Fundamentals, Accuracy, & Speed Test (F.A.S.T.)

[Prdator]

A few thought's on the FAST TEST..

I see ( and am Guilty of) folks posting there best times and I'm all for that! but having been driven totally nuts by the test Im starting to see a different side to it. It is a TEST not a DRILL, Its what you do to test your ability to do several Fundamental handgun skills, not build them.

So with that said Im starting to think of the TEST as a Cumulative score test, so Lets say on your Three Ligit runs you do a 4.6 -1 head ( 6.6) a 5.5 clean and a 4.4 -1 head and 2 body's ( 8.4) for a Total time of 20.5. Wile the individual times are "FAST" the total time is average (ISH) But if you did 3 Clean runs at 6.0 flat each you would have a total score of 18. I would argue that the "better", lower total time score would better represent the True ability of the shooter.

Im Not saying that you should not push yourself on this TEST, but as I've heard TLG tell me Oh more times than I care to mention, "Go as fast as you can Guarantee hits"!! So lets look at my last time I did the three ligit runs, this was Cold and in front of TLG, a 5.06 clean, 5.36 clean and a 4.74 -1 head and 2 body ( 8.74) so that day my time was 19.19, so there it is, would a total 18 sec run be a better representative of my shooting capability?

Thoughts?

[Mr_White]

Prdator,

I have a few thoughts that may or may not be directly related...

I am certainly one of the guilty parties in going for the best score I can on the FAST, never mind the consistency. The videos I posted started as a specific exploration of raw speed, as part of our ongoing conversation. It would be accurate to characterize them as me going as fast as I can, dragging the accuracy along kicking and screaming. I recognize that is not the way the FAST is supposed to be shot, but I also don't believe an exploration of raw speed completely lacks value. I think I benefit from setting high goals of getting more speed and more accuracy, and practicing to reach it, in an attempt to just plain do better, rather than simply trading speed and accuracy back and forth interchangeably, and not trying to just get more of both (credit to Flexmoney from another forum for that idea.)

Your idea of looking at a cumulative score seems good. Maybe it emphasizes consistency of perfect hits even more than one run of the FAST. That might be good for me.

I think the whole thing begs the question of "what is better?" and "better for what?"

Different tests, drills, etc., have different scoring systems. Three good timed and scored tests I know of, and use every couple of months or so, include the FAST, the IDPA Classifier, and the Rangemaster Core Handgun Skills test (which you were so kind to post, thanks!)

Due to the different scoring systems used in each of those, a different emphasis on speed and accuracy is created.

The FAST test very strongly emphasizes accuracy over speed, due to the seriously gnarly penalties for shots dropped out of the 3x5 into say, the mouth area. Oh wait, there I go again treating it like the rest of the silhouette counts for anything - I think I would do better if I just had an 8" circle and 3x5 card floating in empty space. That's a good lesson for me, that I should think more in those terms.

The IDPA Classifer also emphasizes accuracy over speed, but not as strongly as the FAST. The penalties for dropped shots are about half the penatlies on the FAST, but are still enough to make accuracy more important than speed.

The Rangemaster Core Handgun Skills Test makes speed and accuracy nearly equal. I've found it very curious that when I shoot it a couple of times, one with blazing speed and dragging the accuracy along kicking and screaming, and the other run with control, trying to get all hits in the designated target zones, and dragging the speed along, I find that the two scores are almost the same. The targets look fairly different though. The first one is pretty ugly, with quite a few C-zone hits. The second one looks great, with very few C-zone hits. The scores are about the same, though often a couple of points higher on the speed run.

Which way is better, and better for what? Which way is better I think has more to do with the scoring system used by a given test. Then we have to ask, what is the test supposed to represent?

I hope I am not going too far out on a limb when I say that it seems the FAST is simply a shooting and gunhandling test, and is not supposed to necessarily represent any actual recommended engagement process. The IDPA Classifier and RMCHST seem to contain elements that are an attempt at being more representative of various self-defense engagement processes (The IDPA Classifier certainly also contains some wacky stuff in that regard, but IDPA itself is an attempt at having a competition that maintains self-defensive relevance.)

Different circumstances in self-defense could certainly call for different emphases on the speed/accuracy equation. If it's just me and him three yards away, and a brick wall behind him, it is time for maximum speed. If I have to shoot him in the eye at seven or ten yards, out from behind a loved one, I am NOT breaking that shot at .99 seconds.

For the purpose of the FAST (simply testing shooting and gunhandling skills with the scoring penalties used), I clearly should guarantee the hits, whatever that takes. Right now, that might mean slowing down. However, I am unconvinced that I cannot learn to hit twice on that 3x5 at seven yards consistently, in about 1.25 seconds. If I don't keep trying, I won't get there. I don't believe it's impossible. And I think I am willing to do the work to get there. Only time will tell.

