Importance of a fast draw in self defense.

[JodyH]

How much importance do you place on having a fast draw for self defense?
Why?

[VolGrad]

It's even more important to get GOOD hits on target fast. The draw is just one part of that equation.

[Jay Cunningham]

Well, it's a really good skill to have, but it's only important if you need to do it.

Not applicable when responding to a bump in the night. Possibly very applicable if responding to being mugged at the end of a weapon.

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

[JodyH]

I think a fast draw is an important skill but along with pure speed you should have additional draw related skills.
Disengagement skills for example, breaking away from a close contact, engaged opponent in order to perform the draw.
Creating the space to initiate a draw is extremely important, but the counter balance is the faster your draw the less distance you need.
There's also a protected draw, getting the gun out in the gray distance between enough space and not enough space between you and your opponent and protecting the gun in that space.
This might require closing distance (jamming up your opponent) and a slower/tighter draw to a different shooting position (gut shots).
Another overlooked skill is the covert draw, getting the gun out and ready without telegraphing that fact. No speed required.

[SouthNarc]

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it

You sage you!

[Tom Givens]

Most of the time, if you need your gun to defend your life, it will be in the holster when you perceive that need. You will have a finite amount of time to deal with the problem. The longer it takes you to get your gun out, the less time you will have for decision making and accurate shooting. Duh...

Less than 10% of our student involved shootings have occurred in the home. The vast majority occur on the street, where your gun will be carried concealed in a holster. Armed robbery is probably the single most likely incident in which a civilian CCW would need a gun. According to the Justice Department, 85% of those occur away from home. So, since you'll be starting your response with a holstered handgun, how would access speed not be a major issue?

[ToddG]

I look at it this way:

There is a certain finite amount of time between when a problem begins and when the problem becomes unsolvable. Within that space of time, I can either succeed or fail. The faster my gun can go from being in the holster to sending an accurate round where I need it, the more of that timeframe I have to recognize the danger, make a decision about what to do, and execute.

Are there circumstances under which it wouldn't matter? Sure. I go through every day without my draw speed affecting my survival. But as Jay said, when you need it, you'll need it.

[ToddG]

Tom -- Not only are you brilliant, but your timing is impeccable!

[Mr_White]

I believe that the biggest time gain in shooting the threat faster is to decide to shoot the threat at the earliest legitimate point in time.

To decide to shoot, you must first see something that tells you that you need to shoot (maybe a sense other than vision could be used to make that decision, but vision is the most usual and reliable way.)

This makes the most important aspect of shooting soonest an observational one that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actual handling or presentation of the gun from the holster, a ready position, or wherever the gun will be presented from.

Knowledge, FOF practice and training, and/or experience dealing with living threats displaying threat cues will be key here, so that you can correctly recognize when the other guy is truly starting the physical fight (hopefully at some point before his shooting or assault starts, or even before his gun or other weapon actually becomes visible.) Learn to recognize what humans look like when they are preparing to start the fight.

Once the decision is made, the next most important factor is a fast presentation from the holster or ready position or wherever the gun currently is. And that might be aided by measures that allow more time with which to present, such as misdirection or lateral movement in open space or getting behind cover, but as discussed in the shooting on the move thread, there may well be times when movement is imprudent for any of a variety of reasons. And at a close enough distance, it may include empty hands skills to muzzle avert or otherwise delay the opponent while our own pistol is brought into the equation to stop the fight (a whole other big subject in which I do not claim expertise. I suggest TPI again.)

And don't forget that whole part about shooting accurately.

So, to use internet math:

Observation leading to a fast and accurate decision to shoot > a fast draw

a fast draw > a slow draw, even to the point it might help get you out of a reaction time hole (drawing against a drawn gun.)

a fast and accurate shooting decision + a really fast draw and accurate shooting = awesome

Please note that I am not suggesting that a very fast draw can actually get on the right side of the very unfavorable human dynamics of action vs. reaction against a drawn gun, simply that when there aren't a lot of other good choices, a fast draw may help facilitate retaking the initiative and momentum of a fight.

[SLG]

I pretty much agree with what everyone else has written, but I look at it slightly differently. I think that timing is the key issue, and that once you have picked a good time to draw, it should be done as fast as possible. Having said that, I've drawn on people fast enough, that they dropped their weapon in surprise, so please don't think I'm pooh-poohing speed.

[JHC]

Without getting tied up in defining fast - I think it is extremely important. First as Tom G and Todd G were just explaining. But secondly for the confidence it inspires before a situation goes from orange to red/black. I recall Ayoob explaining this many many years ago and I thought it made sense. The idea that without the confidence of speed, one may make a hasty decision and draw too early or not at all. The appropriate aggressive mindset is not so useful if not pushing off a foundation of confidence in the competency.

M4C had a thread about a robbery where the gun carrier failed to take decisive action when he could have stood his best chance; and didn't draw until the armed robber "made him" and also unfortunately had the drop on him. He lived but was wounded. I can see how someone lacking the competency and the confidence born of that competency would have hesitated as long as this fellow did.

I've been in a few situations where it was an orange to red deal, but there was still that range of doubt - no visible weapons, no demands verbalized, but BG's clearing "on point" like a bird dog, ready to launch. I knew I had a fast draw if they crossed the Rubicon; I'm quite sure they could see I was ready to launch myself and it was clear from their behaviors they smelled a bad choice they were on the verge of making and withdrew post haste. I thought it all better than me drawing in panic too early etc.

[VolGrad]

I knew I had a fast draw if they crossed the Rubicon....
The idiom "Crossing the Rubicon" means to pass a point of no return, and refers to Julius Caesar's army's crossing of the river in 49 BC, which was considered an act of insurrection. Because the course of the river has changed much since then, it is impossible to confirm exactly where the Rubicon flowed when Caesar and his legions crossed it.
--- Wikipedia (the source for all Internet knowledge)

I had to look it up. I'm not very learned.

[NickA]

Something Mr. Givens said in a class, that sort of adds to what OrigamiAK said: when you're behind the curve, if you can get 2 WTF's out of the guy that should get you back ahead. I think the example he demonstrated was facing a drawn gun at close quarters- say something to break his OODA loop (WTF?), then a quick sidestep (WTF?). As he put it the next thing through his mind should be your bullet.
As far as pure physical speed, I'd obviously agree that you want to be as fast as you can and still get hits.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[David Armstrong]

It will depend largely on your personal situation. As Todd said, the quicker you can get the gun out and ready the more time you will have to do other things. There are a couple of interesting studies out there that suggest the speed issue isn't as important for most situations, and I would tend to agree with that. Claude Werner did a nice review of the NRA Armed Citizen articles over a 5-year period and found most of those reports were an attack in a home or business and that there was plenty of time to get to the gun and get it out in most situations. Ed Lovette looked at non-LE incidents and reported much the same, with most attacks in home or business and there being enough time to retrieve a firearm from an off-body position. Even in LE we regularly find the data showing that attacks don't occur in sudden, unexpected short reaction-time segments but instead build over a time.

[ToddG]

The problem with Armed Citizen, etc., is that those databases are heavily biased based on population. Lots more people have a gun at home or at their business than CCW. To paraphrase something Tom G says, if more people ccw'd, more muggers would get shot. That's why Tom's data -- which is comprised of people who usually carry and who were motivated enough to get at least some training -- seems so much more valid to me than generic "there was a gun somewhere" stories.

As for LE, as we've discussed before, it's a completely different animal. Uniformed cops don't get mugged too often. :cool: But if anything, their data shows that often a draw at speed under stress is necessary. It may not be the most common situation, but it happens often enough that most quals involve a lot of draws from the holster on the clock.

[JodyH]

The one time I drew my handgun, nobody knew it but me.
I was travelling late and went in a convenience store for a Red Bull (in Espanola, NM as a matter of fact).
I was near the back of the store at the cooler and the clerk had gone to the rear of her counter area and had her back to the front door.
A young guy came in the store and performed the famous "countertop hurdle" move as seen on surveillance videos everywhere.
My strong hand went under my hoody , I drew my pistol and left it partially under the hoody against my beltline.
About that time the clerk turned around, jumped a little then scolded the guy for scaring her, he was a friend of hers pranking her.
I reholstered and never said a word.
A fast draw is a great thing to have but a pre-emptive draw can cut through some of the most fumble prone parts of the draw sequence, mainly clearing the cover garment and getting a solid grip on the gun.
A covert pre-emptive draw is a useful skill to develop for those iffy orange to red transitions.
You're ahead of the curve if things go bad and no harm no foul if thing return to normal.

[Jay Cunningham]

A covert pre-emptive draw is a useful skill to develop for those iffy orange to red transitions.

Agree, but unsure how much it takes to "develop" this, other than knowing it's an option.

[JodyH]

Agree, but unsure how much it takes to "develop" this, other than knowing it's an option.
Actually, I've practiced them many times with my wife watching me from different angles to see what telegraphs and what doesn't.
It's an art not a science, much like magician's sleight of hand tricks.

[SLG]

Agree, but unsure how much it takes to "develop" this, other than knowing it's an option.

This is a very real advantage of AIWB. At NTI one year, I had my gun out and I was clearing my first room before any of the judges (who were watching me closely from less than 10 feet) knew I had my gun out.

[Jay Cunningham]

Being well-rounded means you have options. Drawing the pistol quickly is distinctly different than drawing the pistol quickly *and* placing an accurate shot/shots on target. Both are important options. The surreptitious draw is also an important option. Chasing one to the exclusion of the others has never been my style, though some (like drawing quickly and placing accurate shots on target quickly) require considerably more effort to develop and maintain.

Perhaps I'm simply stating the obvious, but I've come to find that the obvious quite frequently needs to be stated simply.

[JodyH]

Being well-rounded means you have options. Drawing the pistol quickly is distinctly different than drawing the pistol quickly *and* placing an accurate shot/shots on target. Both are important options. The surreptitious draw is also an important option. Chasing one to the exclusion of the others has never been my style, though some (like drawing quickly and placing accurate shots on target quickly) require considerably more effort to develop and maintain.

Perhaps I'm simply stating the obvious, but I've come to find that the obvious quite frequently needs to be stated simply.
I've found that my range time is best devoted to fast draw to hit practice.
There's nothing like the feedback of a bullet hole to keep you from developing poor technique.
It's easy to develop a sloppy fast draw when you're racing a par timer with no real feedback.
My dry fire time is best devoted to reload practice and other skills (like the covert draw) that aren't as dependent on bullet hole feedback to know whether you're doing them right or not.

On a related note.
I see a lot of guys who are blazing fast on the draw when their feet are planted square to the target, their hands are in the perfect "relaxed" (or surrender) position, they have a nice forward lean, etc. etc. but everything goes to shit when they stand in a normal casual position or they have to draw on the move. It's almost always a cover garment clearing issue.
I found that out when I was really working my 99 drill. My shirt grab technique worked great when I could lean forward and my shirt would conveniently gap open at the bottom. But when I would be shooting into a headwind or while moving I'd often miss my cover garment with the first grab (there's a video of me doing this in the competition section of the forum). I found that working on a fast draw from multiple positions was something I'd been neglecting to do.
I've since rectified this by slightly changing how I clear my cover.
Speed is great to work on, but consistent speed from multiple positions under varying conditions is even better.

