Shooting fast at CQB distances.

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ankeny

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
2,131
[Long and boring post mode on.]

First off, I would like to offer up an apology for being such a jerk in the point shooting threads. I could have used some tact. Sorry Matt and the rest.

A couple of comments got me to thinking. One comment was:

You will find that any attempt to look at the gun will blow the shot, or at least slow you down with no increase in accuracy.
Click to expand...

The comment was followed by a suggested drill that would drive the point home. I took issue with the idea that looking to the sights would slow me down and/or not result in an increase in accuracy. That whole notion runs so contrary to what I believe.

Another comment really struck home:

...the only thing that should concern you is how fast and how well this system will enable you to shoot.
Click to expand...

Ouch, can't argue with that. Then again it is also important how fast and how well my current system will enable me to shoot.

Then there was this comment:

Now get the hell off the computer and SHOOT!!!!!
Click to expand...

Hmmm...that's some pretty good advice so I took it.

Well it was a great day today (20 degrees, no wind, bright sunshine) so I went to the range to shoot the suggested drill and to sight in my Open blaster.

I set an IPSC target up at 6-8 feet and I stapled a paper plate over the upper A/B zone to create a "head". The gear I used was a Les Baer Premiere II out of an Uncle Mike's Kydex holster. The ammo was pretty much a wimp load, lol. I shot gamer stuff because I didn't want to shoot up a bunch of HydraShoks. The bullet was a 200 grain Lazercast round nose making 170 power factor. The drill is to shoot two rounds to the body followed by two rounds to the paper plate "head".

I didn't warm up at all, shot it cold knowing I would warm up as I went. I started with the pistol at the "low ready". On the first run I used a pure target focus and shot totally by feel. The time was, first shot .32, second shot .20, third shot .22, fourth shot .18, for a total time of .92 seconds. The hits on the paper plate were at four o'clock and ten o'clock positions about 7 inches apart.

On the second run I went into warp drive and the times were, .36 to the first shot, .16 to the second, .13 to the third (transition to the head) and .12 to the fourth shot for a total time of .77 seconds. I missed the freaking plate on the last shot and barely nicked it on the third. I tried too hard. I was unhappy with the group on the plate so I decided to exercise some visual patience and accept more visual input on the third run.

The third run went like this. First shot .34, second shot .15, third shot .15, fourth shot .14 for a total time of .78 seconds. The third and fourth shots were centered on the plate about 2 inches apart.

On the fourth run I decided to shoot the first shot during the presentation, pick up enough visual input to call the shot, and then add some precision. I was also warmed up. The times were, first shot .31, second shot .13, third shot .18, fourth shot .16, for a total time of .78 seconds. Shots one and two were in the A zone, three and four were COM on the plate an inch or two apart.

Time to add the draw element and I also moved back one yard. On the first run I shot with a lot of visual input. Draw .85, second shot .19, third shot .16, last shot .16, for a total of 1.36 seconds. The first two shots were in the A zone, the third and fourth touched in the center of the head. On the next run my times were .92 draw, .17 second shot, .14 third shot (an awesome transition), .15 fourth shot, for a total of 1.38 seconds.

So, I decided to try it shooting with total body feel and very little visual input. The times were, .96 draw, .17 second shot, .17 third shot, .18 fourth shot for a total time of 1.48 seconds, but the accuracy wasn't there. I didn't miss, but I wasn't pleased.

On the next run I decided to actually aim after I picked the sights up following the first shot, be sure to call shots 2-4 with certainty, and to maintain enough visual patience to stack the shots right on top of each other. The times were, .89 draw, .17 second shot, .16 third shot, .15 fourth shot for a total time of 1.37 seconds. The first two rounds were in the A-zone, the third and fourth rounds almost touching in the center of the plate.

At this point in time I took my gear off and sighted in my Open pistol.

This little experiment wasn't very scientific but I am satisified that I can gather a lot of visual input after the first shot without an increase in time and the pay off is a substantial increase in accuracy. However, I must openly admit that I am not a serious student of point shooting and I am still ignorant about what it is they really do. I am horribly biased and not very open minded. Today, I spent more time shooting "my way" than "the other way". In retrospect, I should have shot without as much visual input after I was warmed up. Maybe I was afraid the results would shatter my preconceived notions, I don't know.

