The Third Rule versus LEM Trigger

[rdtompki]

"Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target"
I've been shooting my P2000 V2 during our steel challenge practices to improve my trigger management (with what I would consider great success). I'm coming back during press-out and well into the second "stage" as the sights settle on the target. When transitioning targets I'm doing similar during the transition.

This gun is primarily for HD/SD and I'm a bit concerned that my approach to trigger management is inappropriate for self defense. I'm not necessarily concerned with the safety aspect; it seems to me this is the nature of the LEM design. I live in California and even self defense use of a handgun will result in a civil suit; we Californians have no protection in that regard. Now, this is a very, very unlikely scenario, but I thought I would query others who might be using a similar trigger for SD. Keeping my finger off the trigger until I have a sight picture would waste precious time and almost certainly affect accuracy.

[SLG]

The rule is as you stated at the beginning. "Sights are on the target." Not "sight picture." Two different things, that occur at two different times during the correctly executed draw.

[psalms144.1]

That's a different, and much more stringent, version of Rule 3 than I've been taught. "Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot," or, for those who hang out around lawyers a lot "keep your finger off the trigger until you've made the conscious decision to fire."

You are correct, keeping your finger in register on the frame or slide of the pistol until your sights are aligned is definitely going to be A LOT slower.

I'd be interested in hearing other instructors' takes on this one...

[GJM]

That LEM thingee isn't going to work too well, if you take your finger off the trigger during each transition.

[rdtompki]

That LEM thingee isn't going to work too well, if you take your finger off the trigger during each transition.
That's for sure. I know LEM isn't in widespread LE use, but I wonder how LE instructors would teach that trigger. I did try the V1 and liked it, but in California you don't want to be changing triggers in an SD gun.

[YVK]

The rule is as you stated at the beginning. "Sights are on the target." Not "sight picture." Two different things, that occur at two different times during the correctly executed draw.

That. Maybe somebody could find Ernest's video on DA shot execution, he talks about it too in passing.

[HCM]

That's a different, and much more stringent, version of Rule 3 than I've been taught. "Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot," or, for those who hang out around lawyers a lot "keep your finger off the trigger until you've made the conscious decision to fire."

You are correct, keeping your finger in register on the frame or slide of the pistol until your sights are aligned is definitely going to be A LOT slower.

I'd be interested in hearing other instructors' takes on this one...

This ^^^^.

What if I draw to take a "don't shoot yet" person at gun point? My sights are on target but I don't want my finger on the trigger unless / until I decide to shoot.

[Drang]

IMHO, if we tried to re-write the rules of gun safety (3 or 4, whichever) to meet every mechanical variation and "what if?", we'd all be paralyzed.

[Dagga Boy]

Here we go again.....first. LAW ENFORCEMENT modification.....it's optimized for dealing with people you are trying to take prisoner. Putting the thing into steel challenge type stuff is already outside its realm of what it's designed for.

With that said...for pure shooting efficiency, the micro press out thing GJM discussed before works well with the LEM for pure shooting.

Now...take this for what its worth, as Todd and I argued about this a lot. I have had numerous situations change in the middle of a trigger press on actual humans. Until you know first hand how time slows down, it is hard to explain. I also found that in a majority of cases when I was on a suspect, decision to shoot made and starting my press....they were moving and I was having to work a sight track into the equation. Essentially.....there is a ton of stuff going on and I would discount anything that takes a lot of "timing" to get right. I found that sights on, tracking and then pressing worked well to keep me out of several shootings that could have been iffy due to the change in circumstance. If I was clearing a compound in a hostile country for the US military....might not be as concerned as I was as a cop in the United States working in the 9th Circuit area to REALLY getting things right.

So....for steel challenge...you should probably use something else. If you don't care about winning...then maybe try a sort of compromise that the micro press out thing seems to work well with the LEM. For actual people...I try to stay in the evaluation phase as long as possible and ideally would want sights aligned (even if I cannot see them...eg. Retention shooting) before I press, but that is just me.

[YVK]

Nothing that I see in this^ post reads contradictory to everything above. If I am in the evaluation phase I am not shooting, I am off the trigger. If I decided to shoot, I am on the trigger as soon as I have referenced my gun on target. If I am shooting a mover and I don't have said reference, I am off the trigger. For me this is all largely theoretical but that's how I practice.

[breakingtime91]

I only train with lem when it comes to pistol. My finger doesn't move to the trigger until my sights are on target and at that point I move to trigger and work my press. If anything seems fucked up during any of that I have a lot of different times to get off the trigger. Even with all of that my draw to first shot at 7 yards to an A zone is around 1.5-2 seconds which I can live with.

[SLG]

This ^^^^.

What if I draw to take a "don't shoot yet" person at gun point? My sights are on target but I don't want my finger on the trigger unless / until I decide to shoot.

This gets into a different discussion, and the semantics can boggle some people. To me, there is no issue with this rule as stated. A "person" doesn't become a "target" until I have decided to fire.

Agency lawyers/admins/instructors have tried to change the correct safety rules to add things like "sights are on the target AND the decision to fire has been made." These types of additions are not needed if you correctly define your terms to begin with.

[rdtompki]

Just to clarify my mention of steel challenge: I don't shoot the HK in competition, I was only using our practice session to work the HK in preparation for a class. Out of the draw in a defensive situation where I've made the decision to shoot I'd be on the target before getting on the trigger. Maybe not A zone, but definitely on the target. One of the things I like about the long HK trigger and given enough training (unlikely for us civilians) is that it's possible to interrupt the process. Realistically, I'll never have access to enough training and relevant practice as a civilian to get nuanced beyond recognizing an imminent threat of serious injury or death.

[Wondering Beard]

Realistically, I'll never have access to enough training and relevant practice as a civilian to get nuanced beyond recognizing an imminent threat of serious injury or death.

I don't know that that's quite true.

Sure, you won't have the experience that a good cop will be able to bring to bear to a great amount of those situations, however, some classes from some instructors can give you an excellent foundation for a proper mindset (like Nyeti's post about paying attention to what doesn't fit) that you get to apply to your circumstances. For example, I, being a civilian, do not have to worry or think about cars carrying gang bangers driving across the street while I'm idling at a light (though it's not a bad thing to notice), but it's good practice to notice if the people entering, standing around the doors or exiting my regular grocery store look out of place or not. That sort of attention enables us to just say "I'll get my groceries somewhere else today", while the police officer will have to wonder about a lot of extra stuff such as 'are they about to rob the place or just getting some beers, or waiting for someone to attack or about to sell some drugs or ...' which is where the police officers depth of experience starts to matter and for us civilians not that much.

As civilians we have to worry about fewer things than a police officer does but we can develop a level of awareness and nuance that is quite large for our own circumstances.

[Dagga Boy]

Cops have to pay attention to hunt predatory criminals. citizens have to pay attention to stay away from predatory criminals. Big take away....awareness that there are predatory criminals out there.

