Time Plus and how fast is fast enough?

[LangdonTactical]

So I went to the range on Friday for some practice with a good friend of mine. I pulled a couple of drills off the forum that I have never done before to use in our practice session. Shot a P30 out of a Shaggy AIWB under a polo shirt for everything. The first drill I did was the 99 drill with a 3x5 card. I made all the times by a long shot, but ended up dropping 8 points on the drill, 91 shots in the 3x5 card. Great drill, but I was not using all the par time that I had to get my shots. Pretty much shot it as fast as I could trying to get really good hits.

The next drill we shot the modified LAPD SWAT qualification that was posted by Dr. Roberts. Learning my lesson from before, I made sure to slow down just a little and use the time. I was able to shoot it one point down, dropped one shot on the last moving run from 10 to 3 yards. A body shot just a little high on the way up to the head shot.

There is no doubt that I could easily learn to shoot this clean every time. As I am sure many people do on a regular basis. So the thought crossed my mind, at what point in a shooters development should they switch over to some kind of time plus scoring for these type drills. Even further, is it practical for an agency to use a time plus scoring model for qualification of say a full time SWAT team?

I bring this up as I am personally a fan of time plus scoring. It comes from the idea or belief that in most cases you will shoot as fast as you possibly can in a gunfight, at what I like to call limit of human function, or more commonly WFO. I think that one has to be careful of shooting to a time standard of any kind and thinking that will be good enough to get the job done. I remember a conversation I had with a police officer one time. He basically told me he had nothing to worry about in a gunfight because he shot expert on the department’s qualification course of fire. His belief was that he would be fine in any gunfight because he could shoot expert.

Please don't get me wrong, I think there is a time and place for standard drills as well as minimum qualifications. I am not trying to pick a fight here either or picking on anyone’s personal current skill level. I am just posing the question, at what point should ones training or personal goals shift to going as fast as they can and not just meeting the time standard?

Cheers,

Ernest Langdon

[ToddG]

I am just posing the question, at what point should ones training or personal goals shift to going as fast as they can and not just meeting the time standard?

Or why not try to hit harder, smaller targets in the same time limit? They're two different ways to approach maxing out a given drill.

PAR-scored exercises are about meeting a standard. It's a simple go/no-go measure. If you reach the point where you can max out the test every time on demand, then (a) decrease the times, (b) increase the distances, and/or (c) find a more challenging test.

Time Plus, obviously, measures your specific performance without creating an artificial time limit. A lot of people think that's more "realistic," but I'm not sure that's right. Rogers Shooting School, for instance, is all PAR-based... but I don't know anyone who thinks it's too easy. The difference is that the PARs at Rogers are tough and some of them, at least, are meant to challenge even the best shooters. If you went down to Rogers and shot 125 cold every day, then it's safe to say that's not pushing you anymore.

One of the things I like about the 99 Drill is that it's more about consistency than maximizing 1-time performance. Are some of the times generous? Sure. But if you're not scoring 100% on those strings, it shows that you aren't exercising discipline to guarantee your hits when you need them. Put another way, it's not about how fast you can usually get 3 hits on a 3x5... it's about how consistently you can get those hits within a time limit. If you're scoring 100% consistently on one or more of the strings, I'd definitely say it's time to chip away at the PAR.

There is a time and place for each type of drill just like there's a place for no-speed slow fire work.

[LangdonTactical]

I think your spot on Todd and do not disagree. I think there is a place for all of the drills, and having par times to meet as a standard is very important for sure.

But there are still two question in my mind. One, is it realistic for a given "team" to use time plus scoring as a qualification? Very similar to what IDPA or your own KSTG does with the classifier. Two, when does a shooter or when is a shooter ready to really push for speed?

Just a discussion point and curious as to what others think.

Cheers,

Ernest

[ToddG]

One, is it realistic for a given "team" to use time plus scoring as a qualification? Very similar to what IDPA or your own KSTG does with the classifier.

Sure. I'd wager the main reason most agencies use PAR & Points is because it's impossible to run 25 people through a qual simultaneously recording their times. Doing it one person at a time with a handheld shot timer would take forever.

Two, when does a shooter or when is a shooter ready to really push for speed?

My personal line in the sand has always been: When you can score 5 out of 5 on a 3x5 at 7yd on demand. While certainly not a magnificent display of world class bullseye accuracy, the 3x5 @ 7 seems to be a good indicator of whether someone has developed adequate marksmanship fundamentals.

[GJM]

I think this thread gets at a lot of interesting questions, some of which I meant to raise after the 3x5 speed push DOW. For example:

1) How do people learn/improve? Is it better to only try things you are absolutely capable of, moving a tiny increment at a time, or to go balls to the wall.

2) Why do we miss -- because we are going too fast or because we mess up some aspect of grip, trigger, sights unrelated to pure speed? My sense is TLG thinks the reason we miss is because we are going too fast, and slowing down is generally the answer. Bill Rogers thinks a precision shot takes +/- 1.5 seconds, and that you have to slow down a LOT to guarantee a shot. Short of a precision shot, you will occasionally miss.

