Is Time Really an Illusion?

[JeffJ]

Yeah, I think that once you move past the "that's not how it works in real life, so I'm not going to shoot those drills" point (I think that at least 99% of this forum is past that point) you're left with a number of questions:
1. What do real shootings look like? - for myself (non-LEO civilian) Tom Given's info is really useful to me
2. What skills translate best to real shootings that I might likely encounter? We can all come up with potential scenarios that justify our own personal training likes and dislikes, but this doesn't necessarily mean that those skills which we choose to focus on are the best use of our time.
3. Once I determine what skills I need, how do I best develop them?

It seems to me, as a non-LEO civilian that should I actually need to use the gun I will need to quickly present from concealment (quickly = sub 2 seconds?) and precisely deliver from 1-15 shots on 1-3 targets within about a car length. Sure, it's possible that the actual situation will be radically different than that, but it seems that the majority of my training time would be best served developing that skill and not chasing small incremental improvements in areas that don't help this type of situation.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'll add that the targets one will want to hit are far smaller than most people think.

Many qual targets I look at are my size, as wide as my torso including my arms hanging at my side, and I'm 6'2" and 260 pounds. Effective hits on real people require much greater precision than "torso" to shut the person down without relying on a psychological stop, and your bad guy might be small.

I wish Doc Williams was doing more of his Tactical Anatomy classes nowadays, those are REALLY educational.

[ToddG]

A few opinions...

(1) I agree with Chuck that chasing fast splits, at a certain point, becomes misguided priority.

(2) Not trying to be snarky, but I find it funny when some of the same people (not on this forum) who constantly talk about "driving 'til the wheels come off" also get comfortable with splits in the low 20's and call it good enough. A lot of what I've learned for myself in terms of de-emphasizing classic perfect sight tracking has come from shooting a lot of mid-teens splits and understanding what I really needed to see to get good hits on high% targets.

(3) In my experience, most people have a fairly natural point at which their splits are as fast as they're going to get without serious effort, and even then it might not make a difference of more than a hundredth or two. It's probably got something to do with physiology and twitch muscle variation from person to person. So from a practical standpoint -- vision stuff in point #2 aside -- I think trying to drive yourself past your personal physical limit isn't going to result in gains worth the effort.

(4) I think putting too much emphasis on what works for competitive shooters who are almost always shooting just two rounds per target (which we know is completely unrealistic), almost always driving to the next target without having to worry about the condition of the previous target (which we know is completely unrealistic), almost always dealing with half a dozen or more targets per stage (which we know is completely unrealistic), and are almost always executing a pre-planned strategy rather than responding to the dynamics of a moving, thinking opponent (which is obviously unrealistic) ... is a base rate fallacy.

(5) I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck's comment that we'll need to hit tougher, smaller, more difficult shots than most people imagine when they practice.

(6) I don't think transitions and engaging moving targets are similar enough to warrant using one as justification for practicing the other. I understand the underlying reasoning but transitioning to a static, pre-determined target isn't the same as keeping your muzzle aligned with a chaotically moving human. If you want to play with that problem, just grab a SIRT and a good buddy.

[GardoneVT]

From another thread:


The above reflects conventional wisdom and, in context, there is a lot of truth to that statement.

However, I'd like to challenge the underlying concept. How does one assess whether a fast split or fast draw or fast reload made a difference in a fight? There is no way to replay the same individual combat over and over again seeing if the victor could have got away with slower followup shots, or if the vanquished might have turned the tables by being on the gun and on target half a second faster. Imagine a simple and common scenario of an officer presented with a BG who has a deadly weapon in hand. Is a 2s draw going to be fast enough? There is no way to know. Maybe, maybe not. Will three shots incapacitate the criminal in time, or might it take five? What might that BG do in the space of time those extra two shots take? Or put another way, how much safer might the officer be if he could have delivered five accurate hits instead of three in the same amount of time?

What we do know is that in repeatable tests like man-vs-man plate rack or dueling tree challenges, little differences in speed and accuracy can in fact make a difference. We can evaluate how shooters, under stress, dealing with a live opponent dictating speed, succeed and fail.

Certainly it's not a 1:1 comparison to an actual fight and no square range shooting challenge can hope to encompass all the variables and complexities of a shootout.

