Raw speed

[Mr_White]

LSP, this is not at all in response to your post, I just got done writing this out is all.

---

There are a lot of good reasons to engage the CNS initially.

It can bypass armor or an explosive vest, if either are believed present.

It can raise a shot trajectory to mitigate danger to bystanders, especially in combination with a lowered shooting position, even as simple as a deep crouch.

It may stop the threat with fewer rounds fired into the environment, mitigating danger to bystanders.

5+ seconds may be required for a determined threat to stop from loss of blood pressure resulting from high thoracic cavity shots. The involved human dynamics all happen far inside that 5+ second window. 1.5 seconds = 7 yards of distance traveled, an untrained person can fire about one shot per quarter second, and if the hand is already on the gun, almost no matter where the gun is - in waistband or holster, held under arm or down by leg, even pointed in the complete opposite direction - a gun can be pointed at whatever other direction or thing and fire the first shot in about half to three quarters of a second.

There are a great many situations where we quite predictably might not have 5 seconds to wait for that blood pressure loss and subsequent unconsciousness. A CNS hit is the closest thing to a guarantee of immediate cessation of deadly threat, IF we have the skill to make the hit under the circumstances at hand.

But a failure drill pattern of engagement also has a lot of merit. The initial high thoracic cavity shots afford a potentially faster first shot, while the margin of error (C-zone) mitigates imperfect shots that would be misses relative to the head, and those initial body shots might facilitate the ease of a subsequent CNS shot if the threat has not stopped yet. In addition, if the threat is in fact seriously psychologically affected by being shot or shot at, which while unreliable, does happen in some instances, then we get that ball rolling ASAP. In its own way this plays into an important role that speed can end up playing.

I think both body-then-head and straight-to-the-head are very responsible and effective engagement sequences.

[GJM]

I used to think movement should be an ingrained reaction. However, when a moose charged me, and I tried to move on snowshoes, only to fall over on my backside in the snow, I decided that movement is something that situationally may or may not be prudent. When I got charged by a brown bear in thick cover on Kodiak, I remembered the moose lessson, and consciously chose not to move, as I most certainly would have fallen down if I did not keep my feet planted.

[orionz06]

I used to think movement should be an ingrained reaction. However, when a moose charged me, and I tried to move on snowshoes, only to fall over on my backside in the snow, I decided that movement is something that situationally may or may not be prudent. When I got charged by a brown bear in thick cover on Kodiak, I remembered the moose lessson, and consciously chose not to move, as I most certainly would have fallen down if I did not keep my feet planted.

Probably not ingrained reaction but seeking to perform all other tasks at a level that affords us the bandwidth to process the movement decision simultaneously.

[JHC]

I don't think that a tight CNS needs to be the default. For some circumstances, absolutely. For the majority, I want fast high chest and then move elsewhere at failure. The head is a hard target with a pistol under the best of real circumstances.

Talking just people.

Agree. I seize on that size range because Dagga/Wayne have so consistently emphasized the "large orange to grapefruit" sized sweet spot of target irrespective of in the head or high chest. But as you say, one might be more easily targeted than the other.

[JHC]

It is relevant as there is a difference between shooting speed and accuracy between the range and actual life threatening situations. It is relevant because in most cases of SWAT,HRT the members are not acting alone,going into a room alone,using the same equipment to get hits or protect them and they go in knowing it may very likely end up in a shoot situation. It means less surprise and faster ability mentally and physically to respond than the LEO on a traffic stop or citizen CC. If everyone performed to the same standards on the street as they do on the range I would say it is irrelevant. They don't and stress and risk are the factors as well as surprise/response.

What I am saying is that meeting the standards designed to work in one set of circumstances does not necessarily mean those standards are applicable or appropriate standards for someone working in very different circumstances. If you don't agree then we can end further discussion and agree to disagree. Being able to shoot ________ agency's qualification course clean does not translate into street performance of the same or we wouldn't have abysmal hit ratios across the nation. Speed,surprise and life threatening stress are the detrimental effects not involved in range tests,qualifications.

