Shooting Standards that Matter

[Mr_White]

For those conducting statistical analysis......I ll just say it is totally irrelevant from what I have seen in my limited experience. I can change what are represented as negative numbers to positive numbers with one sentence. Again, for pure technical shooting performance, it is super important. For a use of force problem, it is simply a factor.

Some folks can shoot the 8/8 but can't do it in less than 10 seconds. If they can only execute the fundamentals at this speed, then their fundamentals are too weak and must be improved. Some folks can get it done in under 10 seconds, but can't get 8/8. Again, if their fundamentals are too weak and must be improved, particularly trigger control. A hallmark of mastery is consistency and if you can't do 8/8 but you can get 64 points, I don't consider your consistency high enough to show a fundamental understanding of the essentials.

I don't think you should be so hard on Mr. Hearne, he has good things to say.

[Dagga Boy]

I don't think you should be so hard on Mr. Hearne, he has good things to say.

You get ten witty points....that was good. With that said, this is what caught my attention..

"It cost approximately a 62% time increase to bring hits up by 20% (10/10 instead of 8/10.) That's why, outside of physical circumstances that demand not just 100% hits to the adversary, but 100% hits to the desirable target zone with zero tolerance for error, it may not be that good a deal in terms of shooting mechanics."

Now let's try it again with a totally different outlook:

It gained approximately a 62% increase in assessment time and brought hits up by 20% (10/10 instead of 8/10.) That's why, outside of physical circumstances that demand pure speed of shots to the adversary, getting 100% hits to the most desirable target zone with zero tolerance for error, is a good deal in terms of appropriate and defensible use of force.

All depends on what you are looking for.

Also, good comments by SLG. I will say that in my early years of working OIS's and assessing incidents to tune training I did have several issues with "too slow". We had numerous incidents in which because of how our folks were trained with insanely long times they never learned to actually work with a combination of both speed and an accuracy standard. In cases pushed for speed, they reverted to the "speed solution" for the time, which was classic point shooting, with terrible results. In one case we had a very high level PPC shooter who could not get a shot on a suspect because he was working off a clock based on his sport.

We found balance was the key, as well as constant reinforcement of application of fundamentals in all aspects of shooting, both speed based, use of force based, and accuracy based. You should be shooting drills that work all of them.

[Kimura]

Some really good posts in this thread. The stuff that Paul Sharp, DB, SLG and some others write in some of these training threads should saved in a training sticky somewhere. It's really, really good information.

[JAD]

I love and use this:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....re-Skills-Test

I like it especially because it balances skills in a way that I think is pretty representative and it produces both macro and micro data that can be used to measure progress very completely.

My 'standard' for performance, overall and on each of the strings, is 'better than last time.'

I haven't tried to jack with it because Tom cautions us to run it only occasionally, like once a quarter I think. It might be better with a tighter target, I don't know.

[Paul Sharp]

Some really good posts in this thread. The stuff that Paul Sharp, DB, SLG and some others write in some of these training threads should saved in a training sticky somewhere. It's really, really good information.

Thanks Kimura!

[Cecil Burch]

I, like many of you, have been in fights and talked to lots of people right after they were in a fight. Not one of them ever said to me that they had been overtraining, and wish they had that time back to do other things. Some people were incredibly effective, and far outmatched their opponent. They still never said that. It was always just pride and relief that they were up to snuff.

I'm so stealing this.

[SLG]

I'm so stealing this.

Happy to help:-) That means a lot to me coming from you. It does sound a little better in conversation though, I think.

[GJM]

Ever since I heard the concept, I have been taken with the Hardwired concept of two second standards, meaning you have two seconds to solve the problem. Ideally, that two seconds will start with you alert and your blaster in your hand. If not, well that is life.

Two of Gabe's tests that I find interesting, nicely dovetail with the concepts I have heard Wayne and Darry discuss. Those Gabe drills are a draw and two shots to the upper CNS in 2.0 (or 2.25 from concealment) and the failure drill, two to the eight inch circle, one to the upper CNS in 1.70 (1.95 from concealment). The key to these is a fast, reliable draw, and I would suggest that all that is holding most people back from a very fast draw is a bit instruction or reading, and a bunch of dry practice. If your standards don't measure the draw and provide incentive to have a fast draw, I suggest you are not doing what you should from a teaching perspective.

This afternoon, thinking of this thread, I decided to shoot 4 Aces twice and see what I got. That drill involves a draw and two shots, reload and two more shots at 7 yards, with the accuracy standard being A hits. I shot these with a G4 17 from an OWB Blade-Tech holster.

Shot 1 is the draw, 2 the split, 3 the reload, and 4 the split.





A bit over 2 seconds flat, but it shows you can get a lot done in +/- 2 seconds.

[John Hearne]

I'm so stealing this.

Tom Givens once quipped, when discussing his student successes, that nobody he interviewed ever wished they had trained less, used a smaller gun, or had less rounds on hand.

[jlw]

"An expert has an automatic use of the tool." --Bill Lewinski, Ph.D.

Cue the chart...