The Increduality of Chic Gaylord - or are we just that slow?

[RevolverRob]

I was reading Chic Gaylord's book, "Handgunner's Guide Including the Art of the Quick Draw and Combat Shooting" last night. As I read through the forward again, I hit an astonishingly fascinating claim; that Chic Gaylord was capable of drawing and firing his revolver in 1/115th of a second (that's 0.0087 of a second). Perhaps the Foreword author meant 1/15th of a second which is still 0.066 of a second. Both of those are...impossible. A well mylenated synapse has a potential action rate of 119 milliseconds, both of those times are 8.7 and 66 milliseconds respectively. This means that the fastest one can perceive the go signal is 119 milliseconds...

Gaylord claims that every person should be able to draw their gun in under 1/5th of a second (0.20) and that he could draw and fire a "killing shot on a man at 7 yards" in 0.50 seconds consistently.

Now, I believe that practice could generate you the occasional 0.20 draw time, but remember the fastest reaction time in the average brain is 0.119 of a second, so that's leaving you only ~.091 of a second left to complete the draw and it's possible to do it, afterall the fastest quick draw champions in the world for draw and fire of a single shot (blank or wax bullet) at .254. As for the draw and fire an A-zone hit at 7-yards in 0.50 of a second - yes that is definitely possible. But doing so reliably? This is my skeptical face -> :confused:

Now the discussion -

Was Gaylord telling the truth and we're all just slower? Or are these tales a wee bit exaggerated and Gaylord was probably quick, but not as quick as he made it out to be? I mean everyone can draw and make a single shot with an A-zone hit at 7 yards if the stop watch they're using counts half as fast as it should...:rolleyes::eek:

[DAB]

depends on the start position and what the start signal is.

unknown beep from a race holster, hands at side? no way.

hand on grip, and just measuring the time to clear kydex and pull the trigger? maybe.

[blues]

https://youtu.be/VYUIAGhZ-k8

[Flamingo]

https://youtu.be/wpvCZwoj3tE

Not that he is any where near average, but Bob Munden did 2 hits on target in less than .1 of a second... I think that someone claiming to be faster is suspect.

[SAWBONES]

Exaggeration of "gun stuff" is common.

Bob Munden is really amazingly fast with a sixgun, though, and Ed McGivern provided reliable instrument-recorded speed times for drawing & shooting that most couldn't approach today.

I agree that a 1/115th second draw is either a misprint or somebody's imagination.

[Peally]

Gaylord is talking out of his butthole.

[BehindBlueI's]

Ed McGivern provided reliable instrument-recorded speed times

How reliable were his instruments, though? While McGivern was an incredibly impressive individual, I don't know how reliable his old timey timers were, and IIRC from his book they often failed to register. Been awhile since I read it, though, I could be confusing it with something else.

[LOKNLOD]

How old is the book? I’m picturing an old dude doing a hip-shot speed rock starting with a decent grip, and in a day when the timer was some dude with a pocket watch.

[BehindBlueI's]

Not that he is any where near average, but Bob Munden did 2 hits on target in less than .1 of a second... I think that someone claiming to be faster is suspect.

Right. And using a modified SA revolver shooting blanks in a trick shot set up that he'd done a bajillion times. I'm not sure how you'd possibly go any faster than those conditions.

[RevolverRob]

https://youtu.be/wpvCZwoj3tE

Not that he is any where near average, but Bob Munden did 2 hits on target in less than .1 of a second... I think that someone claiming to be faster is suspect.

Does firing blanks that don't recoil and can pop balloons by looking at them, count as two targets in less than 1/10th of a second? Also despite this video...let us remember this was recorded for the History Channel. Bob never took any records for World Fast Draw and the standing, certified, record for open style is 0.208 seconds.

