speed draw par time...?

Deaf Smith said:
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
Click to expand...

Thanks. ;) Doing my best. Spent the evening with friends at my cigar club, including another retired cop and his wife (she's still a working cop with 15 more years to go), enjoying a couple of fine cigars.

From a personal perspective, the Centennial style J-frame is one of those quintessential wheelguns that just gets better with age and use.

I own more than half a dozen J's, including a couple of 642's. I also have a couple of M&P 340's (one from their first run, and then a later production no-lock model). I look at the M&P 340's as being sort of an "improved" 642, meaning having a better sight setup and being a couple ounces lighter, even with its PVD blackened stainless cylinder, which can handy for long days of pocket carry.

I always try to keep a dirty J in the safe, so I always have a ready excuse to take one whenever I go to the range. ;)
 
Outside of competition games I think way too much weight is put on raw speed. It is far more important to train to start moving as soon as anything happens and develop a system with consistent times. I have not heard of any place where you can get into legal trouble for moving in response to a threat. They threat may shoot, lunge, or whatever, but at least you are moving if they do. Just like how many shots you need you can't predict how fast you will need to be.

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?
Click to expand...
Of course not. I received assurances of a lawyer, liability insurance, political pressure, and hopes of a short ride in a laundry cart if it came to that.

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.
Click to expand...
Every rule, even with firearms, is more complicated than one sentence can describe. Exceptions abound.
1. A gun is always loaded. 2.Never point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy. 3. Always keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target.
Then you go to a clays event and a guy carries a broke shotgun around muzzling everyone and when he walks up to the line he pulls his release trigger before he even calls for the pigeon/clay/target.

If someone does not understand a person who has been tipped out of their wheelchair, but is still wielding a knife on the ground basically immobilized, is not an immediate physical threat simply because they are 18 feet away; discussing the issue with them is not likely to be effective.

I'm not reciting that article verbatim every time the issue comes up or carrying a copy around in my wallet. When the term is used, if anyone doesn't understand, then a more in depth discussion is warranted. An excess of modal verbs is probably best.

"21 foot observation"
"21 foot guideline"
Reword it in a standard for that is not as definitive as some tend to word it.
This thread is missing a mandatory item:
Surrounded man injures several and kills one armed officer with knife.
Yes, there are a lot of obvious poor training issues in that video.
 
Last edited:
Gaming aside.

If you can draw from concealed and get your first round into your attackers COM, in 1.5 sec, in the real world, your as fast or faster than 90 percent of carriers walking the street.

A 1.5 draw to fire will beat the Tuller drill all day unless you glue the defenders feet to ground.
 
I think Frank hit the nail on the head on post #34. The idea is to recognize that a contact weapon is a serious threat at about 21 feet since the average person can close that gap in around 2 seconds. Is it a hard and fast rule? Absolutely not. Some attackers may be faster (let's hope Usain Bolt doesn't turn to a life of crime LOL) and some shooters may be faster (Jerry Miculek anyone?). Keep you eyes and ears open and give yourself as much time to react without being the aggressor.
 
Yea.. but what is this "average person"? Average means arithmetic mean... mediocrity... would not even get to pass a test with a 50 percent score.

So did they test 500 individuals on the 21 ft course and clock them? No?

In short it's meaningless as for this drill.

Deaf
 
That is 21 feet (7 yards) from a standing start in 1.5 seconds. Yes it's an average as tested by a police sergeant using volunteers. It has been verified many times with runners and shooters under a variety of conditions. The problem I see with this "rule" is that we all know one shot may not stop an attacker and there is no time for a second shot.
If a man has a knife in his hand and starts to run at you, you are going to be stabbed or slashed. You have to be alert to everyone in your "threat zone" and that might be 8 feet for a talented martial artist at the top of his game or it might be half a block for an old man with a debilitating back injury (like me). Your ability to recognize a possible threat and avoid it is what awareness is all about. Look into the face of people as they enter your threat zone and look at their body language, their hands and where their attention is. Don't approach blind corners close to the wall, give yourself time to react.
 
Deaf Smith said:
...So they used old arthritic people? Obese people? Short legged? Pygmies? Or just police recruits?

Just what kind of pool of 'volunteers' did they use?....
Click to expand...
The Tueller drill has no doubt been done in countless classes countless times.

A number years ago I was helping Massad Ayoob with a class in Arizona, and he did the drill with the students. The student ranged from young and fit to old and not very fit at all. The times for the for the 7 yards ranged from about 1.3 seconds to about 1.7 seconds.

We did it in our Personal Protection in the Home class a few weeks ago. The students were generally younger middle age and moderately fit. The times of those who chose to participate were all between 1.4 and 1.6 seconds.
 
The times for the for the 7 yards ranged from about 1.3 seconds to about 1.7 seconds.


The times of those who chose to participate were all between 1.4 and 1.6 seconds.
Click to expand...

Range is not a 'average'. You could have 15 of them do 1.3 seconds and just one to 1.7 and that is a 'range'.

Deaf
 
You guys are spliting hairs

The point of the Tueller drill was to show how dangerous a suspect with an edged weapon was, even when that person was not in "contact" range.

The take home message was 7yds is just about a tie to your first shot.

A "TIE" is not good enough.
 
