed with each shooter running the stage three times. Suddenly, the performance difference between the good shooters and the bad shooters really became less pronounced. The faster shooting guys were still faster but the difference was markedly reduced.

This just proves the point: the better shooters were still better.

Did the better shooters hit more non-threats?


But, the longer I study this stuff, the more I believe that you reach a point of diminishing returns more quickly with speed than accuracy.

I'd agree with that on a conceptual & general level. Inaccurate speed is easier than slow accuracy.

KevinB
03-06-2015, 10:14 PM
I follow the same in threat ID.



What is interesting to note in CQB courses (especially long Mil ones) is that:

Beginners shoot the target -- focus on getting a hit.

Intermediate folks shoot the gun -- focus on threat and drive at it.

Advanced shoot head/UTC zones -- see targets and engage as required



The Mid level folks are actually the most dangerous for Friendly Fires.

Dagga Boy
03-06-2015, 10:34 PM
"Anyone can shoot faster than he can properly analyze a situation. IME, better shooters have better see speed which means they can observe the problem sooner/faster and they also obviously have better technique which means once the decision has been made they can deliver faster/more accurate hits. So the only variable is the decision-making process. If someone can prove to me that better shooters are worse decision makers I'd like to hear the argument."

I will disagree with this. I guess you are willing to discount experience. The one thing a ton of good street cops do is making difficult split second decisions regularly. They pick up body language indicators, anomalies, and lots of clues that most people will never see strictly on exposure and experience. Just because for many a gun is a tool and they only do what is required of them does not make them worse than an avid shooter at their ability to "see". My old partner was a perfect example. Shooting nightmare and a constant remediation project. Fastest guy I have ever seen at picking up threats. He could literally look at a group of six gang bangers standing on a corner and simply go "2nd dude from the left has a gun"....and was 100% everytime. He also had exceptional emotional control. He was very successful in an OIS because his threat assessment skills, emotional calm and the ability to go "auto pilot" on the shooting part were all outstanding. Having watched the legends of LAPD SWAT from their glory days work cold on a shoot house one hit after another from a catwalk, I will tell you that their ability to rapidly threat assess was off the charts.

If you look at why so many of us read "Left of Bang" with very little enthusiasm is due to experience. Hopefully Hearne can chime in with what his thoughts are on experience. From what I have seen first hand, great evaluators and decision making is not necessarily tied to being a great shooter. Because someone has spent years honing technical firearms skills does not mean they will recognize a threat faster than a person who has spent years dealing with predatory criminals that are usually the ones who need shooting at some point. Essentially, I will contend the opposite of Todd's point that better shooters are not necessarily better problem solvers and decision makers.

SLG
03-06-2015, 10:46 PM
Nyeti,

Not Todd, but I read what he wrote as all things being equal. Of course experience matters, and of course some guys who are great at street stuff are lousy shooters. I thought it went without saying.

Total drift, are you still carrying a T1/G17, or am I way behind?

GJM
03-06-2015, 10:47 PM
Essentially, I will contend the opposite of Todd's point that better shooters are not necessarily better problem solvers and decision makers.

Just to clarify, would you say that worse shooters are better problem solvers and decision makers, or do you believe that shooting ability and problem solving/decision making ability are independent of each other?

Dagga Boy
03-06-2015, 11:04 PM
Just to clarify, would you say that worse shooters are better problem solvers and decision makers, or do you believe that shooting ability and problem solving/decision making ability are independent of each other?

Very independent. I have seen problems on both ends. We all know "those guys" who are good shooters and make some of the stupidist decisions out there. Equally, I have seen some very poor shooters who are very good at getting themselves out of trouble without them. I am a huge advocate of maintaining balance. Mindset is a critical part of that balance. Mindset is one of those things that I have been able to guide people on, but you never really know what is going on in people's heads.

Part of what spawned this thread was my love of the word "control". Whether it is speed, vision, emotions, impulses, etc. those with the best control win over those with less. This is also where experience comes in. I can pretty much guarantee that GJM would exhibit far better control in most areas than me when it came to a large bear encounter (except discipline...because I don't walk around grizzly areas carrying chopped up bear snacks on my back....I order room service). I would likely fair better in the control area if we were strolling around some ghetto.

My point earlier in the thread about "screamers" never being in particularly great shooting incidents. They were often good for causing them.

SLG..I still have my G17 with the T1, but I carry a vP9 most of the time these days. The G17 is often out for demos with places looking for a specialized tools. One area it has stood out is for those working WMD capability and working in the moon suits.