[JustOneGun]

Here we go again.....first. LAW ENFORCEMENT modification.....it's optimized for dealing with people you are trying to take prisoner. Putting the thing into steel challenge type stuff is already outside its realm of what it's designed for.

With that said...for pure shooting efficiency, the micro press out thing GJM discussed before works well with the LEM for pure shooting.

Now...take this for what its worth, as Todd and I argued about this a lot. I have had numerous situations change in the middle of a trigger press on actual humans. Until you know first hand how time slows down, it is hard to explain. I also found that in a majority of cases when I was on a suspect, decision to shoot made and starting my press....they were moving and I was having to work a sight track into the equation. Essentially.....there is a ton of stuff going on and I would discount anything that takes a lot of "timing" to get right. I found that sights on, tracking and then pressing worked well to keep me out of several shootings that could have been iffy due to the change in circumstance. If I was clearing a compound in a hostile country for the US military....might not be as concerned as I was as a cop in the United States working in the 9th Circuit area to REALLY getting things right.

So....for steel challenge...you should probably use something else. If you don't care about winning...then maybe try a sort of compromise that the micro press out thing seems to work well with the LEM. For actual people...I try to stay in the evaluation phase as long as possible and ideally would want sights aligned (even if I cannot see them...eg. Retention shooting) before I press, but that is just me.



You are correct in that it's the, here we go again. I agree that perhaps LEM isn't great for steel challenge. I don't know why the engineers made it that way but I do know why command staff desire it. That's for the belief that they will eliminate AD's and ND's.

As for changing your mind mid trigger press, have you ever considered that you are unique in this ability when compared to the overall human population? I have disagreed with you before on this. The simple reason is, I can't do what you describe without artificially slowing down my trigger press to something close to one round a second. My stop shooting reaction time is just too great.

I have seen a female detective who was by all measures of mechanics, tactics and decision making middle to substandard. But she could simply stop pulling the trigger whenever she desired in a small fraction of a second. Over a three year period I tried everything I could to make her fail. Shoot house, FoF, drills, it didn't matter. She could simply do things that I could not. Her stop shooting reaction time had to be around .2 to .25 seconds. As the target fell behind the couch she would track it down the wall shooting the wall and immediately stop as the couch came into her view. She was shooting slower than I was but reviewing the tape showed she was not shooting that much slower. I wouldn't have stopped shooting.

I mention this because if you do have this ability that others don't and then use that ability to teach those of us who don't have that ability one of two things must happen, we disagree with you and disregard your teaching. Or we will agree with you and artificially slow down our shooting (or if we are new, not progress towards the ability to shoot as fast as they should.)

Is it possible you need to take that into account for us mortals with .5 to .75 reaction times?

[Wondering Beard]

I'm not Nyeti, I can't shoot as well as Nyeti and I certainly don't have the wealth or depth of experience that Nyeti has, however what you are asking is exactly what I believe he teaches how to do.

Also, with all the drawbacks mentioned in the first sentence, I have been able to do exactly what Nyeti preaches, while in training (with someone else many years before I even knew Nyeti existed) and with a 1911 no less. The important part, as I understand it, is not about stopping to shoot but about being able (and it is very trainable) to continuously assess changing circumstances; some may require to shoot more and faster, some less, some to stop or some to start shooting something else. Sure shot to shot speed (splits) will be slower but low splits (as has been discussed in many threads here) are not that important for a successfull defensive situation.

[JustOneGun]

I'm not Nyeti, I can't shoot as well as Nyeti and I certainly don't have the wealth or depth of experience that Nyeti has, however what you are asking is exactly what I believe he teaches how to do.

Also, with all the drawbacks mentioned in the first sentence, I have been able to do exactly what Nyeti preaches, while in training (with someone else many years before I even knew Nyeti existed) and with a 1911 no less. The important part, as I understand it, is not about stopping to shoot but about being able (and it is very trainable) to continuously assess changing circumstances; some may require to shoot more and faster, some less, some to stop or some to start shooting something else. Sure shot to shot speed (splits) will be slower but low splits (as has been discussed in many threads here) are not that important for a successfull defensive situation.



No. You are not correct in any way shape or form. The stop shooting reaction time tends to be a range that seems to be fixed by genetics. What can be trained is to anticipate what might happen while they are shooting. I shoot bad guy and expect them to fall or spin. With that I can reduce the reaction range to the minimum.

If I properly see the stimulus needed to begin lethal force I move my eye from the reason (let's say a pistol in the bad guy's hand) to center mass a fraction of a second before my sight gets there. This works much like transitioning from target to target while shooting. I see the bad guy's pistol for as long as possible before finding my target. If he drops the gun I can decide not to shoot. Once I look away from that bad guy's gun he is getting shot because he will be a lethal threat. One mistake made by people is that they believe they can continue to use their peripheral vision like they do in training while shooting.

With tunnel vision or just plain good focus on the front sight I shoot until the threat goes away. But how does that work if I am only seeing a few inches of the target's center mass? My eye has to see a change in that few inches. So my mind registers that the suspect is falling or spinning. Now I have to stop shooting. That translates into possibly shooting a round or two into the person after you decide to stop firing.

If I do as you suggest as an officer I will by your words increase the time of my gunfight. This is where citizens like to come in and say, well as an officer you have to take on the added danger. They say this because they have watched too many movies and are ignorant. Most of the bad guys bullets go where? Down range and not into the officer, although some do hit the officer. That means it isn't just my gunfight and life on the line. It's the construction workers that had bullets bouncing around his van a block away from my shooting. I can tell you for a fact that that construction worker and his passengers wanted me to finish that gunfight as soon as legally possible if not before.

But I digress. Back to the bad guy's pistol. Once my eye leaves the pistol I can no longer see that pistol. I am looking at my target. For me and for a vast majority of Officer involved shootings they report tunnel vision. So am I looking at my front sight, firing and finding it again between shots? Or am I seeing my front sight, looking back at the suspect's pistol and if there is still a threat then starting all over again? You're right I trained to do that. I shot one round a second. I shoot between three and four rounds a second at 7 yards. That's a pretty big disparity. In my opinion, a totally unacceptable disparity that relies on luck for me and more importantly my former students to survive the gunfight.


Your statement that fast splits and such are not needed in a defensive situation is ludicrous at best. You do know that sometimes bad guys kill armed good guys. You do know that sometimes those good guys are found with their gun in their holster, out but not fired or fired but the bullets didn't seem to get the job done by either missing or not being the death rays we want to believe they are? The more bullets I can fire per second while maintaining the accuracy needed to get lethal hits to the chest and head the faster the gunfight will end. The difference between two seconds and three and a half is big to me. I saw how fast those seven rounds came at me. Action and reaction really sucks in real life.

You obviously can do what you think is best. For me, and if I was still teaching, my students I would passionately teach them to learn to make decisions faster, more accurately and while shooting to do so as fast as they can balance the speed with accuracy in order to finish the gunfight as fast as possible as I describe above and for the reason stated above.

