Printable View
I've seen these threads in other forums and they provide for great dialogue. Caleb's thread on the IDPA DM classification has started a little debate which lends to a great topic for another thread.
So, what makes a shooter "good" or "good enough?" Is it a test, accomplishment, drill...etc?
That's a rather vague term, since "good" is relative. If you're hitting your target with only the occasional miss, then you're probably good enough if your goal is general self-defense/concealed carry. If you're a competitor, then hitting your target each and every time within the ten ring is probably "good." If you're competing against Jerry Michulek, then "good" probably means whoever comes in 2nd (and maybe 3rd or 4th).
Among my friends, I'm considered pretty good. When I was competing in my local bowling pin league, I was fair to middlin'. If I ever showed my face at IDPA, I'd probably be in the "also ran" category. (Although I'm workin' on it -- LOL!) So again, "good" is very relative. If you're bringing home a trophy every now and then, isn't that "good enough?"
That really is the question, isn't it? Good at what? Good enough to do what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockslinger
K.C. Eusebio is good at being a blazing fast shooter.
Jim Cirillo was good at surviving gunfights.
Bill Jordan was good at hip shooting.
(All of those three statements are UNDERstatements. :) )
Good enough for what? "Shooting" can mean very, very different things.
I will say that as far as I can tell, no matter what category of "good" you pick, dedicated, effective, efficient, focused practice is what makes you good. (Helps to have natural talent, obviously---but that isn't necessary, in my opinion.)
Different practice for different types of "good", though.
Take defensive pistol shooting, what is a benchmark that must or "should" be made to be considered good or adequate? How does one get good?
A good place to start.
http://pistol-training.com/archives/3743
shoot shooot shoooot !!
As others have mentioned, "good" is a relative term. One reasonable way to approach this question is to decide what your goal is - then define "good" as having achieved that goal.
In that spirit, for my own 0-60 plan, the definitions are as follows. Here, "good" means a solid grasp of the fundamentals, and the ability to execute them competently. It's a good foundation on which to get better.
Marksmanship:
- Distance at which 100% hits can be guaranteed on a 3x5 card when shooting 2-handed: 7yd
- Distance at which 100% hits can be guaranteed on a 3x5 card SHO and WHO: 5yd
- The Test in 15 seconds (all in black)
The Draw:
- Time to draw and hit an 8" circle at 7yd from concealment: 2 seconds
- Time to draw and get six hits on an 8" circle at 7yd from concealment: 3.5 seconds
Reloads, multiple targets, etc.:
- Time to perform a reload from concealment: 2.5 seconds
- FAST in 10 seconds
- El Pres in 10 seconds
- DTI Dance in 13 seconds
Consistency (longer tests):
- 225 on the Hack
- 550 on the Humbler
ETA: I derived these goals from various threads on FT&T. As always, any feedback would be most welcome!
This topic can be a bit controversial.
:cool:
Yes, indeed. Trying to strike some dialogue like we had over on FT&T.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham
The good shooters are on the FAST wall
Right on, "shooting" alone is too broad of a term.Quote:
Originally Posted by jthhapkido
It is an unanswerable (is there such word?) question. Extrapolate from any field that requires standardized testing to practice/work in that field. It has been shown again and again that performance on standardized tests does not have a strong correlation with success in practical field. You can ace your test on paper, but be unable to apply your knowledge practically. You can shine in comfortable situation but collapse under time pressure. Etc, etc. When you choose your doc, lawyer, car mechanic, you don't look at their test scores, you look at their track record.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtmtnbiker98
Same with shooting. The only true benchmark is that one has won all gunfights he's been in. Short of it, the best we can say is that better shooters would likely do better, but nobody can predict minimally required level. We don't know what's minimal level of proficiency is; technical proficiency could be a very small part of winning a fight; fight scenarios could be very different, with potentially drastically different demands.