GJM
03-06-2015, 11:12 PM
Darryl, thanks for that clarification. It is what I figured, but assuming can lead to all sorts of bad things.

On the bad decision piece, if you overlay one of my cardinal rules, never trust a male under 35, I bet it would solve most of that.

Dagga Boy
03-06-2015, 11:13 PM
Darryl, thanks for that clarification. It is what I figured, but assuming can lead to all sorts of bad things.

On the bad decision piece, if you overlay one of my cardinal rules, never trust a male under 35, I bet it would solve most of that.


I turned 50 today....it is my new age standard...;)

PPGMD
03-06-2015, 11:17 PM
I've attempted to explain this concept of "Seeing what you need to see" in Steel Challenge to others, it can be difficult. And yet, it order to get fast you have to understand it, as you have to change your acceptable sight picture sometimes on every target. In fact the only exception to this rule is Outer Limits where all the targets are hard enough to require a good sight picture on all five.

Chuck Haggard
03-07-2015, 12:09 AM
I turned 50 today....it is my new age standard...;)

How in the hell am I older than you?

Chuck Haggard
03-07-2015, 12:11 AM
BTW, I've also done this with what I might politely term "less than the best tac guys on the planet." If a SWAT team was coming to save my family, I'd want to know which team before agreeing to it. SWAT is not SWAT all the time, everywhere.

That is a sad fact of life, and often due to "incest and in-breeding", teams that fail to get outside training, or have no idea "what good really looks like".

Dagga Boy
03-07-2015, 06:33 AM
I've attempted to explain this concept of "Seeing what you need to see" in Steel Challenge to others, it can be difficult. And yet, it order to get fast you have to understand it, as you have to change your acceptable sight picture sometimes on every target. In fact the only exception to this rule is Outer Limits where all the targets are hard enough to require a good sight picture on all five.

This is true in working against humans as well, except with much higher levels of scrutiny and accountability. They score mistakes harder too.;)

23JAZ
03-07-2015, 08:02 AM
This is probably the most fascinating seven post thread I have ever read. Lightbulbs went off everywhere. There is a lot here for me to think about. Thanks for sharing this all.

100% agree, this thread is a fuckin goldmine! Thanks!!

JHC
03-07-2015, 08:34 AM
Very independent. I have seen problems on both ends. We all know "those guys" who are good shooters and make some of the stupidist decisions out there. Equally, I have seen some very poor shooters who are very good at getting themselves out of trouble without them. I am a huge advocate of maintaining balance. Mindset is a critical part of that balance. Mindset is one of those things that I have been able to guide people on, but you never really know what is going on in people's heads.

Part of what spawned this thread was my love of the word "control". Whether it is speed, vision, emotions, impulses, etc. those with the best control win over those with less. This is also where experience comes in. I can pretty much guarantee that GJM would exhibit far better control in most areas than me when it came to a large bear encounter (except discipline...because I don't walk around grizzly areas carrying chopped up bear snacks on my back....I order room service). I would likely fair better in the control area if we were strolling around some ghetto.

My point earlier in the thread about "screamers" never being in particularly great shooting incidents. They were often good for causing them.

SLG..I still have my G17 with the T1, but I carry a vP9 most of the time these days. The G17 is often out for demos with places looking for a specialized tools. One area it has stood out is for those working WMD capability and working in the moon suits.

Do you buy in to the argument long made that advanced technical skills breed confidence which is a factor in exercising patience and emotional control which might well drive better decision making. Ergo some relationship between skill and decision making. No huh?

Dagga Boy
03-07-2015, 08:45 AM
Do you buy in to the argument long made that advanced technical skills breed confidence which is a factor in exercising patience and emotional control which might well drive better decision making. Ergo some relationship between skill and decision making. No huh?

Across the board I buy into better training and confidence builds better decisions. Shooting, driving, defensive tactics, legal stuff, it doesn't matter. The key is always quality and applicability.

I also see a correlation with less need to short-cut. Better quality trained folks find less need to point guns at everything, and tend to be less prone from cheating trigger fingers.

Chuck Haggard
03-07-2015, 10:18 AM
In addition to ^that^, I think the bad guys know when they are dealing with such people, and are far less apt to challenge them.

EDPs being the exception to that rule since their reality ain't reality.

Wayne Dobbs
03-07-2015, 10:43 AM
In addition to ^that^, I think the bad guys know when they are dealing with such people, and are far less apt to challenge them.

EDPs being the exception to that rule since their reality ain't reality.

