Is a fast draw the most important skill for deadly force encounters?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Another thing to practice is on making time when there is none available. For example throwing an object at the threats head makes a small amount of time available to you and also moves the point of concentration of the threat from you to avoiding the thrown object.

For those of you with a shot timer, have a friend ask you a question and let him trigger the buzzer while you are answering it. See what that time looks like compared to your normal non-verbal draw.

Also, there is a big underlying fallacy to the “fast draw” theory, and that is that the first shot to hit will stop the fight. That’s highly unlikely with a pistol. Unless you get a hit on the upper central nervous system, that person can be dead on their feet but still have lots of time to shoot/stab, etc.

If I can create time, I’d use that time to find cover.

 

[tipoc]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by a verbal or nonverbal interview?

I think he means that people talk to each other, often, before they start shooting.

tipoc

 

[5whiskey]

What commands can Joe Citizen issue that he can actually stand behind? I would think (and that's all it is, thought, but what is your experience as a cop?) that if Joe says "Back away" or "Don't come closer" or "Do not put your hand in your pocket," those are all linked to belief in imminent danger, and if he shoots because the other guy continues reaching into his pocket, it would be justified.

Good question, with no solid "best" (or even good) answer. If you draw and present a firearm, and the guy completely ignores your commands... that's a rough spot. Do you risk being seriously injured or killed by hesitating long enough to confirm that he's trying to produce a deadly weapon? Do you decide to shoot? What if he doesn't have a deadly weapon? Are there any other witnesses, or is there a video there to corroborate your account of what happened? Do you have an attorney retained? I hope so. What I really hope is this. Your particular scenario to never happen to anyone. I will say that in this case, if you have no reasonable avenue of escape or de-escalation, MY PERSONAL BELIEF is that the use of deadly force would be justified if the threat continued to act aggressive and was trying to pull "an object" from a pocket or waistband.

The problem with that statement above is "MY PERSONAL BELIEF." Ask 10 prosecutors, 5 may believe it's self defense and no charges are needed while the other 5 may believe it needs to be put before a jury. Where do you live? In Southern California? That 50/50 ratio may turn into a 90/10 of prosecutors who would push for charges. In rural Alabama? It may turn 90/10 the other way. Another issue is what evidence will corroborate your account of the incident. If you have good witnesses, injuries from the initial unarmed scuffle, video surveillance footage, etc. odds are more in your favor. If absolutely none of this exists, and the only evidence is your statement... that's not a situation I would want to be in.

ON the other hand if Joe commands them to lie on the ground, or to stay put until police arrive, and the guy doesn't comply, what can Joe do about it? Where is the risk that issuing armed commands becomes the thing that escalates the situation?

Joe Citizen's primary concern should be getting away from threat. That is the purpose of any form of self-defense. If you draw down and give commands, and the guy freezes but also doesn't really comply (you order to get on the ground, he doesn't), your recourse then is to find a way to back out of this situation. You've bought yourself some time, use it. Start backing away, sidestepping, whatever you need to do. The goal isn't to make threat comply, the goal is to get away from threat. Whether this happens by the threat disengaging, or by you disengaging, matters not.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

He is talking about Managing Unknown Contacts

 

[5whiskey]

It doesn’t get much talk on gun forums because it is kind of a boring subject; but the non-violent skills are the most important in a deadly force encounter. Basically battlefield prep at the individual level.

^This as well. With the most important one of all being to avoid the deadly force encounter altogether by avoiding circumstances that make it more likely. But still, you can't mitigate everything. That's why we do train on the "violent skills." There are certain cases where everything else was done right, and there was just no avoiding the encounter. It's rare though.

Fortunately when I have gotten my weapon out first the bad guys decided too stop what they had in mind. If you have to draw your weapon and not have to use it call the police anyways and tell them what happened.

As is the case 99% of the time, which is why our hypothetical "Joe Citizen" situation has about a 1 in a million or less chance of happening.

 

[Rangerrich99]

I couldn't say whether it's the most important skill, but I believe that it's definitely a required skill set for anyone that carries a gun for defense.

To wit:

Having assisted a friend of mine while he teaches a fundamentals course (mostly I help set up target frames and clean up, but I also handle some of the camera duties and I'm available to the students to answer questions they might have, and of course helping to ensure safe practices during drills), I've seen students that obviously have never spent any time drawing their weapon and executing a drill.

I've seen students fumble the draw so badly they sometimes dropped their weapon.

Others that took more than 5 seconds to draw and begin firing, students that muzzled themselves and others while trying to re-holster their weapon.

And so on.

Many of these students could shoot acceptably accurately once they got on target, and if the BG wasn't looking at them while they tried to get their weapon pointed downrange, they'd be okay with their 5+ second basically incompetent draw stroke, probably.