[Trooper224]

A speed record, executed in a controlled environment and in fixed conditions using specialized gear, is hardly realistic and relevant other than for an "ain't that cool" moment. It doesn't matter if it's done by Chic Gaylord, Bob Munden, Ed Mcgivern, Bill Jordan or Jerry Miculek. Specialized feats in specialized circumstances using specialized gear are hardly a yardstick of severity by which to measure.

Oh, and Chic Gaylord's full of shit.

[RevolverRob]

A speed record, executed in a controlled environment and in fixed conditions using specialized gear, is hardly realistic and relevant other than for an "ain't that cool" moment. It doesn't matter if it's done by Chic Gaylord, Bob Munden, Ed Mcgivern, Bill Jordan or Jerry Miculek. Specialized feats in specialized circumstances using specialized gear are hardly a yardstick of severity by which to measure.

Oh, and Chic Gaylord's full of shit.

So - I don’t know about Gaylord’s “1/15th” of a second thing - but his 1/2-second draw and fire shot at 7 yard metric was from a hip holster for a revolver - ostensibly the holster was meant for police - but he doesn’t demonstrate drawing or firing from a hip holster of that type in his book. He demonstrates some crossdraw and behind the hip draws with a snub revolver (Hi Standard Sentinel 9 in .22LR)



How old is the book? I’m picturing an old dude doing a hip-shot speed rock starting with a decent grip, and in a day when the timer was some dude with a pocket watch.

FBI crouch - but yes I assume all firing was done with hand on gun, gun unconcealed. And timing was primitive. According to the Foreword author - Gaylord devised some of his own timers. I’m not saying he was deliberately dishonest, I just wonder if he actually had accurate timer(s) and my guess is no. Like I said - if it counts half as fast as it should...then it easy to hit those numbers.

[Rosco Benson]

Lots of silly claims quit being claimed so often with the advent of electronic shot timers. The old rubber stopwatch wasn't a great tool. I recall that the Second Chance matches had three timers using stopwatches and they would take the average of the three.

That said, Gaylord was a true innovator in holster design. His book "Handgunner's Guide" was published in 1960. If you can find a copy it is a worthwhile addition to the library and illustrates how far pistolcraft has advanced from then.


Rosco

[wvincent]

Was Jelly Bryce ever officially timed? He might be a good benchmark for realistic revolver combat shooting times.

[psalms144.1]

Back before electricity, I attended the FLETC "Reactive Shooting Instructor Training Program" (in August, at Glynco, GA - JOYOUS!). This course was all about speed. The mantra was "any hit is better than a slow shot" so we were frequently just shooting at 5 yards on full size FLETC qualification targets (which are literally larger than life, unless you usually get into gunfights with Andre the Giant). On day 4 towards the end of the day, we had a "shoot off." No concealment gear, standing flat footed at 5 yards, draw and fire one hitting anywhere on silhouette on turning targets. Exposure time started at 2 seconds, then decreased by .1 seconds every exposure. When you failed to get a hit, you stepped off the line.

Everyone made it down to 1.25 seconds, nearly everyone made 1.0 seconds. I hit at .8 seconds, missed at .7. The "last man standing" was still getting hits all the way down to .4 second exposure - and I think he could have done better but the mechanics of the target turning took longer than the exposure time at that point. So, I don't doubt that, under those VERY unrealistic conditions, a FAST person can get a hit in .25 seconds, but .0xx? I've got to throw the BS flag on that.

[LSP552]

Back before electricity, I attended the FLETC "Reactive Shooting Instructor Training Program" (in August, at Glynco, GA - JOYOUS!). This course was all about speed. The mantra was "any hit is better than a slow shot" so we were frequently just shooting at 5 yards on full size FLETC qualification targets (which are literally larger than life, unless you usually get into gunfights with Andre the Giant). On day 4 towards the end of the day, we had a "shoot off." No concealment gear, standing flat footed at 5 yards, draw and fire one hitting anywhere on silhouette on turning targets. Exposure time started at 2 seconds, then decreased by .1 seconds every exposure. When you failed to get a hit, you stepped off the line.