[David Armstrong]

The problem with Armed Citizen, etc., is that those databases are heavily biased based on population. Lots more people have a gun at home or at their business than CCW.
Agreed, but the quesiton was importance of the fast draw for self defense, not for CCW. Thus we probably need to look at the more common self defense situations.

As for LE, as we've discussed before, it's a completely different animal. Uniformed cops don't get mugged too often. :cool: But if anything, their data shows that often a draw at speed under stress is necessary. It may not be the most common situation, but it happens often enough that most quals involve a lot of draws from the holster on the clock.
A different animal yes, one where we might expect a higher than normal need for fast draws. Maybe not. Could be an interesting bit of research. As for quals on the clock, yes, but most of them don't involve fast draws. You can get through most quals with a 2-second draw IME.
Using my research and experience I'd feel comfortable saying a fast draw made the difference in between 5 and 10% of the shootings, which is a fair amount.

[JodyH]

I would think a fast draw would be more important for a CCW than a LEO due to the fact that LEO's have a much lower threshold of when they can draw down on someone.
I know a lot of LEO's who have their gun in hand at the first inkling of trouble.

[Mr_White]

I would think a fast draw would be more important for a CCW than a LEO due to the fact that LEO's have a much lower threshold of when they can draw down on someone.
I know a lot of LEO's who have their gun in hand at the first inkling of trouble.

I strongly agree with this.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Most of the time, if you need your gun to defend your life, it will be in the holster when you perceive that need. You will have a finite amount of time to deal with the problem. The longer it takes you to get your gun out, the less time you will have for decision making and accurate shooting. Duh...


I look at it this way:

There is a certain finite amount of time between when a problem begins and when the problem becomes unsolvable. Within that space of time, I can either succeed or fail. The faster my gun can go from being in the holster to sending an accurate round where I need it, the more of that timeframe I have to recognize the danger, make a decision about what to do, and execute.



Tom -- Not only are you brilliant, but your timing is impeccable!

Tom and Todd wait for no man, as the saying goes.

[VolGrad]

I found that out when I was really working my 99 drill. My shirt grab technique worked great when I could lean forward and my shirt would conveniently gap open at the bottom. But when I would be shooting into a headwind or while moving I'd often miss my cover garment with the first grab (there's a video of me doing this in the competition section of the forum). I found that working on a fast draw from multiple positions was something I'd been neglecting to do.
I've since rectified this by slightly changing how I clear my cover.
Speed is great to work on, but consistent speed from multiple positions under varying conditions is even better.

This is a great post. I know this is something I need to work on. I know a lot of other guys that need to work on it too but prob won't admit it. I know because I see them in class ... just like me ... carrying in the class openly (OWB, no cover garment) even though we don't carry that way in "normal" life. Lots of guys do "train like they carry" but even more just use that phrase as a cliche and don't actually do what they preach.

For me the three main reasons I have always taken classes OWB rather than carrying concealed are as follows;
1. That's what all the other students were doing so it had to be the right way, right?
2. I wasn't sure what the instructor would think of me taking the class concealed. (lame excuse really, all I had to do was ask)
3. I didn't want to suck in front of all the other students. (the lamest excuse on the planet in a training environment)

Another thing Jody's post reminded me of .....

I normally wear a plain white tee under everything from polo shirts to button downs to sweaters. The only time I don't have on an undershirt is if I'm wearing just a printed or solid tee to begin with. I generally have both shirts over my weapon rather than tucking the white one between my pistol and jelly roll.

I do this for two reasons;
1. The double layer provides more concealment / less printing.
2. When I do the shirt grab I don't have to worry about only grabbing the outer layer. If I have the undershirt tucked in and do a shirt grab I might grab them both, especially under stress. This jacks me up as it can get tabled in my pistol/holster and not allow quick, easy access to my weapon.

A lot of guys I know say they tuck the undershirt between the pistol/holster and bare skin for comfort but I personally think that isn't enough benefit to outweigh the potential bad scenario .... which I have actually managed to realize on more than one occasion doing practice draws that way. You get pretty used to a pistol grip against bare skin pretty quickly. It isn't a big deal.

Now, the alternative ... which I think I have read a bunch of you guys on here do ... is to wear one of those tight compression type of shirts as the under layer and tuck it behind. This does NOT work for me. Those things are itchy & HOT as HELL.

[GJM]

An alternative to the Under Armor style compression base layer is a thin wool t shirt, like made by Icebreaker or Smartwool. They are comfortable in a wide range of temperatures, don't hold an odor, and won't melt. I wear a thin wool t shirt or turtleneck as a base layer almost year round.

My wife says, after watching a number of appendix draw videos posted on the forum, that guys need the base layer or start working their abs as much as the draw, because the skin showing ain't pretty.

[JodyH]

My wife says, after watching a number of appendix draw videos posted on the forum, that guys need the base layer or start working their abs as much as the draw, because the skin showing ain't pretty.
Don't make me bust out some 6 pack pics.
I'm a sexy beast.
A pale white sexy beast.

[Al T.]

I think that I want my drawstroke to be smooth, quick and something I don't have to devote conscious thought to, so I can get on with the high speed problem solving.

[David Armstrong]

I would think a fast draw would be more important for a CCW than a LEO due to the fact that LEO's have a much lower threshold of when they can draw down on someone.
I know a lot of LEO's who have their gun in hand at the first inkling of trouble.
Could be. The other side of that is that LEOs get into a lot more situations where they might need to draw.

[GJM]

I would think a fast draw would be more important for a CCW than a LEO due to the fact that LEO's have a much lower threshold of when they can draw down on someone.

I think there is a scenario where a fast draw is even more important than for LE or CCW -- defense against an animal attack, by a bear, cougar, wolf or moose.

[ToddG]

Agreed, but the quesiton was importance of the fast draw for self defense, not for CCW. Thus we probably need to look at the more common self defense situations.

I guess I just assumed that since the question was about drawing fast, it presumed instances in which a draw was a component of the defensive action.


As for quals on the clock, yes, but most of them don't involve fast draws. You can get through most quals with a 2-second draw IME.

Nothing in most quals is tough or fast. That's because the standard is set so that a 20-year veteran who hasn't had any formal training or practice since the academy two decades ago can still pass. Nonetheless, the fact that it's measured (even with a low standard) suggests to me that the speed involved with the draw takes more precedence than, say, the reload (which is very rarely on the clock in LE quals).

[Dropkick]

Less than 10% of our student involved shootings have occurred in the home. The vast majority occur on the street, where your gun will be carried concealed in a holster. Armed robbery is probably the single most likely incident in which a civilian CCW would need a gun. According to the Justice Department, 85% of those occur away from home. So, since you'll be starting your response with a holstered handgun, how would access speed not be a major issue?

I'm curious, has that 10% of shootings in the home been something that has been increasing in frequency recently, as opposed to a few years ago?

[JFK]

Actually, I've practiced them many times with my wife watching me from different angles to see what telegraphs and what doesn't.
It's an art not a science, much like magician's sleight of hand tricks.

Jody,

I wonder if this is a regional thing. You know in NM we have like six different kinds of stupid. Could it be that we may practice something like this because of the presence of posturing and a large illegal trade here?

[Odin Bravo One]

A pistol is a piece of life saving equipment. How fast you draw is directly proportionate to how much you feel you need to do it.

As a HALO Jump Master and jump instructor I was often asked by rookie jumpers "If I get a malfunction, how much time do I have to pull my reserve?"

I look at drawing a pistol with the same simplistic view and attitude. A piece of life saving equipment being put into action for the purpose it is being carried............

How long do you have to pull a reserve parachute or a pistol, should you need either?

"The rest of your life".

[TCinVA]

I believe if you look at LE data you'll find that a significant chunk of LE shootings involve the traffic stop...and a sizeable chunk of those are of the officer pulling someone over, approaching the driver's window, and then having a gun stuck in his face variety. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szf6VldxSgY

Now in that situation the officer found out there was a lethal threat when he saw the gun and heard the click from the first trigger pull. (Thankfully the gun didn't go off for whatever reason) He was ambushed.

If the stimulus prompting you to want to go for the gun is rounds incoming or a gun in your face, you have a limited window of opportunity to do something useful to resolve the problem in your favor. Given that most bad guys on the street operate as ambush predators it would behoove the self defense minded individual (it doesn't matter whether he's law enforcement or a regular citizen. Plenty of examples of ambush are available for both) to expect that he will face the ambush predator.

[LOKNLOD]

For a private citizen in a self defense situation, I think a fast draw to the first shot is one of the most important firearm skills to develop. Presuming I've failed to avoid selection as a target by a violent criminal, once I've been chosen as the target I am in a very bad position - badguy knows what he intends to do to me, but I can only react to his actions. And since preemptively drawing and shooting some dude "because he looked like he was up to something" seems to be heavily frowned upon in the court of law, I'm at an extremely severe disadvantage. When it's time to get the gun out and going, it needs to happen right-the-frak-now because somebody is trying to do bad things to me (or worse yet, my family).

Above and beyond just pure speed, though, is that I think you need to be confident and consistent in your draw under all circumstances so that when the time comes, you're not thinking about drawing your gun, you're thinking about everything else. It's one thing to push raw speed to high levels on the range when you're standing there waiting for a buzz going "I'm going to X, then Y, then Z, Z, Z, Z, Z..." but what about when you've got a wife and three small daughters in tow, possibly carrying one, in a parking lot at the mall and buzzer goes off in the form of some thug with a knife stepping out from behind a parked car with a demand for cash? If shooting is the answer to that problem, you need to -- have to -- solve it quickly and efficiently with your little alligator brain screaming "FFFFUUUUUUUUUUU" not through some sort of complicated process where you're figuring it out as you go. It needs to be a macro for the whole "shoot the bastard" subroutine that triggers with a single keystroke, this isn't live action ZORK. There's more to speed than just the pure mechanics of drawing the gun.

[SweetScienceOfShooting]

OP - How much importance do you place on having a fast draw for self defense?
Why?

I’ve been thinking along these same lines after reading all the great information on the “Fighting With a Gun” thread. My .02 is that the importance of a fast draw is very dependent upon the situation. Are you behind, even, or ahead on the reactionary curve? What type of assault are you facing? What distance? That's just a few of the factors to consider.

I attended a seminar many years ago run by Jim Crotty with Strategies For Officer Survival, Inc. One of the topics he covered was post incident interviews of perps who had assaulted LEO’s. One perp related that he had gotten the drop on an LEO and already had his gun out. Reportedly the LEO tried to draw his firearm but with the perp already having the initiative, it was easy for him to prevail. The perp said in his interview that he couldn’t believe that the LEO tried to outdraw his trigger squeeze.

