Speed?Power?Accuracy?

[Tgace]

The elements of pistolcraft have been described as SPEED, POWER and ACCURACY. To win the gunfight (once that point has become unavoidable) you need to get the gun on target and working faster than the opponent. The power of the weapon should be substantial enough to damage the opponent quckly and signifigantly. And last (and IMO far from least) you have to be able to hit the target in the area that will have the most effect.

Question. If you could achieve "perfection" in any one of these elements which would it be? I choose accuracy because if I could hit in any desired area under any circumstance I could survive with a .22 Second place for me would be speed because many times in my profession you are playing the "catch up" game.

 

[dearnis.com]

I'll second that. As they say, you can't miss fast enough to catch up. Yesterday I had my first real chance to work on steel with a timer since coming back from Gunsite. I was very happy with my times....even with the extra shots that were on occaision needed due to accuracy deficit. (was running Doziers with a turn in 3.5 to 3.8; I feel very good about that).
Power; well, if the other factors are there, you'll come out OK. Power means the biggest caliber you can shoot fast and accurately.

 

[bdparsons]

Definitely accuracy.

If you can't hit what you're aiming at aren't the other factors irrelevant?

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[KenpoTex]

Like Bill Jordan said, "Speed is fine, Accuracy is FINAL." (also attributed to Wild Bill Hickhok). For me, that pretty much sums it up. It doesn't matter how fast you can present the weapon and/or fire if you don't hit anything. I'm not saying speed isn't important and with practice, you will become faster. However, accuracy is paramount.

 

[dearnis.com]

Well, we have a vote for power without comment....
Since I'm not alone in saying accuracy, convince us!

 

[Jerry]

Though I too voted accuracy.. it's still a very quantative issue.

"where do your other skills lie"? Let's assume that you can currently hit a target first shot (and you are worried about a confrontation); then it would actually be speed, not accuracy that you were most worried about... you are already "accurate enough" (wonder if I can change my vote).

Of coruse, we all know non is usefull without the other two. I won't win a gunfight with a (very accurate and powerful) howitzer that I can't bring ot bear in under 2 minutes; nor will I win with a (very accuarte and fast) laser-pointer that cannot hurt you.

So the real question must be "where are you most deficent"? It's really "accurate speed" that's needed... and with enough power you can sacrifice a little accuracy (shots from a .22 that would not stop you from shooting back, might if they were from a .45).

 

[dearnis.com]

I think the balance of power and accuracy comes down to where we draw the cut-off for a serious defensive handgun. A .32? Obviously to little. Also tends to lack in the other areas... I carry a P32 as an "always" gun. Is it accurate? Accurate enough; I normally shoot about 94% on our off duty qual course with mine. It is also fair to say that the course asks more from the gun than I ever will. Is it fast? No. I carry it deep, and it is too small for easy, smooth, manipulation. So why have it? Like I said, an always gun.
How about a .380? Most are small enough that manipulation and smooth use is an issue. Same with .38 snubbies as we move up. It seems to me we are almost forced into the compact service size category before we get to a weapon that is big enough to maniplate smoothly, quickly, and accurately. At this point the user will have to select the weapon based on comfort, and recoil, or perception of recoil is part of that package. In very arbitrary terms, "pick the most powerful gun YOU can shoot accurately and quickly."
But, generalities aside, I still go with accuracy... I know how fast I can shoot, and I know I can get by with any reasonable defensive caliber.

 

[Cruentus]

I'll be contrarian a little...just to be a bastard..

I would say for accuracy being first, it depends on what you mean by accurate.

If it was between being within a 5" or even an 8" grouping with multiple shots WHILE MOVING, but with me getting there faster then the other guy who might be able to shoot within a 3" grouping, then I'll take speed first.

If it is accuracy as in hitting target vs. not hitting a chest sized target at all, then obviously I would take accuracy.

As Applegate said: "You've got to be the first with the most," key word being "first." It doesn't do you any good to be able to hit within a 1" group if it takes you forever to get there. You'll be dead before you can be accurate. However, it doesn't do any good to be there first, if you don't hit the person shooting at you at all.

So I think a balance has to be maintained between accuracy and speed, and "accuracy first" would depend on what you mean by accurate, IMHO.

Power is always last, IMHO. THat has to do with caliber, which doesn't do you any good if you can't get there first and accurately.

O.K....I'm done. You can now pig-pile on the young shooting rookie...*ducks for cover* :2xBird2: :uhyeah:

 

[dearnis.com]

Accuracy as I'm using it here is nothing more than the ability to place an appropriate center mass hit; say within 8". A 3" group in a moving, timed combat drill is indicative of taking too much time.

