The first half of the interview is not paywalled. I highly recommend listening if you’re interested in some of the discussions we’ve been having about how to train for the “real world”, and how competitive shooting relates.
TLDR: “slow down and get your hits” isn’t the answer.
Let’s discuss after y’all have a chance to listen to it. Can we keep the discussion free of criticism of people, and focus on ideas and outcomes?
https://traininggrouplive-pstg.libsy...side-the-lines
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
That was an interesting listen.
I find myself conflicted between a @DaggaBoy philosophy of “keep the hits in a grapefruit sized target” and something more liberal but faster.
In a similar vein, on my last range trip I tried some quick splits a-la the “see what you need to see” thread, but wonder about the implications of “predictive shooting”.
I mention both issues because they relate to the “competition vs real-world” balance.
I very much would like to improve my score in matches, but wonder how much I’d be building habit-patterns that might need to be resisted in real-world engagements.
Examples:
- Are more precise hits to vital areas more useful in non-wartime CONUS engagements (like D Platoon trained to), or are slightly quicker hits with less precision more valuable? In the podcast, “Tim” seems to advocate for the latter, but is probably training for a different environment.
- Are two good hits with a .20 split significantly more valuable than a .35 split? And is whatever is gained with the faster split worth the risk assumed when the .20 is predictive, while the .35 is reactive (reactive meaning in this case that I’m not committed to firing the second shot until the sights (dot) are on the target and the shot still needs to be fired).
These are the things turning in my mind as I listened…
I would like @ssb and @Moylan to comment on your concerns now that they have faster vision and index in their arsenals.Originally Posted by GyroF-16
I know that Moylan shared your concerns before he started training with me and broke him out of his turtle mode.
More skill is more skill. Having more tools gives you more options. If you can do work with a sledgehammer it doesn't mean you can't also work with a scalpel.
The difference is that you're trained with both and can choose and know how to use what when it's appropriate.
Note that in the SWYNTS drill... there's also a 0.40 split string where you're trying to make good hits on a 15 yard target. The point of that drill isn't to split fast.
It's to train mechanics so you can tailor your speed to your accuracy requirement.
Again SSB gets it now... the sub-second draw isn't about the sub-second draw. It's about improving mechanics and vision so that slower times benefit from better mechanics.
That's why when certain FUDD-trainers decry the "sub-second draw" as a pure Instagram gimmick, they don't really understand (usually because the tool isn't in their wheelhouse).
Same thing with the vision and mechanics of being able to do a 0.15 split on a 7 yard alpha... it means I can hit a very small target at 15 yards in 0.25.
Or hit a 50 yard target decently at ~0.40 splits
Note that I'm not shooting to cadence in that example... I'm shooting to VISION. Training with speed PLUS accuracy improves vision at speed.
Improved vision at speed helps vision and mechanics at all speeds, just like the better index of a sub-second draw helps with draws of all time durations.
The whole point of SWYNTS is training to vision and not just splitting fast. You have to scale your vision and speed to your target difficulty while improving mechanics on all.
If you train something like SWYNTS you won't just go burst fire rapid splits on any target you encounter, lol. Notice if you read through the thread that people didn't just blaze down the 15 yard string at the same cadence as the 3 yard one. They took appropriate time and vision to make the scaled proportionally hard shots.
Gaming gets a bad rap from watching some of the hoser lifer B class guys who only train speed without accuracy. That's no good either. To be "good" at the game, you have to be fast AND accurate.
With regard to hits in a grapefruit... Max Michel says the same thing.
But it's important to know how to practice in order to do that... but faster.
Gyro here are some recent stages where there were more difficult vision shots so the cadence slows to match the vision.
Notice the electronic swinger through the port. Notice how the electronic swinger has random movement and instead of swinging like a gravity swinger it stops and pauses randomly... and how I'm tracking and abort the shot until vision is on. Note the first shot of the stage is delayed while I kick the activator rope with my foot.
I can do 0.15 splits easy... but none of the vision supported using the sledgehammer. It was scalpel vision.
Here's a PCC stage that had sledgehammer and scalpel requirements. The shooting on the move of the tuxedo target required more vision so a slower cadence but the mechanics are good enough that I can do it moving (look at the shadows for context of movement).
