The Five Yard Problem

[Tom Givens]

The Five Yard Problem

Of almost 70 student involved shootings, almost 90% occurred in the 3-5 yard distance envelope. If we make it 3-7 yards, that covers over 92% of the incidents. The FBI and DEA have found very similar results in their agent involved shootings. Five yards is about one car length, and is a very common engagement distance.

SWAT Magazine just published an excellent article on how to practice for engagements at this distance and how to measure and gauge your skill in this critical area. See https://www.swatmag.com/article/five-yard-roundup-timed-close-shooting-drill/#utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=A9486&vsoid=A9486

[Sherman A. House DDS]

I like it! I’m probably a weirdo with this, but 5-7 yards is where I practice the most since two of the ranges I frequent have short (10 yard) indoor ranges.


civiliandefender.com

[blues]

I like it! I’m probably a weirdo with this, but 5-7 yards is where I practice the most since two of the ranges I frequent have short (10 yard) indoor ranges.


civiliandefender.com

You're not alone, brother. At my neighbor's range, I normally set things up to shoot predominantly from 10 yards and in.

He has everything from plate rack and dueling tree to pepper poppers and other reactive, and standard B8 and B27 style qualification targets.

(I maintain sufficient distance (and angle) from the steel targets to keep getting dinged by ricochets to a minimum.)

[Duces Tecum]

Splendid drill.

Thank you, Tom.

[EVP]

Excellent!


Tom forgive me if you have been asked this before, but what are your thoughts on Red dot sights for a defensive handgun? You probably see a lot come through your courses. This typical engagement distances would seem to strongly favor traditional iron sights.


Thanks for your input

[TCinVA]

Justin is legit. Glad to see he's getting his name out there more.

[RJ]

Great drill; I will add this to my usual set of practices that I use for metrics (The Test, FYL, 25 yd). I really like that it is 10 rounds on a B-8.

My only limitation is that my usual range does not allow draw from the holster, so I will have to subtract some time for that and shoot the first shot from low ready.

[Robinson]

I like it!

[SC_Dave]

Good info.

[hufnagel]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't 7 yards the minimum reaction distance for an assailant?

[SiriusBlunder]

Some thoughts on the Tueller Principle/Drill:

The Tueller Drill Myth: Why The 21 Foot Rule Isn’t a Rule At All
https://www.itstactical.com/warcom/firearms/the-tueller-drill-myth-why-the-21-foot-rule-isnt-a-rule-at-all/

The Tueller Drill Revisited
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/the-tueller-drill-revisited

[Oukaapie]

Nice drills, I dry and live fire practice the hell out of 5-7, probably 70%. I typically use 3 inch stickie circles or horizontal post it notes.

[03RN]

I shot these drills at 5 yards. Whenever I spend to much time at 15-25 yards I feel like my first round takes forever to fire when I move up. Recording myself reminds me to do both on a regular basis.

https://youtu.be/8AF8Q6Gtkv8

[GJM]

Very interesting topic, and as usual Tom Givens gives us things to consider. My thoughts:

Primarily practicing at 7-25 doesn’t necessarily make you proficient at 3-5 yards.

Primarily practicing at 3-5 is unlikely to make you proficient at 7-50 yards.

You need to ask what your goal is — is it to survive a typical gun fight, develop competition skills, or survive an unlikely gun fight. Answering that question can inform how you organize your shooting practice.

[JHC]

Very interesting topic, and as usual Tom Givens gives us things to consider. My thoughts:

Primarily practicing at 7-25 doesn’t necessarily make you proficient at 3-5 yards.

Primarily practicing at 3-5 is unlikely to make you proficient at 7-50 yards.

You need to ask what your goal is — is it to survive a typical gun fight, develop competition skills, or survive an unlikely gun fight. Answering that question can inform how you organize your shooting practice.

I don't often use my practice time at 3-5 yards but when I've been put there shooting administered standards, the speed adjusts and the hits are there. That said, this cool "Round up" will definitely get some attention. I make a special attempt to have less experienced family shooters get regular time in on 3-5 yard shooting however so they can internalize just how fast they can go and still get hits.

[spinmove_]

Very interesting topic, and as usual Tom Givens gives us things to consider. My thoughts:

Primarily practicing at 7-25 doesn’t necessarily make you proficient at 3-5 yards.

Primarily practicing at 3-5 is unlikely to make you proficient at 7-50 yards.

You need to ask what your goal is — is it to survive a typical gun fight, develop competition skills, or survive an unlikely gun fight. Answering that question can inform how you organize your shooting practice.