With all respect - this line of thinking seems like a bit of a cop-out. This thread isn't about predicting the future of who will win a gun fight. It's about discussing where that fine line is between a "good" shooter, and a shooter that isn't good. I think we can all agree that Sevigny is a good shooter. And we can all agree that the dude at the range last week, who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 10 paces, isn't a good shooter.Quote:
Originally Posted by YVK
Those are extreme examples of good and not good, as evidence that the distinction actually exists and is meaningful. So, where do we draw the line? How do we measure whether the line has been reached? It's an interesting question to discuss, precisely because it's multi-faceted (accurate at long range vs fast at short range vs ... etc) and because "good" is a relative term (so we get to hear what lots of other folks think of as good.)
I'd love to keep hearing detailed measurements of what different folks think of as good, and why. In my case, I'm interested in developing a well-rounded initial competence with the fundamentals of pistol shooting - so my definition of good reflects that, as well as my ignorance and bias and everything else. Your definition will probably reflect your own goals and priorities, as well as any ignorance or bias you might have. Comparing notes on these things could be useful to both of us, for many reasons.
Again, with respect. I don't actually disagree with what you're saying. I just think that this conversation is useful nonetheless.
What means the term "Good" to everyone? Imho, there is no final answer to this question.
Every school/instructor out there set his very own benchmarks. One instructor is focusing on "Fighting", another favors "Speed/Accuracy". Or one instructor is focusing on static shooting, another favors Shooting on the Move.
Mario, with mutual respect, I disagree with essence of discussion. Specifically
When gtmtnbiker defines his question this way...Quote:
Originally Posted by mariodsantana
...I then perceive his question as a discussion of minimally required technical skill to prevail in civilian self-defense shooting. If that's the question at hand, I don't believe this is possible to establish. I used to receive American Rifleman [thinking of which, I should continue to be receiving it but I don't] where NRA published cases of successful self-defense by civilians. When I read those cases, in many instances I had a feeling that those gun owners weren't switched on at all. Nonetheless, they won in all cases - otherwise it wouldn't've been published - and there is no better skill assessment tool than outcome of said skill application in real life. Caveat, of course, is that the outcome could've been a random event...Quote:
Originally Posted by gtmtnbiker98
I truly don't think we can have a conclusion in specific performance numbers here. Minimal requirement for me is a safe gun handling; don't shoot yourself when pulling that gun out of the holster. Beyond that, "bigger is better"; how big I need to get to feel confident - I don't know. It is like proving something in criminal vs. civil court: the preponderance of evidence is that I am OK now, but I don't know if it is beyond any reasonable doubt.
Thanks for that. May be cheesy for me to say, but this tendency toward mutually respectful, grown-up discussion about contentious topics is why I hang around on PFC and FT&T.Quote:
Originally Posted by YVK
I totally agree. It's like when ToddG talks about time to first shot - how do you know that won't need to be faster than you are? You definitely want to prioritize your training, so that you work on those skills that are most likely to benefit your survival rate with improvement. But there's no general "good enough" level of skill - only "good enough" for a particular situation, and you can't know what that level will be ahead of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by YVK
That makes a lot of sense. For myself, I know I can learn something from anyone who can at least handle the gun safely. Still, there are folks on the line who I look at and think "nice shooting!" And there are folks on the line who I look at think "that dude could really use more dry-fire." Do you have similar reactions when you see shooters with varying skill levels?Quote:
Originally Posted by YVK
I forgot who told it to me but a good shooter is someone that can produce the fundamentals on demand....rain, snow, tired, explosions, day, night...on demand 100% of the time no matter what.
I would draw the line between good and not good at the ability to call your shots.
Since all areas of shooting worth mentioning require someone to shoot on demand under pressure, knowing if the last round you sent was good/bad is important whether you are fighting, competing, etc. That said, I agree, you can never be "good enough." Leatham is currently trying to become a better shooter.
I would say there has to be a level of "good enough" in the equation if you are to carry a pistol.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettB
But that would be different from "I'm good enough and going to stop growing now".
