Shooting Standards that Matter

[MGW]

The excellent discussion in the VP9 trigger characteristics thread really has me thinking about this. This forum has really expanded what I know about shooting a handgun and pushed me to get better. I have a background in coaching, teaching, and mentoring. I look at things a little differently than some people because of that. I try to break things down and figure out what constitutes the fundamentals of any given task and then come up with ways to practice and improve those fundamentals. What I want to get better at is tracking progress over time and determining overall skill level with a handgun.

Here's what I want to know. When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most? What should a high-level shooter be able to do with their handgun of choice? What skills and standards should be practiced, measured, and tracked to determine progress?

At it's most basic level it would seem to be a combination of draw to first shot or multiple shots with 100% accuracy and acceptable speed. But there is so much more to showing a high level of competence with a pistol than that.

So what is it? What standards really matter and what standards do the best job of demonstrating a shooter's skill level with a handgun? What test or combination of tests hit all of the fundamentals?

To further complicate the question, how do we separate standards tests from drills? What drills build fundamentals and what tests measure mastery of those fundamentals?

I know there are probably a million answers to these questions but I'm really interested in reading the thoughts from the experts on this forum.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Using a Texas context, you have just kicked the top off a huge fire ant mound! I shall pop a bowl of popcorn and get something to drink.

[Chance]

To further complicate the question, how do we separate standards tests from drills? What drills build fundamentals and what tests measure mastery of those fundamentals?


Are we talking about the difference between a skill drill and a tactical drill? It seems like most tactical drills (with a pistol) could be listed on one hand. There was a great albeit vaguely related thread (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?19652-Failure-drill-why) about that earlier this year.

[Paul Sharp]

Using a Texas context, you have just kicked the top off a huge fire ant mound! I shall pop a bowl of popcorn and get something to drink.

Mind if I join you?

[Jay Cunningham]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/ea/ea48a4d9538578004f64fcef25e4ff400bc2cc50ba5f8319fc 842861046e8e3b.jpg

[Mr_White]

The excellent discussion in the VP9 trigger characteristics thread really has me thinking about this. This forum has really expanded what I know about shooting a handgun and pushed me to get better. I have a background in coaching, teaching, and mentoring. I look at things a little differently than some people because of that. I try to break things down and figure out what constitutes the fundamentals of any given task and then come up with ways to practice and improve those fundamentals. What I want to get better at is tracking progress over time and determining overall skill level with a handgun.

Here's what I want to know. When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most? What should a high-level shooter be able to do with their handgun of choice? What skills and standards should be practiced, measured, and tracked to determine progress?

At it's most basic level it would seem to be a combination of draw to first shot or multiple shots with 100% accuracy and acceptable speed. But there is so much more to showing a high level of competence with a pistol than that.

So what is it? What standards really matter and what standards do the best job of demonstrating a shooter's skill level with a handgun? What test or combination of tests hit all of the fundamentals?

To further complicate the question, how do we separate standards tests from drills? What drills build fundamentals and what tests measure mastery of those fundamentals?

I know there are probably a million answers to these questions but I'm really interested in reading the thoughts from the experts on this forum.

I think at its most essential level, you have to look at resources and motivation, and that is going to divide people into two main groups - those looking for 'good enough', and 'enthusiasts.' I think both of those are big tents, and people might switch back and forth at times, depending on current levels of resource and motivation. Where people fall in that span of resource and motivation, and ultimate goals, are going to produce different answers to your questions, not just for different people, but even the same people at different points in their journey. Unsaid frames of reference, oriented more toward people of marginal resource or motivation, or enthusiasts who are going to put a lot more into it, are the source of much of the disagreement people have about the different answers to the questions you ask.

[okie john]

The excellent discussion in the VP9 trigger characteristics thread really has me thinking about this. This forum has really expanded what I know about shooting a handgun and pushed me to get better. I have a background in coaching, teaching, and mentoring. I look at things a little differently than some people because of that. I try to break things down and figure out what constitutes the fundamentals of any given task and then come up with ways to practice and improve those fundamentals. What I want to get better at is tracking progress over time and determining overall skill level with a handgun.

Here's what I want to know. When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most? What should a high-level shooter be able to do with their handgun of choice? What skills and standards should be practiced, measured, and tracked to determine progress?

At it's most basic level it would seem to be a combination of draw to first shot or multiple shots with 100% accuracy and acceptable speed. But there is so much more to showing a high level of competence with a pistol than that.

So what is it? What standards really matter and what standards do the best job of demonstrating a shooter's skill level with a handgun? What test or combination of tests hit all of the fundamentals?

To further complicate the question, how do we separate standards tests from drills? What drills build fundamentals and what tests measure mastery of those fundamentals?

I know there are probably a million answers to these questions but I'm really interested in reading the thoughts from the experts on this forum.

It depends on the shooter and what will be demanded of him or her when they’re required to shoot for blood. A homeowner will have different needs than a law-enforcement officer, whose needs will differ from those of a Tier-1 face shooter.

For regular people, I’d start with the Hack Standards. When I shot them in class with Ken Hackathorn, the time limits seemed generous. I suspect that Ken shortens them considerably for more advanced clients, but they’re an excellent start. They include El Pres, Mozambique, and a lot of other classics, so I won’t list them separately. Ken also had us shoot most of the components of the Hack Standards on the move but with the same time limits, which makes them a little more difficult. You can also add low light for another dimension of challenge. If you can clean El Pres in the dark while moving, you’re probably pretty good with a pistol.

I also like The Humbler. It’s not a set of drills, but it is a good measure of fundamentals. Once you shoot it a few times, you’ll know your score and how it got its name. I get the most good out of it when I shoot it every few months for a long time and track my progress on specific stages.

If you’re in a hurry or on a range that doesn’t allow holster work, then go with The Test: 10 shots at 10 yards in 10 seconds on a B-8 target from the low ready. Holding the black is a passing score. It reads easy, but it should probably be named "Son of the Humbler".


Okie John

[Mr_White]

Here's a more cynical answer, and I wish I could take credit for this observation (not mine), but I think it is often true.

Ask a firearms instructor 'how good should someone be' - the answer will frequently relate to the skill level of the instructor in question. If you aren't as good as they are, then you should be better. If you are better than they are, then you are preoccupied with irrelevancies.

[John Hearne]

If I had to reduce it to one drill, the single stack version of the test. Draw and fire 8 rounds on to a B-8 repair center at 10 yards in 10 seconds. Only hits in the 8-9-10 ring count.

For basic, entry level of skill, you need to be able score keep all 8 rounds in the 8 ring. Not 64 points but all 8 rounds in the 8, 9, or 10. If you drop one round out of the 8 ring, I don't care if you put the other 7 in the 10 ring. If you can do that, you have a workable knowledge of the basics.

For an intermediate/advanced level of skill, I want to see 72 points or all eight rounds in the black. All 8 in the black is a bit harder so that is the highest standard on this test. 72 points with something slipping out into the 8 ring is a good intermediate level of skill.

If I added one more test, it would be the most recent version of Tom Givens' 3-M drill, which is a variation of the DTI Dance. Prep the gun with six live rounds and one dummy somewhere in the magazine. The dummy should not be the first round or the last round in the magazine. Have a reload of at least four rounds. On an IALFI-Q Target, at 5 yards, draw and fire until the gun runs empty, clearing the malfunction as it occurs. Reload and fire 3 body and 1 head shot to finish. You must side step on the draw, malfunction clearance, and reload. Body shots must be in the 8" ring, head shot must be in the 4" circle in the head. Tom considers passing to be a clean run in 15 seconds or less. Less than 10 seconds is really good. Personally, I'd like to see the same times but at 7 yards.

These two tests expend 18 rounds and test most anything you're likely to do with the pistol across a good a variety of scenarios.

As far as a manipulation test goes, Tom's Casino drill, and especially the advanced variations will tell you a lot in 21 rounds.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've a bag of chocolate, caramel popcorn available - so I will ask:

What is 100% accuracy?

Being in TX, it should be chips and salsa but whatever. I've seen national level competitors and trainers miss a target and look sheepish.

[Mr_White]

I've a bag of chocolate, caramel popcorn available - so I will ask:
What is 100% accuracy?


The only true standard, a righteous goal, or a primary point of high-minded finger wagging, take your pick

[Al T.]

Tagged.

[BehindBlueI's]

Here's what I want to know. When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most?

Specifically shooting standards? I ask, because for self-defense against random crime, the skills outside of shooting tend to be the harder part, IMO.

Specific to shooting, the ability to present a functional firearm in a smooth and CONSISTENT manner, preferably while disguising the intent if under observation, and then getting quick and accurate "A" zone or failure drill hits within, say 7y, while simultaneously getting off the "X" covers the vast vast vast majority of civilian encounters. Targeted crime looks different, ranges are further, more odds of an ambush situation, more dedicated attacker, etc.

[YVK]

When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most?

I'm really interested in reading the thoughts from the experts on this forum.

I am not an expert but I read the internet. In a recent multivariable analysis published in a peer reviewed journal, "have a gun" was the only standard that repeatedly reached statistical significance."Not shooting off your own dick while executing about a two second draw on eight inch circle" was another touted metric but there were not enough dicks shot off to have a big enough sample size. A letter to editor suggested that if "more than one hundred lifetime rounds fired" were to be included into consideration, it would've been a runaway winner.

[Dagga Boy]

Want to know the name of the class Wayne and I are teaching at the Rangemaster Conference in March......wait for it....

"What Really Matters".

[MGW]

Using a Texas context, you have just kicked the top off a huge fire ant mound! I shall pop a bowl of popcorn and get something to drink.

Was not my intent. Had hoped actually that you would weigh in.

[GJM]

I've a bag of chocolate, caramel popcorn available - so I will ask:

What is 100% accuracy?

Being in TX, it should be chips and salsa but whatever. I've seen national level competitors and trainers miss a target and look sheepish.

It is an accuracy standard only achieved on the internet.


If I had to reduce it to one drill, the single stack version of the test. Draw and fire 8 rounds on to a B-8 repair center at 10 yards in 10 seconds. Only hits in the 8-9-10 ring count.

For basic, entry level of skill, you need to be able score keep all 8 rounds in the 8 ring. Not 64 points but all 8 rounds in the 8, 9, or 10. If you drop one round out of the 8 ring, I don't care if you put the other 7 in the 10 ring. If you can do that, you have a workable knowledge of the basics.

For an intermediate/advanced level of skill, I want to see 72 points or all eight rounds in the black. All 8 in the black is a bit harder so that is the highest standard on this test. 72 points with something slipping out into the 8 ring is a good intermediate level of skill.

If I added one more test, it would be the most recent version of Tom Givens' 3-M drill, which is a variation of the DTI Dance. Prep the gun with six live rounds and one dummy somewhere in the magazine. The dummy should not be the first round or the last round in the magazine. Have a reload of at least four rounds. On an IALFI-Q Target, at 5 yards, draw and fire until the gun runs empty, clearing the malfunction as it occurs. Reload and fire 3 body and 1 head shot to finish. You must side step on the draw, malfunction clearance, and reload. Body shots must be in the 8" ring, head shot must be in the 4" circle in the head. Tom considers passing to be a clean run in 15 seconds or less. Less than 10 seconds is really good. Personally, I'd like to see the same times but at 7 yards.

These two tests expend 18 rounds and test most anything you're likely to do with the pistol across a good a variety of scenarios.

As far as a manipulation test goes, Tom's Casino drill, and especially the advanced variations will tell you a lot in 21 rounds.

John, the way you have structured your initial B8 drill, you way prioritize accuracy over speed. Someone could have a three or four second draw and complete that test successfully? I recall reading that the average person, with no special skill, can pick up a semi auto and shoot .25 splits. I am thinking that letting a bad guy shoot three or four times as fast as you, at a close distance, would be bad. Also not sure why one round out of the bull is a fail, and why so many rounds on the same target, given the concerns about good vs bad shootings. I am thinking that after three or four perfect rounds, you might shoot somewhere different or consider plan b?

[MGW]

Want to know the name of the class Wayne and I are teaching at the Rangemaster Conference in March......wait for it....

"What Really Matters".

And I absolutely regret not registering and taking the chance that the new FY calendar would be clear.

[MGW]

Specifically shooting standards? I ask, because for self-defense against random crime, the skills outside of shooting tend to be the harder part, IMO.



