Speed vs Accuracy

Defensive shooting is a dynamic action not occurring in a void. It is a martial art at its truist form. And, as with the many martial art forms, there are various applications and many purposes for taking up the training of martial arts. There are students of the arts who merely train for the sake of the discipline chosen and to maintain its heritage and many rituals. These students are not preparing for, dare I say even imagine, using the arts for actual combat. Some, as in the case of judo, learn it as a competitive sport. That is why upon entering the arts the master will ask, "What is your purpose in seeking the knowledge of ______?" If the answer is, To learn to fight, he likely may be sent away. Olympic riflemen train and practice for years, but self-defense shooting is not part of their training.

So what is our purpose? That is the uppermost question one must ask as he learns the art of the gun. Anyone can pick up a gun and shoot it. Or, as we see daily, pick up a gun and rob a store. Someone of this ilk would be analogous to a street-fighter in martial arts terms. A very dangerous fighter indeed. But for him we have the trained martial artist skilled in defending himself against the street-fighter; to neutralize the street-fighter with minimal injury to himself. Is that not what we here who seek knowledge on improving our skills want to accomplish - neutralize the threat while minimizing the risk of death or injury to ourselves? Therefore, although all handgun training will have its beginnings in shooting paper targets we must progress beyond the static range practice. And, as with most martial arts, a good fighter must have learnt upon a good foundation and understanding of his craft. Learning from others, as we do here, is vital to our growth. In an ever changing world we must stay abreast of our own technologies and try new things and ideas so that we continue to learn and grow in our own martial art of the gun.

Training should be dynamic. It must anticipate what the environment we likely will find ourselves when set upon. And what our response should be. If run up from behind by an assailant and pushed to the ground face first, will you know how to immediately react. Will you be prepared to draw and shoot from that position that now finds you on the ground. Have you practiced that? If a bad man charges headlong towards you in a bum rush or Pittsburgh jack (grabbing you low while trapping your lower arms to throw you down after picking you up by your legs) will you know what to do? Can you draw and shoot from the hip as you barely clear leather? No aiming here. No sight picture. We can learn from one and other based on our own experiences. Watching the behavior of robbers on YouTube videos that now proliferate the internet is a great source of watching what we can expect from the "street-fighter" we most prepare for.
 
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.
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
Click to expand...
That's what I was hoping!! But doing the isosceles stance with the gun held straight in front does not seem to work for me shooting just focusing on target--is that what you use? I was thinking maybe a variation of the weaver where I get more of a straight line from gun to eye with the body sideways like you do in archery would help?
 
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...

And I will disagree......clay or wing shooting can be a LOT ;like HD/SD handgun shooting - response is quick; with practice you can point and hit your target with a shotgun or handgun using the same principles. As I age, and wearing contacts for distance, I am NOT going to be able to focus on the front site and rear sights of a handgun AND be able to see my target. But, just like shotgun practice in the home (unloaded of course), I can fixate on a target and point either gun at it and open my eyes and be on target.

The fit of a handgun is as important as it is with a shotgun - if it wasn't the aftermarket folks would have been out of business decades ago and the new wave of guns with adjustable backstraps would not have happened. Every little thing you can do to take those thought processes out of the equation so the only thing is focus on the target will result in being able to do as I described above.
 
Point shooting a handgun seems to be less about the stance and more about becoming the bullet, similar to becoming the arrow.
Depending on the circumstances, one should be able to use a variety of techniques - weaver, isosceles, reverse weaver, chicken wing (for close quarters), what ever is called for.
Similarly with archery - the target stance (bow upright), the hunters stance (bow slanted), the bow parallel to the ground (like the Indians in the old western movies), standing, kneeling, what ever is called for.
The essence of point or instinctive shooting is thinking the projectile to the target and then doing just that.
Sounds Zen like and takes a lot of practice. but it is doable.
Eventually, forget all about the equipment and how to do it, and just do it.
Sooner or later, you will amaze yourself.
The amount of time, cost of ammo and effort it takes to accomplish point shooting a handgun probably prevents most folks from even trying.
Buying an airgun that closely duplicates your firearm can provide the trigger time necessary.
A very funny thing will happen when point shooting skills are accomplished.
The sights will automatically land right on the target as the trigger is pulled.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting. Well, I'll give it another go with handguns since I already know the "zen" of archery primitive--I get the "become one with the arrow."
 
From the relatively little practice I've done, instinctive or point shooting is about consistency. If you hold a pistol at a "compressed ready" with both forearms on your chest, muzzle under your dominant eye, and bore perpendicular to your chest, you can zero in on an index card sized target at 10-15 feet within a mag or two. Practice like that for a while, and you get reasonably accurate, at conversational distances.
 
Slow is slow.
Click to expand...

. . . ^ I like that :D

I was slow and smooth at IDPA this weekend.