 

[Tgace]

Yep. I think a "beginners" speed is just fine as long as he can hit and manipulate smoothly. Speed should come as a result of training/experience more than being a goal in itself.

 

[dearnis.com]

Very true. Speed in shooting, as in other martial techniques, is ultimately a function of smoothness. Smoothness, and with it speed, comes only from many CORRECT reps. Anybody ever hear Professor Presas say to slow down, practice with flow, and then you will be fast? Same idea.

 

[Cruentus]

It's been dead here today, so I thought I'd add some insight from the great Col. Applegate:

To be able to hit a black dot at a given number of yards is not nearly so important as to be able to hit an enemy before he gets you. The desired goal is to ingrain in the shooter a supreme sense of confidence in the hand gun, and complete confidence in his ability to use it to get there "fastest with the mostest lead."

It is a matter of record that the majority of shooting affrays between individuals take place at a distance of not more than 20 feet. Consequently, the man who can use his weapon quickly and accurately from any position without using the sights is the one who will stand the best chance of not going out feet first. Here speed in firing, confidence of the shooter in his weapon and in his ability, and practice under conditions which approach those of actual combat firing are the important factors. You have a choice - you may be among the quick or among the dead.

- Col. Rex Applegate
Kill or Get Killed
Copywrite 1943

I think if the Colonel was alive and online, he may have voted speed over the rest. :ultracool

 

[KenpoTex]

Ah, Applegate, I was actually reading KOGK earlier this week, great stuff (everyone should read it). His stuff on unarmed combat is very good as well.

I think if the Colonel was alive and online, he may have voted speed over the rest.

Possibly, but I think accuracy was a concern as well. I think it really boils down to what we mean by accuracy. If accuracy means the ability to shoot 2" groups at 25 yards "offhand," then different goals may need to be created. In KOGK, Applegate outlined some different training methods for combat shooting which stressed speed but also worked toward achieving accuracy. The difference was that his definition of acceptabe "combat accuracy" was being able to put all your shots into a 5" group on a human silhouette-target at a max of 15 yards. Of course, that was his standard for instinctive shooting, he stated several times that if you had time for aimed fire, to make the most of it.
Again, we see the need for realistic training. Most SD shootings take place in the 1-3 yard range, maybe out to 7 yards at the most. Obviously speed is important--being able to get off the first shot, or pop the guy that's running toward you with a knife is a good thing. However, we still have to balance speed with a dose of accuracy, if you can't hit the guy it doesn't matter how fast you are.

 

[dearnis.com]

Just to be counter to Paul...
While at Gunsite I got a polite *** chewing for running a shoot house point shhoting. I got hits, and acceptible hits, but not great hits. What I was apparently doing was not raising my gun above chest level. On a later run in another simulator I found that I lost almost no time accquiring a proper sight picture, and got better hits (eg tear duct vs lung).
So I'll side with Col. Cooper over Col. Applegate.....
more to follow; see Jim Cirrillo's book for a good discussion on the topic.

 

[Cruentus]

Possibly, but I think accuracy was a concern as well. I think it really boils down to what we mean by accuracy.

I agree, and I detailed this in my first post; there is a balance between accuracy and speed.

As to Cooper's Vs. Applegate's methods, I know that more people today ascibe to more of a target shooting, sited fire approach that focuses more on accuracy then speed. Also I realize that people are more familiar with Cooper's methods then Applegate's; I mean, many people have read KOGK, but how many have had the chance to train with someone who was well versed in these methods, or trained with the Col. or someone who trained with the Col. themselves? Not many in comparison.

This is not accusing anyone here, but people read the book, and they think they know or can learn how to point shoot Applegate style. The reality is, like martial arts, there is only so much one can derive from a book. It gives you a good idea, but it just isn't the same as training the material.

I maintain that if one is point shooting properly, one will be much faster then with their sited fire under 30 feet, and very accurate as well (within a 5" grouping). Some other things to consider is this:

- In LE shootings, Law Enforcement Officers are facing only about a 20% hit rate or less each year. Most are taught sited fire at close range. What is happening is that they cannot get there fast enough #1. #2 is that when someone is shooting at them and their sympathetic nervous system takes over, they are unable to get a site picture while seeing the target. That coupled with a convulsary grip that they are not used to training with causes a miss. I know many of you have probably heard this arguement, but none-the-less, I am presenting it anyhow.