Put in a different way... if you have someone who has slow vision and wobbly trigger. They can execute a shot in 0.40 and feel like they have 0.40 of margin before the target moves or they pull off target. Someone with a 0.20 vision and trigger can make the judgment before they start shooting that they have 0.40 of margin and decide both shots will be good.
If they feel like they can't judge 0.40 in advance, then they don't take two shots (or at least they shouldn't).
That's basically what's going on in this video. Notice how I take doubles when I have time but singles when I don't.
All hits were in the A zone of the tuxedo. I chose head shots when I could and accepted body shots when I had to. That particular "triple dropper" target drops faster and sooner with head shots so it favors those hits.
One of the problems that occurs with people having 0.40 mechanics... is that when things start moving and they need to take a shot in 0.20... they can't do it and often wind up missing swingers and moving stars... because nothing stays still for 0.40 and they can't track and execute.
So just like having a sub-second draw and CHOOSING to make a precision 1.5 second draw is different than someone with just a slow 1.5 second draw that's not very accurate....
Having a 0.15 split on tap you're going to be VERY accurate with a 0.40 split if that's what it dictates rather than someone with poor mechanics and vision that maxes out at 0.40...
I'm not sure that I'm explaining myself well. Hopefully SSB and Moylan can help me a little with this one.
Last edited by JCN; 02-01-2023 at 06:17 AM.
So, I work in the criminal justice system and I think that initially biases me towards a lot of what certain trainers — forum member Dagga Boy comes to mind — preach. In broad strokes, my concerns as a self defense shooter are:
1) Accountability for rounds fired. Missing the target when my backstop is the people in the Wal Mart parking lot is suboptimal and potentially legally perilous.
2) Completing the engagement with a minimal amount of rounds fired. To my line of thinking, this means placing the rounds in B8 sized targets on the human body. My experience has been that the more force is used (different from level), the more scrutiny arrives from the public, some law enforcement, and some prosecutors. Put another way, 60 stabs look worse than 3.
3) Not “over shooting.” In other words, I want to avoid firing rounds after the threat has gone away. See 1).
4) Having a core skill set (draw, first best shot, follow up shots, accuracy at speed) that is fast and accurate enough to matter. John Murphy discusses time vs. timing: you may have a 1 second window and a 1.5 second solution to the problem… which means that isn’t the time for you to use your 1.5 second solution, and you need to wait until you have a larger window. My goal is to minimize the instances where my solution is slower than the time I have available. Part of that is tactics (starting with a gun in your hand and waiting your turn is a hell of a lot easier than drawing and firing), but part of that is skillset.
—-
I don’t know that I personally buy the “C zone is still pretty effective” line he gave towards the end, even though I am certain he has far more experience applying lethal force than I do. I am curious how much this is informed by the fact that his primary weapon is a rifle, and rifle bullets at rifle velocities do some really cool stuff inside the human body that pistol bullets simply don’t do. From my own experience, I’ve met — or at least been in the same room with them — dozens people with marginal pistol GSWs. I’ve had the opportunity to view some of those marginal GSWs occur on video. Some result in people fleeing, but while what ASP calls the “FIBS” factor is a real thing, it’s been my observation that people tend to flee at the sound of gunfire just as readily. Others, the victim doesn’t appear to realize he’s been shot (and indeed, many testify in that manner). My own mindset remains that I cannot guarantee that somebody will quit once I inflict pain and injury (or “damage per second,” as he calls it); accordingly, I’m seeking to hold myself to more anatomically significant hits.
HOWEVER…
What I took from the podcast is that “slow down and get your hits” really means “in training, push the limits to improve and then dial it back to where the hits are acceptable for the situation.”
His discussion of the El Presidente drill and the strive for perfect accuracy leading to unrealistic (slow) engagement speeds resonates with me (~6min, ~11min). That is what I’ve been doing for years. I’m certainly not at the level as the average member of the organization this guy works at, but the point remains the same — I’ve been going at the speed I need to draw and hit the B8 at X yards and no faster; I’ve been going at the speed I need to get high 90s on The Test and no faster; I’ve been going at the speed I need to…. You get the point.
That has been my experience with the SWYNTS stuff: the hits mostly have been a bit less than what I’d prefer, but they’re not that bad (though I’d prefer smaller, an 8.5x11 sized paper is on the top end of what I consider a good target) and I’m seeing and doing things that I simply haven’t done before. Allowing myself to “fail” — by hitting something bigger than what I’m used to, or even by missing — has improved my performance. I saw this when shooting my normal drills after doing SWYNTS live.