My still a work-in-progress solution is to think W.I.N. (What’s Important Now), access the appropriate tool from the toolbox, then get to work, fast.

[JodyH]

And since preemptively drawing and shooting some dude "because he looked like he was up to something" seems to be heavily frowned upon in the court of law, I'm at an extremely severe disadvantage.
But preemptively drawing to a covert position gives you a slight advantage over over drawing from full concealment and "no ham no foul" if the situation doesn't require a presentation with intent.
I've done this nearly every time I fill up with gas or use a walk up ATM in areas that give me "that feeling" and I have the proper cover garment (hoody).
Before I get out of the car I draw my gun and have it in my strong hand inside my hand warmer pocket.
I do my business weak handed and nobody's the wiser that I have a gun in hand.
I've also used this technique with my Ruger LCP BUG for convenience stores and other "stop and rob" type places. The little LCP doesn't weigh down the pocket, so I don't have to keep a hand on it.


OP - How much importance do you place on having a fast draw for self defense?
Why?
I've worked until I can reliably get two shots on a 3x5 at 7 yards in 2 seconds or less from concealed.
Why? Because there are no downsides to having a fast draw.

Drawing against the gun is at best a "tie" situation the majority of the time even with a blazing fast 1 sec. draw to hit.
Shooting from inside my pocket against the gun might be that slight advantage that pushes the odds into my favor just a bit.
I'm all for seeking out any advantage I can get. Whether that's a super fast draw to hit while face to face or a sneaky ass shot in the back when they're not looking.

[Tamara]

I'm not sure one can describe a "typical" civilian CCW incident?

I mean, one time, I had all the time in the world, and another time, I was trying to fish the gun out of my purse while running away with the guy right behind me, and the third time I didn't need to "draw" because it was just sitting there on the console of the car next to my elbow, which was a good thing because I needed it like, RIGHT THEN (because I was stupid and fiddling around with the stereo rather than paying attention to my surroundings,) and I sure would hated to have been trying to fish around under a seat belt?

[jetfire]

I have always looked at this question from the inverse: I can't imagine anyone who has had to draw a gun in a hurry as a civilian thinking after the fact "boy, I wish my draw had been slower."

[Tamara]

Claude Werner did a nice review of the NRA Armed Citizen articles over a 5-year period and found most of those reports were an attack in a home or business and that there was plenty of time to get to the gun and get it out in most situations.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", it's "anecdotes". I read that someplace on the internets recently... ;)

[JDM]

It's important, because you dont know when, let alone how quickly you'll need your pistol.

I've been in a situation where two large dogs started on me from about 100 yards out, and I could have reassembled my pistol from field strip in the time I had. I've also been in a situation where a transient reached a hand into my passenger side window at a gas station in an attempt to get hands on either myself, or my daughter, and I couldnt get my gun out fast enough (his other hand was behind his back).

The very nature of the "self defense with a gun" question does not lend itself to easy answers. The fact is, you simply don't know when, or how it's gonna go down. Prepare for however it may happen as best you can; a big part of that is a fast, effective draw stroke.

[John Hearne]

In my mind, the fast draw is important because it shows you've done the work. The only way to get faster is to do the work. If you do enough work, you reduce the mental resources needed to perform the draw and you can trust it on auto-pilot. I don't think anybody can consistently luck into a 1.0 second 1st round hit without some time and effort.

[BWT]

I'd say this, when your life is what matters... I don't think you can get the gun out fast enough. I don't think anybody who's ever been in that circumstance (could be wrong) has wanted to get their pistol out slower.

So short of a speed rig, how can we conceal that?

That's honestly, why I'm switching to AIWB (...Sometime Q2 of 2012 is looking like CCC will be delivering holsters), I can't get to my gun in my car. I would challenge someone in a car to get to their wallet on demand with a timer with their seat belt, seated, and get it out as fast as possible. Now imagine that's a gun, and you're in a life and death situation. Oh great, let's take off my seat belt (assuming I can't drive away), lift up my shirt, grab the gun, pull it around my body, and get it up. I can't imagine I could do that less than 5 seconds ball park, maybe longer. That and today kneeling to tie a shoe in a grocery store made me really want AIWB... Either that or there's no where convenient to walk to tie my shoe short of a bathroom stall, but I didn't think of that until now. I know I was printing terribly, so I just had to do it as fast as possible.

[JDM]

I'd say this, when your life is what matters... I don't think you can get the gun out fast enough. I don't think anybody who's ever been in that circumstance (could be wrong) has wanted to get their pistol out slower.

So short of a speed rig, how can we conceal that?

That's honestly, why I'm switching to AIWB (...Sometime Q2 of 2012 is looking like CCC will be delivering holsters), I can't get to my gun in my car. I would challenge someone in a car to get to their wallet on demand with a timer with their seat belt, seated, and get it out as fast as possible. Now imagine that's a gun, and you're in a life and death situation. Oh great, let's take off my seat belt (assuming I can't drive away), lift up my shirt, grab the gun, pull it around my body, and get it up. I can't imagine I could do that less than 5 seconds ball park, maybe longer. That and today kneeling to tie a shoe in a grocery store made me really want AIWB... Either that or there's no where convenient to walk to tie my shoe short of a bathroom stall, but I didn't think of that until now. I know I was printing terribly, so I just had to do it as fast as possible.

Aside from the ND=Fatal Wound aspect, the only other drawback to AIWB I've discovered? I can't tie my shoes.

[Tamara]

I would challenge someone in a car to get to their wallet on demand with a timer with their seat belt, seated, and get it out as fast as possible. Now imagine that's a gun, and you're in a life and death situation. Oh great, let's take off my seat belt (assuming I can't drive away), lift up my shirt, grab the gun, pull it around my body, and get it up.

I carry IWB @ 4:30ish and, at least in the summer months when I'm concealing under an open-front garment, it's no problem: Lean forward and draw and don't worry about the seatbelt.

However, in winter, when I'm carrying under a fleece with a coat over that? That's why there's a J-frame in the breast pocket of the coat.

[JHC]

I'd say this, when your life is what matters... I don't think you can get the gun out fast enough. I don't think anybody who's ever been in that circumstance (could be wrong) has wanted to get their pistol out slower.

So short of a speed rig, how can we conceal that?

That's honestly, why I'm switching to AIWB (...Sometime Q2 of 2012 is looking like CCC will be delivering holsters), I can't get to my gun in my car. I would challenge someone in a car to get to their wallet on demand with a timer with their seat belt, seated, and get it out as fast as possible. Now imagine that's a gun, and you're in a life and death situation. Oh great, let's take off my seat belt (assuming I can't drive away), lift up my shirt, grab the gun, pull it around my body, and get it up. I can't imagine I could do that less than 5 seconds ball park, maybe longer. That and today kneeling to tie a shoe in a grocery store made me really want AIWB... Either that or there's no where convenient to walk to tie my shoe short of a bathroom stall, but I didn't think of that until now. I know I was printing terribly, so I just had to do it as fast as possible.

If you dig AIWB for driving or otherwise rock it. But my IWB pistol at 3:30 on the beltline is nothing like getting to my wallet I'm sitting ON. I don't need to remove the seat belt, cover garment is tucked clear and its VERY easy to have a discrete "pre-draw" position to speed things up further. Just a few things I've picked up carrying concealed 30 years or so. Plus being agile and fit means no spare tires in the way either.

AIWB can work very well also obviously. Seatbelt can be tricky but workable.

[JAD]

2.5 seconds to the first 15 yard 8" hit, lightweight commander from a sparks ex. And, I can do it without breaking rule 2.

[David Armstrong]

I guess I just assumed that since the question was about drawing fast, it presumed instances in which a draw was a component of the defensive action.
Could be. I agree that when one needs to draw in a hurry then a fast draw is pretty important. I focused more on the "how important is X to self defense" rather than on "if x is needed, how important is it to do X quickly."

Nothing in most quals is tough or fast. That's because the standard is set so that a 20-year veteran who hasn't had any formal training or practice since the academy two decades ago can still pass. Nonetheless, the fact that it's measured (even with a low standard) suggests to me that the speed involved with the draw takes more precedence than, say, the reload (which is very rarely on the clock in LE quals).
No disagreement, LE does emphasize drawing the gun as a part of quals. Whether the qual requires a fast draw is going to be defined by what one considers fast, I would guess.

[David Armstrong]

I'm not sure one can describe a "typical" civilian CCW incident?
One can describe/identify a typical and an unusual in pretty much any type of incident, I don't see why a CCW incident would be any different. I guess one could debate how big (or small) an area should be included in that term, but without some idea of what is typical how does one decide how to train, goals, acceptable standards, what equipment to select, etc.?

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", it's "anecdotes". I read that someplace on the internets recently
True, which is why Claude's stuff is important as he actually broke down the anecdotes into variables that one could use for analysis purposes. As always when dealing with uncontrolled info sources issues of validity pop up, but when multiple sources tend to reflect the same commonalities with different sources of material it often indicates basic trends at the least.

[Tamara]

As always when dealing with uncontrolled info sources issues of validity pop up, but when multiple sources tend to support my argument on the internets it often indicates basic trends at the least.
Fixed that for you. :p

C'mon, Dave, don't be disingenuous. You've stood broad-shouldered and resolute under whole dumptrucks of anecdotes that differ with your premises over the years, but when you get some that support them? Well, then, that's different...

[David Armstrong]

Fixed that for you. :p
As we often see, a "fix" tends to reflect the biases of the fixer rather than the position of the poster. I tend to use far more non-internet sources than internet sources and use them far more off the net than on it. In fact I find many internet arguments/discussions to be rather silly because so many people do their research on the net and it gives a very shallow and inadequate understanding of an issue.


Dave, don't be disingenuous. You've stood broad-shouldered and resolute under whole dumptrucks of anecdotes that differ with your premises over the years, but when you get some that support them? Well, then, that's different...
Since you seem to have not understood what I was saying, one can use some anecdotes as a source of some data. Researchers do it all the time. In fact, SOP9 is nothing but a collection of anecdotes that have been turned into data. The issue is whether the anecdotes provide the information in a manner that lends itself to the data being reported. "Joe was in a car wreck and lived" is an anecdote. Itfives us some limited data...whether Joe lived or died in his car wreck. The problem comes when people try to go beyond the data that is available. So yes, while the plural of anecdote is not data it is incorrect to say one cannot collect data from anecdotes. Sorry if that statement confused you, I should have been clearer.

[seabiscuit]

David, it seems like you're picking and choosing what you call data and what you call anecdotes. And it just so happens that the ones you call 'data' support your view, while the 'anecdotes' are just silly stories the other guys use.

[matman]

I have to agree with many here. The fast draw is an important part of my practice because it's the amount of time it takes me to put my first effective round on target that's the longest (generally). I can follow one with 1, 2 or 15 more rounds in about the same or less time it took me to draw and place my first effective round on target.

