zincwarrior
New member
I think we're generally in agreement on this item. To the larger topic we should indeed be aware of "training routines" that may not be the best.
Well, it would seem obvious to me that if a defender cannot or does not access and present and fire his firearm quickly enough to stop a violent ambush, that would decide the outcome.Draw speed is a very limited element in a very dynamic encounter. Can it be the deciding factor?..sure. Is it likely to be? Probably not.
Yes indeed.The ultimate result of weapons manipulation training is to become Unconsciously Competent with those skills. If weapon skills are ingrained to a level of subconscious action, that leaves the conscious thought process free to make the tactical decisions. Things like WHEN to shoot, WHERE to move, SCANNING for additional threats all require conscious thought.
Drawing the pistol, performing a reload, clearing a malfunction SHOULD all be reflexive.
... it would seem obvious to me that if a defender cannot or does not access and present and fire his firearm quickly enough to stop a violent ambush, that would decide the outcome. ...
Asked and answered. For my part, I'd remove the word "very", and be doubly sure to note that it is limited, but very important nonetheless. Those are not mutually exclusive notions, and we can learn to walk and chew gum at the same time, lol.How, then, could it be a "very limited element"?
Agree.I am not aware of anyone, aside from a few outliers, who can outdraw a gun which is already drawn.
Well, any defensive encounter is probably best described as an ambush.The point there being that simply outdrawing the "ambusher" (especially if it's an ambush) isn't a solution.
Really? By then, the defender is in a world of hurt.Typically such an incident will start with a gun in your face and perhaps even being fired ... that's your first cue to do something.
No, it is certainly not the "one all-inclusive solution", but how do you determine which part is not the most important when all of the parts have to work?Certainly, being able to draw quickly is important. It's just not the one all-inclusive solution, or even the most important part of the solution.
True, and even a hit to the brain won't suffice, unless the cerebral cortex is hit.Let’s take one thing we know for certain: pistol rounds do not instantly physically incapacitate someone, unless it’s a direct hit to the brain or upper spine.
Forget duels--they are illegal, and none of us will engage in one. And if shots are fired in any kind of encounter, no one "wins". It's just that the defender who cannot draw quickly enough and achieve combat accuracy with a sufficient number of shots rapidly enough will certainly LOSE.So suppose we have that duel ... the perfect case for a faster draw being the determiner of who "wins".
But it is very easy to see where too-slow-and too-inaccurate would pose an insurmountable disadvantage.It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where faster-and-more-accurate does not convey some advantage.
True.... raw drawing/shooting skill alone (in isolation) is not the determiner of success in conflict.
True.There are countless videos showing defenders in situations where a gun is already in the hands of the attacker from the outset. There is no outdrawing an opponent who has already drawn, and might be already shooting.
Great choice of words!A skill untrained can never be a skill deployed.
WE?What we should take away from this is that many of the skills we practice are practiced in isolation, away from the context in which they will be used. It’s like we are training for a race with no other cars on the track, and impressing ourselves with our awesome lap times. We’re playing chess with only our pieces on the board. The range session or pistol match focus on only one part of the defensive equation: putting the hurt on our opponent. We gain skill at shooting, but seldom practice not getting shot.
Very true indeed.I submit that this second part - not getting shot (or hurt) - is the actual goal of self-defense training. We want to remain unhurt and alive.
If it doesn't, the defender will likely be injure. Therefore, if shooting is required, it should be quick and effective, and repeated as often and as quickly as is necessary to effect a stop as quickly as possible.Shooting someone might stop them … but it might not, and probably won’t do so quickly.
I'm not sure just what that means. I certain agree that staying away from trouble is priority one, but sometimes hat doesn't work. I appreciate the importance of concealment and cover, but those may not suffice.I’d offer that - in the order of important things - learning to not get shot takes precedence over learning to shoot.
I do not compete. I have no interest n it.This is why very skilled, Grand-Master Class competitors like Mike Seeklander, teach a different class for competition than for defense.
... One of Seeklander's best recent demonstrations (the Pharmacy Robbery) entailed drawing fast; moving quickly to gain a clear shot and have an effective backstop; and scoring fast hits on the "bad guy".
Well, it would seem obvious to me that if a defender cannot or does not access and present and fire his firearm quickly enough to stop a violent ambush, that would decide the outcome.
How, then, could it be a "very limited element"?
