From Grump:
"And I don't want to learn any bad habits if there is a better PS technique than yours. Yours is good. What is best?"
From Brownie:
That IS soley dependant [sic] on the individual shooter and their personal skills level and training. It is not something that can be tested objectively, no matter how vehemently you disagree with that thought process.
BTW Grump, You can't make claims QK is good, you don't know the system and have not been properly trained in it yet. Your going on assumption when you make that statement.
Gee, whiz, Wally!!! I'm on the same page through almost all of this, in the general idea that sightless shooting/pointshooting, it a *Good Thing* to have in the toolbox and I'm just trying to sort out the differences between the various systems whose names have been bandied about in this thread.
I ask to know which is better, based on accuracy and speed. Okay, apparently both FAS and QK are about equally good, based on your now-published timer test and the absence of misses (less than 3%) on a TQ-15 target.
I believed you at face value when you trotted out your proof and now you want to say "You can't make claims QK is good, you don't know the system and have not been properly trained in it yet. Your [sic] going on assumption when you make that statement."
Yeah, I assumed you were telling the truth on the timer test. Now what, you want to impeach your own evidence?
When tests performed at one level prove inconclusive, differences can be uncovered with a more exacting test. Yours sure looked like good evidence of equal performance, as measured by TQ-15 accuracy at approximately equal speeds. I said we can disagree about what is "acceptable" and you turned it into a pi$$ing contest over who can shoot better and who has more street experience and who "has the T-shirt."
Show me where I said or implied that you couldn't shoot. I had some trouble with you touting an 8-inch standard, then having your test conducted on a target with a somewhat looser standard than what you yourself said was "acceptable". Okay, maybe you don't have a huge supply of IDPA targets. I called you on that discrepancy, and you've followed up with a nice description of extreme accuracy on one of the 7-yard shoots. GREAT!! That's what I'm after.
Please pardon your most humble and unlearned servant. I seek to learn from the masters, and was impudent of me to ask questions that basically amount to "can one tell if QK or FAS is measurably better by any standard more refined than an 8-inch circle?"
I tried to illustrate how some of this could be tested scientifically. You say it can't despite what I consider a pretty good effort on my part to explain replicability of testing and looking closely at accuracy at some standard that no one has yet adopted, except perhaps the PPC crowd and the wimpy-gun ISU/UIT or whatever rapidfire pistol guys. My gross error was, perhaps, in failing to distinguish automated identical-experience shoothouse testing with moving targets, from the impossible-to-replicate force-on-force situation. I can agree to disagree on the impossibility of measurement. Can you, neighbor?
You also continued to cite IDPA and the feds after my attempt to illustrate how two "good enough" hits failed in a well-known firefight. Sorry if I got offended by your failure to stay on-topic (accuracy) after I mentioned it, and for being miffed by your failure to say anything about whether or how those "acceptable" hits on Platt or Matix (his marginal neck wound was arguably still effective in light of his later actions being only escape rather than fighting back) either count or don't count in evaluating how good is "good enough".
And I believe I am totally correct in saying that none of this has anything to do with my arse. Or yours, for that matter.
So, Brownie, who should I train with for pointshooting skills? I am interested in a location somewhere between Denver and San Diego, but not so far south as Yuma or Tucson. Your humble servant begs to learn.