When I was first shot at (military situation) I had my M4 up, and was scanning rooftops for threats. When we became distracted willy the terrorist shot at me from a building I had been scanning. I can tell you the only thing that crossed my mind was 'God, let me shoot this SOB before he gets me!'. (yes, you become very religious fast and cussing was I there as well). The speed at which you can get on target with effective rounds is the famed 'rest of your life'.

So with this in mind I've always trained rifle or pistol and from a disadvantaged position to first round (or rounds) I can get on target. I train things like rifle to one shot on steel on the clock at 100Mmeters or more. Same with a pistol at various speeds and distances from the holster. I figure it's always possible to slow things down from your skill level you've mastered, but i cannot become faster under pressure, with someone intent on killing or harming me or my loved ones.

[David Armstrong]

David, it seems like you're picking and choosing what you call data and what you call anecdotes.
It's quite simple. In this context anecdotes are stories that reflect the view of a person's experience of an event. Data is a collection of measurable points within a number of stories. The stories reported to Armed Citizen are anecdotes. Claude took those anecdotes and measured certain elements in the stories to provide us with data regarding them. Ed Lovette looked at over 100 self defense stories (anecdotes) and took the information he gathered in them and then measured certain elements to provide us with data about those events. The stories Tom Givens got from his students are anecdotes. Tom has taken those anecdotes and measured certain things and provided us with data regarding them. This is commonly used in certain types of research when your data sources are uncontrolled and they may define things differently. A good example is talking about a "gunfight." There are several ways to define gunfight. But looking at an anecdote you can read what happened and find out if what happened was a "gunfight" according to the definition you are using or not.

And it just so happens that the ones you call 'data' support your view, while the 'anecdotes' are just silly stories the other guys use.
Gosh, where to begin. First I think I would ask what you would think my view is and what data you have that might contradict that view. Second, I consider lots of things data whether they support my view or not. Third, I don't consider anecdotes silly stories at all. I think the way some people try to use anecdotes is rather silly, but an anecdote is what it is, a reporting of what a person saw or heard or felt. Fourth I use anecdotes myself. I don't use them as anything other than what they are, a single snapshot of a particular event at a particular time. But they are certainly not silly nor are they only something the other guy uses.

[BWT]

Aside from the ND=Fatal Wound aspect, the only other drawback to AIWB I've discovered? I can't tie my shoes.

Maybe that's how I come full circle... get married and have kids and teach them to tie shoes so I can AIWB carry. :D Well, you can awkwardly, or put your foot on something and hunch over on it, and lean over and not worry about printing, etc. you do have a point about the ND, honestly, that's the only thing that makes me hesitant about AIWB.


I carry IWB @ 4:30ish and, at least in the summer months when I'm concealing under an open-front garment, it's no problem: Lean forward and draw and don't worry about the seatbelt.

However, in winter, when I'm carrying under a fleece with a coat over that? That's why there's a J-frame in the breast pocket of the coat.

That's a fantastic suggestion, thank you. I also pocket carry, and I'll be honest, depending on whatever I'm carrying, if I'm heading towards a bad side of town, etc. I'll unholster it, and put it under my left leg.


If you dig AIWB for driving or otherwise rock it. But my IWB pistol at 3:30 on the beltline is nothing like getting to my wallet I'm sitting ON. I don't need to remove the seat belt, cover garment is tucked clear and its VERY easy to have a discrete "pre-draw" position to speed things up further. Just a few things I've picked up carrying concealed 30 years or so. Plus being agile and fit means no spare tires in the way either.

AIWB can work very well also obviously. Seatbelt can be tricky but workable.

I don't have a spare tire, but I was thinking about it, I also wear dress pants with buttons on the back pockets at work, which makes getting my wallet out irritating to no end. Might be a slight difference. A couple of things make me like AIWB, one is bending over (even though it gouges you in the abdomen, frankly, fi I need to bend over I can fight through the irritation, or kneel, or whatever kind of weird position I need to do to compensate) and not printing or exposing your gun, two it's faster, three one thing I really like is, I feel I have more control of the gun, like... one thing I was really paranoid about when I first started carrying (before I realized no one pays attention) was the idea of someone grabbing my pistol, or it poking out and not being able to check.

I think I can control the gun better and get to it faster/easier with both my dominant and non dominant hand, let's be honest, go ahead and reach for your Small of the back carry gun that's canted to the right to promote an easier draw right? With your left hand, under pressure. I guarantee you it will work better, or if you get pushed down onto your back, if you're in some kind of physical struggle you can get to it faster. I just think it a multitude of situations it works better.

The downside is, you can kill yourself with a mistake. With a Small of the back you can shoot yourself in the butt, thigh, back of your knee, foot, or heck a combination depending on your position, maybe even your low spine. Some may land you in a wheel chair (in the most obscure/improbable of accidents), but... nothing will hit a main artery in a muscle group so thick there's really very little hope you can get a tourniquet on it adequately to save your life. That is what keeps me in analysis paralysis limbo on a M&P 9 with a thumb safety or a Glock 17 without. That's it.

ETA: I'd buy a glock without a doubt if I planned to keep carrying small of the back.

ETA 2: If the Gadget was released, I'd buy one and just get a Glock and quit flip-flopping. (I may still, the early barrel unlock on M&P9's bothers me, even though it's somewhat isolated), but anyway, that's off topic, I like the handling characteristics of the controls on the glock much more, along with the texture. No safety and the revisions of parts being rolled out still has the jury out on me, but anyway, in the interim, I mostly pocket carry anyway so it's not a huge deal, because I can't manage a full-size 80% of the time anyway.

ETA 3: Also, the reason I said bring the gun around yourself, is I'm right handed, and I drive a left hand drive vehicle, like the majority of other Americans. Most threats are going to be coming to my door to get to me, so I assume I'd have to reach around behind me, bring the gun to my left side with my right hand to be able to shoot it, with my current configuration, doing that, plus (though I think it'll be easier with the method that you guys have shared, I'll give it a whirl in the garage sometime, thank you) thinking I needed to get my seat belt out of the way by unbuckling as well, I thought it'd be much easier to just pull up my shirt, grab the gun, and just point it, not have to bring it around from behind me, lean forward, etc.

[ToddG]

One can describe/identify a typical and an unusual in pretty much any type of incident, I don't see why a CCW incident would be any different. I guess one could debate how big (or small) an area should be included in that term, but without some idea of what is typical how does one decide how to train, goals, acceptable standards, what equipment to select, etc.?

That assumes one trains and prepares for "typical." I think it's fairly clear that, especially around here, most folks want to train for something beyond typical. That's because the vast majority of people who ever get into a gunfight won't see enough of them to define "typical." There will be just that one, and whether it's close or far, fast or slow, long or short... that's their fight. It's not going to stop after 3.5 seconds and 3.5 rounds fired just because that's supposed to be the average.

However, I think you general statement is still valid in that context. Everyone has a certain "worst case scenario I'm prepared for" in mind, for lack of a better term. My WCSIPF might be different than your WCSIPF. And it's probably fair to say we can all imagine a true worst case scenario that is beyond our level of preparation.

[David Armstrong]

That assumes one trains and prepares for "typical." I think it's fairly clear that, especially around here, most folks want to train for something beyond typical.
No disagreement, but that shouldn't change the fact that one should have some idea of what "typical" is in any endeavor. Hard to train for "beyond typical" if you don't understand what is typical.

That's because the vast majority of people who ever get into a gunfight won't see enough of them to define "typical." There will be just that one, and whether it's close or far, fast or slow, long or short... that's their fight. It's not going to stop after 3.5 seconds and 3.5 rounds fired just because that's supposed to be the average.
Again, no disagreement. As I've mentioned I can point to two shooting incidents where the tactics for one would have been completely wrong for the other. But being trained for typical/normal/expected situations gives the basis for developing common skills that can be used in different formats.


However, I think you general statement is still valid in that context. Everyone has a certain "worst case scenario I'm prepared for" in mind, for lack of a better term. My WCSIPF might be different than your WCSIPF. And it's probably fair to say we can all imagine a true worst case scenario that is beyond our level of preparation.
So true. I tell folks that if they think they can prepare for a worst case scenario they haven't done enough thinking about scenarios.

[ToddG]

No disagreement, but that shouldn't change the fact that one should have some idea of what "typical" is in any endeavor. Hard to train for "beyond typical" if you don't understand what is typical.

Do I? If anything, the concept of the "typical" or "average" gunfight, to me, is misleading at best and demotivational at worst. Plenty of people settle for "good enough for the typical..."

It's much better to have a solid grasp of what is realistically possible and then decide how much of that I'm willing to train toward.


Again, no disagreement. As I've mentioned I can point to two shooting incidents where the tactics for one would have been completely wrong for the other. But being trained for typical/normal/expected situations gives the basis for developing common skills that can be used in different formats.

I don't see how "typical" becomes part of it, still. Common skills for the range of reasonably possible circumstances are common regardless of whether they're also typical.

Now, if you're talking about training priorities then yes, it makes sense to plug probabilities into the equation. For example, let's take malfunction clearances. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that we're far more likely to need to draw -- and possibly need a fast draw -- than we are to have a malfunction. As such, folks who have mediocre draws but awesome malf-clearing skills are either misreading their priorities or need to choose a more reliable gun.

Same is true of reloads, though to a lesser extent. Especially for folks carrying a high capacity gun, the odds of needing an in-fight reload are necessarily lower than the odds of needing to draw the gun. Putting a ton of time into reloads, then, should logically take a back seat to improving the draw. I say that as someone who puts an inordinate amount of time into practicing his reloads...


I tell folks that if they think they can prepare for a worst case scenario they haven't done enough thinking about scenarios.

Yup. It often falls back on some clown wanting to talk about mindset and how, somehow, his mindset will allow him to prevail against 50 armed attackers while he is blindfolded, handcuffed, and suffering from a sucking chest wound. OK...

[David Armstrong]

Do I? If anything, the concept of the "typical" or "average" gunfight, to me, is misleading at best and demotivational at worst. Plenty of people settle for "good enough for the typical..."
And i see it just the opposite. Arguong there is no typical gunfight and you never know if your training is good enough seems to demotivate. "If I can never know how my skills relate to the problem I am likely to face, why work on certain skills?"


It's much better to have a solid grasp of what is realistically possible and then decide how much of that I'm willing to train toward.
That is certainly one way to look at it, but given the more common non-dedicated shooter who is only able or willing to spend a limited amount of resources in developing skills they need to figure out how to best spend those resources. I understand where you are coming from, and I think it is a good model. In fact it is one that I used when training SWAT officers and teaching shooters who were trying to become the best they could be. But most gun owners don't fit into that mold IME.


I don't see how "typical" becomes part of it, still. Common skills for the range of reasonably possible circumstances are common regardless of whether they're also typical.
But typical helps identify and can even define the range of reasonably possible. If I might drag up an old issue we are familiar with I think we would both agree that it is reasonably possible one would need to reload their handgun. However, a typical gunfight does not require a tactical reload.


