Well, I can't give you a par time, but I'd say get as good as you can at the shooting tasks in the second part of my post.Originally Posted by GreggW
Well, I can't give you a par time, but I'd say get as good as you can at the shooting tasks in the second part of my post.
I don't know shit about shit and I've been drinking, but I would think an SHO Mozambique drill with an emphasis on a fast and consistent draw would be good
"Customer is very particular" -- SIG Sauer
"It is an accuracy standard only achieved on the internet."
Weird, I saw what it looks like on slabs at the morgue or on a table at a trauma center.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
I've found that most organizations that are charged with training armed personnel use qualification tests to measure 'good enough'. However, 'enthusiasts' are often unimpressed with organizational qualification tests, finding the established standards toward the lower end of the performance spectrum.
I'm curious as to which law enforcement or military qualification tests the membership considers a decent standard. I hold the LAPD SWAT Qualification in high regard, but I also think that a shooter who can pass those particular standards is well beyond "good enough". What is an acceptable baseline qualification course?
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
Shooting "Basic" or 70/125 on the Rogers School test, would be something that makes sense to me.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I know bro, I didn't think you were. Wayne's post struck me as funny and as one that as been around him at conferences and listened while he talked I could hear that in his voice and it made me laugh.
"Here's what I want to know. When it comes to the self-defense focused use of a handgun, what shooting standards really matter the most? What should a high-level shooter be able to do with their handgun of choice? What skills and standards should be practiced, measured, and tracked to determine progress?"
I will freely admit to never having an original thought so whatever I contribute on this topic is material I've picked up from training with others, conversations and observations. Most of the time when guys I respect are talking, I listen intently and will usually end up making a note on my iPhone or in my journal later so I can recall the relevant points for my personal training. Having said that, I know for sure Tom Givens is responsible for saying to me that a fast presentation is something I should consider a fundamental life saving skill. I think there is value in standards such as those used by guys like Tom Givens, Wayne and Darryl Bolke, Mas Ayoob, or Bill Rogers. Every LE org out there has a qualification or standards type shoot that must be passed. Rather than re-invent the wheel I would just adopt their standards. The FBI qual, ATF, Air Marshall, or DEA qual are all pretty good places to start.
At an individual level, the issue becomes what is fast? Dave Harrington and I have talked a lot about this. Fast for a GM level shooter is incomprehensible for a beginning shooter. To simplify things, I take it to mean as fast as possible while working within my human reaction time. As a student, and as a coach I've taken the approach of individual par times. For example some instructors, Claude Werner is one example, think hitting an eyeball sized target at room distance is a necessary skill. I agree. What's the par time for that task? I don't know but we'll find out. We'll put the student on the timer, have them perform the task from the ready and from the holster. Ten reps of each to establish an average time. That becomes their par time. Now their job in dry fire and live fire is to keep decreasing that par time. That's their standard. Meet it, and beat it.
Another standard for a self defense minded shooter might be par time for a three round volley at a car length, 14 feet or so. Again, rather than give an arbitrary time we establish an average time by testing the student from the ready and from the holster. Now this average becomes the students par time and the student will train to meet it or beat it, preferably beat it.
So there are two approaches right? The established standards route and the individualized route. Both work, and I use both for myself and for others.
Last edited by Paul Sharp; 12-06-2016 at 12:03 AM. Reason: Eating and typing = typos... pizza covered typos.
"There is magic in misery. You need to constantly fail. Always bite off more than you can chew, put yourself in situations where you don't succeed then really analyze why you didn't succeed." - Dean Karnazes www.sbgillinois.com
I thought we discussed this at length on PF, and determined that what is meant by folks "saying 100 percent," is in fact a very high level of accuracy approaching but not reaching 100 percent.
Assuming B8 target size, shooting eight rounds at relevant speed, at someone moving and actively shooting back at you, I will bet money on one or more shots being outside a B8, every time.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
1. Have a gun.
2. Train to know when to use the gun.
3. Find a training/practice scheme that allows for progressive improvement to speed while maintaining accuracy.
4. Plan to finish the fight with a head shot while under duress and movement.
When looking back from hindsight if no rounds were fired then a standard other than, "having a gun" is all that mattered. For those that shot or where shot/shot at most of them lived. Most of the gunfights that we could define a time frame, they tended to be relatively quick. Some people ran out of bullets, some left a jammed gun on the ground, etc.
If most gunfights are quick and most people don't die from their wounds and most of those that died from their wounds died sometime after the other guy in the fight fled, that leads me to believe that most gunfights are not finished by bullets other than a psychological stop. So having a reasonable draw to first round is necessary. How fast should it be? I like to use the 80/20 rule. Has a student made the easy gains? For most people seeking speed, they would be pretty well protected with those easy gains.
I see this as a tactical and standards problem for the vast majority of gun owners. They are prepared for the fight that ends with no rounds fired, or the wounded bad guy giving up but they are not in any way prepared for the bad guy who shoots back. Those that live are usually lucky. I say luck because it was fate that kept them alive, not skill. So putting a sub three second bill drill on the guy is quickly making a psychological stop. But that's it. By the time we find out it wasn't enough it's often too late and we take bullets.
So to answer your question, whatever standard you should find or choose, IMHO if it does not include ending the fight quickly (usually that means a head shot) then the end is left up to fate, luck, whatever that is not in your control.) So accuracy enough for a head shot. A set of standards that gets harder over time. A simple training/practice scheme that allows for progressive improvement until that improvement stops. Then a new search for a more complex training/practice scheme to improve more if desired.
What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.
For me......and for what I do for a living (20 years street patrol/traffic)......shooting standards have always been smooth/fast/consistent draw from whatever holster they issued me and multiple fast hits on human form targets. Quick splits and tracking targets down as they fall (FATs/simunition) without misses at 15 yards and in. This is my baseline for performance.
Add in all the other crap (low light, support hand only, carbine, shotgun, BUG, etc) as supplemental training only. Transitions, shooting on the move, blah blah blah......all that takes a backseat to getting the pistol out and getting that slide rocking back and forth while keeping the front sight on the target.
Once a month or so I focus on fundamentals and target work. Mostly I shoot at a 20x12 ar500 IDPA target, paper plates, and index cards. The steel target has probably been the best training tool I ever purchased. It gives instant feedback to me when I foul up. Shot timer app has been my second most helpful tool.
I've got away from drills like FAST.....it was giving me a huge training scar when I shot other drills. My average was in the mid fives from concealment or duty holster and once I broke five seconds clean I found that I was hesitating on other drills after those first two shots. Not good for what I do for grocery money.
I'll also work from concealment for my baseline: smooth/fast/consistent draw and quick hits......all hits.....on human form targets.
For me, that equates survival. Shooting awards, trophies, distinguished expert insignia, and my name on plaques at the academy don't really matter much at all to me when I'm responding to hot calls involving shots or bodies on the ground. My baseline is all that matters and gives me the confidence I need to run hot to those calls.
Your mileage may vary.
Regards.
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.
Reply With Quote