Speed vs Accuracy

Yeah, I was at a class once, where the course included clearing a small shoot-house of paper targets. I rather efficiently took out two "bad guys" inside, and one pointing a pistol at me from outside a window.
When the scenario was done, the instructor asked me why I had shot the cop target in the window! The guy with the pistol had a badge on his belt-line. :eek:
Even shooting paper targets is more than quick and efficient sight alignment, picture, and trigger squeeze.
 
If we're talking about self defense I'd suggest learning how to point shoot drawing from the holster. One shot at a time. And repeat. Looking for a sight picture will get you killed. The overwhelming odds are if you ever find yourself in a defensive shooting event your assailant will be within 7 yards of you. Its that first shot that counts. And every one thereafter.

The days of the rogue highwayman or lone attacker are fairly gone. Today's criminals come in twos and threes, unafraid to hit in broad daylight. I'd also recommend carrying a sidearm with as much capacity as you're comfortable with for EDC.
 
Last edited:
armedleo said:
...Looking for a sight picture will get you killed....
Click to expand...
If you train properly you won't have to look for a sight picture. You will draw right to it.

Here's how the flash sight picture works (Morrison, Gregory, The Modern Technique of the Pistol, Gunsite Press, 1991, pp 87 - 88, emphasis added):
...The flash sight-picture involves a glimpse of the sight-picture sufficient to confirm alignment....The target shooter’s gaze at the front sight has proven inappropriate for the bulk of pistol fighting. However, the practical shooter must start at this level and work up to the flash, which becomes reflexive as motor skills are refined. With practice, a consistent firing platform and firing stroke align the sights effortlessly. This index to the target eventually becomes an instantaneous confirmation of the sight-picture.

...Using the flash sight-picture programs the reflex of aligning the weapon’s sights with the target instantly....There is good reason for sights: one needs them to align the barrel with the target reliably....
Click to expand...
 
The book you've cited to sounds quite interesting and worth a read. But, from my own observations, most (and I say most) people who carry (cops?) shoot nowhere near as much as the contributors to this forum do. Sadly.

Unfortunately, as it relates to cops - and this is changing - they have to qualify once a year! And for many that'll be about the only time they pull their gun. (Special units aside.) Now consider the Tueller drill or, more commonly referred to as the 21 foot rule. (7 yards?) In tests, where recruits KNOW the knife wielding attacker has a knife and they KNOW their attacker will come at them under full steam, the knife makes contact with the recruit - many times before he can even clear leather.

Now, let's imagine we're walking in shopping mall parking lot. Suddenly, you eye someone barreling towards you. But, is he running towards you? Is it someone behind you? Can you see his hands? Is this a genuine threat? Is this really someone who needs to be shot? Ultimately, can you justify to 12 persons good and true that this person needed to be killed? And these are some of the things that are running through your head. Sight picture?
 
I do both, but I generally go for combat accuracy and speed.

Typically I just staple up a bunch of scrap 8.5" x 11" paper (with clean side facing me) in differing locations and setup my own course of fire (I shoot on a friend's land). I then run from point to point diving for simulated cover, firing as fast as possible at various distances with the goal of keeping all my hits on paper. If I miss at a given distance, I slow down my rate of fire a bit. If my groups are very tight (say under 3"), I speed up my fire rate.

YMMV, this is just what I do and it works for me.
 
armedleo said:
....Now consider the Tueller drill or, more commonly referred to as the 21 foot rule. (7 yards?)...
Click to expand...
Yes, we're very familiar here with the Tueller drill.

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 to perversely want not to understand the real meaning of the Tueller data.

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.

armedleo said:
...these are some of the things that are running through your head. Sight picture?
Click to expand...
Which is why training and practice are so important. One needs to be able to perform physically without conscious thought. His focus needs to be on what's happening and what he intends to do about it -- not on how to make his gun work and hit the target (if he decides he needs to shoot).

Considerable training and practice is indeed needed to effectively use a flash sight picture. But considerable training and practice is also necessary to effectively use point shooting techniques.

BTW, at Gunsite from 7 yards we're expected to be able to put two rounds center of mass, from leather and with a side step, in 1.5 seconds. We do it, and yes, we see our front sights.
 
Thank you for providing the article re Tueller. For me the evolution of the drill (based, according to Dennis Tueller, on the query of an inquisitive academy recruit in his firearms class) is quite an eye-opener. We become too over confident that we can handle ourselves because we're carrying a gun. And we here know better. Yes, my friend, practice is the key. The use of weapons is truly martial arts in its most technically developed form. And, as a martial artist myself, there is no substitution for training and practice. The same is true with firearms. I have never done too much homework, or studied too much for a test. Well, when the test comes we'd all better be fully trained and prepared. Your words echo my sentiments.
 
Last edited:
"...the fire fight lasted 59 seconds in which he expanded all the ammo he had except one round..." That sounds like spray and pray. Don't base anything on how most cops shoot. Real life situations do not apply to shooting games anyway.
If you shoot fast but without pin point accuracy, you're just missing quickly.
 
Don't base anything on how most cops shoot.
Click to expand...
Considering that most cops have more training than many, if not most who carry, I think what you see in the aftermath of police shootings, does have a lot to be taken into account by everyone.