I agree but I'm asking specifically about shooting standards.

[MGW]

Mind if I join you?

I respect your opinion Paul as do many here. I'm not trolling and I'm not a noob. I'm looking for honest well thought out input here.

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree but I'm asking specifically about shooting standards.

Well, I can't give you a par time, but I'd say get as good as you can at the shooting tasks in the second part of my post.

[ReverendMeat]

I don't know shit about shit and I've been drinking, but I would think an SHO Mozambique drill with an emphasis on a fast and consistent draw would be good

[Dagga Boy]

"It is an accuracy standard only achieved on the internet."
Weird, I saw what it looks like on slabs at the morgue or on a table at a trauma center.

[JSGlock34]

I think at its most essential level, you have to look at resources and motivation, and that is going to divide people into two main groups - those looking for 'good enough', and 'enthusiasts.'

I've found that most organizations that are charged with training armed personnel use qualification tests to measure 'good enough'. However, 'enthusiasts' are often unimpressed with organizational qualification tests, finding the established standards toward the lower end of the performance spectrum.

I'm curious as to which law enforcement or military qualification tests the membership considers a decent standard. I hold the LAPD SWAT Qualification (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?5515-Week-47-DB-Modified-LAPD-SWAT-Qual) in high regard, but I also think that a shooter who can pass those particular standards is well beyond "good enough". What is an acceptable baseline qualification course?

[GJM]

I've found that most organizations that are charged with training armed personnel use qualification tests to measure 'good enough'. However, 'enthusiasts' are often unimpressed with organizational qualification tests, finding the established standards toward the lower end of the performance spectrum.

I'm curious as to which law enforcement or military qualification tests the membership considers a decent standard. I hold the LAPD SWAT Qualification (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?5515-Week-47-DB-Modified-LAPD-SWAT-Qual) in high regard, but I also think that a shooter who can pass those particular standards is well beyond "good enough". What is an acceptable baseline qualification course?

Shooting "Basic" or 70/125 on the Rogers School test, would be something that makes sense to me.

[Paul Sharp]

I respect your opinion Paul as do many here. I'm not trolling and I'm not a noob. I'm looking for honest well thought out input here.

I know bro, I didn't think you were. Wayne's post struck me as funny and as one that as been around him at conferences and listened while he talked I could hear that in his voice and it made me laugh.

"Here's what I want to know. When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most? What should a high-level shooter be able to do with their handgun of choice? What skills and standards should be practiced, measured, and tracked to determine progress?"

I will freely admit to never having an original thought so whatever I contribute on this topic is material I've picked up from training with others, conversations and observations. Most of the time when guys I respect are talking, I listen intently and will usually end up making a note on my iPhone or in my journal later so I can recall the relevant points for my personal training. Having said that, I know for sure Tom Givens is responsible for saying to me that a fast presentation is something I should consider a fundamental life saving skill. I think there is value in standards such as those used by guys like Tom Givens, Wayne and Darryl Bolke, Mas Ayoob, or Bill Rogers. Every LE org out there has a qualification or standards type shoot that must be passed. Rather than re-invent the wheel I would just adopt their standards. The FBI qual, ATF, Air Marshall, or DEA qual are all pretty good places to start.

At an individual level, the issue becomes what is fast? Dave Harrington and I have talked a lot about this. Fast for a GM level shooter is incomprehensible for a beginning shooter. To simplify things, I take it to mean as fast as possible while working within my human reaction time. As a student, and as a coach I've taken the approach of individual par times. For example some instructors, Claude Werner is one example, think hitting an eyeball sized target at room distance is a necessary skill. I agree. What's the par time for that task? I don't know but we'll find out. We'll put the student on the timer, have them perform the task from the ready and from the holster. Ten reps of each to establish an average time. That becomes their par time. Now their job in dry fire and live fire is to keep decreasing that par time. That's their standard. Meet it, and beat it.

Another standard for a self defense minded shooter might be par time for a three round volley at a car length, 14 feet or so. Again, rather than give an arbitrary time we establish an average time by testing the student from the ready and from the holster. Now this average becomes the students par time and the student will train to meet it or beat it, preferably beat it.

So there are two approaches right? The established standards route and the individualized route. Both work, and I use both for myself and for others.

[GJM]

I thought we discussed this at length on PF, and determined that what is meant by folks "saying 100 percent," is in fact a very high level of accuracy approaching but not reaching 100 percent.

Assuming B8 target size, shooting eight rounds at relevant speed, at someone moving and actively shooting back at you, I will bet money on one or more shots being outside a B8, every time.

[JustOneGun]

1. Have a gun.
2. Train to know when to use the gun.
3. Find a training/practice scheme that allows for progressive improvement to speed while maintaining accuracy.
4. Plan to finish the fight with a head shot while under duress and movement.

When looking back from hindsight if no rounds were fired then a standard other than, "having a gun" is all that mattered. For those that shot or where shot/shot at most of them lived. Most of the gunfights that we could define a time frame, they tended to be relatively quick. Some people ran out of bullets, some left a jammed gun on the ground, etc.

If most gunfights are quick and most people don't die from their wounds and most of those that died from their wounds died sometime after the other guy in the fight fled, that leads me to believe that most gunfights are not finished by bullets other than a psychological stop. So having a reasonable draw to first round is necessary. How fast should it be? I like to use the 80/20 rule. Has a student made the easy gains? For most people seeking speed, they would be pretty well protected with those easy gains.

I see this as a tactical and standards problem for the vast majority of gun owners. They are prepared for the fight that ends with no rounds fired, or the wounded bad guy giving up but they are not in any way prepared for the bad guy who shoots back. Those that live are usually lucky. I say luck because it was fate that kept them alive, not skill. So putting a sub three second bill drill on the guy is quickly making a psychological stop. But that's it. By the time we find out it wasn't enough it's often too late and we take bullets.

So to answer your question, whatever standard you should find or choose, IMHO if it does not include ending the fight quickly (usually that means a head shot) then the end is left up to fate, luck, whatever that is not in your control.) So accuracy enough for a head shot. A set of standards that gets harder over time. A simple training/practice scheme that allows for progressive improvement until that improvement stops. Then a new search for a more complex training/practice scheme to improve more if desired.

[lwt16]

For me......and for what I do for a living (20 years street patrol/traffic)......shooting standards have always been smooth/fast/consistent draw from whatever holster they issued me and multiple fast hits on human form targets. Quick splits and tracking targets down as they fall (FATs/simunition) without misses at 15 yards and in. This is my baseline for performance.

Add in all the other crap (low light, support hand only, carbine, shotgun, BUG, etc) as supplemental training only. Transitions, shooting on the move, blah blah blah......all that takes a backseat to getting the pistol out and getting that slide rocking back and forth while keeping the front sight on the target.

Once a month or so I focus on fundamentals and target work. Mostly I shoot at a 20x12 ar500 IDPA target, paper plates, and index cards. The steel target has probably been the best training tool I ever purchased. It gives instant feedback to me when I foul up. Shot timer app has been my second most helpful tool.

I've got away from drills like FAST.....it was giving me a huge training scar when I shot other drills. My average was in the mid fives from concealment or duty holster and once I broke five seconds clean I found that I was hesitating on other drills after those first two shots. Not good for what I do for grocery money.

I'll also work from concealment for my baseline: smooth/fast/consistent draw and quick hits......all hits.....on human form targets.

For me, that equates survival. Shooting awards, trophies, distinguished expert insignia, and my name on plaques at the academy don't really matter much at all to me when I'm responding to hot calls involving shots or bodies on the ground. My baseline is all that matters and gives me the confidence I need to run hot to those calls.

Your mileage may vary.

Regards.

[MGW]

I'm short on free time today but wanted to add something real quick. I had neglected to read Rangemaster's November newsletter last month but read it this morning. I feel like the first article adds to this discussion and reinforces my train of thought. I don't think Tom would mind if I added the link here again http://rangemaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-11_RFTS-Newsletter.pdf

There are several good quotes but this one stood out to me. "Without a reasonable target (in this case the eight-inch circle) and without a time measurement (stopwatch/timer), there is no way to assess skill, measure progress, or diagnose and address deficiencies."

I think this quote really gets to the root of the questions I was trying to ask in my original post. So going back to the article, would something like the LAPD or FBI qualification course be the best measurement of skills that matter? Will someone like me be able to determine progress over time with a well-designed qualification course or are there other tests that do this better? Maybe a combination of shorter tests and a qualification course?

Gotta go for now.

[nwhpfan]

3 yards A zone/-0 1 second or less from concealment.

25 yards A zone/-0 1.5 seconds from low ready.

El Presidente USPSA GM Score based on HF.

Simply self-defense speaking, this is a good place to start.

[Mr_White]

I'm short on free time today but wanted to add something real quick. I had neglected to read Rangemaster's November newsletter last month but read it this morning. I feel like the first article adds to this discussion and reinforces my train of thought. I don't think Tom would mind if I added the link here again http://rangemaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-11_RFTS-Newsletter.pdf

There are several good quotes but this one stood out to me. "Without a reasonable target (in this case the eight-inch circle) and without a time measurement (stopwatch/timer), there is no way to assess skill, measure progress, or diagnose and address deficiencies."

I think this quote really gets to the root of the questions I was trying to ask in my original post. So going back to the article, would something like the LAPD or FBI qualification course be the best measurement of skills that matter? Will someone like me be able to determine progress over time with a well-designed qualification course or are there other tests that do this better? Maybe a combination of shorter tests and a qualification course?

Gotta go for now.

I think the problem you are going to run into in the long term, with many qualification tests, is that they use par times. Par times can be used to drive improvement, and to set a time standard. Quals do the latter. Whether that's useful to you depends on whether the par times happen to be relevant to you. In the long run and as you improve, many par times probably won't remain relevant to you. For an enthusiast in the long term, I'd look for tests that are open-ended for time - I'd prefer the old IDPA Classifier to the Hackathorn Standards for exactly this reason.

[JHC]

This single test has impressed me more than most. http://pistol-training.com/drills/5x5-skill-test



5×5 Skill Test
designed by Bill Wilson


Range: 10yd
Target: standard IDPA target
Start position: Hands at your sides facing target. No concealment garment necessary.
Rounds fired: 25

Another quick and easy to set up/score shooting test by Bill Wilson of Wilson Combat. It is intended for a service pistol of 9mm caliber or larger, concealed carry suitable holster and ammunition with a power factor (bullet weight x velocity) of 125,000 or more. Scoring is standard Vickers with a half second penalty per point down.

There are four strings of fire, each for time:

Draw and fire 5 shots freestyle.
Draw and fire 5 shots SHO (strong hand only).
Draw and fire 5 shots freestyle, reload from slidelock and fire 5 more shots freestyle.
Draw and fire 4 shots to the body and 1 shot to the head freestyle.
Bill Wilson’s suggested scoring:

Grand Master: 15 seconds or less
Master: 20 seconds or less
Expert: 25 seconds or less
Sharpshooter: 32 seconds or less
Marksman: 41 seconds or less
Novice: 50 seconds or less
Not proficient enough to carry a handgun: Over 50 seconds

Training with firearms is an inherently dangerous activity. Be sure to follow all safety protocols when using firearms or practicing these drills. These drills are provided for information purposes only. Use at your own risk.

Rampage For The Cure!
Online fundraising for Rampage For The Cure!

[Mr_White]

But there is so much more to showing a high level of competence with a pistol than that.

A sentence like that makes me think that you won't find what you are looking for in a single test, even when we expand beyond agency qualification courses.

The single broadest test in widespread use that comes to mind is the old IDPA Classifier (not the new one.) It is still not complete though - at the very least, it lacks malfunctions, much positional shooting, and appropriately-sized CNS zones. So I think you are going to end up with multiple tests if you want it to be anything like comprehensive.

So...tests, measures, etc. that can work for a dedicated practitioner over a long period of development:

IDPA Classifier (old one)
USPSA Classification (earned over the course of numerous classifiers shot under match conditions)
Rogers Shooting School Test (broad and robust, but not widely available)

That's just off the top of my head. You might want to figure out how to get malfunctions and positional shooting added to those somehow. There are lots and lots of ways you could go about selecting these tests/benchmarks. And if you are working on improving over time, it doesn't matter too much, if you are always working on improving. That's a pretty simple answer.