I wrote about this in an AAR of a force-on-force class, but specific to using a RDS in that application, I distinctly recall being able to process more because the shooting process was simpler. I had less to worry about on the gun side, so I gave more of my attention to what was in front of me. This resulted in one scenario where I resolved the matter without gunfire, precisely because I processed that I was in a “may shoot” category, but not necessarily a “must shoot” category. I think this is the real benefit of SWYNTS for the defensive shooter: less time and mental process spent screwing with the gun = more time focusing on the aggressor’s actions, more time spent focusing on taking a difficult shot (think of the pace Jack Wilson shot that active shooter in the head at 15 yards in 2019), etc.
Dry firing before live firing has been hugely beneficial in my experience and I need to remember to incorporate more often. Every good training class I’ve taken does that, FWIW.
I remain concerned about the real world application of .20 splits. I think that’s highly dependent upon what some have called “processor speed.” The ability to tap the brakes during the shooting process remains important for me, and having done drills where the visual “shoot” stimulus changed during the drill (simulating “hey, he’s not a threat anymore”), I simply cannot make that decision at the speed of low .20 splits. Some guy who does Delta Force stuff all day may differ. However, the benefits from being able to fire a good, accurate pair of doubles seem like they’d still be beneficial because the skills used there (grip, trigger press at speed) are still applicable.
I just listened to the whole thing. I agree with everything. Practical shooting training is the best way to get better at the most useful skills.
I applaud some of the things this guy has pulled off. The biggest being moving to hit factor scoring. I am very interested in how the live fire training is organized to minimize downtime in a group setting but properly score and reset targets. Is it mostly stages and mini stages, or is hit factor just used for qualification shoots? The big sell for line drills is everyone getting a lot more (although less quality) trigger time.
I also really like how he has minimized gun handling development during live fire, prescribes dry fire homework, and incorporates dry practice at the range.
Speaking to the thrust of the podcast, here are the issues I see transitioning to a practical shooting model:
It is an ongoing process selling the uninitiated on the idea that they are not nearly as good as they think they are (hit factor scoring). It is easier to reject hit factor than accepting you suck.
If you dare to realize you suck, you quickly realize, getting really good, even in the most efficient way possible, requires an unbelievable amount of consistent and disciplined work.
Another really hard sell is to convince the uninitiated that when you get good, you will not only comprehend what what you see happening in real time better while shooting, and can even select aiming schemes at will based on the shooting problem. Accomplished shooters don't lose the ability to wait for a steady clear dot and an isolated trigger press because they practice Doubles all day long! The grip, vision and manipulation skills from practical training are the best available to solve the tight shooting problems cited in the defensive world.
Military rules of engagement and the domestic U.S. legal system are two entirely different animals.
To quote @JDNC, "'Slow down and get your hits' is an inarticulate way to say clean up the sights and prep the trigger.".
Slowing down doesn't necessarily equate to getting hits. Plenty of people miss slowly.
One may fire acceptable technical hit(s) that are not legally justifiable.
On a technical level, one may not need to trade speed to achieve accuracy depending upon the available target.
Rifle charlies and pistol charlies are not physiologically equal.
The four count presentation isn't supposed to be performed as distinctive steps; it's just a manner of teaching a pathway from holster to a target. Admittedly, it's not as "fast" as an escalator presentation; it's not supposed to be. The purpose of the four count presentation is to build the retention position into the neural pathway. It also works when seated, in a car, etc; whereas an escalator presentation won't.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.
Some of the takeaways for me were:
- "Outcome-based" vs. "process-based" training.
- Is training about passing a standard or getting better?
- Fixed vs. growth mindset?
- Requiring high accuracy all the time vs. pushing to failure (of accuracy), or even discounting accuracy in some drills?
The students "Tim" trains need to perform at the highest level, and are driven to work hard toward continuous improvement. What about students who just need to safely and reliably use firearms--e.g. security guards? Or someone in the middle, like a CCW civilian who is willing to train?
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
The title is a little tongue-in-cheek, but essentially what I needed to learn.
