Koda94 assuming you are referring to uspsa matches or the like, 1-1.5 sec would be very good (M) to good (B/C). The draw is important on speed stages or low round count but less important on field high round count stages. Reload times are generally more important IMO since almost every stage has at least one and generally has more than one. With the draw you may give up .5 sec or so on your competition, if you're not competitive with your reloads you can give up .5-1.5 sec on a stage very easily depending on the stage.
speed draw par time...?
- Thread starter Koda94
- Start date
As a new American, since 2011 a citizen. My young man years, aged 25 till 30. 1960, till 1965.
I was a Bouncer in Liverpool UK. A rough Sea Port. When you start in that job, you had to think your way through fights! It was all new.
Then you start to see the dance, for what it was, your antagonists, all though they were new people every time, followed a pattern! The stance, the aggression, even the words, were the same.
And each group of young men were out for a night out, 3 or 4 of them, a group.
Wedding rings in the pocket, in lots of cases, looking for trouble.
And here is the difference between a CCW American, not a fighter, just a Citizen of most types. Before I get a ticket home handed to me! Let me explain.
Four typical chaps out for Friday night, our trouble night, normally. In from work, quick wash, a rapid bite to eat, out on the bus, to the Big City.
Now they end up, crowded in the doorway, at say the Cavern Club, of Beatles fame, I worked there, Thur/Fri/Sat, 60 till 64.
Our job, keep the ones we perceived as trouble out! And away from our 15-year-old girls, made up to look like 20! And hi heels, short skirts.
There were two types of Door Staff, the ones on the door, the ones who just showed the flag, so to speak, walking around downstairs.
Me at 5'10" just shy of 15 stone. And I worked with George, 6'2" all bone and muscle, or Larry, just 6' and lean (found out he was SAS after he passed away) we had a license to hit! Not like now, earpiece, SECURITY on tee shirts, keep the piece type of job.
The thinking part of the fight? Not there at all. Translate that to a produce gun, shoot? Everyone now has to think of Cell phone cameras, 911 on you, etc. Which unless you are a Navy Seal or Green Berry? Spelled that wrong!
You hesitate.
You are a law-abiding citizen, and looking after your self, and significant other, with a pistol, for the first time!
I have pointed Guns at people before, no hesitation, no massive adrenalin rush, stimulass, gun out. No need to shoot. Person/persons quit what they were up too. All's well that ended well.
But I think my years of open season on Yoboes, has been good for me.
I was a Bouncer in Liverpool UK. A rough Sea Port. When you start in that job, you had to think your way through fights! It was all new.
Then you start to see the dance, for what it was, your antagonists, all though they were new people every time, followed a pattern! The stance, the aggression, even the words, were the same.
And each group of young men were out for a night out, 3 or 4 of them, a group.
Wedding rings in the pocket, in lots of cases, looking for trouble.
And here is the difference between a CCW American, not a fighter, just a Citizen of most types. Before I get a ticket home handed to me! Let me explain.
Four typical chaps out for Friday night, our trouble night, normally. In from work, quick wash, a rapid bite to eat, out on the bus, to the Big City.
Now they end up, crowded in the doorway, at say the Cavern Club, of Beatles fame, I worked there, Thur/Fri/Sat, 60 till 64.
Our job, keep the ones we perceived as trouble out! And away from our 15-year-old girls, made up to look like 20! And hi heels, short skirts.
There were two types of Door Staff, the ones on the door, the ones who just showed the flag, so to speak, walking around downstairs.
Me at 5'10" just shy of 15 stone. And I worked with George, 6'2" all bone and muscle, or Larry, just 6' and lean (found out he was SAS after he passed away) we had a license to hit! Not like now, earpiece, SECURITY on tee shirts, keep the piece type of job.
The thinking part of the fight? Not there at all. Translate that to a produce gun, shoot? Everyone now has to think of Cell phone cameras, 911 on you, etc. Which unless you are a Navy Seal or Green Berry? Spelled that wrong!