... I am truly baffled by the idea that armed conflict is somehow always likely to be a "ready-set-go" type of situation. Like its likely going to mirror some 1890 duel in the middle of the street. ...
... I can say that in NONE of those encounters did i have to think about drawing my pistol or mounting my rifle. Those things happened on "auto-pilot" upon recognizing a threat. ...
Do you not believe that a defensive incident will not be started by some kind of stimulus?I am truly baffled by the idea that armed conflict is somehow always likely to be a "ready-set-go" type of situation.
I know of no training that is based on that ridiculous idea.Like its likely going to mirror some 1890 duel in the middle of the street.
Allrighty then.There are countless situations where [draw speed] is irrelevant simply because violence is occurring and weapons are already in play. Most people are not going to challenge an armed and active combatant from a holstered status.
That does not follow ay all.How is draw speed a limited element? It is a limited element simply because speed its no absolute guarantee.
Consider this: an assailant with a contact weapon starts moving toward a defender at a gas station from a distance of two car lengths, moving at a speed of five meters per second. The difference between a draw-and-fire time of 1.5 seconds and a time of 2.5 seconds allows the assailant to get five meters closer before the first shot is fired--and there is still the little mater of stopping him.I am not suggesting that a person strive for a slow draw speed but if the idea is that the difference between an average draw speed vs a really fast draw speed is going to be the saving grace in the majority of conflicts... i disagree.
The myth of the duel in the middle of the street has a lot to do with a lot of things, but I doubt that anyone believes, even subconsciously, that "it", where "it" refers to a defensive use of force incident, will "approximate or mirror" such fiction.The belief that it will approximate or mirror a "1890 style duel in the middle of the street" forms the basis of the "Cowboy Quick Draw" mythos, ethos and dogma.
Perhaps some people may think of them that way, but I seriously doubt that they carry firearms.You can't blame people ... they've seen hundreds (maybe thousands) of such "gunfights" on TV and in movies over the course of their lives. That's the best representative model they have available in most cases. They see a movie like "Tombstone" or "The Quick and the Dead" and almost think of them as documentaries.
That's irrelevant to the discussion of armed self defense, and none of that bears any resemblance whatsoever to realistic defensive pistol shooting.The funny thing is, those cowboy quick draw duels likely never actually happened. They are almost certainly fabrications of pulp-novel writers and Eastern newspapers looking to sell sensational stories of Western derring-do.
Quote:
... I can say that in NONE of those encounters did i have to think about drawing my pistol or mounting my rifle. Those things happened on "auto-pilot" upon recognizing a threat. ...
This is one of those cases where I truly hope we mean the same thing and are getting hung up on semantics.
I would offer that the act of "recognizing a threat" is on some level a conscious act or decision. Either that ... or we're losing each other somewhere in the middle. I agree with you that the application of the skills themselves should be (to some degree) "second nature".
Nobody can reflexively recognize the difference between a toy gun and a real one, or a butter knife and a dagger, for instance. Those who think they can have ended up too often shooting people with butter knives, toy guns, cell phones, etc. ... which can't be a recommended course of action.
Do you not believe that a defensive incident will not be started by some kind of stimulus?
Consider this: an assailant with a contact weapon starts moving toward a defender at a gas station from a distance of two car lengths, moving at a speed of five meters per second. The difference between a draw-and-fire time of 1.5 seconds and a time of 2.5 seconds allows the assailant to get five meters closer before the first shot is fired--and there is still the little mater of stopping him. Is that not important?
I've seen (video of) dozens of cases where someone drew a pistol in a stealthy, almost leisurely fashion, and it appeared to be necessary so as to not invite attention. It seemed - in those cases - to be a big part of the resulting success of the encounter. The most important factor seemed to be when, not how fast, the pistol was drawn.... I cant think of a SINGLE instance where it would then be advantageous to draw the pistol slowly. ..."
The central point is that we cannot rely upon speed alone as the singular "measure of success". It is one factor among many.
What would be the recommended practice for when there's no cover available, no concealment, and no place to go to get out of the way of the aggressor or their weapon?
Like maybe when caught in an elevator, or a stairway or hallway?
Or getting into or out of a car?
... The myth of the duel in the middle of the street has a lot to do with a lot of things, but I doubt that anyone believes, even subconsciously, that "it", where "it" refers to a defensive use of force incident, will "approximate or mirror" such fiction. ...