I also don't believe that repeatedly shooting the FAST, the IDPA Classifier, the RMCHST, or any other shooting test, will make you any better at the test. I've shot them enough to recognize that as a fact, at least for me. It is relentless drilling of the skills involved in them that will ultimately produce a better score, as so many here have said so many times.

I like your idea Prdator. It might be a good way for me to put the emphasis where it needs to be for the FAST. I've been drilling and practicing skills a whole lot lately, so I'll try it again (with video pressure!) in a couple of months and see if I improved. But regardless of that, I am sure having a great time along the way!!! Life is great!

[Little Creek]

Does anyone else out there like the idea of shooting the 4 in the 8" circle first, then a slide lock reload and the two in the 3"x5". In the field, wouldn't yu shoot the Center of Mass first. The F.A.S.T. in reverse could then be a self defense drill and not just a test of skill. What do you think?

[seabiscuit]

I think ToddG has an explanation of this on pistol-training.com somewhere, but I couldn't find it. It has to do with testing the draw to a low probability target, and then transitioning to a high prob target where your splits should be faster.

[ToddG]

F.A.S.T. F.A.Q.

Quick answer: the F.A.S.T. is not intended as a drill, it's a test of specific skills set up in a specific way. As seabiscuit explained, the idea behind the shooting order is to force a precise first shot under time pressure. The drill was developed while I and my shooting parter were carrying SIGs and it was important to me that the test put a premium on being able to make a very good fast & accurate double action hit from the holster.

[JHC]

It's not a drill. But . . . the first stage of it might be good training for putting down the jihadi who throws open his coat revealing a vest bomb with trigger in hand shouting allahu akbar. Israeli grocery shoppers have deal that with a burst to the brain pan.

[beltjones]

Not every shooting drill needs to have a direct and obvious comparison to a possible self-defense scenario. Some of them are just great for testing and developing one's fundamentals, and that's enough.

It's like going to a boxing gym and complaining that jumping rope doesn't have an obvious purpose when learning to hit someone. However, to the initiated it's obvious that jumping rope builds footwork, foot speed, endurance, and rhythm - all things essential to being a good boxer.

Take it for what it is - a very valuable and low-round-count "standard" that can diagnose all kinds of fundamental issues with your shooting. The more anyone tries to change into something it's not, the more they lose the benefit of the test in the first place.

[ToddG]

Back to Prdator's post...

I agree wholeheartedly about using the F.A.S.T. as a skills test and not a practice routine. The main reason is that the F.A.S.T. requires you to do so many different things -- draw, multiple shots on a low-prob target, reload, multiple shots on a high-prob target -- that you're not really drilling one thing over and over. You're not putting your mental and physical effort into your reload, for example, if you're also trying to pull off the better part of a Bill Drill.

The idea about reporting total score for three runs instead of just the best run is totally valid. In fact, years back SLG and I wrote up our own shooting game rulebook and we used the cumulative score from three FASTs as a ranking system:

Class	Semiauto	Revolver
Master	< 15.00 seconds	< 18.00 seconds
A	15.01 - 19.50 seconds	18.01 - 23.40 seconds
B	19.51 - 27.30 seconds	23.41 – 32.75 seconds
C	27.31 - 38.25 seconds	32.76 - 45.85 seconds
D	38.26 + seconds	45.85 + seconds

The penalty system was a little less strict, though. Most misses would have counted only 1 second or so to your time regardless of whether they were to the head or the body. Though complete misses of the entire head (IDPA target) would have had a 5-second penalty each, which is obviously much stricter than the "normal" F.A.S.T.

[Slavex]

At class Saturday night we started with FAST. My first run was 3.74 clean. Newt run after everyone was else was 3.80 clean. Last run at the end of the night after shooting some my worst demos before having students do drills, was 3.76 clean.
Not a single proper pressout on the draw either. I was pissed at myself. All night whenever I shot I worked on pressouts. Except when it came time to do the drill. All 3 times I stages the trigger and did more of a "now" te finish once I saw my sights were there. The pressout to the circle after the reload was good, but I need to keep working on the pressout to the card.
Also, these were not done from concealment or duty/retention holsters. Bladetech DOH with DAA mag pouches. I don't shoot IDPA I shoot IPSC, so that's how I practice. I did however move back one pouch each run for the mags. First run first pouch, 2nd run 2nd pooch and 3rd run 3rd pouch.

[JHC]

I totally can appreciate the drive to perfection and excellence regarding getting that press out as picture perfect as in the fun shots of espresso vid . . . but holy smokes man, 3 clean sub 4.0 runs! I am still working on ingraining the press out. Decades of pre-existing "Bill Jordan" swing manifest when I'm target and speed focused.