"The 2 shots per second cadence cited as one shooter's pointshooting performance sounds slower than what I recall the IPSC/IDPA crowd shooting from their isocoles stances while using a flash sight picture at that distance..."
It probably is, and if you remember I did say I would not be using QK at that distance in the real world. I'd be using my sights as well. The exercise was only performed to determine if one could extend the distance out that far without sights, in that regard it was learned it can be with the right training. No more or less.
"Much of this is meaningless until we start timing the shots and looking at the accuracy."
Actually it would still be meaningless. The variable that would make it meaningless is the two shooters different skills levels to begin with when performed.
As an extreme example, if you will to prove the pointlessness of such a test resulting in no real value.
Take a sighted shooter with 2 years of average range time, say 10K of rounds through his guns in that time. A fair shooter.
Pit him against a pointshooter with 28 years of practice in that discipline. They shoot against time, and make it a distance of 15 feet. The PSer will clean his clock all day with A or B hits on an IPSC target. It proves nothing.
Take the same two shooters. Make the distance 100 yds. The sighted fire shooter will clean the PSers clock in accuracy and probably with a better time. It proves nothing still. Keep in mind these are extreme examples but they show that no two shooters of any discipline are on the same level where skill, time on guns, and experience is concerned. The variable can not be constant or even where two humans are concerned.
Now, let me cite and example which may have value in it's context. One of my best students brought his MT competition shooter friend to the training in QK last Oct.
Both are very good shooters. Both have attended over 40 courses in the MT, primarily at Front Sight. Shooter #1 had never been able to beat his friend [ shooter #2 ], the comp shooter, in speed or accuracy with speed in years of trying including FoF with airsofts.
Both learned QK in one day with me, got the same training time, same shooting time in that days training. Afterwards a FoF scenario was set up where shooter #1 was to use his new skills of QK and shooter #2 was to stay with his well honed MT mehtodology.
In three FoF scenarios, one right after the other, shooter #1 got two and athree rounds on shooter #2 before he got hit. In other words he had beat his friend for the first time, when the friend was handicapped to using MT and shooter #1 used the pointshooting system.
Both came away with a new respect for their new found skills in QK. Both learned which was faster and treliable enough to get hits on moving targets against a moving target.
Take that for what it is worth, it happened, was witnessed by 10 people in real time and it is what it is.
"BTW, seems to me like Enos refined a lot of old ideas when he articulated the idea of the "index"."
His articulation of "index" was about 31 years behind that of QK's which works off an index as well. Thrfee decades, he didn't refine, he redefined and in so doing confused a lot of people who had not heard of or were aware of QK rifle or pistols techniques. The rifle QK has been written about in a book called "Instinct Shooting" written by Mike Jennings and published in 1959. Thats 30 years before Enos wrote of any index and may have been before he was born.
In other words, it is what I had stated, nothing new, just redefined and repackaged.
"Thanks to the "modern technique" guys and shot timers, we have a pretty good handle on the limits of human dexterity"
We also have a pretty good handle on the limits of ones natural ability to point thanks to people like Applegate, Fairbairn, Sykes, Bryce, Jordan, and McDaniel, and all about 40 years or more before the modern guys were around. Not to mention that everyone of these guys past their knowledge which was tested on the streets in real world shootouts for decades and worked.
"Sounds like most of us agree that there really is a continuum of how quick-n-dirty you can be at extreme close range, and there is a sort of increasingly precise visual referencing as shots become more difficult--ending with using the sights as a Bullseye shooter does when the greatest precision is needed."
Exactly, 7677 of this forum wrote his "sight continuum" which takes into account and describes this in a cognitive order that is easily followed. In fact he taught this in our class in Tucson.
"Any can be taught but how can we test and scientifically say that one or the other is on average this much faster or 6-inch-group-accurate out so many feet farther than the other?"
Why do we need to? Faster is relative to the shooter [ see above ].
"Anyway, seems like any of these can be TAUGHT to a certain degree of accuracy and speed courtesy of our capacity to learn, just like you get into a habit of reaching for the radio knob in your car about"
If it were not so, the systems of pointshooting would not have the track records they do in the real world of staying alive.
" Quick-Kill (perhaps a 2-handed version of FAS without the hipshooting part????)"
QK is not a two handed version of FAS, and QK does include a hip shooting techique for ranges reserved at 0-10 or 12 feet with relatively little practice.
"Any PS system work any better than any other when you cannot visualize the firearm?"
I can't say, I only train in QK, and I can shoot at and hit reduced silhouettes at 50 feet when the gun is not visible, and the target is only a shadow with a hit % of about 90%. Thats not to say others could be brought to that in a day or two of training in QK. That again would depend on their present skill level at the time [ a variable thats different for every shooter ] and the fact that I practiced this for two years in competitons designed to test ones ability to hit with no aiming devices and no night sights at that 50 foot indoor range with the lights off at the shooter and dimmed to allow a shadow of a silhouette to be present.
Took 2nd place the first year and 1st place the second. It got easier as we went along for everyone, some more than others. Again, it was dependant on the shooters skills level at the time these events ocurred.
Grump, try to ask shorter questions in your posts, my fingers are getting tired and I have to shoot tomorrow
If you are old enough to remember the abbot and costello routine of "who's on first" think in terms now of "who came first"
Robin Brown
)
