Failure drill, why?

[GRV]

Two to the body; if they don't stop, one to the head. The two to the body are quick because of the larger target, the head is more likely to incapacitate.

Questions for thought:

Why 2? Why not 1+1, 3+1, 4+1, 5+1, etc.?

Does this really make sense as a default response for all targets at all (pistol) distances?

If you are too far away, the eyebox is very low probability, so aiming at the body seems to make more sense. If they don't drop, in most civilian encounters I'd think that's more likely to be because you are missing or making bad hits rather than because the body isn't going to be effective. Aiming for the head doesn't seem to be the right fix.

If you are close, you have much less time and much more stress, so again aiming for the body seems to make the most sense. If you shot them twice in the body and they didn't stop, at close distance, do you really have time to slow down, acquire a new target, and make an even more precise shot? In the time the two shots took to not work, wouldn't the assailant likely end up even closer, leaving you with even less time than you started with? Or, do the two body shots tend to create time, delaying the assailant a bit and allowing you to collect your focus to make a headshot that you couldn't make off the draw/ready?

On the other hand, if you are close enough, the head becomes a pretty big target, and the importance of stopping the threat as quickly as possible is as great as ever. Why not default to headshots then?

[Chuck Haggard]

We know from nyeti's experience with his troops that the classic failure drill works rather well in real life.

[BehindBlueI's]

Would it change your thoughts if instead of viewing it add two tightly grouped and then a separate shot you viewed it as a three shot string letting the pistol work upward naturally under recoil?

[Trooper224]

Back when we used to call this the Mozambique Drill. Jeff Cooper coined the term and the drill, because one of his students had been serving in Africa during the unpleasantness and had an encounter during an assault on an airport in which an enemy combat, armed with an AK47, had suddenly appeared around the corner of building. Jeff's student quickly gave him two rounds center mass from his Browning Hi-Power, saw the lack of immediate effect and gave him one to the bread box, which ended the hostilities. El Patron then came up with the drill as he thought it was a pretty good excercise and many of us agree.

It makes a pretty good default response because things happen rather quickly in a gunfight and it isn't always possible to turn it into a math problem as you're suggesting. If two shots center mass doesn't solve the problem in a timely manner, there's no guarantee one or two more will, but there's a much higher probability that one well placed shot to the cranial cavity will. It's about killing people not launching space shuttles, don't over think it.

[Mr_White]

Two to the body; if they don't stop, one to the head. The two to the body are quick because of the larger target, the head is more likely to incapacitate.

Questions for thought:

Why 2? Why not 1+1, 3+1, 4+1, 5+1, etc.?

Does this really make sense as a default response for all targets at all (pistol) distances?

If you are too far away, the eyebox is very low probability, so aiming at the body seems to make more sense. If they don't drop, in most civilian encounters I'd think that's more likely to be because you are missing or making bad hits rather than because the body isn't going to be effective. Aiming for the head doesn't seem to be the right fix.

If you are close, you have much less time and much more stress, so again aiming for the body seems to make the most sense. If you shot them twice in the body and they didn't stop, at close distance, do you really have time to slow down, acquire a new target, and make an even more precise shot? In the time the two shots took to not work, wouldn't the assailant likely end up even closer, leaving you with even less time than you started with? Or, do the two body shots tend to create time, delaying the assailant a bit and allowing you to collect your focus to make a headshot that you couldn't make off the draw/ready?

On the other hand, if you are close enough, the head becomes a pretty big target, and the importance of stopping the threat as quickly as possible is as great as ever. Why not default to headshots then?

My mentor taught the single threat default response of four to the body, two to the head. I asked him how that came to be. He related that early in his LE career, they were taught to shoot one to the body, then stop and assess. His agency experienced failures to stop. So then they were taught to shoot two shots to the body, then stop and assess. His agency still experienced failures to stop. So then they were taught to shoot two shots to the body and if the head was still there at that point, to shoot one to the head, then stop and assess. His agency still experienced failures to stop. So then they were taught to shoot four to the body and if the head was still there, to shoot two to the head, then stop and assess.

He didn't explain to me the specific nature of their failures to stop with the Failure to Stop (2 + 1.) I assume it was a marksmanship/difficult physical circumstances issue.

I think the overwhelmingly most practical course of action is to teach people relying on handguns for self-defense or duty, to target the high thoracic cavity first. It is a practical physical area to attack, it is effective if done well, at least with time allowed for loss of blood pressure, and if done not-so-well, is likely to at least result in peripheral hits instead of clean misses, and hopefully some positive effect some of the time, even if that's not reliable with determined threats.

It's also practical to recognize that through a combination of physical circumstances, shooter skill, and available time, shots to the body may not stop the threat, or may not stop the threat quickly enough. So after firing some limited number of shots to the body, we transition to the head in order to stop the threat sooner.

Shots to the body can also be ineffective due to concealed body armor, so that's another reason to include a standard transition to the head, instead of just hammering the body over and over and over.

Repeatedly shooting the body until the threat is stopped also may lead to a pretty high round count shooting. Peripheral hits because of shooter skill or difficult circumstances, or simply that a lot of rounds can be fired in the time it takes for a threat to stop, can lead to lots and lots of rounds fired. Including a standard transition to the head after some limited number of rounds to the body have not yet been effective, helps prevent shooting many many many rounds. Shooting fewer rounds is safer to bystanders than shooting more rounds, and will also generally be viewed as a less inflammatory act.

Why couldn't the Failure to Stop be some other arrangement of rounds? I think it perfectly well could, and the 4 + 2 that I was taught is exactly that. Don't get stuck on the idea of two rounds to the head - I think the mental preparation for the second head shot is to help avoid dismounting the gun reflexively after the first head shot, and staying on the sights in preparation to shoot again if the first round was ineffective for whatever reason (generally, a marksmanship issue due to shooter skill and/or difficult circumstances.)

I think a good general practice is to target the high thoracic cavity first since it is more practical than the head for the reasons outlined above, and reasonably effective. But we want to fire a limited number of rounds to it, whether that's two, three, four, five, whatever - not dump the whole magazine. And then there is a built-in transition to the head if the threat is not clearly stopped at that point, with a lesser number of better-aimed rounds. I'm personally good with any of those variations, 2 + 1, 4 + 2, 5 + 1, or something similar.

I think that's a very responsible and practical course of action.

To one point you made, about targeting the head initially, I think that's valid too. I personally believe that given the medical science available (potentially five or more seconds between time of high thoracic cavity shot and cessation of violent action due to unconsciousness from loss of blood pressure), if everyone everywhere had the skill to successfully hit the head across a wide range of physical circumstances, that the SOP would be to just shoot the head. That's the course of action that can be expected to lead to the most rapid cessation of threat.

Everyone isn't that skilled though. Lots of people are going to need to shoot the body in order to apply their skills in an effective way, even if stopping the threat takes longer sometimes. Even people who are very skilled, also probably cannot successfully target the head in all circumstances, even if those circumstances are fairly narrow (think 20 + yard head shot on the move against a moving target.) I do think head shots are more practical for many people in more circumstances than they are frequently given credit for, but if the shooting problem gets hard enough, the high thoracic cavity, along with the peripheral area around it as a 'margin for error', becomes the most practical solution again.

Otherwise, based on the medical science of stopping violent threats, I think initial targeting of the head makes a lot of sense for a lot of people under a lot of circumstances. But that's not a total solution.

The Failure to Stop (2 + 1) or something similar is eminently practical for many reasons.

[Chuck Haggard]

Back when the Mozambique was thought up the BHP was the only "high cap" service pistol worth having, and not very popular in the US. People tended to carry revolvers for serious work, and using the 1911 as a duty or carry gun was a very new thing. "Two and one" makes a lot of sense with that taken into account. I prefer 2-3 to the torso and then going for an alternate aiming point if the bad guy is still up and hostile. At distance, with handguns, that alternate aiming point might be the pelvis, but the head is a better target if it's available, and you can hit it under the circumstances you find yourself in.

[LSP972]

Its all relative. "Shoot, stop and assess" sounds good and all proper, etc.; but can be misleading in real life.

Two of our SWAT guys took out a barricaded dude-with-a-gun sometime back; they really hosed him down with their squirt guns. Of course, the guns came to us, and my eyebrows shot skyward when I noticed that the CSI team had policed up 23 pieces of 9mm brass. The bad guy had left a few .40 cases on the floor, but I knew that all of the 9mm stuff came from the squirt guns because of those distinctive marks left by the fluted chambers; before we even put any of it on the scope. Hmmm… as far as I knew, the MP-5 drill was still two two-shot bursts, center mass, something we had picked up from LAPD when we were out there training with them. Much better/more controllable than the three-shot bursts I had learned at the HK MP-5 school. Maybe they were shooting through cover, or just missing, I thought.

Nope; the autopsy revealed a very messy chest, with perhaps half of the JHPs still in the guy; and too many entrance holes, close together, to count. I went back over the crime scene photos; nothing around the body was shot up. What the hell? So I called the then-current SWAT commander, one of my boys whom I had trained in the early days. The explanation was real simple; the guy just didn't fall down right away. They kept shooting until he did.

That could have gone badly. In fact, the guy was a real piece of cancer that nobody in the community was sorry to see getting "his just desserts", as one local citizen told the news pukes. But it could have easily gone the other way.

My point here is, you'll possibly be more vilified for "shooting him too much" than ending it quickly with a good old three round failure drill. My two cents, anyway…

.

[Chuck Haggard]

My point here is, you'll possibly be more vilified for "shooting him too much" than ending it quickly with a good old three round failure drill. My two cents, anyway…

.

^That^

[GRV]

(Drafted this before recent responses. Posting it anyway.)



We know from nyeti's experience with his troops that the classic failure drill works rather well in real life.

Yep. This was motivated by his words this past weekend. He's a super academic dude that does a great job reasoning about things and evaluating actual real-world performance.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't trying to get him to flesh out his rationale/experience here.

The question for him would be something like: what other default responses have been tried and failed? In what way did they fail? etc.

I'm also wondering if there are just consistent circumstances faced by SWAT teams (distances and threats) that are what made it so successful. Or, if instead that it really is just universally the way to go.



Would it change your thoughts if instead of viewing it add two tightly grouped and then a separate shot you viewed it as a three shot string letting the pistol work upward naturally under recoil?

Definitely.

For the record, I don't want people to get the idea that I'm posting to say the failure drill is bad. I'm just trying to spur up conversation.

Also, for my personal motivation, I've always had a hard time giving a bombproof justification. Before I commit to something, I want to make sure I can justify it and can answer anyone else who might challenge me on it, for my own standards' sake. Nyeti has convinced me I should consider committing to it.



Back when we used to call this the Mozambique Drill. Jeff Cooper coined the term and the drill, because one of his students had been serving in Africa during the unpleasantness and had an encounter during an assault on an airport in which an enemy combat, armed with an AK47, had suddenly appeared around the corner of building. Jeff's student quickly gave him two rounds center mass from his Browning Hi-Power, saw the lack of immediate effect and gave him one to the bread box, which ended the hostilities. El Patron then came up with the drill as he thought it was a pretty good excercise and many of us agree.

It makes a pretty good default response because things happen rather quickly in a gunfight and it isn't always possible to turn it into a math problem as you're suggesting. If two shots center mass doesn't solve the problem in a timely manner, there's no guarantee one or two more will, but there's a much higher probability that one well placed shot to the cranial cavity will. It's about killing people not launching space shuttles, don't over think it.

I'm a victim of my own tendencies, I know :p However, I'm not suggesting that we solve a math problem in the middle of a gunfight. It seems reasonable to solve math problems before you get into a gunfight in order to preprogram solid behavior though...at least, if you like solving math problems like me :cool:

As far as not overthinking it, sure. People have done it for a long time and it tends to work. But debating the minutiae of gunfighting is practically the core purpose of pistol-forum :p

[Chuck Haggard]

I think 2-4 to the torso, and then going for an alternate aiming point is the way to go. 2-4 solid chest hits often stops the fight, but one has to be ready for when it doesn't.

[okie john]

More than anything, The Mozambique has been shown to work.


Does this really make sense as a default response for all targets at all (pistol) distances?

The situation (distance, number of bad guys, availability of cover, presence and position of non-combatants, your skill, magazine capacity, etc.) should dictate tactics. That could be the Mozambique, movement to cover, or even withdrawal without firing.


If you are close, you have much less time and much more stress, so again aiming for the body seems to make the most sense. If you shot them twice in the body and they didn't stop, at close distance, do you really have time to slow down, acquire a new target, and make an even more precise shot?

With practice, it takes fractions of a second to shift from the chest to the head. But you have to practice.


On the other hand, if you are close enough, the head becomes a pretty big target, and the importance of stopping the threat as quickly as possible is as great as ever. Why not default to headshots then?

The chest is easier to hit at speed, but again, the situation dictates.


Okie John

[BehindBlueI's]

Definitely.

For the record, I don't want people to get the idea that I'm posting to say the failure drill is bad. I'm just trying to spur up conversation.


Then practice the three shot string and see what you think. Understand there's a bajillion opinions on this sort of thing, and not even 'been there done that' folks will agree on every little detail.

I think you can make a compelling argument that "stitching" or whatever the cool kid term is today of letting the pistol work it's way up is an effective way to execute this drill. I'd also like to introduce the concept of 'ear witness', as with many shootings there are way more people who heard it than saw it. *bangbang* pause *bang* can sound like an execution of an injured suspect, particularly if the shooting is controversial or the like. People will routinely mention the gaps in shooting when they are recounting it. "I heard two shots, then a long pause, then five more shots" type things. In my non-scientific seat of the pants opinion based on interviews of 'ear witnesses', *bangbangbang* is viewed more favorably than bangs with pauses.

[GRV]

Great responses from everyone.




To one point you made, about targeting the head initially, I think that's valid too. I personally believe that given the medical science available (potentially five or more seconds between time of high thoracic cavity shot and cessation of violent action due to unconsciousness from loss of blood pressure), if everyone everywhere had the skill to successfully hit the head across a wide range of physical circumstances, that the SOP would be to just shoot the head. That's the course of action that can be expected to lead to the most rapid cessation of threat.

Everyone isn't that skilled though. Lots of people are going to need to shoot the body in order to apply their skills in an effective way, even if stopping the threat takes longer sometimes. Even people who are very skilled, also probably cannot successfully target the head in all circumstances, even if those circumstances are fairly narrow (think 20 + yard head shot on the move against a moving target.) I do think head shots are more practical for many people in more circumstances than they are frequently given credit for, but if the shooting problem gets hard enough, the high thoracic cavity, along with the peripheral area around it as a 'margin for error', becomes the most practical solution again.


