Speed and Precision (By Rob Pincus)

E

Erik

New member
I posted this elsewhere and thought it deserved it's own thread:

Speed and Precision (By Rob Pincus)

All shooting is a balance between speed and precision.

Sometimes you need to be more precise, sometimes you need to be faster. Using this concept, most defensive shooting can be described in the following way: You need to get the hit that you need to get as quickly as you can get it. This statement can be summed up in one word: Efficiency. Efficiency includes effectiveness.
In the Combat Focus ™ shooting program, we explain it this way:
• The target dictates the hit you need to get.
• Ultimately, your ability determines whether or not you get the hit.
• It is your confidence, or belief, in your ability that determines when you shoot.

The target determines the need for precision. The size of the target and the conditions under which it presents itself (movement, by standers, distance, etc.) are what determines your need for precision. You can always make the shot harder-trying to hit a button on a shirt, for example, rather than accepting any hit in the high center chest-but that works against the goal of maximum efficiency. The target and its circumstances are what determine the true need for precision.

It is your ability, with your given weapon under those given circumstances that will ultimately determine whether or not you actually get the hit you need to get. The concept should be pretty straight forward, particularly if you understand that we are not just talking about your shooting ability, but also about your ability to judge what is going on around you.

Your confidence or comfort if you will, in taking the shot at all determines when the shot is taken. Would you pull the trigger on a gun during a critical incident if you didn’t believe that you were going to be able to affect your target’s ability to hurt you or someone else? The easy and right answer is “no”. Of course there is a big exception to this rule. If you are shooting out of fear, you may be pulling the trigger as fast as you can and hoping for the best. In fact, we know this has happened many times during actual critical incidents.

You may be thinking, “So what? Isn’t this article going to tell me when I should use my sights?” No, I’m afraid it isn’t. The question “At what distance should I use my sights?” is right up there with “What gun should I carry?” as one of the least answerable questions ever asked by a student. These are questions that you have to answer. Certainly an instructor can help guide you, as this article is trying to do, but ultimately, you’re the individual ability and confidence are going to determine when you should use your sights to achieve the level of precision that you need for any given shot. I’m sure that you can imagine scenarios where you would definitely chose to use your sights to achieve a hit and those where you would not need them-only through realistic training can you test those theories.

Through realistic practical training, you will learn more about your ability under the circumstances that you are likely to find during a dynamic critical incident. Furthermore, the more realistic your training, the more likely it is to help you recognize the circumstances of a dynamic critical incident and respond more efficiently. Lastly, this type of training can also help you work with the body’s natural reactions to fear and shock and allow you to overcome the possibility of simply shooting out of fear.

The better you understand your personal balance between speed and precision, the more accurate the correlation between your belief in your ability in a dynamic critical incident and your actual ability will be, and the more efficiently you’ll be able to deal with a lethal threat.

(Rob Pincus is the Director of Operations at the world-renowned Valhalla Training Center, www.valhallatraining.com)
 
I'm hoping some interesting discussion will result.

Speed OR precision, also know as speed VS precision, seems to be most shooters default mode.

Changing the "or" and "vs" to an "and" is often times just what a shooter needs to get to the next level. It's a head game like much of what we do.

(I ran across a similar thread elsewhere and thought some may benefit from it here.)
 
Erik,

Thanks for posting this... I'm standing by to join in whenever.....

As you've probably seen in other threads, The concept of the Balance of Speed & Precision is the core of the Combat Focus Shooting Program... understanding it is the key to becoming a more efficient shooter and getting over issues like "when should I use my sights?"


-RJP
 
In real world civilian gunfights the need for speed far qut weighs the need for precsion.

In the recent civilian gunfight ranges thread Lurper posted

"Distance is usually 6 feet or less (one agency said they had no record of a civilian shooting occuring at more than 21 feet).
70% happen in the home
80% in low light or darkness
45% 1st shot hits

***
It is a safe bet that most occur at 21 feet or less. The time will be different depending on how you measure it. Number of rounds fired I am guessing will be in the neighborhood of 2-3. "

Based on what I have seen, the single most important skill to develop as a civilian is the ability to hit the target quickly."