With my speedloader fed wheelgun, I finished 19th out of 42 competitors. But . . . I went no points down, no penalties. I only fired two shots more than the minimum for the day. My final score was all raw time, and that felt good.
 
Practice like that for a while, and you get reasonably accurate, at conversational distances.
Click to expand...
A good bit of my practice anymore, is point or unaimed shooting, and at distances that are a bit further out than conversational distances.

By "unaimed", Im talking everything from below line of sight, right up to seeing the sights, although not consciously focusing on them to make the shot.

If youve been shooting awhile, and to the point that you dont think about the actual act of shooting the gun, the transition is really pretty easy. Youve likely already made the same presentations a bazillion times before, only using the sights. The muscle memory is there, your brain has the indexes/responses stored, you just shift focus from the sights, to the target and let go.

Once you do let go, and see the results, I think your confidence will jump considerably.

And again, distances arent just at "conversational" distances either, good "hits" at 10-15 yards are a norm, and not something you only make on good days.
 
Let's frame this question a little differently ...

Which is more important when delivering a blow/punch ... speed or accuracy?

Trick question, right? The answer is both are important.

Then, of course, come the inevitable considerations of whether the blow/punch is delivered with sufficient power to accomplish the required task, and is delivered to the proper anatomical spot needed to accomplish the task.

Then, the number of blows/punches that may be required.

Then, of course, can it all be done under the various circumstances, and in the various situations, in which the user may need to do it?

Etc, etc.

My training, in both the martial arts and the use of firearms, is centered around being able to develop the skills I perceive might be necessary in order to address whose needs in the variety of situations and conditions I anticipate may be involved.

Each blow/punch/kick/elbow/knee I practice has a purpose, and not just as a "flurry" of flailing techniques.

Each bullet I fire from any of my firearms is fired with a purpose in mind for meeting different, but specific, training needs, and not just to burn powder and go through rounds for the sake of quantity.

Also, along the lines of how most of us aren't able to learn and master martial arts via the "self-taught" method, learning and mastering the use of firearms for dedicated defensive roles probably requires some training under an instructor, at least until someone has acquired the level of skillset desired and considered useful (and which they can continue to reinforce with proper practice).

Proper training and practice can help ingrain proper skills, while improper training and sloppy practice might unfortunately help ingrain improper and sloppy skills.

Training and practice ought to be a continuing and evolving lifelong pursuit, to some degree.

Again, falling back upon a martial arts example, some folks consider achieving a basic black belt, such as a shodan (in systems with such ranking), as meaning they've become highly skilled, an expert, etc. Others recognize this achievement as basically meaning they've more or less just reached the point where they're now an intermediate beginner, and are ready for some more serious training, learning, skills development & refinement. Then they can become an advanced beginner as they reach the 2nd & 3rd degree ranks (nidan & sandan), and can really start to build their knowledge and further hone their foundation skills.

What do you want to achieve? What do you think or anticipate you might need to achieve?

How is this any different for firearms knowledge, skills development and training/practice?

Different strokes are appropriate for different folks. ;)
 
Whenever this subject comes up I always quote Wyatt Earp.

"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything. In a gun fight... You need to take your time in a hurry."

What I take from that quote is that you need to go as fast as you can while staying completely in control. Find how fast you can go while staying calm and on target then as you train work from there and try to get faster and smoother while staying in control.

The best shooters I have ever met go fast but not so fast that they may miss.
 
I think there have been a lot of excellent comments made in this thread. But problems remain. It should go without saying that you should be very familiar with your handgun or other firearm. Here I assume you will be using your own when the time comes, although there are shooting games where that's not the case. But shooting games are a little like the so-called martial arts.

I used to do some fencing in college but not so much after that. Fencing is a martial art. But they don't use realistic weapons or particularly realistic rules. And that change took place over 200 years ago. Even then, the civilian sword would not cut it on the battlefield and I didn't plan to make that pun.

First, you might want to visualize where a potential deadly encounter might take place. It probably won't be anything like a soldier's experience in a firefight. It may not be anything like a policeman's, either, except you happen to be a policeman. At age 69, I'm just about nothing. Anyway, it probably won't happen under circumstances that are anything like your local indoor range. That's just a shortcoming of the opportunities you might have to practice your shooting, not a criticism of using an indoor range.

Chances are, your target won't agree to stand still. But I don't know of any place where you can shoot at a moving target, although undoubtedly there are some. Aside from skeet shooting, the only time I shot at a moving target was in the army and shooting at a moving target with a 105mm howitzer.

Overall, I'd say that speed is essential but how accurate you need to be is worth discussing. Obviously you have to hit the target. If it's a human being who is presumably wearing clothes, you can probably forget grouping. It's good if it can be achieved but you'll never know it if it happens unless you read the autopsy report. So both speed and hits, as opposed to accuracy, are essential if you are to survive.

For a dangerous animal, I think the requirement for accuracy goes up a few notches, but that is another subject and probably more difficult.

