Personally, I'd take hand grenades to Sunday School if they'd let me.
Printable View
I thought I had a copy of the Lewinsky study mentioned in that article but can't find it. Force Science had two other relevant pages that I bookmarked that are also now dead. I'll leave the links anyway in case they ever come alive again.
This one was titled "Reaction Time"
https://www.forcescience.com/fsnews/178.html
This was the study about assailants being shot in the back. It includes a lot of information on reaction times but I can't remember if time to stop is included.
https://www.forcescience.com/articles/shotinback.pdf
I did save the shotinback pdf. I also have "Shooting Dynamics: Elements of Time & Movement in Shooting Incidents" by Alexander Jason. I think it's the basis of the article you linked. And I have "Reasonableness and Reaction Time" by Joycelyn Pollock, ALERRT, and other contributors. The files are too large to attach here but if anyone wants them pm me an email and I'll send them.
Interesting post on Ben Stoeger's IG relevant to this thread topic:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cg2APxIDRgd
Here you can see @xray.alpha.llc training at competitive shooting speed. This is only safe to do in the controlled environment of a shooting range.
When Matt is in full kit operating operationally the shooting slows down to tactical speed. No human being can shoot like this under real world stress.
Is this useful:
https://uapdi.com/my/docs/shotback.pdf
WHY IS THE SUSPECT SHOT
IN THE BACK?
Finally, Hard Data on How Fast the Suspect Can Be
In 11 Different Shooting Scenarios
By Bill Lewinski, Ph.D.
The Police Marksman November/December 2000 pgs. 20-*‐28
https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?hand...ction=journals
Police Quarterly
14(4) 323-343
@The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
reaand Reaction Time sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098611111423737
http://pqx.sagepub.corn
https://www.hptc-pro.com/wp-content/...ction-Time.pdf
OSAGE
J. Pete Blair', Joycelyn Pollock', Don Montague',
Terry Nichols', John Curnuttl,
https://www.forcescience.com/2014/08...n-recognition/
https://www.police1.com/officer-shoo...yVoHO0jU9ByeJ/
Action vs. reaction: The shoot-first fallacy
I try and keep and eye of xrayalpha's stuff. And I may miss something in the abbreviated and cryptic IG commentary but I get the impression he is a proponent of shooting in combat far faster than what is often termed assessment speed. In fact I've seen him explicitly mock assessment speed in IG posts.
Below Ben's notes xrayalpha makes a comment about how fast gunfights are.
So I'm not sure where he comes down on all of that.
But another very experienced gunfighter with similar background offered me this to contemplate on the Tree of Woe:
The first mistake most people make is under-estimating how fast gunfights occur.
The second mistake most people make is over-estimating how fast gunfights occur.
The third mistake is assuming they are all the same/similar.
The fourth is assuming they are all different.
Been trying to wrap my head around that a couple of years now.
Furthermore, I've seen it credibly argued that emotional control is quite a challenge in one's first gunfight. I'm generally skeptical that the first one or two will be easily modulated speed-wise. I "think" this is where DB was coming from in the discussions of how they trained their LEOs in their unit - with an extreme emphasis on precision at an assessment speed cadence so that is what they were habituated to do as they won't have dozens or more shootings to keep building upon.
ETA @Clusterfrack
Hunter B. Armstrong of the International Hoplology Society takes the position that emotional control in personal combat is the primary focus of all the Japanese Koryu systems and that technical prowess was a distant second. Hence live blade Kata were controlled experiences of mortal danger. As distance increases, the need for technical prowess increases(E.G., Archery) and the effects of extreme emotional dislocation lessen.
The various methods of cultivating emotional control were generally based on acceptance of death, "Othering"(dehumanizing) your opponent, and suppressing the chimpanzee in your head by focusing on awareness in the moment vs. dwelling on the future by using breathing and meditation, postures, mudra(hand gestures)and seed words.