But the reality is we have absolutely no idea how many lives may have been lost because someone didn't have a couple extra hundredths of a second to fire one more round, or how many lives have been saved because he did.

Another factor to consider is that when your life's in danger,your perception of time is altered greatly.

Since few shootings take place where a witness has a shot timer handy,we only have the participants account for how fast they drew and how many shots they fired.Speaking from personal experience,the participant will be too focused on survivial to offer any productive comment -and it doesn't help that your mind operates totally differently during The Real Deal.It's not a state of mind which translates to words well.Let us just say that we should train to do the best we can ,and leave the pointificating of timing alone.

IMO,we should only use timing as a training reference,not a measure of competency.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'll echo DB's thoughts on the perception of time. I am very prone to tachypsychia going off of past experience, but I find that it is now of shorter duration and not as profound as when I first started to do exciting stuff.

I also find that I am very prone to tunnel vision, and a weird for of auditory exclusion where I can't hear what I'm not looking at until I break the tachypsychia.

Tunnel vision can be a good thing when used as a tool to get on a front sight, bad when you target fixate and miss other threats.

This is where I think most people, unless you are say Pat McNamara or Kyle Lamb already staring at your bad guys and you have a head count, lose track of reality on target transitions. What is most likely to happen is that a person will shoot the one threat to the ground and then start looking for more bad guys. Driving the gun from target to target with two shots each (or however many, you get my point...), or "tactical priority" just isn't going to happen for most people.

On the split thing; what is your cadence of fire on the first half of a FAST as opposed to the last half of the drill? What you need to hit dictates your speed. Many people just go cyclic regardless of target size and probability.


The thing about "spray and pray" is that it works just often enough, especially for bad guys, that many people think it's a good idea.

[JeffJ]

A few opinions...

(1) I agree with Chuck that chasing fast splits, at a certain point, becomes misguided priority.
I think most legitimately "good" shooters understand that while splits are sexy, they aren't really a concern (granted that your splits are under about .25 on a 7yd or closer Bill Drill - or so, that's still pretty arbitrary)

(2) Not trying to be snarky, but I find it funny when some of the same people (not on this forum) who constantly talk about "driving 'til the wheels come off" also get comfortable with splits in the low 20's and call it good enough. A lot of what I've learned for myself in terms of de-emphasizing classic perfect sight tracking has come from shooting a lot of mid-teens splits and understanding what I really needed to see to get good hits on high% targets. Are you saying that you don't think "tracking the sight is important" or that you don't think "calling the shot is important"?

(3) In my experience, most people have a fairly natural point at which their splits are as fast as they're going to get without serious effort, and even then it might not make a difference of more than a hundredth or two. It's probably got something to do with physiology and twitch muscle variation from person to person. So from a practical standpoint -- vision stuff in point #2 aside -- I think trying to drive yourself past your personal physical limit isn't going to result in gains worth the effort. I agree, unless you've just got a lot of time and ammo to burn and even then I think I'd do something else

(4) I think putting too much emphasis on what works for competitive shooters who are almost always shooting just two rounds per target (which we know is completely unrealistic), almost always driving to the next target without having to worry about the condition of the previous target (which we know is completely unrealistic), almost always dealing with half a dozen or more targets per stage (which we know is completely unrealistic), and are almost always executing a pre-planned strategy rather than responding to the dynamics of a moving, thinking opponent (which is obviously unrealistic) ... is a base rate fallacy. I suppose so, but... There really isn't a way to practice that fully replicates reality, you can design all sorts of drills and tests, and at the end of the day they require shooting a prescribed number of shots at static targets (with the exception of some pretty cool targets that fall away etc, but most people don't have regular access to those and they usually don't move much) So what are you supposed to practice? The competition guys tend to develop the ability to engage a variety of targets at differing distances and sizes in a quick manner while performing routine gun handling with a high degree of skill. I fail to see what's bad about that, and I know that personally, I am a better shooter for having a competition focus.

(5) I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck's comment that we'll need to hit tougher, smaller, more difficult shots than most people imagine when they practice. word

(6) I don't think transitions and engaging moving targets are similar enough to warrant using one as justification for practicing the other. I understand the underlying reasoning but transitioning to a static, pre-determined target isn't the same as keeping your muzzle aligned with a chaotically moving human. If you want to play with that problem, just grab a SIRT and a good buddy.