Now, if you're talking about training priorities then yes, it makes sense to plug probabilities into the equation.
But isn't that what it always boils down to? How do we we establish priorities without an understanding of what we are likely to need; in other words what is typical? The typical gunfight does not involve clearing malfunctions. The typical gunfight does not involve a reload. And because we know that is typical then we can decide how much of our resources we will spend on those skills. How do we know how important a fast-draw capability is unless we know how typical it is to need a fast draw? For that matter, how do we even know what constitutes a fast draw without knowing what a typical situation is?

[ToddG]

As I said, I agree that priorities need to be set at least in part on probabilities.

I'm also 100% in agreement with you when it comes to non-dedicated shooters. I just don't plug them into my equation because, candidly, they're not reading my site and they're not reading this forum and they're certainly not coming to my classes. Most of what I do -- what the folks who read pistol-forum do -- exists on a completely different track than the average CCWer who never practices.

Taking the present topic as an example, why bother discussing a "fast draw" with someone who doesn't know how to do a good draw in the first place? He's not part of this discussion.

[MDS]

Arguong there is no typical gunfight and you never know if your training is good enough seems to demotivate.

So, let me get this straight. Someone is preparing for a gunfight, and so they're practicing in order to acquire the necessary skills. And unless they have some notion of what it takes to prevail in a typical gunfight, they're demotivated because they'll never know if they're good enough to do that. Right? If that's not right, please accept my apologies, ignore the rest of this post and clarify your statement.

Otherwise, you seem to be forgetting that a gunfight is already one of the most atypical situations you can be in. If you don't want to waste time and effort preparing for atypical situations, then gunfighting should be pretty low on your list of skills to work on!

On the other hand, if you do want to prepare for atypical situations, then why not work on a fast draw stroke? It takes 5 minutes per day for a few months to develop a reasonably fast and - importantly! - confident draw stroke. You're already preparing for a gunfight, which is very atypical. There's a very small atypicality differential between gunfights that don't need a fast draw, and ones that do. Why would you draw the line precisely there, when you can get past it for not too much effort? If there's a good reason, I'd love to hear it! I'm a noob, and I don't pretend to know the answer - my question is sincere.

Nevertheless... the argument does seem like a sneaky way to justify lack of practice. Otherwise, why not just work on getting as good as you can, on preparing as much as you can, within the limits of however much time, effort and ammo you want to put into preparing for a gunfight? Because then, whether you have a fast draw or not isn't a matter of how often you'll need it in real life; instead, it's a reflection of how much time, effort and resources you put into improving your skills - an apparently less flattering interpretation of the decisions involved ...but that's BS. And if flattering interpretations of a decision tree are what you're looking for, then again: apologies and please ignore this post. But somehow I don't think that's you.

So, in sum: if I don't want to spend time preparing for an unlikely event, that makes sense. If throwing effort at unlikely problems is demotivational, to you... don't do it! But if I do prepare for an unlikely event, why would I prepare poorly?

[SLG]

Mario,

I agree completely with what you wrote, and if I may be permitted, I'd like to expand upon it a bit.

My tactical education began with the notion that there are two scenarios you need to prepare for. The most likely threat, and the most devastating threat, which some might call worst case scenario, though I do not.

In looking at any problem, a little bit of study should make it fairly easy to identify those two problems, and in prioritizing your training, you would usually prepare for most likely, and then work your way towards most devastating.

As Mario pointed out, why begin preparing for a very unlikely scenario and then quit in the beginning stages? Because...(I'm sure you all know where I'm going), though unlikely, it is a pretty devastating event to be unprepared for. Most people are happy to say they've done something, even if it isn't very much. And much of the time, that may be enough.

I guess I look at it a little differently. Compare an on on duty cop in a shooting to an off duty cop in the same shooting. On duty, the cop probably has a decent pistol (maybe a longgun), maybe a back up gun, a couple of spare mags, body armor, a radio to call for help, and maybe a partner or two right there. Pretty formidable.

Off duty, that same cop has a pistol. Maybe. Is the fight any different? Maybe. Is it less likely to happen in the first place? Maybe. Too many maybe's for me. I'd rather have it and not need it..

[Jay Cunningham]

My tactical education began with the notion that there are two scenarios you need to prepare for. The most likely threat, and the most devastating threat, which some might call worst case scenario

Okay I'm digging that.

[MDS]

I agree completely with what you wrote, and if I may be permitted, I'd like to expand upon it a bit.

Wow, thanks. I'm going to need some time to digest this. :)

[SweetScienceOfShooting]

Borrowed from one of Todd's posts in the Shooting Goals thread:

Draw from concealment to 8" @ 7yd
Good: <2 sec
Very Good: <1.5 sec
Excellent: <1 sec

Is there a point on this scale where one could confidently say that they have a sufficiently fast draw to first accurate hit? Or is it too much of an individual thing that one has to answer for themselves? I like what mario said about getting as good as you can within your limits of time, effort, and ammo to expend. However, I am looking for a quantifiable goal to reach. Based on the above scale, I would like to at least meet the very good time standard.

[David Armstrong]

As I said, I agree that priorities need to be set at least in part on probabilities.

I'm also 100% in agreement with you when it comes to non-dedicated shooters. I just don't plug them into my equation because, candidly, they're not reading my site and they're not reading this forum and they're certainly not coming to my classes. Most of what I do -- what the folks who read pistol-forum do -- exists on a completely different track than the average CCWer who never practices.

Taking the present topic as an example, why bother discussing a "fast draw" with someone who doesn't know how to do a good draw in the first place? He's not part of this discussion.
Sure, and I recognize that many of my issues relate far more to lower-level shooters. But the issue of if there is a "typical" and if one needs to know what it is seems to be an important part of the equation no matter what your skill level, or at least it is to me, and thus the issue when folks suggest there is no typical gunfight or such. As for who is reading the forum or visiting the site, you might be surprised at the variety.

[David Armstrong]

So, let me get this straight. Someone is preparing for a gunfight, and so they're practicing in order to acquire the necessary skills. And unless they have some notion of what it takes to prevail in a typical gunfight, they're demotivated because they'll never know if they're good enough to do that. Right?
Somewhat. Let's look at it like this. You want to join the track team and run the 400 meters. The coach says you can join once you have beaten the average time set by the runners but doesn't tell you what that average time is. So you practice, you try, and the coach says "sorry, not good enough" but won't tell you if you need to knock 2/10 second off your time or if you need to knock 10 seconds off your time. With that you not only don't know how much you need to improve, because of that you also don't know what area will offer you the best improvement. So how do you practice? The gunfight is the same. How do you determine what are the necessary skills unless you know what skills are needed? As Todd mentioned in a previous post, you might go to the range and spend lots of time practicing reloads, or shooting while holding the gun upside down in you off-hand whhile shooting backward between your legs. I would suggest that if one doesn't know what to practice for or why that practice matters there is less incentive to practice at all. On the other hand if we can say "the hypothetical typical gunfight is going to have you need to put two rounds in 8" at 15' in under 2.5 seconds from concealement" the person now has a goal to work toward that is quantifiable and they can measure themselves against. Having recognized goals and standards for comparison does seem to be more motivational for adult learners than an amorphous "just get better at some stuff."

Otherwise, you seem to be forgetting that a gunfight is already one of the most atypical situations you can be in. If you don't want to waste time and effort preparing for atypical situations, then gunfighting should be pretty low on your list of skills to work on!
An atypical situation is a very different concept than determining what is typical when a situation occurs. The issue is not if getting into a gunfight is typical or not, the issue is the importance of knowing what is involved in a typical gunfight. Getting into a car wreck is an atypical driving event, but knowing what is involved in a typical wreck helps on a number of fronts.

[seabiscuit]

There are a couple of interesting studies out there that suggest the speed issue isn't as important for most situations, and I would tend to agree with that. Claude Werner did a nice review of the NRA Armed Citizen articles over a 5-year period and found most of those reports were an attack in a home or business and that there was plenty of time to get to the gun and get it out in most situations. Ed Lovette looked at non-LE incidents and reported much the same, with most attacks in home or business and there being enough time to retrieve a firearm from an off-body position.

I think the issue the OP is considering, and the issue everyone is talking about, is how important a fast draw is when a draw is required. And as stated before, there's a bias in that study, based on the large number of guns in homes and the relatively small number of guns in holsters.

That said, I'd say a smooth draw is more important than a fast one. If you fumble your draw, you've just given the BG an opportunity. And given him a lot of confidence.

[MDS]

Mario,

I agree completely with what you wrote, and if I may be permitted, I'd like to expand upon it a bit.

I'd really like to go on a long spiel about why the kind of wisdom-sharing that you and others do on here is so awesome. But it's late and I have to get to sleep. So, instead: thanks, and please consider yourself permanently "permitted" to "expand a bit" upon anything I say! And I'll go ahead and ask a bunch of questions, hoping you'll permit it, too. :)


My tactical education began with the notion that there are two scenarios you need to prepare for. The most likely threat, and the most devastating threat, which some might call worst case scenario, though I do not.

Distinguishing between "most devastating" vs. "worst case" is pretty interesting. In my head, it's about adjusting your preparation based on what's at stake. If I'm alone, I may react differently than if I have my kids with me - even after taking into account the tactical differences in those two situations, I'd be more conservative with my kids around. Well, that example is more about adjusting my reaction based on what's at stake, but the concept applies to preparation, too. If I go out alone, I'd be more likely to be lazy and toss a J frame in my pocket - but if I'm going out with the kids, I'll take the time to undo my belt and put on my G19+mag.

Is that how you meant it?


In looking at any problem, a little bit of study should make it fairly easy to identify those two problems, and in prioritizing your training, you would usually prepare for most likely, and then work your way towards most devastating.

I think in gun training, it turns out that the most likely threats are the ones that are easiest to prepare for. A little primate posturing does the trick, most of the time. But once you get past that, I think it starts to get murky. For example, I've spent a lot of time with the kids these last few days, and it occurred to me that many of my most devastating threats would come at me when I have at most one hand free. This gets me thinking that I might want to start working on my 1-handed manipulations - especially SHO draws - even if I have to "skip ahead" and take a training path that progresses less smoothly or naturally.

In any case, I certainly have a new appreciation for the importance of fitness and hand-to-hand. I've started working on fitness, and plan to start something with h2h next year. In the meanwhile, I'll keep working on my draw stroke and etc. :cool:


As Mario pointed out, why begin preparing for a very unlikely scenario and then quit in the beginning stages? Because...(I'm sure you all know where I'm going), though unlikely, it is a pretty devastating event to be unprepared for. Most people are happy to say they've done something, even if it isn't very much. And much of the time, that may be enough.

Yaar. The way I see it, since my gaming career started with dnd, went straight to nethack, and hasn't budged since, is that everybody gets a saving throw. No need to train it, it's just there. I need to get a better radar for when the saving throw is being touted as a training goal, so I can exit the conversation sooner, spend less time on forums, and have more time for LEGOs.


