Input on Current Project

[KevinB]

Hey I'm just the guy tossing the turd in the punchbowl.

In Duty gear I am about 2 sec faster on the FAST -- I have two modes of shooting, duty gear or concealment gear - and I (currently) am willing to lose a bit in concealment carrying IWB where it is roughly on my Duty/Battle Belt. I'm going to play around with AIWB for concealment carry as all the cool guys are doing it...

Without having one shooter running thru all the potential myriad of shooting courses its hard to make an apples to oranges comparison.

Also while you note it is not your chart, having taken a number of Mil/LE courses involving CQB and HR stuff, I would not rate SWAT/ and Vanilla SOF in the Master category in and of them being somewhere.

I think the FAST is a really good course of fire for a test. However shoot/no shoot (with 3D or Photorealistic targets) and some stressors would be good additions to something like that -- I've seem some GM's thru a house - and hose a few badge holders and no shoots based on it was out of their lane/element.

[jthhapkido]

Ken said that there are four kinds of people when it comes to guns - the incompetent, the competent, the good, and the great. Ken said that in order to win armed encounters, you don't need to be great but you do need to be good. His point seemed to be that the vast majority of armed combatants were incompetent some were competent but that these probably consisted of 95% of the gun carrying population (my numbers not his IIRC). His point seemed to be that if one was "good" you were better than 95% of the threats you'd likely face. I've been wondering for some time where the line between competent (is mostly safe, know the fundamentals of marksmanship but has to work hard to apply them, etc) and good lies. In other words, at what point are your skills good enough to carry you through most situations.

Reading the discussion thus far, here's my question:

(well, at least my first one)

...when you say "competent," "good," and "great," my response is, "at what?" Gun skills? Self-defense? Armed encounters?

People are listing all sort of skill drills and qualifications---and yet, I keep remembering what Tom Givens has said regarding the stats he keeps on his armed student's defensive encounters, in terms of what seems to be necessary to succeed:

1) Have a gun
2) Be willing to use it
3) Get it out fast
4) Put shots on target rapidly.

And yet, all of these qualifications and drills that people are listing to decide skill levels include MANY other things past those four points. Givens even made a point of saying once that the amount of training didn't really seem to be a deciding factor. (I'm sure he didn't mean that people don't need to train, merely that for what seemed to be the vast majority of situations, lots of training in a wide range of defensive skills and topics simply wasn't required and thus comparatively, shouldn't be a priority. I may be putting words in his mouth, though, so take that with a grain of salt as that was my interpretation only.)

So are we talking about "armed confrontations" from the point of view of an armed citizen for self-defense? Or LEO? Or military? Because it seems to me that there are significant differences in terms of priorities in training for those types.

Here's an example: I have great respect for SouthNarc, and am looking forward to taking his class later this year in Council Bluffs. I've seen videos, talked with people who have been in the classes, read some of his work, etc----he has seriously good stuff. (This coming from someone whose background was martial arts and effective movement a long time before I really got into shooting, so I'm really frickin' picky about what I spend money on for combatives-type courses.)

And yet.......yet.....while I'm looking forward to his class immensely, I don't think that vast majority of people need anything remotely like it. Most people's self-defense situations simply will not include (among other things) the types of close-quarters, smothering, take-to-the-ground-wrestling situations that are a part of his class. Sure, it could happen---but that is separate from looking at training priorities, and working towards the "can handle 95% of the threats you'd likely face."

Now, LEOs? Man, I wish more departments could have their people take SouthNarc's classes. Given a job where you HAVE to close with someone and put hands on them, AND they know you have a gun...that sort of training could make a real, life-saving difference.

People who aren't an LEO? Well, what's their ability to get the gun out fast and put multiple rounds on target like? Perhaps they should drop one of the advanced tactics classes they have planned for the summer and take a class from someone who is all about shooting skills.

This isn't me saying that people shouldn't take SouthNarc's classes. (Or anyone else's.) After all, I'm signed up for it, as are several other guys from around here that I've tried to talk into it. I'm seriously looking forward to it, though I need to mold a new mouthpiece first because I like having teeth. In my case, though, I'm ALSO signed up for a shooting skills class this summer. And I have enough free time to be able to take SN's class even though the training curriculum for it really isn't anything that should be a priority for me in my current life situation, from a self-defense perspective.

.....large amount of blathering past, my point is this: What exactly are we measuring with this "competent, good, and great" set of levels?