I agree with your premise here and think that FOF is part of a solution, but running around with sims, sirts, or airsoft isn't the real thing either and certainly isn't live fire of a firearm - so the question is still out there - what do you drill in order to develop the skills that you'll need?


I think these discussions end up focusing on a lot of negatives - this isn't the same as that, this won't help, etc. -- So what does help? What should someone who has time to shoot a couple times a month, dryfire a few times a week, and doesn't have unlimited ammo work on and why? I think the answer is a combination of draw times and transitions with targets of varying distances and sizes. I'm curious to hear other thoughts on this.

[Chuck Haggard]

Being able to hit low percentage targets from the holster at decent speed is a very good skill to have IMHO.

One handed firing from the holster is under appreciated, also IMHO

[Mr_White]

(1) I agree with Chuck that chasing fast splits, at a certain point, becomes misguided priority.

I'd agree there.

(2) Not trying to be snarky, but I find it funny when some of the same people (not on this forum) who constantly talk about "driving 'til the wheels come off" also get comfortable with splits in the low 20's and call it good enough. A lot of what I've learned for myself in terms of de-emphasizing classic perfect sight tracking has come from shooting a lot of mid-teens splits and understanding what I really needed to see to get good hits on high% targets.

This guess may be off since I am not certain which people you are talking about, but it is not an uncommon pattern to go until the wheels come off in practice, especially dry fire practice, then have a distinctly more conservative match pace (driven down from the wheels coming off in practice.) It sounds like you might be comparing their practice philosophy with their match pace/philosophy, which are two different things.

(3) In my experience, most people have a fairly natural point at which their splits are as fast as they're going to get without serious effort, and even then it might not make a difference of more than a hundredth or two. It's probably got something to do with physiology and twitch muscle variation from person to person. So from a practical standpoint -- vision stuff in point #2 aside -- I think trying to drive yourself past your personal physical limit isn't going to result in gains worth the effort.

I wonder how much trigger type has to do with this. I don't know the answer, but it seems like the trigger mechanism might account for a few of those hundredths.

(4) I think putting too much emphasis on what works for competitive shooters who are almost always shooting just two rounds per target (which we know is completely unrealistic), almost always driving to the next target without having to worry about the condition of the previous target (which we know is completely unrealistic), almost always dealing with half a dozen or more targets per stage (which we know is completely unrealistic), and are almost always executing a pre-planned strategy rather than responding to the dynamics of a moving, thinking opponent (which is obviously unrealistic) ... is a base rate fallacy.

If the conventional methods for improving one's technical performance as applied in competition shooting are not useful for the streets, then what do you suggest as an alternative to improve technical performance on the streets? I realize that might be a large question.

We could list a similar litany of issues with the realism of say, MMA competition. Referee, equal initiative in a known event, certainty of no weapons or multiples, forgiving surface, etc. Yet, even with all those unrealistic elements, I think an MMA guy is prone to doing a whole lot better in the streets due to their S&C and skill than an unskilled person - in short, their ability to execute, which is a product of their time in the unrealistic sporting environments of training and competition. Admittedly, those skills need adjustment for the WBE/tactical environment/whatever. But the technical skills and abilities are a fundamental base.

(5) I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck's comment that we'll need to hit tougher, smaller, more difficult shots than most people imagine when they practice.

I agree with you guys from the philosophical and self-improvement standpoints...but I ask where the evidence is. I mean, think of the body of research amassed by Claude Werner insofar as he has studied citizen self-defense incidents, and think of the Rangemaster data set. No doubt there are a few tough shots in there. Doesn't it seem like one of the overwhelming messages of those data sets are that if you have a gun, are willing to use it, and see the problem coming in time, you will probably win? It doesn't seem like especially small or difficult targets were present, or if they were, that they were not an impediment to the ultimate success of the defender.

I'm not arguing it's bad to pursue better performance. And I still believe that some of those differences that constitute a better performance may make a difference but be lost to review after the fact. I believe I have to check myself when teaching others lest I allow my enthusiasm at self-defense skill and preparation give them the idea that if they don't go train MMA, knife, ECQC, carry a full-size fighting handgun and a couple of reloads and a backup gun constantly and achieve M or GM status that they are bound to die bleeding in the Walmart parking lot.

