You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Toss the timer.... Rob P. & Rob L . Worlds Colide
- Thread starter WVsig
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
I have been in FoF training with highly trained SWAT cops that missed ALOT at 1-3 yards, I don't mean what would have been a flesh would I mean MISSED.
Yep, and you can read countless news articles about where the defender stopped the threat by firing one or more shots that never hit the threat. When it comes to handguns, the most common threat "stops" involve non-lethal psychological stops whereby the perp is unharmed. Some involve the discharge of a gun by the defender. Apparently hundreds of thousands of stops each year don't even involve discharging the gun, LOL. In fact, I believe the NRA says it happens 2 million times a year.
However, we (should) be skilled enough to stop the most committed of attackers and not rely on psychological stops, but psychological stops are the reality of the most common forms of stop that we get.
Apples to oranges, you can’t have a “standard” and be a “surprise” or different. Also, none of the targets were “threats”. Doesn’t really mean much to me...
Does make sense to me to always be thinking though. Where I sit at a restaurant, where the exits are.
I remember a match in 2003 where there was a bucket that had 4 different colored items in it. It was shook and at the buzzer you grabbed one item out of it and it’s color was the “friendly” and the shooter shot the other three colored targets.
I went over each one in my mind, mag changes in the different order and “programmed” them in. That was the first stage I ever won overall.
What does any of that have to do with anything? Not everything has to be a complete surprise and you are a lot better off if you already have solutions in your mind.
Does make sense to me to always be thinking though. Where I sit at a restaurant, where the exits are.
I remember a match in 2003 where there was a bucket that had 4 different colored items in it. It was shook and at the buzzer you grabbed one item out of it and it’s color was the “friendly” and the shooter shot the other three colored targets.
I went over each one in my mind, mag changes in the different order and “programmed” them in. That was the first stage I ever won overall.
What does any of that have to do with anything? Not everything has to be a complete surprise and you are a lot better off if you already have solutions in your mind.
Last edited:
Some interesting and seemingly valid thoughts have been popping up in this thread.
My random thoughts?
Knowledge, both "classroom/book" AND experiential (OJT, etc), can help a lot of folks prepare for anticipated situations.
Training for specific sets of possible circumstances and likely situations may help, too.
Practicing properly to further ingrain and maintain the desired level of proficiency in skillsets and implementation of tactics is probably better than not doing it.
"Mindset". By which I mean a variable combination of being practiced and willing to do what it takes to survive and prevail in unexpected situations, regardless of what happens to you, physically ... the things I've already listed above ... and probably an investment in a deep willingness to either save your loved ones, or come back to them afterward ... being unwilling to yield to bad people and bad circumstances happening ... knowing your efforts are necessary, justified and critical to someone, if only yourself ...
These are just some of the general intangibles that come to mind, having worked where bad things happen, having attended various training over the years, and listening to people who have been to see the elephant, albeit unwillingly and without having taken any "pride" in having been forced into those situations.
Different folks seem to benefit from different combinations of interests, training and experience.
Some folks who like competition don't seem to do well in high stress life-threatening situations, while others seem to revert to their basic gun handling and shooting skills, even when subjected to life-threatening conditions. (They may not all experience the same mental and emotional "aftermath", though, which isn't surprising, since people are still people.)
People who seem to "look for" opportunities to use their skills outside the range aren't often the sort of folks with whom I usually like to share a range. In that respect, it's not unlike the same things I used to think and feel during the early "earnest and exciting" years of my martial arts involvement.
Plan, train and prepare for what you anticipate may come your way (even if you do so with great reluctance and dread). The way you envision needing to act, and how you think is helpful to walk, or sit and move through groups of people, may be nothing at all like what's happening when something bad comes your way ... or you just find yourself caught up in the general periphery of something bad that happens and is directed at someone else (the non-personal "to whom it may concern" bad things).
The more you learn, know, train, practice and mentally rehearse ... the more you might be prepared not to freeze if something happens around you. Maybe you might even be able to unconsciously access and apply the things you've learned, and maybe even in an appropriate and sufficiently timely fashion.
No guarantees. TANSTAAFL.
My random thoughts?