I think Ben was being facetious when he made that post - he posted that right after Matt posted a different video of himself shooting MXAD with this description:
"In training, shoot in a way that is uncomfortable to you. Pushing performance is the only way to get batter. You will fail and not get the results you want. The work in training is to make changes so you get the result you want without “slowing down”. If you’re a tactical shooter slowing down is never the answer, if your a practical shooter that wants to win it’s also not the answer. The goal is to have control at speed."
I will say that I think people come down on this very differently depending on if their natural disposition is to shoot controlled (turtle style) or at the edge of their capability (hoser style). I think people who were former turtles tend to discount the difficulty some people have with shooting at a controlled pace. Like you always see a couple guys at the local match who mechanically can shoot at a M class level but almost always bomb 1 stage of the match pushing too hard and it plagues them match after match even though they know what they're doing wrong.
Oh! Perfect! Thanks for the context! I don’t Instagram so I didn’t have the context.
I agree completely with Matt. He’s delta or special forces, right?
Regarding turtle and hoser, I think those guys sometimes get vilified by FUDDs not realizing neither is the goal and if you ever saw Max Michel or other top GMs shoot they never look rushed, just efficient with a shit ton of alphas at speed.
That’s kind of the point I was making. More skill is more skill and opens up options.
Most people practice handguns as a sport or hobby and it’s a different bucket of opportunity cost than self defense tactical classes.
Former Delta.
I think to the question of practice I think for better or for worse many people do treat self defense / tactics as their hobby and prioritization needs to happen. But getting really good at shooting matches (the right way) means being able to apply the right level of shot confirmation prior to sending it, on any given target from a full USPSA at 2 yards vs partials/steel at 30-40.
I think it's also interesting that at my local club there was a time when we were putting up a lot of no-shoots behind steel targets - basically a no fail type shot (at least in a match context). During tear down I would rarely see more than a handful of holes in the no-shoot, for a match with 60+ shooters with skill levels all over the place.
I’ve been thinking about the push for speed and “prepping” the trigger while presenting the gun. The more I contemplate it, the more I think it may be a bad way to train for a self defense scenario. Is this circumventing the assessment process? And setting one up for some unintended consequences?
If someone is training to fire no matter what every time they draw the gun, that's a huge problem. But, getting on the trigger as soon as the muzzle is pointed at the target can be a valid technique for a faster shot, assuming that shot must be taken. It seems to me that we need to train for scenarios ranging from
- Fire a shot as fast as humanly possible. See John Correa's numbers, listed in this article.
- Draw to a ready position, finger off trigger.
I'm going to break out some posts to RR/GD, where I'm hoping we can continue to argue respectfully.
I think there may still be value left in this thread. Stand by.
OK. Done. Carry on...
There are times in dry fire that focus on vision and not working the trigger should be the focus. Hopefully during those times you don't find yourself prepping the trigger. I would also say when pushing speed on the draw you should isolate the draw and not working the trigger when you get to the sub .8 .7 draws
Holy fuck that’s a great link. I didn’t click until @BWT commented.
Here are some screen caps:
Attachment 92475
Attachment 92476
Data regarding tiers of skills and opportunities that they open up.
I'm not putting down the cop just that I see this in a lot in videos of OIS's. I'm not sure how you can train past the tendency to focus on the threat while always maintaining awareness of the background. Especially when focusing on the front sight as is commonly taught.
Can it be done?
My answer would be yes, but in reality, no, not for the masses. I don't think it can be done solely on the live-fire range. Exercises such as placing a shoot target amidst a cluster of no shoot targets and having the shooter maneuver to get a clear shot on the shoot target can be of value, but they don't do the whole job.
We can train folks to perceive, versus just see, through training. I'm a big proponent of improving situational awareness using the concepts associated with commentary driving - simply talking about what you see as it is associated with the driving task. In the venue of situational awareness, you talk about things, situations or persons that could impact your safety - after a while it becomes a habit. You also strive to develop a pattern of scanning or looking that makes your more aware of your environment.
The initial problem, for some people, is recognizing things that impact the driving task, or personal safety. Once the person is fairly salty about observing the environment around them they still aren't prepared for that level of observation under stress.