Deaf Smith said:
...Range is not a 'average'. You could have 15 of them do 1.3 seconds and just one to 1.7 and that is a 'range'....
Click to expand...
Do you have some kind of point?

My point is that the generally accepted average of 1.5 second falls within the ranges observed during various repetitions of the drill with subject populations having a variety of physical characteristics.
 
The point is that it is NOT AN AVERAGE. Not even good science. You said RANGE, not average. Did they clock each one and totaled the time and divided it by the number of shooters? Did they research to see what the percentage of population (tall, short, old, young, etc.) matches the sample they chose to test?

No? Yes?

Then, you see, their 'generally accepted average of 1.5 second' is totally bogus.

Deaf
 
The point is that it is NOT AN AVERAGE.
Click to expand...
Why do you so contend?

You said RANGE, not average.
Click to expand...
Frank stated that the "generally accepted average" was well within the range measured in a couple of experiments.

Did they clock each one and totaled the time and divided it by the number of shooters?
Click to expand...
Someone surely has--that's how one calculates a mean.

Did they research to see what the percentage of population (tall, short, old, young, etc.) matches the sample they chose to test?
Click to expand...
Probably not, but why would that be remotely necessary, with all of the tests that have been conducted over time? As ShootitPRS stated, "It has been verified many times with runners and shooters under a variety of conditions".

What kind of precision are you looking for? Why?

Then, you see, their 'generally accepted average of 1.5 second' is totally bogus.
Click to expand...
Why would you so assert, after having made it clear that you do not know how the average was derived?
 
the relation of the 1.5s par time to the Tueller drill is logical, thanks for sharing this.

the discussion on the average of the Tueller drill is mildly entertaining....

The idea the Tueller drill is bogus is silly. I'm pretty certain the biggest skeptic would suddenly be immensely grateful of the accuracy of the Tueller statistics if they needed to show that in court someday.
 
Deaf Smith said:
The point is that it is NOT AN AVERAGE. Not even good science....
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't have a point that's relevant to the discussion.

The point of the Tueller study is that someone 7 yards away with a contact weapon can be a credible threat because he can reach someone in a time that's comparable to the time it would take a reasonable proficient defender to deploy and fire, with reasonable accuracy, a gun that's holstered at the start of the exercise. The value of that information is that it can help someone assess his danger zone and consider and implement possible ways to reduce the danger.

In his article Tueller says that the time window, based on his observations, was about one and one-half seconds.

You obliquely suggested in post 49 that the time window was not useful unless the group of persons performing the drill was appropriately divers:
...So they used old arthritic people? Obese people? Short legged? Pygmies? Or just police recruits?

Just what kind of pool of 'volunteers' did they use?...
Click to expand...
But as I pointed out, repetition of the drill with a diverse sample doesn't change things by much. The "take home" message of the Tueller drill remains the same:

  • If someone armed with a contact weapon and manifesting an intention to immediately attack you is about 7 yards away (and there are no obstacles in his way), and you're standing there with your gun in your holster, you are in imminent danger.

  • You need to do something right away. What you do will depend on the exact situation. Is cover immediately available? Can you put obstacles between yourself and the assailant? Can you increase distance? Draw your gun and be ready?

But all of that applies whether it will take the assailant 1.4 seconds or 1.7 seconds to be on top of you.

So ply with yout averages, means, and standard deviations. None of that really means anything with regard to the practical applications of the lessons of the Tueller drill.
 
Frank is on target.

The whole purpose of Tuller drill was and is pretty simple.

Alot of carriers and even cops had and have the misguided notion that unless a person with a knife, club, or even their fists if disparity of force is at play, has to be 10 feet or so to be considered an imminent threat.
They don't. At 21 feet your flirting with not being able to get your gun in play before the thug hurts you or kills you possibly. If you are a tad slow drawing and you just stand there.

Can alot beat the tueller drill.
Of course. It isn't that hard if you simply move and realize you really don't have to aim to hit a person at 3 to five yards multiple times. The thug is closing distance so your not actually firing at a 7 yes target but more likely a three yard target...

It's just a demonstration that if you allow a attacker in 21 feet of you you can't stay rooted in place, have a 2 or 3 second draw, and expect to put lead in thug before he is playing Ginsu chef in your guts or chopsticks on your noggin.
 
Ghost1958 said:
...It's just a demonstration that if you allow a attacker in 21 feet of you you can't stay rooted in place, have a 2 or 3 second draw, and expect to put lead in thug before he is playing Ginsu chef in your guts or chopsticks on your noggin.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
So in essence, none of you have seen any thing but anecdotal "generally accepted average". Sounds like everyone 'assumes' and one knows what assume makes out of you and me.

So ply with yout averages, means, and standard deviations. None of that really means anything with regard to the practical applications of the lessons of the Tueller drill.
Click to expand...

The lessons of the actual drill depend on if it's accurate. To say the 'average' reaction time is 1.5 seconds and the 'average' time to run seven yards is 1.5 or so seconds is just so misleading.

One may easily have a quicker reaction time and one may be much slower at crossing seven yards than 1.5 seconds.

The only real lesson from that drill is to find out how fast is your reaction time under realistic scenarios that match your skill and training level while also have enough 'gym' time to be able to judge the capability of others to get inside YOUR reaction time.

It surely isn't a mythical 1.5 second or seven yard line.

Deaf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top