Toss the timer.... Rob P. & Rob L . Worlds Colide

[WVsig]

In a real world self defense situation your split times and your lightening speed draw are not what are going to win the day. You must be proficient, reasonably fast shooter and reasonably fast on the draw but your decision making and decision process is what is going to win the day. Those are the variables which determine winners and losers not a timer in a real defensive handgun encounter. IMHO Discuss....

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/video/worlds-collide-toss-the-timer-012857/

 

[JohnKSa]

Good point. The more complicated the scenario, the more things like situational awareness, decision making, movement, etc. that have little to do with shooting skill affect the outcome.

That is important to understand, but it's also important to keep in mind that in a simpler scenario such as a one-on-one encounter, the first person to make a solid hit usually prevails.

I would have liked to see the average results of several shooters of significantly varying skill levels after having shot a decent number of identical scenarios without being able to see the other person shoot.

Comparing two people with quite similar skill levels against two different scenarios (as they did in the video) doesn't provide a lot of useful comparison data.

 

[WVsig]

Good point. The more complicated the scenario, the more things like situational awareness, decision making, movement, etc. that have little to do with shooting skill affect the outcome.

That is important to understand, but it's also important to keep in mind that in a simpler scenario such as a one-on-one encounter, the first person to make a solid hit usually prevails.

I would have liked to see the average results of several shooters of significantly varying skill levels after having shot a decent number of identical scenarios without being able to see the other person shoot.

Comparing two people with quite similar skill levels against two different scenarios (as they did in the video) doesn't provide a lot of useful comparison data.

I think that the 2 Robs have a huge variance in their skill sets. Rob L. one of the fastest shooters in the world. If you took the .4 second difference between Rob L and Rob P first run and translate that over the course of a "match" Rob L is going to win that match Rob P is going to be lucky to place in the top 50, if were are talking about a high end competitive match.

I do however agree that if we are taking in general compared to the avg shooter both these guys are in the top 1%. I guess my thought is that we get really focused on time as a measure of success because of the heavy focus on "gun games". We worry about draw times to target and splits when outside the "game" those things don't translate to survival but we on a regular basis fool ourselves into believing it does.

I am just as guilty of this as anyone because I have gotten used to training and drilling with a timer because it is the only objective measure I have available to me to evaluate progress, success or failure but I like Rob P. mindset shift in this video.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think that the 2 Robs have a huge variance in their skill sets.

As shown in their first shootout, there was less than half a second of difference between the two when shooting 6 shots on 3 targets from the draw. That would, as you say, amount to a significant placement difference in a large match containing many shooting stages, but outside of that kind of ranking the difference is pretty plain to see and it's not "huge" by any means.

No matter how you slice it, a fraction of a second difference over 6 shots on 3 targets from the draw isn't huge, it's a fraction of a second. Another way to say this is: "Outside the game" this isn't a "huge variance" in performance.

I took a pistol class awhile back and the difference in skill level there was what I would call "huge". Over a 22 round count qualifier the times varied by about a factor of 3 from shortest to longest.

We worry about draw times to target and splits when outside the "game" those things don't translate to survival but we on a regular basis fool ourselves into believing it does.

It certainly does translate to survival in a wide range of scenarios. There's no room to argue that getting on target slower, making poorer hits on target and making slower followup shots is really what translates to survival.

But you are absolutely correct that it is very important to understand that there's more to effective self-defense than just working a gun skillfully.

 

[Lohman446]

Competition can prioritize skills in a skill set in a manner that does it [EDIT: Meant to be does not] reflect the “real world”. It can also highlight seemingly meaningless differences. Half a second is meaningless in the real world... except when it isn’t and then it’s important.

 

[WVsig]

Competition can prioritize skills in a skill set in a manner that does it reflect the “real world”. It can also highlight seemingly meaningless differences. Half a second is meaningless in the real world... except when it isn’t and then it’s important.