For most gunfights, do you think the headshot becomes more practical or less practical after a few body shots?

For example, do the body shots spend time and focus or help create the time and focus necessary for a good eyebox shot?

[Kevin B.]

For most gunfights, do you think the headshot becomes more practical or less practical after a few body shots?

For example, do the body shots spend time and focus or help create the time and focus necessary for a good eyebox shot?

Both.

[Dagga Boy]

Unfortunately you missed the "examples" part of my lecture. By training the failure drill the way we do it provides a simple pre loaded, well practiced, over learned response that solves numerous problems. On my shooting, I every bit intended to fire two, but the guy went down so hard at the single, it was not needed. On the obese murder suspect in the police car, he took a classic failure drill. In that case, every single round fired was fatal, it was just that the first two didn't do the job with a huge individual in impressed with pistol bullets until he got a full cranial penetration. In the case of the officer dealing with a hostage problem, a single head shot was done without hesitation and with confidence. In the case of my partner who was a terrible shooter, he went four rounds with three solid hits and just clicked on going to the head to make the guy stop shooting at him. I had numerous other cases, but could not access the records. The key for us was solving issues very rapidly with very low round counts with very high accountability. This keeps the shooter safe and we saw a huge drop in civil actions against officers who used lethal force. In one case where we did face a big lawsuit, when opposing council saw the documentation of how we trainined and the two officers each firing a simultaneous pair to the body with an immediate stop and no additional rounds, the attack on the use of force part of the suit completely went away and the opposing lawyers focused on other issues rather than the two officers and their use of deadly force.

Singles on the head shots is due to our experience combined with other larger agencies also have the same results of crooks going down like a marionette with the strings cut when hit in the head. If a pair is fired, one will miss and likely hit an unintended target, so we push surgical singles. Remember, you own everything out of the gun.

I am not saying there are not other ways to do things successfully, but the way we teach and use the failure drill has proven to be a very good skill to over learn and put into a sub-conscious response.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I think the way to evaluate this is to try to use it in force on force encounters under stress and decision loading.

[Dagga Boy]

Sorry, started the response and missed a lot of posts.

As far as a "SWAT" thing. A majority of my folks used it in patrol. We rarely had pistol shootings with SWAT On call outs.

Yes....I am very much a huge advocate of minimal rounds. We were never sued for ending a situation with a head shot. Key was to not shoot a lot. If you could justify the lethal force, the only thing left for the attorneys is excessive use force, so minimal rounds ends that line as well.

[Dagga Boy]

I think the way to evaluate this is to try to use it in force on force encounters under stress and decision loading.

We proved it workable and efficient in both force on force and numerous field shootings.

[Dagga Boy]

In regards to the Mozambique, we do not teach a stop to evaluate. After initial shots to the body, if the head is still there....take it.

As far as speed, we teach the hammer pair out to about 10 feet to allow the eyes to cheat to the head early to see if the hammer is effective. If not, he front sight is anchored, and shot pressed on the head.

[That Guy]

My mentor taught the single threat default response of four to the body, two to the head.

Hmm... I think I just thought of a new IDPA stage. :) Just out of curiosity, can you tell which LE agency taught this drill?

[Mr_White]

Hmm... I think I just thought of a new IDPA stage. :) Just out of curiosity, can you tell which LE agency taught this drill?

Sorry, but no. My mentor has not wanted publicity in the past and is very careful about identifying himself and where he is, due to possible threats leftover from his LE career.

[Wayne Dobbs]

I don't know which agency Gabe is referring to, but the 2+1 failure drill is a bread and butter basic within LAPD's program, especially so inside Metropolitan Division's D Platoon (SWAT).

[Andy in NH]

After two separate training events; a failure on my part at ECQC and later hearing Darryl Bolke's seminar at the 2015 Rangemaster Tactical conference, I tried to come up with a drill that could help solve my deficiencies.

Particularly - I wanted a drill that presented a variable round count and random target selection that conditioned me to finish with a head shot.

Thanks to Pat Rogers and Rich Verdi for permission to use the drill name.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dFlLzEqxu4

[Dagga Boy]

Sorry, but no. My mentor has not wanted publicity in the past and is very careful about identifying himself and where he is, due to possible threats leftover from his LE career.

I have a significant issue with the two to the head for the reasons stated as something I am trying to make a over learned response. With that said, a drill Wayne and I do is to run a target next to the primary. We run a failure on the first target and do a rapid transition to the head of the second target. We get two training goals from that. Multi threat is obvious, but what we are really doing is training for a possible miss or to track on a moving target. We also do this as a pair on one and move to the head of the second with the same goal of tracking to locate the head on a head that has moved from where you thought it would be.

I have a feeling Mr.White could develop some ways to get the maximum performance on this. Interestingly, one of the toughest parts of the LAPD bonus course is the two head shots phase with a single head shot delivered to two targets. We find we seem to get one or the other in time...tough to get both with solid center hits.

[Mr_White]

I have a significant issue with the two to the head for the reasons stated as something I am trying to make a over learned response. With that said, a drill Wayne and I do is to run a target next to the primary. We run a failure on the first target and do a rapid transition to the head of the second target. We get two training goals from that. Multi threat is obvious, but what we are really doing is training for a possible miss or to track on a moving target. We also do this as a pair on one and move to the head of the second with the same goal of tracking to locate the head on a head that has moved from where you thought it would be.

I have a feeling Mr.White could develop some ways to get the maximum performance on this. Interestingly, one of the toughest parts of the LAPD bonus course is the two head shots phase with a single head shot delivered to two targets. We find we seem to get one or the other in time...tough to get both with solid center hits.

Sure, I hear you there. I think this is one of those cases of very experienced people disagreeing. I personally see 4 + 2 as very similar to 2 + 1, and like I said, I think that the second head shot there more amounts to general follow through in case the second shot is actually required due to miss/really poor hit/erratic and difficult target/etc. If the head isn't there because they drop at the first head shot, then the second shouldn't be fired. I don't really think you and my mentor are very far apart on this.

[tanner]

Its all relative. "Shoot, stop and assess" sounds good and all proper, etc.; but can be misleading in real life.

Two of our SWAT guys took out a barricaded dude-with-a-gun sometime back...

...My point here is, you'll possibly be more vilified for "shooting him too much" than ending it quickly with a good old three round failure drill. My two cents, anyway…

.

Similar case from my neck of the woods. The comments from the judge echo this, even though they ruled in favor of the police.

http://www.hometownlife.com/story/news/local/redford/2014/09/19/court-ruling-upheld-case-redford-man-shot-times/15889703/

[Odin Bravo One]

As a drill, I like it for transitioning from high probability targets to lower probability targets.

For use? I simply fire one round at a time until I don't need to fire any more rounds. I'm a much better rifle shooter than pistol shooter and my default target is the brain box if using a rifle. I don't have enough experience with a pistol to have obtained data relevant to a "default" claim.

[Dagga Boy]

Sure, I hear you there. I think this is one of those cases of very experienced people disagreeing. I personally see 4 + 2 as very similar to 2 + 1, and like I said, I think that the second head shot there more amounts to general follow through in case the second shot is actually required due to miss/really poor hit/erratic and difficult target/etc. If the head isn't there because they drop at the first head shot, then the second shouldn't be fired. I don't really think you and my mentor are very far apart on this.

The way we teach it these days, especially since I have partnered up with Wayne who is so good with teaching true trigger mechanics, is to really emphasize the follow through and after the head shot, you should be sitting on a slacked out trigger waiting for another shot if one did not connect or solve the problem. We are back to a control thing, so we are not far apart. My old partner went four and then one to the head on his shooting. The main thing is to get people thinking about going to the head early rather than later.

As a drill, I like it for transitioning from high probability targets to lower probability targets.

For use? I simply fire one round at a time until I don't need to fire any more rounds. I'm a much better rifle shooter than pistol shooter and my default target is the brain box if using a rifle. I don't have enough experience with a pistol to have obtained data relevant to a "default" claim.

This is a big thing for the LE side. We do a ton of stuff with pistols in a place where we should be using a long gun. Nature of the beast putting a defensive tool into a offensive role. Because of this it gets back to the areas where we can really have confidence in pistol rounds to solve a problem are very small. It is really just finding the right things to make permanent in training and what you are wiring up as a sub conscious response. Also keep in mind that on the west coast we have been dealing with a very difficult judicial system that is not pro police in any way shape or form for a very long time. Excessive force mitigation in training is a big deal (or should be) for those in places like that. The rest of the country is now catching up to this concept.

One of the things that is critical for any of us is to find means within our own worlds to be as efficient as possible and end fights as fast as possible.

[DacoRoman]

Great discussion.

How does tactical necessity and practicality console with the common trend of shooting with fast split times, as commonly taught and practiced these days.

Assuming you can get to the point of shooting effective "upper A zone" groups at 7 yards while achieving .25s splits or less, is there such a thing as shooting too fast in a self defense/LE context?

If the ability is there, it almost seems more practical to deliver the 4 to 5 rounds per the one second to the high thorax before resorting to the 1 or 2 to the credit card. In other words, if the ability is there to place say 4-5 rounds per second into the cardiovascular triangle, is this more likely to result in a success to stop and obviate a more risky head shot? This of course would not be the case with a bad guy wearing body armor, but a 4-5 round one second fusillade won't waste too much time before getting to the head shot (but I guess if the likelyhood of body armored bad guys was higher then the classic 2 - 1 mozambique may be more to the point).

[Dagga Boy]

Great discussion.

How does tactical necessity and practicality console with the common trend of shooting with fast split times, as commonly taught and practiced these days.

Assuming you can get to the point of shooting effective "upper A zone" groups at 7 yards while achieving .25s splits or less, is there such a thing as shooting too fast in a self defense/LE context?

If the ability is there, it almost seems more practical to deliver the 4 to 5 rounds per the one second to the high thorax before resorting to the 1 or 2 to the credit card. In other words, if the ability is there to place say 4-5 rounds per second into the cardiovascular triangle, is this more likely to result in a success to stop and obviate a more risky head shot? This of course would not be the case with a bad guy wearing body armor, but a 4-5 round one second fusillade won't waste too much time before getting to the head shot (but I guess if the likelyhood of body armored bad guys was higher then the classic 2 - 1 mozambique may be more to the point).

We do a demonstration in many of our classes where we shoot 6-8 rounds in the black on a B8 in under 2 seconds. We then shoot a failure drill in the same time frame. We will turn to the class and ask "ladies and gentlemen of the jury, was it really neccesary to shoot a teenager 8 times? Everybody tends to get it. The 8 rounds in two seconds is not "wrong", but it can be very much perceived these days as wrong.

[GRV]

Really digging the discussion. Read all of it, but don't have the time to reply to as much of it as I'd like.


nyeti: Others have addressed this issue pretty well, but can you provide your personal perspective on why the body shots are an important part of this programmed response, as opposed to just going straight for the eyebox? I'm mainly curious about the motivation for your SWAT guys. (I imagine an easy motivation for general population patrol could be that they'd just never build enough skill to make accountable default-to-eyebox shots.)

[GRV]

As a drill, I like it for transitioning from high probability targets to lower probability targets.

For use? I simply fire one round at a time until I don't need to fire any more rounds. I'm a much better rifle shooter than pistol shooter and my default target is the brain box if using a rifle. I don't have enough experience with a pistol to have obtained data relevant to a "default" claim.

Regarding the less pistol data: do you have a planned/trained response here that is different from the rifle case? Or do you mean to say that the lack of data makes the question of what you would do, could do, or should do with a pistol simply irrelevant?

Aside, I'm aware that your threat model biases itself towards the default-to-eyebox response. A solution to a particular problem. However, given the success that your world has seen with it, I wonder if it's a logical default for similarly skilled LE groups. Or, if instead that the benefits of initial COM targeting outweigh those of initial eyebox targeting when the former is an available option, even in the presence of skill.

[GRV]

I think the way to evaluate this is to try to use it in force on force encounters under stress and decision loading.

I don't know. If I learned anything from Craig's FoF this weekend it's that Chris Fry is a beast... Dude took 2 square between the eyes from me with no effect! I didn't even know it happened until someone told me later.

6556

The point buried in the joke being that I'm dubious about the effectiveness of FoF in modeling the effects of shot placement.

[DacoRoman]

We do a demonstration in many of our classes where we shoot 6-8 rounds in the black on a B8 in under 2 seconds. We then shoot a failure drill in the same time frame. We will turn to the class and ask "ladies and gentlemen of the jury, was it really neccesary to shoot a teenager 8 times? Everybody tends to get it. The 8 rounds in two seconds is not "wrong", but it can be very much perceived these days as wrong.

Yeah I totally understand looking at it through those types of optics.

And if the 2-1 approach works, then a lot of us are wasting ammo practicing those 4 - 2 or 5 - 1 drills. But I guess I'm not totally convinced that a "mere" 2 -1 drill is enough, especially if good hits aren't obtained right away. It almost seems too economical to work :). I always assumed that the 4-2 or 5-1 drills where devised based on practical lessons learned by real deal operators and law men, but maybe these fast split multi round drills are just a product of competition or macho training bias?

But getting back to the 2-1, if after the 1 head shot the threat doesn't immediately go down (miss or peripheral ineffectual hit), does one keep shooting at the head? I guess this question applies to any of the failure to stop drills really. And looking at it this way, training wise, doesn't it make more sense to shoot multiple shots to the body and then head in order to properly master recoil control and accuracy, and to prevent a premature "shoot and check progress before threat is down" training scar, allowing one to keep shooting until the threat actually goes down? Or am I over analyzing this?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I don't know. If I learned anything from Craig's FoF this weekend it's that Chris Fry is a beast... Dude took 2 square between the eyes from me with no effect! I didn't even know it happened until someone told me later.

6556

The point buried in the joke being that I'm dubious about the effectiveness of FoF in modeling the effects of shot placement.

I was actually referring to the ability of participants to use pre-programmed shot patterns.

However, since you brought up failure to stop, you obviously weren't using a 1911 loaded with hardball so therefore, your premise that placement matters in invalidated by equipment selection failure :).

[BehindBlueI's]

Or am I over analyzing this?

Yes. There is no blanket answer. Having a pre-programmed response is great, but you also have to add in the ability to observe, think, and adjust on the fly as things change.

[DacoRoman]

Yes. There is no blanket answer. Having a pre-programmed response is great, but you also have to add in the ability to observe, think, and adjust on the fly as things change.

I agree.

[GRV]

I was actually referring to the ability of participants to use pre-programmed shot patterns.

However, since you brought up failure to stop, you obviously weren't using a 1911 loaded with hardball so therefore, your premise that placement matters in invalidated by equipment selection failure :).

Ah, got it.