3) What is the trade off between speed and accuracy in defensive shooting? At opposite ends of the spectrum, consider a technician directing ONE powerful nuclear bomb versus a hiker spray bear spray in the air. Shooting a 9mm, holding a bunch of cartridges, does it make sense to slow down in an effort to make an exact hit, when making that exact hit may not end the fight, or does it make sense to shoot at the optimal intersection of speed/accuracy, where you get more chances of having multiple hits solve the problem.

For example, trying to go "slow/accurate" on the initial run, I averaged 2.71 for 2 to the 3x5 with a 85% hit rate. Going full on, I averaged 1.55 for 2 hits to the 3x5 with a 74% hit rate. Unless I am shooting one nuclear bomb, wouldn't the MUCH faster 74% hit rate be better in a fight.

4) Are par times more useful when you are responsible for a group of shooters versus improving your own skills? What do I really care about a par, other than for vanity, if I am in a process of continuous improvement?

5) How do we define consistency? Are we talking about the ability to shoot a task cold, on demand, or being able to repeat something like shoot a 3x5 10 times in a row? Based on how I learn, I absolutely lose interest in doing the same thing over and over. Is there any tactical relevance to repeating the same task over and over.

[JV_]

Bill Rogers thinks a precision shot takes +/- 1.5 seconds

For what distances?
For what size targets?

I'm not sure you can have a blanket time for a precise shot without knowing a little more info.

[GJM]

JV, I emailed Bill to get an exact answer, but in any event, it is orders of magnitude slower than a reactive/Rogers Range shot.

[Mr_White]

I also prefer some kind of open-ended scoring, like time-plus or hit factor. I often have a very tough time conforming to fixed times (PARs) that have nothing to do with my ability (whether easier or harder than I can do.)

As far as what kind of scoring is best for training and practice for emergency situations in real life, despite the existence of many drills, standards, and tests that demand 100% accuracy with a PAR time, and those with time-plus scoring but with heavy penalties for shots outside the most desirable target zone, I find it highly interesting that the Rangemaster Core Handgun Skills Test uses Hit Factor (points/time) as its scoring method. It might be said that the designer of that test has more direct experience than most when it comes to producing civilian students who very successfully defend themselves from deadly criminal attack.

Like GJM, I think my sweet spot isn't necessarily where I am getting 100% hits to the most desirable target zone. But this also goes back to using your brain and paying attention to the situation at hand. There are times that no less than 100% hits to a small target are acceptable due to foreground or background issues. That's by no means all the time though.

I certainly wouldn't claim to put a number on it, but I feel like I get Rogers' point about precision shots/guaranteeing hits. I usually feel like I have to slow down a lot to truly 'guarantee' the hit.

[LangdonTactical]

This is exactly where I was headed with this whole conversation.

Where time plus really shines is it rewards you from going as fast as you can while keeping in control of the outcome. Like both IDPA and KSTG scoring, speed is very important, but you cannot shoot fast enough to make up for poor hits either. Unlike USPSA, where you can shoot fast enough to make up for poor hits. I have seen it done and have been beaten at major matches because of that fact. (Coming in second to someone that has a few misses and a hit on a non-threat is hard to understand, but it happens)

That being said, one has to start somewhere and there has to be standards of performance that are considered acceptable.

I know that when I was very training hard to win competitions years ago, I knew how long it would take me to do any given task. Draw to a difficult shot, easy shot, movement, reloads of almost any type. I knew what my push times would be and what my safe times would be for almost any given task. Training was often geared toward improving those specific times while maintaining a very high level of accuracy. I knew all this because I used a timer for most of my training sessions. Not all of it, like TLG says, there is a time a place for slow fire with no time limit. But that was the bulk of my training focus.

I also like using the par time drills, such as the ones on Pistol-Training.com. They are a great gage, and can be modified to suit each person’s skill level. Most of them also really focus on accuracy at speed, which is what we are all striving for.

But I think as some point you have to run drills and focus on what the timer says. As ones skill level goes up, the little improvements in time are much harder to come by. For example, going from a 2 second draw to a 1.50 second draw comes much easier than going from a 1.25 second draw to a 1.15 draw.

For me it comes down to this. I want to train to move and shoot as fast as I possibly can, seeing what I need to see for any given shot. All while not having to make decisions about grip, stance, sights, trigger. I need to be thinking about what/who needs to be shot, where they can be shot, where I should be moving to, who else is in the area in front of or behind the intended target.

I think this comes from pushing speed in practice. Speed with accuracy as a gage = time plus.

So therefore I think this is the way to get the level of skill up for an individual or an elite team. Elite teams are very competitive, but if most of them can max or come close to maxing their qualification course of fire I think it puts a cap on how far and how hard they train. Time plus always leaves room for improvement and for someone to be on top.

Ernest Langdon

[John Ralston]

My personal line in the sand has always been: When you can score 5 out of 5 on a 3x5 at 7yd on demand. While certainly not a magnificent display of world class bullseye accuracy, the 3x5 @ 7 seems to be a good indicator of whether someone has developed adequate marksmanship fundamentals.

With no time limit?