You hesitate.
You are a law-abiding citizen, and looking after your self, and significant other, with a pistol, for the first time!
I have pointed Guns at people before, no hesitation, no massive adrenalin rush, stimulass, gun out. No need to shoot. Person/persons quit what they were up too. All's well that ended well.
But I think my years of open season on Yoboes, has been good for me.
zincwarrior
New member
I am probably misperceiving Jim but I think they are referring to a Bill Drill, which was designed: 1) to test your grip and equipment via a multiple rapid fire test; 2) to just be fun as heck [blasting away 6 times as fast as you can is just plain fun].
Apologies if I am restating the obvious and this is not meant to be critical.
EDIT: seeing everyone's excellent par times, makes me feel bad.
"Timing" how long it takes in order to draw and accurately fire on a threat target has a lot to do with the conditions under which it's happening.
On the training/practice range you're expecting to shoot, probably know how to identify the threat target(s) from the non-shoot targets, the safe background has been determined for you and the emphasis is on the task at hand (meaning you're not otherwise engaged in actual activities far removed from drawing and shooting guns).
Also, and this one matters ... you're not at imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death by the "attacker" threat target. This can change things for a lot of folks, especially folks who have never faced serious danger.
Then, there can be a difference between just trying to deal with the effects of physical (muscular) stress, versus trying to overcome the unwanted effects of a hormonal fear response.
In one manner of thinking, thinking the answer lies in the isolated (to the static range) measurement of draw speed when it comes to a successful use of a handgun, is kind of like trying to measure someone's speed and ability to punch a bag, and using that measurement for predicting how successful they might be in defending themselves.
Will they react quickly and smoothly .... or will they experience the freeze part of the freeze, flight or fight psychological reaction?
Will they be able to unconsciously, and effectively, draw upon their static "training" when in the midst of a fear-driven hormonal response?
If someone is just looking to improve, smooth and quicken their normal draw/presentation? Lots of folks have already offered some normal observations about a desirable "average" timing goal ... mechanically ... meaning being able to draw and make an accurate hit, at 5-7yds, from under actual (realistic) concealment garments, using a normal carry holster, within 1.5 seconds.
In the "plainclothes/street tactics" class I attended many years ago, the students (all working cops) were told that being able to consistently get a solid, accurate hit on the threat target, drawing their working guns from under working concealment garments, ought to be able to happen in no more than 1.5 seconds, and faster was better (as long as accuracy and personal weapon handling safety didn't suffer).
It was offered as a goal for the average working cop, of average shooting skill.
Just looking to measure "sheer speed" of a draw, presentation and firing can be a distraction, or even a hindrance, though. Some folks find themselves ending up using a timer to measure how quickly they can make mistakes.
Learn and train to develop the skills. Learn to do it smoothly, and then work to do it smoothly consistently. Speed can be the consequence of proper skills development.
On the training/practice range you're expecting to shoot, probably know how to identify the threat target(s) from the non-shoot targets, the safe background has been determined for you and the emphasis is on the task at hand (meaning you're not otherwise engaged in actual activities far removed from drawing and shooting guns).
Also, and this one matters ... you're not at imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death by the "attacker" threat target. This can change things for a lot of folks, especially folks who have never faced serious danger.
Then, there can be a difference between just trying to deal with the effects of physical (muscular) stress, versus trying to overcome the unwanted effects of a hormonal fear response.
In one manner of thinking, thinking the answer lies in the isolated (to the static range) measurement of draw speed when it comes to a successful use of a handgun, is kind of like trying to measure someone's speed and ability to punch a bag, and using that measurement for predicting how successful they might be in defending themselves.
Will they react quickly and smoothly .... or will they experience the freeze part of the freeze, flight or fight psychological reaction?
Will they be able to unconsciously, and effectively, draw upon their static "training" when in the midst of a fear-driven hormonal response?