THAT is 100% truth in all respects.

GJM
03-07-2015, 11:01 AM
THAT is 100% truth in all respects.

Same with bears. Not!

To pick up on what Kevin said about intermediate shooters being the most dangerous, the same certainly does apply to pilots and bears. New pilots and baby bears are afraid of their own shadow, and that caution is protective. It is the intermediates, bears and pilots, that often get in to trouble as they have developed confidence but sometimes an incomplete skill set. With bears in particular, the first year they are cut loose from mom, they often get into shenanigans. The brown bear that charged me on Kodiak, was just such a bear.

I really think this thread should be called "method" control not "speed" control. Robbie possesses speed control, but that is primarily a teaching tool that allows him to drag you along to the speed he wants you to shoot. (It is pretty amazing to see how his shooting pace drives your pace, when he shoots side by side with you, and there are probably some tactical implications.) I get using time to bench mark your performance, or to develop a competency test, but it should not be a primary factor in how you shoot. Robbie would say method control, as in stop/aim/jerk, and let the time be what it is. That method control is continuously self correcting for your ability and the target size and distance.

David S.
03-07-2015, 02:20 PM
In my experience, new pilots are generally "dangerous" in predictable ways. Intermediate pilots... Not so much. That's what makes them dangerous.

Dagga Boy
03-07-2015, 09:22 PM
I like "speed control" in my world as I can apply it to lots of things....driving is my other big one.

Gio
03-07-2015, 10:45 PM
I have had a chance to run really fast competition guys through problems they didn't get to game ahead of time, shoot houses, Sims, etc. I note they slow way down in how they run things when they don't get a chance to pre-plan the event.

In something like USPSA one gets to do a lot of the processing ahead of time, this of course speeds up the process once shooting starts. One would be a bad ass gunfighter if one knew ahead of time that Mr. Bad Guy was going to do X,Y,Z two minutes from now.

I like where this is going.

My experiences differ from this. How many M/GM level LE shooters have you run through shoot houses or sim work? I'm not talking about the B class guys who hose as fast as a GM but squirt bullets all over the target.

I put about 150 state/local SWAT officers through a shooting school each year that includes a lot of sim and shoot house work. I have never seen a M/GM level shooter come through the school in the last 5-6 years, but I've seen plenty of fast C to B level shooters that fit the above description and do not have the necessary throttle control.

I am also on an LE team that has one A class shooter, B-class shooters, and the rest are about IDPA sharpshooter level in addition to me (USPSA M). Myself and the A class shooter are significantly faster and more accurate in shoot houses and force on force sim work. Our time to react to a shoot/no-shoot situation may be about the same as the avg on the team, but when that decision to shoot has been made, we can apply significantly more speed AND accuracy than anyone else on the team.

Edit to add: My competition gun is setup almost identically to my service weapons except for an FO front sight vs. trijicons. The trigger pull is within 1/2#. I can see how someone who uses a 2# 2011 trigger would struggle going to a 6-7# glock trigger.

NETim
03-08-2015, 10:32 AM
Anyone can shoot faster than he can properly analyze a situation. IME, better shooters have better see speed which means they can observe the problem sooner/faster and they also obviously have better technique which means once the decision has been made they can deliver faster/more accurate hits. So the only variable is the decision-making process. If someone can prove to me that better shooters are worse decision makers I'd like to hear the argument.

So, is this better "see" speed a learned thing, something that can be improved on? Is it a matter of experience? A product of superior internal clock speeds?

John Hearne
03-08-2015, 11:32 AM
So, is this better "see" speed a learned thing, something that can be improved on? Is it a matter of experience? A product of superior internal clock speeds?

There is some genetic gifting in this area, primarily with raw acuity, but this stuff helps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lG9T0vF7gc

John Hearne
03-08-2015, 03:57 PM
How many M/GM level LE shooters have you run through shoot houses or sim work? I'm not talking about the B class guys who hose as fast as a GM but squirt bullets all over the target.


I don't think anyone is saying that slow for the sake of slow is a good thing. In fact, slow because I'm too lazy to work to get better is a real issue.

When we hashed this out a while back, the conensus seemed to be that the point of diminishing returns was at the USPSA A level. If you were a B class then improving your shooting would be meaningful but if you were A class the bump to Master or Grand Master didn't offer the same return. We're not talking about gaming the classifiers or getting lucky but what one could produce on demand, and preferrably when cold.

