PDA

View Full Version : A slow hit beats a fast miss and...



DWB
10-29-2011, 01:47 PM
...a small hit beats a big miss? Discuss if you like...I was just pondering on stuff and that ocurred to me. I guess it's just a way of saying use what you can hit with.

TGS
10-29-2011, 02:13 PM
...a small hit beats a big miss? Discuss if you like...I was just pondering on stuff and that ocurred to me. I guess it's just a way of saying use what you can hit with.

I find the "slow hit beats a fast miss" to be overused, and often out of context for people. For instance, Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch. He says, "I've never seen a stopwatch in a gunfight." I can only take that in the worst possible manner. Just because you've never seen a stopwatch in a gun fight doesn't mean you should practice your reloads to be as slow as physically possible. The speed at which you move needs to be relative to the enemy, and I think not giving any importance to speed is plain dumb and ignorant.

I find this to be different from "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast." That makes sense.....if you're fumbling, then slow down. In the end your time will be quicker given no fumbles, so that mantra makes sense and I've become a huge fan of it in other stressful activities, like cave diving. That mantra doesn't give you the excuse to be negligently slow and I think a lot of people will use it as such. But Clint Smith just seems to be agonizingly slow, with placing absolutely no importance at all with developing skills at speed. Unlike his range, some gunfights have rounds going back at you, and you just may want to utilize the infinite time allotted before you catch one between the running lights.

Granted, I've only ever watched his videos on youtube, but he shouldn't put up those video's if he doesn't advocate in real life what he's purporting on Youtube.

JConn
10-29-2011, 02:24 PM
I find the "slow hit beats a fast miss" to be overused, and often out of context for people. For instance, Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch. He says, "I've never seen a stopwatch in a gunfight." I can only take that in the worst possible manner. Just because you've never seen a stopwatch in a gun fight doesn't mean you should practice your reloads to be as slow as physically possible. The speed at which you move needs to be relative to the enemy, and I think not giving any importance to speed is plain dumb and ignorant.

I find this to be different from "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast." That makes sense.....if you're fumbling, then slow down. In the end your time will be quicker given no fumbles, so that mantra makes sense and I've become a huge fan of it in other stressful activities, like cave diving. That mantra doesn't give you the excuse to be negligently slow and I think a lot of people will use it as such. But Clint Smith just seems to be agonizingly slow, with placing absolutely no importance at all with developing skills at speed. Unlike his range, some gunfights have rounds going back at you, and you just may want to utilize the infinite time allotted before you catch one between the running lights.

Granted, I've only ever watched his videos on youtube, but he shouldn't put up those video's if he doesn't advocate in real life what he's purporting on Youtube.

I think a good comparison is rock climbing. You should go slow enough to ensure you get your holds and shift your weight correctly. jerky movements never really work well. However if you go too slow, you get too tired and you could fall.

Odin Bravo One
10-29-2011, 02:49 PM
I think some gunfights require an element of speed to be successful. Some don't. One thing that will always be a factor in successfully walking away from a gunfight is not speed, but rather lots of hits into the vitals of your adversary.

agent-smith
10-29-2011, 03:26 PM
...a small hit beats a big miss?

Yeah, and a fast "good enough" hit (or two or three or four...) beats a would-be perfect shot that never materializes (because you get shot before the perfect sight picture settles down and you never get a chance to finish the perfect slow, deliberate trigger squeeze). The whole "speed vs accuracy" thing is really easy to debate over the internet, and makes for a lot of cool soundbites but soundbites don't make for a perfect "answer."

DVC

theblacknight
10-29-2011, 03:59 PM
I think F2S's sig line is all we really need here

Suvorov
10-29-2011, 04:34 PM
You can't miss fast enough to hit, but you still have to hit faster than the other guy does.

DWB
10-29-2011, 05:18 PM
You can't miss fast enough to hit, but you still have to hit faster than the other guy does.

I think that about sums it up. How fast is fast enough? Depends on how fast the other guy(s) are. The answer to many questions starts with "Depends..."

DannyZRC
10-29-2011, 05:39 PM
what about those that argue the first loud noise is important?

meaning, even if you miss completely being the first guy to generate a loud noise puts you ahead.

