speed draw par time...?

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.
Click to expand...
Has expert testimony regarding Tueller timing measurements been admitted into evidence in court in cases in which the defendant was able to properly document that he had acquired his knowledge of the subject beforehand?

If so, under the rules of evidence, the conclusions have been properly established as being much more than "anecdotal".
 
Deaf Smith said:
...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....
Click to expand...

Balderdash.

Dennis Tueller told us the reason for demonstration:
..let's consider what might be called the "Danger Zone" if you are confronted by an adversary armed with an edged or blunt weapon. At what distance does this adversary enter your Danger Zone and become a lethal threat to you?...
Click to expand...

And Dr. Martenelli showed that he understands the exercise:
...Tueller designed his firearms action-reaction experiment as a training device to help his students better understand the concept of the "reactionary gap." The reactionary gap is a human factors formula that compares action vs. reaction. In humans, sudden action is usually faster than a defensive response or reaction.....
Click to expand...

Of course a well designed training program needs to include timed exercises by which a student can how long it takes him to assess and respond appropriately under various circumstances. But that's something entirely different and has nothing to do with the Tueller drill.
 
Has expert testimony regarding Tueller timing measurements been admitted into evidence in court in cases in which the defendant was able to properly document that he had acquired his knowledge of the subject beforehand?

If so, under the rules of evidence, the conclusions have been properly established as being much more than "anecdotal".
Click to expand...

See if you believe in this 1.5 second/21 ft fantasy as a rule, then if an old man on a walker 'charges' you at 21 ft with a knife you are in desperate need to use lethal force to stop him cause you only have 1.5 seconds to deploy your lethal force. And we all know that is stupid and wrong (or, I guess, just SOME of us.)

Deaf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course a well designed training program needs to include timed exercises by which a student can how long it takes him to assess and respond appropriately under various circumstances. But that's something entirely different and has nothing to do with the Tueller drill.
Click to expand...

Of course.

Deaf
 
Deaf Smith said:
...See if you believe in this 1.5 second/21 ft fantasy as a rule, then if an old man on a walker 'charges' you at 21 ft with a knife you are in desperate need to use lethal force to stop him cause you only have 1.5 seconds to deploy your lethal force. And we all know that is stupid and wrong (or, I guess, just SOME of us.)
Click to expand...

Of course everyone who has actually been following this discussion knows that this is drivel. No one claimed that about the Tueller exercise, and it's purpose and value have been described by a number of posters and in sources linked to in posts, including Tueller's own article.

Either you're being intentionally obtuse and argumentative or you're lack the facility to understand the subjects being discussed.
 
Last edited:
See if you believe in this 1.5 second/21 ft fantasy as a rule, then if an old man on a walker 'charges' you at 21 ft with a knife you are in desperate need to use lethal force to stop him cause you only have 1.5 seconds to deploy your lethal force. And we all know that is stupid and wrong (or, I guess, just SOME of us.)

Deaf
Click to expand...
You did not answer my question.
 
Let's agree that contact weapons can be dangerous since 21 feet can be covered in a very short time. My question is, how likely is it that someone will "randomly" approach you with a contact weapon exposed and give you the time to draw your gun? I think it is much more likely that someone would be much closer before they pulled a weapon on you to rob you. I'm talking about the average Joe, not a police officer or someone with a price on their head.

With that said, what do you do if someone gets the jump on you and produces a contact weapon well within the 21 feet often stated for the Tueller Drill. Would most people comply until there is either an opportunity or things go really south? Do you try and run (assuming you are capable)? Do you go for your your weapon and use your weak hand to try and fend off an attack?

I would recommend some hand to hand training if you are physically capable. If I were in a situation where someone with a contact weapon got within contact distance, I would probably comply unless I felt I would be assaulted anyway. I think it would be foolish to draw on a drawn weapon, contact or otherwise (assuming contact distance). If the opportunity presented itself, I would consider strikes to sensitive parts of the body such as throat, nose, or eyes. More likely than not, after complying, possibly draw my weapon and try and get my stuff back. Would that create a legal grey area?
 
My question is, how likely is it that someone will "randomly" approach you with a contact weapon exposed and give you the time to draw your gun? I think it is much more likely that someone would be much closer before they pulled a weapon on you to rob you. ...

With that said, what do you do if someone gets the jump on you and produces a contact weapon well within the 21 feet often stated for the Tueller Drill.
Click to expand...
Where did you get the impression that Dennis Tueller's demonstration involved an advance by a person who had already exposed his contact weapon?
 
The Tuller drill like so many other things brought up in training schools only loosely applies to civilians.

It's a good indication of how close one can allow a threat to get. And it's not unheard of a drugged up thug may pick up a club etc and approach one from that distance with an exposed weapon while making demands or threats.

But while LEO having interaction with a subject can demand that subject maintain a certain distance and draw if the subject does not, the citizen has it a bit tougher depending on the state they are in.

