This past weekend, I shot with a young man out near our remote cabin in AK. He was out all summer, visiting from lower 48, carrying a Glock 20. He did no shooting until we got together, and I had never shot with him before.
I decided to run him through half of Gabe's test -- the two to the head, and two body/one head. He was about 2.75 for both drills, mostly hits, but not perfect. I would rank him between basic and intermediate by PF standards in pure marksmanship, with some low hanging fruit in manipulations. He also had his AR, and we repeated the same drills. The AR is obviously easier to shoot fast than the pistol, and quite an advantage for those with less developed handgun skills.
Reflecting on this, I was struck by the thought that if he was an adversary, at distances inside ten yards, he would hurt you if he had a chance to shoot. That created a disconnect with what I had considered the "school solution," namely that accuracy, reasonable speed and smooth manipulations would save the day. I still believe in the accuracy and manipulations, but it strikes me that raw speed might be necessary to survive an encounter with a reasonably trained infpdividual.
This presents issues for training, as accuracy and smooth manipulations are far easier to teach than accuracy, manipulations and raw speed. Frankly, speed might be "too expensive" as an organizational requirement, and fall to individuals to acquire on their own.