I just meant to say that roleplayer reaction to shots is going to be very different from real reactions, and so the subsequent shooter rereaction will differ and so on. So I'm not sure if it's a good measure of which placement tactics are more effective, but I see where you're going on measuring ability to execute. In particular, I'm wondering if the two to the body has a sort of staggering effect on the target, whether that be psychological or physical, which makes the eyebox more practical to subsequently hit. If so, I wouldn't expect that to carry over well to FoF.

FWIW, lest anyone think I just wanted to show off the picture (which, duh, of course :cool:), that was about the only thing that went right for me. Coincidentally or not, it's also the only thing I can't remember. Some people who were present know that I literally lost sleep over my massive performance failure; it took a good 8 hours before I could mentally focus on anything else... A story for another thread :p

[AMC]

FWIW, some of ours guys were just found Not Liable in a Federal Civil Rights case involving an OIS case against a mentally disturbed guy who pointed a taser at them and sparkled them with the laser from 30 yards. The then Sgt. who was involved and I talked about the shooting a few weeks ago. When he started shooting, he was pretty sure of his marksmanship....but after 8-9 rounds to the body wasn't getting a reaction. He raised his front sight and started taking head shots....still no effect until the third round. Turns out ALL of his rounds struck the suspect...including the 3 head shots. First two went into the cheek and the mouth....last one was through the left eye. Head doesn't mean brain/CNS is the moral of that story. Keep shooting.

[Dagga Boy]

I ll just add that over the years from my limited experience it seems that if 1-2 solid upper torso hits do not do the job, then you are going to be there awhile. Also, while we had good results from head shots below the eye box, they had to be close to the nose. It is why I like using a T of 3x5 cards and when we teach we emphasize to pretend there is a strip of duct tape running around the skull from the eys through the ears.

[11B10]

Would it change your thoughts if instead of viewing it add two tightly grouped and then a separate shot you viewed it as a three shot string letting the pistol work upward naturally under recoil?


Sure changed MY thoughts.

[DacoRoman]

FWIW, some of ours guys were just found Not Liable in a Federal Civil Rights case involving an OIS case against a mentally disturbed guy who pointed a taser at them and sparkled them with the laser from 30 yards. The then Sgt. who was involved and I talked about the shooting a few weeks ago. When he started shooting, he was pretty sure of his marksmanship....but after 8-9 rounds to the body wasn't getting a reaction. He raised his front sight and started taking head shots....still no effect until the third round. Turns out ALL of his rounds struck the suspect...including the 3 head shots. First two went into the cheek and the mouth....last one was through the left eye. Head doesn't mean brain/CNS is the moral of that story. Keep shooting.

Thanks for posting this. This type of FTS scenario is what I had in mind when I was deep into my over analysis of the subject.

[spinmove_]

FWIW, some of ours guys were just found Not Liable in a Federal Civil Rights case involving an OIS case against a mentally disturbed guy who pointed a taser at them and sparkled them with the laser from 30 yards. The then Sgt. who was involved and I talked about the shooting a few weeks ago. When he started shooting, he was pretty sure of his marksmanship....but after 8-9 rounds to the body wasn't getting a reaction. He raised his front sight and started taking head shots....still no effect until the third round. Turns out ALL of his rounds struck the suspect...including the 3 head shots. First two went into the cheek and the mouth....last one was through the left eye. Head doesn't mean brain/CNS is the moral of that story. Keep shooting.

Wow. If that's not an argument for "shot placement trumps all" I'm not sure what is.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Thanks for posting this. This type of FTS scenario is what I had in mind when I was deep into my over analysis of the subject.

That Sgt. is a hell of a shot, if he went 100% hits from 30 yards.

[LSP972]

Wow. If that's not an argument for "shot placement trumps all" I'm not sure what is.

Indeed. And every time I have just about convinced myself that "modern" 9mm ammunition is plenty good for our purposes... I read about something like this, and start thinking I need to go back to my .45.

And then I think about that cop in the midwest who put a dozen or so peripheral .45 hits into an amped-up felon, without any results... and I sigh.:(

.

[spinmove_]

Indeed. And every time I have just about convinced myself that "modern" 9mm ammunition is plenty good for our purposes... I read about something like this, and start thinking I need to go back to my .45.

And then I think about that cop in the midwest who put a dozen or so peripheral .45 hits into an amped-up felon, without any results... and I sigh.:(

.

It's one of those circular arguments that resembles a snake eating it's own tail. You think 9mm is inadequate because of one-off reason, so you think .45ACP. Then you hear about .45ACP being crappy and then you think rifle cartridge and go 5.56. Then you hear about 5.56 passing right through people and not hardly doing anything so then you think 7.62x39. Then you hear about 7.62x39 ricocheting off of human skulls because "bullets sometimes do funny things" and then come back to thinking that shot placement is king.

I don't shoot fools for work, nor do I ever hope to have to one day, but I think of it this way. I'll prepare myself with the best equipment, training, and practice as much as I can and as often as I can that gives me the best edge that I can possibly get, but ultimately, you can't predict how it will eventually go down. It's in the Lord's hands at that point. Prepare for the worst and hope and pray for the best.

[JMS]

Head doesn't mean brain/CNS is the moral of that story. Keep shooting.
Yeah, that lightswitch is about the size of an apricot, and is contained within an 8# block of cheese that's mounted to a Slinky.

[spinmove_]

Yeah, that lightswitch is about the size of an apricot, and is contained within an 8# block of cheese that's mounted to a Slinky.

If I didn't know any better I'd almost guess that you attempted to recreate a similar medium based on the components that you just described as an illustration...

[GRV]

Yeah, that lightswitch is about the size of an apricot, and is contained within an 8# block of cheese that's mounted to a Slinky.

Hmm.... I think I have to take a trip to the store.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Great discussion of the failure drill, but don't you all think it's kind of self-defeating to put the word "failure" right up front? You're just training your mind to expect failure.

I vote we change the name to "The Other Success Drill".

[Nephrology]

Yeah, that lightswitch is about the size of an apricot, and is contained within an 8# block of cheese that's mounted to a Slinky.

Eh, it's a little bigger than that. Sure, the definitional "lightswitch" (cerebellum/pons) isn't terribly big, but if you put a round through someone's cranial vault I would be shocked if they didn't go down. Keep in mind that a solid whack with a sap on the back of the head will knock someone out, too. a 147gr projectile going THROUGH their head will likely accomplish the same effect. yes, if you hit cerebrum and not brainstem they might continue to breath and maintain spontaneous cardiac rhythm for another 2-3 minutes or so, but they will be out of the fight if you hit true CNS material. Ditto goes for C-spine .

Re: Upper thorax hits, my guess is that if the first couple don't work it's because that person really doesn't want to die. In the chest, your major targets are cardiovascular - i.e. heart and great vessels. Below is a diagram to illustrate what I am talking about (it's a little inaccurate - heart is deviated a little more left from midline - but good enough):

http://i.imgur.com/TeTqpfg.jpg

Essentially, once you get a hit on a major vessel (aorta, SVC/IVC, pulm. artery/vein, etc), they will start losing a massive amount of blood into their pleural space. Think of this like a timer - without immediate medical treatment, this will kill them, and pretty quickly too. However, "pretty quickly" is still going to be a double or triple digit number of seconds, if not longer. A solid hit on the heart might cause immediate cardiovascular collapse by way of loss of blood to the brain, but even that might take a little bit of time.

Keep in mind that the ultimate cause of death in GSWs isn't loss of blood alone - it's a loss of blood significant enough to result in a loss of perfusion (blood supply) to the brain and/or heart. Most other tissues in your body can go a while without blood (30m or more) - the brain is oxygen hungry and will stop working once it stops getting blood. If the first two (or four, or whatever) rounds to the upper thorax doesn't put them down, going to the head is a sensible way to cut out the middleman.

[BehindBlueI's]

Keep in mind that a solid whack with a sap on the back of the head will knock someone out, too. a 147gr projectile going THROUGH their head will likely accomplish the same effect.

.40 that glanced of the skull has knocked out bad guy at least once here.

[Nephrology]

.40 that glanced of the skull has knocked out bad guy at least once here.

I believe it. The brain is a pretty fragile organ.

[LSP972]

Eh, it's a little bigger than that. .

He was probably talking about the medulla oblongotta (sp?).

.

[scw2]

I've been thinking about what I learned at the FoF class and Nyeti's class as well. From a pure shooting perspective, I recall during the FoF scenario I took 2 shots, think I saw Chris stagger or flinch, but not go down, and then followed up with 2 more. Based on this thread and me thinking about what happened during the scenario, I think these are some of the relevant takeaways, for me personally at least.

1) 3-4 to chest instead of 2 - Nyeti touched on why 2+1 may be better if you're getting solid hits based on appearance to the police, DA, jury, etc.

2) the importance of assessing the impact of your shots. I recalled a short pause in between the 2 strings, not sure how long the time was and unfortunately forgot to get video, but assessing in parallel would have been better in terms of not wasting time, especially against a truly dedicated BG.

3) training the default response to follow up the initial high COM hits with hits to the head would have been a better option, if necessary. Based on feedback from various comments so far in the thread, it sounds like the ideal outcome would be to either stop if head is not there due to BG dropping, or follow up in rhythm if needed, both of which could be better than 2 *pause* then 1 more, at least for potential witnesses and what they hear.

[Dagga Boy]

Great discussion of the failure drill, but don't you all think it's kind of self-defeating to put the word "failure" right up front? You're just training your mind to expect failure.

I vote we change the name to "The Other Success Drill".

I ll take that as humor, but in this case....pistol bullets do suck and it isn't like tv, so I go in expecting failure and hoping for success.


Eh, it's a little bigger than that. Sure, the definitional "lightswitch" (cerebellum/pons) isn't terribly big, but if you put a round through someone's cranial vault I would be shocked if they didn't go down. Keep in mind that a solid whack with a sap on the back of the head will knock someone out, too. a 147gr projectile going THROUGH their head will likely accomplish the same effect. yes, if you hit cerebrum and not brainstem they might continue to breath and maintain spontaneous cardiac rhythm for another 2-3 minutes or so, but they will be out of the fight if you hit true CNS material. Ditto goes for C-spine .

Re: Upper thorax hits, my guess is that if the first couple don't work it's because that person really doesn't want to die. In the chest, your major targets are cardiovascular - i.e. heart and great vessels. Below is a diagram to illustrate what I am talking about (it's a little inaccurate - heart is deviated a little more left from midline - but good enough):



Essentially, once you get a hit on a major vessel (aorta, SVC/IVC, pulm. artery/vein, etc), they will start losing a massive amount of blood into their pleural space. Think of this like a timer - without immediate medical treatment, this will kill them, and pretty quickly too. However, "pretty quickly" is still going to be a double or triple digit number of seconds, if not longer. A solid hit on the heart might cause immediate cardiovascular collapse by way of loss of blood to the brain, but even that might take a little bit of time.

Keep in mind that the ultimate cause of death in GSWs isn't loss of blood alone - it's a loss of blood significant enough to result in a loss of perfusion (blood supply) to the brain and/or heart. Most other tissues in your body can go a while without blood (30m or more) - the brain is oxygen hungry and will stop working once it stops getting blood. If the first two (or four, or whatever) rounds to the upper thorax doesn't put them down, going to the head is a sensible way to cut out the middleman.

Much of this is on the money. Again, our experience was often the chest hits were fatal, but the crook was determined and waiting for fatal to happen was not a good plan. On the other hand, we had many go right down with one to two solid upper chest hits. Those were folks who were like deer and just wanted to lay down and call it a day.


I've been thinking about what I learned at the FoF class and Nyeti's class as well. From a pure shooting perspective, I recall during the FoF scenario I took 2 shots, think I saw Chris stagger or flinch, but not go down, and then followed up with 2 more. Based on this thread and me thinking about what happened during the scenario, I think these are some of the relevant takeaways, for me personally at least.

1) 3-4 to chest instead of 2 - Nyeti touched on why 2+1 may be better if you're getting solid hits based on appearance to the police, DA, jury, etc.

2) the importance of assessing the impact of your shots. I recalled a short pause in between the 2 strings, not sure how long the time was and unfortunately forgot to get video, but assessing in parallel would have been better in terms of not wasting time, especially against a truly dedicated BG.

3) training the default response to follow up the initial high COM hits with hits to the head would have been a better option, if necessary. Based on feedback from various comments so far in the thread, it sounds like the ideal outcome would be to either stop if head is not there due to BG dropping, or follow up in rhythm if needed, both of which could be better than 2 *pause* then 1 more, at least for potential witnesses and what they hear.

The biggest thing the LAPD guys did with the Gunsite curriculum and classically taught "Mozambique" was to not stop or pause after the chest shots. There is a slight downshift in speed to anchor the shot, but the assessment is literally if the head is still there take it.

[GRV]

eyemahm and I chatted about this last night.

He seems to have a similar idea to my thought that the 2 COM shots maybe stagger the target psychologically or otherwise to setup the follow up shot. His phrasing was different though, and worth posting I thought:

He referred to the notion that "the first person to make a hit tends to win". Again, hypothesizing that theres a large psychological component there. He proposed that the primary role of the COM-initial shots is to just be the first to hit, which defines the power curve for the rest of the fight.

[Wayne Dobbs]

He was probably talking about the medulla oblongotta (sp?).

.

Or Steve, as one of my country boy cop students called it: The Inna Gadda DaVida....(with apologies to Iron Butterfly for the context and spelling!)

[Erick Gelhaus]

If the distance involved supports it, 2,3, or 4 to the upper torso followed by a CNS shot - if needed - may prove far less problematic in the uniformed court of public opinion. While Plumhoff addressed the number of shots fired, our administrators are not talking about these issues and many have been 'taught' by the entertainment media. Alas, as Nyeti mentioned, the profession is using handguns to solve problems that carbines or other weapons should be used for.

As the distances start pushing beyond 10-15 yards fewer people have the skill to make the headshot. What we desire may not be what we can get from most.

This could be an area where greater amounts of work on reactive targets would pay big dividends. If the threat isn't going down after a few, maybe its time for the CNS shot; additionally, hey the target's down, you cancome off the trigger.

[DacoRoman]

eyemahm and I chatted about this last night.

He seems to have a similar idea to my thought that the 2 COM shots maybe stagger the target psychologically or otherwise to setup the follow up shot. His phrasing was different though, and worth posting I thought:

He referred to the notion that "the first person to make a hit tends to win". Again, hypothesizing that theres a large psychological component there. He proposed that the primary role of the COM-initial shots is to just be the first to hit, which defines the power curve for the rest of the fight.

Reminds me of Mike Tyson's "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" quote.