A citizen cannot demand a person who's not exposed a weapon in a obviously threating manner or made threats or illegal demands with no weapon, stay 7 yards distant because of their looks and draw on them if they don't. The person has as much right to be there as you do until he is exhibiting behavior the shows reasonable suspicion he is a threat.
One can move away, put objects between you and the person. If they continue to follow then a threatening behavior is beginning to emerge.

Tuller is a good general info drill for the civilian, but the civilian won't be able to apply it in most cases the same way an LEO can.
 
In my admittedly amateur opinion, part of the problem is how many people preconceive of the 'Tueller drill' scenario. Why is it that we all assume that the attacker will be approaching from in front of us? What if he is charging in from the side or even from behind? if he's coming from the front, why wouldn't he stroll for the first few strides and then draw his weapon and charge in for the last two or three strides? Is it realistic that most of us could recognize the threat under these parameters and draw then fire before the attacker shoved a knife in us?

In a Kali class (Filipino stick/sword fighting) I've been taking off and on for the last couple years our instructor had us run the Tueller drill one evening after the regular class had let out. At first, we ran it as everyone probably thinks of it; an attacker charging from a standstill head-on to the defender. Knowing the drill and having the advantage of looking right at our attacker most of us were easily able to mount some kind of defense, even though some of the younger more fit guys could easily cover the 20 ft. in far less than 2 seconds.

Then our instructor changed the drill, putting the attacker behind the defender. Another twist was to have three guys in a half circle around the defender yelling at him then one charging in at random. This type of thing greatly increased reaction time, making an adequate defense much more difficult.

It turned out that our instructor had seen this video with Doug Marchaida and instructor Zero on Youtube and decided to see how those of us that were familiar with the TD reacted to the drill with a few twists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fjMpn7JCJ0

If you don't know who these guys are, Doug Marchaida is an edged weapons specialist with roots in arnis and kali sword fighting, as well as probably a half-dozen empty-hand martial arts. If he was the one attacking you with a knife, it would be a nightmare right out of Hollywood. Instructor Zero is an Italian Spec Ops combat instructor. Not much else known about him other than his videos and that he holds the highest security clearance levels possible in Italy. And he can really shoot really fast from any position.

In other words, most of us aren't going to do a lot of the things you'll see in this video, but it does effectively show us just how difficult the attack from 21 ft. can actually be.
 
Last edited:
Which question OldMarksman?
Click to expand...

This one:

Has expert testimony regarding Tueller timing measurements been admitted into evidence in court in cases in which the defendant was able to properly document that he had acquired his knowledge of the subject beforehand?
Click to expand...

That referred to your repeated diatribes about the validity of the Tueller measurements, such as....

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.
Click to expand...

I have already if explained that if expert testimony regarding a defendant's use of Tueller drill data has been properly admitted under the rules of evidence in a trial to support a defense of justification, the conclusions have been properly established, and your comments are meaningless.
 
Ranger Rich,

That was a very interesting video. Thanks for sharing. I think the first part was pretty implausible. He knew an attacker was running up on him from behind and was prepared to react as soon as he heard a noise. In the real world, it could just be a jogger running in your direction. You have to really assess the situation before you draw a gun and shoot someone. On the flip side, failure to react could quickly could mean you attacker would be on top of you before you could get a weapon out. The whole draw and shoot behind your back is pure fantasy for 99% of us.

Real world requires assessment time, especially if the noise is coming from behind. Based on the time to turn and draw, even a highly trained person (as shown in the video) would have a very hard time to draw from concealment and bring the gun into play. Even when he did, the momentum of the attacker could still mean he gets cut or stabbed. This is where having some martial arts training could give you some options. If the attacker has a short contact weapon like a knife, a well placed kick could stop him or slow him down enough to get a gun into play. I'm not saying I want to go hand to hand against someone with a knife, but it has already been shown that assessing, reacting, then drawing from concealment is darn near impossible. If all you have is a hammer, you're only looking for nails.

As for the drop to your back or the roll, I really like how it creates space and forces a change of direction for the attacker. We had better practice the roll extensively if we hope to have a chance in hell of pulling it off in a real attack.
 
He knew an attacker was running up on him from behind and was prepared to react as soon as he heard a noise. In the real world, it could just be a jogger running in your direction. You have to really assess the situation before you draw a gun and shoot someone.
Click to expand...
Yep!
 
It is all made irrelevant by the professional, brutal predator who only telegraphs his intent when he strikes from ambush. The Tueller drill is a decent training tool, but if you know what is coming what benefit are you getting from it? Keep it in the context that it was originally developed for, giving you an articulable basis for action with a displayed weapon.

A lot of LE training is designed around the need to be able to articulate why you did this or that in response to a given stimulus.
 
Nanuk said:
It is all made irrelevant by the professional, brutal predator who only telegraphs his intent when he strikes from ambush. The Tueller drill is a decent training tool, but if you know what is coming what benefit are you getting from it? Keep it in the context that it was originally developed for, giving you an articulable basis for action with a displayed weapon.