You have bought into the mindset that competition = real world shooting. I think that is a false narrative. When you shoot competitions you get to look over the stage before you shoot it am I correct? Sometimes you even get to watch other people shoot it before you do right?

 

[briandg]

I thought that it was already pretty well known that speed shooting at steel was completely at odds with real life. Sort of like the video game "hogans alley" meant absolutely nothing.

Wikipedia

 

[OldMarksman]

You have bought into the mindset that competition = real world shooting.

I think you are responding to a typo.

 

[Rangerrich99]

Thanks for the video. Makes we wish I had some of those polymer pop-up targets.

I thought it was interesting how each Rob chose to engage their targets in the second scenario. Rob L. chose to put several more yards between himself and the targets, while Rob P. chose to stay pretty close to them. I can see the advantages to both decisions; Rob P. moved quickly in a lateral motion, but every target was no farther than about 10 yards, which allowed him to put rounds on target very quickly. On the last target he probably was point shooting it was so close. The compromise is that by being so close to his adversaries, it makes it potentially that much easier for them to put holes in him.

Rob L. OTOH, chose to almost immediately put nearly twice the original distance between himself and the BGs, which would make him a harder target for any gun-wielding BGs. Consequently his shots were a little slower than his first run. Of course, he's Rob Leatham, so I'm sure all of his shots were in the A box in spite of the increased distances. But if my experiences at my local shooting ranges are any meter, most BGs would have a much harder time scoring hits on a rapidly moving Rob L. beyond 10-15 yards.

It would be interesting to hear what each had to say about their choices concerning distance to targets. So far in my training I've been taught to try to put more distance between myself and the BGs in drills. Partly to make it harder for the BG(s) to get hits on me, but also because we're usually supposed to be heading for cover/concealment.

 

[WVsig]

Thanks for the video. Makes we wish I had some of those polymer pop-up targets.

I thought it was interesting how each Rob chose to engage their targets in the second scenario. Rob L. chose to put several more yards between himself and the targets, while Rob P. chose to stay pretty close to them. I can see the advantages to both decisions; Rob P. moved quickly in a lateral motion, but every target was no farther than about 10 yards, which allowed him to put rounds on target very quickly. On the last target he probably was point shooting it was so close. The compromise is that by being so close to his adversaries, it makes it potentially that much easier for them to put holes in him.

Rob L. OTOH, chose to almost immediately put nearly twice the original distance between himself and the BGs, which would make him a harder target for any gun-wielding BGs. Consequently his shots were a little slower than his first run. Of course, he's Rob Leatham, so I'm sure all of his shots were in the A box in spite of the increased distances. But if my experiences at my local shooting ranges are any meter, most BGs would have a much harder time scoring hits on a rapidly moving Rob L. beyond 10-15 yards.

It would be interesting to hear what each had to say about their choices concerning distance to targets. So far in my training I've been taught to try to put more distance between myself and the BGs in drills. Partly to make it harder for the BG(s) to get hits on me, but also because we're usually supposed to be heading for cover/concealment.

The whole Worlds Collide series is really good. There is a lot of cross over from the "defense shooting" and "gun games" world but the approach to the problem that has to be solved is very different.

 

[Rangerrich99]

Thanks, I'll have to start binge-watching that series. I find it very interesting to hear/watch how each Rob decides to meet each scenario in the two videos I've seen so far.

 

[JohnKSa]

You have bought into the mindset that competition = real world shooting. I think that is a false narrative.

I agree that while competition can help with some aspects of shooting skill building, not all of competition helps build real-world self-defense skills and some is actually counter-productive.

Also, I should have qualified my previous comment about the value of "draw times to target and splits" in the real world.

Obsessing about fractions of a second and small changes in group size are not productive. I agree that it's a mistake to assume that because one shooter is half a second faster, or slightly more accurate in competition, those differences will automatically translate to a significant real-world advantage.