But yeah landing hits first has to be exceedingly better for one's constitution and overall plans then receiving them :).

[scw2]

This could be an area where greater amounts of work on reactive targets would pay big dividends. If the threat isn't going down after a few, maybe its time for the CNS shot; additionally, hey the target's down, you cancome off the trigger.

Waiting to hear what Nyeti, GJM and others come up with as a training hack/aid for these types of targets... would be helpful. In the meantime, I guess the plan is more B8 centers, dots and index cards for targets and just train up to a higher standard...

[Talionis]

Waiting to hear what Nyeti, GJM and others come up with as a training hack/aid for these types of targets... would be helpful. In the meantime, I guess the plan is more B8 centers, dots and index cards for targets and just train up to a higher standard...

There is no hack. Only fundamentals applied appropriately to the context.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

There is no hack. Only fundamentals applied appropriately to the context.

Using the sights isn't a hack?

[Talionis]

Using the sights isn't a hack?

Hmm, I hadn't considered that! Perhaps I should try to use those bumpy things on top of the slide for something other than racking the slide when my utterly reliable HK goes down during a dynamic critical incident.

[LSP972]

Or Steve, as one of my country boy cop students called it: The Inna Gadda DaVida....(with apologies to Iron Butterfly for the context and spelling!)

LOL. That was some good 60's dope music. :-)

Gotta remember to use that one on a particular DNA drone at the lab. He's a frustrated med student who thinks he's Marcus Welby, MD. He also thinks he knows more about wound ballistics than he is even aware of.

Of course, he's a pup, so now that I think about it he won't get the reference. But its worth a shot…;)

.

[Talionis]

Using the sights isn't a hack?


Side note: Yes, I am consistently saddened by the current mode of internet thought re: doing the thing exactly as it was intended = hack.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Side note: Yes, I am consistently saddened by the current mode of internet thought re: doing the thing exactly as it was intended = hack.

Preach, yo...

[scw2]

Side note: Yes, I am consistently saddened by the current mode of internet thought re: doing the thing exactly as it was intended = hack.

I was referring to Nyeti coming up with some sort of reactive target that falls and simulates a hard stop when shooting, with the occasional need to keep shooting COM or use failure to stop. :)

Hack was used in the sense that I thought he'd have to cobble together something on an ad hoc basis to get that sort of reactive target for training.

[Talionis]

I was referring to Nyeti coming up with some sort of reactive target that falls and simulates a hard stop when shooting, with the occasional need to keep shooting COM or use failure to stop. :)

Hack was used in the sense that I thought he'd have to cobble together something on an ad hoc basis to get that sort of reactive target for training.

We call that a hard set popper where I come from.

[Mr_White]

I was referring to Nyeti coming up with some sort of reactive target that falls and simulates a hard stop when shooting, with the occasional need to keep shooting COM or use failure to stop. :)

Hack was used in the sense that I thought he'd have to cobble together something on an ad hoc basis to get that sort of reactive target for training.

You need a quality role player in force on force.

[nycnoob]

Hack was used in the sense that I thought he'd have to cobble together something on an ad hoc basis to get that sort of reactive target for training.

You are thinking of John Hearne's Reactive targets. http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2007/10/24/hard-head-ted-realistic-targets-for-police-firearms-training/

[Dagga Boy]

You are thinking of John Hearne's Reactive targets. http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2007/10/24/hard-head-ted-realistic-targets-for-police-firearms-training/

Yep. I just shot the match at Tac Conference for the first time. They were used in the active shooter scenario. I found I was slower on the standards by shooting Tighter than I needed to, but I solved the problem with the hard head Teds with two rounds by just holding my normal fist size standard from the B8's and 3x5.

The key is you need to be more accurate on actual humans than what we normally train. There is no need to make it more complicated than that.

[Dagga Boy]

We will likely buy some of the hard head Ted's from John. Currently Wayne and I own a couple reactive targets. Wonder why we picked these....

http://www.letargets.com/content/at-221-pt-idpa-practice-torso.asp

[Dagga Boy]

Just so we are on the same page as to how we teach this versus a Classic Mozambique, this is Dr. No demonstrating a true textbook application with both initial rounds into the black on a B8 and a dead center head hit. I was at the other end and did it in 1.31 and was bagging on him about the old man beating him and his 1.44. That was until I watched the video and realized he did it from his duty holster and I was at a contact ready....oh well. Damn kids..;-).
http://youtu.be/9P49FOe2jH8

This is on the move between multiple non shoots.
http://youtu.be/M1pXPTi3HnQ

[BehindBlueI's]

Just so we are on the same page as to how we teach this versus a Classic Mozambique, this is Dr. No demonstrating a true textbook application with both initial rounds into the black on a B8 and a dead center head hit. I was at the other end and did it in 1.31 and was bagging on him about the old man beating him and his 1.44. That was until I watched the video and realized he did it from his duty holster and I was at a contact ready....oh well. Damn kids..;-).
http://youtu.be/9P49FOe2jH8

This is on the move between multiple non shoots.
http://youtu.be/M1pXPTi3HnQ

Smoking fast, and a great example of what I was saying with "a string of three" vs "two shots, pause, one shot."

I think I could save a lot of time typing by just making most of my posts read "What Nyeti said."

[Chance]

For use? I simply fire one round at a time until I don't need to fire any more rounds.

So this is what I keep coming back to. Darryl has discussed this in terms of "deliberateness", Paul Howe has phrased this in terms of plinking (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18301-Thoughts-and-an-epiphany-on-manually-operated-firearms&p=380929&viewfull=1#post380929)("I've plinked people to death in the real world"), and Hackathorn was rather pointed in his dismissal of split-times as a concept when I trained with him last year. Why not slightly reduce your cadence of fire to better assess what's happening, rather than setting 2+1, 3+1, 4+2, 5+1, or whatever permutation you prefer?

[Mr_White]

If a person is shooting right, that is 'shooting the sights and trigger', the hits should be there and the split times will just be a function of skill level.

If a person isn't shooting right, and is shooting to some artificial cadence or sense of timing, instead of simply shooting in accordance with the sights and trigger, the hits are a lot iffier and the split times will be a function of the artificial pacing.

Neither of those things are inherently connected to a particular split time or speed of shooting. It's not good to get all wrapped up in chasing split times, whether they are faster or slower than the sights, trigger, shooter skill, and shooting problem dictate.

[1slow]

I think part of the reason for a failure drill is if you wait and assess to see what each shot has done you are losing time and taking fire.
How long are you going to wait to see if he is done. How many times are you going to get shot waiting.

I like the idea of 2 body shots to a fist size area high on the sternum, up to the head, if it is there shoot the head precisely, if head is not there body hits may have worked. Track the target to the ground and see if it is over. Sometimes people shoot from the ground.

[GRV]

So this is what I keep coming back to. Darryl has discussed this in terms of "deliberateness", Paul Howe has phrased this in terms of plinking (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18301-Thoughts-and-an-epiphany-on-manually-operated-firearms&p=380929&viewfull=1#post380929)("I've plinked people to death in the real world"), and Hackathorn was rather pointed in his dismissal of split-times as a concept when I trained with him last year. Why not slightly reduce your cadence of fire to better assess what's happening, rather than setting 2+1, 3+1, 4+2, 5+1, or whatever permutation you prefer?

Bob Taubert says "Each shot should be an individual one..." and repeatedly phrases this in terms of "individual" shots that are all sighted.

Over the past week, between reading and TacCon, the drill bit has successfully breached the skull.

[Mr_White]

Bob Taubert says "Each shot should be an individual one..." and repeatedly phrases this in terms of "individual" shots that are all sighted.

I'm kind of responding to the general discussion with this, not so much you specifically, but I agree with your Bob Taubert quote. The thing is though, a lot of people can do that at splits < .20, some can do it with splits <.30, <.40, <.50, etc.

Now some people do shoot faster than they can currently aim and press the trigger well enough, and those people should start shooting in accordance with the sights, trigger, their skill, and the shooting problem. But someone who is already aiming each shot and triggering it well at <.20 does not need to artificially slow down. To do so is to take on the additional risk of error imposed by shooting at an artificial pace.

[MVS]

Yep. I just shot the match at Tac Conference for the first time. They were used in the active shooter scenario. I found I was slower on the standards by shooting Tighter than I needed to, but I solved the problem with the hard head Teds with two rounds by just holding my normal fist size standard from the B8's and 3x5.

The key is you need to be more accurate on actual humans than what we normally train. There is no need to make it more complicated than that.

Darryl, or anyone who was there, what distance would you estimate the knockdowns were at? I am guessing about 12 yards. I used one round apeice on them and noticed it falling before I was ready to take a second shot. Some guys shot numerous rounds to get this m to fall, most likely due to less than ideal shot placement. Those targets definitely favor upper thoracic cavity vs., center mass.

[Talionis]

I'm kind of responding to the general discussion with this, not so much you specifically, but I agree with your Bob Taubert quote. The thing is though, a lot of people can do that at splits < .20, some can do it with splits <.30, <.40, <.50, etc.

Now some people do shoot faster than they can currently aim and press the trigger well enough, and those people should start shooting in accordance with the sights, trigger, their skill, and the shooting problem. But someone who is already aiming each shot and triggering it well at <.20 does not need to artificially slow down. To do so is to take on the additional risk of error imposed by shooting at an artificial pace.

Completely agree with this. Shooting to an artificial cadence, whether faster or slower than the pace at which I can get the needed sight picture and press the trigger appropriately, is a good way to increase risk of error. I don't care about splits except as a measurement of how quickly I am able to get that necessary sight picture and trigger press.

[Mr_White]

Completely agree with this. Shooting to an artificial cadence, whether faster or slower than the pace at which I can get the needed sight picture and press the trigger appropriately, is a good way to increase risk of error. I don't care about splits except as a measurement of how quickly I am able to get that necessary sight picture and trigger press.

I think for a lot of people it plays out as another kind of anticipation and/or jerking/milking/sympathetic movement.

[Chance]

The thing is though, a lot of people can do that at splits < .20, some can do it with splits <.30, <.40, <.50, etc.

How many people can consistently track the sights through their entire range of motion? I'm only able to do that some of the time, and only then if I'm concentrating on exclusively that.


Yeah, that lightswitch is about the size of an apricot, and is contained within an 8# block of cheese that's mounted to a Slinky.

I'm super out of my lane, but wasn't the theory of aiming exclusively for the medulla oblongata abandoned? I know snipers used to be trained to shoot that way, but an abundance of practical experience during the GWOT proved that wasn't really necessary, which is what Nephrology mentioned. I believe Chuck has discussed this before, but I can't find that post. Again, way out of my lane, that's just what I've read.


Waiting to hear what Nyeti, GJM and others come up with as a training hack/aid for these types of targets... would be helpful. In the meantime, I guess the plan is more B8 centers, dots and index cards for targets and just train up to a higher standard...

Paul Howe takes some two-by-four to create a saw horse-ish stand, then attaches another two-by-four to the top with a door hinge. You can then put a target on the attached two-by-four. Pardon the poor screen shots.

6596

6598

6599

If you want the target to fall faster, you can put old fire hose, conveyor belt, or cut up tire on the erect (no one say, "phrasing") two-by-four. Paul's big on hitting the spinal column, so if your shot connects with that area of the target, the wood will fall backwards. If the first few shots don't work, aim for the head, as higher on the wood creates more leverage. I haven't actually tried this first hand, but they seem to work well in the video (which is his active shooter response video).

[GRV]

I'm kind of responding to the general discussion with this, not so much you specifically, but I agree with your Bob Taubert quote. The thing is though, a lot of people can do that at splits < .20, some can do it with splits <.30, <.40, <.50, etc.

Now some people do shoot faster than they can currently aim and press the trigger well enough, and those people should start shooting in accordance with the sights, trigger, their skill, and the shooting problem. But someone who is already aiming each shot and triggering it well at <.20 does not need to artificially slow down. To do so is to take on the additional risk of error imposed by shooting at an artificial pace.


Completely agree with this. Shooting to an artificial cadence, whether faster or slower than the pace at which I can get the needed sight picture and press the trigger appropriately, is a good way to increase risk of error. I don't care about splits except as a measurement of how quickly I am able to get that necessary sight picture and trigger press.


I think for a lot of people it plays out as another kind of anticipation and/or jerking/milking/sympathetic movement.

Perfectly stated.

[GRV]

snip

A cool side effect of this target design is that headshots will be more effective than body shots. Higher shots more effective than lower, and well-centered shots markably more effective than any others.

Chance, can you post a link to this video?


ETA: Doh...read more carefully and saw you made the same remarks...... I still want the video :cool:

[Chance]

A cool side effect of this target design is that headshots will be more effective than body shots. Higher shots more effective than lower, and well-centered shots markably more effective than any others.

Chance, can you post a link to this video?

ETA: Doh...read more carefully and saw you made the same remarks...... I still want the video :cool:

Here's the page (http://panteao.com/product/civilian-response-to-active-shooters/), and you can see a brief snippet of it in the trailer. Also, a visit to CSAT is absolutely worth it; I will continue to give Paul my money for as long as Paul continues to accept it.

[Dagga Boy]

If a person is shooting right, that is 'shooting the sights and trigger', the hits should be there and the split times will just be a function of skill level.

If a person isn't shooting right, and is shooting to some artificial cadence or sense of timing, instead of simply shooting in accordance with the sights and trigger, the hits are a lot iffier and the split times will be a function of the artificial pacing.

Neither of those things are inherently connected to a particular split time or speed of shooting. It's not good to get all wrapped up in chasing split times, whether they are faster or slower than the sights, trigger, shooter skill, and shooting problem dictate.

Yes...but.
Back to the question, what is a "hit". Looking at bunches of shot people over the years...including watching them get shot, my idea of a hit is different than many. Again, if not in a fist size area of the upper chest, above the bottom of the nose through the eye box in the head, they are likely not going down with a pistol bullet. The exception was hitting large bone with a solid hit worked well and the spinal column. Things we call hits on many targets are not likely to cause any sort of stop unless psychological. So we are back to how fast can you deliver 100% percent hits to those small areas. Once you find that speed....no matter what it is..., I am of the opinion based on the results I have seen both personally and with those I have trained that having an over learned auto pilot speed works well in dealing with tachypsychia. It also helps to maintain emotional control, thus phrases like "deliberateness" or "Plinking" from people like Paul and I. We may be wrong, but we do have some time invested into the art of teaching people to shoot other people effectively. If that doesn't match someone's sport shooting program..sorry, I was an above average sport shooter, so it's not my lane, do what works for the highly successful people in those disciplines.

Also consider that we are often working with non-dedicated shooters who are doing it as a job function. For these folks setting a cadence to learn for delivering a specific response to deadly force stimulus works well in my experience. If your experience with how to handle a surprise crisis is different and works, by all means do it and ignore me.