A lot of LE training is designed around the need to be able to articulate why you did this or that in response to a given stimulus.
Click to expand...
Well you can't go around with your pistol drawn and pointing at everyone. It tends to be frowned upon in polite society.
 
Less attention on how a "drill" can be configured to fool people in a training environment ...

... and perhaps more thought to how we might be less susceptible to being caught by surprise to the extent that we may never recover enough to catch up in identifying the nature of our attacker, and the actual manner & extent of the "threat", and where our "attacker" is in his own OODA Loop.

It's not just "draw speed" that matters (and it's actually a much less important criteria outside the classroom, and off the gaming range, than some folks might like to think).

Our first "reaction" is being sufficiently aware to be able to Observe & Orient, and then our training (including both knowledge and skillset) can help with the Decide part of things ... and then the circumstances involved, and our sustained skillset development, might help with the Act.

It's not just a matter of 'slapping leather' (or plastic), even though many folks who own shot timers might like to lean that way. ;)

The speed at which someone can "cock" and prepare to initiate a punch, and the speed of the punch, itself, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be effective.

Gear possession is good. Familiarity and the ability to use the gear is better. Relying solely on the gear an using it, under optimal training and practice conditions, is perhaps less of a "predictor" of potential successful application than we might wish ... even if it makes us feel good about ourselves and having the gear.

Big picture, folks. ;)
 
stephen426 said:
Ranger Rich,

That was a very interesting video. Thanks for sharing. I think the first part was pretty implausible. He knew an attacker was running up on him from behind and was prepared to react as soon as he heard a noise. In the real world, it could just be a jogger running in your direction. You have to really assess the situation before you draw a gun and shoot someone. On the flip side, failure to react could quickly could mean you attacker would be on top of you before you could get a weapon out. The whole draw and shoot behind your back is pure fantasy for 99% of us.

Real world requires assessment time, especially if the noise is coming from behind. Based on the time to turn and draw, even a highly trained person (as shown in the video) would have a very hard time to draw from concealment and bring the gun into play. Even when he did, the momentum of the attacker could still mean he gets cut or stabbed. This is where having some martial arts training could give you some options. If the attacker has a short contact weapon like a knife, a well placed kick could stop him or slow him down enough to get a gun into play. I'm not saying I want to go hand to hand against someone with a knife, but it has already been shown that assessing, reacting, then drawing from concealment is darn near impossible. If all you have is a hammer, you're only looking for nails.

As for the drop to your back or the roll, I really like how it creates space and forces a change of direction for the attacker. We had better practice the roll extensively if we hope to have a chance in hell of pulling it off in a real attack.
Click to expand...
Actually what we learned in that class was that we had to get off the X immediately. Kicking a charging attacker in the gut/chest/head looks great on TV or in the movies, but in real life it's pretty hard to do. Also, it really doesn't work well against attackers that are significantly larger than yourself. Simply put, their momentum magnifies a person's size/weight advantage, so a 150 lb. man collides with you with the energy of much larger man if he's running 10-15 mph at you. So even if you get a good kick in, their momentum might carry them through/on top of you anyway.

Anyway, the most important thing I/we learned was to get off the X quickly, though not necessarily immediately. That might give them time to adjust their line of attack and you're back where you started so to speak. But dropping back, rolling, even spinning or a headshake to one side-lunge the other way could create enough distance to either go for your gun/knife or even escape.

Another important lesson I learned from the exercise was that even in a drill situation, reacting quickly to a perceived attack is very difficult. The time lag between seeing a potential threat (odd-looking guy over there) to understanding that you are being attacked (guy charges at you drawing a knife/club/gun) and must defend yourself is longer than most people might imagine. Add in the time it takes to draw, and . . .

However, the Tueller drill as I understand it is supposed to only give us a baseline for minimum distance/time reaction to an attack. For myself, now that I'm almost 50, I find 21 ft. cutting it pretty darn fine.
 
Rangerrich99,

I am in agreement with pretty much everything you said, but waiting to "get off the X" is also dangerous since you do not know your attackers reflexes or agility. While I am no longer in my prime, I trained for years in Tae Kwon Do and am a first degree black belt. That was my basis for saying anyone who is physically capable should learn some form of self defense.

A well placed powerful side kick or turning back kick will take most people off their feet, especially when combined with the additional momentum from the attacker. Legs are longer and more powerful than arm, giving you a reach advantage. Also with a well executed side kick, you lean away from the kick to counter balance, putting your torso away from the contact weapon. Martial arts is just another tool in the bag that gives you additional options. Just like shooting, it is a skill that needs to be practiced and constantly honed.

I just want to be clear that I am not saying it is a great idea to go hand to hand against an armed attacker. It may be the fastest option that buys you time to get your weapon into play. If you're not physically capable or willing to put in the time and energy to become competent with martial arts, stick with your strongest skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top