You're ability to make the statement above is only because we don't walk around with high speed camera's on our person during gunfights. Homicide detectives frequently come to the conclusion that people lose gunfights because they didn't draw fast enough, shoot accurately enough and yes, didn't shoot fast enough.

As a summary I will paraphrase Todd. No one in a gunfight ever said, I wish I had drawn slower, shot slower or shot less accurate. What they usually say is, I am glad that circumstances allowed my draw speed, ability to shoot accurately and quickly was good enough in my circumstance. Now I'm going to study more to be quicker to know when to shoot and I'm going to hit the range and train to shoot more accurate and more quickly.

/rant off

[Dagga Boy]

Honestly, I never thought that I have some unique ability, however; in my studies of some of our greatest gunfighters, many did/do. Contrary to the impressions some folks have, I am not a gifted shooter. It is hard for me and I have to work at it. It is why Wayne and I work well together....he does have a gift for it. My strength has been much more on the gun handling/tactics side of the equation. Those with unique abilities, most of it is vision related. I know from shooting with Wayne Dobbs regularly, he has a unique combination of both freakish vision and very fast reaction times on some of the drills we do. Watching both GJM and especially Mr. White, they both have very fast twitch reflexes. I had a SEAL in a class once who also had freakish twitch reflexes....no skill at hitting anything, but off the charts fast in his draw speed and how fast he could physically press a trigger. I have spent a bunch of time around Cisco, the Cowboy Fast Draw guy. His dad was a world champion at fast draw, and there are some genetics at play, as he is a literally freak on what he does within normal human reaction time. I am honestly not far behind Wayne on reaction time which is substantially less than average. Both Jelly Bryce and Frank Hammer had several genetic performance gifts for shooting bad guys. Along with that I am aware that I do have a greater ability than most at task stacking. Because I have a very one track mind and get fixated on things, when in a chaotic environment I have to very rapidly prioritize tasks and execute them. I discovered being good at this when working air support. TFO's have to be exceptional in this regard and very few officers possessed the skill to do the job that was recognized as the hardest in the department. I was fairly comfortable in this environment.
So....you may be on to something. The ease of stopping a LEM trigger is really unmatched because it is only movement without the momentum build of a DA gun. A majority of my stops on the trigger were on DA guns, so the LEM is super easy. The guy I shot in a bar from retention was absolutely going to be a hammer pair...and I stopped when he reacted so hard to getting hit with the first shot.
I also do something with my eyes that goes totally against most thinking. I work with both eyes open gathering as much information as I can and am very hyper sensitive to separating phases of dealing with a threat. In evaluation phase, both eyes are open. As soon as I switch to Elimination via lethal force I close my left eye. I do not want it looking out in infinity or providing distraction. I am now limiting input to what my right eye can see in and around the sights or the extended pistol or long gun. While the information is limited, it is all I really need. Keep in mind, I very much also teach a distinct separation of evaluation and elimination. I believe I was able to stay out of a lot of trouble because of this separation, where many folks are cheating elimination into the evaluation arena.

I suppose this is some fairly deep stuff. I will definitely spend some time thinking on it. Who knows...this may be my topic of instruction next year at the Tac Conference....."How to stop the shooting decision"....should set a record for least attended;), as I doubt there is much interest in most places in the shooting community on how to stop fast. Maybe it is something that needs more exploration into efficiently teaching it.

Thank You for the thoughtful post....it has my brain spinning.

[SLG]

Well, I don't mean to take anything away from Nyeti's innate skills, but I know lots of guys, me included, who have stopped their press, many times over. None consider it unusual in anyway at all, and their shooting ability ran the gamut from world class to D class. I assume their reflexes were equally distributed, but I have no data in that area.

[Dagga Boy]

Well, I don't mean to take anything away from Nyeti's innate skills, but I know lots of guys, me included, who have stopped their press, many times over. None consider it unusual in anyway at all, and their shooting ability ran the gamut from world class to D class. I assume their reflexes were equally distributed, but I have no data in that area.

Trust me....when it comes to any physical stuff, I never felt gifted, nor did I consider that it was something that everybody didn't have the ability to do. Like you, I know lots of folks who have done this.
On the other hand....it may be something to look at training wise, as there have also been lots of cases where folks have not stopped, have made bad or "less than optimal" decisions. Heck the Chicago abortion shooting is a very good example. I have investigated some real clusters that may have some issues with perception and reaction associated with them.
From a purely academic outlook, this may be something to look at, especially in today's climate. We have very much focused on how too shooter faster, more accurately, and are always looking for performance gains or more efficient ways to teach how to shoot with a high performance level. Maybe we are missing something by not looking at how to most efficiently teach stopping or shot interruption. I have a feeling this is not about being particularly special, but more about maximizing some hand eye coordination and processing stuff.

[GJM]

Bill Rogers speaks to stopping the shot, and says most people do a great job of this. The Rogers range tests this because you are shooting targets that disappear. To Bill's observation, you don't see folks there shooting at targets that have disappeared.

In terms of not pressing the trigger at the wrong time, wouldn't a trigger pull that is shorter be optimal in not getting caught working the trigger when you shouldn't be?

[Dagga Boy]

Bill Rogers speaks to stopping the shot, and says most people do a great job of this. The Rogers range tests this because you are shooting targets that disappear. To Bill's observation, you don't see folks there shooting at targets that have disappeared.

In terms of not pressing the trigger at the wrong time, wouldn't a trigger pull that is shorter be optimal in not getting caught working the trigger when you shouldn't be?

What I would love to see is different arrays where it is not disappearing, as you know it is going to disappear. If they could set something up where you got a target, then got an indicator of shoot/ or stop, that may be a better indicator and not as easy.

It is very hard to explain, because the force situations are all so unique and the impulses that are stopping or initiating shots may be visual, audible, both, etc. It is simply a duration thing. A shorter trigger has less duration. If speed is critical...better. If it is a case of a developing situation, more duration maybe better on a complex developing situation. Also, situations simply change. You can go from shoot to non shoot and vice versa in very short time frames. Often, you can get a shoot situation, process the information and decide to shoot and fire. During that time between the decision and the action things can change. Often it changes faster than you can process the change and stop,,so the round gets launched. It IS a good shoot based on information at the time, but can look bad later or get Monday morning QB'd to death. Also, I have noted a lack of tactile feel of the trigger during shootings, but was aware of the movement and huge increase in visual acuity. Less movement equals less input more movement, more input.

[SLG]

Nyeti,

I think you may be on to something. I don't think the Rogers range is a good representation, because as you noted, shooters know the target will disappear. Also, there is no potential for extra holes in you. The issue is situations where you don't know what is going to happen. The problem as I see it, is that people will often let their brains fill in what is going to happen next. They base this on past experience, whether that is real or not, and whether that is relevant or not. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. My supposition is that people who can stop their trigger press, in real time, are people who can see what is actually happening, quickly understand what it means, and adjust. Others get sucked into what they think will happen and the shot still goes off, even if it was, to someone else, clearly not needed right then.