I think we will agree that those who can execute the fundamentals at speed in a crisis tend to do well. How you get there is the battle. I have seen far more issues with people slapping a trigger faster than they can see sights and control the trigger.

[Mr_White]

I don't have any real disagreement with what you wrote there. It kind of sounds like you are reading my post to be talking about a particular target (?), but I didn't mean it that way. I think everything I said applies to whatever target size and difficulty - the targets you are defining, just as well as if we were talking about someone shooting As and Cs in USPSA because of Major scoring. It boils down to the shooter having a developed familiarity with what it takes in the sights and trigger to hit the designated target. Gotta train them to recognize the right targets.

I hear you about nondedicated shooters. Over time I've had to remember that's who you usually seem to be thinking of. I get that, because when I post, I'm usually thinking more about people like you find on PF, who are personally interested in doing work to be very skilled.

[GRV]

Mr_White, do you judge "target" by how big it appears relative to the sights? or, do you have a programmed notions of "A zone" "3x5" "8 inch" at various distances?

[Dagga Boy]

I don't have any real disagreement with what you wrote there. It kind of sounds like you are reading my post to be talking about a particular target (?), but I didn't mean it that way. I think everything I said applies to whatever target size and difficulty - the targets you are defining, just as well as if we were talking about someone shooting As and Cs in USPSA because of Major scoring. It boils down to the shooter having a developed familiarity with what it takes in the sights and trigger to hit the designated target. Gotta train them to recognize the right targets.

I hear you about nondedicated shooters. Over time I've had to remember that's who you usually seem to be thinking of. I get that, because when I post, I'm usually thinking more about people like you find on PF, who are personally interested in doing work to be very skilled.

Believe it or not....I actually know that you do get it. I am posting stuff for those who who read things differently. There are a lot of folks on this forum who are shooters. Some, including you are exceptional. I am not. The shooting part for me is a small portion of what my interest really is, which is the problem solving, fighting, and efficiently hunting human predators. Totally different goals with some shared solutions. The failure drill to me is not really a shooting drill. It is a means to solve a problem during a fight with a human predator. I am looking at some different issues in play. Most of that is how am I task stacking in an engagement. The failure drill components being sub conscious over learned tasks allow me to free my brain for other tasks and priorities. That is a very different goal from what many are doing......which is okay. Many of us here have different goals and reasons for why we post and what we do. I always laugh with GJM and "shoots for fun". It is not fun for me. It is hard, frustrating and difficult work because I take what I am doing WAY too seriously because I have had to face so many situations in the middle of the night and being scared to death. I have seen first hand about doing everything right, and yet by the grace of God and pure stupid luck of one step when a .380 impacted with a 1/4" of my head on a gang ambush. It's not fun or a sport for me....which does not mean that it should not be for others.
I know many train hard to get to amazing levels of shooting and are easily capable of the marksmanship skills necessary to solve most street problems. No street "shooting" problem will be harder than Rogers. The problem solving to get to the shooting, during the shooting, and afterwards are fricking epic. Finding this out first hand is how I got dedicated to finding things like the failure drill to help make the shooting a plug in solution for a problem that requires little thought.

Hope this makes sense.

[StrikerFire]

.... I am posting stuff for those who who read things differently. The shooting part for me is a small portion of what my interest really is, which is the problem solving, fighting, and efficiently hunting human predators. Totally different goals with some shared solutions. The failure drill to me is not really a shooting drill. It is a means to solve a problem during a fight with a human predator. I am looking at some different issues in play. Most of that is how am I task stacking in an engagement. The failure drill components being sub conscious over learned tasks allow me to free my brain for other tasks and priorities. That is a very different goal from what many are doing......

Long time lurker, new member here.

This is just so spot on to me. It goes to the essence of self defense with a professional business-like approach to physical risk management. I really focus on learning the mechanics, but what you're doing is consciously stepping out of that and working from a very well developed and higher organizing principle.

How do I, the non-LEO CHL holder (MAG-20 grad, Airsoft FoF, Amok! knife FoF, practice Howe tac pistol standards, Spaulding/Givens drills, dryfire), drill/incorporate/learn this mindset? How do I entrain/engrain this risk management organizing principle - problem solving - be it in everyday life or as with this Failure Drill thread when I'm training in the Tac Bay, when Im "applying"/learning deadly force technique. I'd appreciate your advice.

[Dagga Boy]

Long time lurker, new member here.

This is just so spot on to me. It goes to the essence of self defense with a professional business-like approach to physical risk management. I really focus on learning the mechanics, but what you're doing is consciously stepping out of that and working from a very well developed and higher organizing principle.

How do I, the non-LEO CHL holder (MAG-20 grad, Airsoft FoF, Amok! knife FoF, practice Howe tac pistol standards, Spaulding/Givens drills, dryfire), drill/incorporate/learn this mindset? How do I entrain/engrain this risk management organizing principle - problem solving - be it in everyday life or as with this Failure Drill thread when I'm training in the Tac Bay, when Im "applying"/learning deadly force technique. I'd appreciate your advice.

For my folks, we pretty much shot failure drills on our qual course from 10 yards and in every time. All shoot house problems without reactionary targets were shot with failure drills or a hostage resolution. Essentially, we did it so repetitively that it became the "I just did what I was trained to do" solution. That quote, by the way, was common post shooting. Also, the emphasis on solid hits and intolerance of misses helps. I speed shot that qualification course while talking through it on a demo at Tom's place and threw two rounds just off the Q bottle that is not really a silhouette......simply told the class...."and that is a DQ". That level of intolerance for mistakes in training helps a lot on mindset.

[Kevin B.]

...the emphasis on solid hits and intolerance of misses...

This is an absolutely critical component of a quality training program and is where many people go wrong.

[1slow]

Absolutely necessary to own your mistakes in training if you are going to get better.

[11B10]

Indeed. And every time I have just about convinced myself that "modern" 9mm ammunition is plenty good for our purposes... I read about something like this, and start thinking I need to go back to my .45.
And then I think about that cop in the midwest who put a dozen or so peripheral .45 hits into an amped-up felon, without any results... and I sigh.:(

.




How 'bout the sweet-shooting officer in Garland? THAT was .45 ACP.

[Dagga Boy]

How 'bout the sweet-shooting officer in Garland? THAT was .45 ACP.

and...a bunch of 5.56. just saying

Way more there than the media reported.

[11B10]

and...a bunch of 5.56. just saying

Way more there than the media reported.


Well, that'll learn me! Is there a link to some of that 5.56 info?

[Dagga Boy]

Likely not.....everybody loves the lone cop version. He did a great job without a doubt at a heroic level, but there was a bit of help at the end.

[11B10]

Likely not.....everybody loves the lone cop version. He did a great job without a doubt at a heroic level, but there was a bit of help at the end.




I had heard rumors, and I know you wouldn't pass any rumors along. Thanks, nyeti - I consider anything from you as the truth.

[Mr_White]

Believe it or not....I actually know that you do get it. I am posting stuff for those who who read things differently.

I really do appreciate you saying that nyeti, and sorry it took me a few days to get back to this (in class all weekend. Yay! Another dozen and a half people now exist who can factually manipulate their handguns while actually executing the four principles, not just recite them but then not actually do it.)

I think it's really easy for people to look like a warped version of themselves on the internet. I'm sure I look that way. The vast majority of my background is as a private citizen tactical guy. At some point, after a ton of training (for a nonprofessional), I came to believe that my weakest area was technical skills. That's when I went on a tear trying to improve at that. Since good tactical guys can generally shoot very accurately, that basically meant I needed to work on speed in gunhandling and shooting. After turning my attention toward that is when I joined PF and started participating. So I'm sure I look more speed-obsessed on the internet than I think I really am.

[Dagga Boy]

Meanwhile......Wayne and I scared ourselves today. We were doing an LAPD Swat qual that we were modifying to better fit Non-LEO's and directed more to the general public and old retired cops. We shot the 3 yard phase 100% in 1.07. Which is almost half the par time. So....contrary to popular belief we are not opposed to speed...as long as we are still shooting at 100%.

[11B10]

Meanwhile......Wayne and I scared ourselves today. We were doing an LAPD Swat qual that we were modifying to better fit Non-LEO's and directed more to the general public and old retired cops. We shot the 3 yard phase 100% in 1.07. Which is almost half the par time. So....contrary to popular belief we are not opposed to speed...as long as we are still shooting at 100%.



Ahem - your post #91: "...some are exceptional....I am not." huh??? Just a hanging curveball - I couldn't resist. Seriously, great shooting!

[Dagga Boy]

Ahem - your post #91: "...some are exceptional....I am not." huh??? Just a hanging curveball - I couldn't resist. Seriously, great shooting!

I left out the part about butchering the 25 yard phase.....the rest was pretty good. I was angry at my self most of the day for really crushing the trigger on some stuff that I shouldn't be.

With that said, my 7,5 and 3 yard failure drills are like remote control....which makes me happy no matter what the rest of the day looked like.

We also worked some steel with a hostage head plate attached. For those looking at going to an immediate head shot, we noted some things. First, coming through the hostage with the finger in register and waiting to you actually had a sight confirmed on the bad guy before starting a rapid press is tough. We noted a big difference in the ease of working the head when coming off the body shots in recoil, with a slacked out trigger ready to go is much easier than going straight to the head with having to work the entire shot process. Just another factor to think about.

[11B10]

The good stuff just keeps coming - thanks for all you bring here! Why did I ever waste my time on other sites?

[1slow]

Meanwhile......Wayne and I scared ourselves today. We were doing an LAPD Swat qual that we were modifying to better fit Non-LEO's and directed more to the general public and old retired cops. We shot the 3 yard phase 100% in 1.07. Which is almost half the par time. So....contrary to popular belief we are not opposed to speed...as long as we are still shooting at 100%.

I ran the Swat Qual you showed us in class 5 times Saturday. Required concentration. Trying to make the times from the AIWB with P30 9mm LEM. 3yds failure drill kept being 2.07, 2.11 , lucked into a 1.87.
The easy place for me to mess up seems to be 25 yard body and 10 yard failure drill. That and over time on 3 yard failure drill.

I really appreciated all your help on HK matters particularly USP 45.
Thanks,
Court

[Dagga Boy]

The course I showed you is timed from the low ready. From the holster, add a second. You are fine on time. The 25 yard and 10 yard failure get most folks.

[nycnoob]

We shot the 3 yard phase 100% in 1.07. Which is almost half the par time. So....contrary to popular belief we are not opposed to speed...as long as we are still shooting at 100%.

I thought you were supposed to internalize the correct cadence for these drills? Clearly you did not shoot to the standard cadence.

[nycnoob]

neyti,

you old discussions on pace/cadence were in this thread

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9483-Is-Time-Really-an-Illusion

[Dagga Boy]

We work to 100% guaranteed hits. For example, many folks have a hard time doing these drills at 100% accuracy and making time. Once we get them to 100% we start taking time off. We keep working this balance of accuracy then speed. The key is that you are repetitively over learning the same response. Recently, Wayne and I were prepping for a class and practicing at about 5 yards. The timer was hitting almost dead on at 1.64 for our failure drills. That is sort of our 5 yard 100% time. There was a time where I needed every bit of 2.5 seconds. We actually dialed back the next run and ended up at 1.20. One of the the things we talk about in our classes is driving 70 mph on the Bush Tollway that runs next to the range. It is easy and has room for error. That is the speed we normally work at. Every so often we will push to max to operate at 140mph. The problem with 140 is things go wrong quickly with any deviation like debris falling off a truck in front of you. The key is to find YOUR 70 mph and work there. Find a speed your brain is calm in. A speed you know is not outrunning your headlights and is a speed you can guarantee 100% work from and then over learn that. It doesn't mean you cannot scare your self once in awhile. Just doing a repetitive drill a lot will naturally increase your speed. Just do not compromise the hit standard. I know that, 2 seconds is a guarantee speed and what my brain really knows. At this point it is almost the same from 3-5 yards.

We often demo speed differences in class. We show 140, and we show 70. Kind of funny, we also spent some time doing a pair to one target and the head on the one next to it. We do this to simulate that the head has started moving off line after the body hits. This put us right back on a sort of 70 mph pace, as moving on the transition is sort of like that debris falling off the truck. Key again...100% accountability. Remember also, the pace you work is YOUR pace. You will find a very happy place on these drills. We emphasize to maximize training time to anchor that in your sub conscious. That does not mean to never shoot anything else or at a faster or slower speed. It just means to spend more time at your 70 than at your 140. If you are training for sport shooting, the methodology may be different, but it will be to find a consistency with a bit more focus on performance gains than trying to Hardwire a response for a human adversary. Just like the sport side shooting a A zone speed all the time likely has some solid benefits.

[Dagga Boy]

neyti,

you old discussions on pace/cadence were in this thread

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9483-Is-Time-Really-an-Illusion

I cannot believe I just read that again.....luckily, GJM and I now shoot together when we can and I don't feel the need to want to beat him to death;).

Let me also clarify that we were likely shooting today at faster than, or right at evaluation speed. This is also a critical component.

Kind of funny too, after shooting with GJM......he has a pace. He is just very different than a majority of the folks I train. GJM knows exactly how fast he can achieve a guaranteed hit on a small target, how much sight, and how much trigger control. Watching him train, he does some work on consistency with solid hits on everything......and then lights the after burners and trains to failure. For him...the way to go. For my folks....not a good thing. They had a hard time just doing what they were doing and for them and most of the folks I work with, including myself, fixing a solid performance/clock that is tied to a speed that we see has merit in regards to evaluation and processing has given positive results. Others will certainly exceed these abilities and performance, far more will fall well short.

[GRV]

We noted a big difference in the ease of working the head when coming off the body shots in recoil, with a slacked out trigger ready to go is much easier than going straight to the head with having to work the entire shot process.

Exactly the sort of data I was looking for. Thank you. Do you have quantified numbers for this, or was it a feeling?

This is probably a good candidate for developing a Gabe-esque thought-out drill/measurement metric to compare factual numbers across multiple people....hmm....Drill of the Week? :rolleyes:

I'm thinking something like the following: First, you do a bunch of draws to 3x5" @ 7 yds, record time and hits. Then, you do a bunch of failure drills (8" and 3x5" @ 7), record times and hits. Then we need to figure out what the right number is to compare. Maybe you take your eyebox draw, subtract your failure-drill draw, and maybe(?) add back your failure-drill body split, then compare that to your failure drill body-to-eyebox split? The idea is to come up with a number that compares how much time is spent on the eyebox shot itself (not the draw process) across the two techniques.



