Split times

[Dagga Boy]

Split times have taken on meaning, in the timmie world, different than many technical shooters intend.

Technical shooters measure everything -- draw, follow-up shots to the same target, transition to another target, follow-up shots there, reload, etc. This constant measuring is perfectly natural and normal to a technical shooter. When I set up a target array, generally before I shoot it, I figure out what my cumulative time should be, based on the breakdown of each element, and what those shots should take. Then I shoot it, and figure out where and why, my time deviated from my estimate. Time deviations usually reflect some defect in my technique -- perhaps needing to grip the pistol harder, or lead a transition more with my eyes. This is not unique to me. To figure out times on the Rogers School test for example, just count the targets and apply Bill's times for each component. Want to figure out Gabe's test standards -- just use 1.0 for a draw, .20 for a split, and .50 for a head transition.

These various times are for shooting targets that require no or little evaluation. They do, for most of us, require a high level of accuracy, because the penalties for shooting less than A zone hits are significant, when competing with minor PF, like in PCC, Production, CO and Limited minor. There are also generally no mulligans in competition, and your first run is what you get.

Now let's consider the food court. There may well be ambiguity, continued evaluation required, and issues like what is behind your target. I reread the Cirillo book yesterday, and what the stakeout unit was doing, could be incredibly complicated, making shoot/no-shoot decisions, amongst store workers and customers. In those situations, most split times were irrelevant, as evaluation does not lend itself to a par time. However, when the evaluation was done, they put a very high premium upon placing accurate shots quickly. That is why their team selection process looked for the best technical shooters.

I think Gunsite had a saying of more or less, "evaluate carefully, shoot quickly."

Logged on just to like this post as it is right on the money.

[mike.burgess.353]

After reading all the posts I noticed they all seem to address the operations involved in a linear manner, one thing after the other, what I find myself doing when I'm am shooting something splits intensive like a Bill drill is more co-possessing.
When I shoot a Bill drill the I am basically running 3 programs at the same time. Program 1 trigger press (press trigger straight back, break shot, reset and repeat). Program 2 aim (actively driving the sights to the target). Program 3 count
When program 3 gets to 6 it tells program 1 to stop.
I think defensive shooting can work similarly, and I think it makes some sense to look at it this way. In a defensive situation you really don't want to draw and shoot some pre programmed number of rounds at your target you want to fire as many well aimed shots into your target as necessary to eliminate the threat. Using my Bill drill model the first 2 programs (trigger press and aim) remain the same and we practice these all the time. Program 3 becomes continuous assessment of the situation and tells 1 to stop when the threat level has been reduced sufficiently.
So instead of decide to shoot each shot we decide to shoot and decide to stop shooting and allow the shooting programs to run contiuosly between these points.

Edit to add
Program 3 Assessment can also tell program 2 to change the point of aim (like from COM to CNS )


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[JustOneGun]

After reading all the posts I noticed they all seem to address the operations involved in a linear manner, one thing after the other, what I find myself doing when I'm am shooting something splits intensive like a Bill drill is more co-possessing.
When I shoot a Bill drill the I am basically running 3 programs at the same time. Program 1 trigger press (press trigger straight back, break shot, reset and repeat). Program 2 aim (actively driving the sights to the target). Program 3 count
When program 3 gets to 6 it tells program 1 to stop.
I think defensive shooting can work similarly, and I think it makes some sense to look at it this way. In a defensive situation you really don't want to draw and shoot some pre programmed number of rounds at your target you want to fire as many well aimed shots into your target as necessary to eliminate the threat. Using my Bill drill model the first 2 programs (trigger press and aim) remain the same and we practice these all the time. Program 3 becomes continuous assessment of the situation and tells 1 to stop when the threat level has been reduced sufficiently.
So instead of decide to shoot each shot we decide to shoot and decide to stop shooting and allow the shooting programs to run contiuosly between these points.

Edit to add
Program 3 Assessment can also tell program 2 to change the point of aim (like from COM to CNS )


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I used to think this way but have since modified my ideas to more of a middle ground between continual assessment and planned outcomes with a strong emphasis on time. Perhaps some of the difference is semantic.

Some things that I think influence one's decision is how they believe a gunfight will occur.

What I believe might influence a decision:
1. People can and do, if trained, shoot in a rhythm during high stress. With the advent of video everywhere one thing became true to me: people tended to shoot in a faster rhythm than they thought they did. They would say, Bang...bang...bang, but they actually shot on video Bang.bang.bang. Much faster.

2. Bullets are not death rays that kill people fast enough to stop them from shooting at you a few times, sometimes even if you blow up their heart.

3. Studies show that it takes some time to stop shooting after we decide to stop shooting. Experience showed me that there is a wide genetic difference in that ability.

4. Natural tunnel vision can slow down assessment even when occurring in a person who is well trained and in control during the shooting. Most don't see the gun or knife fall during the shooting. But most people shot do something such as run away, fall down in conjunction with the gun or knife falling.

5. Ability to fight tunnel vision often leaves one shooting in a soft focus. That in turn causes accuracy problems during the gunfight.

6. As one improves at shooting then the speed of bullets to bad guy improves and has a tendency to shorten the gunfight.

So where on the genetic curve are each of us?
How slow will we each have to shoot in order to assess properly while under stress, given our genetic disposition?
Have we trained properly to finish the fight if necessary?
What will you see that lets you know that you need to stop shooting?

The answer to all the above for most is, "I don't know." To me that's a pretty big gamble when under such extreme circumstances. Even under controlled range(reactive targets) or FoF(reactive bad guy, me) conditions I found that the time it takes someone to shoot a certain number of rounds while continually assessing is outrageously long compared to someone with a set of planned shot patterns. Where a particular pattern is selected at the time of a mental trigger. In FoF I found that I can shoot the planned shots well before I can see enough change in my target to even think about stopping, let alone actually stopping.

So are we just actually training to shoot slower (allowing bad guy to use lethal force longer) with no real benefit to assessment?

I'm a big believer in a planned need to shoot someone with a CNS shot. I stole this language from a coworker many years ago. He said, "I plan on shooting them twice in the body and continuing on up to the head. If the head is still there I plan on shooting it." That was all the assessment he had. I added that if it didn't work (i.e. did I miss the head shot) I would just do it all again, including a new assessment. So fast shots with the fastest controlled rhythm on demand splits I can do and a plan to end the fight that also includes enough time to assess body movement (i.e. what's the head doing?).

Is that perfect? Heck no. Nothing is. But in my opinion it does a better job of taking into account the unknown genetics, unknown training(lack of proper training), suspected tunnel vision that most report and unknown reaction of the bad guy to my force. It gets me where I want to be without relying on the bad guy's reaction or whether or not I hit a nerve bundle while shooting the bad guy. Should a day one newbie do this? Probably not. The time it takes them to get hits is long in comparison to the time it takes the bad guy to react. But once a person's ability to shoot faster and perform head shots increases they may wish to change tactics.