If you shoot fast but without pin point accuracy, you're just missing quickly.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. "Pin point" and "missing" need a definition here to be relevant.

Id bet many couldnt give you pin point, on demand, when called to do so, while standing still, and taking their time. The question is, would their near misses, still be "good enough" to solve the problem?

"Any" hit on your opponent, is a good hit, its just some are better than others. The accumulative effects of fast, multiple hits into the general area of where you were looking, will likely bring about the desired results quicker than trying to make that one perfect shot, and taking to long to do so.

.
 
Since most cops will never fire their weapon other than in training, me thinks the broad application does apply. That being said, of the rounds fired by police at any bad guy at any given time, 80% miss their target. In the mid-1980s police found themselves outgunned by perps who were carrying more firepower not just in caliber but especially in capacity. Thus, went the way of the six-shot revolver. Enter the Glock semi-auto with its simplicity of operation (user friendly), capacity, and reliability never before seen in semi-autos.
 
I've witnessed several shooting incidents and the point made of broad daylight, multiple people is a good one. The one that stands out most in my memory is a young gangstah about to cross the street at a stop sign, a car pulls up, down came the window and the shooter inside emptied the entire clip from a 45 acp at point blank (I don't know about you, but I NEVER leave myself exposed at stop signs for long if I can help it after seeing that). Every shot but one missed, the one that hit went through his side. He came running faster than I thought possible right at me gripping his side--I thought he might have been ready to pull a weapon so I went running at a right angle. I called it in and the police got both the shooter(s) and shootee. Th guy who got shot was still standing though loosing blood when the EMTs showed, but he didn't show much in the way of shock from what I could see.
 
Posted by armedleo:
Since most cops will never fire their weapon other than in training, me thinks the broad application does apply.
Click to expand...
Most people who are not LEOs do not even train, and most of them only shoot at targets on a square range.

Some do participate in games such as IDPA. So do some police officers.

Some civilians do avail themselves of realistic defensive pistol training. Attend a session, and you are apt to see police officers among the students.

... of the rounds fired by police at any bad guy at any given time, 80% miss their target.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Does that tell us anything about ability? how many hits should one reasonably expect when one is trying to stop a violent criminal actor who is moving fast from harming one?
 
The fog of war. A Civil War general once made the observation that after the first shot is fired all planning goes out the window.

Muscle memory. What you do in practice is what you'll do in the game. Only probably worse. Unless you train realistically. And often. I reiterate: most of the contributors on this site have far more training and skill than most police officers. This is particularly true of those cops who only fire their sidearm for their annual qualification. (As an aside, we had to run an 8 minute mile yearly to qualify to stay on the road. If not you were reassigned until you could. That is a thing of the past because of certain protections for obesity and consuming donuts.)
 
Last edited:
I also enjoy archery one heck of a lot--especially when my budget gets tight and I have to worry about each dollar bill that goes down range every time I pull a trigger. ; )

I have good compound and crossbow bows--but the one I have most fun with is a primitive wooden longbow. Last time I brought this up the moderator axed my post--but there REALLY is relevance to this topic--here's why:

Unlike my crossbow and compound--there is no sight system on my primitive. Despite that, I've become passably good at fairly quickly drawing and shooting at targets out 25 yds or so. I've often wondered if there is a way I could do the same with a hand gun--but the same style of point and shoot doesn't seem to work for me with a hand gun. I wonder why?
 
stagpanther said:
....the one I have most fun with is a primitive wooden longbow...

Unlike my crossbow and compound--there is no sight system on my primitive. Despite that, I've become passably good at fairly quickly drawing and shooting at targets out 25 yds or so. I've often wondered if there is a way I could do the same with a hand gun--but the same style of point and shoot doesn't seem to work for me with a hand gun. I wonder why?
Click to expand...
I would suspect that with the longbow your spread hands, the length of the arrow and point on your face you draw to establish a relationship among your eye, the target and the expected flight of the arrow. And that's how you index on target.

It strikes me as somewhat analogous to wingshooting with a shotgun. In wingshooting, the fit of the gun and the mount of the gun establish a relationship between where you are looking and where the shot pattern will be and your eye.

But there's nothing like that with a handgun.
 
I would suspect that with the longbow your spread hands, the length of the arrow and point on your face you draw to establish a relationship among your eye, the target and the expected flight of the arrow. And that's how you index on target.

It strikes me as somewhat analogous to wingshooting with a shotgun. In wingshooting, the fit of the gun and the mount of the gun establish a relationship between where you are looking and where the shot pattern will be and your eye.

But there's nothing like that with a handgun.
Click to expand...
Makes sense--I have noticed that shotguns are easier for quick sighting. I think the main difference in shooting the longbow is that you don't focus on anything close--you just focus on the target and there is only a "vague awareness" of the alignment of the equipment you are holding--but this can be remarkably accurate once you get used to it. I guess that's why it's called "instinctive" shooting.
 
BDM 9MM said:
"Slow is smooth - and smooth is fast"
Click to expand...

Slow is slow. Slow may or may not be smooth.

To go fast, you've got to actively push yourself through effective practice to be efficient, accurate, and fast.
 
I've found the opposite.
Instinctive archery seemed to help with instinctively shooting handguns.
Maybe it was due to the realization that it could be done and the associated confidence.
No doubts, just do it.
Mind over matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top