However, how about his scenario (this actually happened, except no good guy with a gun was present): you and your family/friends/date are having a bite at a local diner/restaurant. You excuse yourself to use the restrooms, and a few minutes later you return to the table.

As you are walking back, you hear gunshots inside the diner.

You come into view of your table to see the shooter standing just a few feet from your table. He's just finished shooting a couple at the table next to your party. With your family/friends/date cowering underneath/behind their table, People are screaming, crawling, running. The shooter then turns towards your family/friends/date as they cower underneath/behind their table. But you are slightly behind the shooter, and this angle gives you a safe shooting angle. He's likely going to fire his weapon at your people in the next few seconds.

Now how important is it to get your gun out of its holster and firing in the least amount of time? I guess it depends on how much you like your family/friends/date.

I've also watched my share of YT gunfight videos. I've been paying particular attention to the failures. I've noticed that a number of these "good guys with guns" fail because they have issues with getting their gun into the fight. Not most of them, but a fair percentage.

Of course, I'm not saying that they would've won their engagements had they drawn their gun "lightning quick," but at least they might've had a chance.

Now I don't have a "lightning-quick" draw stroke, but I practice my draw stroke 25 times every morning, 5 days a week. I average about 1.2 to 1.3 seconds from buzzer to first shot, from polo shirt concealment. That's not going to be fast enough to win any tournaments, but it's quick, and more importantly, it's consistent; it's basically become instinctual at this point.

Now, as others have said, the majority of the time, a super-fast draw isn't probably going to come into play in a "typical" gunfight, but history shows us that sometimes it is a useful skill to have.

 

[labnoti]

The skills that keep you out of gun-action are always going to be more important. Next most important would be the skills that allow you to make good decisions on use-of-force.

But if we're considering weapon-handling skills exclusively, I don't think that time to draw is the most critical, but it can depend on what kinds of lethal-force encounters you might encounter. We might categorize them as:

crimes of opportunity against a person (armed robbery, mugging, assault, carjacking)
home invasion
domestic violence
acts of terrorism
mass shooter
assassination attempt

In some of these encounters, you might be a bystander, at least at first. In some, you have a chance to comply (hand over your wallet) and survive. In others, you have to fight to survive. Just opening the cash register might cause an armed robber to leave you alone, but it won't stop an assassin. If you start out as a bystander to terrorism, mass shooting, or domestic violence, you have to decide if and when to intervene.

While being able to draw smoothly, consistently, and without fumbling is critical, most lethal-force encounters aren't quick-draw competitions. So while drawing is super important, if tenths of a second are going to be critical, you might be better off not drawing. If it's really down to tenths, you might be trying to draw when your opponent already has the drop on you.

Whatever the encounter, the chances are your opponent is ahead of you because they initiated the attack. If they're using a weapon merely for intimidation (armed robbery), you might have to "wait your turn" and look for a better opportunity for a counter-ambush. You have a better chance with "compliance," or doing whatever your attacker wants until you get a better opportunity than one where tenths of a second matter.

So I would rate skill in drawing as very important, but not necessarily sheer speed in the draw, especially if the super-quick-draw speed you endeavor to attain is only practical with a special stance, two-hands available, and other controlled variables all in your favor.

 

[FireForged]

winning a fight can hinge on 1 issue but generally speaking, it hinges on several things. The key is to identify the most practical skills and develop them. Being super fast can make up for some deficiencies in other areas but I wouldn't count on it. I think that speed of draw is not likely to be the deciding factor in many gunfights but it could be.

I think that the speed in which a persons realized that danger is unfolding, the speed in which they reconcile the need to act and the mental fortitude needed to carry out a forceful response is probably as important.

I have never tried to be a fast draw, I simply try to make the process unencumbered as possible. The speed associated with that process is simply a byproduct not a primary goal. I am not trying to be fast, I am trying to be fluid/smooth.

The skills I consider most practical:

Awareness
Judgment
Mental Resolve (grit)
Tactics
Strategics
Marksmanship
Smooth, practiced and unencumbered presentation of a weapon
Fitness

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Now how important is it to get your gun out of its holster and firing in the least amount of time? I guess it depends on how much you like your family/friends/date

It is a lot less important than making a good hit; because just shooting him in the chest isn’t going to stop him from firing.

Again, pistols are weak. Regular people can get shot dead center and still be able to shoot back, move, stab, etc. I read a case the other day where someone was shot under the chin, it exited the top of the head. 9mm FMJ. Due to various circumstances, police weren’t even notified for 5-10 minutes. After police were called, they jocked up, established a perimeter, and entered. The guy shot through his head was mobile, alert to time and circumstances, and communicating with them, albeit with difficulty. He was also trying to provide himself first aid, although not super effectively.

Yet this whole “fast draw” premise is based on the mistaken belief that the first hit ends the fight.