So, what drill or test attributes to the fundamentals to be performed on demand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keebsley
I agree with YVK, a definite answer is hard to answer, if not, impossible. Just trying to get some personal definitions, benchmarks, etc. to what other's feel makes a good shooter. There was some pretty good dialogue in another thread where it was discussed that those who practice a particular classifier (namely IDPA/USPSA) to the point where they make Master; however, when it comes to Match time, seldom performs to that expectation. So, becoming good at one skill does not necessarily make you good at all of them.
I think the FAST wall shooters are decent shooters (I am on there myself) but a "good" shooter to me is someone much, much better than me. I think along the lines of people like Todd G, Massad Ayoob, Ernest Langdon, all the USTC instructors. These guys are good, me I am just ok. I don't even consider myself worthy of shooting in the same league as these guys. Some may say I have low self esteem but truly these guys are men amongst boys and they are what I consider "good". IMHO
Most definitely, I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by mariodsantana
Here is another food for thought. Every single person who carries concealed or has a handgun by his/her nightstand makes an implicit statement that he/she thinks that his own level is minimally sufficient to use said gun, regardless of their actual level of proficiency.
I have a similar opinion to Chipster's. I think that sub-7 sec F.A.S.T score partly defines a good shooter, and those who are inching into 5 second range are truly excellent shooters. I use F.A.S.T because it is very easy to administer. The one thing that's not assessed in F.A.S.T is a long range shooting, and I use an arbitrary standard for a 25 yard shooting at NRA bullseye target.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtmtnbiker98
There have been a lot of responses but few answers to gtmt's question. Frankly, I think some folks are over-thinking the issue. Others are dodging the issue.
"Someone who has mastered the fundamentals," for example, is a complete non-answer. What fundamentals? What constitutes mastery? Those are the questions that must be answered to define good. We may not all agree on the answers, but I think gtmt's post was aimed at starting that dialog.
If you went down to the local baseball field and watched some kids playing, could't you point out the ones you thought were good? They don't need to be MLB-level pitchers to be good. But neither would you stand around stymied trying to figure out exactly which complex series of criteria should be used to determine good.
I feel like someone is good if he can do the following:
- Time to draw and hit an 8" circle at 7yd from concealment: 2 seconds
- Time to draw and get six hits on an 8" circle at 7yd from concealment: 3.5 seconds
- Time to perform a reload from concealment: 3.0 seconds
- Distance at which 100% hits can be guaranteed on a 3x5 card when shooting 2-handed: 7yd
- Distance at which 100% hits can be guaranteed on a 3x5 card SHO and WHO: 5yd
The person who can do those things has achieved a demonstrable and commendable level of proficiency with a handgun. Is he ready to win the World Series of Pistolcraft? No. Is he guaranteed to win any gunfight? No. But his skill level is adequate to separate him from the masses. To me, that is "good."
An interesting thought provoked by some of the above posts: while the answer sought here is an objective definition of "good shooter", the perception of it can be skewed by who you're shooting with or against. For instance, when I shoot with my buddies from work they think I'm a good if not great shooter. Among a bunch of "real" shooters or in an IDPA match, I definitely seem average, more or less. Does that make any sense?
On a side note, as a person in LE, I feel that 95%+ of LEO are not "good" shooters. The sad part of it is that many do not want, or aspire to be, although theirs and your life might depend on it.
I feel that academy level training is pathetic and think that, especially in the last few months, a wake-up call needs to be sounded to enlighten the powers to be what exactly we are supposed to be doing out there when the alarm goes off, and the people need protecting.
I have always been in favor of the "SWAT on patrol" concept and feel that every LEO should be a "good" firearm user, whatever that may consist of.
Probably more than 95%! And you are correct, they dont care about getting better. I have tried relentlessly to get the guys I work with to go shoot a local IDPA match with me. No go! They wont even show up at the range for some basic drills!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipster
BLET (Basic Law Enforcement Training) is also equally disheartening. A week on the range BLET and a few hours a year at your agency is just not enough. Basic qualification shooting at a static B-27 target is, IMHO, just too basic for the skills needed now-a-days on the street. Its great for establishing a baseline but does nothing to help the officer under stress. Moving targets and moving to cover etc needs to be added to our (NC) training standards but as long as the good ole' boys are in charge nothing is going to change.
