The following guest article was written by Karl Rehn
We welcome a variety of points of view on the subjects of shooting and marksmanship. Test them objectively on the range and let the results fall where they may.
Anyone that has put any time in mastering the handgun, particularly practical/defensive handgun, knows these truths:
1) Most shots are missed not from improper sight alignment, but as a result of jerking & yanking the trigger.
2) There is no “point vs sighted” shooting. It’s not “A or B” as the solution to every shot at every distance. The larger and closer the target, the less precise the sights have to be aligned; the farther and smaller, the more the sights are needed.
3) Those that learn to use their sights can quickly learn to go faster and “see less”; those that learn “point shooting” often have terrible trigger control and struggle to get acceptable hits on smaller and farther targets. (In Tom Givens’ data set of 56 student-involved shootings, most occurred at ranges less than 15 feet, but one occurred at 20 yards. In that incident, the one shot fired hit the attacker in the “X-ring” and stopped the fight.)
4) Competence with a handgun requires frequent, realistic practice. That means drawing, moving, shooting from cover, shooting humanoid targets (and partially exposed humanoid targets), with realistic time limits. The “everyone needs to qualify today” mindset of law enforcement and military programs, and the desire to run many shooters all in parallel, on a square range, often causes handgun training in these institutions to fall back to bullseye/PPC style courses with overly large targets (B27) and overly slow time limits. The 90 round IDPA classifier is an excellent test of practical handgun skills, as is the 6 round “FAST” drill from Todd Louis Green. Sadly most law enforcement and military shooters would be hard-pressed to score at the 50% mark on these tests – at least based on my observations of them, because the amount of practice required to get to that 50% level exceeds the time programmed for handgun training and qualification.
Firearm User Network 
Jun 26, 2013 @ 12:51:31
Excellent synopsis.
LikeLike
Jun 26, 2013 @ 13:37:14
Yes, Mr. Rehn knows his stuff!
LikeLike
Jun 28, 2013 @ 14:19:21
For the sake of discussion on each point:
Intro. “Test them objectively on the range and let the results fall where they may.” The truest test for defensive handgun use is some type of simulated scenario. I am pretty sure Karl would agree with that. Statistically speaking, I don’t think anyone has actually been able to correlate range performance with real performance, but it is pretty hard to isolate out all of the factors. Guys who shoot more tend to train more in general. The range tests the marksmanship component which is only one part of defensive shooting. Well designed range training taking into consideration some of the points from #4 can make a difference. Unfortunately this type of training is rare.
1. True from a marksmanship perspective. But I would say it is mostly the inability to deal with the stress of real world situations that causes the errors.
2. I agree to a point. The need for point shooting is more about duress than it is about how difficult the target is. The target is an important consideration, but it is secondary to stress/duress level. Intuitively people will point shoot when stress levels are high without as much regard for the target.
3. This is a little bit biased after the more balanced statement in #2. With equivalent training time (emphasis on equivalent training time), the point shooter will be less precise at longer range, and the sighted shooter will be slower at closer range. But it is more than a trade of speed for accuracy. Familiarity under specific conditions is also important. Sighted only shooters will often flail with their pistols when they point shoot under high duress at close range because they are unfamiliar with the skill their body alarm system forces them to use. If a shooter chooses to point shoot or point shoots because of lack of control when the situation allows the full fundamentals of marksmanship, then they are making a mistake. There are numerous documented cases of both failures and they can be reproduced through simulation training. The data provided (and all available data to date) shows the greater need for point shooting skills, but obviously a good shooter needs both. They are different skills from a motor behavior perspective with significant commonality.
4. Totally agree. In fact, I preach the exact same thing as much as possible. I hate neat ranges and cookie cutter, low expectation. lowest common denominator instruction. It reminds me of the public education system. The FAST drill is great because it is so simple and tests a wide variety of thing. I might add a built in immediate action event, add two seconds, and call it nearly complete. In fact, i’m going to steal that idea.
I am mostly in agreement except for a few points that I feel get missed some times and our somewhat controversial. Karl obviously knows what he is talking about.
LikeLike
Jun 30, 2013 @ 15:13:07
>> Intro. “Test them objectively on the range and let the results fall where they may.” The truest test for defensive handgun use is some type of simulated scenario.
I am pretty sure any form of test involving live ammo would be best done on a range, hence the comment. Perhaps “Test them objectively in training and let the results fall where they may” is better.
>> Statistically speaking, I don’t think anyone has actually been able to correlate range performance with real performance…
I don’t think anyone has actually been able to correlate physical fitness with real performance, but I won’t suggest ditching a PT program.
Range performance IS real performance. The guns and ammo are real. The targets are real, just not living. A good performance there isn’t a guarantee, just a positive indicator, and we’re likely better off for it.
The real problem is the measure of range performance typically used is suspect:
>> …it is pretty hard to isolate out all of the factors. Guys who shoot more tend to train more in general.
The benefit to a competition shooting or other good program is the journey. It’s what you had to learn along the way to achieve the goal. Personnel that are merely qualified rarely put in that amount of time or thought.
>> The range tests the marksmanship component which is only one part of defensive shooting.
True, it is only one part. The part that includes actually engaging and hitting targets in a timely manner.
>> 1. True from a marksmanship perspective. But I would say it is mostly the inability to deal with the stress of real world situations that causes the errors.
>> The target is an important consideration, but it is secondary to stress/duress level.
And that’s why higher level shooting, specifically competition shooting, is so useful. Doing something more difficult and potentially stressful than routine qualification where everyone is expected to pass.
>> The FAST drill is great because it is so simple and tests a wide variety of things.
True.
>> I might add a built in immediate action event, add two seconds, and call it nearly complete.
This is also a good drill and the whole point of my “Test them objectively on the range and let the results fall where they may” comment.
Any number of courses, drills, etc. can be conjured up to test whatever the course designer wants. If a given course is a good test then the technique that yields the best result is probably the best approach.
LikeLike
Jul 14, 2013 @ 15:03:01
I concur with the article and the comments. Sadly, most cops only do enough work to qualify. To get them up to the 50% level in the Fast drill it would mean that they’d have to buy their own ammo and practice…don’t hold your breath.
LikeLike