Speed vs Accuracy (from DotW 4 thread)

[Mr_White]

For those of you who went out blazing and turned in awesome times with misses, how about trying it again to see how fast you can go with 100% hits?

I'll take this as an invitation to post another set of results from this drill.

I am not perfect, my shooting isn’t perfect, and I have a really long way to go to get where I want to be. I do not dispute that the best way to shoot any drill or test, is perfectly, and right now that’s not me. I am acutely aware that my results could be a lot better, primarily by having perfect accuracy.

Given that I had a wide open, high probability target in front of me, with a safe backstop and no innocent bystanders represented in the drill, I shot it the way I thought most reasonable and prudent under the circumstances. That is, I shot it “good enough, at the earliest opportunity,” rather than “perfectly, excessively delayed.”

I tried to slow down and shoot it clean yesterday, but I failed at both slowing down and shooting it cleanly. When I tried to slow down, I either didn't actually slow down, or just barely slowed down, and the results were the same as before - clean or almost clean. I don't think it's a problem of speed, but of precision. I am reminded of the adage, "it takes just as much time to miss as it does to hit." I find the difference between the hitting and missing to be more attentional than temporal, though there might sometimes be limits to this. I don't think that I will realize true improvement by trading speed and accuracy back and forth. I will realize true improvement by simply doing better at either the accuracy or the speed or both.


Folks, while it is fine, good, and even necessary to push yourself in practice to see how fast you can shoot, when taking a shooting TEST for time and score it is important to go at a pace that allows you to accurately make hits--that whole balance of speed and accuracy thing. Imagine yourself as a member of a team, organization, or unit where you get KICKED OFF if you miss a shot during training. More vividly, think about being in a life and death struggle where if your shots miss, they strike an innocent person, perhaps a loved family member...

Basically think about situations where a MISS is an utter FAIL.

Pushing myself in practice is precisely what I was doing.

I spend exactly zero time imagining myself to be a member of a team, organization, or unit to which I do not belong.

This was a drill, not a test. Drill of the Week. Bill Drill. A test has a cost attached to failure. This doesn't. There was no loved one, innocent bystander, or no-shoot behind or next to the target in this drill. If there were, I would have shot it differently, but that wasn't the case in this instance. Maybe there is a hostage drill that can be used for an upcoming Drill of the Week...

I don't equate a shot dropped from the A/-0 zone into the C/-1 zone with a clean miss of the entire body, which would endanger innocent bystanders. We are all using two different definitions of the word 'miss' in this thread. Miss the desirable zone on the target vs. miss the entire body which results in an errant shot downrange that endangers bystanders.

Here is me failing to shoot it clean, again. This time with video!

String 1: .98 first shot/1.97 total/1 out
String 2: .96 first shot/1.93 total/clean
String 3: .95 first shot/1.98 total/clean
String 4: .97 first shot/1.99 total/clean
String 5: 1.03 first shot/2.02 total/2 out

Total time: 9.89 seconds

Total hits: 27/30 (90%)


http://youtu.be/D3B9qch_QIw

[DocGKR]

OrigamiAK--You are clearly a very talented shooter; I hope you are involved in competitive action shooting events, as you would likely be quite successful. My comments regarding establishing a balance between speed and accuracy may not apply to what you wish to accomplish. On the other hand, they are likely germane for folks in certain LE and military roles, and may prove relevant for civilians in some self-defense shooting scenarios.

[Mr_White]

OrigamiAK--You are clearly a very talented shooter; I hope you are involved in competitive action shooting events, as you would likely be quite successful. My comments regarding establishing a balance between speed and accuracy may not apply to what you wish to accomplish. On the other hand, they are likely germane for folks in certain LE and military roles, and may prove relevant for civilians in some self-defense shooting scenarios.

Thank you for the compliment. I hope to get involved in action pistol competition as time allows, but busy family, work, and training and practice schedules have pushed this to the back burner for the most immediate future. Trying to get going in USPSA Limited in early 2012. So far, I've only made it to GSSF, which is still a lot of fun.

I owe you a huge thanks for all the great work you have done in terminal ballistics research and making that work available to those of us in the private citizen shooting communities. I've found your work very educational, and I think you are a very strong counterbalancing force against the myths and b.s. that surround the subject of terminal ballistics in the shooting world, and have probably educated a great many people. Thank you!!!

Your comments about strict accuracy standards could very well apply to me in certain situations. It was simply my assessment that this (Bill Drill, Drill of the Week) wasn't that circumstance.

I think the idea of a high-penalty hostage shot type drill might be really fun as a Drill of the Week. Maybe I'll work on one and submit it to Todd, though I am sure he can think of his own and I don't know whether he would even want such a drill as the DotW.