It's not accident that my personal goals include these exact criteria. You've posted these criteria elsewhere and I've taken them at face value. Specific metrics like this have really helped me develop a training plan for getting from 0-60 in pistolcraft. (OK, maybe from 0-30...) :cool: Anyway, thanks to you and others who take the time to put simple metrics like this out there, without claiming that they're some sort of Golden Rule or anything, just one dude's opinion on where to draw the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddG
I do notice, though, that you added a half second to the reload time, compared to a previous post you made with these numbers. Is there a reason for that, or is it just the normal margin of error in your own mind as far as the definition of "good?"
It was a conscious shift after going back through a lot of data from a lot of shooters I've seen come through class who I thought of as "good" but not great.
No doubt! When a highly skilled person says that such-and-such a metric is probably indicative of some fundamental competence, though, that's some valuable information. Hell if I can tell what's good shooting - but I can borrow your and ToddG's and SLG's and other experienced shooters' conclusions about it for now, until I get enough experience to develop an independent opinion...Quote:
Originally Posted by YVK
Cool. The FAST is definitely a sexy test. Knowledgable people tell me it's actually pretty good, as a quick summary of skillset. Personally, I put the line at 10 seconds, and hope that others will indulge me. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by YVK
Plus, like you say, the longer-range skillset isn't measured by FAST. What bullseye score would you say represents a "good" score for longer-range shooting?
Good to know, thanks. Maybe I won't feel so bad if I can't quite make 2.5 seconds for a while... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddG
I don't have a score. All I care that all shots land in black - which basically means a less than 5.5 inch group around POA; this is at 25 yards. I specify "around POA" because I've seen people shoot a group 6 inches low and left of target's center and then marvel how tight that group was. This is two-handed, unsupported, no time limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mariodsantana
Again, I am looking for 100% hits. Shooter who can shoot three inch groups doesn't impress me if his variability is between three and seven - I am one of those shooters myself.
Like you and the good doctor have said, the definitive answer of "good" is hard to answer as everyone's definition is different. There are places where some might agree and disagree on what is good. My definition of good by way of producing the fundamentals of marksmanship/shooting etc on demand is just that. No matter what the drill, course of fire, etc, they are able to produce satisfactory results on demand. Again, what is satisfactory to me may be different to others but it's just a circular argument because everyone has their own definition. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by gtmtnbiker98
Cool, so it's like The Test, but at 25yds and no time limit. I think I'll try that next time I get to the range. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by YVK
"Good shooter" varies based on situation. And thus, for me, a good shooter is one who is capable of successfully responding to a wide variety of situations. If you can hit a 3x5 card in 1 second at 3 yards but can't hit a full-size torso at 25 yards in 3 seconds are you a good shooter or are you a specialist in some type of shooting? Similarly if you can get a center hit on that 25 yard torso every time but still need 3 seconds for a hit on that 3x5 card at 3 yards are you good or not?
So for me it becomes somewhat philosophical. What makes a shooter "good" is being able to control his immediate environment when confronted by any reasonable hostilities. That would include non-shooting issues as well as shooting and is performance based rather than skills based. But that doesn't meet the basic human desire for measuring competence with skills. Perhaps the better question would be, therefore, how do we measure shooting competence?
If we're talking about surviving a gunfight I would want to see some metrics vs moving targets, especially when the shooter is moving too. Yes, I believe guys who can do the aforementioned drills and tests within a time limit to be good shooters, but have any of those drills addressed moving targets? That would be my only concern.
To me, a "good defensive pistol shooter" should be safe and reasonably competent with a variety of handguns. You may have a preferred platform, but a good Glock/M&P/H&K shooter shouldn't fall apart if forced to use a revolver or 1911.
So a good reload is 3.0 Seconds - is that from the last shot prior to the reload to the first shot after?
Yes. Essentially, as the shot timer records it.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ralston