[Dagga Boy]

Nyeti,

I think you may be on to something. I don't think the Rogers range is a good representation, because as you noted, shooters know the target will disappear. Also, there is no potential for extra holes in you. The issue is situations where you don't know what is going to happen. The problem as I see it, is that people will often let their brains fill in what is going to happen next. They base this on past experience, whether that is real or not, and whether that is relevant or not. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. My supposition is that people who can stop their trigger press, in real time, are people who can see what is actually happening, quickly understand what it means, and adjust. Others get sucked into what they think will happen and the shot still goes off, even if it was, to someone else, clearly not needed right then.

I have a feeling we probably need to dedicate some time to looking at this and how to train it.

[JustOneGun]

Well, I don't mean to take anything away from Nyeti's innate skills, but I know lots of guys, me included, who have stopped their press, many times over. None consider it unusual in anyway at all, and their shooting ability ran the gamut from world class to D class. I assume their reflexes were equally distributed, but I have no data in that area.




There are some that can do it. But they are the minority and not the norm. Don't get me wrong. I have seen a person drop the rock and not get shot. But that is before I transition my eyesight from the rock to center mass and therefor before I started my trigger press on my USP. I have taken up the slack on a glock trigger and then stopped because I never actually said front sight and press. Sure. But once I am focused on the front sight and press the trigger I will not and cannot stop. Double action, LEM, Glock, doesn't matter. I simply cannot do it. Reaction time, tunnel vision and the time of the trigger press is just all fighting against that ability. Training to do what you suggest is not only a waste of time but can actually be dangerous for a slower shooting student for the reason I stated. Stopping is one thing before the first shot but stopping shot to shot is definitely impossible for me and I believe almost all humans that fall into the normal category of reaction time and tunnel vision. The only way I can see that working is if one is shooting at the weapon that caused the lethal force encounter. Or as I said shoot one round a second.

[Cincinnatus]

My supposition is that people who can stop their trigger press, in real time, are people who can see what is actually happening, quickly understand what it means, and adjust. .
Clausewitz (and Jomini and Napoleon), referred to this as coup d'oeil. The ability to correctly take in a situation at a glance AND then take immediate, effective action.

In Clausewitz's opinion, this was NOT an ability just anyone had, and was in fact exceptionally rare.

[CCT125US]

I wonder how tachypsychia plays into this.

[Wondering Beard]

[
No. You are not correct in any way shape or form. The stop shooting reaction time tends to be a range that seems to be fixed by genetics. What can be trained is to anticipate what might happen while they are shooting. I shoot bad guy and expect them to fall or spin. With that I can reduce the reaction range to the minimum.

I don’t know that genetics fixes anything more than superficial traits (like eye color) but rather expands or limits potential that gets to be worked in life. Of course, that does mean that some people are more likely to have an extraordinarily fast reaction time and some much less so but the emphasis is on ‘likely’ because the genetic potential of kid who gets abused and starved by his parents (to take an extreme case) or simply gets parents who are vegan and feed him/her accordingly and never plays sports is going to have his/her potential lowered while one with less potential who gets good parenting, good nutrition and an plays sports is more likely to have a faster reaction time.
As to anticipation of what might happen, that is, you are right, quite trainable. The important point being to train for what actually might happen which is not limited to the bad guy spinning or falling, as the aforementioned bad guy might also be running away.



If I properly see the stimulus needed to begin lethal force I move my eye from the reason (let's say a pistol in the bad guy's hand) to center mass a fraction of a second before my sight gets there. This works much like transitioning from target to target while shooting. I see the bad guy's pistol for as long as possible before finding my target. If he drops the gun I can decide not to shoot. Once I look away from that bad guy's gun he is getting shot because he will be a lethal threat. One mistake made by people is that they believe they can continue to use their peripheral vision like they do in training while shooting.

With tunnel vision or just plain good focus on the front sight I shoot until the threat goes away. But how does that work if I am only seeing a few inches of the target's center mass? My eye has to see a change in that few inches. So my mind registers that the suspect is falling or spinning. Now I have to stop shooting. That translates into possibly shooting a round or two into the person after you decide to stop firing.

Those are good points. I believe Massad Ayoob has written a few times that bad guys ended up shot in the back because they turned as the good guy was still firing which put the good guy into a lot of undeserved legal trouble.

Let’s use your example of a bad guy with a gun pointing at you or someone else (if he’s just pointing it at the ground, I understand, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you wouldn’t quite yet start aiming to his chest) who hasn’t dropped it yet. Let’s say that because he hasn’t dropped it you move your front sight to his upper chest and exactly at that moment, he drops the gun. By what I understand you are saying, you have already made the decision to shoot, your eyes are focused on the front sight placed over your target and you start firing. I would think that is a good shoot and my guess is it would be regarded as such by the legal authorities. The essential reason for your shooting this hypothetical bad guy, in that very narrow example, is because your eyes couldn’t possibly see that the bad guy had dropped his gun since they are focused, possibly to the point of tunnel vision, on your front sight.

Let’s change the scenario a bit. He doesn’t drop the gun, you start shooting and he starts running. Within a few feet (which amounts to a fraction of a second) he passes a totally inattentive civilian (let’s say a child). Do you think you could come off the trigger then? We are, after all, still talking about the same fractions of a second that would take the bad guy to fall down or spin. This is a genuine question because we are talking about observing more than the front sight as well as trying to anticipate more than just whether the bad guy falls or doesn’t. I think training and working on that sort of unexpected at the very least could help us get better and attempt to minimize the amount of time taken in the fight.

I remember a thread a while back in which SeanM wrote that when in action his eyes weren’t totally focused on the front sight (maybe sort of somewhere between the bad guy and the front sight) so that he could see and evaluate better what was happening in front him. Maybe the answer in training has to do with not maintaining as hard a focus on the front sight? I don’t know the answer but I do know that I have been capable of something like it in training (shoot house with moving targets and innocents) and I don’t think I’m particularly gifted either (Tom Givens has told me a few times during class that I was outrunning my headlights). I do, however believe that a compromise between maintaining shooting speed and capability to still observe can be achieved.



If I do as you suggest as an officer I will by your words increase the time of my gunfight. This is where citizens like to come in and say, well as an officer you have to take on the added danger. They say this because they have watched too many movies and are ignorant. Most of the bad guys bullets go where? Down range and not into the officer, although some do hit the officer. That means it isn't just my gunfight and life on the line. It's the construction workers that had bullets bouncing around his van a block away from my shooting. I can tell you for a fact that that construction worker and his passengers wanted me to finish that gunfight as soon as legally possible if not before.

I believe you are exaggerating the meaning of my words here. I certainly didn’t even mean to imply that we need to slow down so much that we endanger others as well as ourselves. I merely intended to state that pure speed is not the end all be all of a fight. If I gave you the impression then I should have written better.