That is where a carefully developed force-on-force or computerized force simulation program comes into play to anchor the concepts into the subconscious mind.
Thoughts?
Thanks for the detailed reply. Thoughts? Yeah, more questions than answers. I've done FoF back in the day with miles gear and FATS. Maybe start with interviews as to what the officer recalled seeing or being aware of besides the threat during the encounter. Maybe that could help determine how well a person's level of broad awareness held up during high stress incidents. It would be interesting to compare their perception vs any available video.
Here's a selective attention test that is quite illustrative you can do online.
https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo
Think I mentioned this work before. But good to reinforce the principles.
Here's a summary of a study:
The Effect of Brief Situational Awareness Training in a Police Shooting Simulator: An Experimental Study
Authors: Evelyn-Rose Saus Military Psychology, Volume 18, Issue 3s July 2006 , pages S3 - S21
Students from the Norwegian Police University College
SA-trained group received scenario-based training with freeze technique and reflection based on the SA stages,
Control group received skill training.
SA was measured both subjectively and objectively and
Performance was measured by the number of shots fired and number of hits.
Results:
SA-trained group to have higher SA.
Better performance
Less mental workload measured as suppression of heart rate variability
Brief SA-specific training in a shoot-not shoot simulator can improve police cadets' SA in critical situations
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ntal-Study.pdf
https://carleton.ca/policeresearchla...mulation_t.pdf
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
2007, Vol. 13, No. 1, 35–58
Quote:
DOES USE-OF-FORCE SIMULATION TRAINING IN
CANADIAN POLICE AGENCIES INCORPORATE
PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE TRAINING?
Craig Bennell, Natalie J. Jones, and Shevaun Corey
Carleton University
Numerous police agencies in Canada incorporate use-of-force simulation training
into their overall instructional regime. A prominent theory of learning, known as
cognitive load theory, suggests that in order for this training to be effective,
instructional methods must facilitate the acquisition and automation of task-relevant
schemas without overwhelming the limited processing capacity of the learner. In
this article, several instructional effects, proposed and supported by the cognitive
load literature, are discussed. These training effects operate by minimizing unnec-
essary cognitive demands, by drawing on instructional methods that enhance
schema acquisition, and/or by carefully managing the inherent complexity of the
to-be-learned material. The argument is advanced that although use-of-force simu-
lation training may be able to capitalize on many of these effects, at present there
is little evidence to suggest that it currently does. The authors conclude by discuss-
ing the urgent need to assess how the knowledge gained from cognitive load theory
might serve to enhance the effectiveness of use-of-force simulation training
Thanks for posting that.
During F on F, our process was to 'Socratically' (is that a word?) guide the participant through an AAR after each scenario. Our process was also to redo the scenario if time allowed or if the officer had an unsatisfactory outcome. We were also to stop the scenario if the officer was going completely off the rails, do the AAR as quickly as possible, and redo the scenario.
In almost every case, the second guided AAR was more detailed than that of the first scenario.
I routinely asked student officers 'so, when did you forget you were in a scenario?' invariably the answer was along the lines of 'as soon as the guy started to get out of the vehicle' or, in other words as soon as they needed to take self-initiated action. This same response was virtually universal during both f on f and using our computer systems.
I also closely observed the participants for signs of stress - shifting of feet, clenching hands, etc. Not at all unusual to see these signs.
Very few officers told me 'I never did forget it was a scenario.'
EX MS. CF visits her attorney.
Anyway, the idea of realistic simulation is to give folks stress innoculation to enable them not to fall into panic immobility and builds quick perceptual appreciation of the situation. Perception is a constructive act of the actual stimulus interacting with your analysis routines and expectations. These latter are built through experience. These then connect to the cognitive decision routes and motor action patterns. For example, I've read that experienced fire chiefs can look at a fire and immediately appreciate the situation, paths of fire, routes of action, etc. that need to be executed. That sort of thing is in the literature for the critical simulation folks - fire, trains, ships, planes, power plants, law, military, etc.
You don't want to waste cognitive resources on the basics. Those are automatic and launched from your analysis of the problem.
