Input on Current Project

[Surf]

Interesting thread. I know that the thread is talking about the component of perhaps shooting skills sets, but I will also note that the mindset, training of tactics and practice / experience in those areas are the other key and often times more important skills. I am sure most here are aware of that but I am only trying to make sure that there is no room for interpretation on the point that I believe that solid fundamentals and skill sets while extremely important are but only 1 component and may or may not be the most important deciding factor in any one situation. That would be another discussion however and keeping the focus within what appears to be the scope of the thread, for discussion sake I do find this component to be very interesting in how not only I but how others might look at it.

I fall into that camp where I am very critical of my own performance, which like many pushes us to put in a lot of hard work and effort to strive to become more competent and proficient at whatever we choose to do. This of course applies to my own performance with shooting skill sets. A measuring stick is a viable way to track performance and to find out what works and what does not, so in that sense I am also interested. In the past I have had a habit of running many drills as a way as to measure or track performance. I was also known to run drills or courses of fire for others as a validation or to get my feedback. The thing that I am lacking on would be the alphabet soup stuff discussed in this thread as I do not shoot organized competition and have no experience with the IDPA or USPSA classifiers as an example. The things I can relate to on the example given in the original chart would be the FAST, FAM qual and the Hack Head drill if that is the 10 rounds, 10 yards, 10 sec drill. Other than that I have no other measuring stick to gauge feedback.

So if I go off of my own limited experience with items on the list, or from my own personal feelings, I come to this.....

I can pretty consistently average sub 5's on the FAST following the original rules. The FAM and the Hack Head Drill is easy enough. Having said that I don't think my sub 5's on the FAST would put me in the excellent range and I think the FAM and the Hack head shot should be lower on the scale. The POST quals can be a joke. The all in type of POST quals have huge hit zones or the entire silhouette. The points scoring types still have large full scoring hit zones and all seem to have forgiving times. With that in mind say a 25 round all in the silhouette POST qual IMO would indeed be bordering on incompetent / competent depending on speed and shot placement, but that is not credited in that qual. So a shooter could shoot all head shots in a faster time and pass the same as someone shooting buckshot on the silhouette just making the time limit, so that is a difficult meter to gauge competency. Now for a clean score on a down scored POST qual is still not overly complicated and I might want to bump that down a bit further or closer to the Good / Competent borderline. Of course even with shrunken hit zones you might have an excellent shooter absolutely smoke the qual with speed, small precision and accuracy.

As for the USPSA / IDPA classifications, I am not doubting their validity as a measuring stick, I just don't have the experience there. I will however note that I did some poking around online for the courses of fire and it is no big surprise to find as an example that the Hackathorn Standards, 10-8, Redback One type of standard drills mirror many of those stages found in the IDPA classifier. The USPSA is complicated for my mind to relate to in the brief couple of minutes I scanned over it. I might set up the IDPA classifier as it is simple enough to set up and perform. Maybe I will have more insight on the scale proposed if I can add more components or data points to make the comparison more fair. Or maybe I am just overly critical or demanding of my own performance and that unfairly skews my points of view? Regardless interesting topic and one I look forward to others input.

[Mr_White]

Interesting thread. I know that the thread is talking about the component of perhaps shooting skills sets, but I will also note that the mindset, training of tactics and practice / experience in those areas are the other key and often times more important skills. I am sure most here are aware of that but I am only trying to make sure that there is no room for interpretation on the point that I believe that solid fundamentals and skill sets while extremely important are but only 1 component and may or may not be the most important deciding factor in any one situation. That would be another discussion however and keeping the focus within what appears to be the scope of the thread, for discussion sake I do find this component to be very interesting in how not only I but how others might look at it.

That's very true, and is the reason I am reluctant to assign the Incompetent, Competent, Good, and Great labels as declarations of likelihood of gunfight domination by a given practitioner. I think it's a lot less of a stretch to compare different drills, tests, standards, and classifications as they relate to skills only. And I still find that highly interesting.

I might set up the IDPA classifier as it is simple enough to set up and perform.

I'd really encourage you to do that. The IDPA Classifier is a long, relatively broad (not comprehensive) test of skill. It's great to use as an ongoing benchmark over a long period of time. And it's a more precise measuring tool than anything with PAR times, since it's open-ended.

[KevinB]

I'd argue most of the gun game classifiers are utterly not relevant as most folks run them in game gear - not gunfighting gear.

As well as SURF mentioned how can you classify experience?

I'm sorry but I see this as an exercise in futility that will end up in a Johnson measuring contest between followers of different dogma.

I'm not trying to justify my own mediocrity in this, I'm generally not a fast guy with a pistol, but I also have never shot anyone I did not want to

[Mr_White]

I'd argue most of the gun game classifiers are utterly not relevant as most folks run them in game gear - not gunfighting gear.

That is a fair point at least some of the time. I've seen a range of approaches and results among some different shooters. Two GMs I know in my area are working cops. They do really well in USPSA with game gear, and also really well in GSSF with stock Glocks. They are clearly going to be very skilled with their duty guns. One of them occasionally shoots his duty gear in USPSA. I don't know what or if they carry off-duty. I've seen another high level Open shooter tank it big time in GSSF. I feel your point but confine my hangup about it to myself. Your point is why I pretty obstinately stick with my carry gear and concealment in USPSA, even though it's a real boneheaded way to play the game. Bottom line is that I enjoy it that way and I think I am subjecting myself to a beneficial level of pressure and testing, and that's why I won't give it up.