If someone is just looking to improve, smooth and quicken their normal draw/presentation? Lots of folks have already offered some normal observations about a desirable "average" timing goal ... mechanically ... meaning being able to draw and make an accurate hit, at 5-7yds, from under actual (realistic) concealment garments, using a normal carry holster, within 1.5 seconds.
In the "plainclothes/street tactics" class I attended many years ago, the students (all working cops) were told that being able to consistently get a solid, accurate hit on the threat target, drawing their working guns from under working concealment garments, ought to be able to happen in no more than 1.5 seconds, and faster was better (as long as accuracy and personal weapon handling safety didn't suffer).
It was offered as a goal for the average working cop, of average shooting skill.
Just looking to measure "sheer speed" of a draw, presentation and firing can be a distraction, or even a hindrance, though. Some folks find themselves ending up using a timer to measure how quickly they can make mistakes.
Learn and train to develop the skills. Learn to do it smoothly, and then work to do it smoothly consistently. Speed can be the consequence of proper skills development.
OldMarksman
Staff
That is a very good compilation of the conditions in which many people train and practice that are not what we find in the real world.
There's one more: the "threat target" are almost always stationary.
Many times in a physical confrontation, when your opponent is going for a concealed weapon, then you go for yours, you are at a disadvantage, you are playing catch up.
Stepping in, not back, and punching to the throat gives you the advantage back. Really hard to access a pistol, when you can not breathe!
A good program on my TV COPS. Some very good pro Officers, but one tactic I have seen over and over, the Officer exits his vehicle, and instantly draws his/her pistol? The most important hand, is tied up holding a gun?
If a person grapples with the Officer, especially impaired with drugs, or alcohol, there is every chance of losing their pistol or shoots some drunk teen, who was not armed. Just saying.
Stepping in, not back, and punching to the throat gives you the advantage back. Really hard to access a pistol, when you can not breathe!
A good program on my TV COPS. Some very good pro Officers, but one tactic I have seen over and over, the Officer exits his vehicle, and instantly draws his/her pistol? The most important hand, is tied up holding a gun?
If a person grapples with the Officer, especially impaired with drugs, or alcohol, there is every chance of losing their pistol or shoots some drunk teen, who was not armed. Just saying.
OldMarksman
Staff
Possibly, but it all creates a risk of your having your firearm taken, or your being slapped, stabbed, struck, or gouged.
Add that to the risk that eyewitnesses may believe you to have been the aggressor, which would of course badly weaken your defense of justification, and it does not sound at all prudent to me.
Deaf Smith
New member
And how FB! I'm so fast I go back in time (and fix my mistakes.)
Kind of like Bill Jordan, "speed is fine, accuracy is final". And "Smooth is fast".
Hope things are well with you FB!
Deaf
Its my opinion ...that a draw to 1 shot at a 1 sec Par Time....is a highly trained & proficient shooter...especially if they are 95% or higher on A zone hits. ( 1 miss to a B zone out of 20 times running Draw & Fire 1 is 95%...)..if all under Par time.
As I get closer to 70, eyes are not good, arthritis, etc...I'm content with a Par time of 1.85....probably class B/ C range...for draw to 1 shot../ ...and i work hard to keep my rythum smooth & consistent and my followup shots Par time of ( 0.3 sec ).
My personal goal is 92% or better using the ICE target against those par times...if I exceed Par it costs me 2 pts ...so a draw & fire 4 rds is 2.75 sec par time, but I want to run it consistently around 2.5 - 2.6 sec...at around 95% or better in A zone for a fundamental drill like that. ( so run it 5 times, 20 shots, 1 miss to B zone max.../ all under Par will give me 95% ). I train twice a week....to keep that drill ( draw fire 4 at or above 95%).
For a beginner, I think a per time Draw to 1 shot should start at 3 sec...and work it down to 2 sec, if they can keep at least 90 % on the A zone. Build those fundamentals ...and split times of ( 0.5 sec ). If they drop below 90%...move the time back up, make them earn it.
