PDA

View Full Version : Size of the Group/Hits You Make Important?


Brownie
06-03-2006, 02:45 PM
The subject has come up in the last couple of classes about group size when training others in the various techniques shown to them.

Many of the people who have never seen this before and have been strictly sighted fire shooters get discouraged when they see a group that covers 4-8 inches on the chest of the target. I know they are discouraged with their groups as they'll shake their head in dissatisfaction.

This very situation happened in Knoxville recently with two sheriffs deputies. One while I was standing just off his shooting arm watching him perform the two handed Quick Kill technique.

I asked him what the problem was and he explained he thought his group should be smaller, he was accustomed to shooting for groups and could usually hold around 3 inches or less from that distance with sights.

I also had one fraud investigator in Santa Fe, NM make the same claims when he was training with me yesterday on their police range, so lets discuss this and get peoples ideas about what is acceptable and what is not, and more importantly WHY, in either case.

I'm sure some have heard the idea that if you are shooting tight little groups, you are shooting too slow, and if you are shooting much over 12-14 inches COM you are shooting to fast. Lets look at this idea.

Do we acknowledge that 4-8 inch groups with 5-8 rds is acceptable to begin with on the streets when you have to use a firearm in a gun battle? Do we want to train to the smallest group we can get from any given distance until we can drill neat little holes within the same amount of rounds COM?

Here's my idea on the subject and how I explain the acceptability of 4-8 inches COM to students at any given distance in the courses I run with threat focused methodologies, based on several factors to come to this mindset I am going to explain.

When people need shooting, they usually need shooting RIGHT NOW, not seconds later. How we get that done and the time it takes to do so can determine whether we live or die on the streets.

With that thought, time seems to be an important factor in determining survivability. Sorta like saying the firstest with the mostest will usually prevail. Time to rds on threat----hhm----that would seemn to indicate that techniques that help us get rds on threat fast would be good things to know.

Relative time, if we take it to find our sights, or even the front sight when it is unnecessary to do so, we are setting ourselves up for real potential failure unnecessarily. What techniques get rounds on threat the fastest?

EU/ED, QK hip, which both lead to the hammers, and zippering techniques working off the principle of orienting the gun horizontal as soon as it leaves the holster and firing. I've not seen anything faster than the EU/ED and QK hip shooting under 12 feet. I think I'll use them for their real world advantage of speed to hits. That solves one equation to surviving an encounter with a gun.

The second part of the equation would have to be where those multiple rounds land with the speed thats possible using these techniques. Afterall, it is useless to be fast and not cause enough trauma to get the other party to cease and desist their intended actions against us.

If we can't get COM hits reliably with a particular technique, we are wasting time. I think the time element is pretty much a given here. The less of it we take to get it done, the better for us and the worse for the other poor soul who has chosen to enter into life and death decisions, forcing us to react to them to stay above ground.

What constitutes good hits is a mindset issue. What is acceptable for me may not be acceptable for another, as in the students cases I related above. Lets look now at where the rounds need to be COM and why.

My thoughts on the subject run toward anywhere COM on threat, all rounds landing inside an 8 inch diameter area. They could also be 12-14 inche groupings that have rounds landing at the waist or pelvic area and up into the neck as well as all the way across the chest.

If we shoot for the torso of an average human being, we have about 14 inches across from arm pit to armpit and about 21 inches from the top of the shoulders to the lower portion of the hips. Thats a 14 x 21 inch area that we can shoot for and stay on the torso.

If I can put 4-6 rds into that 14 x 21 area in less than two seconds from the time I start to draw and start firing, I think that is acceptable. Here's the mindset behind why I make that statement which is the physiological factor in the equation of getting er done.

Blood pressure----rapid loss of blood pressure, it's that simple. Now lets look at blood pressure in relation to this subject for a bit. If I take more time and give a person 4-6 rounds to one organ, say the heart, I have damaged one organ. The persons blood pressure will immediately drop to some degree [ from the vessel/organ leaking out blood ] and rapid decrease in blood pressure is key to people reacting as we want them to [ getting them to STOP their actions ].

If I take the same 4-6 rounds and get each one of them into a seperate organ on the torso, not worrying about the group size with the exception of staying inside that 14 x 21 area, what is then happening to his blood pressure?