If the answer is "if one was "good" you were better than 95% of the threats you'd likely face" ---then I'd like to know what skills are necessary for that to happen? According to many self-defense reports that I've read, it means you have a gun, have enough situational awareness to realize there is a problem, and can get the gun out fast and put shots rapidly on a target between 2 and 12 yards away.

That doesn't sound much like the skills tested in many of these drills and qualifications.

What are we rating, here?

[GJM]

In Duty gear I am about 2 sec faster on the FAST -- I have two modes of shooting, duty gear or concealment gear - and I (currently) am willing to lose a bit in concealment carrying IWB where it is roughly on my Duty/Battle Belt. I'm going to play around with AIWB for concealment carry as all the cool guys are doing it...

Leaving aside that I think the FAST is largely a reloading drill, two seconds suggests either an equipment or technique opportunity. OWB, I think the concealment time penalty should be more like .15-.20. Unfortunately my best FAST and the camera don't coincide, but this is a 4.04 down one body from OWB concealment:


http://youtu.be/pVDBm9jLztw


Sent from my iPhone

[jlw]

Hey I'm just the guy tossing the turd in the punchbowl.

In Duty gear I am about 2 sec faster on the FAST -- I have two modes of shooting, duty gear or concealment gear - and I (currently) am willing to lose a bit in concealment carrying IWB where it is roughly on my Duty/Battle Belt. I'm going to play around with AIWB for concealment carry as all the cool guys are doing it...

Without having one shooter running thru all the potential myriad of shooting courses its hard to make an apples to oranges comparison.

Also while you note it is not your chart, having taken a number of Mil/LE courses involving CQB and HR stuff, I would not rate SWAT/ and Vanilla SOF in the Master category in and of them being somewhere.

I think the FAST is a really good course of fire for a test. However shoot/no shoot (with 3D or Photorealistic targets) and some stressors would be good additions to something like that -- I've seem some GM's thru a house - and hose a few badge holders and no shoots based on it was out of their lane/element.

Leaving aside that I think the FAST is largely a reloading drill, two seconds suggests either an equipment or technique opportunity. OWB, I think the concealment time penalty should be more like .15-.20. Unfortunately my best FAST and the camera don't coincide, but this is a 4.04 down one body from OWB concealment:


http://youtu.be/pVDBm9jLztw


Sent from my iPhone

I am more consistent with duty gear than concealed carry gear. It is an artifact of more training time in the former and many, many more hours of carry in a duty rig than carrying concealed.

[Dagga Boy]

I'll drop another turd...it's my nature.

I found the biggest factor in performance was the ability to actually pull the skills you have out in a fight. One of the biggest things I took away from Ken that is very consistent with my observations and experience is the need to be on auto-pilot during the shooting part, because everything else will be highly chaotic and distorted. You can be the the best Grandeist Mega Super advanced FASTest coin carrying dude out there, and if you can't bring it in a fight and just stand there, you will get cleaned by the the 8 second FAST guy who is a Velociraptor in a fight. This also leads into the ability to remain calm in chaos. Again, not really taught but learned.

Two examples: One of the best performances I ever saw in an officer involved shooting was by one of my worst performing "test takers" on the range. Turns out he was an "A+" performer who had an exceptionally good "auto-pilot program" loaded into his "computer", and had both a mean switch and was calm under pressure.

One of my better shooters, and a total bad ass of a cop, failed badly in a shooting, with his first words to me afterwards was "I didn't do a single thing I knew I should....no sights, and no trigger". His program was in the computer, he just lacked the ability at the time to "turn the auto pilot on". A month later he was in an exceptionally good shooting, and his first words to me afterwards were "I fixed it.....had both sights and trigger".

This all goes back to my emphasis on balance. At this point in life, I am probably shooting at a solid "Good" as my world revolves around my kid's Volleyball and not high round count training. With that said, I already know that I will not have to sort out things like moral issues, fear of investigation, fear, or dealing with high level adrenaline dump and reaction to altered time that many far better "shooters" will have to deal with, so I can pick up some "time" there.

So, I think (as usual) our in house genius John Hearne is on to something with this, I just think we need to take a look at "incompetent, competent, good, and great" in regards to both gun handling/tactics and mindset along with the marksmanship that we have several testing standards for.

[jlw]

I'll drop another turd...it's my nature.