Knowledge, both "classroom/book" AND experiential (OJT, etc), can help a lot of folks prepare for anticipated situations.
Training for specific sets of possible circumstances and likely situations may help, too.
Practicing properly to further ingrain and maintain the desired level of proficiency in skillsets and implementation of tactics is probably better than not doing it.
"Mindset". By which I mean a variable combination of being practiced and willing to do what it takes to survive and prevail in unexpected situations, regardless of what happens to you, physically ... the things I've already listed above ... and probably an investment in a deep willingness to either save your loved ones, or come back to them afterward ... being unwilling to yield to bad people and bad circumstances happening ... knowing your efforts are necessary, justified and critical to someone, if only yourself ...
These are just some of the general intangibles that come to mind, having worked where bad things happen, having attended various training over the years, and listening to people who have been to see the elephant, albeit unwillingly and without having taken any "pride" in having been forced into those situations.
Different folks seem to benefit from different combinations of interests, training and experience.
Some folks who like competition don't seem to do well in high stress life-threatening situations, while others seem to revert to their basic gun handling and shooting skills, even when subjected to life-threatening conditions. (They may not all experience the same mental and emotional "aftermath", though, which isn't surprising, since people are still people.)
People who seem to "look for" opportunities to use their skills outside the range aren't often the sort of folks with whom I usually like to share a range. In that respect, it's not unlike the same things I used to think and feel during the early "earnest and exciting" years of my martial arts involvement.
Plan, train and prepare for what you anticipate may come your way (even if you do so with great reluctance and dread). The way you envision needing to act, and how you think is helpful to walk, or sit and move through groups of people, may be nothing at all like what's happening when something bad comes your way ... or you just find yourself caught up in the general periphery of something bad that happens and is directed at someone else (the non-personal "to whom it may concern" bad things).
The more you learn, know, train, practice and mentally rehearse ... the more you might be prepared not to freeze if something happens around you. Maybe you might even be able to unconsciously access and apply the things you've learned, and maybe even in an appropriate and sufficiently timely fashion.
No guarantees. TANSTAAFL.
FireForged
New member
A shot timer is a gaming tool and its also a way to construct or introduce a "sporting" element to an activity that is generally anything but sporting.
People are always trying to draw some sort of equivalence between gun fight/ combat training and gaming. Certainly you can parcel out certainly nuances of a game and call it beneficial but at what cost? What I have seen in the gaming arena is impressive skill but [ you simply do not fight that way]. Games are played in a bubble which is absent any other consideration other than the game and its rules. No concept of danger, threat or dire conseqences. In order for me to accept anything as "training", there is going to have to be an emphasis on the fact that you MUST perform in a manner which is conducive to life safety, not just willy nilly running around trying to beat a time or adhering to critical regulations for the purpose of making the activity more "sporting". When you add a timer, you naturally sacrifice tactics and stragetics in leiu of a better time. Unless you have synchronized watches at the onset of a rescue, I think the idea of a timer is generally counter productive
People are always trying to draw some sort of equivalence between gun fight/ combat training and gaming. Certainly you can parcel out certainly nuances of a game and call it beneficial but at what cost? What I have seen in the gaming arena is impressive skill but [ you simply do not fight that way]. Games are played in a bubble which is absent any other consideration other than the game and its rules. No concept of danger, threat or dire conseqences. In order for me to accept anything as "training", there is going to have to be an emphasis on the fact that you MUST perform in a manner which is conducive to life safety, not just willy nilly running around trying to beat a time or adhering to critical regulations for the purpose of making the activity more "sporting". When you add a timer, you naturally sacrifice tactics and stragetics in leiu of a better time. Unless you have synchronized watches at the onset of a rescue, I think the idea of a timer is generally counter productive
Last edited:
A shot timer is a timing tool. It is true that shot timers are used in some kinds of firearm competitions but that is not their only use. They can also be used as a personal or professional training aid.A shot timer is a gaming tool...
Perhaps, but more often they agree that there is no "equivalence" while pointing out that there are some aspects of some competitions that can measure a shooter's practical performance as it applies to combat training.People are always trying to draw some sort of equivalence between gun fight/ combat training and gaming.