Since taking the wilderness first responder medical training recently, I was given insight into rapid loss of blood pressure and it's effects on the human body.

More holes leaking at the same time means more rapidity in the loss of blood pressure and the consequences of that increased rapid loss should be obvious here. The person who has several organs/vessels pumping out of their circulation system, the faster the blood pressure drops and the faster they will succumb to that rapid loss which means better results where getting them to stop their actions against us are concerned. Thats the pysical side of the equation.

Other than Central Nervous System [ CNS ] hits, the above is the quickest way to get people to slow/stop their actions. I'm not of the mindset that I can rely on hitting the CNS in a gunfight thats dynamicly evolving. The area available for CNS hits is quite small and can't be relied on with certainty, no matter how good we are with the pistols we carry. CNS hits to me are iffy at best, good if you get one, but not something I'm willing to take the time to go for in a gunbattle.

These tiny little groups to CNS look good on paper on the sqaure range training. In the real world, we are lucky to get them on the streets.

I know I can keep all my shots on the torso of a man [ that 14 x 21 area ] with speed. How I do that depends on distances involved. If I'm 4-10 feet away I can easily use EU/ED or QK hip and the subsequent techniques that work off these two quite effectively like the zipper and hammer. In fact EU/ED works well out to 15 feet with a minimum of practice/training.

If I'm further than that away [ anywhere from 12 to 30 feet ], the requiremnts don't change, the techniques used to accomplish that do. I can still make the torso hits with very good speed with 4-6 rounds using one or two handed QK. I can still be fast at these futher distances as I know I do not need to take the time to use the sights, or even look at the gun. Both take away some time to threat. Both are a form of mental verification that takes time for the brain to tell us we will hit what we are trying to hit.

Now, with all the above, I think I want to get the most rounds into that 14 x 21 area of their upper body in the fastest way possible. What I don't want to do is take more time mentally verifying before I will pull the trigger when it is not necessary to do so.

Learning EU/ED, QK hip, the zipper, the hammer, one and two handed QK allows me solid torso hits of multiples of my choosing [ round counts ] with better speed than trying to mentally verify sight alignment or front sight press [ for all but the most accomplished pistoleros which most of us are not ].

I've explained all this mindset and why we are accepting 4-8 inch groups before moving on to another technique in the last few clases when students were getting discouraged with their groups. All of the students leave understanding the mindset behind the above and accepting they will not wait to verify the front sight press or sight alingment.

More importantly, their mind is no longer the limiting factor.

In a nutshell, I don't worry about group sizes on threat. One to a lung, one to the liver, one to the stomach, one to the heart, one to the spleen, they all help get the antogonist to rapidly lose blood pressure in concert with each other within fractions of a second [ say 3 rds per second or thereabouts ].

Keep the speed of presentation and reaction time to minimums as much as possible and let the bullets fall where they may within the torso/upper body area is where I'm at where this subject is concerned.

sweatnbullets
06-03-2006, 06:13 PM
I'm right there with you Robin. One minor thing is that I use the upper thoracic cavity as my focal point for shots other than zippers and hammers. Not looking for a tight group but definitely looking for the heart and the lungs.

Zippers and hammers are different though.

Another thing to take into consideration for the "tight group" guys. They are taught this because they are told this, "In a gunfight, you will only be half as good as your best day on the range." So a four inch pattern on the range equates to an eight inch group in the real world.

The problem with this thinking is that it is "sighted fire" thinking. Sighted fire is a fine motor skill that deteriorates dramatically under stress. Along with that, since this is a "sighted fire only" mantra, this is the only skill that they have. They have nothing to fall back on, when they find out that they can not take their focus off of the threat, they have no back up plan. No threat focus skills lead to spray and pray, therefore their groups are even worse than twice as large.

We train in an entirely different context. Threat focus it not a fine motor skill. It takes into account the physiological responses of our bodies. It works off of our natural abilities and reactions. Remember we train for the true dynamics of a real world encounter. We can work an eight inch group on the range and I believe that we can get the same eight inch group on the streets.

When you have threat focused skills down the handgun just becomes an extension of your sub-conscious mind. There is the problem.....and the solution.....with nothing in between. The elimination of what is in between makes threat focused skills much more effective and efficient in real world encounters, at typical self defense distances.