[Mr_White]

I tried it today myself. First, after mucking around with my Glock's trigger a bit, I shot this as my first serious drill of the day.
http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DotW4-G17-111028.jpg

Times:

2.25 clean: 1.26, .22, .19, .19, .19, 20
2.18 clean: 1.23, .21, .19, .16, .21, .18
2.19 clean: 1.25, .19, .17, .18, .18, .22
2.06 clean: 1.17, .20, .18, .18, .17, .16
2.08 clean: 1.17, .19, .19, .17, .18, .18


30/30, total time 10.76
average draw: 1.22 seconds
average split: 0.19 seconds
from CCC Shaggy aiwb under a half-zip fleece

I then spent a few magazines working on sub-second one shot draws to get a little more tuned to the press-out when going fast, and tried some balls to the wall runs. On the first four of these five, I never took my eyes off the target. On the last run, I purposely tried to use my sights:

2.03 one miss: 1.14, .20, .18, .15, .19, .17
1.95 one miss: 1.05, .19, .19, .17, .18, .17
1.84 two misses: 1.04, .16, .17, .15, .15, .17
1.91 one miss: 1.09, .16, .17, .17, .15, .17
1.98 clean: 1.12, .18, .18, .16, .18, .16

25/30, total time 9.71
average draw: 1.09 seconds
average split: 0.17 seconds
from CCC Shaggy aiwb under a half-zip fleece

If you look at the numbers, it means that I actually get five hits in about the same amount of time whether I fire five at a strong pace or six at a crazy pace. Which makes more sense?

I guess the balancing act may be different for different people with different strengths, and also depends on what you mean by misses.

If your misses didn’t hit the target at all, then yes, the strong pace with five hits is better than five hits and a truly errant shot.

If your misses were simply C-zone/-1 zone shots, then I don’t necessarily agree that the strong pace is better than the crazy pace, but that partly depends on which shots were the dropped ones.

Were your misses in the C-zone/-1 zone? Were they clean misses of the whole silhouette? Did you shoot it on a silhouette of some kind, or did you use a standalone 8” circle or something? Don’t you generally advocate a 90% hits standard of accuracy on a high probability target, which this is? Or is that not correct?

It’s not generally the first shot I am dropping. For me, at the speeds under discussion here, the breakdown generally occurs in some failure of sight focus, sight tracking, or anticipation of recoil or milking the grip or some other flaw in the five shots following the first one.

The difference for me between a clean Bill Drill and an unclean Bill Drill is mostly attentional. If I make sure to pay mental and visual attention to the sights, it is more likely to be a perfect run. If I get mentally undisciplined and focus on the target, the dropped shots happen more often. But slowing down a little bit doesn’t really guarantee a clean run for me.

When I read the last line of your post, I think about it the opposite way: I can have five or six great hits and maybe one less than great hit in a short amount of time, or I can have five or six great hits and maybe one less than great hit in a longer amount of time. Which one is better? There are certain circumstances I use for training where exactly the way you said it is a more operative dynamic, but in this case it seems to be the reverse for me…

I notice that in your faster runs, you said you only paid attention to the sights on the last string, which was the clean one. I would think that is what probably made the difference. Your splits are awesome in all cases. Were your misses on the faster draw and first shot? Or were they in the subsequent five shots?

I would be really curious to see your results if you shoot it like you did the second set (balls to the wall), but make really sure to sight focus and sight track. It doesn’t take any longer to use the sights. My money would be on the outcome that you do virtually as well as your more relaxed runs, except faster, and lose little or no accuracy. But maybe that prediction is wrong.

P.S.: You should learn how to use your sights correctly. I can see from your avatar that you place the sights in front of your nose. You’ll be able to see them more clearly and read them more precisely if you place the sights in front of your dominant eye. :p Relax Todd, I am joking!

[ToddG]

I guess the balancing act may be different for different people with different strengths,

If your strength is speed, your balancing act should probably try to move more toward the accuracy side, no?


and also depends on what you mean by misses.

I define "miss" as not hitting the part of the target I'm supposed to hit. If it's an 8" circle then it's an 8" circle, not the giant C-zone that surrounds it. If you're going to accept C's, then make the C-zone your target. There are some perfectly valid drills -- and perfectly valid skills to build -- that involve very generous target zones. Triple Nickel (http://pistol-training.com/archives/5494) comes immediately to mind. But whatever your chosen defined target zone is, that's what you need to be hitting.


Don’t you generally advocate a 90% hits standard of accuracy on a high probability target, which this is? Or is that not correct?

I know I get quoted for that a lot, and -- no fault of yours -- it's taken out of context here.

When we work on accuracy, we purposely exaggerate accuracy at the cost of speed. We shoot things like bullseye or Dot Torture or The Humbler at a ridiculously unrealistic pace because it's building/testing maximum accuracy.

When we work on speed, we purposely exaggerate speed at the cost of accuracy. Yesterday at the range I did 25 1-R-2 reps. I was working primarily on speed, so I pushed myself to a point at which I was getting ~90% hits on an 8" circle at 7yd. If I'd done 25 Bill Drills, I would have looked for that same percentage.

The issue with the DotW is that different people approached it from different standpoints. A lot of people saw it as a test, do your best and report your results. You saw it as just another drill and pushed yourself. Neither is wrong. That's why I didn't say "you idiots who missed, you did it wrong, try again!" I just said that -- in the wake of such a large number of people pushing themselves far past their performance envelope -- that it would be beneficial to try it with tighter accuracy standards.


The difference for me between a clean Bill Drill and an unclean Bill Drill is mostly attentional. If I make sure to pay mental and visual attention to the sights, it is more likely to be a perfect run. If I get mentally undisciplined and focus on the target, the dropped shots happen more often. But slowing down a little bit doesn’t really guarantee a clean run for me.

Maybe so, but as a general rule when someone tells me he has a hard time staying focused my diagnosis is that he needs to slow down. Much like the F.A.S.T. thread and the point Prdator brought up a while ago, it's the difference between trying to get one Best Ever score and working to raise your consistent everyday ability.