This is the thread I'm referencing: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?11067-Input-on-Current-Project

GJM
03-08-2015, 04:16 PM
I
I don't think anyone is saying that slow for the sake of slow is a good thing. In fact, slow because I'm too lazy to work to get better is a real issue.

When we hashed this out a while back, the conensus seemed to be that the point of diminishing returns was at the USPSA A level. If you were a B class then improving your shooting would be meaningful but if you were A class the bump to Master or Grand Master didn't offer the same return. We're not talking about gaming the classifiers or getting lucky but what one could produce on demand, and preferrably when cold.

This is the thread I'm referencing: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?11067-Input-on-Current-Project

What do you mean by "gaming classifiers or getting lucky?"

PPGMD
03-08-2015, 04:43 PM
This is true in working against humans as well, except with much higher levels of scrutiny and accountability. They score mistakes harder too.;)

Unless you are in Soviet Russia... or NYPD.

Gio
03-08-2015, 09:01 PM
I don't think anyone is saying that slow for the sake of slow is a good thing. In fact, slow because I'm too lazy to work to get better is a real issue.

When we hashed this out a while back, the conensus seemed to be that the point of diminishing returns was at the USPSA A level. If you were a B class then improving your shooting would be meaningful but if you were A class the bump to Master or Grand Master didn't offer the same return. We're not talking about gaming the classifiers or getting lucky but what one could produce on demand, and preferrably when cold.

This is the thread I'm referencing: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?11067-Input-on-Current-Project

I disagree with this notion as well. I can tell you from personal experience, one of the biggest things that allowed me to make the leap from A to M and start finishing well with the M/GM level shooters at sectional and area matches was learning that visual patience and throttle control. I think settling for "good enough" by stating that anything beyond that only provides diminishing returns is just an excuse for settling for mediocrity. Someone may not have the time, resources, physical ability, etc to advance their skills beyond a certain point, but that doesn't mean they are as well-prepared from a skill set standpoint as someone who does.

ToddG
03-12-2015, 05:05 PM
I disagree with this notion as well. I can tell you from personal experience, one of the biggest things that allowed me to make the leap from A to M and start finishing well with the M/GM level shooters at sectional and area matches was learning that visual patience and throttle control. I think settling for "good enough" by stating that anything beyond that only provides diminishing returns is just an excuse for settling for mediocrity. Someone may not have the time, resources, physical ability, etc to advance their skills beyond a certain point, but that doesn't mean they are as well-prepared from a skill set standpoint as someone who does.

I actually agree with John on this. But I also agree with you. Here's why: I don't think all A-class shooters are the same. Some are awesome semi-hosers who haven't learned that visual control yet. Others have learned it but their other skills simply aren't refined enough to make the jump to the next level in the game.

I'd say Advanced on the FAST is way easier than making M in USPSA. But that's always been my yardstick. If you can do that on demand, your skills are good and there are probably more important things you should care about unless you're doing it for the sake of score as opposed to self-defense.

Better is ways better. But as John said, this is about diminishing returns, not trying to be Galactic Champion for the sake of it.

Failure2Stop
03-12-2015, 06:49 PM
Being a good shooter, being a USPSA GM, and being good at gunfighting fighting inside a house are not synonymous, nor are they mutually exclusive.

Some significant factors:
The way one moves through a course of fire is not the way one moves through an unknown structure.
The difference in being "good" at fighting inside an enclosure (which includes "not shooting your buddies or non-threats") is the ability to go from "search" to "shoot", correctly, and rapidly.
Once the decision has been made to shoot, the better shooter will get better hits on target and/or get faster hits on target.
Being a better shooter also gives shot placement options that a poor shooter will not be able to reasonably expect to achieve.
Tactical tasks do not belong on the clock, and bad things happen when they are. This is a really broad statement, and more absolute than I generally care to be. I'm not talking about making the switch from ID to shoot, or drawing the pistol, but rather things like door assessments, entries, post-engagement processes, etc.

One can teach a good shooter how to work an enclosure, and one can improve the marksmanship of a CQB dude, but just because the good shooter hasn't been trained how to do the job, or that the SWAT dude can't hold the 8-ring at 25 meters doesn't mean that it's better to be a weak shooter, or that good shooters can't perform tactically.

Tactics, marksmanship, and decision making are all essential. The weakest is what causes the structure to collapse under stress.

Dagga Boy
03-12-2015, 07:37 PM
Outstanding post.

Les Pepperoni
03-12-2015, 07:41 PM
This has been an awesome read.

Jay Cunningham
03-12-2015, 08:04 PM
I moved this thread to its rightful place in the Reference Section.