What makes a shooter "good?"

[YVK]

Do you have similar reactions when you see shooters with varying skill levels?

Most definitely, I do.

Here is another food for thought. Every single person who carries concealed or has a handgun by his/her nightstand makes an implicit statement that he/she thinks that his own level is minimally sufficient to use said gun, regardless of their actual level of proficiency.

Just trying to get some personal definitions, benchmarks, etc. to what other's feel makes a good shooter.

I have a similar opinion to Chipster's. I think that sub-7 sec F.A.S.T score partly defines a good shooter, and those who are inching into 5 second range are truly excellent shooters. I use F.A.S.T because it is very easy to administer. The one thing that's not assessed in F.A.S.T is a long range shooting, and I use an arbitrary standard for a 25 yard shooting at NRA bullseye target.

[ToddG]

There have been a lot of responses but few answers to gtmt's question. Frankly, I think some folks are over-thinking the issue. Others are dodging the issue.

"Someone who has mastered the fundamentals," for example, is a complete non-answer. What fundamentals? What constitutes mastery? Those are the questions that must be answered to define good. We may not all agree on the answers, but I think gtmt's post was aimed at starting that dialog.

If you went down to the local baseball field and watched some kids playing, could't you point out the ones you thought were good? They don't need to be MLB-level pitchers to be good. But neither would you stand around stymied trying to figure out exactly which complex series of criteria should be used to determine good.

I feel like someone is good if he can do the following:

• Time to draw and hit an 8" circle at 7yd from concealment: 2 seconds
• Time to draw and get six hits on an 8" circle at 7yd from concealment: 3.5 seconds
• Time to perform a reload from concealment: 3.0 seconds
• Distance at which 100% hits can be guaranteed on a 3x5 card when shooting 2-handed: 7yd
• Distance at which 100% hits can be guaranteed on a 3x5 card SHO and WHO: 5yd

The person who can do those things has achieved a demonstrable and commendable level of proficiency with a handgun. Is he ready to win the World Series of Pistolcraft? No. Is he guaranteed to win any gunfight? No. But his skill level is adequate to separate him from the masses. To me, that is "good."

[NickA]

An interesting thought provoked by some of the above posts: while the answer sought here is an objective definition of "good shooter", the perception of it can be skewed by who you're shooting with or against. For instance, when I shoot with my buddies from work they think I'm a good if not great shooter. Among a bunch of "real" shooters or in an IDPA match, I definitely seem average, more or less. Does that make any sense?

[Chipster]

On a side note, as a person in LE, I feel that 95%+ of LEO are not "good" shooters. The sad part of it is that many do not want, or aspire to be, although theirs and your life might depend on it.

I feel that academy level training is pathetic and think that, especially in the last few months, a wake-up call needs to be sounded to enlighten the powers to be what exactly we are supposed to be doing out there when the alarm goes off, and the people need protecting.

I have always been in favor of the "SWAT on patrol" concept and feel that every LEO should be a "good" firearm user, whatever that may consist of.

[KeeFus]

On a side note, as a person in LE, I feel that 95%+ of LEO are not "good" shooters. The sad part of it is that many do not want, or aspire to be, although theirs and your life might depend on it.

I feel that academy level training is pathetic and think that, especially in the last few months, a wake-up call needs to be sounded to enlighten the powers to be what exactly we are supposed to be doing out there when the alarm goes off, and the people need protecting.

Probably more than 95%! And you are correct, they dont care about getting better. I have tried relentlessly to get the guys I work with to go shoot a local IDPA match with me. No go! They wont even show up at the range for some basic drills!

BLET (Basic Law Enforcement Training) is also equally disheartening. A week on the range BLET and a few hours a year at your agency is just not enough. Basic qualification shooting at a static B-27 target is, IMHO, just too basic for the skills needed now-a-days on the street. Its great for establishing a baseline but does nothing to help the officer under stress. Moving targets and moving to cover etc needs to be added to our (NC) training standards but as long as the good ole' boys are in charge nothing is going to change.

[MDS]

I feel like someone is good if he can do the following:

• Time to draw and hit an 8" circle at 7yd from concealment: 2 seconds
• Time to draw and get six hits on an 8" circle at 7yd from concealment: 3.5 seconds
• Time to perform a reload from concealment: 3.0 seconds
• Distance at which 100% hits can be guaranteed on a 3x5 card when shooting 2-handed: 7yd
• Distance at which 100% hits can be guaranteed on a 3x5 card SHO and WHO: 5yd

It's not accident that my personal goals include these exact criteria. You've posted these criteria elsewhere and I've taken them at face value. Specific metrics like this have really helped me develop a training plan for getting from 0-60 in pistolcraft. (OK, maybe from 0-30...) Anyway, thanks to you and others who take the time to put simple metrics like this out there, without claiming that they're some sort of Golden Rule or anything, just one dude's opinion on where to draw the line.

I do notice, though, that you added a half second to the reload time, compared to a previous post you made with these numbers. Is there a reason for that, or is it just the normal margin of error in your own mind as far as the definition of "good?"

[ToddG]

It was a conscious shift after going back through a lot of data from a lot of shooters I've seen come through class who I thought of as "good" but not great.

[MDS]

Every single person who carries concealed or has a handgun by his/her nightstand makes an implicit statement that he/she thinks that his own level is minimally sufficient to use said gun, regardless of their actual level of proficiency.

No doubt! When a highly skilled person says that such-and-such a metric is probably indicative of some fundamental competence, though, that's some valuable information. Hell if I can tell what's good shooting - but I can borrow your and ToddG's and SLG's and other experienced shooters' conclusions about it for now, until I get enough experience to develop an independent opinion...

I have a similar opinion to Chipster's. I think that sub-7 sec F.A.S.T score partly defines a good shooter, and those who are inching into 5 second range are truly excellent shooters. I use F.A.S.T because it is very easy to administer. The one thing that's not assessed in F.A.S.T is a long range shooting, and I use an arbitrary standard for a 25 yard shooting at NRA bullseye target.

Cool. The FAST is definitely a sexy test. Knowledgable people tell me it's actually pretty good, as a quick summary of skillset. Personally, I put the line at 10 seconds, and hope that others will indulge me.

Plus, like you say, the longer-range skillset isn't measured by FAST. What bullseye score would you say represents a "good" score for longer-range shooting?

[MDS]

It was a conscious shift after going back through a lot of data from a lot of shooters I've seen come through class who I thought of as "good" but not great.

Good to know, thanks. Maybe I won't feel so bad if I can't quite make 2.5 seconds for a while...

[YVK]

Plus, like you say, the longer-range skillset isn't measured by FAST. What bullseye score would you say represents a "good" score for longer-range shooting?

I don't have a score. All I care that all shots land in black - which basically means a less than 5.5 inch group around POA; this is at 25 yards. I specify "around POA" because I've seen people shoot a group 6 inches low and left of target's center and then marvel how tight that group was. This is two-handed, unsupported, no time limit.
Again, I am looking for 100% hits. Shooter who can shoot three inch groups doesn't impress me if his variability is between three and seven - I am one of those shooters myself.