Shouldn’t we be striving for all 3?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[LSP552]

Speed become MUCH more important the closer the engagement. Closeness tends to negate marksmanship skills to a degree and emphasizes speed with acceptable accuracy.

Most anyone can get hits at bad breath range. The key is to get them first. For me personally, if I’m stacking bullets at 5 yards, it tells me I need to shoot faster and that I’m spending too much time seeing more than I need to see for the problem I need to solve.

So many people fail to put an emphasis on the draw. At close range, especially when we might be starting behind the power curve, speed is life.

Good article and addressed a very important issue. Shooting at distance isn’t the same as shooting at ATM range. And like George mentioned above, we should be working to cover all of our potential threats, close and far.

[Duces Tecum]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't 7 yards the minimum reaction distance for an assailant?

There are no do-overs, so there's no minimum reaction distance. React as best you can regardless of the space space between you and the assailant.

[1slow]

ECQC helps one clarify these issues.

[Zincwarrior]

The Five Yard Problem

Of almost 70 student involved shootings, almost 90% occurred in the 3-5 yard distance envelope. If we make it 3-7 yards, that covers over 92% of the incidents. The FBI and DEA have found very similar results in their agent involved shootings. Five yards is about one car length, and is a very common engagement distance.

SWAT Magazine just published an excellent article on how to practice for engagements at this distance and how to measure and gauge your skill in this critical area. See https://www.swatmag.com/article/five-yard-roundup-timed-close-shooting-drill/#utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=A9486&vsoid=A9486

Thats the distance I was prepared for. However with Sunderland and the school shootings, I have become increasingly concerned about distances up to 25 yards. My eyesight precludes worrying about further than that. I practice such for competition, but my CC (M&Pc) while great is not a 25
yard gun.

[Zincwarrior]

Very interesting topic, and as usual Tom Givens gives us things to consider. My thoughts:

Primarily practicing at 7-25 doesn’t necessarily make you proficient at 3-5 yards.

Primarily practicing at 3-5 is unlikely to make you proficient at 7-50 yards.

You need to ask what your goal is — is it to survive a typical gun fight, develop competition skills, or survive an unlikely gun fight. Answering that question can inform how you organize your shooting practice.

Um...all three? Nothing says you can't dry fire/practice anywhere from wiener dog belly rub distance out to 25 or 50 yards (as long as you set aside time for wiener dog belly rubs, my hot dog tells me thats nonnegotiable).

[ASH556]

Thats the distance I was prepared for. However with Sunderland and the school shootings, I have become increasingly concerned about distances up to 25 yards. My eyesight precludes worrying about further than that. I practice such for competition, but my CC (M&Pc) while great is not a 25
yard gun.

No offense intended, but if your CCW gun is mechanically incapable of good hits at 25yds, you need a different gun. Having been there/done that with the full size M&P's, 25yd accuracy alone was the driving factor in my switch back to Glocks in 2014. Every time I pick up an M&P (I have a good buddy that still shoots them exclusively) I think how good it feels in my hand and I'm tempted to switch back, but the numbers don't lie and unreliable accuracy at 25+ is never a tradeoff that can be made. Hell, I even shoot my 642 at 25yds.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Good drill, thanks for sharing it Tom. Ran it a few times this AM.

[1Rangemaster]

Nice drill!
Just had the opportunity to shoot on indoor range this afternoon. Had spent this morning on a Rogers range at a state Training Center, running some sequences from “Ready” to learn the system controls on a laptop.
So, Level 3 holster, Gen5 17 with night sights, B8 center on IDPA target.
Made all times, 97 points. First shot from holster a”9”, two 9s support hand. This goes in the drills book, along w/“Wizard”, etc.
Thanks to those who put it together.

[Surf]

I don't intend to come off overly critical as I think it is a good drill that has value and there is merit in the article, but I want to point out some considerations.

Perhaps I need to get out more often, but I almost never see the 3-7 or even 3-5 yard distances looked at as being in the "too easy to train" category. I often see training, especially in LE, where the bulk of practice is being conducted in the 3-7 yard distances, with stints out to 10-15 yards. Much further than that would be the exception. Now perhaps the methodology and approach to training and subsequent practice may need adaptation, which I believe mostly to be accurate, but the too close, or easy to train is not something I usually see.

I am also of the camp that believes training at distance has tremendous value. It is but a component of individual skill and the value should not be overlooked, however, not unlike any other skill, the training needs to be correct in context to overall application and adapted as necessary to address or to solve an existing deficiency. I know it sounds like nitpicking, but I also don't look at "drills" like the El-Pres, Bill Drill, the Test, or even this Five Yard Roundup as a method of practice. I look at them as indicators of performance where we validate or find deficiencies in training and practice which can help guide the actual training and practice from there.