I guess I look at it a little differently. Compare an on on duty cop in a shooting to an off duty cop in the same shooting. On duty, the cop probably has a decent pistol (maybe a longgun), maybe a back up gun, a couple of spare mags, body armor, a radio to call for help, and maybe a partner or two right there. Pretty formidable.

Off duty, that same cop has a pistol. Maybe. Is the fight any different? Maybe. Is it less likely to happen in the first place? Maybe. Too many maybe's for me. I'd rather have it and not need it..

Makes sense. The concept applies to skill, too. Bottom line: how much time, effort and ammo do you want/can you spend? How prepared do you want/can you be? I guess the balance between those two is different for everyone, and like you said, a lot of folks would rather not work for it and hope they never need it... Nothing inherently wrong with that - just gotta pay the piper if he shows up, and he ain't cheap.

[MDS]

Somewhat. Let's look at it like this. You want to join the track team and run the 400 meters. The coach says you can join once you have beaten the average time set by the runners but doesn't tell you what that average time is. So you practice, you try, and the coach says "sorry, not good enough" but won't tell you if you need to knock 2/10 second off your time or if you need to knock 10 seconds off your time. With that you not only don't know how much you need to improve, because of that you also don't know what area will offer you the best improvement. So how do you practice? The gunfight is the same.

Thanks for the response. I disagree with it, though. Importantly, your track team analogy distorts a key characteristic: you know which team you're trying out for. A gunfight is different in that you don't know who you're going to fight, or when, or where. So, imagine your track team scenario, but you don't know which team you're trying out for until you show up for the tryouts. And you have to beat the average time set by the runners of that team in order to get in. And you don't know when you'll be called up for tryouts - could be today on your way home from the Nordstrom's, or next month right after your tooth surgery, or never. And you don't get to warm up before trying out. And you're really, really unlikely to get to try out more than once. And if you don't make the team, you die; or you're fine and a loved one survives in a wheelchair; or worse.

Now, what "typical" 400m time will you train for?


An atypical situation is a very different concept than determining what is typical when a situation occurs.

I don't disagree with this, but I think maybe my question wasn't clear. Consider: the "most likely" gunfight scenario is has X% chance of happening, while the "least likely" has Y% chance of happening. X and Y are both small. If you think it's worth preparing for X but not Y, you must think that the "correct" likelihood to prepare for is between X and Y. But there is a very small difference between X and Y - deciding to prepare for X and not for Y implies some pretty precise risk management, and I'd really love to hear the substantive thought process behind it. Please believe I'm not trying to be difficult! Again, my question is sincere.

[tac-safe]

Cheaters win the gun battle! The faster you can draw and put rounds down range the better. Remeber though, you have to account for every round, so don't go to fast....Go as fast as you can accurately engage your target. "Smooth is Fast"!

Be safe!

[NEPAKevin]

A few years back, I was leaving work, towing company, one night and was parked out back where we store cars. Upon exiting the building, both my dog, who was leashed to my left (weak side) arm, and I noticed someone in the accident lot. I knew the gates were locked so it was not someone who was supposed to be there and lit him up with my flash light. He ducked into a car but I yelled at him to exit and with his hands where I could see them and he did as I requested. He was at a distance of a little over fifteen yards, not showing any weapons and complying so I put the light back and got my cell with my weak hand to call 911. At that point his hand went for something in the front kangaroo pocket of his hoodie so I drew my carry gun from concealment. As the sights came up on his lower torso, his hands shot to his sides and he started bawling that he just wanted to talk. I am not much of a conversationalist so I suggested that he could talk to the officers who should arrive in short order. I don't think I have a particularly fast draw but was later informed that he was rather impressed by the muzzle that magically was pointing in his specific direction. I don't think he was a real big fan of German Shepherds either. Anyway, my point is that there may be times when getting one's side arm into play in an expeditious manner may be beneficial.

[LittleLebowski]

Was the dog growling?

[NEPAKevin]

Was the dog growling?

Barking.

[LittleLebowski]

Barking.

Nice. I love my Malinois but my next dog is a GSD.

[NEPAKevin]

Nice. I love my Malinois but my next dog is a GSD.

The past two dogs we adopted were pure bred German Shepherds and I cannot say enough about their loyalty and intelligence. My only regret is that they passed too soon. Our current dog, Remi, came from the local shelter and is of dubious lineage but best guess is that he is Malinois-GSD mix and of course is also a great dog.

[LittleLebowski]

I enjoy the dog talk but we've sidetracked this thread so see you in the pets thread!

[JAD]

removed to pet thread

[David Armstrong]

Thanks for the response. I disagree with it, though. Importantly, your track team analogy distorts a key characteristic: you know which team you're trying out for. A gunfight is different in that you don't know who you're going to fight, or when, or where. So, imagine your track team scenario, but you don't know which team you're trying out for until you show up for the tryouts. And you have to beat the average time set by the runners of that team in order to get in. And you don't know when you'll be called up for tryouts - could be today on your way home from the Nordstrom's, or next month right after your tooth surgery, or never. And you don't get to warm up before trying out. And you're really, really unlikely to get to try out more than once. And if you don't make the team, you die; or you're fine and a loved one survives in a wheelchair; or worse.

Now, what "typical" 400m time will you train for?
Sorry to be so long getting back to you but I was extremely ill for a while. I think the distortion is on your part as you are attempting to establish parameters that are distinctly outside of the realm of possibility. Sorry, I generally try to avoid those scenarios. As for what "typical" 400 m time to train for, pretty much by definition there are not mulitple "typical" times outside of specific groups. One can find typical 400 times ofr various grops of athletes, so when one identifies the probable group one then knows what is typical. And that is the point. Typical, in ANY situation, can be described and provide a base for the norm.



I don't disagree with this, but I think maybe my question wasn't clear. Consider: the "most likely" gunfight scenario is has X% chance of happening, while the "least likely" has Y% chance of happening. X and Y are both small. If you think it's worth preparing for X but not Y, you must think that the "correct" likelihood to prepare for is between X and Y. But there is a very small difference between X and Y - deciding to prepare for X and not for Y implies some pretty precise risk management, and I'd really love to hear the substantive thought process behind it. Please believe I'm not trying to be difficult! Again, my question is sincere.
I think you make an assumption without much support, that there is a small difference between X and Y. On the contrary there is a huge gulf between most likely gunfight scenario and least likely. It doesn't require much in the way of precise risk management at all, instead it is a broad process. Again, you cannot prepare for everything. There is always going to be an element of compromise.

[MDS]

Sorry to be so long getting back to you but I was extremely ill for a while.

Sorry to hear it, I hope you have a full recovery!


I think the distortion is on your part as you are attempting to establish parameters that are distinctly outside of the realm of possibility. Sorry, I generally try to avoid those scenarios.

Not sure what parameters you're referring to. I was trying to use your track team analogy to illustrate why I think it's a bad idea to prepare for an unplanned gunfight by preparing for a "typical" gunfight, for any given definition of "typical."


As for what "typical" 400 m time to train for, pretty much by definition there are not mulitple "typical" times outside of specific groups. One can find typical 400 times ofr various grops of athletes, so when one identifies the probable group one then knows what is typical. And that is the point. Typical, in ANY situation, can be described and provide a base for the norm.

I think we're talking past each other a little. I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a typical gunfight - I'm saying that there's no way to know what kind of gunfight you'll find yourself in.


I think you make an assumption without much support, that there is a small difference between X and Y. On the contrary there is a huge gulf between most likely gunfight scenario and least likely. It doesn't require much in the way of precise risk management at all, instead it is a broad process.

Maybe, but doesn't seem that way to me. The assumption I'm making is that X and Y are both small; that is, it's fairly rare for a civilian to find themselves in a gunfight of any kind. I think there's plenty of support for that assumption?

Now, if X and Y are both small, then the difference between them is necessarily small, too. (For example, if X and Y are both less than 1%, then the difference between them is necessarily less than 1%.) So, again, it would take some fairly precise risk management to objectively conclude that that X is worth preparing for but Y is not.

At least, that's what's going through my mind. I don't pretend to have the answers! Maybe there is a huge gulf between the likelihoods in a way that I don't understand...


Again, you cannot prepare for everything. There is always going to be an element of compromise.

I certainly agree with this!!! And maybe that's what this whole debate boils down to: every individual needs to weigh their own risk appetite vs. the perceived likelihood of a given threat vs. the effort involved in preparing for that threat, and come to their own conclusions about where and when and how much to compromise.

Still, I think it's valuable to discuss the approach to that analysis, so that individuals can make a well-reasoned decision based on the truth of their unique preferences and perceptions. So, thanks for the debate!

[Pistolero]

How much importance do you place on having a fast draw for self defense?
Why?

Good question! OK, I'm noticeably fast on the draw; (Still faster than most!) but my quick draw isn't something I'd ever want to rely on at the beginning of an attack. Look, if I've got to move that quickly then it means that, somehow, someway, I am, 'behind the curve'. Can it happen? Sure it can! In fact, one time a fellow's Rottweiler guard dog was lying behind my right shoulder as I walked into the room. When I realized he was there I, also, realized that the dog had me; all he had to do was to, 'want a piece of me'; and me and my primary gun hand would have been gone!

Fast draw? Personally, I don't have a lot of good use for it. In my experience an EARLY DRAW is what you should be hoping to achieve. This means that, as a matter of custom, your situational awareness has to be always turned on. No matter what, you have to be immediately: ready, willing, and able to do whatever needs to be done in order for you to survive. Personally, I don't think a fast draw is the perfect answer to much of what can happen to you out there.



ADDED: Hey, David Armstrong, is that you! (Look at my avatar; you should be able to recognize me, right!)

[aboveandbeyond]

Fast draw? Personally, I don't have a lot of good use for it. In my experience an EARLY DRAW is what you should be hoping to achieve.

Terrific observation, most people get so sucked up in having a fast draw, they often forget to practice situational awareness! Not trying to down play practicing a smooth, fast draw with accurate hits, but avoiding a dangerous situation is the best defense.

Having that said, when you do need to draw fast, you are responding to a threat. Responding to an violent action will ALWAYS be slower then a initialed action.

In point, practice draws, hell practice everything you can. But do not neglect situational awareness, it will literally save your life.

[ToddG]

Responding to an violent action will ALWAYS be slower then a initialed action.

That's simply untrue. The easiest example would be someone with a battleaxe charging at you from 50yd away. He initiates the action. Can you draw and shoot him to the ground before he gets to you? Probably.

I see people all the time who need 3+ seconds to draw a gun from either a retention holster or concealment. I can do it in 1.25 without breaking a sweat. So as long as my reaction gap is less than 1.75 seconds -- which is an eternity to watch someone go for a gun without realizing it -- then I will get my gun out and on target making the Big Noise first.

