Split times

[tanner]

...you NEVER (you know the word you are not supposed to say) chase crooks on foot or cars at maximum speed-period. You are athletically able to surpass your ability to think, assess, react, and decision make...

We trained the guys to never drive more than 80% of their ability / the vehicle's capability when in a pursuit. Have to leave some room for error and the other unexpected stuff that inevitably happens.

[Caballoflaco]

We trained the guys to never drive more than 80% of their ability / the vehicle's capability when in a pursuit. Have to leave some room for error and the other unexpected stuff that inevitably happens.

Ah, the old idea about having $1.00 to spend on a task; like is taught in a lot of motorcycle rider training too. You always want to have some change left over for emergencies.

[cheby]

That 80% level for a trained guy is probably higher than 110% of somebody who never pushes himself in training....

[Hambo]

Thanks DB, I sure appreciate what you said, and I especially agree with your statement above. I don't doubt you would need a federal grant to build a system that would let the whole thing be trained and tested realistically. Until then, we keep coming at it piecemeal. And we can do a lot with that...and it's the right thing to do, because it's what we CAN do...it just always feels like we are still looking for something.

Until DB develops his Tactical House of Horrors, we can push a bit farther than just skill drills. Photo targets with opponents not standing square present a different challenge than squared up Q targets. Where possible, starting an exercise blind with such targets makes it harder. I'm not a big fan of FATS type simulations, but if you shoot fast you can see how easy it is to miss turning/falling opponents. And of course there is quality force on force, where you can enjoy the sting of sim rounds because your opponent shoots too.

[Mr_White]

Until DB develops his Tactical House of Horrors, we can push a bit farther than just skill drills. Photo targets with opponents not standing square present a different challenge than squared up Q targets. Where possible, starting an exercise blind with such targets makes it harder. I'm not a big fan of FATS type simulations, but if you shoot fast you can see how easy it is to miss turning/falling opponents. And of course there is quality force on force, where you can enjoy the sting of sim rounds because your opponent shoots too.

Totally agree - that kind of stuff is exactly what I meant by coming at it piecemeal.

[Peally]

That 80% level for a trained guy is probably higher than 110% of somebody who never pushes himself in training....

That's all this boils down to. Just be as fast and accurate as you can physically be and your minimum performance bar will raise significantly.

[JustOneGun]

There are also a lot of misses during those fights. The guys that are truly successful (good hits, put the threat down fast, and do this on multiple occasions) see their sights (in some manner), get good solid hits, and don't dump a lot of rounds. That is why I started this thread, there are multiple ways to look at this. I can completely understand why people shoot really quickly at close ranges but when you read AAR of truly successful gun fighters, they tend to not do that.

You end with, "they tend to not do that." Do what? Do they not shoot fast? But they do.

[breakingtime91]

You end with, "they tend to not do that." Do what? Do they not shoot fast? But they do.

Besides the fact that I can't make sense of your sentence I'll try to answer. I was implying they tend not to shoot faster than they can guarantee hits. Hope that helps you understand what I'm saying.

[JustOneGun]

Besides the fact that I can't make sense of your sentence I'll try to answer. I was implying they tend not to shoot faster than they can guarantee hits. Hope that helps you understand what I'm saying.

It did. I thought you were suggesting something else. Thanks.

[psalms144.1]

This has been an exceptionally well done thread - one of the reasons why PF is the only internet gun site I visit anymore. I truly appreciate the input from both sides of the "go fast" question.

I have this conundrum with one of my kids (young 30s under 2 years LE) in my squad. He's convinced that any/all hits on the silhouette are "good enough," and that if you make enough holes, the threat will bleed out. So, while he's capable of exceptional accuracy, he typically focuses on shooting as fast as he can move the trigger - with predictable results. I've tried to get him to incrementally increase speed through a variety of drills, but he only wants to "shoot faster." And, since he EASILY crushes our ridiculously easy qualification, there's really not much I can do in the limited range time I have available.

The other extreme are the folks that consistently can't make the insanely long par times on our quals - and STILL show marginal accuracy results. But, since we don't have turning targets, and we're on the "honor system," it's frowned upon to call people out (not to mention that NO ONE in management wants to deal with a non-qualifier...)

My two cents is this - there's a balancing point somewhere between seeing, deciding, and shooting. I think the MAJORITY of shooters undertrain the first two parts of that pyramid. I also think that the one Universal Safety Rule which is MOST glossed over is "Be sure of your target, your backstop, and beyond." It's an easy complacency groove to fall into when the majority (or all) of your shooting is in the controlled environment of a square range or shooting sport. Shoot/no-shoots are GENERALLY few, and the consequences of mistakenly hitting one are pathetically small. If hitting a no-shoot was a DQ (the only "game" consequence that could come close to replicating real world negligent injury), things might change. This is NOT a "games suck" beef - I think there are tons of tactically sound skills to be learned from shooting sports, and I wish more people competed in them. It's just that I don't think that anything beats all-around preparedness for an armed confrontation like realistic, well-controlled force-on-force training.

Back to the OP - split times are, to me, way down at the bottom of the list of important considerations for defensive handgun shooting. That doesn't mean I don't measure them, it just means that a fast split resulting in a sloppy hit is a Bad Thing in my book. My SHOOTING training focuses on getting GOOD hits faster - faster from the holster, faster from transitions, faster reloads, and THEN faster splits - but I will "throttle back" whenever my hits start getting sloppy. I define "GOOD" hits a the vaunted 8" circle in the upper chest, or a 3x5 card on the head. Outside of those areas, I'm NOT happy, no matter how fast my splits are (and, when I'm burning things down at close range - like 5-7 yards, my splits are still pretty damned fast - comfortably under .2 seconds, and sometimes closer to .15s). The corollary to this "for me" truth is one of the "Murphy's Rules of Gunfights" - to whit - "the only thing worse than a miss is a SLOW miss."

Thanks again to all who've chimed in. Learning has occurred on my end - thank you.