Were your misses on the faster draw and first shot? Or were they in the subsequent five shots?

Some of each. The target wasn't clean so it was difficult to tell at that speed. I find it's actually easier to call shots from the front sight lift than it is to see them appear when target-focused, at least when I'm going max speed.

[DocGKR]

"If your strength is speed, your balancing act should probably try to move more toward the accuracy side, no?"

Exactly! At this point in my career, with the equipment I am carrying, my strength is accuracy and the area I am working on improving/balancing is increasing speed while retaining accuracy.


"I define "miss" as not hitting the part of the target I'm supposed to hit."

Bingo!

[Mr_White]

My answers in blue, interspersed with your comments:


If your strength is speed, your balancing act should probably try to move more toward the accuracy side, no?

Agree. I have been unwilling lately (right or wrong as that may be) to give up speed to gain accuracy. I just want to gain the accuracy, and I haven’t made my way to the conclusion that that’s impossible. I notice that this is the same as what Dr. Roberts is saying, except reversed: he wants to maintain his accuracy while building his speed. And yes, I recognize that his arrangement is the classical way of learning to shoot better, whereas mine is reversed, wanting to maintain the speed but gain accuracy at that pace.

I define "miss" as not hitting the part of the target I'm supposed to hit. If it's an 8" circle then it's an 8" circle, not the giant C-zone that surrounds it. If you're going to accept C's, then make the C-zone your target. There are some perfectly valid drills -- and perfectly valid skills to build -- that involve very generous target zones. Triple Nickel (http://pistol-training.com/archives/5494) comes immediately to mind. But whatever your chosen defined target zone is, that's what you need to be hitting.

That’s a fair response, but I think there is a finer point there too.

There is a common heuristic used in evaluating results on target:

How do you know you shot too fast? There are misses (misses as you defined them.)

How do you know you shot too slowly? There aren’t misses.

How do you know you shot the best speed, that being the perfect combination of speed and accuracy, no faster or slower than you can hit the target? There aren’t misses.

The problem is that until I push things enough to drop shots, I can’t tell truly tell the difference between shooting too slowly, and shooting just the right speed.

I almost want to say that shooting just the right speed is theoretical – a person either shoots too fast and has misses, or shoots too slowly and doesn’t have any misses. Add the monkey wrench that simple inattention, independent of any particular speed, also often leads to misses. I think a person can gain a sense, over time, of where that razor’s edge of enough accuracy to hit and at what speed they can do it, but that’s such a tightrope to walk, it’s really difficult to leave neither accuracy nor time on the table.

I can see that the only answer to this part of the riddle is to simply err toward accuracy.


I know I get quoted for that a lot, and -- no fault of yours -- it's taken out of context here.

When we work on accuracy, we purposely exaggerate accuracy at the cost of speed. We shoot things like bullseye or Dot Torture or The Humbler at a ridiculously unrealistic pace because it's building/testing maximum accuracy.

When we work on speed, we purposely exaggerate speed at the cost of accuracy. Yesterday at the range I did 25 1-R-2 reps. I was working primarily on speed, so I pushed myself to a point at which I was getting ~90% hits on an 8" circle at 7yd. If I'd done 25 Bill Drills, I would have looked for that same percentage.

The issue with the DotW is that different people approached it from different standpoints. A lot of people saw it as a test, do your best and report your results. You saw it as just another drill and pushed yourself. Neither is wrong. That's why I didn't say "you idiots who missed, you did it wrong, try again!" I just said that -- in the wake of such a large number of people pushing themselves far past their performance envelope -- that it would be beneficial to try it with tighter accuracy standards.

Well, I think you are right about people approaching it differently, and, you’re right that I pushed myself. I also did attempt to do my best at it, though the manner in which I did that was predicated on my perception of it as a drill, my perception that there wasn’t a penalty specified for misses, like automatic failure, or a time penalty like in the FAST or the 4567 drill, and more importantly that there was no one endangered by a C-zone shot as opposed to an A-zone shot. And I know that’s bringing more into it than is necessary, it’s a shooting drill and nothing more, but that’s how I was thinking.

And before anyone (Dr. Roberts! :)) says so, I’ll agree in advance that out in the World, accuracy in general is more important than speed, and shots outside of the ‘deadly violent criminal attacker backstop’ are a serious problem that must be avoided, most especially when there are known proximate bystanders or hostages or other unsafe background issues. I just don’t equate the above with a C-zone shot that was meant to be an A, unless there is a kid standing right below the thoracic cavity of the violent criminal attacker, or some other similar circumstance. But again, I am bringing more into it that doesn’t have to be there, it’s a shooting drill and nothing more.

And I understand that you are drawing a line between skill practice for pushing whatever (accuracy, speed, etc.) and tests with reported scores.


Maybe so, but as a general rule when someone tells me he has a hard time staying focused my diagnosis is that he needs to slow down. Much like the F.A.S.T. thread and the point Prdator brought up a while ago, it's the difference between trying to get one Best Ever score and working to raise your consistent everyday ability.

The point you make above is a good one and one that I should take to heart. I am a person who typically tries to get a Best Ever score on anything and everything, even though I risk the wheels coming off by doing it that way. And that is simply a personality quirk on my part, and I think you are right that I would do well to focus more on what I can do reliably and repeatedly. Par times, which I rarely use, might become an important training tool for me.