Thanks to all who addressed my questions / concerns in post #2, especially @JCN and @ssb
It was good to be reminded that pushing hard in training until the wheels fall off, doesn’t mean that’s the new pace in actual employment.
@JCN, I was lurking on the SWYNTS threat and thinking “yeah, I suppose that’s great for competition, but potentially irresponsible in the real world.” I can now appreciate that you’re advocating pushing speed as a way to grow in capability.
An analogy I think you’ll appreciate: Just because I learn to attack a corner at high speed on the track doesn’t imply that I’m going to do the same thing on the street. But it does increase my capabilities on the street, both in terms of awareness and technique.
@ssb, it seems that you and I have similar reluctance about the application of .20 spits in the real world.
Here’s my concern: My reaction time (stimulus to action) has been measured at .18, which I think is in the normal-to-quick range. So if I set out to shoot .20 splits, I think that means that I’m deciding in advance to fire at least 2 rounds, and the second one is going downrange unless I abort no later than breaking the first shot. In competition, that’s fine. In an actual engagement, not so much.
But I appreciate your insight and observations that just because you’ve developed the CAPABILITY to shoot that fast doesn’t mean that you will usually (ever?) decide to shoot that fast outside of training or competition. But you might have developed the ability to shoot say, 20% quicker with the accountability that you require of yourself.
Again, thanks to both of you for reframing both the position of “Tim” in the podcast and the “SWYNTS” thread for me.
Last edited by GyroF-16; 02-01-2023 at 01:51 PM.
I’d say that all of the above (or at least the first 3) are applicable to “Type A+” personalities who have a natural inclination to maximize their capabilities in things that they value. The real “win” is introducing those concepts in realms where they hadn’t yet considered them.
So applicable to both security guards and CCW civilians who self-select for training that would provide those things. But not very valuable for people in the same roles who are required to attend the training.
ETA- further thoughts re: “Is training about passing a standard or getting better?”
I think that depends on who’s writing the check or allocating the time. Having been an instructor and trainee at various times in two careers that involve physical skills, visual processing and judgement, I know that there are always limits to the resources available to get people up to standard. And it’s hard to justify training that is either more frequent or more in-depth. I guess in any institution, “training” will always be about passing a standard. If you want/need people to learn to operate at a higher level, you’ll need to raise the standards, otherwise no more resources will be allocated.
I’m definitely not defending the above arrangement - just acknowledging the reality. It’s a rare individual and a vanishingly rare institution that will train to find out “how good can we become?”
Last edited by GyroF-16; 02-01-2023 at 01:53 PM.
Well, what is the consequence for failure? What level of performance is required? What are you willing to accept?
John Hearne references a study done on some guys who probably work in the same sort of place Tim does. That study suggested 2x ~100 round range sessions per month along with regular dry fire (I remember twice a week, but don’t quote me) was sufficient for those folks — who are already well-trained — to maintain the level of readiness with a pistol they need. The performance loss versus firing once per week was minimal. However, dropping that to one live fire session per month showed a significant drop off in performance for them. I remember asking in class and part of it has something to do with exposure to muzzle blast — otherwise we could simply dry fire 2-3x/week and probably be just fine.
But what if I don’t rescue hostages and kill ISIS leaders for a living?
My goal, which has been largely met live, is to follow what Hearne suggested as far as a practice regimen (the two monthly live sessions and regular weekly dry fire). Where I consistently fail is maintaining regular dry fire, I think in part because I don’t know how to push myself in dry fire very well (another value of the SWYNTS stuff for me — I’m well outside my comfort zone, which makes things interesting). I have what I believe to be a good basis of training: I’ve taken classes from Tom Givens, Lee Weems, John Hearne, and Randy Harris (all solid “application” shooters — people more focused on use of force than pure technical ability, though Randy blends the two pretty well) as well as Steve Fisher, Karl Rehn, and Ronnie Dodd (all of whom — at least in the material I learned — were teaching more “technical” shooting). I generally understand what needs to happen; the need for me is maintenance. My base level of skill is sufficient for the garden variety defensive use of a firearm — which isn’t necessarily a difficult shooting problem. The drive to improve beyond that is because I, like most here, also happen to make this whole gun thing a hobby.
What does your average CCW holder who is willing to practice and train need? Honestly, probably less than Hearne’s cited study, but a building block class and regular, dedicated practice beyond mere qualifying.
Reply With Quote