Our context is different from almost everyone elses context.;)

They can train for the "In a gunfight, you will only be half as good as your best day on the range" BS. We simply train away that problem due to being open minded, well rounded, accepting our physiological response, (and training within it) and having a firm grasp on common sense.:cool:

I bet I make some people mad with this one.:)

Guantes
06-03-2006, 06:25 PM
I pretty much agree with everything said.

Personally I find this, Your fine motor skills will go, you can't hit anything, etc, etc, a load of crap. It may vary by individual, but to make the statement across the board is BS.

sweatnbullets
06-03-2006, 07:06 PM
I pretty much agree with everything said.

Personally I find this, Your fine motor skills will go, you can't hit anything, etc, etc, a load of crap. It may vary by individual, but to make the statement across the board is BS.

I agree, definitely a poor blanket statement. There are those that remain steady as rocks. That statement is just one that I have heard over and over.

Brownie
06-04-2006, 04:05 PM
I'd like to hear members comments and thoughts on this thread. 58 views and only 2 mods and a member have posted.

Surely members have their own ideas to what constitutes acceptable accuracy/groups on the street.

You don't have to agree with anything, in fact if you don't agree with my thread starter, please express your own views. I'd welcome the discussion on this subject by everyone.

oregonshooter
06-04-2006, 05:05 PM
Fine motor skills only "go" when you can't control your heart rate. End of story. The more you innoculate yourself to stress, the better you respond without it's affects on you. (can you tell I just got back from a Grossman seminar? :) )

I shoot upper triangle and 8" is my largest group I like to see in practice.

Low Drag
06-04-2006, 08:43 PM
I'd like to hear members comments and thoughts on this thread. 58 views and only 2 mods and a member have posted.

Surely members have their own ideas to what constitutes acceptable accuracy/groups on the street.

You don't have to agree with anything, in fact if you don't agree with my thread starter, please express your own views. I'd welcome the discussion on this subject by everyone.

As others have said here it all boils down to context. It makes sense that putting 4 to 6 holes in 4 to 6 different blood gorged organs should get the job done much better than 4 to 6 holes in one organ. I guess that means anywhere from the arteries in the hips to those in the neck and any organ in between???

oregonshooter
06-04-2006, 11:15 PM
Shoot the triangle, he will move around enough to spread the lead. :)

kilogulf59
06-05-2006, 05:05 AM
Generally, I do not worry about groups. As long as my shots all land in, roughly, a 12" x 18" area, at any distance and under any conditions, I'm happy.

Obviously I am not speaking of "spray and pray" methods, I believe you all know exactly what I am saying here.

Isn't concern over group size the reason for the "sights only" mind set?

Where does one draw the line?

Striving for super tight groups = competitive target shooting.

Since competitiveness seems to be instinctive in man, solo practice is beneficial as you are not competing with anyone but yourself. Work on the form and function and, to an extent, accuracy will naturally follow.

DocH
06-05-2006, 08:57 AM
OK,I didn't respond when I first read the thread simply because I am also in agreement. For me,it just goes without saying.Multiple torso hits damaging as many vitals as possible.It's always just been a given for me as opposed to "tight groups". Knock 'em in the dirt fast.
Leaving now for a little vacation and R&R. I need it.Everyone stay safe and we'll endeavor to do the same.

Drive slow and SHOOT FAST!

Dave James
06-05-2006, 09:24 AM
HOLES IN, BLOOD OUT,, very simple concept

To many in one place no good, spread the wealth!!


Brownie you bad!! Make sense :D

JMusic
06-06-2006, 04:32 PM
I have to agree with the rest on this one. Early on in my work a friend of mine spotted an open door one midnight at the local discount store. Exiting his vehicle he took one step away from the cruiser and ran into a man exiting the door he had spotted. A shootout commenced. My friend put 5 rounds of .357 CM. You could cover the group with a silver dollar. The gentleman returned fire twice hitting my friend with both rounds he then ran 200 yds and died trying to cross a fence. During the autopsy the heart was hit all 5 times. My friend was wearing a vest which saved his life.

My training immediately changed. I stopped shooting for groups. This was easier done than you might think. You simply speed up your shooting. I also as I have said on other threads went to a higher capacity pistol and practiced putting more lead on target in the same time frame.

Reading this for the first time you may think 5 shots through the pump? Yeah right! It happens all the time hunting big game. Why should we think man is any different?
Jim