(6) I don't think transitions and engaging moving targets are similar enough to warrant using one as justification for practicing the other. I understand the underlying reasoning but transitioning to a static, pre-determined target isn't the same as keeping your muzzle aligned with a chaotically moving human. If you want to play with that problem, just grab a SIRT and a good buddy.

That's a good start, but it seems like lack of recoil might be a significant factor in that exercise with a SIRT.

[ToddG]

Jeff -- Dude, it's a PITA to respond to comments you put in a quote box because when someone tries to quote you back, they don't show up.

I think most legitimately "good" shooters understand that while splits are sexy, they aren't really a concern (granted that your splits are under about .25 on a 7yd or closer Bill Drill - or so, that's still pretty arbitrary)

I think you're missing my point, then. Fast splits aren't going to make or break someone in a 200rd match compared to clean draws and reloads, good footwork, proper stage strategy, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean they're not important when you've got a thug twelve feet away who wants your wallet or your wife.

Are you saying that you don't think "tracking the sight is important" or that you don't think "calling the shot is important"?

No, I didn't say either of those things. What I think is important is seeing the sight lift (calling the shot) and seeing it as it comes back into the rear notch.

I suppose so, but... There really isn't a way to practice that fully replicates reality, you can design all sorts of drills and tests, and at the end of the day they require shooting a prescribed number of shots at static targets (with the exception of some pretty cool targets that fall away etc, but most people don't have regular access to those and they usually don't move much) So what are you supposed to practice? The competition guys tend to develop the ability to engage a variety of targets at differing distances and sizes in a quick manner while performing routine gun handling with a high degree of skill. I fail to see what's bad about that, and I know that personally, I am a better shooter for having a competition focus.

Dude, nowhere did I say it's bad to compete or bad to practice for competition. What I said is that when people use "what works in competition" as justification for things outside of competition, it's worth looking at critically.

Also, there are plenty of ways to work on drills that don't rely on a predetermined number of rounds. If you have a training partner it's even easier. I'm going to be running some folks through one tomorrow and will try to get some video.

I agree with your premise here and think that FOF is part of a solution, but running around with sims, sirts, or airsoft isn't the real thing either and certainly isn't live fire of a firearm - so the question is still out there - what do you drill in order to develop the skills that you'll need?

I think focusing on the fundamentals of being able to put your sights where you want them and keep them there while you press the trigger is the biggest part. You can build some comfort with shooting moving targets by using a simple swinger... yes it's predictable but it at least breaks you of the habit of shooting nothing but static targets. I still believe that the SIRT solution is a great one even if it doesn't replicate blast, recoil, etc. Short of shooting live ammo at a real person -- which is frowned on at most shooting schools and ranges -- everything is going to involve some sort of compromise. But I just don't think shooting transitions on static targets has a lot of carryover effect. I've never seen anyone try to study that even quasi-scientifically, though, so it's just a feeling on my part and an opinion.

I think these discussions end up focusing on a lot of negatives - this isn't the same as that, this won't help, etc. -- So what does help? What should someone who has time to shoot a couple times a month, dryfire a few times a week, and doesn't have unlimited ammo work on and why? I think the answer is a combination of draw times and transitions with targets of varying distances and sizes. I'm curious to hear other thoughts on this.

My #1 goal is burning fundamentals -- sights, trigger, draw, reload -- into my "muscle memory" to the point where I can execute them properly, quickly, and accurately while thinking about something else (e.g., that thug 12ft away). Competition is one very good avenue toward building that subconscious performance IMHO.

I think there's more value in Bill Drill type engagements of a single target than putting two each in a bunch of pre-identified static targets; learning to shoot while moving your feet at a meaningful pace rather than learning to move your feet only as fast as you can get the hits you want; and putting a lot of focus on hitting low% targets at speed.

[ST911]

I have developed a much greater appreciation for time intervals. I don't know where legit pursuits end and hair splitting begins, nor the same for worthy contemplations and wading through weeds unnecessarily. Understanding how much time various tasks cost me does helps my equipment selection, decision making, movement, and tactical planning. If I work to habituate effective time management now, it may mitigate or at least carry over into the distortion of time in a lethal force event.