I think I've had it wrong all these years

[Frank Ettin]

...any hits are likely to slow and stop the attack...

I doubt it. I don't doubt that there have been times when peripheral hits have stopped an attack. But I'm not prepared to accept the proposition that they would be likely to stop the attack, at least without some solid evidence. Do you have any? And if a peripheral hit doesn't stop the guy who's attacking you, you have just wasted some time and ammunition that may have been better applied to getting a better first hit.

There's also the question of training approach. Am I going to train to get good hits fast, or am I going to train to get bad hits fast? If I train to get good hits fast, well maybe my first shot under stress will be a poor hit -- and if so, so be it. But if I'm training to get bad hits fast, there's a real good chance that my first shot (or two or three) under stress will be misses -- and that won't help at all.

 

[Brit]

What to train for?

stephen426,

To find out what to train for, try to gather case history for shootings that have happened, real incidents. Up to 100 miles radius of your home location.

There are more of the drug dealer shooting drug dealer shootings than BG being shot by GG! The starter normally wins!

Reason? they start with gun in hand, lots of times they are more effective weapons, long guns are used by drive by artists as well, a 7.62X39 from twenty feet is an effective way of ending a territorial argument.

Definitely shoot IDPA, use your carry gear, gun/holster/mag pouch, and same cover type garment. Have gun and gear fail on a stage, not behind some building at O-dark thirty. Sights on a pistol tell you where the shot went, not where it is going, it verifies, scopes are a call the shot device.
From the holster, Punch gun forward, shot breaks as hands/arms stop forward punch, eyes behind the gun, sights kick from where the shot broke, "verification" and quick.

 

[stephen426]

The thing that caught my attention about the other guy's shooting was his unloading into the target. Inall honesty, he kind of looked like a hoodlum and I was thinking that I certainly wouldn't want to be on the business end of the barrell. I could certainly shoot much better groups than him, but how well would I be able to shoot if I was hit by 10 out of 12 round fired in about 4 seconds? Don't forget I mentioned his shots looked like a shotgun pattern which included good hits as well as bad hits. You can claim that "bad hits" won't stop a fight, but I can't see how someone could take 10 hits to the torso and still be able to fight back effectively. The first person to score a critical hit should win the fight, but I'm certain my ability to fight back would be diminished. Further more, if I took the time to get a perfect sight picture, I would probably be dead. Even if all 10 hits were non-critical, the blood loss would be very significant and the ability to control the bleeding from 10 places (possibly more if there are exit wounds) is slim to none.

In all honesty, I don't expect everyone to understand this "lightbulb moment" since they didn't see it first hand. I have been shooting for almost 15 years and I would say I am a decent shot. On the other hand, if I was facing that guy next to me, my failure to practice quick sight acquisition and rapid firing would probably end up with me loosing the fight. Try to find a range that allows rapid fire and see how well you can control your weapon. It might be harder than you think.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...but I can't see how someone could take 10 hits to the torso and still be able to fight back effectively....

Read accounts of actual gun fights. Read the Ayoob Files, the book and read his articles about actual gun fights in American Handgunner magazine. Read the account of the Miami FBI shoot out in which a mortally wounded BG was able to continue to fight and kill a number of FBI agents until he was finally stopped by a critically wounded agent. People can fight long and hard with serious, let alone peripheral, wounds.

...if I took the time to get a perfect sight picture,...

Reread some of my and others posts. No one is talking about a perfect sight picture. One of the keys to good, fast shooting is the flash sight picture -- only as good as warranted by conditions. (Another key is trigger control.)

...if I was facing that guy next to me, my failure to practice quick sight acquisition and rapid firing would probably end up with me loosing the fight....

Yes you probably would. But the answer to that problem is NOT practicing bad, fast shooting. The answer is learning and practicing good, fast shooting.

...Try to find a range that allows rapid fire and see how well you can control your weapon. It might be harder than you think....

It may be harder than one thinks, but it is possible. I've learned shoot quickly and accurately -- by competing in USPSA (Limited Division), training at Gunsite and other schools and practicing regularly.

 

[big_bang]

I practice emptying my 340PD with Speer .357 short-barrel loads into a 10" circle at 25 feet. I strive for one shot per second.

 

[David Armstrong]

No, this is why one trains to bring the weapon up to the same position every time. In doing so the sights ARE in rough alighment.

