Shooting Standards that Matter

[nwhpfan]

3 yards A zone/-0 1 second or less from concealment.

25 yards A zone/-0 1.5 seconds from low ready.

El Presidente USPSA GM Score based on HF.

Simply self-defense speaking, this is a good place to start.

[Mr_White]

I'm short on free time today but wanted to add something real quick. I had neglected to read Rangemaster's November newsletter last month but read it this morning. I feel like the first article adds to this discussion and reinforces my train of thought. I don't think Tom would mind if I added the link here again http://rangemaster.com/wp-content/up...Newsletter.pdf

There are several good quotes but this one stood out to me. "Without a reasonable target (in this case the eight-inch circle) and without a time measurement (stopwatch/timer), there is no way to assess skill, measure progress, or diagnose and address deficiencies."

I think this quote really gets to the root of the questions I was trying to ask in my original post. So going back to the article, would something like the LAPD or FBI qualification course be the best measurement of skills that matter? Will someone like me be able to determine progress over time with a well-designed qualification course or are there other tests that do this better? Maybe a combination of shorter tests and a qualification course?

Gotta go for now.

I think the problem you are going to run into in the long term, with many qualification tests, is that they use par times. Par times can be used to drive improvement, and to set a time standard. Quals do the latter. Whether that's useful to you depends on whether the par times happen to be relevant to you. In the long run and as you improve, many par times probably won't remain relevant to you. For an enthusiast in the long term, I'd look for tests that are open-ended for time - I'd prefer the old IDPA Classifier to the Hackathorn Standards for exactly this reason.

[JHC]

This single test has impressed me more than most. http://pistol-training.com/drills/5x5-skill-test



5×5 Skill Test
designed by Bill Wilson


Range: 10yd
Target: standard IDPA target
Start position: Hands at your sides facing target. No concealment garment necessary.
Rounds fired: 25

Another quick and easy to set up/score shooting test by Bill Wilson of Wilson Combat. It is intended for a service pistol of 9mm caliber or larger, concealed carry suitable holster and ammunition with a power factor (bullet weight x velocity) of 125,000 or more. Scoring is standard Vickers with a half second penalty per point down.

There are four strings of fire, each for time:

Draw and fire 5 shots freestyle.
Draw and fire 5 shots SHO (strong hand only).
Draw and fire 5 shots freestyle, reload from slidelock and fire 5 more shots freestyle.
Draw and fire 4 shots to the body and 1 shot to the head freestyle.
Bill Wilson’s suggested scoring:

Grand Master: 15 seconds or less
Master: 20 seconds or less
Expert: 25 seconds or less
Sharpshooter: 32 seconds or less
Marksman: 41 seconds or less
Novice: 50 seconds or less
Not proficient enough to carry a handgun: Over 50 seconds

Training with firearms is an inherently dangerous activity. Be sure to follow all safety protocols when using firearms or practicing these drills. These drills are provided for information purposes only. Use at your own risk.

Rampage For The Cure!
Online fundraising for Rampage For The Cure!

[Mr_White]

But there is so much more to showing a high level of competence with a pistol than that.

A sentence like that makes me think that you won't find what you are looking for in a single test, even when we expand beyond agency qualification courses.

The single broadest test in widespread use that comes to mind is the old IDPA Classifier (not the new one.) It is still not complete though - at the very least, it lacks malfunctions, much positional shooting, and appropriately-sized CNS zones. So I think you are going to end up with multiple tests if you want it to be anything like comprehensive.

So...tests, measures, etc. that can work for a dedicated practitioner over a long period of development:

IDPA Classifier (old one)
USPSA Classification (earned over the course of numerous classifiers shot under match conditions)
Rogers Shooting School Test (broad and robust, but not widely available)

That's just off the top of my head. You might want to figure out how to get malfunctions and positional shooting added to those somehow. There are lots and lots of ways you could go about selecting these tests/benchmarks. And if you are working on improving over time, it doesn't matter too much, if you are always working on improving. That's a pretty simple answer.

If you are looking for 'good enough', that's where there are lots of answers purporting to hold the key to what good enough will actually require, and ways to get there.

For basic, entry level of skill, you need to be able score keep all 8 rounds in the 8 ring. Not 64 points but all 8 rounds in the 8, 9, or 10. If you drop one round out of the 8 ring, I don't care if you put the other 7 in the 10 ring. If you can do that, you have a workable knowledge of the basics.

I don't know, maybe I am just responding to the verbiage you use (basic, entry level of skill, workable knowledge of the basics) but I think at that level you are going to hurt speed disproportionately by using that hardline of an accuracy standard. I mean, they shoot 7 shots in the 8-ring and 1 shot in the 7-ring, in say 5 seconds, and you'd call that not only a lower level of skill than all 8 shots in the 8-ring in 10 seconds, but outright failure? I think that's likely to be slower than it could be, and more accurate than it needs to be, given what can be discerned about likely engagement scenarios.

[breakingtime91]

Garcia dots, the test, and the 5x5 all feel like good options. I used to do D5 a lot but am getting away from that. I have also stopped using 8 inch circles or full A zones to drive up accuracy. Now I just need to find time to shoot.

