Speed Control

[SLG]

In response eto GJM's post, I have to say that at whatever speed I decide I need to go at for a given problem, accuracy always comes first. Especially talking tac stuff (or bears, imho), accuracy is never sacrificed for speed. This would bring us back to the on demand discussion, but more directly, the tac guys who don't shoot at a high level (most) will be slow and accurate, or fast and inaccurate. The first is preferable, and usually enough to do the job. The latter is unacceptable, and is partially a selection issue, partially a training issue.

[Failure2Stop]

"I teach a five-point discrimination process that involves looking at the 'whole person' first and then the hands. Why? Routinely we are being taught to shoot faster than we can think. The use of the mechanical safety adds one more step before taking a human life. This is important because I have many officers who look at hands first and then go to center mass and let the round fly, only to look at the whole picture a split second later, finding it was a friendly officer. In high stress situations, the safety can become a lifesaver." - Howe in an article here.

I follow the same in threat ID.

From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff

[ToddG]

We've said it before and I'll say it again. The speed that you can shoot is limited by the speed that you can form decisions via proper analysis. It is possible for the well-developed shooter to be able to shoot faster than one may need to properly analyze the situation.

Anyone can shoot faster than he can properly analyze a situation. IME, better shooters have better see speed which means they can observe the problem sooner/faster and they also obviously have better technique which means once the decision has been made they can deliver faster/more accurate hits. So the only variable is the decision-making process. If someone can prove to me that better shooters are worse decision makers I'd like to hear the argument.

The best example I can give is from a national low-light IDPA match I ran (abysmally) in 2001. One of the stages was specifically intended as a gotcha to screw up the fast shooters. As the shooter navigated a blacked out "house," one steel target caused another target to pop up behind a window. Now, every single pop up target I have ever seen at any match has been a shoot/threat target. But this one was a no-shoot. My expectation was that all the top shooters would be so programmed to assume it was a shoot target, and would engage it so fast that they'd miss the fact that it was a no-shoot.

Not a single Master-class shooter fired on the pop up target. Many less skilled shooters, including LE and mil competitors, did fire upon the target.

The guys who had developed excellent see speed were able to observe & orient faster than the others, which meant they made the right decision and knew that correct action.

I remember in my Uncle Scotty class, he related their experiences bringing outside, competition based instructors in to teach. When the high-speed guy was taken to the door of the shoot house - they'd ask questions like: how many bad guys? how many good guys? etc. They'd respond - we don't know. Once the high-speed guys had to run the full analysis process they were no faster than the SWAT guys who shot "slower."

No faster to finish the entire exercise or no faster to engage and eliminate specific threats? If it took both types of guys 2min to get through the house that's all well and good. But if the "faster" guy was able to incapacitate the threats faster and with less exposure to incoming rounds I'd say that was far more important. Again, as others have said, once the decision to fire has been made the guy with better hard skills has an advantage. Being able to shoot faster & more accurately is always a benefit.

Years ago, we ran an IDPA scenario in which you started with your back turned to four targets. One of the targets was a no-shoot and it was randomly changed with each shooter running the stage three times. Suddenly, the performance difference between the good shooters and the bad shooters really became less pronounced. The faster shooting guys were still faster but the difference was markedly reduced.

This just proves the point: the better shooters were still better.

Did the better shooters hit more non-threats?

But, the longer I study this stuff, the more I believe that you reach a point of diminishing returns more quickly with speed than accuracy.

I'd agree with that on a conceptual & general level. Inaccurate speed is easier than slow accuracy.

[KevinB]

I follow the same in threat ID.

What is interesting to note in CQB courses (especially long Mil ones) is that:

Beginners shoot the target -- focus on getting a hit.

Intermediate folks shoot the gun -- focus on threat and drive at it.

Advanced shoot head/UTC zones -- see targets and engage as required



The Mid level folks are actually the most dangerous for Friendly Fires.