I found the biggest factor in performance was the ability to actually pull the skills you have out in a fight. One of the biggest things I took away from Ken that is very consistent with my observations and experience is the need to be on auto-pilot during the shooting part, because everything else will be highly chaotic and distorted. You can be the the best Grandeist Mega Super advanced FASTest coin carrying dude out there, and if you can't bring it in a fight and just stand there, you will get cleaned by the the 8 second FAST guy who is a Velociraptor in a fight. This also leads into the ability to remain calm in chaos. Again, not really taught but learned.

Two examples: One of the best performances I ever saw in an officer involved shooting was by one of my worst performing "test takers" on the range. Turns out he was an "A+" performer who had an exceptionally good "auto-pilot program" loaded into his "computer", and had both a mean switch and was calm under pressure.

One of my better shooters, and a total bad ass of a cop, failed badly in a shooting, with his first words to me afterwards was "I didn't do a single thing I knew I should....no sights, and no trigger". His program was in the computer, he just lacked the ability at the time to "turn the auto pilot on". A month later he was in an exceptionally good shooting, and his first words to me afterwards were "I fixed it.....had both sights and trigger".

This all goes back to my emphasis on balance. At this point in life, I am probably shooting at a solid "Good" as my world revolves around my kid's Volleyball and not high round count training. With that said, I already know that I will not have to sort out things like moral issues, fear of investigation, fear, or dealing with high level adrenaline dump and reaction to altered time that many far better "shooters" will have to deal with, so I can pick up some "time" there.

So, I think (as usual) our in house genius John Hearne is on to something with this, I just think we need to take a look at "incompetent, competent, good, and great" in regards to both gun handling/tactics and mindset along with the marksmanship that we have several testing standards for.

A guy who can barely peck out "Chopsticks" isn't going to be able to play "Moonlight Sonata" if all of a sudden he finds himself on stage at Carnegie Hall.

Skills and practice or more likely predictors of a positive outcome than is dumb luck.

I expect even good piano players get stage fright.

[John Hearne]

Guys - Thanks for the continued input. I really, really appreciate your willingness to do my work/thinking for me.

Please understand that I realize there is more to the equation than raw shooting skill. The classic triad of mindset, marksmanship, and gunhandling is a truism for me. I am convinced that cops prevail in most gunfights because they have the ability to function in a chaotic, high stress environment - not because they are great shooters. I am also convinced that the horrible losses in LE that we see are explained by the inability to function in a chaotic, high stress environment much more than pure shooting ability. Regardless of what your skill level is, you have to be able to apply that skill in the real-world.

I also believe that one cannot separate these components as they are all inextricably interwined. Superior skill CAN lead to superior confidence. That confidence CAN lead to coolness - the word that sums up mindset/crisis management better than any other word. As long as one doesn't think that superior skills supplants all other considerations, I believe that superior skill brings a lot of advantages in a firearms related conflict.

Let's suppose that Officer Jones has answered an unrelated call at the school/office/mall where your dearest loved one works. Suddenly gunshots ring out and Officer Jones begins to move to the sounds of the gun with just his/her pistol. As Officer Jones maneuvers aggressively towards your loved one and the active shooter, how good would you like Officer Jones to be with their pistol? If Officer Jones just barely passes the once a year POST qual course - are you happy with that? Do you feel better if Officer Jones is a bit of an enthusiast and can consistently shoot a sub-6 second FAST?

I would also offer that what is good enough will likely vary with context. For a variety of reasons, but primarily task complexity, the armed citizen will probably have an easier job than Officer Jones. I would also say that just because most armed citizen encounters are solved by mere possession of a firearm or reasonable facsimile, does not mean that the armed citizen never faces problems that would benefit from a higher level of skill.

Finally, I am also interested in the difficult question of what is "good enough" to allow you to focus on other skill sets. For instance, if I can consistently shoot a sub-6.0 second FAST, do I stop worrying about pistols, beyond sustainment of that level, and worry about fitness or empty hands or shotguns or rifles or whatever?

EDIT TO ADD: I have some skepticism about the USPSA ratings for real-world skill evaluation. The more I study, the more I like bullseye based tests that require reasonable time pressure like The Test. Fights are rarely won by 0.10 second but the ability to put bullets in a 5.25" circle at reasonable speeds can be decisive.

[Chuck Haggard]

I recall going through my first Sure Fire low light class back in the late '90s when Ken Good was still running that show. Ken is a hell of a shooter, but his partner in the runs through the barricade field I found was, well, horrible.