[GJM]

Garcia dogs, the test, and the 5x5 all feel like good options. I used to do D5 a lot but am getting away from that. I have also stopped using 8 inch circles or full A zones to drive up accuracy. Now I just need to find time to shoot.

Alternatively, move those A zones back to 20-35 yards, or cover your targets with partial no shoots.

[Dagga Boy]

I ll give a brief hint on my thoughts on what I will be talking about in March. For purely gunfighting with humans in which "shooting" is just a small portion of the equation, I have found drills that anchor critical skills at a sub conscious level tend to deliver the most success. Read that however you want and an Internet post is not going to give enough context to delve deeply into it.

[JustOneGun]

A sentence like that makes me think that you won't find what you are looking for in a single test, even when we expand beyond agency qualification courses.

The single broadest test in widespread use that comes to mind is the old IDPA Classifier (not the new one.) It is still not complete though - at the very least, it lacks malfunctions, much positional shooting, and appropriately-sized CNS zones. So I think you are going to end up with multiple tests if you want it to be anything like comprehensive.

So...tests, measures, etc. that can work for a dedicated practitioner over a long period of development:

IDPA Classifier (old one)
USPSA Classification (earned over the course of numerous classifiers shot under match conditions)
Rogers Shooting School Test (broad and robust, but not widely available)

That's just off the top of my head. You might want to figure out how to get malfunctions and positional shooting added to those somehow. There are lots and lots of ways you could go about selecting these tests/benchmarks. And if you are working on improving over time, it doesn't matter too much, if you are always working on improving. That's a pretty simple answer.

If you are looking for 'good enough', that's where there are lots of answers purporting to hold the key to what good enough will actually require, and ways to get there.



I don't know, maybe I am just responding to the verbiage you use (basic, entry level of skill, workable knowledge of the basics) but I think at that level you are going to hurt speed disproportionately by using that hardline of an accuracy standard. I mean, they shoot 7 shots in the 8-ring and 1 shot in the 7-ring, in say 5 seconds, and you'd call that not only a lower level of skill than all 8 shots in the 8-ring in 10 seconds, but outright failure? I think that's likely to be slower than it could be, and more accurate than it needs to be, given what can be discerned about likely engagement scenarios.

Obviously I don't speak for John but I suppose that depends on what and why we pick the accuracy standard. If a person believes that the student will be able to replicate their success on target to the bad guy then it would be too strict. But if a person believes that under the duress of a gunfight a person will tend to shoot a faster rhythm than they believe they are actually shooting (I'm not saying they are out of control, just not able to regulate their speed) then keeping a smaller accuracy standard is required for them to actually hit the target anywhere in real life. Many in the latter camp will add in movement to that duress and some level of panic and a relaxed accuracy standard isn't just something we do for new people, it's a prescription for new people to miss. If in the latter camp and they do miss would it not be our fault in some way?

We need our students to push the boundaries during practice. Meaning they are going to miss just like we do. If they are shooting 70-80% during practice then 90 to 100% on a controlled, make it count end of the day assessment of the rhythm they need to strive for is not too crazy. I have found most people understand and can perform the task of slowing down their rhythm at the end of the day and keeping 90%-100% of their rounds in the small target.

[Paul Sharp]

I think the problem you are going to run into in the long term, with many qualification tests, is that they use par times. Par times can be used to drive improvement, and to set a time standard. Quals do the latter. Whether that's useful to you depends on whether the par times happen to be relevant to you. In the long run and as you improve, many par times probably won't remain relevant to you. For an enthusiast in the long term, I'd look for tests that are open-ended for time - I'd prefer the old IDPA Classifier to the Hackathorn Standards for exactly this reason.

This.

The only par times that matter in self-coaching are our own. I'm competing against my last best time. For me, there is no good enough. There is no end. This is a journey I'm on until my last breath. I track my progress using times and accuracy relevant to my perceived needs, some of which I posted in my last post. My agency qual? I can shoot the entire required round count, (12 rounds at each distance), in under the par time allowed for 2 rounds to the A zone. If I accept that standard as good enough will I ever come close to my potential? Of course not.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying; the only standard that is really going to matter and really going to motivate anyone is their internal standard. There is no end. There is no point when it's good enough. I don't want an end. I dig the chase, I lose sleep over the pursuit. While a standard set by someone else is motivation and it's interesting, it will never give me the "I'm good enough" feeling. I realize I'm beating this point to death however, I think it's that important. We are our own coaches. No one gets me out of bed and says; hey dude, time to do your roadwork/lift weights/roll/dryfire or walks up to me and says, don't just stand there idle man do work, try to have a conversation with the guy next to you in line to develop your social skills and rapport building, all day everyday build your skill. I have coaches, but I'm the one doing the work. When I see or hear folks ask the question, what's a good standard for *insert multi-disciplinary skill set here*? My first thought is, you've got to let go of that way of thinking.

[breakingtime91]

Alternatively, move those A zones back to 20-35 yards, or cover your targets with partial no shoots.

I have been doing modified tests for over a year now. 15 yards, 10 rounds, 12 Seconds from the ready/13 from holster. 20 yards, 10 rounds, 14 seconds from ready


I haven't done it in awhile and I know most will find the par times high but ya