Some of each. The target wasn't clean so it was difficult to tell at that speed. I find it's actually easier to call shots from the front sight lift than it is to see them appear when target-focused, at least when I'm going max speed.

Part of me wants to say that if you couldn’t tell, then you weren’t looking where you needed to, or weren’t paying attention to what you saw if you were looking, but the fact is that the same thing happens for me. I don’t always get the information I am looking for, and something sometimes breaks down somewhere in the process and I don’t always know what it is, otherwise I would fix it. In reflecting on the shots I did drop in the Bill Drill DotW, I wasn’t always certain which shot I dropped, though there were many shots I was sure I didn’t drop, if that makes sense.

By the way, the title of this thread should be speed and accuracy, or accuracy at speed, since that is what we all really want!

I shot a GSSF match this past weekend, which is the only competition I currently participate in, though I would like to start shooting USPSA when I get the time.

GSSF is probably very good for me, because there is no point in shooting faster than you can hit an 8” circle, due to the unbelievably wicked time penalties attached to shots on the cardboard that are out of the 8” circle. The penalty time scheme is a lot like IDPA, except the penalties in GSSF are more than doubled.

In this match I did something different than I did in the last match. I ignored any concept or desire to shoot any particular speed, and in accordance with the nature of the scoring system in GSSF, I attempted to get hard visual focus on the front sight and shoot the center of every target with every shot, even when I thought that I should be able to press out and shoot more quickly.

That mostly worked very well, except when I did it wrong.

The low point was a moment of competitive disaster in one division where I left three plates standing and incurred penalties that destroyed any chance of a strong finish in that division. The problem in that instance was most definitely mental and visual inattention, not speed.

But the high point was shooting one division entry nearly clean, and a couple others without very many penalties. In that division, I had exactly one shot out of the 8” circle over the entire 90 rounds, and I improved over my previous personal best by about 15% or so. Chuck Anderson (same one as on this forum) still beat me in that division by about three seconds! Chuck, I was really hoping I would catch you on that one, but you still rocked it much better than I did. Nice job!

I guess I often have a hard time getting motivated to make damn sure every shot is where I want it to be when practicing, or when shooting a drill when there is no real consequence to misses (misses by Todd’s definition, not ones that would endanger anyone.) Because I stand to win or lose a game, a gun, cash, Glock knives and e-tools in GSSF, I can actually find the motivation to shoot the most advantageous way possible, which, in GSSF, is pretty darn accurately, almost never mind the speed.

I find it curious how the different scoring systems in USPSA, IDPA, and GSSF, for example, give rise to different dynamics of how one ought to shoot for the most competitive profitability. I thought it was very interesting how Caleb G. was working on the zero down IDPA project, but abandoned it because it wasn’t letting him be as competitive as when he pushed speed even though dropping a few more points. No criticism there, I just find that interesting, given how I perceive IDPA to have a scoring system weighted fairly heavily in favor of accuracy. Maybe my perception of their scoring system is wrong.

Todd, bottom line is, I think you pretty much nailed it with your point that different people approached the DotW: Bill Drill differently. And I agree that of all the things for me to work on now, the most important are consistency and precise control.

[ToddG]

There are definitely times when pushing speed is necessary. I see folks in class all the time who can't break through the "must hit 100%" mental barrier and get stuck shooting at a pace that's comfortable and easy. Years ago, SLG and I were having dinner with a friend (a full time LEO who'd just earned his GM card in Limited) and he made the comment that you have to accept misses to get fast. We changed how we practiced after that. Where we'd been shooting 3x5 and 5x8 cards at 7yd and greater, we began shooting paper plates and 8.5x11 sheets at 5yd. And we got faster.

But we were both capable of hitting a 3x5 on demand at 15yd without breaking a sweat. Which -- from your DotW 5 results -- you can, too.

The question -- and it's a genuine question, not an accusation -- is can you pull off five fast Bill Drills in a row without dropping a point? Not top speed fast, but not half as fast, either.

[Mr_White]

The question -- and it's a genuine question, not an accusation -- is can you pull off five fast Bill Drills in a row without dropping a point? Not top speed fast, but not half as fast, either.

When I slowed down last week, I didn’t stop dropping points. But I don’t think I gave slowing down a fair shake, either. I threw some repetitions at it, but not enough to really iron things out.

I intend to continue working on slightly relaxed pace shooting in the near future. Yesterday I had a good moment on the range with that. I unclenched my Timer Brain and quit caring about the time - we’ll see if that sticks - and shot a few bill drills, three I think. They were clean, to a reduced A zone (IPSC paper target, A-zone, above the letter A) and it felt quite effortless. The times were 2.25 to 2.35, but I didn’t record the exact numbers. Some of the greater time came from the draw to first shot, and some from the splits. I think the most important difference was my attitude, especially coming off the GSSF match, where being speed-focused is really not the way to win.

I’ll try some more slightly relaxed bill drills when I get the chance and see if I end up better off over five or ten or fifteen reps. The results yesterday were promising, but then again I also pulled three consecutive clean sub-2 second bill drills last week. But not five. I’ll have to get back to you with a legitimate answer to your question.

[ToddG]

When I slowed down last week, I didn’t stop dropping points.

That's the crux of the issue. Being blindingly fast is great, but if you can't modulate it to get the hits you want then there's a skill gap that needs to be addressed.