If you are looking for 'good enough', that's where there are lots of answers purporting to hold the key to what good enough will actually require, and ways to get there.


For basic, entry level of skill, you need to be able score keep all 8 rounds in the 8 ring. Not 64 points but all 8 rounds in the 8, 9, or 10. If you drop one round out of the 8 ring, I don't care if you put the other 7 in the 10 ring. If you can do that, you have a workable knowledge of the basics.

I don't know, maybe I am just responding to the verbiage you use (basic, entry level of skill, workable knowledge of the basics) but I think at that level you are going to hurt speed disproportionately by using that hardline of an accuracy standard. I mean, they shoot 7 shots in the 8-ring and 1 shot in the 7-ring, in say 5 seconds, and you'd call that not only a lower level of skill than all 8 shots in the 8-ring in 10 seconds, but outright failure? I think that's likely to be slower than it could be, and more accurate than it needs to be, given what can be discerned about likely engagement scenarios.

[breakingtime91]

Garcia dots, the test, and the 5x5 all feel like good options. I used to do D5 a lot but am getting away from that. I have also stopped using 8 inch circles or full A zones to drive up accuracy. Now I just need to find time to shoot.

[GJM]

Garcia dogs, the test, and the 5x5 all feel like good options. I used to do D5 a lot but am getting away from that. I have also stopped using 8 inch circles or full A zones to drive up accuracy. Now I just need to find time to shoot.

Alternatively, move those A zones back to 20-35 yards, or cover your targets with partial no shoots.

[Dagga Boy]

I ll give a brief hint on my thoughts on what I will be talking about in March. For purely gunfighting with humans in which "shooting" is just a small portion of the equation, I have found drills that anchor critical skills at a sub conscious level tend to deliver the most success. Read that however you want and an Internet post is not going to give enough context to delve deeply into it.

[JustOneGun]

A sentence like that makes me think that you won't find what you are looking for in a single test, even when we expand beyond agency qualification courses.

The single broadest test in widespread use that comes to mind is the old IDPA Classifier (not the new one.) It is still not complete though - at the very least, it lacks malfunctions, much positional shooting, and appropriately-sized CNS zones. So I think you are going to end up with multiple tests if you want it to be anything like comprehensive.

So...tests, measures, etc. that can work for a dedicated practitioner over a long period of development:

IDPA Classifier (old one)
USPSA Classification (earned over the course of numerous classifiers shot under match conditions)
Rogers Shooting School Test (broad and robust, but not widely available)

That's just off the top of my head. You might want to figure out how to get malfunctions and positional shooting added to those somehow. There are lots and lots of ways you could go about selecting these tests/benchmarks. And if you are working on improving over time, it doesn't matter too much, if you are always working on improving. That's a pretty simple answer.

If you are looking for 'good enough', that's where there are lots of answers purporting to hold the key to what good enough will actually require, and ways to get there.



I don't know, maybe I am just responding to the verbiage you use (basic, entry level of skill, workable knowledge of the basics) but I think at that level you are going to hurt speed disproportionately by using that hardline of an accuracy standard. I mean, they shoot 7 shots in the 8-ring and 1 shot in the 7-ring, in say 5 seconds, and you'd call that not only a lower level of skill than all 8 shots in the 8-ring in 10 seconds, but outright failure? I think that's likely to be slower than it could be, and more accurate than it needs to be, given what can be discerned about likely engagement scenarios.


Obviously I don't speak for John but I suppose that depends on what and why we pick the accuracy standard. If a person believes that the student will be able to replicate their success on target to the bad guy then it would be too strict. But if a person believes that under the duress of a gunfight a person will tend to shoot a faster rhythm than they believe they are actually shooting (I'm not saying they are out of control, just not able to regulate their speed) then keeping a smaller accuracy standard is required for them to actually hit the target anywhere in real life. Many in the latter camp will add in movement to that duress and some level of panic and a relaxed accuracy standard isn't just something we do for new people, it's a prescription for new people to miss. If in the latter camp and they do miss would it not be our fault in some way?

We need our students to push the boundaries during practice. Meaning they are going to miss just like we do. If they are shooting 70-80% during practice then 90 to 100% on a controlled, make it count end of the day assessment of the rhythm they need to strive for is not too crazy. I have found most people understand and can perform the task of slowing down their rhythm at the end of the day and keeping 90%-100% of their rounds in the small target.

[Paul Sharp]

I think the problem you are going to run into in the long term, with many qualification tests, is that they use par times. Par times can be used to drive improvement, and to set a time standard. Quals do the latter. Whether that's useful to you depends on whether the par times happen to be relevant to you. In the long run and as you improve, many par times probably won't remain relevant to you. For an enthusiast in the long term, I'd look for tests that are open-ended for time - I'd prefer the old IDPA Classifier to the Hackathorn Standards for exactly this reason.

This.

The only par times that matter in self-coaching are our own. I'm competing against my last best time. For me, there is no good enough. There is no end. This is a journey I'm on until my last breath. I track my progress using times and accuracy relevant to my perceived needs, some of which I posted in my last post. My agency qual? I can shoot the entire required round count, (12 rounds at each distance), in under the par time allowed for 2 rounds to the A zone. If I accept that standard as good enough will I ever come close to my potential? Of course not.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying; the only standard that is really going to matter and really going to motivate anyone is their internal standard. There is no end. There is no point when it's good enough. I don't want an end. I dig the chase, I lose sleep over the pursuit. While a standard set by someone else is motivation and it's interesting, it will never give me the "I'm good enough" feeling. I realize I'm beating this point to death however, I think it's that important. We are our own coaches. No one gets me out of bed and says; hey dude, time to do your roadwork/lift weights/roll/dryfire or walks up to me and says, don't just stand there idle man do work, try to have a conversation with the guy next to you in line to develop your social skills and rapport building, all day everyday build your skill. I have coaches, but I'm the one doing the work. When I see or hear folks ask the question, what's a good standard for *insert multi-disciplinary skill set here*? My first thought is, you've got to let go of that way of thinking.

[breakingtime91]

Alternatively, move those A zones back to 20-35 yards, or cover your targets with partial no shoots.

I have been doing modified tests for over a year now. 15 yards, 10 rounds, 12 Seconds from the ready/13 from holster. 20 yards, 10 rounds, 14 seconds from ready


I haven't done it in awhile and I know most will find the par times high but ya

[GJM]

Something that is important to me, is measuring every element. If the goal is to shoot X drill, I want to know the components -- draw, split, transition, reload, etc. that helps me figure what I am doing well, what I am not doing well, and gives me the ability to track my progress.

BTW, I am not looking for the pure fastest time, but rather for the time that allows repeatable performance. A PR is nice, but that is only an outlier in my mind, compared to what is reasonably achievable.

[John Hearne]

The question asked was "What standards really matter and what standards do the best job of demonstrating a shooter's skill level with a handgun? What test or combination of tests hit all of the fundamentals"

I don't claim to have the number of students that many "brand name" instructors have but I've worked a lot of classes with armed citizens and conducted my share of institutional training. My comments are based on offering a few quick tests that offer the greatest return on the ammo and time. The tests I offered consume 18 rounds. If you have 100 rounds to practice with, you can shoot one or both of these every time and still have ammo to work on skill development.

Regarding the single stack version of "The Test." A lot of students do not really have a solid mastery of the essentials. While 8 out of 8 in the 8-9-10 ring in 10 seconds may seem way too easy, I can assure you that it is not. Being able to do this tells me whether we really need to revisit their ability to perform the essentials or not. If may not be a high bar for the person who can shoot well but a lot of folks will struggle to meet this standard. Most LEO's will struggle to have a sub-2 second draw from a legit duty rig - unless they're running an ALS-only and even then, most institutions don't do a good job of making folks develop a rapid presentation. Most armed citizens will struggle to get the gun out of their concealment rig and hit in 2 seconds.

When I see people unable to do this they will struggle with either accuracy and time - both are problems and must be fixed before advancing. Some folks can shoot the 8/8 but can't do it in less than 10 seconds. If they can only execute the fundamentals at this speed, then their fundamentals are too weak and must be improved. Some folks can get it done in under 10 seconds, but can't get 8/8. Again, if their fundamentals are too weak and must be improved, particularly trigger control. A hallmark of mastery is consistency and if you can't do 8/8 but you can get 64 points, I don't consider your consistency high enough to show a fundamental understanding of the essentials.

If I had a student who couldn't do this, I would stop and revisit the basics in a deliberate and intensive fashion, probably starting back at 0. There is little point in advancing if they can get 8/8 in an 8" circle in 10 seconds. If I were teaching an institutional class and EVERY student could do this cold, I would weep with joy.


John, the way you have structured your initial B8 drill, you way prioritize accuracy over speed. Someone could have a three or four second draw and complete that test successfully? I recall reading that the average person, with no special skill, can pick up a semi auto and shoot .25 splits. I am thinking that letting a bad guy shoot three or four times as fast as you, at a close distance, would be bad. Also not sure why one round out of the bull is a fail, and why so many rounds on the same target, given the concerns about good vs bad shootings. I am thinking that after three or four perfect rounds, you might shoot somewhere different or consider plan b?


Just to be clear, the 8-9-10 rings include the black and the one ring outside of the black - it is an 8" target. I don't consider hitting an 8" target to be overemphasizing accuracy, an 8" target is the most generous interpretation of an anatomically significant hit that there is. If you can't hit an 8" target at 10 yards then we need to revisit the essentials because you don't have them.
This is a skill demonstration, not necessarily a desired response on the street. 10 yards is stretching the distance but if you can keep them in the 8" at 10 yards, then a hit on a threat at 20-30 yards is probably within your realm of performance.
Regarding the number of rounds, I think that 8 rounds will stress the essentials enough to make sure they are really there. If it was draw and fire a smaller number of rounds, a crappy grip might allow that, I want to make sure the grip will support 8 rounds without breaking down. 8 rounds is enough to make the wheels fall off of those without a base line level of fundamentals.
Regarding shooting somewhere else after several good rounds to the chest - that's why I recommend the 3-M drill.



I don't know, maybe I am just responding to the verbiage you use (basic, entry level of skill, workable knowledge of the basics) but I think at that level you are going to hurt speed disproportionately by using that hardline of an accuracy standard. I mean, they shoot 7 shots in the 8-ring and 1 shot in the 7-ring, in say 5 seconds, and you'd call that not only a lower level of skill than all 8 shots in the 8-ring in 10 seconds, but outright failure? I think that's likely to be slower than it could be, and more accurate than it needs to be, given what can be discerned about likely engagement scenarios.

I guess we see things differently, but I don't see an 8" target at 10 yards to be "that hardline of an accuracy standard." The guy who can put 7/8 in five seconds clearly understands the essentials and only needs to adjust his/her shooting cadence a bit to get 8/8. If they can't, then there are some "spastic issues" (I know technical term) that will bite that shooter in the butt and they need to be addressed as early as possible.

I'm also very skeptical about "likely engagement scenarios" for a variety of reasons. As noted above, if they can keep them in 8" at 10 yards, they can probably still hit the torso at longer distances, say out to 20-30 yards. The longest shot made by a Rangemaster student was at 22 yards. The shot at 17 yards had to be sent past a loved one. If you have to make that shot, the accuracy demands are very, very real. If the threat is closer then we know they have a sufficient reserve of accuracy to pour on the speed and still do good work. Ultimately, the single stack version of the test is about whether you can get the gun out with some haste, establish a relationship between the sights and the target, and manipulate the trigger without disturbing the relationship between the sights and the target.

[Dagga Boy]

John, there is so much gold in that post. I also have a feeling a lot of folks will not get why. I ll add a small tidbit. What you can do on drills is totally irrelevant if you cannot do it "on the day". I have had horrible "shooters" who did great in shooting felons. Not because they were good shooters, but because the were great fighters who could perform fundementals at a subconscious level under great stress. They could execute what really matters when it really matters.
With all that said....there is not a thing wrong with always trying to improve your shooting performance, and actually enjoying shooting is nothing but a positive.