The biggest thing not mentioned so far, on which everything hangs, is deciding to shoot. That point kills speed. So, how do you overcome that question?
 
About the only way to gain experience with shooting on the move, shooting at moving targets, and decision making on whether or not to shoot at all, would be at the action games and at the multitude of training schools.
There are plenty of opportunities to do all that, but it involves getting involved, travel and the willingness to invest the time and money.
And most people just won't spend it.
Even with all the enticing videos online and on the shooting shows, only a very tiny percent of gun owners ever get involved.
 
Well I used to shoot every week and train, yes train, actual drills at least every two weeks. Anyone can get great with that much access to do so. So I won't brag.

That said, these days (a year later) I shoot a lot less. I train a lot less.

And it makes me sad... Very sad.
 
Typically, discussions like this devolve into the merits of aimed fire versus point shooting. But those who promote the idea of point shooting never discount the value of aimed fire. The question might be at what distance a shooting incident most likely to occur and under what circumstances. I suppose we all have our own ideas about that. Hitting the target is essential. Speed is essential. Some might even say it's easier to teach someone to be a good point shooter than a good target shooter. I don't know. Perhaps the standards are different.

Is there anything that isn't essential? Or is there anything that is detrimental to either speed or accuracy? There is also the whole issue of actually fighting someone, too, which is a great stumbling block and, frankly, I don't know how to discuss it. But Jeff Cooper wrote a thin book about the subject and I don't think he even mentioned guns.

Another point is that sometimes it is said that formal target shooting does not help in combat shooting. I don't know if it does or not but Fairbairn believed it didn't and I think he knew what he was talking about. Yet many well known policemen and other law enforcement people as well as military people were successful competitive target shooters with handguns. People like Skeeter Skelton and Charles Askins. The latter was not shy about letting people know he was an experienced gunfighter. Not many people are referred to as gunfighters these days.

I'm willing to give people more credit for devising their own self-defense methods that others might. Some writers who should have known even mentioned some by name who had done that, too, although it's possible it may have been easier in the past (when you didn't need to go to an indoor range to shoot). Anyway, who do you suppose taught Wyatt Earp all his tricks?
 
Or is there anything that is detrimental to either speed or accuracy? There is also the whole issue of actually fighting someone, too, which is a great stumbling block and, frankly, I don't know how to discuss it.
Click to expand...
A lack of will.

You can be the most accurate, and fastest shooter out there, but if you dont have the skills AND the will to pull the trigger, whats the point in the other two?

As to fighting someone, thats a very valid point, and is really directly related to will. Id be willing to bet, many, if not most who post, have little in the way of actual fighting experience or skills, and probably havent had a contact fight since junior high, and even then, it probably wasnt really a fight. Most dont seek out that type of experience, be it for real, or in training. I get the impression that many seem to think there is no need, as they have a gun, why would they have to fight?

So much of whats discussed here, is gun related, which is to be expected, simply because its a gun board. You also often see that things can get a little tense, when things start going towards "fighting", and its usually pretty easy to see where a persons mindset (or lack thereof) is. More often than not, you get inundated with the usual magazine/textbook legal issues, and the last thing it seems people want to discuss, is actually doing something. You hear all about what gun, style, tecnique is best, just dont discuss the application of them, in a realistic manner. Apparently, its not in good taste.

The only site Ive come across so far, that does discuss things in a realistic way, has been Suarez's "Warrior Talk". They arent bashful about discussing anything "fighting" wise, and are more on point with things. He's also been very innovative in a number of things, and some of the others are slowly catching on, and usually acting like they are the innovators.

Of course, Suarez isnt a good topic with some people, and the usual character assassination comments start to flow pretty quick when you bring him up. I guess hes just a little to radical and scary for some.
 
I think the skill part is probably overrated, apart from what has already been mentioned. I read too many stories of grandmothers shooting intruders to believe that is an overrated factor. Perhaps the typical circumstances are not what we think they might be. It certainly won't be a walk and draw.

It might be 90% will. Most people don't have a killer instinct, perhaps not even criminals. (Criminals are people who break that law, not necessarily killers). In fact, most people are conditioned not to kill, at least not intentionally. And again, I have no idea how to discuss that point.

It is indeed hard to find believable and complete information about shootings, enough to base any decision on, if in fact it would be of any value. Any mention of the fact that in a shooing incident, people end up getting shot and precisely what that means, is scarce. Chic Gaylord's book from something like 60 years ago actually included photos of bullet wounds in corpses. That will make you think twice. It might even slow you down. And that's where this discussion started.
 
I have never been in nor witnessed a gun fight, and have not studied them very much; but here is a thought: Does getting off the first shot cause your opponent to flinch, giving you more time to aim your second shot? If so, then speed with the first shot could be important, even if you miss.
 
is there anything that is detrimental to either speed or accuracy
Click to expand...

not when it is actually consistent and it can be applied dynamically. Unfortunately, most people train in a vacuum without opposing forces at work against them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top