My point is ...set a Par time ...with an accuracy goal. I can shoot to a 1 sec par time, if I can live with a 75% accuracy..../ or 1.5 sec draw & fire 2...
I would love to tell you I'm running my drills at 100% often, but it would be a lie..../ there are a lot of days when 96's - 98's sneak in there...( not that it matters, but I shoot a full sized 1911, 5" gun, in 9mm..). Among my buddies, in our 60's & 70's...we shoot matches weekly amongst ourselves...and I don't lose often ...and my avg hovers around 95% on a rolling 8 week basis...different COF every week...speed reloads, tac reloads, etc..( so i'm meeting my goal of 92% or better for the year....even when I choked a little on 4 matches this year and put up a couple of 90's and a couple of 88's...
As I get closer to 70, eyes are not good, arthritis, etc...I'm content with a Par time of 1.85....probably class B/ C range...for draw to 1 shot../ ...and i work hard to keep my rythum smooth & consistent and my followup shots Par time of ( 0.3 sec ).
My personal goal is 92% or better using the ICE target against those par times...if I exceed Par it costs me 2 pts ...so a draw & fire 4 rds is 2.75 sec par time, but I want to run it consistently around 2.5 - 2.6 sec...at around 95% or better in A zone for a fundamental drill like that. ( so run it 5 times, 20 shots, 1 miss to B zone max.../ all under Par will give me 95% ). I train twice a week....to keep that drill ( draw fire 4 at or above 95%).
For a beginner, I think a per time Draw to 1 shot should start at 3 sec...and work it down to 2 sec, if they can keep at least 90 % on the A zone. Build those fundamentals ...and split times of ( 0.5 sec ). If they drop below 90%...move the time back up, make them earn it.
My point is ...set a Par time ...with an accuracy goal. I can shoot to a 1 sec par time, if I can live with a 75% accuracy..../ or 1.5 sec draw & fire 2...
I would love to tell you I'm running my drills at 100% often, but it would be a lie..../ there are a lot of days when 96's - 98's sneak in there...( not that it matters, but I shoot a full sized 1911, 5" gun, in 9mm..). Among my buddies, in our 60's & 70's...we shoot matches weekly amongst ourselves...and I don't lose often ...and my avg hovers around 95% on a rolling 8 week basis...different COF every week...speed reloads, tac reloads, etc..( so i'm meeting my goal of 92% or better for the year....even when I choked a little on 4 matches this year and put up a couple of 90's and a couple of 88's...
Pretty well.
Finally decided to turn in my reserve badge, ID, weapon and instructor/armorer's position at my former agency. They tried to find ways to interest me in remaining to continue to help teach (especially classes), but it was time. (Having been formally separated for several months hasn't stopped some occasional calls asking for advice in trouble shooting, repairs, training, etc, though.
)I've not yet decided whether I want to start writing for publication (after some prompting from someone in the biz), now that I'm no longer officially and actively connected to an agency.
Busy spoiling granddaughters, enjoying riding bikes (MC's), keeping those hard-acquired unarmed, stick and blade skills from totally rusting over, discovering ways to exercise without risking injuries, enjoying cigars and adult beverages with the group at my cigar club, etc.
7 years cancer-free this last July.
Hope you're also doing well. This whole aging thing makes me wish I'd read the fine print some years earlier.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
My understanding of the 21 foot (7 yard) rule is not to state you need to shoot in 1.5 seconds or less. It is to say you can't shoot fast enough even if you are the fastest in the world. Even if you draw and fire, the target will be close enough their momentum will still drive them into you, and, if they have presented a blade, it may still cause you harm.
Unless you 'move off the X'.
To safely stop the threat reliably you would need to shoot MUCH MUCH faster. Maybe .5 or even .25.
I also understand the rule is now taught as 30/10.
Consistent is far more important than absolute speed IMO.