Everyone made it down to 1.25 seconds, nearly everyone made 1.0 seconds. I hit at .8 seconds, missed at .7. The "last man standing" was still getting hits all the way down to .4 second exposure - and I think he could have done better but the mechanics of the target turning took longer than the exposure time at that point. So, I don't doubt that, under those VERY unrealistic conditions, a FAST person can get a hit in .25 seconds, but .0xx? I've got to throw the BS flag on that.

I saw LSP952 routinely hit in the mid - high .6s, center TW15 target at 5 yards from thumb snapped Safariland LS200 duty holster. Steve’s T-Rex arms helped since his full-extension was about 1.5 ft.....

A century ago I could do .8s pretty routinely from that holster, and .9s from a concealed Summer Special. Same 5 yards, but center TY15.

Add me to the BS flag list.

[whomever]

FWIW, McGivern's book shows a seismograph type pen register that was used for the '5 shots in 3/5 second' timing (p. 162 in my copy, in the chapter titled 'Shooting Double Action'). The caption implies there were contacts connected to the trigger, as opposed to acoustically listening for the shots.

[willie]

As an old burned out biology teacher I remember that most nerve impulses don't travel at 1/115 feet per second. This reminds me of the undertaker who came to pick up the body of a resident who died at the nursing home where I did the security. The undertaker arrived at 1 am. Time of death on the paperwork was 1:15 am. His comment was, "I'm fast but not that fast".

[okie john]

FWIW, McGivern's book shows a seismograph type pen register that was used for the '5 shots in 3/5 second' timing (p. 162 in my copy, in the chapter titled 'Shooting Double Action'). The caption implies there were contacts connected to the trigger, as opposed to acoustically listening for the shots.

McGivern also wrote at length about the problem of measuring times and the difficulty of getting accurate timing equipment. He ended up designing and building a lot of it himself.


Okie John

[whomever]

McGivern also wrote at length about the problem of measuring times and the difficulty of getting accurate timing equipment. He ended up designing and building a lot of it himself.


Okie John

Yep! See chapter 13: 'Correctly Measuring Short Periods of Time'.

[RevolverRob]

Was Jelly Bryce ever officially timed? He might be a good benchmark for realistic revolver combat shooting times.

The claims of Bryce I've seen are all around 2/5ths of a second (0.40) for a draw and hit, but that's a big target at 3-5 yards. Which while indeed, fast, is in the realm of what we could expect folks to hit from an open top hip holster starting hand on gun. Grand Masters can get close to that .5 mark draw and hit at 7-yards.

Long story short - I'm less incredulous of the claims of Bryce, partly because it was never claimed he was faster than 0.4 and because the dude survived 19 gunfights in his career. Also, he designed the FBI shooting course(s) which I suspect the FLETC course psalms144.1 referred to was derived from.

[wvincent]

The claims of Bryce I've seen are all around 2/5ths of a second (0.40) for a draw and hit, but that's a big target at 3-5 yards. Which while indeed, fast, is in the realm of what we could expect folks to hit from an open top hip holster starting hand on gun. Grand Masters can get close to that .5 mark draw and hit at 7-yards.

Long story short - I'm less incredulous of the claims of Bryce, partly because it was never claimed he was faster than 0.4 and because the dude survived 19 gunfights in his career. Also, he designed the FBI shooting course(s) which I suspect the FLETC course psalms144.1 referred to was derived from.

So, question to the resident scientist, what do people like Bryce and others of same ilk have in their physiology make-up that others don't?
Higher ratio of fast twitch muscle?
I have been reading "Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting" that Malamute was so kind to loan me, and the more I read the more I realize just how bad I suck at shooting in general.

[RevolverRob]

So, question to the resident scientist, what do people like Bryce and others of same ilk have in their physiology make-up that others don't?
Higher ratio of fast twitch muscle?
I have been reading "Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting" that Malamute was so kind to loan me, and the more I read the more I realize just how bad I suck at shooting in general.

