Originally Posted by
David S.
(Disclaimers: I claim no expertise. I've simply followed this conversation for several years as an interested third party observer of both sides of this discussion. I hope that I'm reliably relaying information that's correct and useful.)
Best I can tell there are at least three distinct concerns being expressed during this series of podcasts.
1. High technical ability without a commiserate level of assessment and accountability may have negative consequences if applied in a defensive shooting.
2. In force-on-force and scenario type training, shooters with high technical ability do not seem to solve problems better (faster and/or more correctly) than those with moderate technical ability.
3. Economics. There is an opportunity cost to acquiring and maintaining (the skillset that provides a reliable) sub-second draw and “jailbait splits.” Beyond a certain point, that time, effort and money is probably better spent learning any number of other skills.
---
1. I understand that a sub second draw isn’t about the sub second draw. There is no question that there is a benefit to having the ability to quickly present and index the gun, recognize a “good enough” sight picture, actuate the trigger and call the shot. The ability to reliably do all that in under a second strongly suggests a high degree of automaticity. But that level of automaticity isn’t without its potential unintended consequences.
A high level of automaticity suggests that the shooter SHOULD have available bandwidth to apply to decision making, but in those thousands of reps, has the shooter trained himself to actively look for, observe and react to “ABORT” cues? Or, have we functionally hardwired “GO”? In an adrenalized state, the shooter may not be able to back it off to an appropriate “assessment speed,” because he hasn’t trained to do so. He may outrun his headlights and be unable to “turn it off” quickly enough if the shot is no longer justified by the time it is released.
“Why not both?” Of course, the shooter could train both. But, is he? You as an individual may not have a problem keeping concepts in appropriate tension. Many do, so it seems like a reasonable concern.
2. It would be reasonable to hypothesize a performance delta between a shooter with high technical ability (A/M/GM class) and a shooter with moderate technical ability (B/C class) during force on force and scenario exercises. Apparently the data doesn’t actually demonstrate that, or rather there are far better ways to improve the “faster and/or more correctly” metrics than improving your technical skills. There seems to be a point of diminishing returns where improved technical ability doesn’t seem to improve outcomes once the problem gets complicated with:
-Innocent bystanders in the background/foreground,
-No shoots who cannot legally, ethically or morally be muzzled
-Just enough force, but not excessive force
3. The defensive practitioner needs to be well rounded in bunch of topics. Additionally, those skillsets need to be integrated into a cohesive and functional package. Situational Awareness may be “free,” but the other skillsets definitely are not. Once the practitioner reaches the point of diminishing returns, he should probably use his time and resources to other modalities.
Skillsets that immediately come to mind:
Managing Unknown Contacts
Operating at assessment and decision making speed
OC Spray
Legal training
Medical Training
Fighting skills (armed and unarmed)
Home defense long gun
Low light
The defensive practitioner will likely get more “bang for the buck” by pursuing those other skills, rather than advancing his technical skills beyond the point of diminishing returns. Again, these knowledge and skill modalities also should integrated and performed with some level of automaticity. Once the practitioner has be come a well-rounded generalist, maybe it makes sense to specialize. The vast majority of us aren’t well rounded generalists.
@JDN. If I recall from previous posts, you are reasonably competent across many of those skillsets, in which case specializing starts making sense (again, from a defensive practitioner’s perspective, not a competition or enthusiast’s perspective).
I also recall that you are mostly self taught and have little to no professional firearms training. What you may not know, is that many in this community tend to specialize well before they are broadly competent. This is evidenced by the popularity of performance based trainers like Modern Samurai Project. Jedi (and Tim Herron, etc) openly admits that he runs a performance class and doesn’t teach tactics. He is happy to recommend people that will teach you how to tactically apply the technical skills learned his class. Despite their disclaimers, it seems many falsely conclude that a 1 second index draw and sub 0.20 splits is a panacea and has a direct application to a violent social encounter.
Guys like Darryl Bolke, Chuck Pressburg, Steve Fisher, Wayne Dobbs, Lee Weems, Tom Givens, Claude Werner, Scott Rietz, etc. are suggesting that there’s more to this gun fighting thing than a blazing fast speed. If it’s not balanced with an high degree of assessment and accountability, could get you in a world of trouble.