There's certainly more to prevailing in real-world shooting scenarios than turning in fast shooting times.

...speed shooting at steel was completely at odds with real life...

I think it's easy to go too far in either direction with this topic.

There are certainly things one can learn in the process of becoming a proficient steel speed-shooter that will translate to real-world self-defense. But it's very important to understand that there are critical differences between what happens on the range during competition and what happens when someone is trying to kill you.

The video makes some good points, but IMO, is easily misinterpreted.

Here's what the takeaway should be, from my perspective: There is a basic level of pure shooting/gun-handling skill that everyone who relies on handguns for self-defense should strive to attain. Past that point, obsessing about incremental shooting improvements is not especially productive and the focus should change to shooting skills maintenance and the improvement of other aspects of self-defense that have less to do with gun handling.

Unfortunately, from what I see at the range, only a very few people ever manage to achieve a solid foundation of pure shooting/gun-handling skill and the vast majority don't even try to focus on the other aspects of self-defense.

 

[WVsig]

Unfortunately, from what I see at the range, only a very few people ever manage to achieve a solid foundation of pure shooting/gun-handling skill and the vast majority don't even try to focus on the other aspects of self-defense

Truth. I think that most people don't know where to start. They have never taken a "real" training class. They don't know what they don't know. They read an article, watch a video and try to imitate what they see or what they read but they don't get any feedback. As a result there is no improvement.

 

[Pep in CA]

The attached video shows a real life defensive encounter. In it, the intended victim doesn't pull his weapon immediately. He waits for an opportune moment. In the scuffle that ensues, he isn't concerned about whether he is using an isosceles stance or a weaver stance nor a surprise break in the trigger pull, and he may not even be using his sights. And after the threat hits the floor, he still finds cover, asseses the situation, and fires more shots as necessary.
In other words, the winner of an actual gunfight isn't always going to be the one who can draw and shoot the fastest or even the most accurately. It will most likely be the one who thinks and reacts the best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv-ZSt2AMqk

 

[raimius]

Awareness, judgement, decision making, use of cover/concealment, distractions, etc are not well replicated in most competitions.
Basic skills like accuracy, speed, and use of angles are practiced in competitions.

I would argue the timer is useful for measuring your own progress, but in a real life situation, deciding what to do quickly will probably save you more often than having a fast split time.

 

[Pep in CA]

I would argue the timer is useful for measuring your own progress, but in a real life situation, deciding what to do quickly will probably save you more often than having a fast split time.

I will argue the same.

 

[Lohman446]

There was a typo there.

Competition sometimes magnifies certain aspects of the skill set that are not seemingly vital in the real world. Time, especially the difference in times, becomes a major point in the competition.

I doubt, often, that half a second will matter. However the times it does it really does so you have that working against you too.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Great video and hits on a number of topics that have interested me over the years like ammo consumption as a functiom of skill, OODA loop issues, etc. I’ve reviewed a decent amount of real world shootings and a fast draw hasn’t been the decisive factor in any of them yet. Heck, in many of them it wasn’t even A factor. In many of them, most of the important decisions were made before the guns came out.

Having said that, I’d disagree with the title just because the timer is helpful in creating stress and measuring your personal progress. Plus, sometimes it is just plain handy to know how long it takes you to accomplish a certain task. But great video...

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...There is a lot of cross over from the "defense shooting" and "gun games"..." Nope. In the real world there are no rules about the firearm, its ammo or the rest of your kit. The shooting games have nothing to do with reality. Nobody is shooting back in any of 'em.
"...must be proficient, reasonably fast shooter and reasonably fast on the draw..." Most important is being accurate.

 

[Lohman446]

The shooting games have nothing to do with reality.

I agree with this but not 100%. The skills developed in the shooting games may very well cross over to the skills needed to survive a real world situation.

Who is most likely to survive a gun fight all other things being equal? The person who has fired thousands of rounds in competitions over the past year or the person who has fired a couple hundred at a target.