But deaf, once you get off the range and into real fights you'll find that you CAN'T always bring the weapon to the same position every time, along with assorted other issues we've been over dozens of times. Of course, as we've also seen, target-focus allows one to achieve that goal with less training, which is also a good thing.

Bull. Show us the stats that show 'any hits' are likely to slow or stop. I bet you have zero on that david.

Once again, deaf, your inability to understand basic issues in actual gunfights is showing. Most gunfights are over without any shots. Where shots are fired the usual response is for the fight to stop without any CNS hits. Perhaps you are Superman and being shot doesn't effect you at all, but for most folks it seems to have a detrimental effect to varying degrees..

 

[David Armstrong]

But I'm not prepared to accept the proposition that they would be likely to stop the attack, at least without some solid evidence. Do you have any?

Sure. Just look at the data concerning gunshots. You'll find that few of them are CNS hits, yet you will see great success at stopping the fight. The overwhelming number of "stops" in CCW gunfights appear to be psychological rather than physical (I want to as opposed to I have to).

Am I going to train to get good hits fast, or am I going to train to get bad hits fast?

I would hope one would not ever train to get bad hits. However, what one chooses to consider a bad hit is certainly open to definition.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The overwhelming number of "stops" in CCW gunfights appear to be psychological rather than physical (I want to as opposed to I have to).

So far you have stated this as fact several times in several ways. But you have not produced one shred of evidence to support this contention. I guess we'll just need to assume that you have no such evidence and that your statement is merely your unsubstantiated opinion.

In any case, if some such encounters thus end happily, some must not and require more definitive hits to settle.

 

[garryc]

Sure. Just look at the data concerning gunshots. You'll find that few of them are CNS hits, yet you will see great success at stopping the fight. The overwhelming number of "stops" in CCW gunfights appear to be psychological rather than physical (I want to as opposed to I have to).

He's right. Put it this way, I shoot a deer with a rifle and take out both lungs, he runs until the oxygen in his muscles runs out. I do the same to a human and he falls down. What's the difference? The difference is that the human knows he's been shot and the deer doesn't. The deer knows something happened, but can't comprehend it. So take a limb hit, the deer just goes "Ouch" the human "Oh my God, I've been shot!!"

Take a perp that's doped up. He might have an altered sense of reality. He keeps going because he doesn't fully comprehend what happened to him.

 

[stephen426]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen426
...but I can't see how someone could take 10 hits to the torso and still be able to fight back effectively....

Read accounts of actual gun fights. Read the Ayoob Files, the book and read his articles about actual gun fights in American Handgunner magazine. Read the account of the Miami FBI shoot out in which a mortally wounded BG was able to continue to fight and kill a number of FBI agents until he was finally stopped by a critically wounded agent. People can fight long and hard with serious, let alone peripheral, wounds.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen426
...if I took the time to get a perfect sight picture,...

Reread some of my and others posts. No one is talking about a perfect sight picture. One of the keys to good, fast shooting is the flash sight picture -- only as good as warranted by conditions. (Another key is trigger control.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen426
...if I was facing that guy next to me, my failure to practice quick sight acquisition and rapid firing would probably end up with me loosing the fight....

Yes you probably would. But the answer to that problem is NOT practicing bad, fast shooting. The answer is learning and practicing good, fast shooting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen426
...Try to find a range that allows rapid fire and see how well you can control your weapon. It might be harder than you think....

It may be harder than one thinks, but it is possible. I've learned shoot quickly and accurately -- by competing in USPSA (Limited Division), training at Gunsite and other schools and practicing regularly.

Fiddletown,

I think we are basically agreeing with each other here. Who the heck would want to make bad hits? I want to practice making good hits fast. I guess the whoe idea behind the thread is to convince poeple to move on from the typical "shoot for pretty little groups with slow aimed fire" mentality and to practice drawing quickly and getting lead on their target quickly. Without this practice, I feel most would be ill prepared for an actual gun fight. I know none of us ever intend on getting into a gun fight,, but then again don't we carry and practice just in case it might happen? Might as well practice skills that will greatly improve your ability to survive an attack.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

Most "real handgun" fights last no more than 3 rounds.

that is not always the case. In the USA it is most often but not always, in most other parts of the world, it is a horse of quite a differant color,)see my thread
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289522

although people might be thinking, yeah but that kind of thing does not happen here...well thats why we have guns right? to be prepared for the unusual.

down ehre there are weekly, gunfights that last up and over ten minutes, and involve sometimes dozens of people against eachother, or one against dozens. i say the more lead you can pump out the better.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the whoe idea behind the thread is to convince poeple to move on from the typical "shoot for pretty little groups with slow aimed fire" mentality and to practice drawing quickly and getting lead on their target quickly.