(neither championing nor berating this position)

Dagga Boy
10-29-2011, 08:27 PM
I have found that the thing that works the best in real gunfights is being "clean". Clean fast hits. Clean fast draws. Clean fast reloads, etc.... For example, there are guys who can run blazing fast reloads.....until you jack one up in a fight. I just had this happen to me in a class. I have a way I do my reloads that is very consistent, and very clean while being relatively quick and usually fumble free. One of the instructors gave me a little hint to make my reload faster. Worked good until I tried it at speed in a man on man shoot off. I boffed every reload. I may end up sacrificing the nano second and going back to my previous way of doing things. I remember watching the guys from LAPD "D" Platoon from a catwalk above their shoot house back in the late 80's when the true legends of that team were in their prime. They walked fast. They were disturbingly smooth and every movement was clean. They were never out of control, no fumbled movements, no increase or decrease of speed, just smooth precision. They actually looked kind of slow, but they were in fact smoking fast through the house. It didn't matter how many targets were in the house, how many shoot /non-shoots (these were all "cold" un-rehearsed hits), nothing mattered. Same speed, same smoothness, and simply flawless performance. I learned a lot about being efficient and clean equating to being consistent and fast in dealing with diverse and changing scenarios. It is different than being fast at running range specific drills.

mnealtx
10-29-2011, 09:53 PM
what about those that argue the first loud noise is important?

meaning, even if you miss completely being the first guy to generate a loud noise puts you ahead.

(neither championing nor berating this position)

Better to take the split-second to get your hit, in my opinion - you're responsible for every round that leaves the barrel of your gun, after all.

ToddG
10-30-2011, 07:16 AM
A slow hit beats a fast miss and ... a small hit beats a big miss?

Allow me to distill that down for you:

Hits > misses

Anyone really want to debate that?

"Smooth is fast" is a real pet peeve of mine. Smooth is not fast. Smooth is smooth. You can be smooth as butter but still be slow. Being fast requires you to be smooth, but being smooth alone won't ever make you fast.

I think "Speed is fine but accuracy is final" is a much better and more defensible catch phrase. Now, a lot of folks like to trumpet that as if it says "Speed is unimportant because accuracy is final," but that's not what it says. Speed is good, but speed without hits is just a waste of ammo. Conversely, hits without speed is a waste of time...

JAD
10-30-2011, 07:50 AM
Granted, I've only ever watched his videos on youtube, but he shouldn't put up those video's if he doesn't advocate in real life what he's purporting on Youtube.
I think if you look around at a 250 or CCW class you might find that new shooters are inclined to run a little faster than they can get good hits. People getting their instruction from YouTube are probably not the most experienced shooters. New shooters need to be told "don't shoot fast, shoot good." once they're getting their hits AND MOVING and using cover and not coonfingering their gun, then you can get them to hustle a little bit. And as Clint does, I'd much rather speed new shooters up with turning targets than shot timers.

rsa-otc
10-30-2011, 08:19 AM
I think "Speed is fine but accuracy is final" is a much better and more defensible catch phrase. Now, a lot of folks like to trumpet that as if it says "Speed is unimportant because accuracy is final," but that's not what it says. Speed is good, but speed without hits is just a waste of ammo. Conversely, hits without speed is a waste of time...


Well said sir!

John Hearne
10-30-2011, 08:34 AM
"I've never seen a stopwatch in a gunfight." - I've been to Thunder Ranch five times and I have a huge amount of respect for Clint. However, I don't think this is the case. As someone else I respect has said - combat is a struggle for limited resources - the most important resource is time. I think that Clint was trying to get folks to slow down ENOUGH to get acceptable hits, not disregard time entirely.

The other consideration is that at Thunder Ranch, you spent a lot of time shooting while moving and at the same time, engaging moving targets. This requires a much more deliberate form of shooting than simply planting your feet and hitting a stationary target.

I am not aware of any way that being fast harms you provided you are hitting or successfully completing the manipulation. There are plenty of negative consequences for being too slow.

"Speed is good, but speed without hits is just a waste of ammo. Conversely, hits without speed is a waste of time..." - Please consider that stolen.

"new shooters are inclined to run a little faster than they can get good hits." - This is the crux of the problem. People, especially under stress, will have no problem finding the gas pedal. Everything in a our default wiring encourages us to push the gas pedal even harder. The problem is that many modern tools require the application of the brakes. Not to completely stop but to slow down to a speed that is within the limits of viable performance.