But I digress. Back to the bad guy's pistol. Once my eye leaves the pistol I can no longer see that pistol. I am looking at my target. For me and for a vast majority of Officer involved shootings they report tunnel vision. So am I looking at my front sight, firing and finding it again between shots? Or am I seeing my front sight, looking back at the suspect's pistol and if there is still a threat then starting all over again? You're right I trained to do that. I shot one round a second. I shoot between three and four rounds a second at 7 yards. That's a pretty big disparity. In my opinion, a totally unacceptable disparity that relies on luck for me and more importantly my former students to survive the gunfight.

You are right, going from 4 rounds a second at seven yards to one round a second is an enormous disparity. My question is: does it have to be that big? You are correct that “front sight-shooting-look at bad guy-shoot or not again” is a very slow way to process things. All I can tell you is that, during training, I have never done that. Maybe it has to do with more of a soft focus on the front sight so that you can see more? I don’t know but it’s worth exploring I think, since one round a second is, as you say, much too slow.



Your statement that fast splits and such are not needed in a defensive situation is ludicrous at best. You do know that sometimes bad guys kill armed good guys. You do know that sometimes those good guys are found with their gun in their holster, out but not fired or fired but the bullets didn't seem to get the job done by either missing or not being the death rays we want to believe they are? The more bullets I can fire per second while maintaining the accuracy needed to get lethal hits to the chest and head the faster the gunfight will end. The difference between two seconds and three and a half is big to me. I saw how fast those seven rounds came at me. Action and reaction really sucks in real life.
It’s true they do but I believe you are taking my words to a conclusion I did not intend. It’s not that fast splits are not needed but rather that trying to go for the fastest splits may not be the best use of our training time (there is a long thread about that here but I haven’t been able to find it). Is 0.2 splits (to use an arbitrary number) necessarily better than 0.4 if we can’t observe changes in the situation? What would be a good number so that we can both shoot fast to inflict as much damage on the bad guy in the shortest amount of time and not outrun our headlights? And when we say the latter do we only mean lose control of our accuracy or do we want to include more?



I would passionately teach them to learn to make decisions faster, more accurately and while shooting to do so as fast as they can balance the speed with accuracy in order to finish the gunfight as fast as possible.

We are here in total agreement. The point of our discussion is more about the decision making part of your statement and finding ways to enhance that part so that we minimize (not eliminate as I don’t think it’s possible) the possibilities of shooting when we would prefer not to (as per the Massad Ayoob example above).

I don’t think you and I are as far apart as it seems you think we are and we certainly both want our brain to take an active part even in the middle of a shooting. Or maybe I'm all wet; even if I'm not I can always use more exposure to different training and ideas.

In any case, it's way past my bedtime but I think this is an interesting and important discussion to have about how and what we should train.

[Wondering Beard]

Others get sucked into what they think will happen and the shot still goes off, even if it was, to someone else, clearly not needed right then.

I wonder if that's not the thing to pay the most attention to in developing good training.

[Dagga Boy]

I wonder how tachypsychia plays into this.

That is what I have always attributed to it as opposed to anything special. Mix that with a shifting sight focus and you pretty much have what I do.
I will bring this up this weekend at the Tac Conference as I am very curious as to what John Hearne thinks.

[JustOneGun]

Clausewitz (and Jomini and Napoleon), referred to this as coup d'oeil. The ability to correctly take in a situation at a glance AND then take immediate, effective action.

In Clausewitz's opinion, this was NOT an ability just anyone had, and was in fact exceptionally rare.




I disagree. I think this is the trainable part but we don't want to take the time or money to train our officers or ourselves that way. A person can learn to see faster and can learn to get their reaction time to the lower end of their genetic range. But that it is not what I'm saying in this argument. If you are around enough high end high stress training in the context of shoot/don't shoot you have seen people know they need to stop but simply can't. I termed this shit/bang or bang/shit depending on where it happens in the firing sequence. Their brains cannot simply stop when we get a bang shit as there is a delay between brain and finger for most humans no matter how well trained.

Eliminating this is a training issue but it's about training the mental trigger that says, lethal force is needed now. Training it to a high degree under stress of time is needed. I believe seeing and deciding faster/better are products of good training and is separate from the stop shooting/reaction time debate.

Can we train to make better decisions? Of course. Can we train to think, make decisions faster and with better more proper outcomes? Sure. But these things have nothing to do with an LEM trigger over a glock trigger that the OP mentioned. My contention is that once you transition that eye to the target, focus on the front sight and start pulling that trigger the gun is going to go bang no matter the trigger. Those that can stop at that point are not well trained but genetically gifted.

In summary: The adding of a longer trigger such as the LEM or TDA for the purpose of stopping the trigger press is a mechanical solution that parallels the old, shoot two and assess theory. Same outcome and same danger to our students. The reason is that it can only be done by shooting a lot slower than most decent shooters can do.

The problem that needs fixing through proper training is before we put the finger on the trigger not after. By then it's too late for most average humans in a real life gunfight. Making the trigger artificially longer is trying to fix something that is already broken earlier in the decision making cycle.

[GJM]

Did some alien hack Darryl's account?

[Lomshek]

What I would love to see is different arrays where it is not disappearing, as you know it is going to disappear. If they could set something up where you got a target, then got an indicator of shoot/ or stop, that may be a better indicator and not as easy.


I'm way out of my lane but that sounds like force on force training would be much easier to do that with than one way range targets.

Maybe if you use some kind of projector to make a gun or knife appear on a cardboard target and with coordinated vocalization (sometimes) change the image to an iPhone or hands mid-scenario that would test if the shooter actually verifies target status or is just blowing through it like a USPSA stage.

Something like this but using a projector to beam the images on the target(s) to create changing shoot/don't shoot situations. Videoing students runs with a head camera so they can see how long they had to make the decision between shoot/no shoot and having a separate instructor review the video while the next shooter is running the scenario would speed up the "processing" of students some but to actually learn from it would require a good number of cycles and immediate reviews.

6412

[GJM]

I think you would need three D depictions of the weapons, ideally held by real people. Otherwise you are evaluating based on reading a piece of paper.

[JustOneGun]

Wondering Beard,

Thanks for the reply. I think my post to cinc addresses some of what you are saying.

I would suggest that what Ayoob example of shooting in the back is just pure reaction time to stop shooting and is the same for all reaction such as stopping the trigger press. So how do we train for it? For me I can use soft focus all day long on the range, FoF, shoot house, etc. When it comes to finding the target then the front sight it is locked in automatically. I've proven this for me over many real life scenarios. I functioned as trained and adjusted my responses appropriately but still had tunnel vision. I'm not so sure I can soft focus when I want to live.

I can't prove it, but I suspect SeanM and other's are genetically able to do that and/or have been in so many situations that they have learned to do it well. Doing it in training and then being wrong and not being able to do it in real life can lead to deadly consequences.