I'll go along with that as long as we can agree that we still want to stay in the A zone (or in an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper). And we must learn to make those hits quickly. If you can't shoot fast and also keep all your shots on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, you need to train until you can do so both quickly and consistently. A shot timer can be helpful. One of the standards is to draw and get two A zone hits in 1.5 seconds. Faster, with the same accuracy, is better and doable.

Another standard is a 10 to 11 second El Presidente* (with all A zone hits). This is not a tactically correct exercise but is primarily a way to test quickness of draw, shooting, target transition and reloading.
_____________
*Three standard IPSC targets are set up 1 meter (or yard) apart 10 meters (or yards) from the shooting position. The shooter starts facing up range (back to targets) with his hands held above his shoulders. His gun is loaded and in his holster (in condition 1 if it's a 1911 or BHP). On the audible start signal, the shooter turns and engages each target with two rounds, reloads, and engages each target again with two rounds.

 

[David Armstrong]

So far you have stated this as fact several times in several ways. But you have not produced one shred of evidence to support this contention.

If you need evidence to support a statement of common knowledge in DGU incidents, I'd suggest your understanding is lacking something pretty big. Do you really think that most gunfights are stopped because of CNS hits?

I guess we'll just need to assume that you have no such evidence and that your statement is merely your unsubstantiated opinion.

One can make all sorts of assumptions. I guess we can assume you are not familiar with the basics of DGU incidents and that when you say "Bad hits will most likely not slow the BG down at all; he probably won't even notice them. Only good hits are likely to slow and stop the attack" it is merely your unsubstantiated opinion and you do not have one shred of evidence to support it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If you need evidence to support a statement of common knowledge in DGU incidents, I'd suggest your understanding is lacking something pretty big. ..

Interesting approach to disputation from someone who claims to be a Ph. D. and a teacher. I guess you'd accept that sort of a response from one of your students when you've asked him for evidence. And if my understanding is lacking, kindly educate me with evidence, as befits a teacher, rather than simple bombast.

I base my opinions that bad hits probably won't necessarily stop an attack on my readings of, among others, Jim Carrillo, Dave Grossman, David Klinger and Massad Ayoob, classes at Gunsite and elsewhere with various instructor including Louis Awerbuck, Massad Ayoob and Jeff Cooper, and other reports of DGU published in books such as The Best Defense and Guns Save Lives and the "Armed Citizen" column in American Rifleman. Information from these sources lead me to the inference that while sometimes mere display of a gun or mere discharge of a gun or weak hits with a gun may sometimes break off a fight, one can't count on it. There are certainly enough credible reports of criminal assailants pressing an attack even after suffering serious wounds, and ultimately requiring multiple, solid hits to be put down, that I am motivated to train and practice to make multiple, good hits quickly.

...Do you really think that most gunfights are stopped because of CNS hits?...

Of course not, and I don't necessarily discount the psychological effects of being shot. But am I willing to count on the effectiveness of the psychological effect? No, I'm not. Do I think others should? Well that's up to them, but I'd recommend against it. The fact that in a certain number of DGUs, the effect of simply being shot is enough is no guarantee that it will work out that way in your encounter. There are too many other variables. Among other things, we know that physiologically the adrenalin dump that accompanies high stress can significantly dull the sensation of pain and give one great strength.

So I would not to want to rely upon, nor train for, delivering quick, peripheral hits and thus counting on the psychological effect. I'd want to train having the greatest physiological effect as quickly as possible. The CNS offers too small and mobile a target, so I'm left with attempting to cause as much disruption as quickly as possible to blood flow.

 

[David Armstrong]

Interesting approach to disputation from someone who claims to be a Ph. D. and a teacher.

No approach, no disputation. I've made a statement, you've made a statement. You want me to offer proof for my statement you can offer some sort of proof for yours first. BTW, I make few claims that are not easily provable as facts.

guess you'd accept that sort of a response from one of your students when you've asked him for evidence.