 

[Rangerrich99]

It is a lot less important than making a good hit; because just shooting him in the chest isn’t going to stop him from firing.

Again, pistols are weak. Regular people can get shot dead center and still be able to shoot back, move, stab, etc. I read a case the other day where someone was shot under the chin, it exited the top of the head. 9mm FMJ. Due to various circumstances, police weren’t even notified for 5-10 minutes. After police were called, they jocked up, established a perimeter, and entered. The guy shot through his head was mobile, alert to time and circumstances, and communicating with them, albeit with difficulty. He was also trying to provide himself first aid, although not super effectively.

Yet this whole “fast draw” premise is based on the mistaken belief that the first hit ends the fight.

Well, obviously you have to get good hits. I wasn't saying that we should fire blindly without aiming at all. That would be stupid. Aiming and getting good hits on target is just part and parcel of one of the necessary skill sets required to increase your odds of surviving a gunfight, right? Firing a bunch of un-aimed rounds at a BG was never part of any thought process I have ever considered.

As for your anecdote, while I believe it happened, I don't believe that in most cases people that are shot in the head just walk away as if nothing happened. In fact, most of the videos I've seen of people being shot with handguns show that most of the time people react negatively to being shot. They go down. They run away. They noticed that they were shot. And in many cases they even die, despite the incredible weakness of pistol cartridges.

And who would shoot just one un-aimed round at the BG when he's about to take out your family/friends?

I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here. It's always been my understanding no matter what weapons training I was learning, that I must strive to learn and master each skill set to the best of my ability, period. And learning to draw my gun quickly and efficiently and then put multiple aimed rounds downrange is part of the skill set included in learning to shoot defensively, or so I was taught.

Otherwise, shouldn't we all just be learning to shoot bulls-eye, or off bags/a rest only, and forget about combat shooting techniques altogether?

 

[44 AMP]

Yet this whole “fast draw” premise is based on the mistaken belief that the first hit ends the fight.

And not a bit of assumption that the fastest draw will be the first hit.

I practice my draw stroke 25 times every morning, 5 days a week. I average about 1.2 to 1.3 seconds from buzzer to first shot,

cool, that's a bit of shooting, now what do those rounds HIT??? (or is it time from buzzer to trigger pull with no actual shooting??)

because the fastest draw means NOTHING without good hits.

There's a story in the movie UNFORGIVEN, about the guy who might have won the shootout, if he hadn't been the fastest draw...

Something to consider, despite the obvious risk, a slower accurate hit beats a faster miss.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, obviously you have to get good hits

Well, how are we defining good hits? Because A-zone hits on an IDPA target are not the same as hits that stop a fight.

I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I’m saying being the first one to land a hit isn’t the same as winning the fight. I’m not sure how to make that any clearer?

The whole “fast draw s the most important skill” relies on an unrealistic belief that a pistol will stop a fight with the first hit; but I’ve reviewed a few shootouts and that rarely happens.

And in many cases they even die, despite the incredible weakness of pistol cartridges.

Around 80% of the people shot with a handgun in the U.S. survive.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let’s look at an actual shooting. Our CHL is a supervisor for unloading trucks at a big box store. Solid, middle-class job with low risk of getting robbed. His only major lifestyle risk is he works a 12hr shift and comes home during the witching hours.

He arrives at his apartment complex and is approached from multiple directions by three males with guns who command him to “Give it up!” and open fire as soon as the words are out of their mouth. He is hit in the dominant hand, weak arm, and abdomen before he can even get to his own gun. Despite the injuries, he returns fire and hits two of three attackers, driving them away.

Was a fast draw his most important skill? I’m sure he didn’t want to be any slower; but he won the fight despite being slower than his attackers. And he showed amazing resilience in being able to switch from “Man, I just spent 12 hours unloading trucks and now I’m home. I am really ready to kick back.” to “I need to kill these people to survive.”

He didn’t flee or “give it up”, he kicked in to fight mode and fought with his dominant hand already out of commission. His attackers on the other hand, started running as soon as he started shooting back. The most important aspect of that fight wasn’t a fast draw but a will to win.

And of course, a little better performance on observation and orientation might have made the whole fight unnecessary. Smooth, efficient, weapons manipulation is an important detail; but it isn’t the most important. It probably isn’t in the top five. Really, tedious, non-gun, observational stuff is at the top of that particular pyramid.

Important point: the pistol did not stop anybody in this fight. Everybody involved had the ability to continue the fight if they chose to. Only one guy made that choice. He won.

 

[JohnKSa]

As one person put it "don't go to stupid places, where stupid people, do
stupid things". The gentleman speaking knew of what he spoke and said this would cut your chances of attack by 80%.

I've heard this called "The Rules of Stupid" and stated as:

Don't go stupid places at stupid times with stupid people to do stupid things.