On the range and in FoF I used soft focus well but my accuracy went way down. I describe it as point shooting lite. I came to the conclusion that head shots would not be doable even at 3 to 5 yards. So for me I go with what I know will work, even if I could control the tunnel vision, in an actual gunfight I find the front sight. Target focus or in between focus made me faster but way less accurate.

I think your scenario of the young child being in the line of fire is a great discussion. My answer is that if the child in so close to be within a step or two of the bad guy, we need to train to see them before we put our finger on the trigger. I'm thinking about that 50 yard shot people like to talk about in the terrorist mall shootings.

When I start shooting I think it is fantastic training to FoF just that scenario. I need to be trained to see what the target I'm focusing on is doing. You can see the shirt or face turn or fall. Is it spinning or dropping? What am I going to do about it. When do I change my focus to the wider scenario? All questions that need answering in good training.

I think the biggest take away from your above scenario is the ability to end the fight quickly. And to train appropriately to do that. Someone once told me their plan was to shoot the bad guy center mass, high chest and if the head is still there, to hit it using the sights. Sounded like a very quick Mozambique drill. As the bad guy in FoF he proved to me he could do it over and over. I stole his plan and learned to do it using a bobbing target for the head. Really made it a targeted head shot. Sadly I don't have access to that bobbing target anymore. Need to get a replacement. Darn it more projects.

[SLG]

I can't type all my thoughts right now, but to address some of the speed shooting aspects...I don't think there is a conflict with fast splits in training vs. real world needs. Deliberateness is a mindset, not a split time. I can be very deliberate at high speed or low speed. I can't be deliberate if I'm out of control though. At high speed, I also can't guarantee my hits to the same degree, and neither can anyone else. Where that line is though, is different for everyone depending on their shooting ability.

There are very few real shooting situations where a Bill drill is called for, imo. When guys do go cyclic, they tend to miss a fair bit. I view the need a little differently, I guess. When shooting for blood, I want to be more accurate, more deliberate, more sure, and I want to be able to do it as often and as ACCURATELY as possible. The main issue is staying calm enough. If you can keep your wits reasonably well, you should do well. Buck fever is a real thing. Guys who experience it are usually not going to do great when the "Buck" is shooting back.

Shooting very fast and accurately in training, allows me to shoot a little faster, with extreme accuracy when it counts. It may be pretty slow by USPSA standards, or any speed standards, but a guy who can shoot very fast and very accurately on the range, has a better chance of being faster and more accurate than his opponent. A cool cucumber who can't shoot at a high level is way more desireable than a great shooter who falls apart, but why settle for just one half?

To reiterate, I don't think GM level speed is needed or generally desirable when off the range. I do think that GM level speed (to pick a random measure) allows a cool head to shoot just a bit faster than normal people and still get much better than normal hits.

That is where I want to be and what I strive for in my training. YMMV, as always.

[Mr_White]

I can't type all my thoughts right now, but to address some of the speed shooting aspects...I don't think there is a conflict with fast splits in training vs. real world needs. Deliberateness is a mindset, not a split time. I can be very deliberate at high speed or low speed. I can't be deliberate if I'm out of control though. At high speed, I also can't guarantee my hits to the same degree, and neither can anyone else. Where that line is though, is different for everyone depending on their shooting ability.

There are very few real shooting situations where a Bill drill is called for, imo. When guys do go cyclic, they tend to miss a fair bit. I view the need a little differently, I guess. When shooting for blood, I want to be more accurate, more deliberate, more sure, and I want to be able to do it as often and as ACCURATELY as possible. The main issue is staying calm enough. If you can keep your wits reasonably well, you should do well. Buck fever is a real thing. Guys who experience it are usually not going to do great when the "Buck" is shooting back.

Shooting very fast and accurately in training, allows me to shoot a little faster, with extreme accuracy when it counts. It may be pretty slow by USPSA standards, or any speed standards, but a guy who can shoot very fast and very accurately on the range, has a better chance of being faster and more accurate than his opponent. A cool cucumber who can't shoot at a high level is way more desireable than a great shooter who falls apart, but why settle for just one half?

To reiterate, I don't think GM level speed is needed or generally desirable when off the range. I do think that GM level speed (to pick a random measure) allows a cool head to shoot just a bit faster than normal people and still get much better than normal hits.

That is where I want to be and what I strive for in my training. YMMV, as always.

Great post SLG, I think that's really well said.

[SLG]

Great post SLG, I think that's really well said.

Thanks very much. I just fixed a mistake though, correct word is in caps.

[GJM]

Thanks very much. I just fixed a mistake though, correct word is in caps.

YMMV?

[Dagga Boy]

Bingo! Great post SLG.

Talked to GJM this morning on this. As usual when we want to find common ground, we discussed this in regards to aircraft. This is a lot like how different people will handle a major in flight emergency/crashing. Always comes back to experience and getting better through exposure. I related to GJM my first incident of making a shoot decision, planting a sight in focus on a suspects head in a car and pressing the trigger on the Hebrew Hammer and stopped when the officer I was with yelled "Don't Shoot!!". I had an audible interruption (officer thought I was shooting to protect him and he knew he could get out of the way....I was actually shooting to protect me. In this case it just worked out due to luck). Every time I stopped a trigger press, it got easier. Mix of experience and tachypsychia combined with a long DA trigger. Hand eye coordination as a factor is also possible now that we are introducing be tics into the equation.

I think the key to training this is a means to provide the experience. Calmness and deliberateness is also something that is critical. Going emotional and beating on a trigger is a big issue in LE in my opinion. I have said before, I have seen far more issues with LE folks shooting too fast more than too slow. It is why we try to set a 100% hit pace in training so the brain has a speed to draw back on. Of course many don't agree with this, but we have had solid success, so we continue to teach this way.

[SLG]

YMMV?

USPSA, duh.

[Wondering Beard]

Wondering Beard,

Thanks for the reply. I think my post to cinc addresses some of what you are saying.
It did and I have a thought about a piece of it about it that I’ll address at the end of this post.



I would suggest that what Ayoob example of shooting in the back is just pure reaction time to stop shooting and is the same for all reaction such as stopping the trigger press. So how do we train for it? For me I can use soft focus all day long on the range, FoF, shoot house, etc. When it comes to finding the target then the front sight it is locked in automatically. I've proven this for me over many real life scenarios. I functioned as trained and adjusted my responses appropriately but still had tunnel vision. I'm not so sure I can soft focus when I want to live.
In his own post, SLG talks about deliberateness. I think we all understand what he means but I wonder if we were to break that down into its components (and that is a discussion all of its own) we might not find something that can enhance our capability to both keep high shooting speed without losing too much information processing. We all, of course have physical limitations of varying degrees but I do think that it is our brains that need more work in real chaotic shooting situations rather than just our shooting skills (that’s assuming good shooting skills to begin with). The how of that is what we mean to discuss (and I know you think about that as much as the rest of us as shown in your various posts)



I can't prove it, but I suspect SeanM and other's are genetically able to do that and/or have been in so many situations that they have learned to do it well.
I would suspect that it is more depth of experience and good original training than genetics but I can’t prove it either :)