Just doing a repetitive drill a lot will naturally increase your speed. Just do not compromise the hit standard.

I don't think this is explicitly stated enough around here. Maybe because it's obvious, or maybe because people disagree.

It jibes 100% with the philosophy in another hand-focused physical skill I once spent many years studying. There, when you can't do the thing you want to do in the time you want to do it, you slow it down and do it right, over and over again ad nauseum. Slowly, the ability to go faster (un)magically grows. You pick up the pace slowly and repeat.

The way I've been thinking about this lately is in terms of a loose-fluid muscle speed vs a tense twitchy speed. Tense and twitchy is what happens when you try to move quicker than you are capable of being correct. It tends to do little more than rob one of good reps, and induce tons of errors. It is loose-fluid speed that one should be after, "fluency", which allows the hands to become an extension of the mind. With that other skill, I found I developed that fluency, and the according speed, only through many years of correct practice, not by repeatedly doing things faster than I could do them correctly (that only succeeded in me getting thwacked by my mentors :p).

There is a lot of talk on pistol-forum about developing speed by driving 140 mph, because there's no other way you'll learn to think at that speed. We talk about mag dumps, pushing one's comfort zone, and so on. I think the motivation behind these discussions is valid, but I think they are misrepresented to unexperienced readers. For one, there is certainly some benefit in the occasional mag dump type training. It stretches out the muscles a bit. But I do not think it is good regular practice. Second, I'm no F1 pilot, but from what I know I'd wager that they aren't spending any time training at 200+ mph in the first few years of their training. On the contrary, a lot of these people have been racing cars since they were kids, probably too young to drive on the road, and spent many many years "racing" much much slower cars before they were even allowed to sit in a vehicle capable of the speeds they race at now. On that note, I think the primary way to train develop usable speed in any skill is to emphasize correctness and spend some time working at a pace that is slightly faster than you can guarantee near-100% correctness. The speed vs. correctness curve looks a little bit like a cliff for most physical skills, I think. There is a plateau where you can do it with high correctness (maybe not 100%) followed by a very steep dropoff. The way to stretch out the plateau, I think, is to spend time operating right at the edge of that cliff, but not spending significant time operating over the edge. In pistol shooting, this can be accomplished through very careful choice of par times.

Two ways I think we as a community can better communicate this to newer members are:

1) Maybe having some of our top members (if they're interested) providing a brief shooting bio that summarizes how long they've been doing this and how long it took them to get to xyz performance level. The goal here would be to emphasize that the people shooting sub 5s FASTs didn't do that in a year or two.

2) Doing a better job of educating people on better par time choice. We have a lot of extremely skilled people here, and I understand that it's useful to have very high-level comparison metrics for them to push each other. However, when many of the Drills of the Week have par times that greatly exceed what a 0-2 year shooter is capable of, I think it has a negative influence on their training, assuming they are the sort of high-achieving type that frequents pistol-forum. Yes, sucking needs to be owned, and if you can't do a 10s FAST, you suck. But, I think we don't do a good enough job emphasizing that sucking is an okay and necessary part of starting out. We could do a better by providing good performance standards and goals for X experience time and round count. I don't believe in hand-holding or "no loser left behind", and I firmly believe that one will do their best only if they surround themselves by people way better than themselves. At the same time, I don't think it'd be healthy or productive for a Moto3 racer to spend 100% of their time comparing themselves against MotoGP lap times. It isn't realistic, and they're going to spend way too much time crashing and injuring themselves if they are unwilling to lower the bar for themselves. (Imperfect analogy because of equipment difference, I know.)


...I suppose it's okay for me to derail my own thread :rolleyes:

[GRV]

Every so often we will push to max to operate at 140mph.
[...]
It doesn't mean you cannot scare your self once in awhile.
[...]
That does not mean to never shoot anything else or at a faster or slower speed. It just means to spend more time at your 70 than at your 140.

nyeti, you've done a good job painting a picture of you and Wayne spending years shooting LAPD quals, failure drills, and B8 bulls every night for 100% hits. I also think that's the right thing to be emphasizing. But, can you talk a little bit about how you and Wayne have worked on speed over the years? Has it only been through incremental par time decreases? Did you have specific "off the walls" drills that you'd occasionally run?

[Dagga Boy]

nyeti, you've done a good job painting a picture of you and Wayne spending years shooting LAPD quals, failure drills, and B8 bulls every night for 100% hits. I also think that's the right thing to be emphasizing. But, can you talk a little bit about how you and Wayne have worked on speed over the years? Has it only been through incremental par time decreases? Did you have specific "off the walls" drills that you'd occasionally run?

I ll get back to this, but just to clarify one thing. I had a shooting/beat/sector partner for years I shot with at the PD. Shot nightly together, competed in police and other three gun, went to lots of schools and training together for 20 years. He is still active on the PD. I hooked up with Wayne as a training partner once I moved to Texas five years ago. I brought my LAPD based drills and quals., Wayne has an encyclopedia of drills. We sort of mixed our stuff as to what we do now. Key to this.....have a training partner to help keep you motivated and always someone to shoot "against" with a little competition and someone to keep you honest.

[Talionis]

Exactly the sort of data I was looking for. Thank you. Do you have quantified numbers for this, or was it a feeling?

This is probably a good candidate for developing a Gabe-esque thought-out drill/measurement metric to compare factual numbers across multiple people....hmm....Drill of the Week? :rolleyes:

I'm thinking something like the following: First, you do a bunch of draws to 3x5" @ 7 yds, record time and hits. Then, you do a bunch of failure drills (8" and 3x5" @ 7), record times and hits. Then we need to figure out what the right number is to compare. Maybe you take your eyebox draw, subtract your failure-drill draw, and maybe(?) add back your failure-drill body split, then compare that to your failure drill body-to-eyebox split? The idea is to come up with a number that compares how much time is spent on the eyebox shot itself (not the draw process) across the two techniques.




I don't think this is explicitly stated enough around here. Maybe because it's obvious, or maybe because people disagree.

It jibes 100% with the philosophy in another hand-focused physical skill I once spent many years studying. There, when you can't do the thing you want to do in the time you want to do it, you slow it down and do it right, over and over again ad nauseum. Slowly, the ability to go faster (un)magically grows. You pick up the pace slowly and repeat.

The way I've been thinking about this lately is in terms of a loose-fluid muscle speed vs a tense twitchy speed. Tense and twitchy is what happens when you try to move quicker than you are capable of being correct. It tends to do little more than rob one of good reps, and induce tons of errors. It is loose-fluid speed that one should be after, "fluency", which allows the hands to become an extension of the mind. With that other skill, I found I developed that fluency, and the according speed, only through many years of correct practice, not by repeatedly doing things faster than I could do them correctly (that only succeeded in me getting thwacked by my mentors :p).

There is a lot of talk on pistol-forum about developing speed by driving 140 mph, because there's no other way you'll learn to think at that speed. We talk about mag dumps, pushing one's comfort zone, and so on. I think the motivation behind these discussions is valid, but I think they are misrepresented to unexperienced readers. For one, there is certainly some benefit in the occasional mag dump type training. It stretches out the muscles a bit. But I do not think it is good regular practice. Second, I'm no F1 pilot, but from what I know I'd wager that they aren't spending any time training at 200+ mph in the first few years of their training. On the contrary, a lot of these people have been racing cars since they were kids, probably too young to drive on the road, and spent many many years "racing" much much slower cars before they were even allowed to sit in a vehicle capable of the speeds they race at now. On that note, I think the primary way to train develop usable speed in any skill is to emphasize correctness and spend some time working at a pace that is slightly faster than you can guarantee near-100% correctness. The speed vs. correctness curve looks a little bit like a cliff for most physical skills, I think. There is a plateau where you can do it with high correctness (maybe not 100%) followed by a very steep dropoff. The way to stretch out the plateau, I think, is to spend time operating right at the edge of that cliff, but not spending significant time operating over the edge. In pistol shooting, this can be accomplished through very careful choice of par times.

Two ways I think we as a community can better communicate this to newer members are:

1) Maybe having some of our top members (if they're interested) providing a brief shooting bio that summarizes how long they've been doing this and how long it took them to get to xyz performance level. The goal here would be to emphasize that the people shooting sub 5s FASTs didn't do that in a year or two.

2) Doing a better job of educating people on better par time choice. We have a lot of extremely skilled people here, and I understand that it's useful to have very high-level comparison metrics for them to push each other. However, when many of the Drills of the Week have par times that greatly exceed what a 0-2 year shooter is capable of, I think it has a negative influence on their training, assuming they are the sort of high-achieving type that frequents pistol-forum. Yes, sucking needs to be owned, and if you can't do a 10s FAST, you suck. But, I think we don't do a good enough job emphasizing that sucking is an okay and necessary part of starting out. We could do a better by providing good performance standards and goals for X experience time and round count. I don't believe in hand-holding or "no loser left behind", and I firmly believe that one will do their best only if they surround themselves by people way better than themselves. At the same time, I don't think it'd be healthy or productive for a Moto3 racer to spend 100% of their time comparing themselves against MotoGP lap times. It isn't realistic, and they're going to spend way too much time crashing and injuring themselves if they are unwilling to lower the bar for themselves. (Imperfect analogy because of equipment difference, I know.)


...I suppose it's okay for me to derail my own thread :rolleyes:

I really wanted to reply to this with a simple "nope" meme, but I think it deserves more of a response then that.

Don't take this as picking on you, but I really disagree with most of what you said in this post.

I'm a little pressed for time, but here is a brief synopsis of my thoughts:

You dramatically underestimate what someone can do in a short amount of time with correct practice. I have been competing for 2 years myself, even though I've been shooting somewhat seriously for longer than that. I have been duking it out for state championship level wins throughout the West with guys who had never even touched a gun until 1-2 years ago. With drive and correct practice, it is definitely possible to be a superb shooter in a surprisingly short amount of time. Saying people shouldn't expect to be shooting something like a sub 5 second FAST drill within a couple years is encouraging people to set artificially limiting goals, if that's something they actually care about achieving.

I don't think something like a sub 5 second FAST, GM Card, etc. is a good goal for everyone interested in shooting; but if that is something you want don't hold yourself back by telling yourself it's not achievable in x amount of time. It is if you put in the work.

Regarding slowing down to get faster: that sounds an awful lot like the old "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" saw that almost every accomplished shooter I know loathes with a passion. Yes, it is important to practice perfect repetitions. However, it is at least as important to learn how to actually be fast by pushing it. Getting good at this stuff requires focused practice at being perfect as well as being fast. I certainly don't advocate always practicing at full throttle, but it is a very important aspect of being a high level shooter in my world.

I'll probably have more later.

[GRV]

I ll get back to this, but just to clarify one thing. I had a shooting/beat/sector partner for years I shot with at the PD. Shot nightly together, competed in police and other three gun, went to lots of schools and training together for 20 years. He is still active on the PD. I hooked up with Wayne as a training partner once I moved to Texas five years ago. I brought my LAPD based drills and quals., Wayne has an encyclopedia of drills. We sort of mixed our stuff as to what we do now. Key to this.....have a training partner to help keep you motivated and always someone to shoot "against" with a little competition and someone to keep you honest.

Got it, I had a feeling I was making that mistake.

Yea, the value of that sort of partnership is greatly understated...

[scw2]

I saw the following DOTW from Gabe (3x5 performance push (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15077-Week-100-3x5-Performance-Push)) Would this be the sort of framework one would recommend if we were to push for higher speeds, if for no other reason than to 'get a feel' for how fast we can fire, then dial it back for the on demand performance and high accuracy standards?

[GRV]

I really wanted to reply to this with a simple "nope" meme, but I think it deserves more of a response then that.

Don't take this as picking on you, but I really disagree with most of what you said in this post.

I'm a little pressed for time, but here is a brief synopsis of my thoughts:

You dramatically underestimate what someone can do in a short amount of time with correct practice. I have been competing for 2 years myself, even though I've been shooting somewhat seriously for longer than that. I have been duking it out for state championship level wins throughout the West with guys who had never even touched a gun until 1-2 years ago. With drive and correct practice, it is definitely possible to be a superb shooter in a surprisingly short amount of time. Saying people shouldn't expect to be shooting something like a sub 5 second FAST drill within a couple years is encouraging people to set artificially limiting goals, if that's something they actually care about achieving.

I don't think something like a sub 5 second FAST, GM Card, etc. is a good goal for everyone interested in shooting; but if that is something you want don't hold yourself back by telling yourself it's not achievable in x amount of time. It is if you put in the work.

Regarding slowing down to get faster: that sounds an awful lot like the old "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" saw that almost every accomplished shooter I know loathes with a passion. Yes, it is important to practice perfect repetitions. However, it is at least as important to learn how to actually be fast by pushing it. Getting good at this stuff requires focused practice at being perfect as well as being fast. I certainly don't advocate always practicing at full throttle, but it is a very important aspect of being a high level shooter in my world.

I'll probably have more later.

Interested to hear more of your thoughts.

Just to clarify some of my own:

I have indeed seen people go from 0 to amazing in as short as a few years, or even a few months, namely in your world. However, they have always been people who are sponsored and spend work-level number of hours shooting/practicing per week, and/or get weekly to daily one-on-one instruction. I think I failed to word what I meant by "experience time". I really mean quantifying what goals are reasonable for what amount of cumulative training time, i.e. number of practice hours.

I am exceedingly skeptical of anyone short freakdom going from no experience to 5s FAST in, say, one year with only spare-time practice. Say 500-1000 rounds per month, dryfire once or twice a week, and single digit general-enrollment classes (1:12+ instructor-student ratio) per year with any instructor. I know that is not what you are claiming (at least I think it isn't...). Yes, people *can* achieve these sorts of goals in short overall timespans, but those people are going to be exposed to more training hours, not to mention scaled by quality of instruction, than the former type of person will have been cumulatively exposed to in twice or thrice the same total timespan.

I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on fast practice though.

I don't mean to say "slow is smooth, smooth is fast". No, slow is slow. But Jeremy Clarkson is not going to optimally improve by hopping in F1 cars right now and attempting to take turns at 150+ mph over and over again.

I have never seen a physical skill where world-class performance was gained by spending most of one's time operating well into the failure zone for one's capabilities. Instead, they all tend to be characterized by lots and lots of time spent to reach gains (in the training-hours sense), occasional pushing well beyond one's limits into failure, a decent amount of time operating within one's comfortable zone, and a lot of time spent operating right at the edge of comfortable and failure---carefully straddling the line and moving back and forth based on failure and success.

I would be really surprised to learn that competitive shooting is fundamentally different. However, I don't know jack squat about competitive shooting, and it's entirely possible. So I'm legitimately eager to hear your insights. In the end though, I expect, as usual, what's really going on is a communication failure and not a fundamental disagreement of the facts. I've been perpetrator, victim, and observer of that over and over again here on PF.