[Mr_White]

Regarding the single stack version of "The Test." A lot of students do not really have a solid mastery of the essentials. While 8 out of 8 in the 8-9-10 ring in 10 seconds may seem way too easy, I can assure you that it is not. Being able to do this tells me whether we really need to revisit their ability to perform the essentials or not. If may not be a high bar for the person who can shoot well but a lot of folks will struggle to meet this standard. Most LEO's will struggle to have a sub-2 second draw from a legit duty rig - unless they're running an ALS-only and even then, most institutions don't do a good job of making folks develop a rapid presentation. Most armed citizens will struggle to get the gun out of their concealment rig and hit in 2 seconds.

When I see people unable to do this they will struggle with either accuracy and time - both are problems and must be fixed before advancing. Some folks can shoot the 8/8 but can't do it in less than 10 seconds. If they can only execute the fundamentals at this speed, then their fundamentals are too weak and must be improved. Some folks can get it done in under 10 seconds, but can't get 8/8. Again, if their fundamentals are too weak and must be improved, particularly trigger control. A hallmark of mastery is consistency and if you can't do 8/8 but you can get 64 points, I don't consider your consistency high enough to show a fundamental understanding of the essentials.

...

I guess we see things differently, but I don't see an 8" target at 10 yards to be "that hardline of an accuracy standard." The guy who can put 7/8 in five seconds clearly understands the essentials and only needs to adjust his/her shooting cadence a bit to get 8/8. If they can't, then there are some "spastic issues" (I know technical term) that will bite that shooter in the butt and they need to be addressed as early as possible.

It's not so much the size of the target, it's the intolerance for any degree of error whatsoever. I think requiring 100% hits, as opposed to something close to that, comes at a disproportionate time cost to the accuracy gained. I consider hostage shots and downrange shots to be such a significant issue as to warrant being physically represented if we want them to be there, and there is a big place for that in training.

Let's get some real numbers up here and see how these different manners of engagement shake out for me personally - quite conveniently, on The Test (10 yards, 10 second par, 10 shots, 90 points or All In The Black To Pass.) I shot all the targets in this post from the concealed holster. All these were done some time ago, and not with this discussion in mind.



https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5313/14460188375_97b5f0eec6_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/o2NfdF)20140618_232430 (https://flic.kr/p/o2NfdF) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr

https://c8.staticflickr.com/3/2931/14273554279_8eb0991a6b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nKiGpr)20140618_232344 (https://flic.kr/p/nKiGpr) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



Those first two were shot in pretty much the same manner - one happened to come in within your accuracy threshold of 8-ring at 100%, and the other didn't. So clearly, shooting in that manner would be the wrong way to shoot your test. I didn't make 100% hits.

Here's the one that turned out the fastest, where I'd be pretty confident in 100% hits in your test's accuracy standard, even accounting for what I believe is the ever-present possibility of error:



https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5500/14273551239_2c38ce8b1b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nKiFv2)20140618_232138 (https://flic.kr/p/nKiFv2) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



It cost approximately a 62% time increase to bring hits up by 20% (10/10 instead of 8/10.) That's why, outside of physical circumstances that demand not just 100% hits to the adversary, but 100% hits to the desirable target zone with zero tolerance for error, it may not be that good a deal in terms of shooting mechanics.

How about if we add the degradation of performance due to stress and more chaotic and difficult conditions? I suggested in another thread where this came up that maybe people should be using 2" circles for CNS targets and vertical 3x5s for body targets. There wasn't a lot of interest. I think that was because people at least intuitively recognized that their times might become completely irrelevant if they truly committed to shooting at that level of accuracy. It sure costs me a lot - here is one where I tried (and failed) to keep all shots in the X-ring.



https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3902/14273747027_98e0e74bef_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nKjFGF)20140618_232321 (https://flic.kr/p/nKjFGF) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



Look at those four targets and think of a threat to my life 5-10 yards away that I have to shoot effectively, under an unknown and unknowable time limit - which manner of shooting is 'best'?

I am not convinced that time is irrelevant or nearly so. Not only can untrained people crank about four shots a second in your general direction out of a pistol, they are also able to cover 21' + in about a second and a half, can get a gun-in-hand-pointed-anywhere to pointed-in-your-direction-and-firing in about half a second, and they may take more than five seconds to become incapacitated due to shots to the high thoracic cavity. I'm sure none of that is new info to you.

Obviously, time is not always a significant factor. Just as obviously, I think anyway, time can also be a very significant factor.

[RJ]

Awesome freaking thread.

I'm out of ink taking notes. :cool:

[John Hearne]

Look at those four targets and think of a threat to my life 5-10 yards away that I have to shoot effectively, under an unknown and unknowable time limit - which manner of shooting is 'best'?

Just to reiterate, I am not suggesting that an optimal street response is to engage a threat with 8 rounds at 10 yards without moving, without switching to the head, or at the pace needed to keep everything in the 8" circle. This is a skill test; it tests skills. In particular, presentation and the ability to make an anatomically significant hit.

For me, and from what I've observed dealing with hundreds of folks, is that the single stack test allows me to parse very quickly and just 8 rounds, whether they possess the fundamentals necessary to focus on skill advancement or whether the fundamentals need more work. If you can do this, you have a draw stroke that I can work with and the ability to manipulate the trigger without substantially disturbing the sights from their established alignment.

If the writing on the targets is the time to fire the 10 rounds and those are the results, then that person could easily meet the standards I'm looking for if they worked to guarantee the hit. They possess the necessary level of fundamentals to work on something other than remedial work on fundamentals.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Fascinating thread. However, I will return to the original question:
When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most? What should a high-level shooter be able to do with their handgun of choice? What skills and standards should be practiced, measured, and tracked to determine progress?

High level shooter - we are discussing folks in the professions that use guns or dedicated students of SD who train and compete. Is there a standard level for the average person who doesn't aspire to these jobs or commitment? The Texas DPS test for CHL/LTC was child's play for anyone you would think. But we've horrific folks take it - never shot a gun before.

Are there two levels for SD - the warrior and the average putz?

[Dagga Boy]

Wayne and I do the Texas CHL/LTC at double the distance and half the time. Makes it interesting at that point.

For those conducting statistical analysis......I ll just say it is totally irrelevant from what I have seen in my limited experience. I can change what are represented as negative numbers to positive numbers with one sentence. Again, for pure technical shooting performance, it is super important. For a use of force problem, it is simply a factor.

[Wondering Beard]

Well, I only aim to be an above average putz.

Seriously though, since we are talking about self defense, when it comes to guns being accurate and fast isn't the only thing, being able to manipulate the gun (reloads, malfunction clearing ..) matter too. That's where I like the DTI test; lots of skills that one needs to have down pat tested in about 7 rounds in a short time period (it's described in John Hearne's post #9 of this thread -I'd just lengthen the distance to 8 yards as it was when I took it some years back). Mix that up with the Hackathorn' "the test" and Givens' casino drill and you've got some good work in.

[SLG]

I've stayed out of this discussion for a very good reason. Namely it can't be answered correctly.

For me, I tend to side with what Paul wrote, as well as DB.

Most people will not be interested in that level of commitment, so they want a metric. I totally get that. It just can't be done.

I was talking to Cecil about this and other aspects of fighting earlier today and he insisted that i post something I said, so here it is.

I, like many of you, have been in fights and talked to lots of people right after they were in a fight. Not one of them ever said to me that they had been overtraining, and wish they had that time back to do other things. Some people were incredibly effective, and far outmatched their opponent. They still never said that. It was always just pride and relief that they were up to snuff.

You never know what your fight will require of you. Institutional standards are a small comfort. Do what you can for as long as you can, as well as you can, and hope that is good enough. Hope is not a strategy, and I'm not suggesting that be taken that way. A mentor of mine told me many years ago that when he visualized fighting, he saw himself getting shot in the face twice with 7.62. That was his cue to start fighting. When you really ponder what that means for your outlook on training and mental toughness, you will have learned something valuable.

Also, as far as the accuracy vs. speed issue, of course it is a blend. However, a better hit will have much faster results than another hit somewhere else. What matters is that you hit.
I've never seen anyone shoot too slow, just too inaccurately.

[Mr_White]

For those conducting statistical analysis......I ll just say it is totally irrelevant from what I have seen in my limited experience. I can change what are represented as negative numbers to positive numbers with one sentence. Again, for pure technical shooting performance, it is super important. For a use of force problem, it is simply a factor.


Some folks can shoot the 8/8 but can't do it in less than 10 seconds. If they can only execute the fundamentals at this speed, then their fundamentals are too weak and must be improved. Some folks can get it done in under 10 seconds, but can't get 8/8. Again, if their fundamentals are too weak and must be improved, particularly trigger control. A hallmark of mastery is consistency and if you can't do 8/8 but you can get 64 points, I don't consider your consistency high enough to show a fundamental understanding of the essentials.

I don't think you should be so hard on Mr. Hearne, he has good things to say.

[Dagga Boy]

I don't think you should be so hard on Mr. Hearne, he has good things to say.

You get ten witty points....that was good. With that said, this is what caught my attention..

"It cost approximately a 62% time increase to bring hits up by 20% (10/10 instead of 8/10.) That's why, outside of physical circumstances that demand not just 100% hits to the adversary, but 100% hits to the desirable target zone with zero tolerance for error, it may not be that good a deal in terms of shooting mechanics."

Now let's try it again with a totally different outlook:

It gained approximately a 62% increase in assessment time and brought hits up by 20% (10/10 instead of 8/10.) That's why, outside of physical circumstances that demand pure speed of shots to the adversary, getting 100% hits to the most desirable target zone with zero tolerance for error, is a good deal in terms of appropriate and defensible use of force.

All depends on what you are looking for.

Also, good comments by SLG. I will say that in my early years of working OIS's and assessing incidents to tune training I did have several issues with "too slow". We had numerous incidents in which because of how our folks were trained with insanely long times they never learned to actually work with a combination of both speed and an accuracy standard. In cases pushed for speed, they reverted to the "speed solution" for the time, which was classic point shooting, with terrible results. In one case we had a very high level PPC shooter who could not get a shot on a suspect because he was working off a clock based on his sport.

We found balance was the key, as well as constant reinforcement of application of fundamentals in all aspects of shooting, both speed based, use of force based, and accuracy based. You should be shooting drills that work all of them.

[Kimura]

Some really good posts in this thread. The stuff that Paul Sharp, DB, SLG and some others write in some of these training threads should saved in a training sticky somewhere. It's really, really good information.

[JAD]

I love and use this:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?247-Rangemaster-Tom-Givens-Handgun-Core-Skills-Test

I like it especially because it balances skills in a way that I think is pretty representative and it produces both macro and micro data that can be used to measure progress very completely.

My 'standard' for performance, overall and on each of the strings, is 'better than last time.'

I haven't tried to jack with it because Tom cautions us to run it only occasionally, like once a quarter I think. It might be better with a tighter target, I don't know.

[Paul Sharp]

Some really good posts in this thread. The stuff that Paul Sharp, DB, SLG and some others write in some of these training threads should saved in a training sticky somewhere. It's really, really good information.

Thanks Kimura!

[Cecil Burch]

I, like many of you, have been in fights and talked to lots of people right after they were in a fight. Not one of them ever said to me that they had been overtraining, and wish they had that time back to do other things. Some people were incredibly effective, and far outmatched their opponent. They still never said that. It was always just pride and relief that they were up to snuff.



I'm so stealing this.

[SLG]

I'm so stealing this.

Happy to help:-) That means a lot to me coming from you. It does sound a little better in conversation though, I think.

[GJM]

Ever since I heard the concept, I have been taken with the Hardwired concept of two second standards, meaning you have two seconds to solve the problem. Ideally, that two seconds will start with you alert and your blaster in your hand. If not, well that is life.

Two of Gabe's tests that I find interesting, nicely dovetail with the concepts I have heard Wayne and Darry discuss. Those Gabe drills are a draw and two shots to the upper CNS in 2.0 (or 2.25 from concealment) and the failure drill, two to the eight inch circle, one to the upper CNS in 1.70 (1.95 from concealment). The key to these is a fast, reliable draw, and I would suggest that all that is holding most people back from a very fast draw is a bit instruction or reading, and a bunch of dry practice. If your standards don't measure the draw and provide incentive to have a fast draw, I suggest you are not doing what you should from a teaching perspective.

This afternoon, thinking of this thread, I decided to shoot 4 Aces twice and see what I got. That drill involves a draw and two shots, reload and two more shots at 7 yards, with the accuracy standard being A hits. I shot these with a G4 17 from an OWB Blade-Tech holster.

