My only 'genius' was in recognizing the obvious truth when it was presented to me by more experienced/accomplished shooters. That and a cussed persistence in saying 'Yes you will' when I was told 'We can't '. But it's easy to soar like an eagle when you're flocking with pigeons.Originally Posted by JCN
@JCN I’ve never thought or advocated that people shouldn’t push training speed until the wheels come off. I was just playing with some physics numbers and reaction time.
Sorry, I didn’t mean that you were.
Basically nobody is reacting that much faster.
Having more bandwidth allows people to notice earlier, but the limits of physics are the limits of physics.
I think it’s just a trainer cop out to say “you don’t need faster draw than XX or a faster split than XY so it’s not needed to train it… [because I don’t know how to do it… so it must not be important].”
Watching a Christian Sailer world championship IPSC video… he only shoots at 80% of his max speed most of the time. But the amount of control and accuracy he has at HIS 80% is orders of magnitude better than random Joe X at the same split speed.
That’s what some trainers don’t get with split speeds and draws. If your mechanics are excellent and fast, slowing down makes it so much more easy and accurate.
Some time I’ll share my impressions of shooting a DAK at max splits and what that meant mental processing wise versus a DASA.
Without truly expert and engaged coaching and highly engaged students, how are you going to give the student sufficient room for experimentation, and expect that experimentation to actually develop anything productive?
I suppose this applies to both agency training and basic non-sworn firearms training.
--------
@GyroF-16. If you haven't already, I'd suggest a Presscheck Consulting No Fail Pistol class. Pressburg does an excellent job of balancing DB's 100% hits, 100% of the time (even though I don't think that's ackshually DB's perspective), and the "permission to experiment" perspective advocated by these guys.
David S.
Not saying we can't improve their assessments; however, as I understand it, processor speed is more or less set though it can diminish with age. Removing novelty, or previously unseen stimulus, through exposure helps. Hopefully, I'll catch the interview soonest.
"Processor speed" is probably fixed and is a byproduct of "G" - the idea of general intelligence which IQ mostly measures. There is evidence from research on Hick's Law that those with higher IQs are less affected by increasing the number of response options. Think of processor speed as the speed of a CPU in a computer - it's hardware.
The programs that are used for assessment are software. The software programs can become more efficient the more you use them. I strongly encourage folk's to go to Wal-Mart and run Paul Howe's threat assessment algorithm for a month. It is slow to begin with but it can be done quickly with practice. It is a specific software program designed to do a specific task.
We now know that the generic subsystems of the brain can be trained and improved as well. These are general programs that the mind uses in a variety of applications - these are meant to do generic tasks. The best studied example of this is the subsystem used to stop motor programs in mid-operation. By spending a month doing on-line brain training not on assessment specifically but on stopping motor programs - the study authors were able to reduce mistake of fact shootings by ~18%. These results were confirmed on students using a computer based test and later on academy cadets using exercises involving live firearms.
I have heard certain trainers talk about their ability to process and fix problems at very fast splits. While I don't doubt them, I suspect that the tasks they are fixing on the fly are ones they have tons of practice and familiarity with and are fairly closed motor programs. This is probably not the same thing as processing novel stimuli in a rapidly evolving tactical environment while dealing with life and death stress.
The spec-ops community seems to think that process speed is very fixed and it largely is if its related to IQ. I just wonder if the guys who assess the best have led a life that has fine tuned and enhanced the subsystems needed to assess quickly. Much like we're seeing evidence that people with better balance tend to shoot better as their visual system can be dedicated 100% to shooting and have sufficient reserve in their proprioceptive and vestibular systems to maintain balance.
Computer Based Study - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26170262/
Live Fire Based Study - https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Fire_Exercises
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
Finally got a chance to listen to this today while driving to visit the kid at college. Immediate takeaway was surprise that there is that much resistance to practical shooting training in any American Tier 1 Unit. I know the Army guys have been going down this road for longer and much deeper than their Navy counterparts, but still. Second takeaway was the discussion on how legacy training methodology can, and often is, a barrier to real growth, especially in any institutional setting. How an emphasis on meeting standards, even high ones, leads to a risk averse mindset in training. Just a slightly different take that I wish I could've articulated that way a couple of years ago. Of course, @John Hearne is right....there's only so much you can do in an institutional program with shooters of varying motivations. Especially when leadership is not interested in enforcing accountability for standards.