If nothing else, I owe Matt and the other guys a huge thank you for giving me something to think about and for firing me up enough to get out to the range and give it a try.

Oh, and before the guy from the other thread comes by and mutters, "Yeah right". My username is my name. I don't believe in Internet anonymity. I am not a GM shooter but I am a five division Master and I am known locally as a regular split monster, lol. Three years ago the times I posted today would have seemed unrealistic, but I know better now. When I review my timer it still amazes me that guys like Avery, Leatham, and Burkett would smoke me like a cheap cigar. Maybe the younger point shooters, would beat me too. I think I do OK.

Stay sharp and shoot straight.

[/Long and boring post mode off.]
 
Ankeny:

I was involved in that thread as well, I didn't think any harm or hard feelings came from any of the posts there. I thought your post here was enlightening and as mentioned you got out to the range.

I believe you should have someone show you the PS, that uses it more often than not, before you can realistically equate the two side by side though. It still might be skewered for times though because you have more range time with your own methods than PS.

I didn't know until I was instructed in the QK [ PS ] myself by one who had the knowledge and could pass that skill onto others.

I believe you are sincerely attempting to be objective here by this thread post. In that regard, I commend you and your efforts.

Brownie
 
I second what Brownie has/had to say. Bottom line is, NO ONE knows it all. That is the beauty of this website and others like it. You can exchange ideas, training methods, and concerns. If you disagree; disagree. If you don't, well then agree.

I on a personal level have learned quite abit from this website. I've also stuck my foot in my mouth on several different occasions and have been, well, notified as such. My mistake.

Its still been and will be, a valuable learning resource.
 
If anyone, at times, behaves like a jerk, then it is yours truly.
There are some opinions that I should ideally--and will begin to--- keep to myself.
There are also some concepts/techniques that I can convey only under personal instruction.
I commend everone here for their honesty, and I believe that this forum will never ( thankfully) turn into a Glocktalk a/k/a Geektalk.
 
Meet an a$$ every other day, it's them.
Meet one every day, it's you.

I too like the visual input, but my times are much slower than yours, so I would defer to the better people's opinions. I have been told that sights at 8-10 feet are pretty useless and that A hits are pretty easy with practice and proper fire control. After about five yard- until about 15 yards, Double taps become controlled pairs, realign fire, realign fire.

After 15 yards, one can not guarantee A hits regardless of aiming- when shooting IDPA / IPSG dynamic scenarios, shoot for the -1 zone and hope for -0's (Bs to As). Even a 0.5 second hit probably won't last as long as the reaim effort.

I have tried to incorporate this into my shooting and I have improved. Although I still need to work on proper sight pictures at speed, I think I can get there.

TchuSS,

Dan
 
I suppose this belongs in a gamer thread, but here goes.

After 15 yards, one can not guarantee A hits regardless of aiming-
Click to expand...

That is a self imposed limitation. Shooting all A hits at 15 yards is a piece of cake, but as a general rule, the scoring system will reward speed with 90-95% Alphas over slowing down to get all A's.


when shooting IDPA / IPSC dynamic scenarios, shoot for the -1 zone and hope for -0's (Bs to As).
Click to expand...

I shoot for the -0 zone but accept an occasional -1 as a part of being human.
 
Last edited:
Ankeny,
I don't believe that you were being a jerk, you were arguing your point of view and I take my hat off to you for actually trying it. I have no hard feelings. Point shooting is simple to learn but it is something that I can't teach over the internet. A while back, I tried IDPA with another officer and it was fun but the most of the scenarios did not reflect what I would do in a real world situation. The time issue always seemed to over ride proper tactics. The plus side of this experience I did meet a bunch of good people and made a lot of contacts. As tetleyb has pointed out NO ONE knows it all.
 
If you understand IDPA and IPSC strategy, and the difference between it and real life shootings you will start to see just what you can get out of these two sports as compared to real life.

You see, IPSC is pure score divided by time. That is 10 points / 5 seconds or such. Pure speed is more important than accuracy as the points you lose by not shooting dead center (10 ring) is no where near the time element. This is why 'spray-n-pray' is a big thing to many who shoot IPSC. There are even competitors who will ignore longer range targets and accept the penalty as the penalty is less than the time it would take to engage and get good hits. What good is it for? You learn to be very fast. Pure speed. And IPSC usually has multiple targets as in 5 to 10 of them at a time. Tactics are simply not there. Don't even try to learn tactics in IPSC. But just use the matches to see just how fast you can shoot multiple targets.