I agree with his analysis. As long as you can get torso hits speed is far more important. The time taken to raise your pistol to eye level and align the sights is time you probably do not have.
 
+1
Quote "Through realistic practical training, you will learn more about your ability under the circumstances that you are likely to find during a dynamic critical incident. Furthermore, the more realistic your training, the more likely it is to help you recognize the circumstances of a dynamic critical incident and respond more efficiently. Lastly, this type of training can also help you work with the body’s natural reactions to fear and shock and allow you to overcome the possibility of simply shooting out of fear."

Practical training is more important than the model of gun or ammo you use. Fortunately, I have never had the " dynamic critical incident" but I think that when the adrenaline scrambles your your ability to reason and your fine motor skills, you revert back to your training.
 
The Athletic Ability to draw fast and shoot straight is not nearly as important as the ability to recognize an attack as early as possible and respond efficiently and appropriately using the environment, training and tools available.
 
"The Athletic Ability to draw fast and shoot straight is not nearly as important as the ability to recognize an attack as early as possible and respond efficiently and appropriately using the environment, training and tools available."

Can I get an "Amen?!"

Amen...

Square range aquired knowledge, skills, and abilities and insisting you're always at yellow is not enough.
 
Rob, what would you say the average person's OODA loop consists of, time wise?

For those out of the loop, so to speak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop

Why is all this important? I'm glad you asked. What ever action(s) you've practiced and ingrained will occurs at the end what should be thought of as the OODA time line. (Yes, even when you're at yellow, orange, or red.)

Which means it might come too late.
 
Erik,

That is an almost impossible question to answer, time wise... but:

The Warrior Expert Theory is based on the idea of raising awareness so that one can Recognize situations and appropriate responses, instead of having to "figure it out" or even "decide"... frequent realistic training and consitency are important factors here.

In my view, we are trying to replace "Decide" with "Know" in the sense that becuase you have experienced, simulated, visualized, etc. the situation before you are more likely to respond intuitively after your instinctive reactions kick in.

-RJP
 
Gentlemen,
Rob, what would you say the average person's OODA loop consists of, time wise?
Click to expand...

The Warrior Expert Theory is based on the idea of raising awareness so that one can Recognize situations and appropriate responses, instead of having to "figure it out" or even "decide"...
Click to expand...

Let's not confuse Erik's question about the average person with someone who is a highly trained Warrior Expert.

Too, "average person" is a bit misleading unless you truely want to average the population as a whole. By average person, I would take that to exclude those with hundreds of hours of training and practice, as well as those at the opposite end of the scale that wander through life as if the world is a round-edged, nerf-padded kindergarten class.

I'm going to spout off some personal opinions and you're free to correct me if my thinking is outdated or just plain silly. :)

For people who know crime exists but it's not "real" because they have never experienced it, rarely encounter criminals and don't know anyone who has been a victim, I'd guess that "recognition" ahead of the act will be pretty low and reaction time measured in seconds. In otherwords, reaction will be behind the curve and physical contact is very likely.

Those of us who have been exposed to crime and/or carry a firearm are probably a bit ahead of the previous group. We will likely recognize obvious signs, observe suspicious persons, vehicles or activities within 20-30 yards about 75% of the time. Reaction times are probably measured in the 10ths of seconds and if a mental plan has formed as a response it requires an obvious overt act to trigger it. Reactions will vary probably from 0.8 to 1.5 seconds depending on circumstances.

At a higher skill level, but not one in which the person has extensive training or practice, I expect that they can recognize more subtle cues as well as notice potential threat indicators. Within 20-30 yards, recognize potential crime indicators about 85% of the time and beyond 30 yards about 50% of the time. Reaction times need to be measured in 100ths of a second and this person is prepped to respond to more subtle changes in behavior as a trigger. I put many of our TFL members in this category simply because they tend to self-educate here.

