A one shot draw from concealment is an exercise, too. That doesn't mean there aren't standards you can compare yourself to.
Depending on the shooter it may. But for the most part, with proper skill, it's not as big a factor. It takes more effort to shoot, say, a full power .45 than a typical 9mm but for blind splits on a single close static target the time isn't likely to be that different. Of course there will be a point beyond which that no longer holds true (a Bill with a .460 out of a snubby revolver).In any advent, I'm still not seeing why more recoil won't effect split times.
I don't think I was misquoting Skills and Drills when I said that...
ETA:
Ok, I found the part in Skills and Drills (page 189, where Ben is talking about setting difficult goals.) Here is what he actually said:
So I'm not sure he's saying that is his actual, personal best time.
Last edited by Mr_White; 01-02-2014 at 05:17 PM.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
I used to get all hung up on power factor until I shot that Sig 1911 through the Not-AFHF you ran a couple of years back in Washington. That was when I realized that getting a good grip and executing the fundamentals quickly was a lot more important than how I "felt" about recoil.
For me, the point of diminishing returns on recoil is around the .44 Magnum threshold.
While no doubt there are others, Gabe is the only person I know that can consistently make the time (sub 2.0) from concealment.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
So, back to the OP's question, and as others have said, two seconds is customarily considered Master class time for a Bill Drill among USPSA competitors using their normal, unconcealed gear. No doubt there are a ton of people who can do quite a bit better than two seconds too.
The Bill Drill was one of the first things I chased as I worked harder on technical skills. I had read about the drill in the back of Surgical Speed Shooting by Andy Stanford. He referenced the traditional two second, Master class standard and stated that three seconds, with street gear, was 'quite fast.'
I like adopting tough times and goals to strive for, and working toward the traditional unconcealed, race gear benchmark was a fun and worthy goal to attack with carry gear from concealment, though I certainly recognize that appendix carry is part of what makes that a realistic task for me.
The Bill Drill has a very simple breakdown on paper - the goals are a one second draw and .2 second splits thereafter.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
I am waaaaay out in space on this, but, I wasn't aware a Bill Drill even incorporated drawing. The way I understood it, the purpose was to learn to learn sight tracking. Heck, a target wasn't even used as it distracted from concentrating on the sight picture. The entirety of the drill was sight picture during and coming back from recoil. That was the first time I was conscious of blinking at the shot.
Todd - I didn't think I implied anything about standards. My only point was, and is: split times will necessarily increase for higher recoil. I don't see how there can be any argument over that. Will it not be more difficult, all else equal, to track a sight that rises an extra 10 degrees? Or rolls back an extra 0.5 inches during recoil? Isn't that the whole point behind lightened slides? And the Sight Tracker?
I have no expertise in this, but the physics seem simple enough.