Speed Control

[David S.]

In my experience, new pilots are generally "dangerous" in predictable ways. Intermediate pilots... Not so much. That's what makes them dangerous.

[Dagga Boy]

I like "speed control" in my world as I can apply it to lots of things....driving is my other big one.

[Gio]

I have had a chance to run really fast competition guys through problems they didn't get to game ahead of time, shoot houses, Sims, etc. I note they slow way down in how they run things when they don't get a chance to pre-plan the event.

In something like USPSA one gets to do a lot of the processing ahead of time, this of course speeds up the process once shooting starts. One would be a bad ass gunfighter if one knew ahead of time that Mr. Bad Guy was going to do X,Y,Z two minutes from now.

I like where this is going.

My experiences differ from this. How many M/GM level LE shooters have you run through shoot houses or sim work? I'm not talking about the B class guys who hose as fast as a GM but squirt bullets all over the target.

I put about 150 state/local SWAT officers through a shooting school each year that includes a lot of sim and shoot house work. I have never seen a M/GM level shooter come through the school in the last 5-6 years, but I've seen plenty of fast C to B level shooters that fit the above description and do not have the necessary throttle control.

I am also on an LE team that has one A class shooter, B-class shooters, and the rest are about IDPA sharpshooter level in addition to me (USPSA M). Myself and the A class shooter are significantly faster and more accurate in shoot houses and force on force sim work. Our time to react to a shoot/no-shoot situation may be about the same as the avg on the team, but when that decision to shoot has been made, we can apply significantly more speed AND accuracy than anyone else on the team.

Edit to add: My competition gun is setup almost identically to my service weapons except for an FO front sight vs. trijicons. The trigger pull is within 1/2#. I can see how someone who uses a 2# 2011 trigger would struggle going to a 6-7# glock trigger.

[NETim]

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.

So, is this better "see" speed a learned thing, something that can be improved on? Is it a matter of experience? A product of superior internal clock speeds?

[John Hearne]

So, is this better "see" speed a learned thing, something that can be improved on? Is it a matter of experience? A product of superior internal clock speeds?

There is some genetic gifting in this area, primarily with raw acuity, but this stuff helps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lG9T0vF7gc

[John Hearne]

How many M/GM level LE shooters have you run through shoot houses or sim work? I'm not talking about the B class guys who hose as fast as a GM but squirt bullets all over the target.

I don't think anyone is saying that slow for the sake of slow is a good thing. In fact, slow because I'm too lazy to work to get better is a real issue.

When we hashed this out a while back, the conensus seemed to be that the point of diminishing returns was at the USPSA A level. If you were a B class then improving your shooting would be meaningful but if you were A class the bump to Master or Grand Master didn't offer the same return. We're not talking about gaming the classifiers or getting lucky but what one could produce on demand, and preferrably when cold.

This is the thread I'm referencing: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....urrent-Project

[GJM]

I

I don't think anyone is saying that slow for the sake of slow is a good thing. In fact, slow because I'm too lazy to work to get better is a real issue.

When we hashed this out a while back, the conensus seemed to be that the point of diminishing returns was at the USPSA A level. If you were a B class then improving your shooting would be meaningful but if you were A class the bump to Master or Grand Master didn't offer the same return. We're not talking about gaming the classifiers or getting lucky but what one could produce on demand, and preferrably when cold.

This is the thread I'm referencing: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....urrent-Project

What do you mean by "gaming classifiers or getting lucky?"

[PPGMD]

This is true in working against humans as well, except with much higher levels of scrutiny and accountability. They score mistakes harder too.

Unless you are in Soviet Russia... or NYPD.

[Gio]

I don't think anyone is saying that slow for the sake of slow is a good thing. In fact, slow because I'm too lazy to work to get better is a real issue.

When we hashed this out a while back, the conensus seemed to be that the point of diminishing returns was at the USPSA A level. If you were a B class then improving your shooting would be meaningful but if you were A class the bump to Master or Grand Master didn't offer the same return. We're not talking about gaming the classifiers or getting lucky but what one could produce on demand, and preferrably when cold.

This is the thread I'm referencing: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....urrent-Project

I disagree with this notion as well. I can tell you from personal experience, one of the biggest things that allowed me to make the leap from A to M and start finishing well with the M/GM level shooters at sectional and area matches was learning that visual patience and throttle control. I think settling for "good enough" by stating that anything beyond that only provides diminishing returns is just an excuse for settling for mediocrity. Someone may not have the time, resources, physical ability, etc to advance their skills beyond a certain point, but that doesn't mean they are as well-prepared from a skill set standpoint as someone who does.

[ToddG]

I disagree with this notion as well. I can tell you from personal experience, one of the biggest things that allowed me to make the leap from A to M and start finishing well with the M/GM level shooters at sectional and area matches was learning that visual patience and throttle control. I think settling for "good enough" by stating that anything beyond that only provides diminishing returns is just an excuse for settling for mediocrity. Someone may not have the time, resources, physical ability, etc to advance their skills beyond a certain point, but that doesn't mean they are as well-prepared from a skill set standpoint as someone who does.

I actually agree with John on this. But I also agree with you. Here's why: I don't think all A-class shooters are the same. Some are awesome semi-hosers who haven't learned that visual control yet. Others have learned it but their other skills simply aren't refined enough to make the jump to the next level in the game.

I'd say Advanced on the FAST is way easier than making M in USPSA. But that's always been my yardstick. If you can do that on demand, your skills are good and there are probably more important things you should care about unless you're doing it for the sake of score as opposed to self-defense.

Better is ways better. But as John said, this is about diminishing returns, not trying to be Galactic Champion for the sake of it.