Unless you 'move off the X'.
To safely stop the threat reliably you would need to shoot MUCH MUCH faster. Maybe .5 or even .25.
I also understand the rule is now taught as 30/10.
Consistent is far more important than absolute speed IMO.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
There's really no "rule."johnwilliamson062 said:
Dennis Tueller (a Salt Lake City police officer) developed the exercise to test at what distances an assailant with a contact weapon could be a credible threat. But folks seem perversely to not want to understand the real meaning of the Tueller data (and it is not a "rule").
The point Tueller was trying to make with his exercises is that an assailant 21(+/-) feet away with a contact weapon needs to be taken seriously as a threat. You need to take him seriously as a threat because (1) he can cover the distance between you and him in a short time; and (2) it will take you a roughly comparable amount of time to draw and fire your gun.
Tueller's original article may be read here. Notice that Tueller talks about how being able to recognize what your danger zone is and that someone in it is a credible threat allows one to take early, appropriate defensive, risk mitigating actions.
As Tueller says in the article:
So the real point of the training exercise is to help understand one's danger zone -- how close an assailant with a contact weapon must be to be considered a lethal threat. And so the exercise and data can help define the problem, and once the problem is understood, we can consider strategies to deal with it.
And so, as Tueller says:
And yes, it appears that the "danger zone" is increasing. At least in part because to the adoption of retention service holsets which slow down deployment of the gun.
Last edited:
Deaf Smith
New member
No. CNS shots will drop ANYONE right there in their tracks. Pelvis shots can cripple them and they will fall right there. Different people will react differently. And being cut, if you are cut, can easily be non-fatal.
Deaf
Draw and fire 1 round on a target at 10 yards? I'm going to posit that the target size should be roughly 8" (to at least get a lung shot). That's what I practice with anyway.
My time at 10 yards is right at 1.5 for an accurate shot from a retention holster. My failure drills (2 center, 1 head) are fairly accurate at 2.5 seconds (with the occasional flyer). Any faster and accuracy suffers. I honestly haven't tried it at 7 yards, I kind of want to now. I always practice at a distance greater than standard, more in hopes that time/accuracy will go up when I drop down to the standard. Kind of like if you want to run 2 miles really fast, practice running 3 miles...
My time at 10 yards is right at 1.5 for an accurate shot from a retention holster. My failure drills (2 center, 1 head) are fairly accurate at 2.5 seconds (with the occasional flyer). Any faster and accuracy suffers. I honestly haven't tried it at 7 yards, I kind of want to now. I always practice at a distance greater than standard, more in hopes that time/accuracy will go up when I drop down to the standard. Kind of like if you want to run 2 miles really fast, practice running 3 miles...
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Sorry, that just isn't how physics works. If they are running at you full tilt they don't just drop directly down. I never said the wound would be fatal. I, by a large margin, prefer to avoid knife wounds, even if not fatal.
http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx
No one here is my professor. Law nor English. It has been colloquially referred to as the '21 foot rule' for longer than I have been alive. It is given as such by many force on force instructors and in publications. I've been cleared to engage with deadly force if the criteria are met previously. Maybe you expect there to be some sort of watchdog such as the ASALE to define such things. I do not.
I will admit my previous statement could benefit from more modal verbs.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
So you cite an article in which the author (1) refers to the Tueller exercise as a "rule"; and (2) explains in great detail why it can't be considered a rule. As Dr. Martinelli tells us in the article:johnwilliamson062 said:
And the fact that many people might share a common, erroneous understanding of something is no reason to perpetuate that error by repeating or defending that misunderstanding. In fact, it's a reason for those who know and properly understand the subject to provide accurate information and correct the misunderstanding.
You've been cleared to use lethal force? Really? By whom? How wonderful for you.johnwilliamson062 said:
Did you get some sort of certificate calligraphed by hand on vellum to hang on your wall? Do you also have a handy laminated card to carry in your wallet?