I'm sorry but I see this as an exercise in futility that will end up in a Johnson measuring contest between followers of different dogma.

Could be, with the wrong people discussing it. But I always find it interesting to compare the different metrics used to gauge a shooter's skill, since none of them are a complete measure unto themselves. I think I'd have a much more accurate picture of a shooter's skills if I knew his USPSA and IDPA classifications, GSSF scores, and FAST scores, for example, than if I only know one of those.

[GJM]

I think there are three important factors:

1) Skill at arms. Defined by USPSA, FAST or whatever. On the issue of gear, I think a really good shooter will be a good shooter, regardless of what holster he has on.

2) Mindset/tactical preparation. Much of what Kevin/Surf are referring to by "experience."

3) Preparation, as in do they have any gun, and ideally a suitable one.

I think it is human nature to highly value what we are good at, and try to minimize or discount where we are deficient. This might lead the USPSA GM to think their skill at arms trumps points two and three above, and the stone cold killer to accept being less proficient at skill at arms. At the end of the day, I think all will agree the stone cold killer, with GM skills, carrying the right hardware is most theoretically prepared.

[orionz06]

I think there are three important factors:

1) Skill at arms. Defined by USPSA, FAST or whatever. On the issue of gear, I think a really good shooter will be a good shooter, regardless of what holster he has on.

2) Mindset/tactical preparation. Much of what Kevin/Surf are referring to by "experience."

3) Preparation, as in do they have any gun, and ideally a suitable one.

I think it is human nature to highly value what we are good at, and try to minimize or discount where we are deficient. This might lead the USPSA GM to think their skill at arms trumps points two and three above, and the stone cold killer to accept being less proficient at skill at arms. At the end of the day, I think all will agree the stone cold killer, with GM skills, carrying the right hardware is most theoretically prepared.

And really only one can be quantified and evaluated objectively.

[JSGlock34]

Very interesting project. Just a thought, but instead of an individual FAST (which opens the question of 'best' vs. 'average') why not try to align the KSTG classifier (which is based on the FAST) with the chart?

SLG and I spent a while today discussing the Classification system.

Originally, we vacillated between five or six seconds as the standard for Master, which would translate into either fifteen or eighteen seconds as the bar to reach for Master class in the Classifier (which is the F.A.S.T. three times in a row). We finally settled on five seconds back then because we assumed as the sport grew more people would "perfect" the F.A.S.T. and getting sub-5 clean runs would become commonplace among better shooters.

Over the past few years of teaching, I've seen plenty of dedicated shooters who were highly motivated to win a coin (which requires just two out of three runs to be sub-5 and clean)... very, very few of them have succeeded. As such, the idea of having the bar at 15 seconds seemed perhaps a bit too high.

So we're considering bringing it back to 18 seconds. All of the other times flow from there. Revolver Master is just one extra second per run for the reload, so it would go from 18 seconds to 21 seconds. "A" is 125% of "Master," "B" is 130% of "A," and "C" is 140% of "B." So the new scheme would look like this:

	Semiauto	Revolver
Master	18.00 seconds or less	21.00 seconds or less
A class	18.01 - 22.50 seconds	21.01 - 26.25 seconds
B class	22.51 - 29.25 seconds	26.26 - 34.13 seconds
C class	29.26 - 40.95 seconds	34.14 - 47.78 seconds
D class	40.96 seconds or more	47.79 seconds or more

Alternatively, in the spirit of the head-to-head nature of the rules, with the additional second we're giving semiautos at the Master level, we could just eliminate the distinction between semi and revo in the classification system. Everyone, regardless of gun, would classify using the semiauto numbers above.

If the game were ever to grow enough that there was a glut of Master class shooters of widely varying skill level at the top, we can easily create a GM-type classification and use 15.00 seconds as that limit.

Taking pistol-training.com scoring in mind, that is fairly consistent with Master being the equivalent to Expert, A is Advanced, and B is intermediate. It's not perfect, but the PTC version is based on a best-of while the KSTG is cumulative.

[167]

Could add one more metric.

S-P Defensive Handgun Skills Test

[BN]

I think anyone who shoots at least twice a month, whether it is practice, drills or competition will be better than 95% of shooters.

Should it be based on what someone can do on demand? I've been seriously shooting pistols for over 30 years. I'm a 5 gun IDPA Master, A-Class in USPSA Open, Limited and Production and I might be able to shoot a 6 second FAST. Some of my USPSA scores are 20 years old. Should they count? I recently shot the FAM and failed the first 2 times I shot it because I went over time on one string. I gamed it the next time and shot faster and sloppier on that string and passed.

It all depends on what you practice. I do all right at IDPA, but when I first started to shoot the FAST, I missed the 3x5 card a lot.

Take someone to the range and have them shoot the test of your choice. I like the IDPA Classifier because you have to keep it together for 90 rounds. If a shooter could shoot a special USPSA classifier and shoot 4 or more different stages, that would also be a good test. Then there is the thought that most shootings take only a few rounds by comparison and a short test like the FAST repeated a few times would be a good test.

Your chart is pretty good. Some might move things around a little but it is pretty close.

[jlw]

Could add one more metric.

S-P Defensive Handgun Skills Test

I like these. I have modified them somewhat for a class I am running for our folks this year. For my top guys it the competitive nature will get them going. For my "needier" folks, early improvements will be easier to quantify and internalize than another 82 on the POST course. Going from one hit in the time allowed to two hits is a huge improvement on a percentage basis.