[joshs]

Sorry in advance for the extremely long post. If you don’t like math, you may want to stop reading now. There are many conflicting explanations given for how accurate you should shoot based on a given scoring system. I’ve attempted to figure out a more exact balance of speed and accuracy.

I find the different scoring systems used in practical shooting as an excellent example of how penalties for bad accuracy can influence speed. It's easiest if you think about the IDPA and IPSC scoring in terms of hit factor, or points per second.

IDPA has a fixed hit factor of 2.

In IPSC, the hit factor varies depending on how many points you shoot per second on a given stage. So, in order to know whether you should shoot for points or accuracy you need to estimate your hit factor for the stage, this usually comes with experience. Once you know how long it takes for you to shoot certain types of target arrays clean, you add these up and come up with the estimated hit factor. Or, if there is another shooter of similar skill who shoots the stage well before you, you can look at their hit factor.

With a hit factor it is now possible to figure out how to balance speed and accuracy. This would be easy, if the options were A or C (-0 or -1). If this were the case, any time you had to make the decision between a -0 or -1 in IDPA, if you could change the outcome by taking .49 (this number is the balance of speed and accuracy) or less, it would be worth it. (Hit factor of 2 means 1 point costs you .5 of a second, so if could get the point in less than half a second, you should.) However, the options are trickier than either/or. When accepting a C or -1, there is still a chance that the shot will land in the A or -0, since the inner target zones are essentially "part of" the outer target zones. The variable needed is: How often when you accept a C or -1 (not a perfectly called A or -0), do you still end up with an A or -0? For purposes of demonstration, the assumed probability is .5. This is probably a very conservative estimate, especially for more experienced shooters who are more likely to get to the uncalled A or -0 due to a much more refined index.

Assuming that .5 is the correct probability, using IDPA's fixed hit factor, the balance of speed and accuracy would be .249. (The original .49 from above, multiplied by the probability of not getting an "uncalled" A.) This number would of course shrink as the hit factor goes up (a hit factor as low as 2 is almost unheard of in IPSC) and as the probability of getting the uncalled A goes up (through increased shooter skill).

Given these factors, it is easy to see why experienced shooters will often "accept" a C or -1. The time penalty to guarantee the A or -0 is greater than the penalty assessed by the scoring systems. This isn't to say that, at the margin, different scoring systems don't promote more accuracy. A hit factor of 8 (relatively common in IPSC) would change the above balance from .249 to .065 (assuming major scoring).

The point of all this silly math is to show why people hate economists . . . err I mean to figure out a shooter's accuracy incentives. The balance of speed and accuracy number can be very beneficial. If you can influence the outcome to guarantee the A in less time than the balance number, then you should take the time to do so.

Shooters often get this wrong on close range hosing stages. At close range, it only takes a couple of hundredths to guarantee an A instead of accepting a C/A. Excepting a high hit factor with major scoring, it is almost always worth taking these hundredths to guarantee the A.

[joshs]

I guess the balancing act may be different for different people with different strengths, and also depends on what you mean by misses.


You also have to remember that both IDPA and IPSC targets are large silhouettes. The C zone on an IPSC target is almost 12 inches wide. If an IPSC target were overlaid on my torso, shots in the bottom corners of the C zone would be complete misses on a person of my size. So, you can't really just say that shots in the whole C zone would be effective/safe.

[Mr_White]

Sorry in advance for the extremely long post. If you don’t like math, you may want to stop reading now. There are many conflicting explanations given for how accurate you should shoot based on a given scoring system. I’ve attempted to figure out a more exact balance of speed and accuracy.

I find the different scoring systems used in practical shooting as an excellent example of how penalties for bad accuracy can influence speed. It's easiest if you think about the IDPA and IPSC scoring in terms of hit factor, or points per second.

IDPA has a fixed hit factor of 2.

In IPSC, the hit factor varies depending on how many points you shoot per second on a given stage. So, in order to know whether you should shoot for points or accuracy you need to estimate your hit factor for the stage, this usually comes with experience. Once you know how long it takes for you to shoot certain types of target arrays clean, you add these up and come up with the estimated hit factor. Or, if there is another shooter of similar skill who shoots the stage well before you, you can look at their hit factor.

With a hit factor it is now possible to figure out how to balance speed and accuracy. This would be easy, if the options were A or C (-0 or -1). If this were the case, any time you had to make the decision between a -0 or -1 in IDPA, if you could change the outcome by taking .49 (this number is the balance of speed and accuracy) or less, it would be worth it. (Hit factor of 2 means 1 point costs you .5 of a second, so if could get the point in less than half a second, you should.) However, the options are trickier than either/or. When accepting a C or -1, there is still a chance that the shot will land in the A or -0, since the inner target zones are essentially "part of" the outer target zones. The variable needed is: How often when you accept a C or -1 (not a perfectly called A or -0), do you still end up with an A or -0? For purposes of demonstration, the assumed probability is .5. This is probably a very conservative estimate, especially for more experienced shooters who are more likely to get to the uncalled A or -0 due to a much more refined index.

Assuming that .5 is the correct probability, using IDPA's fixed hit factor, the balance of speed and accuracy would be .249. (The original .49 from above, multiplied by the probability of not getting an "uncalled" A.) This number would of course shrink as the hit factor goes up (a hit factor as low as 2 is almost unheard of in IPSC) and as the probability of getting the uncalled A goes up (through increased shooter skill).