Of course not. Quite the opposite in fact.johnwilliamson062 said:
The author of the article you linked to, Dr. Martinelli, understands even if you do not:
While I'm not even remotely anyone's idea of an 'expert' in this sort of thing, I have invested a fair number of years in having to keep relatively current on things of this sort (as a LE firearms instructor), and I've listened to Dennis Tueller explain his experience and thinking regarding the development of the "drill" back then (I attended couple classes where he was serving as an instructor for Glock armorer classes).
He's a very interesting person to listen to, especially when you're able to get him aside in a small group, like 2 or 3 people (during a break).
One thing he mentioned one time was that if he were going to go back and "redo" the drill, he'd probably increase the distance to cover more like 30ft.
There are many things to think about regarding some of the important considerations to be learned from his well considered effort, meaning some of the 'variables', such as defender position at the awareness of the perceived threat, attempting to gain distance (from the attacker) and beneficial defender actions (movement, accurate shots fired, etc).
Students (LE, and lawfully armed citizens) would be wise to apply some of the insights he developed, but to always remember that each possible incident is probably always going to be somewhat unique, as circumstances can easily vary from one situation to the next.
Environmental 'problems' can easily change from one situation to another, not the least of which is whether a defender even has the ability to move in some direction, aided or hindered by the presence of 'things', such as cars (parked, or even moving traffic), walls, fences, doorways (doors which can be closed) ... and whether it occurs indoors or outdoors.
Being trapped within a constricted hallway, or being able to take advantage of moving to place "barriers" between the attacker and the defender (furniture, tables, etc), can all present situational variables ... as well as the nature of the weapon an attacker is attempting to use (knife, club, firearm, etc).
This might be best viewed as part of an individual's learning process, meaning being able to apply some of the potential insights gained from things learned in such a "drill" to their other training and knowledge, including experiential knowledge. Not just some "rule" to be held up as a fixed thing.
But then, I'm not anybody's expert, all things considered.
He's a very interesting person to listen to, especially when you're able to get him aside in a small group, like 2 or 3 people (during a break).
One thing he mentioned one time was that if he were going to go back and "redo" the drill, he'd probably increase the distance to cover more like 30ft.
There are many things to think about regarding some of the important considerations to be learned from his well considered effort, meaning some of the 'variables', such as defender position at the awareness of the perceived threat, attempting to gain distance (from the attacker) and beneficial defender actions (movement, accurate shots fired, etc).
Students (LE, and lawfully armed citizens) would be wise to apply some of the insights he developed, but to always remember that each possible incident is probably always going to be somewhat unique, as circumstances can easily vary from one situation to the next.
Environmental 'problems' can easily change from one situation to another, not the least of which is whether a defender even has the ability to move in some direction, aided or hindered by the presence of 'things', such as cars (parked, or even moving traffic), walls, fences, doorways (doors which can be closed) ... and whether it occurs indoors or outdoors.
Being trapped within a constricted hallway, or being able to take advantage of moving to place "barriers" between the attacker and the defender (furniture, tables, etc), can all present situational variables ... as well as the nature of the weapon an attacker is attempting to use (knife, club, firearm, etc).
This might be best viewed as part of an individual's learning process, meaning being able to apply some of the potential insights gained from things learned in such a "drill" to their other training and knowledge, including experiential knowledge. Not just some "rule" to be held up as a fixed thing.
But then, I'm not anybody's expert, all things considered.
Deaf Smith
New member
Outstanding FB. I say enjoy your grandchildren and cigars/beverages more! You have done your share, and more, so you owe them nothing. You can share your knowledge via writing.
Speaking of skills rusting, just picked up a used S&W 642, real cheap, so I can do very close quarters practice on the range, just for those 'Tueller' situations. Practiced with it today using light reloads and my favorite appendix position holster then, being a practice gun, just stuck it in the gun bag and haven't cleaned it yet.
Deaf