A timer is simply a tool to show the time taken to do something. Knowing that time can be useful whether it is for a quarter mile at the track or the time needed to put multiple rounds on multiple targets or a single round from ones concealed carry holster. That gives us a measure of where we are at any given time and how we compare to others. There is value in that.
FireForged
New member
A timer is simply a tool to show the time taken to do something. Knowing that time can be useful whether it is for a quarter mile at the track or the time needed to put multiple rounds on multiple targets or a single round from ones concealed carry holster. That gives us a measure of where we are at any given time and how we compare to others. There is value in that.
generally, nobody wants to be slower..but a focus on speed can be a detriment in my options. Speed ( as in being perceived as very expeditious) can be a result of fluidity, practice and economy of a particular motion. I don't care how FAST I am, I only care that I am not wasting effort and that my action is fluid and deliberate. If I am faster now than I was 10 years ago or if I am slower now than 10 years ago, means nothing to me. I have a natural speed that is unique to me and if I need to fight, I certainly wont dawdle. The focus on SPEED seems to be a trend born from comp.
Me personally, I would much rather be mediocre in regards to speed but squared away on fighting tactics than to be the opposite. I will accept natural speed as a byproduct to doing things correctly but I wont focus on speed or measure it. That's just me
FireForged I understand what you're saying, and agree that speed is only a part of the bigger picture. Measuring speed of different techniques gives us useful information though. I don't know how you can separate speed from "fighting tactics." I understand that speed is limited by natural ability, but being able to execute quickly and monitor times to determine efficacy is an essential part of training in my opinion.
For what it's worth, I dont use a timer often. I am more comfortable just working on my skills, but using a timer occasionally insures that I am working on the proper things.
For what it's worth, I dont use a timer often. I am more comfortable just working on my skills, but using a timer occasionally insures that I am working on the proper things.
A timer isn't exclusively about measuring speed. It can also measure efficiency--that is, how effectively the shooter is making use of time.
One good use of a timer is to show the shooter if and where they are wasting time. That is, where they are taking more time than is actually required to accomplish the goal. For example, it's common, for various reasons, for people to spend excessive time transitioning between targets.
It's also fairly common for people to spend more time than is really needed to get a proper grip before drawing a pistol.
It's not difficult to understand why wasted time in a real-world combat scenario could be an issue.
One good use of a timer is to show the shooter if and where they are wasting time. That is, where they are taking more time than is actually required to accomplish the goal. For example, it's common, for various reasons, for people to spend excessive time transitioning between targets.
It's also fairly common for people to spend more time than is really needed to get a proper grip before drawing a pistol.
It's not difficult to understand why wasted time in a real-world combat scenario could be an issue.
FireForged
New member
I don't know how you can separate speed from "fighting tactics
because being fast is not the foundation of knowledge.
Having "the foundation of knowledge" isn't sufficient to win gunfights.because being fast is not the foundation of knowledge.
You can know everything in the world and it won't help you a bit if the other guy kills you before you can shoot him.
Speed is not the only thing that matters in a gunfight, but it is certainly one thing that matters.
As Cooper put it: "DVC" or Diligencia, Vis, Celeritas , by which he meant, accuracy, power and speed. In his opinion, it takes all three to win a gunfight.
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2013/01/defensive-handgun-drills/
FireForged
New member
Having "the foundation of knowledge" isn't sufficient to win gunfights.
so you think that the fastest person wins a gunfight? How about the biggest, or the strongest … do they always win a fight? The best equipped?... do they always win?
I didn't suggest that an absence of practical skill was the way to go.. I said focusing on fractions of a second here and fractions of a second there.. could be counter production in my opinion.
My point is that absolute speed is not likely to be the deciding factor in many current day gunfights. Position, Initiative, tactics and strategics are more important factors in my mind. A person can strive to carry out tasks in a less than bumbling manner without ever looking at a shot timer. If you are weighing .7 this way or .7 that way.. I think you are focusing on the wrong things if Self Defense is the goal. Again, I am do not proclaim to be any sort of expert but that's just my personal feelings on it. If it makes someone feel better about what they are doing to use a timer,.. have at it.