Now IDPA. This, because of the scoring method, forces more accuracy. To drop points is to take end up adding much more time to your score (IDPA the lower the score the better, IPSC the higher the better.) SOME tactics are emphasized. Local matches tend to have much more good tactics than state or national (which is where the hot competitors go!) Some clubs are real into tactics and will penalize you mucho if you speed things up and make a game out of it (called 'failure to do right' penalty.)

What these matches push for is speed OVER A STRING OF SHOTS. Not speed for the first shot or accuracy for the first shot. So competitors have to be fast for shooting long strings, not fast and accurate for close range defensive use on only one or so attackers. You won't learn sudden death techniques at 2 yards. About the only way to get that kind of matches is to go back to the old walk-n-draw matches, and they don't have them any more (I think it's a libility thing. Real high speed tends to have fumbled fingered people shoot themselves in the leg.)

Now both are 'sports'. You do not train by shooting IDPA or IPSC matches. But you do train hard so you CAN enter such matches and use them as a test to see how well you react under the pressure of competition. It's the pressure you are after. When I go to state matches it's a sleepless night, standing in the hot sun (or freeze) waiting my turn. Trying to memorize just what they want me to do in each stage (minimum 10 stages.) By that evening you are dog dead tired. Pushing yourself to the limit in both ability and stamina is part of it. And that is why it's a good test. Just as going to steel challenges (I've won top IDPA overall only once in a state steel challege match and never a state IDPA... yet.)

I much encourage those who wish to become very good shots in defensive use to go to matches. The pressure, especially if you are a LEO and in uniform, to look good is pretty high. Higher pressure makes it harder to shoot strait and fast.
 
Deaf Smith:

Accuracy is critical when you get to my level of competition. The difference in time between Master class shooters on many standards and classifiers is less than a half a second so it comes down to points. If a person doesn't get 90-95 per cent of the available points, they suck.

You will never get into the advanced levels of performance with a "spray and pray" mentality. You better know where the shot is going to go before you press the trigger and you for darn sure better call the shot with certainty at the very instant the gun fires. As for just skipping a target, with the failure to engage penalty and the missing points, the only way you can skip a target is if the course is very poorly designed. Skipping targets occur most frequently when you need to wait on a target to activate, that also carries no penalty, as in the case of a disappearing target, not because a shot is too long or too tight.
 
Deaf Smith,

The trade off for accuracy vs. speed in IPSC depends on the Hit Factor for the stage. You can think of a stage HF as the stage winner's HF -- his points / time. On longer stages or stages where accuracy matters, the HF will be low. On "hoser" stages, the HF will be high.

The HF is a number which represents the number of incremental points you need to make per second to increase your score on that stage.

-z
 
Ankeny,

Which are you referring to, IPSC or IDPA? They are much different. IDPA requires more accuracy and less speed. But both go by the time of the string, not the speed of the first shot!

Zak,

I've shot quite a bit of IPSC. I used to compete for something like 10 years worth. I shoot mostly IDPA now. It has to do with shooting carry guns with carry get concealed. I do know the IPSC game quite well. Back when I shot it, a P-35 was considered a fine choice. This was before comps and optics got into the picture.

Last time I shot it, about 2 years ago, using my Glock 17, most of the competitors 'charged' their targets in a stage were you were lieing down. There were 9 targets. They all ran up to the targets, 1 foot distance, and did their thing. I know it's just part of the game, and I don't use it as a 'tactic'.

I still encourage people to shoot either IPSC or IDPA just so they are forced to go out to a range and practice. Skill at arms is far more important than if you use Weaver or Isosceles or Chapman or flash sight picture or front sight focus or target focus or even 'tea drinking stance with one eye closed'! This has to do with confidence. Confidence is what will keep you from falling appart at the monent of truth. And confidence comes from good training with lots of practice.
 
Back when I shot it, a P-35 was considered a fine choice. This was before comps and optics got into the picture.
Click to expand...

We've still got Limited, Limited-10, and Production. The Limited class is dominated by widebody 1911 .40SW's with iron sights and no comps. Limited-10 around here is shot mostly by single-stack 1911's, and Production is mainly Glocks and SIGs.