Shot 1 is the draw, 2 the split, 3 the reload, and 4 the split.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/IMG_5097_zps8m8gc9b1.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/IMG_5097_zps8m8gc9b1.jpg.html)

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/IMG_5098_zpswuedntov.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/IMG_5098_zpswuedntov.jpg.html)

A bit over 2 seconds flat, but it shows you can get a lot done in +/- 2 seconds.

[John Hearne]

I'm so stealing this.

Tom Givens once quipped, when discussing his student successes, that nobody he interviewed ever wished they had trained less, used a smaller gun, or had less rounds on hand.

[jlw]

"An expert has an automatic use of the tool." --Bill Lewinski, Ph.D.

Cue the chart...

[Mr_White]

Lol I love the chart

[JohnO]

One of the few trainers out there (still) with distinct standards is Chuck Taylor. Chuck teaches classes at 4 levels Basic, Intermediate, Advanced & Master. Each of these classes cumulates with a test that must be passed in order to receive a certificate. Those who achieve a score of 90% or higher receive a Distinguished Graduate certificate except for at the Master level where a 90% or higher is required to pass.

The following chart does not describe the individual tests at each level but the standards can be seen in each category.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c286/Blaster3094/Taylor%20Standards_zpsudufaztz.jpg

To pass the Master level test you must start by scoring a minimum of 360 points out of a possible 400 on the shooting drills listed below. The test must be conducted by Chuck Taylor or an authorized ASAA instructor, firearms and holster must be concealable "street" equipment (no optical sights, compensators, speed rigs, etc.) and all ammunition must be full power with the .38 special the lowest power cartridge allowed. Shots are scored 5 points each for center hits, peripheral hits are 2 points for major calibers, 1 point for minor. The target to be used is the original buff/green Taylor Combat Target, with it's 5 point head zone of 4" x 3". All drills start with holstered gun, hands at sides. Times are by stop watch.

Once the shooting drills have been completed the candidate is tested on reloading and malfunction clearance drills as shown below. Failure to use ASAA methodology in performing the drills results in a procedural error and point loss.


Standard Exercises - Single target - 2 shots per drill, each drill performed once.
1 meter - 1.0 second (Speed Rock)
1 meter - 1.0 second (Step Back)
3 meters - 1.0 second
7 meters - 1.3 seconds
10 meters - 1.8 seconds
15 meters - 2.2 seconds
25 meters - 2.7 seconds
50 meters - 6.0 seconds

Presentation Evaluation - Single target @ 7 Meters - 1 shot per drill, drill performed five times.
7 meters - 1.0 second

Responses Left, Right & Rear - Single target - 1 shot per drill, each drill performed five times using ASAA methods
Response Left - 1.0 second
Response Right - 1.0 second
Response Rear - 1.2 seconds

Multiple Targets - Targets at 5 meters and spaced 1 meter apart
Two targets - 1.2 second
Three targets - 1.5 seconds
Four targets - 1.8 seconds

Small Targets at Close Range - head shots - 1 shot per drill
5 meters - 1.0 seconds - perform four times
7 meters - 1.2 seconds - perform five times

Ambidextrous Shooting - 3 targets at 7 meters and spaced 1 meter apart.
Using both hands, a candidate fires one round on each target, speed loads, transfers the weapon to the weak hand and re-engages weak hand only firing one round per target. Time limit is 6 seconds for self loaders, 8 seconds for revolvers.

Hostage Situation - Partial head shots - Target at 7 meters, one shot per drill performed 5 times with hostage holder to the left side of the hostage's head and 5 times on the right side. Time limit 1.2 seconds.

Target at Odd Angles - Targets at 7 meters and 60% obscured by cover, one shot per drill, perform 5 times with target to the left side of cover and 5 times to the right side of cover. Time limit 1.2 seconds.

After completing the above shooting test you still must perform each of the following weapon handling and malfunction (self loaders only) drills 5 times each. For each drill improperly performed or performed over the time limit, 5 points are deducted from your shooting score. 360 remains the minimum scored required to pass.
Speed Reloads - self loaders 1.5 seconds
Speed Reloads - revolvers 4.0 seconds
Tactical Reload - all weapons 4.0 seconds
Type 1 malfunction - 1.0 second
Type 2 malfunction - 1.0 second
Type 3 malfunction - 4.0 seconds

[Dagga Boy]

Ever since I heard the concept, I have been taken with the Hardwired concept of two second standards, meaning you have two seconds to solve the problem. Ideally, that two seconds will start with you alert and your blaster in your hand. If not, well that is life.

Two of Gabe's tests that I find interesting, nicely dovetail with the concepts I have heard Wayne and Darry discuss. Those Gabe drills are a draw and two shots to the upper CNS in 2.0 (or 2.25 from concealment) and the failure drill, two to the eight inch circle, one to the upper CNS in 1.70 (1.95 from concealment). The key to these is a fast, reliable draw, and I would suggest that all that is holding most people back from a very fast draw is a bit instruction or reading, and a bunch of dry practice. If your standards don't measure the draw and provide incentive to have a fast draw, I suggest you are not doing what you should from a teaching perspective.

This afternoon, thinking of this thread, I decided to shoot 4 Aces twice and see what I got. That drill involves a draw and two shots, reload and two more shots at 7 yards, with the accuracy standard being A hits. I shot these with a G4 17 from an OWB Blade-Tech holster.

Shot 1 is the draw, 2 the split, 3 the reload, and 4 the split.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/IMG_5097_zps8m8gc9b1.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/IMG_5097_zps8m8gc9b1.jpg.html)

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/IMG_5098_zpswuedntov.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/IMG_5098_zpswuedntov.jpg.html)

A bit over 2 seconds flat, but it shows you can get a lot done in +/- 2 seconds.

Very nice. Great drills from Gabe.


Tom Givens once quipped, when discussing his student successes, that nobody he interviewed ever wished they had trained less, used a smaller gun, or had less rounds on hand.

And....I bet there are a few things that kept popping up as a success indicator.

[nwhpfan]

One of the few trainers out there (still) with distinct standards is Chuck Taylor. Chuck teaches classes at 4 levels Basic, Intermediate, Advanced & Master. Each of these classes cumulates with a test that must be passed in order to receive a certificate. Those who achieve a score of 90% or higher receive a Distinguished Graduate certificate except for at the Master level where a 90% or higher is required to pass.

The following chart does not describe the individual tests at each level but the standards can be seen in each category.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c286/Blaster3094/Taylor%20Standards_zpsudufaztz.jpg

To pass the Master level test you must start by scoring a minimum of 360 points out of a possible 400 on the shooting drills listed below. The test must be conducted by Chuck Taylor or an authorized ASAA instructor, firearms and holster must be concealable "street" equipment (no optical sights, compensators, speed rigs, etc.) and all ammunition must be full power with the .38 special the lowest power cartridge allowed. Shots are scored 5 points each for center hits, peripheral hits are 2 points for major calibers, 1 point for minor. The target to be used is the original buff/green Taylor Combat Target, with it's 5 point head zone of 4" x 3". All drills start with holstered gun, hands at sides. Times are by stop watch.

Once the shooting drills have been completed the candidate is tested on reloading and malfunction clearance drills as shown below. Failure to use ASAA methodology in performing the drills results in a procedural error and point loss.


Standard Exercises - Single target - 2 shots per drill, each drill performed once.
1 meter - 1.0 second (Speed Rock)
1 meter - 1.0 second (Step Back)
3 meters - 1.0 second
7 meters - 1.3 seconds
10 meters - 1.8 seconds
15 meters - 2.2 seconds
25 meters - 2.7 seconds
50 meters - 6.0 seconds

Presentation Evaluation - Single target @ 7 Meters - 1 shot per drill, drill performed five times.
7 meters - 1.0 second

Responses Left, Right & Rear - Single target - 1 shot per drill, each drill performed five times using ASAA methods
Response Left - 1.0 second
Response Right - 1.0 second
Response Rear - 1.2 seconds

Multiple Targets - Targets at 5 meters and spaced 1 meter apart
Two targets - 1.2 second
Three targets - 1.5 seconds
Four targets - 1.8 seconds

Small Targets at Close Range - head shots - 1 shot per drill
5 meters - 1.0 seconds - perform four times
7 meters - 1.2 seconds - perform five times

Ambidextrous Shooting - 3 targets at 7 meters and spaced 1 meter apart.
Using both hands, a candidate fires one round on each target, speed loads, transfers the weapon to the weak hand and re-engages weak hand only firing one round per target. Time limit is 6 seconds for self loaders, 8 seconds for revolvers.

Hostage Situation - Partial head shots - Target at 7 meters, one shot per drill performed 5 times with hostage holder to the left side of the hostage's head and 5 times on the right side. Time limit 1.2 seconds.

Target at Odd Angles - Targets at 7 meters and 60% obscured by cover, one shot per drill, perform 5 times with target to the left side of cover and 5 times to the right side of cover. Time limit 1.2 seconds.

After completing the above shooting test you still must perform each of the following weapon handling and malfunction (self loaders only) drills 5 times each. For each drill improperly performed or performed over the time limit, 5 points are deducted from your shooting score. 360 remains the minimum scored required to pass.
Speed Reloads - self loaders 1.5 seconds
Speed Reloads - revolvers 4.0 seconds
Tactical Reload - all weapons 4.0 seconds
Type 1 malfunction - 1.0 second
Type 2 malfunction - 1.0 second
Type 3 malfunction - 4.0 seconds


Those are some tight Masters standards! I'll have to give that a try....

What the OP asked I gave what I thought would be relevant. 1 second from concealment to overcome being surprised or as reaction vs. their reaction situation depending.

1.5 sec 25 yards A zone takes a lot of skill and it's a tight shot. If you can consistently make that tight shot you are on your way to making any tight shot.

And GM HF on El Pres means you have to be able to draw fast, shoot fast, transition fast, track fast, reload fast......and you have to have the hits.

If the OP were asking me I'd say look above and buy the Ben Stoeger Dry Fire book (https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Fire-Training-Practical-Pistol-Shooter-ebook/dp/B00QLK3A6Y/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1) and get to work. How to get their is in the book. The technique, the training.

[John Hearne]

Not sure if this will come out clearly but....

One of the features I like about striving for 100% hits, is it inculcates a certain deliberateness into the shooter. Maybe this just works for me, but when I know I have to keep everything in the designated hit zone with zero slop, I mentally shift gears and shoot more intentionally. To use a Farnam term, I work harder when I "guarantee the hit." I suspect that this "gear" is the most appropriate for real world encounters. I think it shifts the bias towards accuracy in a way that is relevant. My Casino Drill runs are just different when I'm looking at one second per miss versus failure if any round misses. I am slower, yes, but not street significantly so.

[Dagga Boy]

Not sure if this will come out clearly but....

One of the features I like about striving for 100% hits, is it inculcates a certain deliberateness into the shooter. Maybe this just works for me, but when I know I have to keep everything in the designated hit zone with zero slop, I mentally shift gears and shoot more intentionally. To use a Farnam term, I work harder when I "guarantee the hit." I suspect that this "gear" is the most appropriate for real world encounters. I think it shifts the bias towards accuracy in a way that is relevant. My Casino Drill runs are just different when I'm looking at one second per miss versus failure if any round misses. I am slower, yes, but not street significantly so.

I have found one of the MOST important things I can teach my students to win fights is deliberateness and emotional control. As your work has shown, going emotional in a fight is bad in most cases. The biggest failure I often saw in shootings was when the shooter went emotional on a trigger. Hardwiring control into the sub conscious is really our big goal with our students. Keep in mind, total focus on maximum control is often counter to risk for performance gains. It is a very gentle balance on training. We really try to make sure the control level is thoroughly imbedded before we start to push for speed performance gains, and we never relax the accuracy standard as we cannot make human hearts and brains larger.

[YVK]

When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most?






El Presidente USPSA GM Score based on HF.

Simply self-defense speaking, this is a good place to start.

I am fucked.