I have no earthly idea how long it takes me to go from zero to ringing steel, no idea at all. I know that I don't dawdle and I sure don't lose any sleep over the not knowing.
Last edited:
That's not a very good summary of my postso you think that the fastest person wins a gunfight?
1. I quoted Cooper who believed that there were three important components of handgun self-defense and I stated what those three things are.
2. I also stated that: "Speed is not the only thing that matters in a gunfight..."
The fact that I (along with Cooper and many others) believe that speed is one important component of handgun self-defense doesn't imply that speed is the only thing that is important. Nor does it mean that the fastest person always wins.
The fact is that there are a number of things (Cooper said 3, but I actually believe that there are more) that are critical to winning a gunfight.
Accuracy is important. No matter how good your equipment, how impressive your knowledge of tactics, how blinding your speed is, if you can't hit the target, you will be severely handicapped and may die in a gunfight as a result.
Speed is important. No matter how accurate you are, no matter how tactically brilliant you are, no matter how reliable your carry gun is, if you can't draw and score a solid hit before your opponent does, you will be handicapped and may lose the gunfight.
Tactics are important. No matter how fast you are or how accurate you are, if you stand still in the open in a gunfight against multiple opponents or even against a single opponent behind solid cover, the odds are against you. You need to know how to move, when to move, where to go, etc. For what it's worth, movement is not the only aspect of tactics--I just picked it as one example.
You can be super tactical, super fast, and super accurate but if your equipment doesn't work, you're at a tremendous disadvantage.
You can be the model of perfect tactics, an accuracy guru, have speed to rival Rob Leatham, be equipped sufficiently to cause a major gun manufacturer to have weapon envy and still lose if you aren't paying attention to what's going on around you until its too late.
And so on.
Anyone who tells you that speed isn't important, that you can ignore it and focus on everything else isn't helping you. Anyone who tells you that accuracy isn't important as long as you are fast and "tactical" is fooling you--and maybe themselves too. Anyone who tells you that only speed and accuracy matter and that you can ignore tactics, equipment, or situational awareness is misleading you.
0.7 seconds is enough time to shoot a couple of aimed shots. It's about half the normal time it takes a skilled person to draw from concealment. A person who is 0.7 seconds behind the curve had better hope they are up against a person who has chosen to ignore one or more of the important concepts in practical handgun use.If you are weighing .7 this way or .7 that way...
A lot of great points from John, imo. Strategy and tactics are obviously important, but in what are many cases ambush like defensive scenarios the ability to use those can be limited. Many gun fights are a few seconds long in total. The ability to react quickly and with deliberation is important, and those can be at least quantified to an extent with a timer. Timers don't just matter speed. Your skill level and efficiency factor into your overall time.
John mentioned a number of good uses for a timer. I would say I personally use one to see if I am maintaining the skill level I've had in the past, as well as compare my "cold" performance to that I've achieved at the end of two back to back days of training. For instance, I can draw from concealment and get a good hit to the upper thorax in 1.3 seconds at 3 yds, but that goes to 1.6 seconds when I'm at 10 yds as the distance requires better sight alignment for an equivalent hit (and shooting reflexively comes into play here). I know that doing this cold typically can add 0.1-0.15 seconds to my time. I know that drawing from concealment adds about 0.2-0.3 seconds to my time as opposed to no cover garment. I know that if I really rush it I can save maybe another 0.1 seconds, but my tendency to fumble getting the garment out of the way also goes up.
Some might argue what benefit I get from this info. The benefit to me is trying different techniques or running different drills and seeing the impact on my time. I have found that sometimes a bit more deliberation can feel much slower and really not be much slower at all. If I didn't have the timer to quantify this my normal impressions might well lead me to wrong conclusions, and I find this true once at a certain performance level.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
John mentioned a number of good uses for a timer. I would say I personally use one to see if I am maintaining the skill level I've had in the past, as well as compare my "cold" performance to that I've achieved at the end of two back to back days of training. For instance, I can draw from concealment and get a good hit to the upper thorax in 1.3 seconds at 3 yds, but that goes to 1.6 seconds when I'm at 10 yds as the distance requires better sight alignment for an equivalent hit (and shooting reflexively comes into play here). I know that doing this cold typically can add 0.1-0.15 seconds to my time. I know that drawing from concealment adds about 0.2-0.3 seconds to my time as opposed to no cover garment. I know that if I really rush it I can save maybe another 0.1 seconds, but my tendency to fumble getting the garment out of the way also goes up.