Given these factors, it is easy to see why experienced shooters will often "accept" a C or -1. The time penalty to guarantee the A or -0 is greater than the penalty assessed by the scoring systems. This isn't to say that, at the margin, different scoring systems don't promote more accuracy. A hit factor of 8 (relatively common in IPSC) would change the above balance from .249 to .065 (assuming major scoring).

The point of all this silly math is to show why people hate economists . . . err I mean to figure out a shooter's accuracy incentives. The balance of speed and accuracy number can be very beneficial. If you can influence the outcome to guarantee the A in less time than the balance number, then you should take the time to do so.

Shooters often get this wrong on close range hosing stages. At close range, it only takes a couple of hundredths to guarantee an A instead of accepting a C/A. Excepting a high hit factor with major scoring, it is almost always worth taking these hundredths to guarantee the A.

I had not previously considered that the A/-0 being within the C/-1 might mean that some theoretical C/-1 hits might ultimately land within the A/-0. That's a great point, thank you!

I am prone to the same kind of mathematical calculations about score that you engage in above. But, I am also reminded of this Enos quote, which although perhaps more toward the theoretical and philosophical, I find very beautiful and elegant:

“The day (moment) I realized that I could shoot an A, and know I shot it, as fast as I could hit the target, changed my entire perspective. But until you reach this realization on your own, you will try to slow down, try to go fast, try to call your shots, or try to calculate how fast you should shoot. And all this trying is not bad, because the struggle will eventually lead you to the ultimate realization of what it’s all about. When you understand, the concept of speed will be one you will have nothing to do with.”

I wish I had a reference or precise quote to cite, but there was a quote attributed to Rob Leatham, and it was something to the effect that for him to shoot a guaranteed clean El Presidente, it would take him about 8 seconds, and that he found it much more worthwhile (I assume this is in reference to USPSA scoring probably) to shoot as fast as he could probably hit As, and accept a few Cs in the process. I wonder if that would change for him given different parameters of penalty than those involved in USPSA scoring.

[DocGKR]

I wonder how the balance of speed and accuracy would change for folks if there were innocent people placed down range and intermingled with the shoot targets?

Since I no longer participate in any competition, perhaps my firearms practice is oriented differently than those primarily interested in the sporting aspects of shooting.

For defensive shooting to save your life or the lives of others, there are very few spots on the body where immediate incapacitation can be achieved. A "C-zone" hit is not going to do it. For that matter most other targets used in shooting events are not going to be realistic representations of what must be hit to rapidly stop a dangerous aggressor.

The CNS IPSC "credit card" A-zone or 3x5 target is pretty much the only place that will cause immediate incapacitation. Other than that, the spinal column and high central chest vascular system are the next best targets.

This one is well done, similar to a FAST target.
http://www.letargets.com/images/mdfi.jpg

The black area on this target is pretty good, but I would likely add a small 4-6" circle at the bottom of the black area and reduce the size of the facial target.
http://www.letargets.com/images/bt5-mpd.jpg

The rectangular eye and circle-x heart scoring zones on this target are nice as well--I'd ignore most of the other scoring zones.
http://www.letargets.com/images/acso-99.jpg

Basically if you don't hit the proscribed areas, you missed and FAILED.

[rsa-otc]

Doc;

What do you think of Law Enforcement Target's DST-5 developed with Dave Spaulding? And their Primary Neutralization Zone.

http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=DST-5

[DocGKR]

The DST5 is actually the target Oakland PD has been using for more than a decade:

http://www.letargets.com/images/bt5-ocpd.jpg

I use that target all the time, but ignore everything but the black area and typically put a 3x5 card over the "eyes" to make the face target smaller.

The PNZ concept is good, but the hit areas are far too large for handgun shots, particularly the ones on the torso; instead of that big trapezoidal/pentagon/hexagon shaped target zone over the heart, I'd probably go with a 4" circle.

http://www.letargets.com/images/dst-1a.jpg

http://www.letargets.com/images/dst-1b.jpg

http://www.letargets.com/images/dst-1c.jpg

http://www.letargets.com/images/dst-1d.jpg

[Mr_White]

I wonder how the balance of speed and accuracy would change for folks if there were innocent people placed down range and intermingled with the shoot targets?

Since I no longer participate in any competition, perhaps my firearms practice is oriented differently than those primarily interested in the sporting aspects of shooting.

For defensive shooting to save your life or the lives of others, there are very few spots on the body where immediate incapacitation can be achieved. A "C-zone" hit is not going to do it. For that matter most other targets used in shooting events are not going to be realistic representations of what must be hit to rapidly stop a dangerous aggressor.

The CNS IPSC "credit card" A-zone or 3x5 target is pretty much the only place that will cause immediate incapacitation. Other than that, the spinal column and high central chest vascular system are the next best targets.

This one is well done, similar to a FAST target.
http://www.letargets.com/images/mdfi.jpg

The black area on this target is pretty good, but I would likely add a small 4-6" circle at the bottom of the black area and reduce the size of the facial target.
http://www.letargets.com/images/bt5-mpd.jpg

The rectangular eye and circle-x heart scoring zones on this target are nice as well--I'd ignore most of the other scoring zones.
http://www.letargets.com/images/acso-99.jpg

Basically if you don't hit the proscribed areas, you missed and FAILED.