[Dagga Boy]

"Anyone can shoot faster than he can properly analyze a situation. IME, better shooters have better see speed which means they can observe the problem sooner/faster and they also obviously have better technique which means once the decision has been made they can deliver faster/more accurate hits. So the only variable is the decision-making process. If someone can prove to me that better shooters are worse decision makers I'd like to hear the argument."

I will disagree with this. I guess you are willing to discount experience. The one thing a ton of good street cops do is making difficult split second decisions regularly. They pick up body language indicators, anomalies, and lots of clues that most people will never see strictly on exposure and experience. Just because for many a gun is a tool and they only do what is required of them does not make them worse than an avid shooter at their ability to "see". My old partner was a perfect example. Shooting nightmare and a constant remediation project. Fastest guy I have ever seen at picking up threats. He could literally look at a group of six gang bangers standing on a corner and simply go "2nd dude from the left has a gun"....and was 100% everytime. He also had exceptional emotional control. He was very successful in an OIS because his threat assessment skills, emotional calm and the ability to go "auto pilot" on the shooting part were all outstanding. Having watched the legends of LAPD SWAT from their glory days work cold on a shoot house one hit after another from a catwalk, I will tell you that their ability to rapidly threat assess was off the charts.

If you look at why so many of us read "Left of Bang" with very little enthusiasm is due to experience. Hopefully Hearne can chime in with what his thoughts are on experience. From what I have seen first hand, great evaluators and decision making is not necessarily tied to being a great shooter. Because someone has spent years honing technical firearms skills does not mean they will recognize a threat faster than a person who has spent years dealing with predatory criminals that are usually the ones who need shooting at some point. Essentially, I will contend the opposite of Todd's point that better shooters are not necessarily better problem solvers and decision makers.

[SLG]

Nyeti,

Not Todd, but I read what he wrote as all things being equal. Of course experience matters, and of course some guys who are great at street stuff are lousy shooters. I thought it went without saying.

Total drift, are you still carrying a T1/G17, or am I way behind?

[GJM]

Essentially, I will contend the opposite of Todd's point that better shooters are not necessarily better problem solvers and decision makers.

Just to clarify, would you say that worse shooters are better problem solvers and decision makers, or do you believe that shooting ability and problem solving/decision making ability are independent of each other?

[Dagga Boy]

Just to clarify, would you say that worse shooters are better problem solvers and decision makers, or do you believe that shooting ability and problem solving/decision making ability are independent of each other?

Very independent. I have seen problems on both ends. We all know "those guys" who are good shooters and make some of the stupidist decisions out there. Equally, I have seen some very poor shooters who are very good at getting themselves out of trouble without them. I am a huge advocate of maintaining balance. Mindset is a critical part of that balance. Mindset is one of those things that I have been able to guide people on, but you never really know what is going on in people's heads.

Part of what spawned this thread was my love of the word "control". Whether it is speed, vision, emotions, impulses, etc. those with the best control win over those with less. This is also where experience comes in. I can pretty much guarantee that GJM would exhibit far better control in most areas than me when it came to a large bear encounter (except discipline...because I don't walk around grizzly areas carrying chopped up bear snacks on my back....I order room service). I would likely fair better in the control area if we were strolling around some ghetto.

My point earlier in the thread about "screamers" never being in particularly great shooting incidents. They were often good for causing them.

SLG..I still have my G17 with the T1, but I carry a vP9 most of the time these days. The G17 is often out for demos with places looking for a specialized tools. One area it has stood out is for those working WMD capability and working in the moon suits.

[GJM]

Darryl, thanks for that clarification. It is what I figured, but assuming can lead to all sorts of bad things.

On the bad decision piece, if you overlay one of my cardinal rules, never trust a male under 35, I bet it would solve most of that.

[Dagga Boy]

Darryl, thanks for that clarification. It is what I figured, but assuming can lead to all sorts of bad things.

On the bad decision piece, if you overlay one of my cardinal rules, never trust a male under 35, I bet it would solve most of that.

I turned 50 today....it is my new age standard...