Some might argue what benefit I get from this info. The benefit to me is trying different techniques or running different drills and seeing the impact on my time. I have found that sometimes a bit more deliberation can feel much slower and really not be much slower at all. If I didn't have the timer to quantify this my normal impressions might well lead me to wrong conclusions, and I find this true once at a certain performance level.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
FireForged
New member
That's not a very good summary of my post
1. I quoted Cooper who believed that there were three important components of handgun self-defense and I stated what those three things are.
2. I also stated that: "Speed is not the only thing that matters in a gunfight..."
The fact that I (along with Cooper and many others) believe that speed is one important component of handgun self-defense doesn't imply that speed is the only thing that is important. Nor does it mean that the fastest person always wins.
The fact is that there are a number of things (Cooper said 3, but I actually believe that there are more) that are critical to winning a gunfight.
Accuracy is important. No matter how good your equipment, how impressive your knowledge of tactics, how blinding your speed is, if you can't hit the target, you will be severely handicapped and may die in a gunfight as a result.
Speed is important. No matter how accurate you are, no matter how tactically brilliant you are, no matter how reliable your carry gun is, if you can't draw and score a solid hit before your opponent does, you will be handicapped and may lose the gunfight.
Tactics are important. No matter how fast you are or how accurate you are, if you stand still in the open in a gunfight against multiple opponents or even against a single opponent behind solid cover, the odds are against you. You need to know how to move, when to move, where to go, etc. For what it's worth, movement is not the only aspect of tactics--I just picked it as one example.
You can be super tactical, super fast, and super accurate but if your equipment doesn't work, you're at a tremendous disadvantage.
You can be the model of perfect tactics, an accuracy guru, have speed to rival Rob Leatham, be equipped sufficiently to cause a major gun manufacturer to have weapon envy and still lose if you aren't paying attention to what's going on around you until its too late.
I concede that you make a very reasonable point
I use a timer to gauge students on basic skills...draw, multiple rounds on target etc. For the draw and placing 3-5 rounds on target, will let a person know approx how far away a threat can be and still respond accurately. ie, Tueller drill.
Where I don't use it, is where competition uses it...scenarios/stages.
Where I don't use it, is where competition uses it...scenarios/stages.
I've been thinking about this and it occurred to me that everything that has been said about timers could be said about measuring accuracy via conventional methods.
Imagine a world where it is difficult to measure accuracy and special equipment is required to do it with any reasonable level of precision. However, in that world, imagine it is very simple and cheap to measure shooting related time intervals. Anyone can do it with no special equipment and to very high accuracy.
It stands to reason that in our hypothetical world, people would have started off measuring time very precisely while accuracy was measured much less precisely and only subjectively. Then, later, when accuracy measuring equipment became widely available, they would have also begun measuring accuracy objectively and with good precision.
In that world, this discussion would still be happening, but it would be about accuracy measurement equipment, not shot timers. And everyone would be talking about how measuring accuracy precisely and objectively is only about games and stages and scenarios; that it's sufficient to measure accuracy subjectively and with no significant precision because there's no time to use accuracy measuring equipment in a gunfight.
Imagine a world where it is difficult to measure accuracy and special equipment is required to do it with any reasonable level of precision. However, in that world, imagine it is very simple and cheap to measure shooting related time intervals. Anyone can do it with no special equipment and to very high accuracy.
It stands to reason that in our hypothetical world, people would have started off measuring time very precisely while accuracy was measured much less precisely and only subjectively. Then, later, when accuracy measuring equipment became widely available, they would have also begun measuring accuracy objectively and with good precision.
In that world, this discussion would still be happening, but it would be about accuracy measurement equipment, not shot timers. And everyone would be talking about how measuring accuracy precisely and objectively is only about games and stages and scenarios; that it's sufficient to measure accuracy subjectively and with no significant precision because there's no time to use accuracy measuring equipment in a gunfight.