In civilian life, one must be sure that the potential threat is real, not imagined. This requires identification of some action or a series of actions/events that tells the person that "sumthin' is gonna happen" and more importantly, it's gonna happen to them. We may be "behind the curve" simply due to the nature of self-defense and its legalities, but we don't have to be very far behind that curve.

The OODA loop can be scrambled by actions or observations that don't make sense or are outside of experience, forcing cognitive analysis to be performed (as opposed to simple identification-response thinking). Such as a threatening looking person entering a 7-11 who brings a 32oz slurpee to the clerk and "accidentally" spills it on the counter. Threat response diminishes when the clerk shifts from thinking "hold up man" to "mop on register 1".

Years ago, an older street officer gave me the advice remember: Eyes, Hands, Feet.
Eyes - How intently is he looking at you? Is he avoiding eye contact? Does he avoid eye contact but keep looking back briefly? If he has sunglasses, you don't know for sure where he's looking.

Hands - Where are his hands?! What are they doing? Is there anything in his hands? What is it? Hard or soft? Long or short? Hands and things held in hands are what will hurt you. Watch his hands.

Feet - Check his feet. Is he standing relaxed or ready to run(move suddenly)? Is one foot pointing in your direction so he can quickly move your way? Is his weight forward or back on his heels? Feet often move first to indicate direction.

Lastly, if someone or something appears suspicious to you, don't "give up" on that feeling merely because outward signs say you're wrong. Don't relax your guard until after you're away from the setting.
 
Bill, I think your advice is good stuff.

Understand that the Warrior Expert Theory applies to everyone. Technically, Experts respond to information differently than laymen. An expert compares information to known patterns and looks for recognition as opposed to using logic and reason to determine what the information means.

Simply by reading the information that you provided and visualizing what it means, any reader here has increased their warrior expert-ness.

I think it is hard to try to put any number on the response times after stimulus-reaction without being very specific about the person and the situation.. almost to the point of needing to measure actual (or simulated) events.

-RJP
 
OK, I've Googled around and it seems many people who study human reaction times formally or informally like to state that simple humans reaction time is around 0.25 seconds.

Simple as in "this is what is about to happen; react to it this way."
i.e. the light will go on; hit the button.

The time line plays out as more information needs to get processed.
i.e. a light of the five will go on; hit the corresponding button.

Extrapolating out, OODA wise, the real world creates quite a challenge in keeping those time lines down.
 
I'm going to have to think on the "OOKA" concept a bit. Interesting. There's still the problem of OO, but I agree that immediate, decisive action is more likely to come from "knowing" than from "deciding."
 
Bill,
I agree that it is important to keep everyone's time lines in perspective - there's a tendancy to focus on either "the average" or "the elite." The problem often becomes deciding who to model after, as neither may apply.

---

Any one else?
 
Erik,

I think that the first O... Observe... is also enhanced through training. By learning what to look for, we pick up on (recognize) threats sooner.

Another aspect of my programs that might relate here is that Competency is the responsibility of the individual. It is a truism that leads me to avoid answering questions like "how long does it take?" and "What does the average person do when..."

Outside of the predictable and observable instinctive reactions, individual intelligence, strength, coordination, etc play a huge role in responses.
 
Actually the Tueller Drill demonstrates that if you are suddenly and unexpectedly charged by a mab who is 7 yards away you have 1.5 secods to react, draw and fire before he reaches you. Again speed in gerring torso hits is more important than precsion.
 
Yes, the old dogma of the "21 foot rule" actually came from a positive defense for a police officer who was alledged to have been "wrong" for shootig a knife wielding suspect who was not "close" to him.

The defense proved that "someone" could close the distance and stab an officer in the amount of time it takes to respond and somehow the whole thing became doctrine/dogma/sacred text. With the right awareness, genetic gifts, tehcniques and training "someone" could get their gun out an stop a threat with a knife who was only 5 feet away when the atack initiated... but we're not going to make that the standard. Again, situation and individual skills. You should not oversimplify the reality of the variables.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top