[GRV]

I also want to touch on the goal setting thing.

I'm definitely tracking with you, and I don't know how quite to state what I mean. I am a huge proponent of reaching for extremely high goals, and it has worked very well for me. But, like everything, it has a limit.


I don't think something like a sub 5 second FAST, GM Card, etc. is a good goal for everyone interested in shooting; but if that is something you want don't hold yourself back by telling yourself it's not achievable in x amount of time. It is if you put in the work.

The above is clearly false if "x" is one month. I think we can all agree that no one, shy of unimaginable freakdom, is going to get their GM card one month after picking up a gun for the first time. I know you're not saying that. But the point is, there is a limit. It's going to hover somewhere around the time where the number of practice-hours coincides with the number of full-time-job work hours available in the given time period. For people with more going on in their life, that limit is going to get pushed further out.

The people with indomitable will, who set such crazy-eyed goals, tend to be remarkably successful people in life. I don't mean to detract from that.

But I do think there is much more to it than that. First, you need to personally believe the goal is possible. Second, you need to work with a good understanding of what it is that you're actually capable of at your current level. Failing in either of these points is doomed to hold back optimal progression. The Timmy who goes to local IDPA practice and tries to shoot the stages at Vogel's pace over and over again is not going to get very far, regardless of how great he thinks he is or how quickly he thinks he can achieve that goal. Indomitable will won't change that. What it will change though is that the indomitable person will dedicate so much effort and time to the cause that they will eventually figure out what they are doing wrong, learn, fix it, and improve.

Again, I feel like I have failed at wording. These things may just be things that need to be experienced and understood and cannot be perfectly articulated.

[GRV]

I also wonder if a lot of the communication issues that tend to pop up on PF could be alleviated if everyone who speaks about "100% hits" and "guaranteed hits", used the language "90% hits", "95% hits", "98% hits" or something else. Realistically, I think that's the sort of operating level people are really talking about, whether they realize it or not, but they are hesitant to use different language lest the idea of missing become acceptable. It also has something to do with the whole goal setting thing, i.e. "100%" is the goal that should be set mentally; whether or not that is what should be actually seen to indicate good practice is a totally different thing.

[Mr_White]

dove, this is all in the spirit of positive (and very interesting!) discussion. :)

And as I am about to post this, there are several more posts up while I was writing, so hopefully this is not already out of date.

---


You dramatically underestimate what someone can do in a short amount of time with correct practice. I have been competing for 2 years myself, even though I've been shooting somewhat seriously for longer than that. I have been duking it out for state championship level wins throughout the West with guys who had never even touched a gun until 1-2 years ago. With drive and correct practice, it is definitely possible to be a superb shooter in a surprisingly short amount of time. Saying people shouldn't expect to be shooting something like a sub 5 second FAST drill within a couple years is encouraging people to set artificially limiting goals, if that's something they actually care about achieving.

I don't think something like a sub 5 second FAST, GM Card, etc. is a good goal for everyone interested in shooting; but if that is something you want don't hold yourself back by telling yourself it's not achievable in x amount of time. It is if you put in the work.

Regarding slowing down to get faster: that sounds an awful lot like the old "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" saw that almost every accomplished shooter I know loathes with a passion. Yes, it is important to practice perfect repetitions. However, it is at least as important to learn how to actually be fast by pushing it. Getting good at this stuff requires focused practice at being perfect as well as being fast. I certainly don't advocate always practicing at full throttle, but it is a very important aspect of being a high level shooter in my world.

I could not agree more with what Talionis said here.

I wish I could go back in time knowing what I know now. Better late than never, and I'm glad my eyes were eventually opened, but I bet I'd have been an M within a year or two of starting pistol shooting...if I had only known what to do.

Just don't sell yourself or others short. People can learn to do SO much, SO well, in short periods of time. Step one is to recognize that it's possible.


Just doing a repetitive drill a lot will naturally increase your speed. Just do not compromise the hit standard.


I don't think this is explicitly stated enough around here. Maybe because it's obvious, or maybe because people disagree.

Engineering self-improvement can be a tricky puzzle sometimes. People who lack the ability to hit the target, need to to work on accuracy. People who lack the discipline to make themselves hit the target when they want to, even though they can, need to work on discipline. People who are slow, need to work on speed. Not everyone needs to work on the same thing, or the same thing all the time. And of course everyone is driven by their personal goals and priorities and it's worth noting that not everyone needs to want the same things.

But you don't get a one second draw from drawing at 1.5 seconds any number of times, with any amount of reliability.

How many reps of a 100lb lift do I need to do, before I will be able to lift 500lbs? Will never happen without increasing the weight, right? Same thing in this discussion.

I don't disagree with the idea that one should not persistently crash and burn in practice and not do anything else. Pushing should be tempered, but it has to be done to expand the skill, or aspect of skill, that is being pushed. A person only shooting their "100%" level of ability all the time, will improve only very slowly and maybe not at all. People who have a discipline problem would benefit from doing exactly that kind of practice for a time, to apply a specific remedy to their specific problem. A number of different training and practice modes must be used to produce a well-rounded shooter in terms of accuracy, speed, and discipline.


I think the primary way to train develop usable speed in any skill is to emphasize correctness and spend some time working at a pace that is slightly faster than you can guarantee near-100% correctness. The speed vs. correctness curve looks a little bit like a cliff for most physical skills, I think. There is a plateau where you can do it with high correctness (maybe not 100%) followed by a very steep dropoff. The way to stretch out the plateau, I think, is to spend time operating right at the edge of that cliff, but not spending significant time operating over the edge. In pistol shooting, this can be accomplished through very careful choice of par times.

I wanted to quote this part because this I don't have too much disagreement with it. Pushing to a controlled degree is an important practice mode that can generate improvement. It is going to inherently risk error though. Historically, people have some disagreement on PF centering around the ideas and terms of "100%", "guaranteed", "probable hits", "your best attempt", "on-demand", "match pace", etc., and how much they do or don't apply to different circumstances of shooting. I think the way those kinds of terms are sometimes used is the crux of much of the disagreement about this stuff.


1) Maybe having some of our top members (if they're interested) providing a brief shooting bio that summarizes how long they've been doing this and how long it took them to get to xyz performance level. The goal here would be to emphasize that the people shooting sub 5s FASTs didn't do that in a year or two.

Gotta agree with Talionis. I think the above would just poison the minds of a whole lot of new shooters who need not have the yoke of low expectation placed around their necks. The reason I didn't shoot sub-5 FASTs within a year or two of starting to shoot more seriously is largely because I was doing it (trying to improve) wrong.


many of the Drills of the Week have par times that greatly exceed what a 0-2 year shooter is capable of

The Drills of the Week definitely end up being a motley collection of drills over time. Sometimes I lose track of it when we've done something fairly repetitively for several weeks (all drills that require a holster, for example.) So I went back and did math to see about what you are saying. I looked at the first page of DotW that is displayed to me (the 20 most recent DotW), and they break down like this:

50% have no time standard whatsoever. Shoot the drill, report your time, whatever that is.

30% have graduated/soft time goals. Shoot the drill, report your time, whatever that is, and here are some time/skill thresholds (Advanced, Expert, Scrub, etc.) But no automatic "Fail" for not making a certain time.

20% have a hard time standard that results in "Fail" if not met - Four Sevens, Pistol NOW!, 2 in 2 Walkback, and 2 to 3x5 in 5.

By the way, of the four with hard pass/fail time standards, three of the four were submitted by a high level real world experienced person who got the drills from other high level real world experienced people. Doesn't mean they are right and other people are wrong, it just means that those drills don't come from nowhere, they come from somewhere, and all the real world experienced people (and people who might otherwise be deemed 'expert' in some way) do not all agree with each other about these subjects.


We could do a better by providing good performance standards and goals for X experience time and round count.

Intermediary standards and goals are useful for some people some of the time, no doubt. But let me make a different argument:

If we are one 'thing' now, and we want to become a different (better!) 'thing', why would we choose to attempt duplicating a less good 'thing' instead of trying to duplicate the best 'thing'? We have to change either way.

[Mr_White]

dove, I see you posted a few of the points I was taking a long time to get written! :cool:

[Mr_White]

I saw the following DOTW from Gabe (3x5 performance push (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15077-Week-100-3x5-Performance-Push)) Would this be the sort of framework one would recommend if we were to push for higher speeds, if for no other reason than to 'get a feel' for how fast we can fire, then dial it back for the on demand performance and high accuracy standards?

I gotta say I'm ambivalent about that particular drill even though I wrote it. It covers a lot of ground in not a lot of rounds. And it didn't help some people - TLG had a hard time with it and felt like it messed him up a bit. So, as always, not everything works well for everyone and there are different paths that can be productive for different people (just look at all the high level folks of all types who don't agree with each other.)

I think the basic framework in the drill is ok, but I'd probably like to see the different shooting modes spread out over a larger amount of practice.

---

A few ways to push the speed/establish reliability of performance:

Go as fast as you can move. This is no way to create a habit of on-demand performance. What it can do for you though is to help you begin to see and otherwise be more aware faster and let you know what it feels like to move at that speed. From there, change your intention to a more conservative one, such as for 'probable' or 'on-demand' hits, but don't give up the general character of movement that this mode helped you find.

Limited pushing. Find a par time for a task that you want to practice, and make it challenging but doable, even though it's not going to be utterly reliable. Try to get everything correct while being pushed by the par time, even though we won't have 100% success.

On-demand shooting. Disregard the time and simply shoot the task as well as you can right now, without pushing. This won't do much to increase your potential performance, but will help you establish the habit of shooting with minimal error at your current level of ability.

[JHC]

20% have a hard time standard that results in "Fail" if not met - Four Sevens, Pistol NOW!, 2 in 2 Walkback, and 2 to 3x5 in 5.

By the way, of the four with hard pass/fail time standards, three of the four were submitted by a high level real world experienced person who got the drills from other high level real world experienced people. Doesn't mean they are right and other people are wrong, it just means that those drills don't come from nowhere, they come from somewhere, and all the real world experienced people (and people who might otherwise be deemed 'expert' in some way) do not all agree with each other about these subjects.

.

For my time and ammo I actually enjoy such "standards" the most although I've not met them in several recent cases. Again for my own time and ammo I prefer the all hits or fail approach as that is just the type of shooting that I dig the most as well as the "accountability" of shots fired paradigm.

[GRV]

I'm going to step back a bit from my statement(s) about lower standards. To be clear, it's not really exactly what I said nor what I meant, but rereading it I can see that it came out in a way that I don't really agree with either.

I also firmly agree with "new shooters who need not have the yoke of low expectation placed around their necks" bit. Certainly "lower standards" is the furthest thing from what we need.

Thanks for the DotW data. I certainly had a skewed image, but the numbers do reflect some of my feeling. I'd have to check to make sure I'm not overly exaggerating here, but a lot of that 20% are truly freaking difficult. That's awesome and fine, doubly so given what you've said about real-word motivation. The 30%, though "soft" as you've said, end up feeling a lot more "hard" due to unintentional cultural realities. I don't think anyone with high standards can show up to PF and feel that it is okay that they are shooting a 10s FAST---that doing so is anything short of a hard "failure". The fact is, it's not okay, and they shouldn't feel okay. But, at the same time, if they think that anything less than 5s (or 8s, or whatever) is unconditionally unacceptable and so they end up unintentionally shooting way faster than they can actually consistently make the hits so that way they have higher than a 0% chance of "succeeding", then they are going to seriously hinder their improvement. Now, admittedly, that's not a problem with the DotWs, nor the PF culture, nor the PF standards. It's a personal problem for that person. And I didn't do a good job of phrasing that.

At the same time, I do think sometimes the PF community paints a picture that is inconsistent with reality. Among other things, I think there is a bias for the top shooters to post their data much more than the not-top shooters. I won't pass judgement on whether or not that is a good or bad thing. It's just an observation.


I'll relay an exaggerated (for effect) example of some of what I've struggled with here. Let's say my draw to 8" @ 7 yds is 2 seconds. Close enough. I open the DotW (not actually true, exaggerated) and see a drill that reads "Draw from concealment at 7 yards to 8" circle and count how many hits you can get in 1 second." I can't even freaking draw in that time. I can barely draw in double that time. What that tells me is that I need to do a ton more practice drawing. But, in the meantime, the standard is completely useless for me. Attempting said DotW, with the same par time, is at best a waste of good practice time and at worst a massive safety concern. Again, that's not a problem with PF. It's a personal problem. But sometimes I think PF has a way of making one lose sight of one's own progress and actual successes. For example, it wasn't until meeting and chatting with people at TacCon that I realized there are active people on PF who struggle with Dot Torture at 3 yards. I haven't even bothered shooting Dot Torture at 3 yards in a long time, yet I was under the impression that I didn't even register on the scale for Dot Torture ability on PF.

Ugh...getting real off track and personal now :rolleyes:

[Talionis]

Whew. While I've been gone Gabe stepped in and said exactly what I was planning on adding to my initial thoughts. Instead of adding redundancy, just refer to his posts for my own thoughts on the matter.

Pardon the game of catch-up I'll be playing throughout the day as I have time.



I have indeed seen people go from 0 to amazing in as short as a few years, or even a few months, namely in your world. However, they have always been people who are sponsored and spend work-level number of hours shooting/practicing per week, and/or get weekly to daily one-on-one instruction. I think I failed to word what I meant by "experience time". I really mean quantifying what goals are reasonable for what amount of cumulative training time, i.e. number of practice hours.

I am exceedingly skeptical of anyone short freakdom going from no experience to 5s FAST in, say, one year with only spare-time practice. Say 500-1000 rounds per month, dryfire once or twice a week, and single digit general-enrollment classes (1:12+ instructor-student ratio) per year with any instructor. I know that is not what you are claiming (at least I think it isn't...). Yes, people *can* achieve these sorts of goals in short overall timespans, but those people are going to be exposed to more training hours, not to mention scaled by quality of instruction, than the former type of person will have been cumulatively exposed to in twice or thrice the same total timespan.


I used to think almost exactly the same as this, so I really do understand where you're coming from. The thing is, extremely high levels of skill are attainable with a lot less time and money investment than most people think. I'll use myself as an example; while I'm not at a level I would consider anywhere close to amazing, I have enough of a competition record that my experience might be useful to someone. I am a solo-practice attorney with other expensive and time consuming interests in addition to shooting. I think I shot around 12-15 thousand rounds last year, and spent nowhere near a "work-level number hours" in practice. In general I dry-fired at home for roughly 30 minutes between 3-5 times a week, and spent one or two days at the range a week in practice. Rarely would a range session be longer than an hour. I didn't ever take a formal shooting class or have any coaching (still haven't) until I was already a Master in USPSA, and had won at least one state championship before ever even thinking about sponsorship. The sponsorships I do have simply make it a little less expensive to do exactly what I was doing before being sponsored. I am not uniquely talented or special.