- Another thing to consider is movement in a gun fight. The Applegate method teaches you not only to shoot quickly and accurately, but to move, duck, and dodge for cover.This is not the same awkward and slow sideways movement that I have seen from people trying to get a site picture while moving. I am talking a running sprint and duck, and possible roll if you have to, for cover while your shooting one handed within a 5" or so grouping - movement that could not be achieved while trying to gain a site picture. Why is this important? I know someone who was in a gunfight (a cop) where he shot the guy directly in the heart. The guy still had time to yell "You'll never take me alive" before shooting himself in the head. What disturbed him greatly was not only did he have to lethally shoot the guy in the heart, but the guy had the time to yell and kill himself. The point is what if that guy had decided to shoot at the cop before dying? He would have been able to unload a clip before keeling over, and that is the reality. Even if someone is shot or stabbed lethally, they still have a lot of time to shoot at you before they die. If you are squared off or weavered off in front of the guy and shoot him first, he can still shoot you, and nobody wins. His friends can also still shoot you if you decided to unload your clip into him for fear that he will still shoot you after you get the first shot.

If you want to win, I suggest that you are moving for cover, while shooting quickly and accurately. Good point shooting is condusive of that, where as sited fire is not.


Sited fire, according to what I have learned, IS more accurate then point shooting, especially at ranges greated then 30 feet. However, to do sited fire, one must have distance, time, and cover.

Now, this post was more or less explaining a few elements of the Applegate method in its defense. I am not trying to argue that this method is better then the Cooper method, or anything else, even though I feel that the Applegate method, and particularly the target-focused -shooting method, is best for me. That is like argueing that Jujitsu is better then Aikido, or whatever. It comes down to personal preference who the practitioner is and how skilled the shooter is more so then the method itself. So I am sure that the folks at Gunsite do a fine job, and that some of our very informative MT members here are very skilled, even if they don't fully ascribe to the same method as I.

Paul

 

[Tgace]

An issue that arises involves the fact that you are responsible for where your rounds go. Try saying you were not "aiming" but pointing on the stand when a bystander is killed...bad juju.

 

[Tgace]

Also remember that just putting the front sight on target is "aiming". I dont believe anybody is advocating a range perfect sight alignment. While under simunition training, I dont really recall if I "sighted" per se or not, but there was a conscious alignment of the weapon and I do remember a "flash sight picture" on occasions where the guy wasnt already grabbing/stabbing me.

 

[Cruentus]

An issue that arises is that you are responsible for where your rounds go. Try saying you were not "aiming" but pointing on the stand when a bystander is killed...bad juju.

That might explain why most departments don't teach point shooting...hmmm...

 

[Tgace]

At least why they dont use the "term", we do incorporate the concept however....in SWAT training we have a "zero miss" philosophy. We fine all members $1 a round for any shot off target. While the reality of life is that we will miss, the stakes can be so high that, as a philosophy, we have to have that point of view.

 

[Cruentus]

At least why they dont use the "term", we do incorporate the concept however....in SWAT training we have a "zero miss" philosophy. We fine all members $1 a round for any shot off target. While the reality of life is that we will miss, the stakes can be so high that, as a philosophy, we have to have that point of view.

That's kind of like when I have the "swearing jar" where I have to put in a dollar every time I swear when I try to give that up for lent... :uhyeah:

Yea, I thought about that a little after I posted it. I guess if I were on the stand, I would say that "I aimed, then fired."

Your still aiming when you point shoot; your just not using your sites. You aim with your eye. The idea that you don't aim when point shooting is a misconception by a lot of people.

All aiming is doing is creating an obtuse triangle from your eye, to the barrel, to the target as the three vertexes. The hypotinuse, or longest side of the triangle goes from your eye to the target or entry point. All siting does is make that triangle thinner by putting the hypotinuse through the front and rear sites to the entry point, limiting the amount of error and allowing for a more accurate shot. Front site shooting does the same, but your hypotinuse goes through just that front site picture; making the good assumption that with a trained shooter, proper grip and weapon alignment will take care of the rest. Point shooting just means that your not using your sites at all, but your still aiming, and the triangle still exists. For example, if the gun is at your hip (and this is only an example because point shooting doesn't just happened from the hip), you are still creating the triangle from eye to target to barrel; you just have a less thin triangle (or less of a distance from the hypotinuse and the other triangle sides), meaning more of a chance to error. But under 30 feet, that chance to error is minimized. By learning to point shoot appropriately, you are truely learning to aim with your dominate eye; something that will enhance your sited fire, as well as allow for more effecient firing at ranges under 30 feet (where most gun fights occur anyways).

So, on the stand I would say I aimed and fired; and this would be a 100% true statement.

Lengthy explaination, but I haven't heard the concept of an obtuse triangle used to explain aiming yet...so I am copywriting this right now...use it wisely young gunfighters!

Paul