I was really, really put out that Wade could move and work the tactics the way that he was able to, since he had a 99% or so win rate in those FoF runs. I was just about beside myself when we did the Wed night low light live fire drills and I saw that he could barely hit paper at the ten yard line. His strength was that he could get to where he needed to be to make the shot. Shooting ability wasn't that big a deal at the ranges he was able to get to.

I think people actually need, for the most part, far less technical shooting skill than we often think, not to say that people shouldn't train, it's just that most real world pistol fights just don't require that much marksmanship.

[nycnoob]

I have been thinking along the same lines myself (setting measurable goals to be well rounded and "good enough" in a bunch of pistol skills).
This is part of a letter that I sent to a shooting buddy about training plans for the year
(which also include working towards IDPA Expert both auto and revolver). This is my take on a bunch of tests of useful/applicable skill for
concealed carry, that could be tested at the typical indoor ranges that I frequent. (I do not find the LAV/Hackathorn tests to be either
shootable at my gun ranges or something that I would envision needing to perform) This was a letter to a buddy but all the ideas
came from this forum. Unfortunately my shooting buddy is not really on board with the program since: "gaming will get you killed".


I have identified several "skills" that I think are practical and will be my personal focus this year.

1) Draw from concealment and hit a headshot (say 3x5 card). Really, if this is fast and accurate / every time,
you would hardly need any other skill for a gun fight, if you miss the first shot, then things are much more difficult.
Some instructors on Todd Greens board think it is important to practice more than one shot because a poor grip
will often work for one shoot but not work for multiple. So practice more than on shot to ensure you are not sloppy
but the real skill is a one shot head shoot. So perhaps the correct way to measure this is draw from
concealment and three shots to the head 1.5 sec for first shot .25 sec splits on the rest.

IF the above is true then perhaps the famous failure drill (two to the body one to the head) is shot backwards
perhaps you should try and take the headshot first and go to the body if you miss/can't take it.

All of this thinking comes from HeadHunter as typified by his signature on TPI

Quote:
Street Survival: Tactics For Armed Encounters
Q: What did you do wrong?
A: The biggest thing, I think, was to miss with my first shot...

He had another quote something about "after the first shot, everyone was moving and things got much harder"


2) I am a big fan of the LAPD Swat exam, though since I am currently interested in J-frame revolvers
I think it may be useful to make it 3 the body 2 to the head but I am not sure what the times would then be
also I would think a J-Frame would be slower then a fullsize semi auto but I think the idea of practicing speedy
head/body shots of known size target at multiple distances is a real WINNER.


First half of LAPD SWAT Exam

25 yards-2 body 4 seconds 3x
15 yards-2 body 3 seconds 3x
10 yards-2 body 1 head-3.5 seconds 2x
7 yards-2 body 1 head-3 seconds 2x
5 yards-2 body 1 head 2.5 seconds 2x
3 yards 2 body 1 head 2 seconds. 2x

10 yards to 3 yards on the move-6 body 1 head. 2x

All from the low ready. Add about a second for a draw from the holster.
Any round totally off the target is an auto DQ (100% hits).
Full points on the qualification is in an area of about a 3.5 card in a T. Body size is about an 8x11.
This is also usually shot in gear/uniform. We also did this in low light, single hand, in gas masks, etc.

[I don't understand why Neyti's test is not mentioned more on this board, I think its pretty neat.]


3) Accuracy drills There are two I wish to work on

A)
http://pistol-training.com/drills/dot-torture

I am interested in, what distance can you make 90% on demand.
so I will take 5 misses from a string of 50 shots

Though in truth, I never do the COF as specified, I have some slight modifications, mostly
because I can't remember and loose patients.

B)
Also do some form of Dot-Torture at distance (COF to be determined)


Tom Givens and Police Data both show that some sizable fraction of shootings do occur at distance,
so use a D-8 Target at 25 yards and some form of Dot-Torture, (and mark number not in black) or the traditional
10 shots scored for points out of 100. Or perhaps I will use Todd's body circle as the target.
I often prefer to use Shoot-n-c targets though, the big black shoot-n-c that I use is an
inch wider then a D-8 but I am more concerned with having standards then the exact standard I use.

[Chuck Whitlock]

John,
I'm betting this will be an after-hours roundtable discussion in Memphis.
I'm very interested to see where this takes you.