My notes from listening earlier in the day, driving to the gym, etc:
And while I know we won't get the answer, but what org? Didn't Pat Mac have matches and a club organized within one entity way back when? Kyle Lamb was rumored to be a competition shooter back, as were others. Did LAV have a hand in IDPA? So if he's at that place, that's odd. If he is elsewhere (there are other Army orgs with the controlling command), then ok;
- Have to be on the range vs wanting to be there, training, etc. It's an issue in the cop world, we know there's a bunch of cps who view the blaster about the same way they view their pen. The best thing about retiring was no longer having to teach those who equated Glock with Bic;
- I'm still waiting on a good explanation of Hit Factor and L/E scoring, as at least one acquaintance is proposing it. Until then, count me way confused. "We" (serious trainers & shooters) complain about poor hit rates (to be kind) in many events, but now we're pushing go mo' fasta with less good hits. I'm not sure I get that or the reasoning behind it. Especially knowing that there isn't a great likelihood of two handgun rounds on torsos ending the fight. Maybe I'm still thinking too much about LAV's admonition on range ability vs gunfight delivery & degradation. A high "A" and a high "C" I'm good with while a low "A" and barely in the "C" zone at 8 o'clock not so much. (Note: my old org uses a locally designed target with IPSC sized/placed scoring areas. We/They allow the A & the upper half of the C but not the lower half)
Regarding the AR stock placements being taught too high, I need to play with that. I run my shotgun stock pretty high to avoid dropping my head to the gun for commonality, I do the same with my AR. But I'll try it.
The discussion on how presentations are taught was approached from a Mil/competition-heavy perspective. Cops & decent normal humans are quite likely to have to shoot from a retention position. The presentation advocated ignored that. It also, as I often see, ignored that it is taught in steps, and the students will need to put in the work over the week & in the future to smooth it out - if they are too wrapped up in the steps.
Doubles - I'm still wrapping my head around shooting doubles as quickly as possible. I took a Frank Proctor class a couple of months back, and I like his stated belief of firing a single shot, just in a series. Fwiw, he does not practice or advocate Bill Driils. We had a good discussion on firing a series of singles vs a series of linked pairs (think a controlled pair rather than a hammer or double). My position on this may well be based on how L/E shooting round counts are being viewed, coupled with human factors on both sides of the gun (shooting speeds, falling/crumpling speeds).
What was behind the paywall might be interesting; maybe I should see what the $ cost of it would be.
My thanks to whomever brought this up. If nothing else it was a good thought exercise.
As a gamer, I think the critical point of hit factor scoring is to have an inner and a slightly larger outer ring with only a modest reduction of points.
That's what the Bakersfield did so well.
You could do this with a novel combination of targets.
Like if you had a regular USPSA target and counted the regular A zone as 5 points but changed the C and D to 2 points and zero points... but then added a sub-A scoring zone with a 4" white circle sticker in the upper A zone that was 6 points... you could reward for "better than A" hits at speed.
That's the whole point of Hit Factor scoring, that you get graded points for the critical area. You can define that area as anything you like for the accuracy task at hand.
Note that in USPSA there will be hardcover and no shoot overlays that basically make anything other than an A worth zero or worth -10.
So it's totally valid to make the C/D zones worth nothing or a worse than nothing.
This is something I think gets lost in the non-competition world:
Bill Drills are a recoil control exercise... a drill to improve control when shooting any number of less shots. They're not a technique or something to deploy in self defense use.
Same thing with max speed doubles. It's a gaming thing on close up targets, but rarely ever used.
The reason to improve max speed doubles is for the training aspect of vision speed and control... because then making a 0.30 split is MUCH MUCH MUCH more accurate and takes less mental bandwidth. It's like being able to do a sub-second draw. You'd never do that in real life... it's there to improve the mechanics so you have more options and more accuracy and more unconscious competence at slower speeds.
There are still a number of FUDD-trainers whose egos won't let them be B/C class shooters at a practical shooting match because they have long paper tactical resumes and decry the gamer skills. It'll become more and more apparent that "the emperor has no clothes" as time catches up to them.
Sub second draws and rapid doubles (with vision and accuracy) are just foundational training. When you learn to shoot with vision, then the vision guides the cadence and hits and precludes using max speed if the vision doesn't support it.
It's super hard to explain.
This was an example I gave in the SWYNTS thread of why draw mechanical speed matters.
Note in the SWYNTS drill, nobody is just doing a sub-second draw to the 7 or 15 yard targets even though they can for the 3 yard. Because they're shooting on vision.
But the better your mechanics, the more time you have for vision.
That's the same thing with 0.15 split accurate doubles. It's training so that when you need to go out to 7, 15 or 50 your mechanics and vision are better so that the hits are better at the appropriately scaled split times.
Hey, I shoot matches
Last edited by Erick Gelhaus; 02-03-2023 at 09:48 AM. Reason: add emoji
Reply With Quote