I bet the balance would change significantly if there were bystanders closely intermingled with threats, and especially when people are moving too.

Since we've all been discussing this, I've been trying to notice what portions of my life involve lots of safe backstop vs. lots of unsafe backstop/bystanders. Though I can't put any numbers on it, I see lots and lots of both situations throughout my day and night.

I can't see the target you are referencing.

Your comments about the true anatomical target areas match those I've heard from other medical professionals. In light of those comments, pretty much all commonly used targets have target zones that are way too big, which really begs the question: is everyone practicing to miss the real target (4" circle) by training with an IDPA -0/IPSC body A zone/8" circle, especially when coupled with the likely degradation of performance under stress? Or is everyone implicitly deciding to train to lose some accuracy in exchange for greater speed, because of an implicit assumption that shooting the true anatomical target might be too slow, and there is the hope of getting some kind of positive effect, if not true forced rapid incapacitation, from hitting the 8" circle in the high thoracic cavity area, even though many of those shots won't actually strike the heart/aorta/spine?

[joshs]

The balance of speed and accuracy for real life has so many variables that it would be very difficult to calculate except for ex post analysis. The two biggest variables are the ever changing penalties for misses and the fact that a rational opponent is able to affect the outcome. But, a balance still exists.

Todd does an excellent demo to show how accuracy affects speed. First, he draws and hits a 2 inch circle and records the time. Then, he uses that as a par time to draw and hit an 8 inch circle as many times as possible under the par. I think he usually gets 5 hits. This is exaggerated, the 8 inch circle is a relatively large target and the 2 inch circle is very small, but it still exemplifies that some balance is required.

If A and B are in a gunfight, is the time it takes A to hit B's 4 inch circle worth A accepting 2 rounds inside his 8 inch circle (assuming an opponent of equal skill)? There is also a 2 in 5 chance that one of the incoming rounds will land inside of A's 4 inch circle (the 4 inch circle is part of the 8 inch circle). It is also likely that the first round will affect A's ability to hit B's 4 inch circle.

The Rob/Brian quotes seem to be contradictory. If it is possible to perfectly call shots as fast as you can shoot, then why would Rob have to slow down in order to guarantee a clean run on El Prez? Match results also demonstrate that even the best shooters do not call every shot, and this is perfectly rational because the scoring system does not incentivize them to do so.

[DocGKR]

Attached is a target for printing full size on legal (8.5x14") paper, that attempts to reflect the zones necessary to hit in order to cause rapid physiological incapacitation.

[irishshooter]

for self defense shooting scenarios i prefer anatomy targets without well defined "target areas" displayed on the target. this is the best one i have found. my main reason is that out past a few yards the white/gray area of defined anatomy cannot be seen so it doesnt provide you with a focal aiming point just like a bad guy would not provide you with a focal aiming point. Shots are focused on the anatomical area of importance (switches and timers) as opposed to the defined target zone and when you review your target you can then see the defined anatomy and your hits relative to it. The target is fairly well done anatomically speaking however i wouldve designed it with the heart a little more to the left and probably defined the aortic arch and the great vessels as well.....and non medically speaking i wouldve brought the gun up to chest level atleast.http://www.letargets.com/images/ant4.jpg

[DocGKR]

irishshooter--Concur.

[John Hearne]

Doc, you sound exactly like my good friend Jim Higginbotham. His targets sizes are almost idential to yours. The only thing he adds is a "spine." The idea being that with a deeply penetrating round, rattling the spine can result in the suspect dropping long enough to bleed out.

This is his target:
http://letargets.com/images/riposte-3.jpg

[DocGKR]

John--Target looks pretty good. While I don't routinely use targets with them, I did add a "spine" to the target I drew last night: http://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=244&d=1320476020.

[John Hearne]

I made him some custom version of my 3-D target. It only had a 2" spine and an ocular window (3"x4"). This seemed cruel but I was pleasantly surprised to watch students fire "bursts" from their pistols and most were able to get at least one round on the spine and knock it over.

[ToddG]

Re: scoring in games

Another thing to keep in mind when talking about how different games' scoring systems affect the speed/accuracy spectrum is that different targets can play a huge role. While the A-zone on an IPSC target is actually narrower than an IDPA target's -0 zone, the overall scoring zone is almost 30% larger. More importantly, the IPSC A-zone allows for much more vertical variation --almost half again as much -- meaning that shots fired too early or late in the muzzle rise cycle might still be considered "good" hits in IPSC where they would be misses in IDPA and definitely outside the anatomically correct zone.

Re: anatomically correct 2D targets

Keep in mind that anatomical diagrams on targets are representing a 3D structure in a 2D manner. As such, they can reward hits that would only be effective if a perfect squared straight angle to the target presented itself. Such targets can also often reward otherwise marginal hits that nonetheless barely managed to touch an internal organ. This in turn can lead people to accept a much wider shot dispersion than practical. E.g., the location of the spine in relation to the shooter changes dramatically with even small changes in attack angle. Nonetheless, shooters will often consider an otherwise unacceptably high or low "spine shot" as a success.

Re: John's spine targets

As long as students/shooters are in fact firing "bursts" at the target instead of slowing down to find a perfect spinal shot, that sounds great.