[breakingtime91]

I have found one of the MOST important things I can teach my students to win fights is deliberateness and emotional control. As your work has shown, going emotional in a fight is bad in most cases. The biggest failure I often saw in shootings was when the shooter went emotional on a trigger. Hardwiring control into the sub conscious is really our big goal with our students. Keep in mind, total focus on maximum control is often counter to risk for performance gains. It is a very gentle balance on training. We really try to make sure the control level is thoroughly imbedded before we start to push for speed performance gains, and we never relax the accuracy standard as we cannot make human hearts and brains larger.

are there triggers that tend to be better or worst for these types of situations? It has been years since I had to fire a weapon in a real situation but when I did I don't remember weight really being an issue, just take up and working through the break. This was on an M4 though, so obviously not exactly the same. By being emotional on the trigger do you mean just shooting too fast to get accurate hits?

[jetfire]

Those are some tight Masters standards! I'll have to give that a try....

What the OP asked I gave what I thought would be relevant. 1 second from concealment to overcome being surprised or as reaction vs. their reaction situation depending.

1.5 sec 25 yards A zone takes a lot of skill and it's a tight shot. If you can consistently make that tight shot you are on your way to making any tight shot.

And GM HF on El Pres means you have to be able to draw fast, shoot fast, transition fast, track fast, reload fast......and you have to have the hits.

If the OP were asking me I'd say look above and buy the Ben Stoeger Dry Fire book (https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Fire-Training-Practical-Pistol-Shooter-ebook/dp/B00QLK3A6Y/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1) and get to work. How to get their is in the book. The technique, the training.

To translate those times from a stopwatch to a shot timer, subtract about 0.20.

[nwhpfan]

I am fucked.

You may be surprised... I didn't come up with this but go for all 12 shots on target as your accuracy standard doing it as fast (while safe) as you can. OK...that's how fast you can go. Apply the hits inside your speed*.

*You may lose some time and that is the point.

[LSP552]

So much great info in this thread. I'm only going to add a couple of things.

You won't know what is required on the final exam until you take it. Because of this, I believe in pushing for constant improvement and not settling for a performance standard that will that meet "average" events. Most people's performance under stress will be degraded, so having accuracy and speed in the bank provides a performance margin.

Speed is important and can be the difference between participating in a shooting vs a gunfight. I'm aware of several folks, including myself, who are alive because they were faster to deliver hits than the other guy.

Learn to run your equipment without thinking about the mechanics,. Your focus should be on the tactics needed to resolve the event, not how to run your gun.

Awareness and mental preparedness are your first line of defense.

[Clobbersaurus]

IMO shooting standards that matter are personal choice, based on the shooters experience, goals, and motivations.

The ones that matter to me are:

1) F.A.S.T.
2) Defoor Pistol Test 1
3) Gabe White Standards
4) El Presidente

If I could earn a coin, pass the Defoor Test, get a turbo pin, or shoot the GM level HF on the above mentioned drills/tests, I would think that I had achieved a level of skill that I could be proud of.

Oh....I almost forgot, winning an IPSC match is pretty high up on my list of standards as well. But man.....that is a totally subjective standard.

[David S.]

I think there is value in standards such as those used by guys like Tom Givens, Wayne and Darryl Bolke, Mas Ayoob, or Bill Rogers. Every LE org out there has a qualification or standards type shoot that must be passed. Rather than re-invent the wheel I would just adopt their standards. The FBI qual, ATF, Air Marshall, or DEA qual are all pretty good places to start.

So we're just done with "Phrasing," that's not a thing anymore? ;)

[Dagga Boy]

So we're just done with "Phrasing," that's not a thing anymore? ;)

We're "Pardner's" in a Texas way, not "Partners" in the California way. Just to clarify.

[GJM]

We're "Pardner's" in a Texas way, not "Partners" in the California way. Just to clarify.


Who is the Mama and who is the Daddy?

[Paul Sharp]

So we're just done with "Phrasing," that's not a thing anymore? ;)

Doh!!

[Mr_White]

"It cost approximately a 62% time increase to bring hits up by 20% (10/10 instead of 8/10.) That's why, outside of physical circumstances that demand not just 100% hits to the adversary, but 100% hits to the desirable target zone with zero tolerance for error, it may not be that good a deal in terms of shooting mechanics."

Now let's try it again with a totally different outlook:

It gained approximately a 62% increase in assessment time and brought hits up by 20% (10/10 instead of 8/10.) That's why, outside of physical circumstances that demand pure speed of shots to the adversary, getting 100% hits to the most desirable target zone with zero tolerance for error, is a good deal in terms of appropriate and defensible use of force.

So, why not shoot like in the one where I took over three times as long and almost drilled out the X-ring? That would be even more assessment time, and even better anatomical hits - especially with the likely performance degradation of stress and chaotic physical circumstances.


I will say that in my early years of working OIS's and assessing incidents to tune training I did have several issues with "too slow". We had numerous incidents in which because of how our folks were trained with insanely long times they never learned to actually work with a combination of both speed and an accuracy standard. In cases pushed for speed, they reverted to the "speed solution" for the time, which was classic point shooting, with terrible results. In one case we had a very high level PPC shooter who could not get a shot on a suspect because he was working off a clock based on his sport.

It's really interesting that you say this. It rings true to me, even in the world of training and competition. When people have not been exposed to pressure, they might really fall apart when they do feel it and they have not learned to work within it yet. There are a lot of ways to get at that in training, even though it's never going to be the same as when there is a real fear of death and serious injury. But that's the way it is, so you do what you can and drive on. Anyway, it is a very old story in competitive shooting for a new participant to have an accuracy background that is strong in isolation, but then when time pressure is introduced too, they don't exert the discipline on themselves to carry out the fundamentals of shooting and do something else instead - usually stick the gun out there and whack on the trigger a bunch without either aiming or triggering well, on top of decisionmaking errors too.


We found balance was the key, as well as constant reinforcement of application of fundamentals in all aspects of shooting, both speed based, use of force based, and accuracy based. You should be shooting drills that work all of them.

Totally agree.

----

I don't know why I keep going around with you on this, it is like a pathology for me. Just like the last time when I think we were all talking about anatomical hits and the manner of shooting that best gets us where we want to be, no one, not anyone is saying that time is not a factor, nor is anyone advocating for actual spray and pray or misses that endanger bystanders. Everyone in this community isn't really very far apart in the big scheme of things.

[Little Creek]

"When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most?" To me, it matters what I can do cold from concealed carry consistent under a jacket or vest, strong side OWB, with my G43 or G19. I am headed to range now to do the 5 X 5. Plan to post results later.

[GRV]

We spend a whole lot of time on PF talking about standards, tests, measurements, and metrics.

We spend comparatively very little time on how to practice effectively. Both in the sense of how to best spend time and rounds in individual sessions and in the sense of how to organize practice strategy at a much larger scale.

[Dagga Boy]

So, why not shoot like in the one where I took over three times as long and almost drilled out the X-ring? That would be even more assessment time, and even better anatomical hits - especially with the likely performance degradation of stress and chaotic physical circumstances.



It's really interesting that you say this. It rings true to me, even in the world of training and competition. When people have not been exposed to pressure, they might really fall apart when they do feel it and they have not learned to work within it yet. There are a lot of ways to get at that in training, even though it's never going to be the same as when there is a real fear of death and serious injury. But that's the way it is, so you do what you can and drive on. Anyway, it is a very old story in competitive shooting for a new participant to have an accuracy background that is strong in isolation, but then when time pressure is introduced too, they don't exert the discipline on themselves to carry out the fundamentals of shooting and do something else instead - usually stick the gun out there and whack on the trigger a bunch without either aiming or triggering well, on top of decisionmaking errors too.



Totally agree.

----

I don't know why I keep going around with you on this, it is like a pathology for me. Just like the last time when I think we were all talking about anatomical hits and the manner of shooting that best gets us where we want to be, no one, not anyone is saying that time is not a factor, nor is anyone advocating for actual spray and pray or misses that endanger bystanders. Everyone in this community isn't really very far apart in the big scheme of things.


Part of the reason I invest in these cyclic conversations now with guys like you and George is that once it is not personal and strictly working from our own view of the world I think it lays significant balance and covers a lot of ground for a lot of people to read. We are often saying the same thing different. It is what is good when folks get "to know each other" and can just post info and it is not taken wrong. I think it puts a lot out in the open to hit the cerebral side of the equation for a large audience.

[Dagga Boy]

We spend a whole lot of time on PF talking about standards, tests, measurements, and metrics.

We spend comparatively very little time on how to practice effectively. Both in the sense of how to best spend time and rounds in individual sessions and in the sense of how to organize practice strategy at a much larger scale.

How an individual uses all the drills is going to be....... dry individual based on goals. While Gabe and I likely have many crossover goals, in reality we are looking for different things from what we are setting up as practice. Also, my practice sessions will differ depending on what I am doing or working on. I have some very standard things I do every time I hit the range. Often when prepping for a class, I will practice things I know I will be demoing. Other times, I may have a very defined goal,or work I want to do. What this forum gives is a massive resource of drills to cater to your world.

[Mr_White]

We spend a whole lot of time on PF talking about standards, tests, measurements, and metrics.

We spend comparatively very little time on how to practice effectively. Both in the sense of how to best spend time and rounds in individual sessions and in the sense of how to organize practice strategy at a much larger scale.

Now you did it - this is where the real disagreements are!

Different people need different things at different times, depending on their goals and where they are in the journey. But I think there is a very general answer:

Foundational skills before anything else.

I think you have to push things to get better. There's a wide range of how hard to push things. It's going to involve failure, which is best done in practice, and not to the point that it displaces the ability to deliver on-demand at the current skill level. The key to making the inevitable mistakes productive is to pay close attention to what you are doing, so you can work on fixing it when you do it wrong.

And I think you have to have the ability to deliver on demand, at your current skill level. The more you do this in practice, the more robustly available on-demand performance will be. This is unlikely to very significantly increase the raw performance within your skill level, but it's the right way when it comes to the test, whatever form that takes.

Ideally, a person will devote enough of their practice to pushing that they improve, and enough of their practice to on-demand performance that they can reliably deliver when the test comes.

For many people, resources (time/ammo/facilities/motivation) may be limited enough that all of the above simply cannot be done. That's when a shooter is probably well-advised to focus on the habit of on-demand performance, since that's what's relevant to circumstances that matter, and there aren't enough resources to cover both main modes of practice. Only pushing in practice, without the critical tempering and translation into on-demand performance, may well lead to going off the rails during the test. So even a dedicated practitioner needs to recognize when resources are no longer sufficient for improvement and need to be devoted to maintenance of on-demand performance instead.

That's pretty rough but I think those are a lot of the basic dynamics in play.

TLG had a really good blog post covering this exact point: https://pistol-training.com/archives/6472

[GRV]

How an individual uses all the drills is going to be....... dry individual based on goals. While Gabe and I likely have many crossover goals, in reality we are looking for different things from what we are setting up as practice. Also, my practice sessions will differ depending on what I am doing or working on. I have some very standard things I do every time I hit the range. Often when prepping for a class, I will practice things I know I will be demoing. Other times, I may have a very defined goal,or work I want to do. What this forum gives is a massive resource of drills to cater to your world.

I would bet that there are a relatively small number of core goals people have on here. People will generally fall into one of a few categories. And yes, talking about effective practice is very specific to those individual categories.

I'm totally a tests and metrics guy myself, but I think constantly focusing on tests and metrics creates an environment where getting a certain score on a certain test becomes the goal itself. I don't know if that is particularly useful for achieving the more fundamental core goals people hold, and it may even be distracting or lead one astray. I found this to be the case for myself personally.

I think your LC-SRT is really ingenious though, and it's the only "test" I allow myself to run regularly now (I currently run it every practice). Because, in reality, it's just really good practice disguised as a test. That's an example of something that cleverly exploits human goal-setting tendencies. Even if you make cleaning the LC-SRT in X time on Y targets your primary goal, you'd still end up getting a lot of really good practice in and have hardwired extremely practical skills that are likely to save your ass.

[Mr_White]

I would bet that there are a relatively small number of core goals people have on here. People will generally fall into one of a few categories. And yes, talking about effective practice is very specific to those individual categories.

I'm totally a tests and metrics guy myself, but I think constantly focusing on tests and metrics creates an environment where getting a certain score on a certain test becomes the goal itself. I don't know if that is particularly useful for achieving the more fundamental core goals people hold, and it may even be distracting or lead one astray. I found this to be the case for myself personally.