But let's suppose I am behind the curve and the BG and I have the same draw speed. He begins his draw. It takes me, say, a full second to realize it and decide to draw my gun. So I am 1 second behind him. He'll get off a few shots before I can, and maybe I'll get hit, maybe I'll die. But maybe not. Now suppose my draw is slower and it takes me an additional full second to get into the fight. He's got a lot more chances to shoot at me, hit me, and kill me.

Saying "awareness is more important" is like saying "good cardiovascular health is more important." Yup. I'm willing to bet every single person here agrees. But since the two aren't mutually exclusive, and since no matter how aware you are there may come a time when you need a gun in your hand ASAP, being quick on the draw might be worthwhile.

[John Ralston]

I may be wrong, but I think his point was that any individual's draw will be slower when reacting to an unanticipated threat as opposed to the draw during practice/competition/training.

[peterb]

I may be wrong, but I think his point was that any individual's draw will be slower when reacting to an unanticipated threat as opposed to the draw during practice/competition/training.

The actual draw may not be slower, but the reaction time probably will be.

That was certainly true in flight training. Even if you had practiced the proper skill to respond to an emergency, the time spent thinking "This isn't happening to me!" or "what the f....?" could be substantial if your brain was somewhere else.

[LOKNLOD]

Saying "awareness is more important" is like saying "good cardiovascular health is more important." Yup. I'm willing to bet every single person here agrees. But since the two aren't mutually exclusive, and since no matter how aware you are there may come a time when you need a gun in your hand ASAP, being quick on the draw might be worthwhile.

Yes! No one would argue against the advantage of situational awareness, but using it as a counterpoint to draw speed doesn't make sense. If I could do a 1-sec draw every time, I can always choose to do it slower. Right now I'm happy to break 2.0 but there's no way I can choose myself into being any faster if I suddenly needed it.

If the T-Rex escapes Jurassic Park, I can always draw slowly to avoid his movement based vision. Beyond that I'm going to be in a hurry.

Awareness won't replace the draw, and the draw won't replace the awareness. I don't understand why they need to be in conflict.

[Marty Hayes]

I am obviously late to the dance, but I will add my .02.

There are nine important skills to learn to be a competent gunman (to borrow a phrase from friend and mentor John Farnam(. A speedy draw is one of them.

Once the individual masters these skills, he (or she) carries with them a confidence that is easy to spot. That confidence will likely result in not being selected for victimization, and if selected, will hopefully allow the confident gunman to prevail.

So, yes, it is important. How important it is depends on the nature of the incident.

[aboveandbeyond]

That's simply untrue. The easiest example would be someone with a battleaxe charging at you from 50yd away. He initiates the action. Can you draw and shoot him to the ground before he gets to you? Probably.

But let's suppose I am behind the curve and the BG and I have the same draw speed. He begins his draw. It takes me, say, a full second to realize it and decide to draw my gun. So I am 1 second behind him. He'll get off a few shots before I can, and maybe I'll get hit, maybe I'll die. But maybe not. Now suppose my draw is slower and it takes me an additional full second to get into the fight. He's got a lot more chances to shoot at me, hit me, and kill me.

Saying "awareness is more important" is like saying "good cardiovascular health is more important." Yup. I'm willing to bet every single person here agrees. But since the two aren't mutually exclusive, and since no matter how aware you are there may come a time when you need a gun in your hand ASAP, being quick on the draw might be worthwhile.

Okay, I may need to reword the confusion. What I'm simply trying to say, is that reacting to a unanticipated threat, is already putting yourself at a slight disadvantage. Sure, even if someone is charging at you with a battle axe from 50 yards, he made the first move. But thankfully, and like you said, you have a good chance of drawing and putting hits on target. Nonetheless, it is still a disadvantage.

Regarding the hypothetical situation, in no way was I trying to downplay the role of the draw. It's a huge aspect and should be trained upon every time you shoot, even dry firing. No where did I say "awareness is more important". I did say avoiding a potential gunfight is the best defense, but it's not always possible. If you feel the situation is sketch, GTFO before you're to rely on that draw you've honed for years (hopefully, its fast, smooth and before the bad guy).

Both aspects, drawing and situational awareness, should be practiced. Like I said, always practice drawing, reloads during practice (among others of course), but don't forget about your surroundings.


I may be wrong, but I think his point was that any individual's draw will be slower when reacting to an unanticipated threat as opposed to the draw during practice/competition/training.

Yes, thank you. That is exactly what I meant.


The actual draw may not be slower, but the reaction time probably will be.

That was certainly true in flight training. Even if you had practiced the proper skill to respond to an emergency, the time spent thinking "This isn't happening to me!" or "what the f....?" could be substantial if your brain was somewhere else.

Exactly, it'll take time for the brain to process the OODA Loop. "Does this person need to be put down?" It'll take a person time to think about this, once the decision is made to draw and shoot, your draw speed may or may not be as fast as your average. But faster the averages are from draw to accurate first hit, are always better. No doubt.




Awareness won't replace the draw, and the draw won't replace the awareness. I don't understand why they need to be in conflict.

I did not mean to imply this. You're right, the draw and situational awareness will never replace each other.

Hopefully this clarifies some things.

EDIT: To add, just stumbled upon this video. ToddG, found it funny you mentioned someone wielding a battle ax, but...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bY5ioBvrYIg#!

30 second mark is where it begins. As you can see, the battle hammer/ax/whatever it is wielding guy, moves towards the officer would attempted to taze him. As the suspect approaches the officer, the officer appears to drop the tazer (video is unclear, but I'm pretty sure) and goes for his gun. He moved back (got off the X) but clearly fumbled the draw. Thankfully, another officer was on the scene (possibly partner) to put the suspect down.

However, what if the officer didn't have back up? That's why it's important to practice the draw!

Now is it just me or would releasing the k-9 as opposed to shooting the suspect, been a viable alternative in this situation?

[Kevin B.]

There are nine important skills to learn to be a competent gunman (to borrow a phrase from friend and mentor John Farnam(. A speedy draw is one of them.

Would you mind sharing the other eight?

[SweetScienceOfShooting]

My .02 is that both are important to have and spend time developing. They are not mutually exclusive as earlier posters have noted. I submit however that the relative importance of the two will depend upon what point in time we are considering. Pre-fight, awareness > fast draw. In-fight, fast draw > awareness. Post-fight, other skills be will needed besides awareness and a fast draw.

I was on SouthNarc's website last night for the first time in several months and I saw something that I thought might add to this discussion on a fast draw. It is directly quoted below:

With that said what’s the relevance of holding ourselves to the standard of two rounds in the A-zone at 7 yards in 1.5 seconds from concealment when the criminal is not going to give you a reason to shoot him until he’s right on top of you?

Anyone here able to explain what he is trying to highlight with this? Maybe one of the SME's?

[John Ralston]

I was on SouthNarc's website last night for the first time in several months and I saw something that I thought might add to this discussion on a fast draw. It is directly quoted below:

With that said what’s the relevance of holding ourselves to the standard of two rounds in the A-zone at 7 yards in 1.5 seconds from concealment when the criminal is not going to give you a reason to shoot him until he’s right on top of you?

Anyone here able to explain what he is trying to highlight with this? Maybe one of the SME's?


My take on it is that a criminal isn't going to telegraph his move ahead of time. He is going to ambush you at close distance to maximize the effectiveness of his attack. A fast draw won't help you in that type of situation. You will need to first create some space using combative techniques (Extreme Close Quarters Concepts) to allow you to draw and fire.

[Dropkick]

I was on SouthNarc's website last night for the first time in several months and I saw something that I thought might add to this discussion on a fast draw. It is directly quoted below:
With that said what’s the relevance of holding ourselves to the standard of two rounds in the A-zone at 7 yards in 1.5 seconds from concealment when the criminal is not going to give you a reason to shoot him until he’s right on top of you?
Anyone here able to explain what he is trying to highlight with this? Maybe one of the SME's?

I'm not SouthNarc, or an SME, but...

The proverbial mugger isn't going to announce their intent to rob you from 7 yards. They will find a method to encroach on you till they're 7 inches away and then rob you. In that sense, the mugger is robbing you of distance and time to protect yourself before they'll rob you of your $$.

Personally, I think being able to shoot accurately and fast is an important skill too, but being a good bowling-pin shooter doesn't necessarily make you a good bad-guy shooter.

Make sense?

[Tom Givens]

This goes back to the comments about the importance of situational awareness. If you have your head up your ass and first recognize the danger at 7 inches instead of 7 yards, you will have to have some empty hands skills to claw your way back out of the hole so you can access your weapon.

The key is understanding the dynamics of the type of circumstance in which a private citizen will need to draw a gun. The single most likely threat, in my experience, is armed robbery. Note the word "armed". Armed robbers do not close within inches and begin with a physical assault. The purpose of their weapon, whether it is gun or knife, is to be able to stand off a few steps and terrorize the victim into compliance, then close to contact distance to take the goods.

We have had quite a few students involved in this very scenario. Distance is usually from 2 steps to the length of a car. Inside that envelope, quick movement off the X and a fast draw to quick first shot seem to be the important skills. If the defender has his head up and his eyes open, he is already watching Dude, and is able to move quickly once the BG displays a weapon and announces a robbery.

In the last 5 dozen incidents of our students involved in gunplay, only two involved actual physical contact, and one of those was accidental. Part of the reason for this is our emphasis on awareness and decisiveness. At "inside the length of a car" distances, a rapid presentation is definitely important. The BG does not expect armed resistance, and will likely hesitate when you first go for a weapon instead of whining and pleading. That stunned hesitation won't last forever, though, so you best capitalize on it in a brief window of opportunity. The more time it takes you to draw your gun, the more time the BG has to recover from the surprise and get back in the fight.

Southnarc's "Managing Unknown Contacts" is a great way to learn to manage the spatial relationship between you and someone who is trying to encroach on your space. The idea is not to let people begin an assault from arm's length. I HIGHLY recommend his class to anyone who carries a gun for this reason.

[Marty Hayes]

Would you mind sharing the other eight?


Alll Nine.

Accuracy
Speed (including draw stroke)
Reloading
One handed shooting, (both strong and weak hand)
Multiple targets
Multiple hits (recoil control)
Shooting while moving
Shooting at moving targets
Low light skills, (all of the above also in low light)

[ToddG]

The proverbial mugger isn't going to announce their intent to rob you from 7 yards. They will find a method to encroach on you till they're 7 inches away and then rob you. In that sense, the mugger is robbing you of distance and time to protect yourself before they'll rob you of your $$.

As Tom pointed out, that's not actually how a lot of armed robberies occur. There's also the matter of not every defensive use of a handgun is in response to an armed robbery on the street. Furthermore, even if we do take the "7 inches" starting point as the problem du jour, part of the goal is to make enough distance that you can get your gun out without getting entangled in the process, correct? The faster your draw, the less likely that entanglement. If you can get your gun into play in 1 second as opposed to 3, then that's a lot less time for the BG to foul your draw or otherwise interfere with the whole sight-alignment/trigger-press thing.