Not being a neurobiologist - I'll give you my working theory -

I suspect it has the most to do with perception over muscle. There is some variation in the speed at which neurons can travel through the body and the brain and most folks fall under the bell curve, but some folks fall under one of the tails. The truly fast guys like Bryce, McGivern, Miculek, Munden, etc. probably have neurons that travel a wee bit faster.

The other thing they have is experience - muscle memory built from millions, hundreds of millions, of repetitions doing the same or very similar things. When Bryce was "timed" using high speed shutter photography at 2/5ths of a second, he had already survived 19 gunfights and fired who knows how many rounds of ammunition and drawn his gun who knows how many millions of times.

The scientist in me also is and is not as skeptical of past claims based on some things. Visual cues are faster than audible cues (light travels faster than sound) - so anyone firing on a visual cue should be faster than the audible one, all other things being equal. I also suspect that we've "slowed down" a bit, because we use both hearing protection and audible start timers - which means that we're slowed by a few hundreths of a second on the "go" cue. Also, anyone who begins on their own cue or a mechanical cue may or not be going faster. For instance if McGivern's times were recorded with a mechanical device that began counting at the release of the sear or the start of the trigger stroke, that is very different than the audible timers we use today.

To some degree our current timers are much better, because they record shot sound, but they are worse because they begin on an audible cue. I suspect we could test this to a degree. Do your draw and first shot using your audible timer signal as your go, in the house - dry-fire - Set the par time at your usual time for doing this drill at the range. Don't wear hearing protection. See how many times you beat your range time. Then put on your muffs and see if you're faster or slower.

[WOLFIE]

I am going to start practicing quick draw.

[BehindBlueI's]

Visual cues are faster than audible cues (light travels faster than sound) - so anyone firing on a visual cue should be faster than the audible one, all other things being equal.

Opposite. The human brain processes audio input faster than visual input. Reaction time testing has consistently shown that a simple audio start results in the fastest reaction times, generally .05 seconds or so ahead of visual input from the same location.

[TiroFijo]

For those experienced in these matters... how relevant is a "quick draw" is real life scenarios?

If the opponent is in the process of shooting you just now, how much or a difference it makes if you break your shot in 0.8 vs 0.3 seconds, center of mass (don't even talk about about simply anywhere on the target...)? It seems, wounded or not, he would still make his shot with about the same accuracy.

[BehindBlueI's]

For those experienced in these matters... how relevant is a "quick draw" is real life scenarios?


Not very, and diminishing returns sets in pretty early on.

I won't say it *never* matters. But when it does it's normally because you were stupid. As an example, I had a call of a person shooting into the embankment of an interstate at a very busy intersection/interchange. I was a rookie and hadn't yet figured out how stupid people were, so I assumed it was probably a bb gun or the like. The caller said he was leaving on a bicycle just as I was arriving, I saw him, and thinking I didn't want to chase the guy on a bike I pulled my police car up on the sidewalk and blocked him in. That was stupid. I then opened my door and asked him if he had been shooting something into the embankment as I stood in the gap between my door and my car. That was stupid. Then we had an old west draw competition. The only reason I won was because I saw his targeting glance before he went for his pistol on his left side, he got fumbled in his shirt, and as he looked up I had already beat him to the draw and was ready to turn his head into a canoe if he didn't stop, so he gave up.

Did "quick draw" matter? Sort of. Because I was stupid and put myself in the position to make a quick draw a necessity. Seeing the targeting glance was what really made the difference, though.

From real world gear with real world guns, you can't draw fast enough to beat someone with a gun drawn on you *if* they are prepared to shoot. The only way to "out draw a drawn gun" is by interrupting their OODA loop and exploiting the time it takes to reorient and decide. In short, distraction and tactics matter more than pure mechanical draw time from a buzzer. Faster is better, but very very rarely what makes the difference.