I think your LC-SRT is really ingenious though, and it's the only "test" I allow myself to run regularly now (I currently run it every practice). Because, in reality, it's just really good practice disguised as a test. That's an example of something that cleverly exploits human goal-setting tendencies. Even if you make cleaning the LC-SRT in X time on Y targets your primary goal, you'd still end up getting a lot of really good practice in and have hardwired extremely practical skills that are likely to save your ass.

(ETA: For self-defense), that is why training and practice have to be anchored in things that are good for the real world. Then come the details though. This line of thought is where much of the 'good enough' sentiment comes from. I'm not bashing that, because for many people it speaks to a very real issue of finite resources that must be used productively. But, given that the most consistently discernible requirement is to simply have a gun, it's also easy to let that turn into a laziness about things that could be done better, but aren't. And at the other end of it, as you note, it is possible to lose sight of things and just get wrapped up in looking for good scores on drills, when those good scores don't translate into something useful in reality.

[BaiHu]

Love reading this thread. Makes me come up with an idea that could be fleshed out during the tribute shoot:
A PF podcast where the SMEs converse on topics like this. Perhaps just once a month or quarter. If we all pitch in a dollar extra a month for this, maybe that'll help mitigate some of the costs?
/derailing

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[spinmove_]

Love reading this thread. Makes me come up with an idea that could be fleshed out during the tribute shoot:
A PF podcast where the SMEs converse on topics like this. Perhaps just once a month or quarter. If we all pitch in a dollar extra a month for this, maybe that'll help mitigate some of the costs?
/derailing

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

So basically what Primary & Secondary already does?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[BaiHu]

So basically what Primary & Secondary already does?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy
I thought there might be one of them thar places, but I don't know many of them. I basically reside here.

Thanks and I'll check it out. I was particularly interested in our guys talking about things in this thread. Does P&S have 2+ of PF folk on at the same time?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[spinmove_]

I thought there might be one of them thar places, but I don't know many of them. I basically reside here.

Thanks and I'll check it out. I was particularly interested in our guys talking about things in this thread. Does P&S have 2+ of PF folk on at the same time?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

DocGKR, Steve Fisher, Chuck Haggard, and probably some others have been on the P&S modcasts before.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[BaiHu]

DocGKR, Steve Fisher, Chuck Haggard, and probably some others have been on the P&S modcasts before.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

Cool. I'm perusing their site now. Thanks. I've only listened to some of Ballistic Radio and Stoeger's podcasts when I hear people from PF/TPI will be a guest.

[rsa-otc]

P&S are my goto podcasts at this point.

Just joined the P&S Forum, there isn't as much activity as there is here.

[BaiHu]

P&S are my goto podcasts at this point.

Just joined the P&S Forum, there isn't as much activity as there is here.

I'm having trouble finding people my name/podcast as the podcasts don't have thorough descriptions. Really sorry about derailing. spinmove and rsa, can you PM me from here?

[Dagga Boy]

I would bet that there are a relatively small number of core goals people have on here. People will generally fall into one of a few categories. And yes, talking about effective practice is very specific to those individual categories.

I'm totally a tests and metrics guy myself, but I think constantly focusing on tests and metrics creates an environment where getting a certain score on a certain test becomes the goal itself. I don't know if that is particularly useful for achieving the more fundamental core goals people hold, and it may even be distracting or lead one astray. I found this to be the case for myself personally.

I think your LC-SRT is really ingenious though, and it's the only "test" I allow myself to run regularly now (I currently run it every practice). Because, in reality, it's just really good practice disguised as a test. That's an example of something that cleverly exploits human goal-setting tendencies. Even if you make cleaning the LC-SRT in X time on Y targets your primary goal, you'd still end up getting a lot of really good practice in and have hardwired extremely practical skills that are likely to save your ass.


Gabe had a great response, but let me tag on with the LC SRT course. For many LE guys they have very limited training time, resources, ammo and exposure to quality training. That course is designed specifically to instill a bunch of very specific skills that I want these folks to overlearn to a sub conscious level with lots of repetition. It is a combo of what worked for my folks in SoCal and some stuff from Tom Givens. One of the Team leaders is a training junkie and has been to a bunch of advanced training with top tier guys and wants to always push his performance and skills harder. He is an outlier like many here. With most of the guys I need them to be able to put rounds into a small area of the chest and head, at a realistic speed that allows both accuracy and assessment. I need them to know sub consciously how to solve a problem. I need them to be able to draw consistently and at a speed obtainable under startle conditions and drive immediately onto target. I need them to be able to stop that draw and draw to Ready if I change the fire command to a threat command. I need them to deliver a typical interview distance single round to the head incorporate both the draw and movement. I need them to put 100% of their rounds on the target, with the goal for them being 100% inside an 8.5x11 piece of paper on the high chest and a 3x5 T in the head. I need them to be able to hit to 25 yards in reasonable time. They never have more than 2 seconds for a shot. I need to do all of this with minimal ammo usage. I think I get a lot of bang for 50 rounds. It also allows them to practice these skills when they are on their own. During training days, we add stuff like super tests, Vickers 300, and other drills. While this is not huge stuff in development as performance shooters, the reality is they are not looking to be performance shooters, they are trying to be cops who have solid shooting skills.

[GardoneVT]

When it comes to measuring the effectiveness of a task,the purpose of the task is the first point to consider.

While people who carry guns are united in the sense they carry arms,the specifics behind why and how and where affect what performance standards such individuals should benchmark. The standards an off duty LEO should perform to aren't necessarily going to be similar to Aunt Maybel's defensive Problem on a farm. Which in turn means Aunt Maybel being able to ace a LEO oriented pistol training course may be rather pointless if her problem isnt solved by that skillset.

If there's a "Firearm class" someone needs to teach,it's a class on when to spot trouble before it starts. If you can't tell when a thug is sizing you up for a challenge, having a gun sometimes makes you a weapon delivery service for your victimizer.

[3kaiju]

When it comes to measuring the effectiveness of a task,the purpose of the task is the first point to consider.

While people who carry guns are united in the sense they carry arms,the specifics behind why and how and where affect what performance standards such individuals should benchmark. The standards an off duty LEO should perform to aren't necessarily going to be similar to Aunt Maybel's defensive Problem on a farm. Which in turn means Aunt Maybel being able to ace a LEO oriented pistol training course may be rather pointless if her problem isnt solved by that skillset.

If there's a "Firearm class" someone needs to teach,it's a class on when to spot trouble before it starts. If you can't tell when a thug is sizing you up for a challenge, having a gun sometimes makes you a weapon delivery service for your victimizer.
In regards to the class idea, have you looked at ECQC? One of my takeaways from that is almost exactly (I think) what you're describing.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Mr_White]

In regards to the class idea, have you looked at ECQC? One of my takeaways from that is almost exactly (I think) what you're describing.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Definitely agree

[Dagga Boy]

In regards to the class idea, have you looked at ECQC? One of my takeaways from that is almost exactly (I think) what you're describing.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I can see how a class in the Environmental Concerns of Queer Condors would be a help.

[3kaiju]

I can see how a class in the Environmental Concerns of Queer Condors would be a help.
I'd find such a class entertaining people watching, I think. Or seventh circle. One of the two.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[GRV]

Now you did it - this is where the real disagreements are!

Different people need different things at different times, depending on their goals and where they are in the journey. But I think there is a very general answer:

Foundational skills before anything else.

I think you have to push things to get better. There's a wide range of how hard to push things. It's going to involve failure, which is best done in practice, and not to the point that it displaces the ability to deliver on-demand at the current skill level. The key to making the inevitable mistakes productive is to pay close attention to what you are doing, so you can work on fixing it when you do it wrong.

And I think you have to have the ability to deliver on demand, at your current skill level. The more you do this in practice, the more robustly available on-demand performance will be. This is unlikely to very significantly increase the raw performance within your skill level, but it's the right way when it comes to the test, whatever form that takes.

Ideally, a person will devote enough of their practice to pushing that they improve, and enough of their practice to on-demand performance that they can reliably deliver when the test comes.

For many people, resources (time/ammo/facilities/motivation) may be limited enough that all of the above simply cannot be done. That's when a shooter is probably well-advised to focus on the habit of on-demand performance, since that's what's relevant to circumstances that matter, and there aren't enough resources to cover both main modes of practice. Only pushing in practice, without the critical tempering and translation into on-demand performance, may well lead to going off the rails during the test. So even a dedicated practitioner needs to recognize when resources are no longer sufficient for improvement and need to be devoted to maintenance of on-demand performance instead.

That's pretty rough but I think those are a lot of the basic dynamics in play.

TLG had a really good blog post covering this exact point: https://pistol-training.com/archives/6472

In PF tradition though, let's put some numbers to this :cool:

Are you able to quantify what you mean by "resources" here? In terms of range hours, dryfire hours, livefire rounds, and so on, how much time do you think people at various skill levels need to be devoting to various things. For example, on demand performance vs pushing and failing. Where is the objective line of "not enough resources"?

[GardoneVT]

In PF tradition though, let's put some numbers to this :cool:

Are you able to quantify what you mean by "resources" here? In terms of range hours, dryfire hours, livefire rounds, and so on, how much time do you think people at various skill levels need to be devoting to various things. For example, on demand performance vs pushing and failing. Where is the objective line of "not enough resources"?

In the discipline of Economics there's a principle called "Possibilities Curves". Basically it's a chart of what can be produced given a combination of finite resource X and finite resource Y.

For all of us shooters,there's only so much skill we can build given the resources available to us. Even sponsored pro shooters like Jerry Michulek get the same 24 hours in a day we do. The amount of firearm skill he can build is vastly higher then mine,but even he has a limit.

All of us have to allocate our time and money to build as much relevant skill as we can . The relevant part is key; someone who spends 50 hours a week in a Federal building where anything deadlier then a paperclip is banned on pain of prison probably shouldn't burn money on a pistol course over perhaps ECQC or hand-to-hand combatives . Conversely , a carbine class shouldn't take precedence over a pistol class unless using a long gun is a likely event .

There isn't a metric which can be set on these categories that is universally applicable. Even firearm users in a law enforcement or military agency operating in a fixed area have wildly different equipment and skill needs.

[MGW]

Not sure if this will come out clearly but....

One of the features I like about striving for 100% hits, is it inculcates a certain deliberateness into the shooter. Maybe this just works for me, but when I know I have to keep everything in the designated hit zone with zero slop, I mentally shift gears and shoot more intentionally. To use a Farnam term, I work harder when I "guarantee the hit." I suspect that this "gear" is the most appropriate for real world encounters. I think it shifts the bias towards accuracy in a way that is relevant. My Casino Drill runs are just different when I'm looking at one second per miss versus failure if any round misses. I am slower, yes, but not street significantly so.

I'm way behind this thread and playing catch up. I've experienced the exact same thing John. I like to shoot a version of changing gears. I paste up an 8" target, a 3X5 card, and half a 3X5 card. Sometimes it's one shot per target and sometimes two. The order of targets and distance from varies. The goal is 100% hits and I rarely use a timer except as a start singnal. It's pretty revealing to shoot the drill multiple times and then look for patterns. The groups on the smaller targerts are always much more precise than on the larger target. They should be if the goal is 100% hits but the visual feedback is amazing to me.

[MGW]

Anyway, it is a very old story in competitive shooting for a new participant to have an accuracy background that is strong in isolation, but then when time pressure is introduced too, they don't exert the discipline on themselves to carry out the fundamentals of shooting and do something else instead - usually stick the gun out there and whack on the trigger a bunch without either aiming or triggering well, on top of decisionmaking errors too.



This was me a year and a half ago. I'm slowly training out of it. I know I'm better now but measuring improvement over time can be difficult. I want to get better at training and measurement of results. I'm learning.

[Mr_White]

In PF tradition though, let's put some numbers to this :cool:

Are you able to quantify what you mean by "resources" here? In terms of range hours, dryfire hours, livefire rounds, and so on, how much time do you think people at various skill levels need to be devoting to various things. For example, on demand performance vs pushing and failing. Where is the objective line of "not enough resources"?

Well, I appreciate the spirit of your question, but I don't think it can be defined objectively like that - at least not easily. People are different enough, circumstances are different enough, people improve enough, that I don't think there is really an objective answer. I mean just using myself as an example - I used to shoot quite a bit more than I have the last couple of years. I think I can maintain, and maybe eke out a little improvement, shooting the amount that I do now, but I feel like I might have had a harder time getting where I am now without the period of time where I shot a lot more. And sorry, I have not kept track of rounds fired either, so I don't have a number to give you there. Some people shoot a hell of a lot and don't get any better. Other people make us all jealous by doing tons of really intelligent dry practice, shooting maybe 6000 rounds live in their whole life, and making M off that.