The way I've thought of it is: you have to have a reserve of speed and a reserve of accuracy and then intuitively know how much of each to use to solve a given problem. If people practice properly, they can learn the speed and they can learn the accuracy. If they shoot enough they'll be able to balance the two. The struggle in a fight is to ignore the desire to dip too heavily into the speed when what you need is accuracy.

Randy Cain uses the example of a car taking a curve. Given the same car, you may be able to take the curve at 50 mph while I can only complete the curve at 45 mph with my skill level. If this is the case, then it is far more important that I take the curve at 45mph because any faster will cause a wreck.

Given our natural inclination to speed up under stress, I tend to give a problem a little more accuracy to make sure that more than enough is present. I like the idea of guaranteeing a hit, not just being hopeful or probable.

MDS
10-30-2011, 10:40 AM
As a relative noob, I'm really working on finding my comfort zone between speed and accuracy. I'm speaking from ignorance, putting my thought process out there, for what it's worth to everyone.

I know I can hit a 2" circle at 7yd pretty much every time if I go slow - that's pretty much the limit of my accuracy. I also know I can hit a 8" circle at 3yd every time if I go as fast as I can (1.5s draw, .20-.25s splits) - that's pretty much the limit of my speed. So obviously, if a shooting problem needs more accuracy or speed than what I can generate, then I'm SOL. So I'll keep working on increasing the amount of accuracy and speed that I can generate.

Where the conversation gets interesting is in the middle ground, where a shooting problem requires less accuracy or less speed than I can generate. In a real situation, I'm not going to worry about finding the optimum balance of speed and accuracy. I'm going to solve the problem at the fastest speed I can guarantee hits. (To be clear, the word "guarantee" is just a euphemism for "being confident." There are no actual guarantees...)

In other words, the speed at which you shoot a problem is determined by the accuracy requirements of the problem, not the time requirements. You should go as fast as you can while still getting the necessary hits, and hope that's fast enough. The alternative is to go as fast as you think is necessary, and hope the accuracy is good enough. This is a worse approach to real, non-game problems because a) you're liable for the final resting place of every projectile you launch; and b) the time requirements of a real-world problem is much harder to judge than the accuracy requirements.

So, where I'm at as a noob is a) work on increasing my maximum accuracy and maximum speed; and b) push the limits of my accuracy at speed, so that when I come up against a shooting problem (e.g., the Bill Drill,) I can know how fast to go to guarantee hits.

Pushing these limits will result in drills where I get less than acceptable hits. As long as I'm clear that these runs on these drills are for exploring my abilities rather than training for a fight, I think it's OK to do that. I'm definitely in the camp that thinks, while not erring either way is best, you should err on the side of accuracy if you have to...

theblacknight
10-30-2011, 12:20 PM
what about those that argue the first loud noise is important?

meaning, even if you miss completely being the first guy to generate a loud noise puts you ahead.

(neither championing nor berating this position)

This sounds to me like something brought over from far away lands that should have stayed there.

JeffJ
10-31-2011, 10:20 AM
I seem to remember Tom Givens saying that there is always a stop watch in a gunfight, and the grim reaper is holding it - or something to that affect.

That being said, launching rounds and killing little children across the parking lot is a big no no - you can't shoot AT something, that doesn't solve the problem - only good hits solve the problem. So, if you don't hold yourself to a very high standard of accuracy during practice, how can you expect to achieve a high standard of accuracy when it counts? Accuracy dictates speed - being fast doesn't count if you don't hit the target.

VolGrad
10-31-2011, 04:48 PM
I'm sort of struggling with the balance between accuracy and speed myself. I know competition isn't a substitute for real gunfighting but I shot my first sanctioned IDPA match on Friday. I didn't want to embarrass myself so I slowed down a little (and took a few extra shots) to make sure I got my hits. I felt pretty good about my performance but knew I didn't have a "win" in me.

On individual stages I felt really good, cleaning 3 out of 13 and having really gun runs on several others. The rest were just average. Anyway, once it was all totaled up and results posted I realized my accuracy was on the higher side of the pack but my raw times were on the lower side. It seems my effort at getting hits really cost me time. I now have to re-focus and find a better balance between the two. What I wonder though is should I really push my speed all that hard given my times were only a few seconds behind the pack on each stage but accuracy was good. I wonder if in a real fight I should take the slightly slower time to make sure I get the hits.

No real answers here I guess ... just thinking out loud.