Doing it in training and then being wrong and not being able to do it in real life can lead to deadly consequences.
Totally agree



On the range and in FoF I used soft focus well but my accuracy went way down. I describe it as point shooting lite. I came to the conclusion that head shots would not be doable even at 3 to 5 yards. So for me I go with what I know will work, even if I could control the tunnel vision, in an actual gunfight I find the front sight. Target focus or in between focus made me faster but way less accurate.
When I started shooting, decades ago, a hard focus on the front sight wasn’t that difficult but as my eyes have aged it has become much harder and ironically enough slows me down. My eye focus is sort of just a little bit ahead of the front sight; the clearest thing in my field of vision is still the front sight but it isn’t as clear as when I could count the serrations (on HDs the red circle is a bit of a blur). As a result, somehow I end up seeing more of what’s in front of me than when I could do a hard focus. I don’t know that it has affected my speed or accuracy too much. I’m not great shooter and the last time I timed myself (a few months back) I could put 4-5 rounds in a half A zone in a second from the low ready. I think I still need to be more accurate but then again accuracy has always required the most work from me.



I think your scenario of the young child being in the line of fire is a great discussion. My answer is that if the child in so close to be within a step or two of the bad guy, we need to train to see them before we put our finger on the trigger. I'm thinking about that 50 yard shot people like to talk about in the terrorist mall shootings.

When I start shooting I think it is fantastic training to FoF just that scenario. I need to be trained to see what the target I'm focusing on is doing. You can see the shirt or face turn or fall. Is it spinning or dropping? What am I going to do about it. When do I change my focus to the wider scenario? All questions that need answering in good training.
They do and that’s why I’m glad that we’re all having this discussion and thinking about this.



I think the biggest take away from your above scenario is the ability to end the fight quickly. And to train appropriately to do that.
Very much agree.
I wonder (in the above scenario) if maneuvering ourselves in space before having to put sight on meat so that we are in a position see more might not be a workable concept to answer the problems that the scenario is presenting.


Someone once told me their plan was to shoot the bad guy center mass, high chest and if the head is still there, to hit it using the sights. Sounded like a very quick Mozambique drill. As the bad guy in FoF he proved to me he could do it over and over. I stole his plan and learned to do it using a bobbing target for the head. Really made it a targeted head shot. Sadly I don't have access to that bobbing target anymore. Need to get a replacement. Darn it more projects.
That’s an interesting idea and I should work on that the next time I hit the range. I have no idea how to find a bobbing head target though.

You wrote in your answer to Cinc:


I believe seeing and deciding faster/better are products of good training and is separate from the stop shooting/reaction time debate.

I wonder about that in one particular way. Do we know that these two different sets of decisions are happening in two different parts of the brain? Because if they don’t, then maybe we could find ways to train more or better for the stop shooting/reaction time variable. I wonder what a neurologist would say about that.

[Dagga Boy]

I think the biggest take away from your above scenario is the ability to end the fight quickly. And to train appropriately to do that. Someone once told me their plan was to shoot the bad guy center mass, high chest and if the head is still there, to hit it using the sights. Sounded like a very quick Mozambique drill. As the bad guy in FoF he proved to me he could do it over and over. I stole his plan and learned to do it using a bobbing target for the head. Really made it a targeted head shot. Sadly I don't have access to that bobbing target anymore. Need to get a replacement. Darn it more projects.
My entire PD shooting program was based on this, and it is what we currently teach at Hardwired. With deep immersion and repetition, my folks did this in the field regularly with no issues. It kept our shots on bad guys minimal, lawsuits essentially disappeared, and it was a system that dropped bad guys fast and my folks were on autopilot doing it. The key was dedicated training.

[psalms144.1]

My entire PD shooting program was based on this, and it is what we currently teach at Hardwired. With deep immersion and repetition, my folks did this in the field regularly with no issues. It kept our shots on bad guys minimal, lawsuits essentially disappeared, and it was a system that dropped bad guys fast and my folks were on autopilot doing it. The key was dedicated training. And yet, there are still TONS of instructors, in and out of LE, who train continuous shooting until the shooter is "comfortable" the threat is ended. This makes no sense to me. If I need to shoot someone, I'm not going to be comfortable for a LONG, LONG time afterward. Are there other threats? Is the threat really neutralized, or playing possum? I think some really horrible shootings have be a result of the current emphasis to shoot FAST and shoot A LOT.

I was just as guilty of this as many others, until I started to really study the subject matter and the law of UOF. I now understand the difference - if only more folks would catch on. Unfortunately, in the larger LE circles, this "shoot as fast as you can until they stop" mentality is just as ingrained as the no-look reholster. In fact, in May, I'm off to FLETC's Reactive Shooting Instructor Training Program, which, unless it has evolved a lot since I went through in 2005, is all about shooting more shots faster. They even developed a new, LESS stringent (accuracy wise) target to encourage shooting faster...

[JustOneGun]

And yet, there are still TONS of instructors, in and out of LE, who train continuous shooting until the shooter is "comfortable" the threat is ended. This makes no sense to me. If I need to shoot someone, I'm not going to be comfortable for a LONG, LONG time afterward. Are there other threats? Is the threat really neutralized, or playing possum? I think some really horrible shootings have be a result of the current emphasis to shoot FAST and shoot A LOT.

I was just as guilty of this as many others, until I started to really study the subject matter and the law of UOF. I now understand the difference - if only more folks would catch on. Unfortunately, in the larger LE circles, this "shoot as fast as you can until they stop" mentality is just as ingrained as the no-look reholster. In fact, in May, I'm off to FLETC's Reactive Shooting Instructor Training Program, which, unless it has evolved a lot since I went through in 2005, is all about shooting more shots faster. They even developed a new, LESS stringent (accuracy wise) target to encourage shooting faster...

While I think it goes without saying that no training should advocate shooting so fast in real life that they can no longer control the weapon. But that is different from advocating shooting as fast as one can hit the target accurately. The stopping comes from seeing the change in the target. I.e. the falling or spinning.

So if I am able to shoot say two to the body from the holster with the second round hitting at 1.4 to 1.5 second mark. Can we arbitrarily say that I was shooting too fast? If the head shot goes in around 1.8 to 2.0 depending on how it is moving is that somehow out of control or advocating madness based on a number that I have proven able to perform consistently in training?

While it might be semantics, I don't advocate shooting someone to the ground to any student. I have explained my position to them as I have in the above thread and then told them it is possible that that last shot could go into them as they hit the ground. It's not a rule that they should do that. But do to seeing the target falling and the delay from mind to finger it can happen just that way. This things in and of themselves mean nothing as to being in control or out of control during the gunfight.

[Dagga Boy]

The key is what is the "target" you are shooting as fast as possible. We use an area about the size of a fist as "the target"...it just happened to be housed on a humanoid. Humans not hit in a very small area of the upper chest or in the head will absorb a lot of rounds with little effect. So we try to force that true target in training. If you can hit a fist size area consistently at speed, you are well prepared for partially exposed targets, side profiles, and working around barriers that are the reality of street shootings. The fact that many agencies will allow officers to not even hit the entire target and backer 30% of the time is a major part of the problem.