Airsoft can hurt you know, close up. Been there. Have to have layers. Welts on a wife, it's a remake of Lysistrata.
Also, who gets to pick up the pellets from all over? Use a SIRT with laser goggles.
Not the route I’d go for a first choice, but let us know how that works out for you?
Training that isn’t realistic, relevant, and based on recent historical events/trends is not training. I don’t know what you call it. Doesn’t really matter. Fact is, it is not training. Most firearms “training” these days isn’t training so much as it is instruction.
With the introduction of inexpensive green gas AirSoft replicas that work with gear for its firearm counterpart, Force on Force & scenario based training don’t have to wait for a formal block of instruction. For $50, you have a reusable training tool that allows realistic FoF engagements with minimal risk to persons or property. Anywhere becomes your dojo, Range, rolling mat, whatever.
One thing about FOF, most professional FOF is tightly scripted and refereed. If it's just a bunch of folks, it just becomes a shoot'em up fun fest. Most scenarios have a point and the trainers/opponent role players are instructed how to act towards the trainees to teach them something. There's usually more to the scenario then just a draw and hits. Should you draw, should you go there, what to do after the shot, etc.?
Also have to leave your ego at the door as you will do something stupid and get killed on DA STREEZ. That usually doesn't happen in a match.* Nor does the law show up and you have to deal with them. It can get real as folks have had stress reactions. A fellow psychologist had to be told to breathe as he was turning blue after a scenario. Another fellow had to be disarmed (sim gun) gently as he was flashing back to something, had to be talked down. Need a good after action summary and evaluation.
One NTI rule was NO WHINING.
* Guy robs jewelry store. I must save the diamonds. Oh - dear, nice blonde lady in the corner is the secret backup and shoots me three times in the back close up! OUCH! I whirl and shoot her. AAR debate on whether I was dead and couldn't whirl or I had enough time in me to do that. Who knows. Next time, take the diamonds.
PS - nice blonde lady decided to shoot me three times as revenge for another run where I was in an office in a bank negotiating a loan. She runs in with an evil spouse after her. I vault the table and out the door. I suppose she dies. She said, I didn't save her so Bang, bang, bang later. We laugh. My fleeing was efficient for me, though. I've noticed in similar FOF, about half the participants don't save the female. Some do, get entangled shot - some were shot by arriving police (who were scripted to do that - they rush in when good guy shoots and shoot him).
Funny, I'm hijacking a car (being a bad guy). What do the drivers and passengers? This is the fun part. There is a car in front of the target car. Now it should just drive away. However, the driver of that car sticks his head out the window to see what is happening. I sez: Oh, hello! Then I shoot him.
None of this is new to folks who have done good FOF.
That’s why you choose who you train with versus enrolling in someone else’s course……
Got a douche canoe that doesn’t want to play by the rules to keep it effective training? Boot his ass out.
Not a luxury as a student in a FoF class.
Thank you! Words do have meaning. One of my 1275 pet peeves is when people give old things new names or screw up the names intentionally for their own reasons.
Would working split target arrays be beneficial for this - in your mind? The distances at which shooters think they can, or can't, pull this off is of interest. Does a moving shooter and split target array make it a wee bit more realistic? Relevant?
Ah, yeah, would more Cold or at least Cool stages help with this? If no walk throughs or only the stage brief was allowed, would it give "us" better perspectives?
-AND-
Reference the current or former Tiered shooters, do enough people take the time to process just how different they are from us? I'm not even talking the number of rounds they've gotten to fire. Consider the number of selection processes most of them go through over a career. If the 0.45% of the population served during the GWOT number is right and these guys/gals are a fraction of the best 1% of the mil, where is everyone else "processor speed" wise? There are times I'm pretty sure they aren't really aware of just how different, exceptional they are in comparison to even the other 99.55%.
Yes, gunfights are all of the things that were in that paragraph. And they also vary in terms of circumstances and who's accompanying you. may or may not be changes as a result there as well.
But, hey, I could be completely wrong.