Personally, I think being able to shoot accurately and fast is an important skill too, but being a good bowling-pin shooter doesn't necessarily make you a good bad-guy shooter.

No, but neither does being in great physical shape, or having awesome HTH skills, or any of a million other things... they may add to your overall capability, but none of them alone will "necessarily make you a good bad-guy shooter." Again we're falling into the trap of these things being either/or instead of and.

[Dropkick]

I think I might have been a bit generic and definitive.


The key is understanding the dynamics of the type of circumstance in which a private citizen will need to draw a gun. The single most likely threat, in my experience, is armed robbery. Note the word "armed". Armed robbers do not close within inches and begin with a physical assault. The purpose of their weapon, whether it is gun or knife, is to be able to stand off a few steps and terrorize the victim into compliance, then close to contact distance to take the goods.

That last part was more what I was referring to about the 7 inches verses yards, the proximity of exchange. I didn't want to complicate my statement with unarmed vs. armed, or crimes against property vs. person. For example, an armed robbery can happen at distance, but a crime like rape there is no distance. Your points are all valid and well taken. Also, I had a question about incidents in the home for you, back here: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?2531-Importance-of-a-fast-draw-in-self-defense&p=41255&viewfull=1#post41255


As Tom pointed out, that's not actually how a lot of armed robberies occur. There's also the matter of not every defensive use of a handgun is in response to an armed robbery on the street. Furthermore, even if we do take the "7 inches" starting point as the problem du jour, part of the goal is to make enough distance that you can get your gun out without getting entangled in the process, correct? The faster your draw, the less likely that entanglement. If you can get your gun into play in 1 second as opposed to 3, then that's a lot less time for the BG to foul your draw or otherwise interfere with the whole sight-alignment/trigger-press thing.

Make enough distance... Yes, but personally I'd fight for positional dominace if a bad guy is already on me. I mean, if I shoved someone away to create space & time and even moved "off the x" myself, would it be enough of a window do draw before they were back on me? I don't know, but I personally wouldn't bet on it. Hence why I've been working H2H skills to help round out the self defense picture.

[GJM]

In the last 5 dozen incidents of our students involved in gunplay, only two involved actual physical contact, and one of those was accidental.

This is fascinating. While the plural of anecdote is not data, 60 events combined starts to sound like data. My assumption is that confrontations in the area you live, near Memphis, would involve close interactions and physical contact. Are the incidents referenced attempted robberies only or all events?

[Tom Givens]

GJM- All events.

Contrary to the assumptions of many, physical contact is actually rare IF you follow certain guidelines:
1. Don't hang out in bars. People in bars get drunk. When they get drunk, they get aggressive. Almost all bar fights occur in bars. :rolleyes:
2. Don't date other people's wives.
3. Don't yell racial/ethnic/religious/sports comments at people you don't know.
4. Don't buy/sell dope. For instance, Southnarc's H2H skills and in-fight weapon access skills were learned while doing undercover narcotics work. Rip-offs are common in that arena, and usually involve someone who is within arm's reach because you are willingly doing business with him.
If you simply follow these suggestions, the odds of being in a physical altercation are almost zero.

Legitimate self defense with firearms usually involves armed robbery, car-jacking, rape, abduction, home invasion or some variation/combination. These involve a stranger approaching you, with the sole exception of the home invasion. You should be aware of strangers approaching you and be evaluating their intent long before physical contact is possible.

[JMitchell]

To add to what Tom said:

Don't join a gang. Don't hang out with people in gangs.
It's called a "high risk lifestyle" for a reason.
Don't go places that you don't belong.
Take the long way home if you have to.
Gas up the car before you drive through the hood.
ATM's in the ghetto are like watering holes on the plains of Africa.

As to the original question, I strive to draw fast, hit fast, move fast and reload fast. Speed is a tactic.

[Skyviking]

Yup. It often falls back on some clown wanting to talk about mindset and how, somehow, his mindset will allow him to prevail against 50 armed attackers while he is blindfolded, handcuffed, and suffering from a sucking chest wound. OK...

Well, I don't recall anything about being blindfolded handcuffed or shot in the chest, but there was this Gurkha on a train with over 40 bandits armed with guns, etc... Must ave set his mind somewhere...

[David Armstrong]

ADDED: Hey, David Armstrong, is that you! (Look at my avatar; you should be able to recognize me, right!)
Hey Arch, welcome aboard! Yes, it is me. I dropped a number of forums out of disgust, but this place seems to maintain a much better quality so I still hang out here.

Fast draw? Personally, I don't have a lot of good use for it. In my experience an EARLY DRAW is what you should be hoping to achieve. This means that, as a matter of custom, your situational awareness has to be always turned on. No matter what, you have to be immediately: ready, willing, and able to do whatever needs to be done in order for you to survive. Personally, I don't think a fast draw is the perfect answer to much of what can happen to you out there.
Agreed. Drawing faster is better than drawing slower, but again, in the overall importance factor, it just doesn't seem to rank very high in the CCW world.

[Dropkick]

My tactical education began with the notion that there are two scenarios you need to prepare for. The most likely threat, and the most devastating threat, which some might call worst case scenario, though I do not.

In looking at any problem, a little bit of study should make it fairly easy to identify those two problems, and in prioritizing your training, you would usually prepare for most likely, and then work your way towards most devastating.

I recently remembered this post and how much sense it makes. I can't think of a better way to focus your efforts on training.

[vcdgrips]

By SLG
"My tactical education began with the notion that there are two scenarios you need to prepare for. The most likely threat, and the most devastating threat, which some might call worst case scenario, though I do not.

In looking at any problem, a little bit of study should make it fairly easy to identify those two problems, and in prioritizing your training, you would usually prepare for most likely, and then work your way towards most devastating."

THIS is so far beyond tactical gold at to be tactical platnum. Thank you very much.

David Barnes
www.vcdgrips.com

[ares338]

I'm not a teacher, trainer or expert in any way but as with most things in life I find that if I approach it from a smoothness perspective rather than a speed perspective I most always am faster.

[Chuck Haggard]

After attending Tom's class a few years ago ref the experiences of his students, and looking at the data from the FBI LEOKA and the 'Violent Encounters' publication and classes I note some significant differences in what uniformed coppers and CCW folks face (note, FBI agents, off-duty coppers and plainclothes guys like narcs often face the same scenarios as CCW folks so I lump them together, something like half of all FBI OISs involve the agent being an armed robbery victim).

The guy in uniform often finds out there is going to be a gunfight due to incoming gunfire or just plain getting shot. Non-uniform folks hardly ever deal with this dynamic because it would have to be an assasination or other such event as opposed to an armed robbery for it to go down that way.

The uniforms have it starting at worst case scenario, which helps explain why things like hit rates are so much lower than what we see from Tom's data. Does anyone seriously believe that one's hit rate doesn't go way down when they start the course of fire by getting shot a couple of times?

When you think of the human dynamics the CCW person actually gets to take the place of the bad guy, and the armed robber is stuck in unifom cop mode. How so? Think about a cop taking a bad guy "at gunpoint". Is this not what cops have to do often with felons? The felon then initiates the gunfight by deciding to outdraw the cop, or ambush him/her on approach.
The CCW person in an armed robbery gets the advantage of being the "bad guy" as they get to decide to go to guns, and they have the additional advantage of facing an adversary that is likely not expecting them to resist or even be armed.


I've had to draw my gun rather fast a few times over the past 26 years on the job, both on and off duty. Having a fast presentation has so far been enough of a "you are going to die if you keep it up" signal to make the bad guy stop and play nice.

I strongly believe that a competent display of force is an awesome tool for making people decide they need to be elsewhere in a hurry. If it then goes to shots fired you are then ahead of the game.

There is no down side to being able to draw as fast as humanly possible in any given situation.

[rockymtnnut]

A fast draw is vital to your survival. I can speak about dog encounters no human bad guys just a pit bull. When it happens it happens fast. It's a skill we can practice at home. Our first skill presentation could de escalate the situation immediately .

[Alaskapopo]

How much importance do you place on having a fast draw for self defense?
Why?

Its very important but it is just a piece of the puzzle. Most gun fights are close and fast and a lot of times the officer is playing catch up, being as fast as possible can help you get back on top. Think of it this way how important is it for you to get your gun out before the guy intending to kill you gets his out.
Pat

[DVCPrepper]

Fast draw importance...

A smooth draw is more important than a fast draw to me. I'll take a 2.0 sec draw all day long as fast enough if it's a 99% reliable.

Knowing that I can draw from cover at 1.5 sec 85% of the time without fouling gives me confidence that backing off max speed will likely get a clean draw and is why I push for a faster mean time in training but it's not a priority in my training.

Draw confidence allows me to wait for an opportunity but as was stated earlier about the thread in which the GG waited too long and paid with getting shot, take the first chance you get.

To me a hidden draw or ability to have hand on gun without alerting is more important. One of the reasons I've changed my mode of carry recently.

[Alaskapopo]

Fast draw importance...

A smooth draw is more important than a fast draw to me. I'll take a 2.0 sec draw all day long as fast enough if it's a 99% reliable.

Knowing that I can draw from cover at 1.5 sec 85% of the time without fouling gives me confidence that backing off max speed will likely get a clean draw and is why I push for a faster mean time in training but it's not a priority in my training.

Draw confidence allows me to wait for an opportunity but as was stated earlier about the thread in which the GG waited too long and paid with getting shot, take the first chance you get.

To me a hidden draw or ability to have hand on gun without alerting is more important. One of the reasons I've changed my mode of carry recently.

I agree your draw should be smooth because as we know smooth is fast and it should be reliable but it should also be fast. I personally think 1.5 or less is a better standard to hold yourself to.
Pat

[LittleLebowski]

I agree your draw should be smooth because as we know smooth is fast and it should be reliable but it should also be fast. I personally think 1.5 or less is a better standard to hold yourself to.
Pat

1.5 from concealment? What size of target at what distance?

[ToddG]

I'm curious as well. While 1.5 to an a-zone sized target at 7yd is certainly a great standard for folks who practice seriously it's definitely on the advanced side. Even the old FAM standard, before they dumbed things down post-9/11, was 1.65 on a QIT bottle which is substantially larger.

[JodyH]

1.5 from concealment? What size of target at what distance?
Exactly.
1.5 could be considered "slow" on something like the "Triple Nickle" with a high percentage target at 5 yards.
That same 1.5 is smoking on the 3x5@7 FAST drill.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

[Mr_White]

I'm curious as well. While 1.5 to an a-zone sized target at 7yd is certainly a great standard for folks who practice seriously it's definitely on the advanced side. Even the old FAM standard, before they dumbed things down post-9/11, was 1.65 on a QIT bottle which is substantially larger.

1.5 to an IPSC/USPSA A-zone at 7 yards from concealment is one of the standards in our advanced pistol class. The students do have a number of attempts and only have to reach it one time. They don't usually reach the level of consistent performance on that standard during the class - that's what they need to keep working on afterward.