Thanks for the drill, I'll personally give it a run!

[Zincwarrior]

No offense intended, but if your CCW gun is mechanically incapable of good hits at 25yds, you need a different gun. Having been there/done that with the full size M&P's, 25yd accuracy alone was the driving factor in my switch back to Glocks in 2014. Every time I pick up an M&P (I have a good buddy that still shoots them exclusively) I think how good it feels in my hand and I'm tempted to switch back, but the numbers don't lie and unreliable accuracy at 25+ is never a tradeoff that can be made. Hell, I even shoot my 642 at 25yds.

That's partially my issue. I have been thinking more about 25 yards and what I need for that. Topic for a different thread.

[MVS]

Excellent!


Tom forgive me if you have been asked this before, but what are your thoughts on Red dot sights for a defensive handgun? You probably see a lot come through your courses. This typical engagement distances would seem to strongly favor traditional iron sights.


Thanks for your input

NOT speaking for Tom. When I took his 3 day Instructor Development Course in 2013 I ran my Gen 3 G19 with RMR, and was one of his early test cases for EDC RDS's, I think this soured him on the concept.:D. Actually I did fine in the class and the following year in the Advanced Instructor class as well, but Tom did state more than once that he felt the dot was slowing me down at close ranges and from the draw. He was right. I believe I have mostly moved past that now. During his recent podcast on Ballistic Radio RDS pistols were brought up but I don't recall Tom saying anything about them other than that he is seeing quite a few of them in classes these days.

So that I don't go in trouble for derailing the thread, I will bring this back to the 5 yard focus. I don't think the dot is going to help most people there but if well practiced it shouldn't hurt.

[Doc_Glock]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180228/cd3b4e4117f15e2420e9aa240d8cb846.jpg

Ran it twice. Liked it. Thanks.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

About distance - when I was teaching, I might face a close up opponent as if a shooter entered my class room. But then again, the longest distance in our academic building was a 100 yard hallway (I measured it). If there was a shooter down that hallway - what might I do? That long a shot might be an anomaly but they have happened. Thus, practice with both, I would think.

[YVK]

A practical problem for people who shoot indoors is that many ranges won't let you bring your target closer than 7 yards.

Personally I am lukewarm about this test, I don't find the times that challenging, but I understand that even these times could be a reality check for most gun owners. I do think that there is an excellent point within the article, and that point is about mistakes made on easy / close targets. Over-aiming on one hand, vs going ape and starting to point shoot, without ever developing a middle ground of a soft sight pic/target focus/whatever else helps to make aimed but not overaimed hits. I think if we understand that these mistakes are what need to be addressed as a root cause, then the type of drill used or 3 vs 7 yards distances becomes less relevant, although this specific drill could be a good start, especially with its one handed requirements.

[willie]

This post is about 5 feet or less distance but the difference is that I never knew if the other guy was armed. I was working alone today in a warehouse type flooring business on the wrong side of town. A hoody clad 25 year old entered and asked to "borrow" $10. As I would tell him that I had no money to donate, he would move forward to narrow the gap between us with the result that I had to keep stepping backward. I pulled a small light table between us, told him to stop and added that I was through backing up. I did not say that I was armed. I was, though, and had a CZ PCR in an IWB holster. A shirt and jacket covered the weapon. I through back my jacket, took the shirt in my left hand so I could uncover the weapon, and then raised my elbow and positioned my hand to draw the weapon. But, he never saw the pistol which remained covered. I told him to leave. He did.

I think that the man knew that an elderly guy was alone in a big building, and he intended to carry out a strong arm robbery. He easily could have rushed me, taken my weapon, and did this or that. His mistake was trying to intimidate me by making me back up. He telegraphed his intention. My demeanor and few business-like replies telegraphed my intention. One thing that I did correct was not saying that I had a weapon. Another correct action was not drawing the weapon after he stopped moving. Had this played out differently, I may have shot an unarmed man. He was 25; I'm 70 and would have been no match for him in a fight.

[Clusterfrack]

Glad you're ok, willie. Sounds like this could have gone a lot worse, and that you did very well.

[willie]

Thank you, sir.

[Surf]

A practical problem for people who shoot indoors is that many ranges won't let you bring your target closer than 7 yards.

