Well if it wasn't a proper statement, half a dozen posters,
JUST LIKE YOU, would have gone out of their way to prove
me wrong already, wouldn't they?
Not worth it.
It just doesn't make sense. Think about it. Three shots in three seconds at three feet? Shooting that slowly at someone who is virtually standing still at a distance close enough to slash your neck?
Come now!
In the standard Tueller drill, an assailant moves at an average speed of twenty one feet in a second and a half. Try it, or observe others.
Starting the draw at twenty one feet, a skilled defender just
might get off his first shot at three feet, but he would probably have to move a bit.
It is unlikely that one shot would stop him immediately, so the defender would probably fire more than once.
But three shots in three seconds? The attacker would be about ten feet behind the defender when the third shot is fired.
Yes, most encounters occur at close range, but three feet is too close for comfort, if you can avoid it. And yes, not that averages matter a bit , three shots at close range
may be reasonable. But one should probably try to shoot those three shots in about a second.
We've all heard it, sometimes with three feet, sometimes with three yards, but (1) averages really don't tell us anything, and (2) the source, though sometimes attributed to "the FBI", is something like that old "a highway patrolman told me...". Note: the FBI records distances
for law enforcement shootings in which
an officer is killed.
The Rangemaster stats from "Lessons in the Street" encompass just over sixty civilian defensive shootings. Distances range from contact distance (two incidents) to several dozen feet. 95% occurred at less than 7 yards; 93% at 3-7 yards; and 80% at 3-5 yards.
Hard to get average of one yard out of those data.
One cannot predict what will happen, but taking into account those data
and the dynamics that would support a justifiable use of deadly force, it would probably be wise to concentrate most practice at ten to fifteen feet.