[Talionis]

I'm going to step back a bit from my statement(s) about lower standards. To be clear, it's not really exactly what I said nor what I meant, but rereading it I can see that it came out in a way that I don't really agree with either.

I also firmly agree with "new shooters who need not have the yoke of low expectation placed around their necks" bit. Certainly "lower standards" is the furthest thing from what we need.

Thanks for the DotW data. I certainly had a skewed image, but the numbers do reflect some of my feeling. I'd have to check to make sure I'm not overly exaggerating here, but a lot of that 20% are truly freaking difficult. That's awesome and fine, doubly so given what you've said about real-word motivation. The 30%, though "soft" as you've said, end up feeling a lot more "hard" due to unintentional cultural realities. I don't think anyone with high standards can show up to PF and feel that it is okay that they are shooting a 10s FAST---that doing so is anything short of a hard "failure". The fact is, it's not okay, and they shouldn't feel okay. But, at the same time, if they think that anything less than 5s (or 8s, or whatever) is unconditionally unacceptable and so they end up unintentionally shooting way faster than they can actually consistently make the hits so that way they have higher than a 0% chance of "succeeding", then they are going to seriously hinder their improvement. Now, admittedly, that's not a problem with the DotWs, nor the PF culture, nor the PF standards. It's a personal problem for that person. And I didn't do a good job of phrasing that.

At the same time, I do think sometimes the PF community paints a picture that is inconsistent with reality. Among other things, I think there is a bias for the top shooters to post their data much more than the not-top shooters. I won't pass judgement on whether or not that is a good or bad thing. It's just an observation.


I'll relay an exaggerated (for effect) example of some of what I've struggled with here. Let's say my draw to 8" @ 7 yds is 2 seconds. Close enough. I open the DotW (not actually true, exaggerated) and see a drill that reads "Draw from concealment at 7 yards to 8" circle and count how many hits you can get in 1 second." I can't even freaking draw in that time. I can barely draw in double that time. What that tells me is that I need to do a ton more practice drawing. But, in the meantime, the standard is completely useless for me. Attempting said DotW, with the same par time, is at best a waste of good practice time and at worst a massive safety concern. Again, that's not a problem with PF. It's a personal problem. But sometimes I think PF has a way of making one lose sight of one's own progress and actual successes. For example, it wasn't until meeting and chatting with people at TacCon that I realized there are active people on PF who struggle with Dot Torture at 3 yards. I haven't even bothered shooting Dot Torture at 3 yards in a long time, yet I was under the impression that I didn't even register on the scale for Dot Torture ability on PF.

Ugh...getting real off track and personal now :rolleyes:

I really don't think we are fundamentally disagreeing on much, if anything; though we do have different perspectives.

I'm going to use your draw example as an illustration of some of my thoughts on learning speed. I had one particular friend who wanted to get better, and had a draw time of a lot closer to 2 seconds than 1 at a 7 yard A zone. By the end of a two hour session, he was making consistent A zone hits at right around 1 second flat. To use another car analogy, his speed governor was set at 55 on a 150mph capable car, and the road was straight and wide with visibility for miles. To make any kind of progress we had to remove the governor. That process involved various micro drills like decreasing par times, drawing to a shot on the berm, drawing to an accuracy standard that varied from "anywhere on brown" to "A zone only". But over the session he learned what it looked like and felt like to go nearly twice as fast as he had been. He learned what it took to simply execute the motions at the desired speed, then he learned what it took to make the desired hits at that speed.

Edited to add:
I should probably clarify something here his "150mph" speed was in the .8-.9 zone, while his on demand A zone speed was 1-1.2 in the above example.

[Dagga Boy]

I also wonder if a lot of the communication issues that tend to pop up on PF could be alleviated if everyone who speaks about "100% hits" and "guaranteed hits", used the language "90% hits", "95% hits", "98% hits" or something else. Realistically, I think that's the sort of operating level people are really talking about, whether they realize it or not, but they are hesitant to use different language lest the idea of missing become acceptable. It also has something to do with the whole goal setting thing, i.e. "100%" is the goal that should be set mentally; whether or not that is what should be actually seen to indicate good practice is a totally different thing.

Just to make sure we are on the same page. When it comes to shooting, listen to the shooters on this forum. I pretty much look at all of this as part of a use of force problem.

I will use an analogy to make my point. I spent a lot of time drag racing in my youth....both legal on the track and on the street with real money on the line. I can drive at a very high level. I have maxed the speed allowed by a non-Nascar driver on a NASCAR super track and was easily capable of higher speeds and had to be backed off by my instructor driver. I have left instructors in a puddle of tears on EVOC courses for pursuit driving while pushing well beyond the capabilities of the vehicle or what the instructors have seen before.

I have also been in a ton of high speed chases, including several right out of Ronin. Police chases have a lot of similarities to gunfights in emotion, application of training, etc. Do you think I drove at maximum speed in these chases or even code three runs? Rarely. Rarely did you have the environment to run at max speed and have a good chance of not wrecking. Now, many, including myself learned the hard way about discipline, speed control, emotional control, not driving faster than you can react (or stop or slow down), knowing when to brake even though your opponent is accelerating, learning to control your body to effectively communicate under extreme stress, situational awareness, risk management and balance of risk, etc. It is so similar, it is erie. Many of the LEO's on here can talk about "screamers" in pursuits.....same screamers on most other stress stuff. Those who lack emotional control and tend to always be wrecking cars. Look how many cops we loose to accidents for over driving. Same with citizens who most have even less training and exposure to high speed emergency or crisis driving. Same issues with lack of situational awareness, etc. I have used the analogy in the past that I am not driving an F1 car or a NASCAR car or truck and would get my tail handed to me on a track. Put your best drivers in a Crown Victoria and I guarantee I could hold my own. Watch the beginning of the movie End of Watch, which gave me serious flashbacks. That is what we are talking about. It is not a driving problem, it is a crisis and problem in which driving is a factor.

This gets back to the failure drill. It is a force solution that encompasses shooting for me-period. For shooting, many here are exceptional at it, and you should listen to them.

[Mr_White]

I am not uniquely talented or special.

Quoted to point out to anyone who will listen that this is a powerful, powerful, powerful attitude.

Lazy talent is easily outworked. I was very fortunate to learn that lesson firsthand when I was about 14 or so. Physical talent is great, but it's nothing compared to a motivated person who will grind out the work, over and over and over.

[Dagga Boy]

Sounds like we have a whole forum of folks who are not talented or special. Speaks to how important hard work is no matter which direction you put your goals and interests to.

[Mr_White]

Since we are all talking about different ways to use time pressure in practice: I just got through with some dry practice, where I used the timer a certain oddball way that I like. I set up an array, one of the targets being a little tiny scaled popper at a simulated 70 yards or something really tough like that. I made that the first target I drew to, with a .8 second par on the timer, then moved and engaged the rest of the array.

I wasn't going to get anywhere near making that time. The point was to have a start signal to react to, draw to a very hard target very fast, but then patiently complete that first very hard shot as well as I could, and then all the other shots too, even in the face of the looming second beep, and not let it goad me into losing shooting discipline.

[Kevin B.]

I'm going to step back a bit from my statement(s) about lower standards. To be clear, it's not really exactly what I said nor what I meant, but rereading it I can see that it came out in a way that I don't really agree with either.

I also firmly agree with "new shooters who need not have the yoke of low expectation placed around their necks" bit. Certainly "lower standards" is the furthest thing from what we need.

Thanks for the DotW data. I certainly had a skewed image, but the numbers do reflect some of my feeling. I'd have to check to make sure I'm not overly exaggerating here, but a lot of that 20% are truly freaking difficult. That's awesome and fine, doubly so given what you've said about real-word motivation. The 30%, though "soft" as you've said, end up feeling a lot more "hard" due to unintentional cultural realities. I don't think anyone with high standards can show up to PF and feel that it is okay that they are shooting a 10s FAST---that doing so is anything short of a hard "failure". The fact is, it's not okay, and they shouldn't feel okay. But, at the same time, if they think that anything less than 5s (or 8s, or whatever) is unconditionally unacceptable and so they end up unintentionally shooting way faster than they can actually consistently make the hits so that way they have higher than a 0% chance of "succeeding", then they are going to seriously hinder their improvement. Now, admittedly, that's not a problem with the DotWs, nor the PF culture, nor the PF standards. It's a personal problem for that person. And I didn't do a good job of phrasing that.

At the same time, I do think sometimes the PF community paints a picture that is inconsistent with reality. Among other things, I think there is a bias for the top shooters to post their data much more than the not-top shooters. I won't pass judgement on whether or not that is a good or bad thing. It's just an observation.


I'll relay an exaggerated (for effect) example of some of what I've struggled with here. Let's say my draw to 8" @ 7 yds is 2 seconds. Close enough. I open the DotW (not actually true, exaggerated) and see a drill that reads "Draw from concealment at 7 yards to 8" circle and count how many hits you can get in 1 second." I can't even freaking draw in that time. I can barely draw in double that time. What that tells me is that I need to do a ton more practice drawing. But, in the meantime, the standard is completely useless for me. Attempting said DotW, with the same par time, is at best a waste of good practice time and at worst a massive safety concern. Again, that's not a problem with PF. It's a personal problem. But sometimes I think PF has a way of making one lose sight of one's own progress and actual successes. For example, it wasn't until meeting and chatting with people at TacCon that I realized there are active people on PF who struggle with Dot Torture at 3 yards. I haven't even bothered shooting Dot Torture at 3 yards in a long time, yet I was under the impression that I didn't even register on the scale for Dot Torture ability on PF.

Ugh...getting real off track and personal now :rolleyes:

With the caveat that I am far from perfect with regard to my own training and I am not the training police, I would offer the following:

In reading some of the training journals, it is clear to me that many PF-ers are not establishing an adequate base of performance before jumping into drills that require a relatively high level of performance. There is nothing inherently wrong, but it is probably not going to lead to the results they want and, in my experience, counterproductive. Spending 100-200 rounds shooting drills you lack the predicate skill foundation to be successful at may be fun (nothing wrong with that; shooting should be fun) but is unlikely to deliver the results being sought. Using those rounds to establish a solid foundation of skills upon which to build would be a much more effective use of time and resources and almost certainly lead to faster progress.

A second observation would be some people are way too outcome focused. They want <2.0 Bill Drills or <5.0 FASTs or a 50/50 Dot Torture at some distance. Proper process leads to the desired outcome. Executing the process correctly (at the unconscious level) is the true reward, not a hole in the paper or a number on the timer. That hole/number should only validate what you already know about your exection.

My final observation is that too many people are trying to contextualize skills they lack proficiency in. I not only think it is a source of frustration, I think it is counterproductive. A reductionist approach to a lot of the drills shared here is pretty valueable. Again, establishing a solid level of baseline proficiency before attempting to contextualize it would lead to better results in my opinion.

My $.02. Worth exactly what you paid for it.

[GRV]

Very good summary of what I've been feeling about my own training lately, which is coloring my contributions here and elsewhere.

[BehindBlueI's]

Spit-balling here, but has anyone considered 1 to the chest 1 to the head for small revolvers? The J-frames, LCRs, and Detective Specials out there?

Thought process:

Reduced ammo capacity.
Increased split times, 1-1 would probably run the same time as 2-1 with a service pistol.

[SeriousStudent]

Spit-balling here, but has anyone considered 1 to the chest 1 to the head for small revolvers? The J-frames, LCRs, and Detective Specials out there?

Thought process:

Reduced ammo capacity.
Increased split times, 1-1 would probably run the same time as 2-1 with a service pistol.


In my very, very humble opinion - I mostly practice for aimed headshots with my J-frames. For the chest area, I practice shooting from retention, then a sidestep and shot to the eye socket. So it is a 1 and 1, as you said.

And my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

[El Cid]

Great thread! Reminds me why I visit this site so often.

As for reactive targets and the Mozambique drill, I was surprised this one hasn't been mentioned.

http://www.letargets.com/content/at-119-3d-target-15-pack.asp

Is it too time consuming with the balloons? Too much of a pain to deal with? I can see where they'd take too long during a match, but for teaching a shooter to solve the problem without verbal commands from the instructor I could see a benefit.

[JAD]

In KC we used a falling target consisting of a 3/4" pipe with A zones welded to it, over which a paper target was placed and then covered with a T shirt. This had the benefit of forcing you to think in 3D. Further, some of the McCaig poppers had no chest A zone, which forced either a spinal hit or a failure drill.

We shot these in a surprise stage at the '97(?) KC Indoor. In the dark.

[1slow]

I am not a naturally good shot. I am several 100,000 rounds into learning to shoot a pistol. I need huge amounts of work. 10,000 rounds a year for 30 years has helped but it is always a work in progress. I will do the work.

[GRV]

I'm posting this here for future reference.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9306-A-Separate-Thread-For-Anatomical-Correctness-Of-Targets (every page)
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4597-Targets

[DocGKR]

Yup--if you want immediate incapacitation, then the CNS is the only reasonable target:

http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/postimages/77992-CNStargetside.jpg

http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/postimages/77991-CNStargetfront.jpg

[GRV]

Doc, any thoughts about Mr_White's question from that thread? https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4597-Targets&p=80036&viewfull=1#post80036

i.e., How do bodies tend to react from being successfully hit in the brain, but above the area circled in yellow?

[Mr_White]

Doc, any thoughts about Mr_White's question from that thread? https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4597-Targets&p=80036&viewfull=1#post80036

i.e., How do bodies tend to react from being successfully hit in the brain, but above the area circled in yellow?

BehindBlueI's put a response to that question here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4597-Targets/page3

[Nephrology]

BehindBlueI's put a response to that question here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4597-Targets/page3

I can corroborate that. When you get a bad enough intercranial injury (and having a bullet tunnel its way through your skull definitely counts) you can more or less bet the farm on them being instantaneously rendered unconscious, usually with some degree of posturing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_posturing), and close to a zero percent chance of them regaining voluntary control over their body in the near future (and likely the long term as well).

Assuming that their vitals either are stable or can be made stable in a timely fashion, they usually end up hanging out in the neuro ICU for an extended period of time while they evaluate to see if they are brain dead (aka organ donation waiting to happen) or minimally conscious (can make basic noises and grunts, maybe can quasi breathe on their own, likely to be a ward of the state or in a SNF for the rest of their lives). Not a good picture.