Personally I am lukewarm about this test, I don't find the times that challenging, but I understand that even these times could be a reality check for most gun owners. I do think that there is an excellent point within the article, and that point is about mistakes made on easy / close targets. Over-aiming on one hand, vs going ape and starting to point shoot, without ever developing a middle ground of a soft sight pic/target focus/whatever else helps to make aimed but not overaimed hits. I think if we understand that these mistakes are what need to be addressed as a root cause, then the type of drill used or 3 vs 7 yards distances becomes less relevant, although this specific drill could be a good start, especially with its one handed requirements.You will probably not find the 2.5 seconds to be challenging, but I think this drill was directed more at the average LE instructor or a SWAT guy? The typical LE instructors are not the type that you might find here on PF who is a bit more dedicated or PF as a community in general who tend to be more advanced. If you reduce the times and push yourself, or push more distance, you can quickly adjust for this.

In my case, I didn't go slow and utilize all of the time, but I didn't mash the gas either as I wanted a decent first run. I found myself challenged the most on the two hands, four shot, just because I lapsed on what the round count was right as the buzzer went off, so I had to gather up and step on it a bit to make time. Shooter error and things can creep in. Overall I more than enough time. I did drop one point on the support hand as I was pushing the pace a bit at the end, but it is also typical to lapse near the end as you are often looking at the outcome instead of the performance in the moment. All in all, advanced level shooters, will have more than sufficient time and be able to clean this drill pretty readily. I would put this as a mid-level performance drill, right where most of the general LE instructors live.

For my purposes and I have a set of 4 standards that are run and scored on one target that I use to set as metrics for student development. It is adjustable for points, time, and distance to challenge everything from base level shooters to my advanced diagnostics courses that I hold for advanced-level shooters.

[Surf]

Here's the drill.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kGzLYPzzuk&feature=youtu.be

[LittleLebowski]

The author of that article is a good friend of this forum and gave an excellent presentation at the TLG Memorial shoot.

[revchuck38]

willie - Glad you're okay!

[psalms144.1]

You will probably not find the 2.5 seconds to be challenging, but I think this drill was directed more at the average LE instructor or a SWAT guy?
Agreed. The 2.5 or even 1.5 second time limit is a nuthin' burger for me, but it will positively freak some of my shooters the f*ck out. Some of them can't get a shot on paper on our 3 second "close" engagements in our qual, and an even larger group can break the shot but are lucky to keep it on our ridiculously large scoring target.

I'm going to run this drill next month during our training session, and see what happens. The 2.5 will likely be a decent "training" event. I most likely won't run the 1.5 second version with most of my shooters for safety reasons - especially from the holster...

[ST911]

Agreed. The 2.5 or even 1.5 second time limit is a nuthin' burger for me, but it will positively freak some of my shooters the f*ck out. Some of them can't get a shot on paper on our 3 second "close" engagements in our qual, and an even larger group can break the shot but are lucky to keep it on our ridiculously large scoring target.

I'm going to run this drill next month during our training session, and see what happens. The 2.5 will likely be a decent "training" event. I most likely won't run the 1.5 second version with most of my shooters for safety reasons - especially from the holster...

Same here, will run some folks through this.

Would also make a great DOTW.

[EVP]

I think this is a great drill for the general CCW crowd.

Not so advanced that it is discouraging to them and something they can strive to clean.

I also love how practical it is given Tom Givens excellent data.

[TCinVA]

The standards are, as I read them, meant to be applied to the 90%+ of people who are never going to work themselves into the far end of the bell curve like many strive to do on PF.

One of the questions instructors struggle with is "What does good enough look like?" and the answer has to be based on a realistic assessment of the problem and of the resources and capabilities of the people who will have to solve it.

It's a little bit like the discussion some years ago over the Hackathorn standards. They are not a challenge to top level competitive shooters. They are a pretty daunting challenge to the average armed professional...and that's the group the standards were meant to measure.

It's not about crowning the best pistol shooter in the world, it's about figuring out what Average Joe needs to be able to do to prevail. It is a significantly higher level of performance than the typical carrier (whether citizen or armed professional) is used to delivering, but it is not going to challenge the capabilities of the enthusiast who dedicates significant resources to being in the 1% of people who will touch a handgun.

My job as an instructor is not to tell people who aren't trying to challenge Bob Vogel to hang it up and go home. It's to lay out a reasonable evidence-based standard for the people who come to me for training and to try and give them the foundation that lets them meet those standards and gives them the ability to exceed them if they choose to do so.

Shooting skill is important, but in terms of self defense it is a piece of the puzzle. Programs like Givens' or John Murphy's program do a good job of giving enough skill along with the context in which it is to be applied to be successful at preparing Average Joe to capably defend himself.

[revchuck38]

I ran this drill eight times this morning using my CZ-75B and 147-grain factory equivalent handloads. I went over time on three of them; the first one I went over on the second and third strings, and then on the fifth and seventh tries on the second string (by .02 and .04 seconds respectively). Uncorrected scores were from 91-98; corrected scores were 83 (first one) to 95 (second one). Oddly enough, I did best with the last (WHO) string.