[LSP972]

... is just as ingrained as the no-look reholster.

So this is considered passe' now? If so, I would be interested in hearing why.

.

[SLG]

The key is what is the "target" you are shooting as fast as possible. We use an area about the size of a fist as "the target"...it just happened to be housed on a humanoid. Humans not hit in a very small area of the upper chest or in the head will absorb a lot of rounds with little effect. So we try to force that true target in training. If you can hit a fist size area consistently at speed, you are well prepared for partially exposed targets, side profiles, and working around barriers that are the reality of street shootings. The fact that many agencies will allow officers to not even hit the entire target and backer 30% of the time is a major part of the problem.

Exactly. I didn't mention this detail before but "full speed" is only good when you have "full accuracy." Given the actual target size, everyone's speed will slow way down compared to hitting a down zero. I think this is one reason I have had a huge percentage of instant one shot stops in the hunting field. The problem is different from fighting and I'm not trying to draw too many parallels, but perfect placement goes a long way in de-animating living creatures.

[GJM]

Well, unless you like chasing wounded animals over hill and dale, the first shot is the most important by a factor of 10 or 100. This is even more important hunting dangerous game, unless you like becoming the hunted.

[SLG]

Well, unless you like chasing wounded animals over hill and dale, the first shot is the most important by a factor of 10 or 100. This is even more important hunting dangerous game, unless you like becoming the hunted.

Of course, and if you hunt long enough, as you and I have talked about before, you will have to chase an animal regardless of how good a shot or hunter you are. Aside from that though, we both know plenty of hunters who always have to chase their game after the first shot, and very few hunters are excellent shots.

[GJM]

It is easier for me to remember the ones I had to chase, as it is very upsetting.

[SLG]

It is easier for me to remember the ones I had to chase, as it is very upsetting.

That is very true. I remember all of my screw ups in great detail. I can barely remember my successes. Hunting or on the street.

[Dagga Boy]

This ties into my lecture on habits of highly successful Gunfighters....anyone know any really successful hunters who point shoot and don't use sights? Great analogy about de animating animals....humans are really deer sized animals.

[Wayne Dobbs]

This ties into my lecture on habits of highly successful Gunfighters....anyone know any really successful hunters who point shoot and don't use sights? Great analogy about de animating animals....humans are really deer sized animals.

Which is why deer hunting (actually deer shooting) is significant to me year after year. It's definitely not combat, but it is stress shooting with consequences riding on it. I've shot ~25 deer over the past eight years on a ranch in SW TX where I'm shooting deer for management purposes, IOW, deer that need to be out of the herd. I've killed one with a .30/'06 (125 yards) and all the rest with a pistol. All but one were done in with a S&W 625 MG .45 ACP. The one exception was with a Glock 19. ALL were killed with one shot. The rifle shot deer went about 50 yards, the longest pistol shot deer went 25 yards (BTW, the 9mm serviced deer dropped in its tracks). I've had to stop many trigger presses due to target aspect changes and I had to stop many presses on the street too. There's a lot of value in that body of experiences and I find it to be a very solid verification of all the skills work that Darryl and I do on a regular basis. Plus....the deer are tasty!

[Chuck Whitlock]

In fact, in May, I'm off to FLETC's Reactive Shooting Instructor Training Program, which, unless it has evolved a lot since I went through in 2005, is all about shooting more shots faster. They even developed a new, LESS stringent (accuracy wise) target to encourage shooting faster...

When I attended SSTP (Survival Shooting Training Program), the targets weren't even examined. Mainly just your "form", IIRC.

[Wayne Dobbs]

When I attended SSTP (Survival Shooting Training Program), the targets weren't even examined. Mainly just your "form", IIRC.

And exactly what does that accomplish?

[Dagga Boy]

And exactly what does that accomplish?

No hurt feelings.....and you know how important it is to not have a hurt feeling about having a bad score.

[psalms144.1]

And exactly what does that accomplish?Well, it gives a venue for FLETC to expend thousands of rounds per shooter in a short period of time...

[Drang]

When I attended SSTP (Survival Shooting Training Program), the targets weren't even examined. Mainly just your "form", IIRC.


And exactly what does that accomplish?


No hurt feelings.....and you know how important it is to not have a hurt feeling about having a bad score.

Sounds like the shooting equivalent of New Math, you know, you used the correct procedure, so it doesn't matter that you got the wrong answer...

[1slow]

That is WTF stupid !

One needs feedback to improve.

[Chance]

Does anyone train interrupting their trigger press? That is, pressing the trigger until the shot is just about to break, and then letting go?

[Mr_White]

Does anyone train interrupting their trigger press? That is, pressing the trigger until the shot is just about to break, and then letting go?

Yes, we do this regularly. I think it is important that people practice a variety of actions: drawing and shooting, drawing to a vision-unobstructed ready position with finger in register (both silently and with verbalization), drawing and beginning to press the trigger, but before the shot is away, imagine that the situation has changed and we no longer wish to fire, so go to a vision-unobstructed ready position with finger in register, and verbalize - and similarly, drawing and beginning to press the trigger, but before the shot is away, imagine that the shot angle is becoming unsafe, so go to a vision-unobstructed ready position with finger in register, change the angle, then re-engage. All important things IMHO.

[Dagga Boy]

Yes, we do this regularly. I think it is important that people practice a variety of actions: drawing and shooting, drawing to a vision-unobstructed ready position with finger in register (both silently and with verbalization), drawing and beginning to press the trigger, but before the shot is away, imagine that the situation has changed and we no longer wish to fire, so go to a vision-unobstructed ready position with finger in register, and verbalize - and similarly, drawing and beginning to press the trigger, but before the shot is away, imagine that the shot angle is becoming unsafe, so go to a vision-unobstructed ready position with finger in register, change the angle, then re-engage. All important things IMHO.

I cannot "like" the above post enough.

[Mr_White]

I cannot "like" the above post enough.

:)


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

[Chuck Whitlock]

And exactly what does that accomplish?


Well, it gives a venue for FLETC to expend thousands of rounds per shooter in a short period of time...


Sounds like the shooting equivalent of New Math, you know, you used the correct procedure, so it doesn't matter that you got the wrong answer...

I think you may be onto something.


That is WTF stupid !

One needs feedback to improve.

At the beginning of the course, they videoed, from a down-range angle, all the students fire one magazine, reload, and fire a second magazine. Then the same thing at the end of the week. Speed and recoil management were universally improved in comparing the before and after shots. Proof of the superiority of the thumbs-forward ISO technique they were pushing, or just that you get into a groove after expending an ungodly amount of ammo in a week? As a data point, in an informal IDPA match a couple of weeks later, I thoroughly humiliated myself at a blazingly fast pace!! :cool: