THE 3 SPEEDS IN THE DEFENSIVE USE OF THE FIREARM
THE 3 SPEEDS IN THE DEFENSIVE USE OF THE FIREARM
What many, too many, in this industry have not yet understood is the problem of the "false condition" that is generated in training with firearms and which concerns anyone who carries a firearm for work or defense or anyone who can only think to use a firearm for home defense as a last resort. In fact, each of these categories of subjects trains in a shooting range and I have already described the problem of "redundancy of the environments" in detail in other articles.
Today, however, I want to address the problem relating to another fundamental aspect: the interpretation and use we give to the data we obtain when we measure the speed of a shooter.
In the meantime, let’s start by understanding what type of parameters are used on a global level to analyze a subject’s shooting skills especially in terms of speed .
In 98% of cases the parameters used are mainly 2: TIME and ACCURACY, this applies to any type of test/exercise/protocol whether L.E., MIL and civilians in which a candidate’s abilities must be assessed and it also works like this in sport competitions.
TIME is measured through a phonochronometer (timer) and ACCURACY is measured through terminal ballistics on the target
(Holes).
We use TIME to measure a shooter’s speed and we use ACCURACY to measure shooting technique, consistency and effectiveness.
Up to this point everything would seem perfectly correct and sensible and in part it is, but it is in the reading and interpretation of the data we obtain where the problem arises. From the data obtained using this two-factor evaluation criterion, technical standards are set and this is where the "False Condition" is generated. When those standards are absorbed by those involved in training (Trainers/Instructors) and used as an absolute reference, the "false condition" spreads like a virus becoming a dangerous and widespread illusion.
In order to better understand the concept of speed and the type of speed we are referring to, we must analyze the conditions in which the tests are carried out and the parameters measured.
EXAMPLE
If we set a target at 8 yds and asked a shooter to carry out 10 timed extractions and he performed each of the 10 draws in a sub-second and with all hits in Alpha zone, we would consider the shooter to be fast and accurate and therefore with solid and high level technical skills .
As mentioned before, we would therefore use the timer data to define the speed, resulting from the reception of the starting auditory stimulus (beep), so we would define that as reactive speed which, combined with the data coming from the Target (accuracy) would become "Reactive Capacity".
But is it really like that?
To answer this question we must first analyze the conditions under which the data are obtained and extrapolated.
GENERAL STANDARD CONDITION
Tests/exercises to evaluate a subject’s shooting with a firearm
Whatever the type of exercise to be carried out with the firearm, these conditions normally always exist:
– The execution of the Drill is pre-known and almost always already applied N times.
– All targets are pre-known
– All targets are extremely easy to discriminate.
– The reactive stimulus is only one, always the same, it is auditory (beeeeep), pre-known, long, easy to discriminate and already discriminated thousands of times previously, discriminated in an environment without acoustic pollution from other stimuli.
– Awareness of the imminence of the action (Shooter are you ready)
-The shooter moves first and is the only one to move so he does not react and does not have to adapt to actions coming from someone else
– No risk of collateral damage from missing
– Optimal light conditions (generally)
– Starting in an upright position (the easiest and quickest)
Having analyzed the conditions of execution of the Tests/Exercises, let’s see what science tells us about it. Science tells us that we interact with the environment 83% through sight, which is therefore our dominant sense, and only 11% through hearing. Not only that, it also tells us that 98% of decision-making processes are mainly based on visual stimuli. This means that when we measure and evaluate the technical skills relating to shooting with firearms of a subject, analyzing data that come from only two parameters that we consider absolute, we do so unaware of the fact that one of the two (therefore 50% of the criterion of evaluation) affects only 11% in reality.
This means that we carry out tests/exercises/protocols with conditions that are not only optimal and extremely simplified but absolutely far from the real ones and we do it inside a shooting range which is a totally different environment from the real context.
Read the Full Article on Our FB Page
Go to Source of : the original author
Author: InstructorZero