[Surf]

Absolutely agree that the standard is geared towards a specific target audience so to speak and I think it fits there very well. This is a good drill and if it isn't as challenging with the 2.5-time standard, decrease the time, or make the X ring for 10 points, the 10 ring as minus one, 9 ring minus two, 8 ring minus 3, anything out of the black DQ. Heck I thought I would clean this drill, on a first cold run and I dropped one for a 99. A good reminder to not overestimate. I didn't have time to do multiple runs. Maybe today.

As mentioned I have a set of standards that are the same 4 base stages of fire from beginner to advanced shooter. What changes from skill levels are the times, distances, and the overall scoring that makes the drill more challenging as skills increase. There is clear understanding of the importance of speed vs. acceptable accuracy, and precision.

[GNiner]

As mentioned I have a set of standards that are the same 4 base stages of fire from beginner to advanced shooter. What changes from skill levels are the times, distances, and the overall scoring that makes the drill more challenging as skills increase.

Are these standards something you are willing to share?

[JSGlock34]

2.5 seconds from concealment isn't a challenging standard to an enthusiast, but I bet it would be a reality check to a number of folks about their choice of concealment gear. The marksmanship might not be a challenge, but grab a bunch of shirt instead of gun and 2.5 seconds suddenly isn't a very long time to fix your problem.

[spinmove_]

Shot this today. Scored a 90 from concealment and made it under time on each string. Good drill. I’ll keep this one on hand.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[1Rangemaster]

Hit it again at lunchtime; indoor range, “carry” Gen5 19 w/“Bold” night sights, out of an ALS holster. Took rain jacket off, will leave on for concealed run next.
Made all times, 96 points. YVK and others: respectfully, I see your points, but I think this is a good “reality” check for uniform LE, concealed carriers, even “homeowners defense”(start with the piece on a table).
Another facet: use as a drill-an objective standard to strive and meet-JMO&YMMV

[ST911]

Two runs, G19X AIWB shaggy concealed under a tee. Made all times, 94-1X (5-10, 4-9, 1-8), and 93-2X (4-10, 5-9, 1-8). Both 8's were WHO. Good drill. There's quite a bit to this drill of value. Will repeat.

[MVS]

For those who find the standard too easy, the Max Possible Hits version looks a bit more challenging.

[BJXDS]

2.5 seconds from concealment isn't a challenging standard to an enthusiast, but I bet it would be a reality check to a number of folks about their choice of concealment gear. The marksmanship might not be a challenge, but grab a bunch of shirt instead of gun and 2.5 seconds suddenly isn't a very long time to fix your problem.

AGREE, Its astonishing to see people who don't train to keep going, when things don't work as planned, stop when they boggle the draw, or boggle anything else for that matter.

Overall I agree its a good measure for most. I think a lot of folks here forget they are probably in the 1%. I doubt most people train on a regular basis.

[CCT125US]

Yesterday, I gave it a try cold.

97-7x

Pushed the LHO shots to the right into the 9 and 8 ring. Felt strange starting from ready, as most of my practice starts from the draw. Similar observation with the HiTS Super Test when I started shooting that. Definitely need to work on from the ready position.

[PNWTO]

AGREE, Its astonishing to see people who don't train to keep going, when things don't work as planned, stop when they boggle the draw, or boggle anything else for that matter.

Overall I agree its a good measure for most. I think a lot of folks here forget they are probably in the 1%. I doubt most people train on a regular basis.

Posted at the risk of sounding pretentious. When I was still doing the higher-education staff CCW there was one "training event" where I think my coworkers were worried about my mental health after I fired two rounds through my shirt in a retention drill after jacking up the draw. Good educational point for them.

[Mr_White]

Would also make a great DOTW.

Completely agree! Posted as the DotW!

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?30106-Week-258-Five-Yard-Roundup

[DAB]

added to my range idea book. thank you.

[Luger]

Just shot it. 97 and 10. Must be my lucky day. ;)

[Steaz]

I shot this drill today cold to start my range session.
Times per string
#1 - under time
#2 - 1.96
#3 - 2.38
#4 - 1.97

Score: 97. Threw the second weak hand only shot (string #4) high as the most egregious miss. Too bad I didn't use the extra half second I had left. I was afraid of going over time after the 2.38 on the string before though.

I shot it several more times after this but did not get a better score because of inconsistent one handed shooting (and shooting too fast)

https://i.imgur.com/4fHuANS.jpg