 

[mehavey]

Fast draw? No.

1. Speed of Decision.
2. Depth of Determination.

... both of which have already been discussed here in detail.

I would only offer what lawmen already know.
- If you see the gun, you're likely already dead.
- Save for #2 . . . which you will never truly know until after the fact.

 

[Blue Duck]

Well, of course situational awareness and staying out of trouble is best. But if all of that fails, and it's a shooting situation, then I want be the first to fire and keep firing until the threat is over. If I can't be first, then I at least want to be fast and accurate with my response, or escape the threat if that works.

As an armed civilian, I can very easily see how, at the very least, I might end up behind the curve when the fight starts. I might need to catch up quick, so if I am not dead or incapacitated already, I want the fastest of fastdraws in my toolbox, and accuracy to go with it.

 

[briandg]

The fast draw is nonsense.

For one thing, can a person really whip his pistol around and have the control needed to get on target? Isn't the most important thing to get on target and fire before the other guy gets a hit in? You can get the first deadly shot in without having a draw speed of 0.1 second.

Isn't getting the first shot in dependent on a wise and careful decision? If you haven't gone through the few seconds of planning beforehand, you will be grabbing and scrambling because you just saw a threat. Fast draw = Grab and scramble unless you have reached expert level and then added the mental skills required to do so under stress, under the gun, while surprised. Surprise and coordination and careful shot placement are completely impossible combinations.

I personally can draw and fire pretty rapidly, and I've trained myself to do so fluidly. I know that I am never going to be able to beat the already armed bad guy unless he's a real clod. So, where would having a fast draw (grab and scramble) put me? It puts me at gunpoint with a guy who may or may not be able to simply pull the trigger that is already pointed at my chest.

IMO being the first one in action is very overrated. Being proficient at the whole sequence is what you need. To be able to put your eye on target and accurately fire that gun at the target before your opponent can.

If you can get the gun on target in one second, that's good enough if the other guy is slower. my father in law told me about his quick draw training.

I stood at the mirror and worked on my fast draw until I was faster than that guy in the mirror.

He demonstrated once for me and couldn't get within the target frame at 50 feet.

Come on, pops.

So, the simplest part of all of this is that you must develop handling skills because being fast gives you no advantage if you drop the thing trying to drag it out from under your coat.

 

[sigxder]

Nonverbal interview would be the classic guy hanging out trying not to look to obvious. Leaning on a wall and say acting like he's talking on phone. The whole time scanning. If you make eye contact he will usually look away. Or you may catch them looking to long at someone. Often your gut will tell you something is wrong here. He's looking for the obvious signs that say easy victim.
Walking with short steps with head down. Or having on ear buds, talking on your cell phone, just oblivious to what is going on around you. Looking for an easy mark. Might start to follow after victim is selected. Just a few examples.
Give you an example of a blatant example. It was not verbal. And it involved testing the victims reactions. Years ago I was teaching some students Martial Arts. One of the young ladies was very attractive and worked at a restaurant.
I guy they hired started going up to the different waitresses. Giving them a pinch. And seeing their reaction. One of the girls cried. My student gave him a good kick and whacked him in the head with a serving tray.
He was fired and walked out of the place of business. He waited that night and attacked the girl that had been timed and afraid. He was testing them to see who would or would not put up resistance.
Verbal I can give you an example that happened recently here. At a local market attached to gas station a man was hanging around in the store and approaching people telling them he was short of money and needed a few bucks. He said he was "trying to do right. Bu his friends had encouraged him to get a tree branch and hit people in the head". It was a form of strong arming in a manner. But it was a threat of violence to see how you would respond. One of the more overt ones.

 

[tipoc]

I've watched all of Raylan Givens. I've watched all of Jason Bourne and all the John Wick movies several times. To add to this I just finished binge watching season 2 of The Punisher. So I'm ready on the quick draw! Ready for this discussion!

Non verbal interview? That's me slapping a fool with my pistol. Or better yet his pistol that I grabbed off him. Like Sam Spade slapping Joel Cairo.

What ya want to know?

tipoc

 

[OldMarksman]

Fast draw is a TV line of bull made famous by all the westerns that used to be on TV. It's a fantasy.

Western style fast draw is a fantasy.

However, anyone who has participated in a "Tueller" drill, and most people who have participated in realistic FoF simulations, realize that once a violent attack begins, it will proceed very rapidly, and it will not last long, however it ends.

If the use of a firearm is needed, and if the defender cannot produce it very quickly and use it effectively, the defender will lose.

I think someone's been watching too much TV.

There are probably two areas in which people are misled by screen fiction. One is the speed with which a violent criminal acts unfold. The screenwriters slow it down so that the audience does not miss anything.

The other is the way a single shot from a handgun is always shown as immediately effective. That is simply unrealistic.