I would not ask my student for evidence of what is common knowledge.

I base my opinions that bad hits probably won't necessarily stop an attack ...

Should you make the statement in that form I might join with you, but that was not the statement originally given and which I addressed, which was "Only good hits are likely to slow and stop the attack." That is very different from "bad hits probably won't necessarily stop an attack". Bad hits won't necessarily stop the attacker, but they are likely to stop or slow.

So I would not to want to rely upon, nor train for, delivering quick, peripheral hits and thus counting on the psychological effect.

Don't see where anybody has suggested that is something anyone should do.

 

[Deaf Smith]

But deaf, once you get off the range and into real fights you'll find that you CAN'T always bring the weapon to the same position every time, along with assorted other issues we've been over dozens of times. Of course, as we've also seen, target-focus allows one to achieve that goal with less training, which is also a good thing.

And any idiot who has studied 'point shooting/target focused' knows you have to bring the weapon to the same place everytime. Guess you never understood Lucky McDaniel or Applegate or Fairbrain or any of those people, do you david.

Once again, deaf, your inability to understand basic issues in actual gunfights is showing. Most gunfights are over without any shots. Where shots are fired the usual response is for the fight to stop without any CNS hits. Perhaps you are Superman and being shot doesn't effect you at all, but for most folks it seems to have a detrimental effect to varying degrees..

You said "ANY HITS" david. Guess you don't have stats do you? Never heard of people taking 10, 15, 20 or more hits and still keep going have you? You have not one drop of research to back you up, right? That Phd and hedge talk you give shows.

 

[ZeSpectre]

I'll go along with that as long as we can agree that we still want to stay in the A zone (or in an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper). And we must learn to make those hits quickly. If you can't shoot fast and also keep all your shots on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, you need to train until you can do so both quickly and consistently. A shot timer can be helpful. One of the standards is to draw and get two A zone hits in 1.5 seconds. Faster, with the same accuracy, is better and doable.

Fiddletown and I may argue here and there, but this time I'm in agreement with him.

Here's what I consider an acceptable-to-great slow fire target.
(21 ft on 8.5x11 Sheet of paper)

Here's what I consider an acceptable self-defense/rapid fire target.
(50ft on 8.5x11 Sheet of paper)

 

[Frank Ettin]

David, thanks for continuing to be evasive. I can now write you off.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

I posted this to hopefully get this thread back on track and remind myself what the subject matter is:

I'm not suggesting spray and pray by any means, but rather getting so used to your primary defensive gun that you don't rely on your sights.
What do you guys think?

But deaf, once you get off the range and into real fights you'll find that you CAN'T always bring the weapon to the same position every time, along with assorted other issues we've been over dozens of times. Of course, as we've also seen, target-focus allows one to achieve that goal with less training, which is also a good thing.

In reality, one won't necessarily be able to have the same stance. But whether you're taking cover or only using one arm, don't you still lift the gun up to your sightline? I don't see where that necessarily changes often.

ZeSpectre,

I have a hard time agreeing with you on your version of acceptable self-defense/rapid fire target. Generally speaking, faster fire does induce larger patterns. But I believe that if I can't keep my shots in the vicinity of center mass or soft cavities, I have no business firing my gun at that rate. Some of those shots could very well glance off or easily pass through.

I'm sure if my life is in imminent danger of ending I wouldn't give a rats behind at the moment and will desperately do whatever it takes to stop the assailant. However, if I live through the confrontation I must be accountable for every shot fired...especially collatoral damage.

I'm arguing with myself here and I know rule #4 of Cooper's gun safety....

 

[stephen426]

Guys... (you know who you are)

Cut the petty arguements please. If someone does not agree with your position, you're not going to convince them... Especially by insulting them. No one has to offer proof to anyone and no one has to believe what anyone else is posting. If the posts makes sense to you... Great! If you disagree, state why and then move on. Are you egos so fragile that you have to be right all the time are have you taken on the "responsibility" to ensure there is no false information passed along on the Internet? I have seen plenty of good threads that could have benefitted many people get closed down for petty argueing such as this. If you feel compelled to make personal attacks or "lead someone out of their ignorance", please do it through pm's.

Rant off.