EDIT: After analyzing the scores some for SSP SS;
#32 out of 40 for total match score (total match points)
#7 out of 40 in accuracy (least # points down)

ToddG
10-31-2011, 04:50 PM
VolGrad -- Remember that unless it's a "standards" type stage, the majority of the time in an IDPA or IPSC stage is spent doing things other than shooting. You might draw and hit faster by half a second, but if the other guy moves from Box A to Box B two seconds faster than you, he's kicking your butt.

JAD
10-31-2011, 04:52 PM
On individual stages I felt really good, cleaning 3 out of 13 and having really gun runs on several others... It seems my effort at getting hits really cost me time. I now have to re-focus and find a better balance between the two.
The IDPA -0 zone is kind of big. Shut 'em down right now hits to the torso have to fall into a very, very small zone; and those were probably static targets. If I had those results, I would not have thought I went too slow (then again, I'm not sure I could have gotten those results no matter /how/ slow I went!).

VolGrad
10-31-2011, 05:03 PM
VolGrad -- Remember that unless it's a "standards" type stage, the majority of the time in an IDPA or IPSC stage is spent doing things other than shooting. You might draw and hit faster by half a second, but if the other guy moves from Box A to Box B two seconds faster than you, he's kicking your butt.

Good point. I will note much of my "extra" time was either taking an extra shot or two here or there or waiting for a mover to present itself again. That really killed me.

David Armstrong
11-01-2011, 09:35 AM
But Clint Smith just seems to be agonizingly slow, with placing absolutely no importance at all with developing skills at speed.
Having done a fair amount of training with Clint Smith I can assure you that he is not at all slow should the occasion call for it, and he will certainly push the speed issue when appropriate. Clint slows things down quite a bit for demos, such as the Youtube videos. And I think that may the crux of the issue. Often one can go really fast. But is that the right response? There are quite a few situations where one can and perhaps should slow down. Certainly doing a demo on technique is one of those, but one can also envision a very precise shot in a very hectic situation. There are other times when one needs to push right to the ragged edge of your abilities and dance on that edge, where if you don't get the shot off within a tight frame you won't ever get it. Hits are more important than speed, but not all hits require maximum speed.

jetfire
11-02-2011, 02:18 AM
The IDPA -0 zone is kind of big. Shut 'em down right now hits to the torso have to fall into a very, very small zone; and those were probably static targets. If I had those results, I would not have thought I went too slow (then again, I'm not sure I could have gotten those results no matter /how/ slow I went!).

Believe me, if you're shooting -0 on most of the stages, you're probably going too slow. At the last IDPA major I shot I only dropped 20-something points the whole match, and I actually should have pushed even faster.

Joe Mamma
11-24-2011, 10:21 AM
what about those that argue the first loud noise is important?

meaning, even if you miss completely being the first guy to generate a loud noise puts you ahead.

(neither championing nor berating this position)

I've never heard someone say that before. But that's a very interesting comment.

I've shot in a number of side-by-side and man-on-man type matches. These are matches where you and the person next to you shoot identical courses of fire at the same time. It's usually done on reactive steel targets like falling steel and dueling trees.

I love these types of matches because it's a different type of pressure than most shooting competitions. Hearing someone else's gunfire (when you are shooting against them in real time) is very distracting, even if they are missing alot. Hearing the other shooter make a lot of fast shots makes it worse. Again, even if they are missing a lot, it can psyche you out. Unfortunately, when you are both shooting, it's usually very hard to keep track of how they are doing. But you can definitely hear the bangs from gunfire!

But it can work for you too. Even when you are shooting against a very experienced and better shooter, the sound of your gunfire and the pressure of them shooting against someone in real time will almost always throw them off. I've found that the trick is to just focus on your own shooting. If you can do that, you will come out a winner the majority of the time.

Joe Mamma

orionz06
11-24-2011, 10:57 AM
Night sights are more effective than cliches in a gunfight. I think, I have never been in a gunfight. (and if things work out I never will be)

Odin Bravo One
11-24-2011, 03:20 PM
I've never been in a Night Sight either, but the proper mental attitude is more effective than any add on accessory.

DWB
11-24-2011, 03:37 PM
Continuing the hijackery, not that I mind, I picked up some used trijicons free, 3 green dots on basically normal sights...a real combat night sight should have a very large rear notch, and a front dot a different color than the rear to be effective, esp in a hurry.