FWIW, about 10% of the students who show up to one of my classes make the sub-7 time once out of four tries over the course of two days. And that's from a pool of shooters dedicated enough to spend $500 plus travel, ammo, etc. to take an intermediate-level technical pistol skill-building class.
A higher percentage of shooters make Basic (greater than 10 seconds) than make Advanced (less than seven). And again, that's best out of four tries.
Are times low based on marksmanship penalties or the inability to move faster?
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
I'm actually surprised it's that low. At the Aim Small Get Some class (I forget the name) it was over 50%.Originally Posted by ToddG
Yes
Karl Rehn's presentation at the 2014 Tactical Confernce included an analysis of current standards and how they compared. He spent a lot of time crunching expected draw, reload, split, transition times, etc. This is what he came up with:
My concern is that when we examine the "population as a whole" the relative skill value is zero because most people don't shoot at all. I like the approach that determines what the maximum peroformance is and working backwards. The only point I'd consider is that I'd place what the elite guys can do at 110% and work back from there.
I seem to recall my Aim Fast Hit Small class managing 50% or better at Advanced FAST scores as well - but then again AFHS was limited to students who had already scored an Intermediate at Aim Fast Hit Fast, and we had six attempts.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
I suspect that for the most part, the only people who can shoot like this unconsciously and on demand are people who train pretty regularly on their own with a shot timer.
Indeed, it seems to me that the use of a shot timer for personal training is so rare, you could almost make shot timer ownership some kind of indication of likely competence with a pistol.
Last edited by nalesq; 03-08-2014 at 10:21 PM.
Hey John, I finally signed up here...
One fly in the ointment not tested by standardized tests is how does the shooter do if the targets are not just paper and cardboard. I know several high ranked IDPA and IPSC guys that I don't have a lot of confidence in them applying those skills when you add in human interaction and targets that fight back. You pretty much need an NTI type FOF component in there too...which opens up other problems in comparisons.
Also what about the stone cold killer who has only nominal gun handling skills but has a "go switch" set to "at the drop of a hat". Looking back at your own presentations about who the guys are that kill cops and by extension who we are actually likely to be fighting, where do you rate the typical cop killer as far as gun skills goes? Does mindset and a lightly tripped "psycho switch" trump a certain amount of skill? Things to ponder .................
This quote from The Shootist sums up Randy's point:
Gillom Rogers: [Books is giving Gillom a shooting lesson] Mr. Books, How is it you've killed so many men? My spread wasn't much bigger than yours.
John Bernard Books: First of all, friend, there's no one up there shooting back at you. Second, I found most men aren't willing, they bat an eye, or draw a breath before they shoot. I won't.
The first indication a bad guy should have that I'm dangerous is when his
disembodied soul is looking down at his own corpse wondering what happened.
When I originally proposed the question, I had no illusions that it was perfect. "Willingness" is a major factor that trumps most everything. The question was what level of skill suggests that the basics are being performed without any drain on the main pool of mental resources.
Again, no big disagreement. I would point out that while not all cop killers are great shots - some certainly are. Platt and Matix were shooting ~1500 rounds a week to hone their skills. The bad guys in the Newhall Massacre has been shooting earlier that fateful day. The cop killers who aren't great shots generally know this and will manipulate the cops to a contest that benefits their limited set of shooting skills. They'll feign compliance, allow the cops to get close and then unleash overwhelming violence.Also what about the stone cold killer who has only nominal gun handling skills but has a "go switch" set to "at the drop of a hat". Looking back at your own presentations about who the guys are that kill cops and by extension who we are actually likely to be fighting, where do you rate the typical cop killer as far as gun skills goes? Does mindset and a lightly tripped "psycho switch" trump a certain amount of skill? Things to ponder .................
Reply With Quote