John, out of curiosity, could you produce one with a 3x5 in the head and a zig-zag spine? It wouldn't be anatomically correct but it would make students engage the target with multiple rounds (or one lucky one) instead of artificially finding the spine on a static target. I'd be happy to test a couple of prototypes! :cool:

[John Hearne]

John, out of curiosity, could you produce one with a 3x5 in the head and a zig-zag spine? It wouldn't be anatomically correct but it would make students engage the target with multiple rounds (or one lucky one) instead of artificially finding the spine on a static target. I'd be happy to test a couple of prototypes! :cool:

With the new design I'm still perfecting, you could do most anything you wanted. I strongly suspect that the curves would have to be distributed evenly on either side to make it fall well.

Speaking of anatomy on 2-D target, my reigning favorites are these:
http://letargets.com/images/FBI-IP1TC-BV2.jpg http://letargets.com/images/FBI-IP1TC-AV2.jpg

The height is good and does a good job of reminding you that there isn't a whole lot important on the human torso (at least in the near term)

For a competition target, I really like these:
http://letargets.com/images/usmc-srq.jpg

Scoring the inner 6" circle as -0 and the next ring as -1, and anything else as -5, with a one second penalty, you'd get a much better idea of the difficulty of placing fight stopping hits on a threat at speed.

[ToddG]

JH -- By "distributed evenly" you mean there would need to be something along the outside edges? Or simply that you'd need to maintain balance? I'm literally picturing a lightning-bolt of maybe 2" (or less) wide steel zigzagging down a 6" wide area from the head box to the bottom. It would be next to impossible to aim for the zigzag spine, so you'd have to put rounds into COM until the target dropped... just like, you know...

[Prdator]

I made him some custom version of my 3-D target. It only had a 2" spine and an ocular window (3"x4"). This seemed cruel but I was pleasantly surprised to watch students fire "bursts" from their pistols and most were able to get at least one round on the spine and knock it over.

I shot this target at the last Tactical Conference and we'll it was Freaking hard!!!! Shooting it WHO really put the "suck" on it.

TLG, I would think that this target would work just fine for your " Lighting Bold spine" idea. I saw several shooters hit this target with a "burst" and it just stand there and several hit it right and it go strait down.

[joshs]

I shot this target at the last Tactical Conference and we'll it was Freaking hard!!!! Shooting it WHO really put the "suck" on it.

TLG, I would think that this target would work just fine for your " Lighting Bold spine" idea. I saw several shooters hit this target with a "burst" and it just stand there and several hit it right and it go strait down.

By "hit it right" do you mean they actually slowed down to get a spinal shot?

[Prdator]

By "hit it right" do you mean they actually slowed down to get a spinal shot?
They either slowed down or was able to get the hit they needed at an "appropriate" pace for that shooters ability. Some of the targets were at 10yds and that made the spine only ones, though to hit.

[rsa-otc]

Back in the early 80's I use to run the B-27 taget using compitition scoring for our Q courses. 10 yards and in a shot outside the 8 ring was a DQ. Of couse this was anatomically wrong so when the transstar targets hit the market we started using them. Again close up anything outside the the 4 ring was a DQ.

Then the state came out with their standards based on one of the countys police acadamy's COFs using the FBI Bobber and the mind set of any hit inside the bobber counts. This in my mind was way to generaous. So we adopted the ILEFIA Q; since it used the FBI bobber as part of the scoring zone I was able to still meet the state requirements and put my own requirement of a certain percentage of shots must hit 8" circle.

My own opinion is that most targets that use a circle to score head shots include WAY to much forehead above the eyebrows and below the eye sockets. Doc correct me if I'm wrong but what I have been able to garner over the years is that with handgun rounds shots above the eyebrow have a good chance of glancing off and there's not much below the sockets other then centerline spinal/madula hits that would be effective.

I'm really liking the 2D targets John H shows above. They are getting back to the tight accuracy standards we used back in the 70's & early 80's. It also only gives full value to shot the actually hit what you are aiming at. I need to see if I can come up with a COF that revolves around them.

[John Hearne]

So we adopted the ILEFIA Q; since it used the FBI bobber as part of the scoring zone I was able to still meet the state requirements and put my own requirement of a certain percentage of shots must hit 8" circle...They are getting back to the tight accuracy standards we used back in the 70's & early 80's. It also only gives full value to shot the actually hit what you are aiming at. I need to see if I can come up with a COF that revolves around them.

I taught an 8 hour block at this years in-service. I came up with a qual course that I thought was realistic and used the IALEFI-Q as the target. To emphasize accuracy while maintaining speed, I scored the 8" circle as 5 pts, the bottle as 2 pts, and 0 for everything else. I pointed out the scoring before they shot and they all "got it" that hits outside of the 8" circle wouldn't help them much. Not everybody passed but those that did shot so well that they shocked themselves (and me). It think it's a great example of how most folks will rise to whatever standard you set for them.

[Prdator]

I taught an 8 hour block at this years in-service. I came up with a qual course that I thought was realistic and used the IALEFI-Q as the target. To emphasize accuracy while maintaining speed, I scored the 8" circle as 5 pts, the bottle as 2 pts, and 0 for everything else. I pointed out the scoring before they shot and they all "got it" that hits outside of the 8" circle wouldn't help them much. Not everybody passed but those that did shot so well that they shocked themselves (and me). It think it's a great example of how most folks will rise to whatever standard you set for them.


I totally concur with that John, If you have a bunch of "good" shooters they will typically rise to the shooting standard that you give them. Unless its a Sub 5 second FAST......:p