Last time I shot it, about 2 years ago, using my Glock 17, most of the competitors 'charged' their targets in a stage were you were lieing down. There were 9 targets. They all ran up to the targets, 1 foot distance, and did their thing. I know it's just part of the game, and I don't use it as a 'tactic'.
Click to expand...

A good IPSC match should test a range of skills. Around here we have challenging disappearing targets and 8" plates in front of no-shoots at 15 yards.

-z
 
Deaf:

I am talking IPSC. My number is TY43321 if you care to go look it up.

Zak:

Hey, I see you are in Ft. Collins. I have family in Laramie and I'll be there this summer. Where do you shoot? Do you ever blast steel over at the Weld County Range? Would love to come shoot with you guys.
 
Which is one of my beefs with competition, at least with those who feel it is relevant to the streets.
Gunfighting distances are usually very close, and that is where we should be spending most of our range pratice.
When my job stops requiring us to qualify up to 15 yards I will give up long range practice.
At least with a 2" revolver.
 
Matt:

I was practicing with a very solid Master (almost GM) a couple of weeks ago and the nearest target we were shooting at was 12-15 yards. My buddy and I are both of the opinion that at our skill level it is a waste of time and ammo to shoot any closer than about 10 yards. I suppose that pretty well makes your case. :)

Then again, we believe if we can shoot fast and accurately at 10 yards, we can shoot even faster at 5 yards. Of course, this as as it relates to shooting the game, not real world encounters. ;)
 
I'm afraid some posters here have the misunderstanding that all competition shoot only tea-drinking stances, shoot no closer that 10 yards, only use fancy target guns, sights, holsters, etc....

This is a very mistaken line of thought. I've been in IDPA matchs where the targets were 1 foot away! Other stages where you had to strike one target with your hand before backing off and shooting while moving backwards.

But again, IDPA or IPSC is a shooting match. It's the training you put yourself through that matters. I and my partner always use guns and gear that are carry relivant. We always draw from concealed holsters for all practice. We practice shooting while moving, pieing, one handed, weak handed, speed reloads, tac-reloads, etc... All with pretty much carry gear (if you consider a Glock 17 and Blade-Tec holster and pouch setup, both behind the hips, with either light jackets or short sleave shirts as carry gear.

Do not make the mistake that all competition is not relivant. Even the 'tea-drinking' stance will work if you are good enough!
 
Fighting is fighting. The mind is the weapon, everything else are tools. Most assaults don't occur until the bad guy is within arms reach. If you are at conversation distance and someone pulls an edged weapon and the first thing you do is step back and draw your gun instead of advance and trap you have a lot better chance of winding up dead. Force on force training is what counts. F-stances, if you can get your hand on the gun you can fight.
 
mercop:

Give it a break, I am talking about pistolcraft...hitting a cardboard target fast and accurately, not taking some punk's Raven away from him while you slap him silly. Just out of curiosity, how many GM shooters have you trained with?
 
I was just wondering what made them cry. Seriously George, I know being a top notch IPSC gunslinger has nothing to do with street fighting. FWIW, Ron Avery (a GM IPSC shooter who also conducts force on force for Uncle Sam) once told me something to the effect of, "...B class shooters have all of the gunhandling skills they could possibly need. All that is missing is tactics and a warrior attitude."
 
Bro, no offense taken. Even in my circles my tactics are thought by some to be out of the box. I just go into the station every day and read about the latest dead cop on www.odmp.org and can't help but think that indecisivness is the biggest killer. I only meant to say that many work on marksmanship but leave out gunhandleing and mindset. The last is the onlyone you can practice anywhere and anytime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Good Ol' Boy
  • Locked
Distance
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
131
Views
4K
azrocks
azrocks
A
  • Locked
Book by Don Mann - 3 meters, 3 shots, 3 seconds
2
Replies
29
Views
688
KodiakBeer
K
eastbank
  • Locked
1187 doing all righ on the trap range
Replies
3
Views
411
RiverDawg
R
L
  • Locked
MPI, Mean Point of Impact, how?
Replies
3
Views
753
Lucky
L
A
  • Locked
Draw times - whoa!
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
2K
Deaf Smith
Deaf Smith
Back
Top