While you and I can end our debate and we should, others are participating as well and may form conclusions from the arguments.

I think that civilians and LEO's with nil actual gunfighting experience should heed what the actual gunfighters (LE/Mil) try to teach us about how to solve these problems. There is consistency in that messaging.

Here are the details of a lone LEO vs two rifle armed terrorists. https://www.policeone.com/active-sho...XyyCd847MokL5I

The Garland PD's standards are published around here somewhere IIRC. That consistency of high caliber organizations' standards again.

Whatever the causes of abysmal hit ratios across some organizations, too strict of an accuracy standard is probably not among them so I'm not tracking on how the most experienced agencies proven standards are not relevant.

[octagon]

While you and I can end our debate and we should, others are participating as well and may form conclusions from the arguments.

I think that civilians and LEO's with nil actual gunfighting experience should heed what the actual gunfighters (LE/Mil) try to teach us about how to solve these problems. There is consistency in that messaging.

Here are the details of a lone LEO vs two rifle armed terrorists. https://www.policeone.com/active-sho...XyyCd847MokL5I

The Garland PD's standards are published around here somewhere IIRC. That consistency of high caliber organizations' standards again.

Whatever the causes of abysmal hit ratios across some organizations, too strict of an accuracy standard is probably not among them so I'm not tracking on how the most experienced agencies proven standards are not relevant.

AT least we can end on something in agreement. I trained with Jim Cirillo and other gunfight survivors and interviewed every gunfight/shooting involved member of my agency and some surrounding us to gather the information from the horses mouth. At the same time I do weigh the difference of a survivor of a single shooting to the depth of experience of multiple gunfights accordingly.

I read the P1 review recently which is good info. Here is the Garland TX info you cited.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....nd-PD-shooting

[GJM]

Aren't most standards a compromise of what is historical, what is economical, and what is attainable with reasonable effort?

[LSP552]

Aren't most standards a compromise of what is historical, what is economical, and what is attainable with reasonable effort?

Unfortunately for way too many agencies, change reasonable effort to participation trophy with no one left behind.

[holmes168]

Not sure if this was brought up but it also depends on the gunfight.
A one on one, parking lot, low visibility may count only on speed. Two to the chest and one to the head- call it a day.
The gunfights I've been in- more drawn out with more time to ensure accurate hits. The whole gunfight doesn't revolve around you being faster than the other guy.

Edit- then again for the most part where I wa- the other team just sprayed rounds. I'll shut up now.

[psalms144.1]

It's fascinating to me that there's so much GOOD discussion in a topic which could easily devolve into so much interwebz derp. Thanks to everyone for participating.

My thoughts, in no particular order:

1. Agreed, if you're in an old west showdown or caught flat footed by someone inside your OODA loop, you might get shot. You'll definitely get shot AT, which might be just as hard to overcome since it'll f* with YOUR OODA loop in a big way unless/until you've been shot at plenty

2. Agreed, getting the first and most MEANINGFUL hits on the threat is the preferred solution. Whether those are high thoracic hits or hits to the CNS, makes no difference to me, personally, for the following:

3. The CNS is great to talk about. I preach it all the time as the "fight stopping" hit. BUT, the components of the CNS are generally (a) small, (b) well protected (inside the skull), and (c) somewhat mobile. Knowing you're going to draw to a stationary 3x5" card and doing so at speed is great, but it doesn't mean you'll put a round or two into the ACTUALLY important parts of the CNS when #1 occurs. I've seen and spoken to several folks shot in the head with minimal effect.

4. The high thoracic region is larger, generally less independently mobile (cue Baywatch jokes) and the lower part of the CNS runs down the middle of it, generally - so a good, deep penetrating hit through the high torso could clip the spine as an added benefit.

As always, my concerns about discussions of "raw speed" are when they're taken out of context and discussed as mantra by instructors who tell impressionable young shooters that "any hit is a good hit - just get them FAST"