Trigger characteristics -- Glock vs VP9

[JAD]

If I can share my experience, set it at 2.0. The 2.25 now happens routinely.

I do exactly that when actually practicing. 2.25 is the cold objective, 2.0 is the working objective. Does that seem like the right way to go about it?

Sorry, OP, for the thread drift.

[YVK]

JAD, no worries, OP doesn't give a shit .

I don't know if it is a right way but it worked for me. It is the only standard of great white Gabe that I could meet at a high level in his class. Perhaps it is only fitting that I type this on the day when I had my personal best at this task, 1.40 draw and .34 split, but that wasn't cold.

Seriously, I think that 2.0 is the goal, period. My first three runs today were under 2 but I missed one shot on my second run. When I started missing more on later runs, I became more deliberate and it felt slow but the timer still showed 2.15 - 2.20.
Reaction to a timer was my first break through, correct grip on support hand second, and just the right amount of trigger control vs speed is the most elusive part. It is a fun challenge, enjoy this ride.

In a perfect world, you would have then removed the back strap and repeated the test.

Well, if we must be so scientific, I did. Back strap or not didn't matter at 7 yard dots today, but at 25 yards I was more likely to shoot left with a bare gun vs medium back strap on. So here you go.

[GJM]

Gabe's standard is 2.0 from open, and 2.25 concealed.

[RJ]

Gabe's standard is 2.0 from open, and 2.25 concealed.

GJM - Is that to an A zone at 7yards?

[Talionis]

GJM - Is that to an A zone at 7yards?

In the context GJM is discussing, the standard is for Draw 2 to a 3x5 card at 7. You could of course substitute a USPSA upper A for a bit more challenge though. If referring to shooting a regular A zone at 7, Gabe's standard is the same time (2/2.25) but shoot a Bill drill, i.e. Draw 6.

[GJM]

As Talionis said, two to a 3x5 at 7 yards -- because FAST. Gabe used a four inch circle in our course, instead of a 3x5. The 3x5 is actually bigger (15 vs 12.57) but the four inch circle seems easier to me.

[RJ]

Got it.

Ok, here is where I am heading.

Is it worth it to a beginner (me) to define a standard of achievement at a lower metric, or should I simply aspire to a Gabe White/GJM/Talionis/Kevin B/JHC/JAD/YVK level from the get go?

The F.A.S.T wall comes to mind.

"Coins" are awarded to 5.0s and below. Then 'expert' at 7.0 (going from memory, don't quote me) and so forth.

I'm interested in setting an achievable challenge for me as a novice, and to compare with others in my class, as it were.

I believe accuracy needs to be 100% ("you can afford to miss") and an A zone seems as big as I can go to get meaningful hits on the BG.

Which leaves me time.

Can I simply scale the FAST wall drill times / levels up by applying the Gabe White time (2.25s?) against the FAST time (5.0s), I.e. 5/2.25 times each of the times on the FAST drill to get the equivalent levels for this 'concealed draw two shots' drill?

Maybe I am overthinking this. But hell, I won't know unless I ask.

[GJM]

Just me, but I think you should aspire to high technical goals, as Gabe argues for, in his class. That is mostly philosophical.

I would not get to wrapped up by the entire FAST. I would get wrapped up in the elements of the FAST -- concealment draw to a low prob target, reasonably fast eight inch circle hits, and a fast reload. I would tackle them in that order.

[YVK]

First, thank you for putting me in a company of much better shooters than I am.

What works for me: intermediate goal for a very short period of time, and then ramp up to a final benchmark.
Going all in right off can become a timer race where you start compromising fundamentals to beat that timer. Sticking on intermediate goal for too long habituates slower reaction time/action speed.

[Kevin B.]

Is it worth it to a beginner (me) to define a standard of achievement at a lower metric, or should I simply aspire to a Gabe White/GJM/Talionis/Kevin B/JHC/JAD/YVK level from the get go?

I do not think of it as defining a standard of achievement at a lower metric. I think it is about defining a metric (or metrics) relative to your purpose.

If your purpose is to be able to protect yourself, that is going to define metrics at one level. If your purpose is to develop a high level of shooting skill, that will define metrics at another level. That is not to say that the two are mutually exclusive. But a <5.0 FAST is not the requisite level of skill required to be able to protect yourself, though if you can shoot a <5.0 FAST you probably have more than enough shooting skill. Being able to protect yourself is not dependent on shooting skill alone.

Once you have determined your purpose, you have to evaluate what level of performance is attainable given the time and resources you are able/willing to commit to shooting. Most people shooting at a high level are dry-firing extensively and shooting thousands of rounds per year.

I am not agains setting high goals. But goals need to be set relative to a purpose. It is up to each shooter to determine what that is. For a relative novice, the journey to technical excellence and the ability to protect oneself are going to have significant overlap. The journey may culminate due to resource constraints. The purpose may change over time.