Maybe it could be boiled down to kind of a heuristic process? Numbers are not really how I think about this, personally.

If you are failing at the test, whatever form that takes, have you not established foundational skills? If not, do that first.

If you have foundational skills but are failing to employ them correctly on the test, maybe more resources need to be spent on developing the habit of on-demand performance.

If you are successfully employing your foundational skills on-demand, but not getting better, maybe more resources should be devoted to pushing. Unless your level of resource is such that devoting more to pushing undermines your on-demand performance too severely, then maybe don't do that, and stick to working on-demand performance type stuff.

You have to find your way through this with self-awareness, introspection, and paying attention to the results on the target and timer.

[MGW]

We spend a whole lot of time on PF talking about standards, tests, measurements, and metrics.

We spend comparatively very little time on how to practice effectively. Both in the sense of how to best spend time and rounds in individual sessions and in the sense of how to organize practice strategy at a much larger scale.

So many light bulbs just went off in my head dove. Very well said. I believe that's what I'm really trying to get to. I have a plan when I go to the range but I don't always know if I'm working on what I should be working on.

[Mr_White]

We spend a whole lot of time on PF talking about standards, tests, measurements, and metrics.

We spend comparatively very little time on how to practice effectively. Both in the sense of how to best spend time and rounds in individual sessions and in the sense of how to organize practice strategy at a much larger scale.


So many light bulbs just went off in my head dove. Very well said. I believe that's what I'm really trying to get to. I have a plan when I go to the range but I don't always know if I'm working on what I should be working on.

The answers will be found in Doing The Work. I hope that never becomes cliche, because it really is the only way, when it comes down to it. Read the Foreward by Rob Leatham in Brian Enos' Practical Shooting: Beyond Fundamentals. It was shocking the first time I read it. In a nutshell, he said the way they shot at the time of that writing was different than the way they shot the year before, and he expected it to continue to change. WTF, they had already refined practical shooting skills enormously by that point - Leatham-Enos grip, anyone? They were already champions. Had they not already figured out the best way?

No, they had not. Because 'the best way' is not about technique. It is about the study, the stuggle, the passion, eating and drinking and dreaming about shooting, the practice of every kind at every opportunity. It's about love. That's what makes one alive, flowing, moving, shaking, making themselves better and better and being here now, focused on the task at hand.

The questions you guys are asking, are the kinds of questions one hires a professional coach or mentor to answer. Or joins a vibrant training community, like this one. Or both. And more. Your questions are good, and I can tell you what I can, DB can tell you what he can tell you, etc., but ultimately, to know, you need to do the work. All your questioning and thinking is great, because that is part of doing the work. I know you guys simply want to do the work as efficiently as possible. We all do, but we also all take steps forward, steps back, steps to the side, and ultimately forward again, as we each go through this journey. But that doesn't matter because if you keep trying and keep going, you will find your way. And you do have to find your way.

[GRV]

So many light bulbs just went off in my head dove. Very well said. I believe that's what I'm really trying to get to. I have a plan when I go to the range but I don't always know if I'm working on what I should be working on.


Well, I appreciate the spirit of your question, but I don't think it can be defined objectively like that - at least not easily. People are different enough, circumstances are different enough, people improve enough, that I don't think there is really an objective answer. I mean just using myself as an example - I used to shoot quite a bit more than I have the last couple of years. I think I can maintain, and maybe eke out a little improvement, shooting the amount that I do now, but I feel like I might have had a harder time getting where I am now without the period of time where I shot a lot more. And sorry, I have not kept track of rounds fired either, so I don't have a number to give you there. Some people shoot a hell of a lot and don't get any better. Other people make us all jealous by doing tons of really intelligent dry practice, shooting maybe 6000 rounds live in their whole life, and making M off that.

Maybe it could be boiled down to kind of a heuristic process? Numbers are not really how I think about this, personally.

If you are failing at the test, whatever form that takes, have you not established foundational skills? If not, do that first.

If you have foundational skills but are failing to employ them correctly on the test, maybe more resources need to be spent on developing the habit of on-demand performance.

If you are successfully employing your foundational skills on-demand, but not getting better, maybe more resources should be devoted to pushing. Unless your level of resource is such that devoting more to pushing undermines your on-demand performance too severely, then maybe don't do that, and stick to working on-demand performance type stuff.

You have to find your way through this with self-awareness, introspection, and paying attention to the results on the target and timer.


The answers will be found in Doing The Work. I hope that never becomes cliche, because it really is the only way, when it comes down to it. Read the Foreward by Rob Leatham in Brian Enos' Practical Shooting: Beyond Fundamentals. It was shocking the first time I read it. In a nutshell, he said the way they shot at the time of that writing was different than the way they shot the year before, and he expected it to continue to change. WTF, they had already refined practical shooting skills enormously by that point - Leatham-Enos grip, anyone? They were already champions. Had they not already figured out the best way?

No, they had not. Because 'the best way' is not about technique. It is about the study, the stuggle, the passion, eating and drinking and dreaming about shooting, the practice of every kind at every opportunity. It's about love. That's what makes one alive, flowing, moving, shaking, making themselves better and better and being here now, focused on the task at hand.

The questions you guys are asking, are the kinds of questions one hires a professional coach or mentor to answer. Or joins a vibrant training community, like this one. Or both. And more. Your questions are good, and I can tell you what I can, DB can tell you what he can tell you, etc., but ultimately, to know, you need to do the work. All your questioning and thinking is great, because that is part of doing the work. I know you guys simply want to do the work as efficiently as possible. We all do, but we also all take steps forward, steps back, steps to the side, and ultimately forward again, as we each go through this journey. But that doesn't matter because if you keep trying and keep going, you will find your way. And you do have to find your way.

Saved me from having to type too much.

I was afraid I might be unwelcomely misdirecting or hijacking GreggW's thread, but I'm glad to see that's not the case yet. (But please, GreggW, stop me when I do.)

I'm intentionally and knowingly being a pain in the ass here because when I read the OP I saw something I might have posted last year. This is something I'd do much better talking about in person, and I'm not going to do justice to trying to type out here, particularly with the limited resources ;) I have for that. The questions in the OP are good ones, but it's easy to be motivated to ask them by a fundamentally different sincere desire which itself is not best served by getting wrapped up in those questions.

Undoubtedly the issue of how to practice and how to proceed along the journey of improvement is wildly hard to pin down, subjective, context dependent, and so on. Having said that, the issue of "shooting standards that matter" is also extremely subjective, subtle, context dependent, etc., and yet we've spent over 10 pages talking about it and generating a ton of good information that people have found interesting and useful.

Certainly the more nebulous issues I've raised are even harder to define than the ones posed in the OP, but my point was that I think it'd still be a productive direction to focus PF energy. Moreover, I think it might even be a more useful direction for a lot of the people that find themselves intensely interested in the issue of "shooting standards that matter".

I've read the intro to Practical Shooting, and in combination with Enos's own intro material, I too found it gobsmacking. It's what motivated me to stick the thorn here. After reading it I felt as if I had wasted so much time and energy trying to grok objective standards from PF, or trying to find a consistent and objectively valid truth underpinning everything said by all the people I admire as "good" on here. Instead, I could have spent that time "Doing the Work". Of course......that was doing the work, and doing that stuff is still a useful part of doing the work. But you get my point.

I wildly guess that there are other people like me who are on here trying to succeed by a very outcome-focused approach of trying to define and understand standards, truths, and so on. I think PF culture even lends itself to this for newcomers. I think those people, myself included, would benefit from being helped to take a more process-focused approach to seeking success. Usefully and concretely discussing that sort of approach is in fact possible, and Enos's book is proof of that.

You're right. What people like me are looking for is a professional coach or mentor. But we don't have access to those wherever we are, and we try to use PF to fill that void. And it's exactly that motivation that I think leads to a lot of these threads. They're extremely interesting and useful as is, but when the real motivation is something like "what should I be doing right now? what should I change?", they don't cut through to that and instead encourage spinning off further into la-la land instead of doing the work. There's isn't the sort of grounding smack on the back of the head that a real coach provides.

It's true that the whole thing is a personal journey that needs to be figured out personally, but that's not what Mr. Miyagi told Ralph Macchio when he showed up looking to learn karate. "Go home Daniel-san, you need to figure out which blocks and strikes to practice on your own. Karate is a personal journey." That'd have been a pretty boring movie :p

It'd also have been pretty boring if Macchio asked Mr. Miyagi what the most useful or effective karate techniques are, followed by a 3-day soliloquy where Mr. Miyagi opines on this and does his best to come to some objective conclusions for such a subjective question, and then it cut to Macchio spending the rest of the movie practicing those things over and over again, desperately trying to succeed at them, under no supervision. But that's sort of what I think happens with a lot of newcomers in trying to use PF as a resource. It certainly did for me. Really, they just have that amorphous hard-to-define desire to become better at karate, and so they come sit on the stoop of the experts and ask questions like "what's the best way to tell someone is good at karate?". Then they try to scrape a definition out of the responses that generates, and then go home and try to meet that definition, when what they really need to hear is "Later. For now, come paint this fence.".

[Surf]

When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most? What should a high-level shooter be able to do with their handgun of choice? What skills and standards should be practiced, measured, and tracked to determine progress?

So what is it? What standards really matter and what standards do the best job of demonstrating a shooter's skill level with a handgun? What test or combination of tests hit all of the fundamentals?

To further complicate the question, how do we separate standards tests from drills? What drills build fundamentals and what tests measure mastery of those fundamentals?
I can get a good idea where a shooter is as soon as they draw their pistol. Any number of drills can be used to get a quick assessment of where they are with fundamentals. I kind of look at assessment or training in layers or blocks as each layer will isolate different pieces of the puzzle and allows to more accurately assess deficiencies and where to focus training.

Outside of the basic safety and handling of a firearm as in this is the dangerous end of the firearm, the first layer for assessment would be drills like a one hole drill, dot drill etc, that focus on pure non timed accuracy. This will show a persons level of understanding of the base fundamentals and it will also allow for assessment of where they might be lacking. Understanding of fundamentals and mastery is the base of everything. Sounds like a no brainer, but deserves repeating, often.

The next layer would incorporate drills that might include a draw, multiple rounds at a certain pace and reloads. So drills like maybe a 5x5, 666, bill drill or a one hole cadence, etc. Quick assessment of the draw, reloads and ability to manage recoil and sight tracking.

From there I like to see basic footwork, how they transition targets and weapons handling under movement. Something like a Vice-Presidente with two firing points side by side maybe 6-10 feet apart. Reload happening during movement from point to point.

The above may sound like a lot, but we need to work a shooter to where their weapons handling needs to be ingrained at a subconscious level and performance during training needs to be successfully accomplished under stress conditions. Now I am not talking about extraordinary results like many shooters here are capable of doing, but a realistic level on par with your average Officer. Then we of course strive to develop and continue education.

But the real piece of the puzzle for "defensive shooting" comes not from the weapons handling but from the everything else that occurs during a critical incident. We would like the defensive shooter to have enough competence to perform integral functions related to weapons handling at the subconscious level so that we can train the cognitive mind and allow for conscious thought to do its thing.

[IronArcher]

My personal opinion:
Real world scenarios are simply too random to be able to say drill "x" is the definitive gauge of readiness.
That said, I think a simple few could give you an indication of real world proficiency.

1) El Pres. To me the top drill. As it encompasses draw, recoil control, transitions, reloads and movement.
2) 4 aces. Narrows things down to draw, recoil control, and reloads. Probably the most real world drill based on historical data. The instances where you need to burn through 3 full mags are exceedingly rare.
3) Both of the above, starting seated, for obvious reasons.

I don't prefer the ultra accurate drills, but there is definitely a benefit to them. Head shots at 20 yards shouldn't be intimidating.

I haven't assigned any times to these, as I am of the opinion that if you actually do these drills, practice them, and track any progress, you are probably better trained than 99.9% of criminals you may need to defend yourself from.

Other than that, HONESTLY, shooting USPSA and/or IDPA matches will get you to shoot different scenarios. When you really bomb one of those, you'll know what to practice.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro