The Element of Chance in Defensive Shooting

[pettypace]

Lately, I've been pondering the element of chance in defensive shooting.

For example, which of these three targets -- Left, Right, or Middle -- represents the most skillful shooting? (Sorry, but you might have to squint hard through the old B&L spotting scope to pick up shots in the black.)

273380

Of course, it's a trick question because all three targets were "shot" by a computer at the same level of "skill" -- a standard deviation of 3" on the target.

Here's a link to the program that did the shooting:

http://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/oneskunk.php?Sd=3&Dd=0&N=100

I've read that "the majority of shots fired in the field by U.S. LE officers miss their intended target." (source (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4331-The-Presumptive-Hazards-of-Over-Penetration)) If that's true, it probably means a standard deviation not less than 9" on the target. And it's hard to believe the average "Armed Citizen" would do much better.

Here's how 100 shots at that level of accuracy might appear on the target:

http://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/oneskunk.php?Sd=9&Dd=0&N=100

So, try plugging in Sd=9, Dd=0, and N=5 to see just how often a cylinderful from the snubby might prove decisive.

Good Luck!

[leadeye]

Certainly does make the case for shotguns.:wink:

[Larry Gibson]

I don't bet my life or that of my family on "chance".

Most LEOs miss a lot because they are improperly trained. I was an advanced firearms instructor for a state board of police training so I know. With the high capacity semi-autos, too much movie and tv watching and too little training there is too much "spray and pray" and not enough "front sight on target press trigger". LEOs also missed a lot "back in the day" of revolvers too......for all the same reasons....lack of proper weapons marksmanship under stress and lack of proper tactical training.

When I put forth a proposal for the annual firearm/tactical budget I had a captain complain to the chief that the money would be better spent teaching the officers how to better write tickets..... The chief looked at me with an inquiring look so I replied; "While there is some expense if the officer writes "void" across the face of a messed up citation it's not nearly as costly as having to write "void" across the officers or innocent bystanders birth certificate." ...... I got my training money for the officers........

[Wayne Dobbs]

As a follow on to Larry, after training thousands of troops and seeing millions of rounds downrange and reviewing facts on shooting incidents, I was able to cook it down to this: if a good guy shooter saw sights/visually confirmed weapon alignment on target, there were more hits than misses. If they didn't see sights or use same, they fired more misses than hits, usually ALL misses. This included several dozen events at ranges from arms length to 20ish yards, with most in the usual range of under 20'.

[black mamba]

My experience affirms Larry's. Among the many LEOs I've known, very few know much at all about firearms or shooting. I worked at a gun store for years, and would routinely ask officers what they were carrying, and many had no idea, "Whatever the department gives me." The average handgun enthusiast, not just someone who shoots occasionally, would likely be a better shot than the average LEO, because they shoot a lot more. I shoot 600-800 rounds a month; what would the average LEO shoot?

[seaboltm]

Depends on the situation too. When in the academy years ago I saw a video of a Texas state trooper attempting to arrest a suspect. Suspect spun around with a gun. A very short scuffle occurred. The trooper had the suspects pistol. As the suspect turned to flee the trooper did a one hand mag dump. All shots missed. The suspect was found some time later and arrested. Not many real situations are like a target range, hence the need for scenario training.

[TNsailorman]

I have shot in combat matches with police offices and I can say that a few were very good, but some were very bad. They believed in "fire power" or as Larry said "spray and pray" more than aimed fire. once they got the wonder nines with 15 to 19 rounds they attempted to use them in a mass fire tactic, but then the civilians who had them did the same thing. I remember a saying back in the early 70's that a Memphis police officer that shot in the early IPSC matches taught people and that was "you can't miss fast enough to win a fight". I think his name was John Shaw but my memory is not the best these days. I was taught by my father, a WW II veteran, to hit with the first shot. He bought me a single shot, break action shotgun and I still have it. I trained my son on the same shotgun. Put the first one in the right place and you may not ever need a second one. It just takes practice and more practice. my .02 anyway, james

[dverna]

Having competed with LEO's my experience is they run from poor to excellent. I know they average LEO does not train much if at all.

As to the information presented, I am not surprised. The simulation will be dependent on the SD. And what we can achieve at a range is going to be much smaller than how we will perform under pressure and even worse when the target is moving and horrible when they are shooting back.

Training lowers the swings in SD as the pressure to perform increases. Knowing you are competent and capable makes a huge difference. One reason I enjoyed competing was to feel that pressure and perform under it.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

As a law enforcement firearms instructor for 20 plus years and a officer for over 30 years I totally agree with the above posts. I saw a decrease in the focus on firearms over the years. We used to compete for training and competition. Recently we had an offender shoot 2 officers, his gun jammed and the third officer went hands on instead of shooting the offender. IMO departments do not want officers oriented in firearms. Society also became less firearms oriented. Society increased its expectations of what they wanted cops to do for them, departments responded and hired less firearms oriented officers. The officer that went hands on with the offender that shot the 2 officers defaulted to his subconscious response. That’s why they hired him. I saw nice guys at the entry level oral board indecisive on the shoot question advance in the hiring process.

[M-Tecs]

I don't have any first hand experience with this. I have worked with and trained with both LE and Military have been in lots of actual experience with using deadly force. I have also worked with both LE and Military that were afraid of their duty firearms. After much discussion and observation three thing became clear.

First skill with firearms ranged from scary to National Champion levels.

Second once you got to the "guy guy" level they did not miss much. A while back one of the gun writers claimed once you got in the stats of LE involved shooting by the gun guy types it was 1.8 shots per hit. I don't remember what the average LE shots per hit was but I am thinking it was 7 or 8?

Third LE SWAT team members do not have a clue how different the skill sets are between Military and LE snipers.

Both line is the more competent you are the less chance figures into the equation.

[Cosmic_Charlie]

I used to shoot with a cop who did firearms training all over my state. He had 140 fellow officers on his department and he thought about 10% of them were proficient with their sidearms. I never really thought much about how good your average Joe was with a handgun. I guess because the people I shot with were avid about the activity. My skill at arms came from thousands of shots taken with a pump up pellet pistol. Now a days people don't shoot as much as they used to. My brother who was a Marine officer said the corps was having a real time of it training new recruits because so many had never handled a rifle.

[RJM52]

..all above is sad but true... I have 30+ years of horror stories and really it comes down to one thing...attitude....and 95% of the LEOs on most departments don't have it.

It isn't a "new" thing either. Officers were no better shots in the 1950s than they are today. Simple reason is that the chances of getting into a gunfight in ones career is well under 1%. When I was with Dallas PD back in the 1970s and 80s they averaged 80 gunfights a year for a force of 2500 officers. Figuring that 99% of the gunfights involved patrol officers if you stayed in Patrol for most of your time you had something like a 7% chance of getting into it with a BG...

Civilian shooters think that they are better shots than LEOs but really that isn't so. The average Joe/Jane gun owner doesn't shoot any more nor is any more proficient on a qualifier than most LEOs. 99% of the gun owners have never even taken a safety course let a lone a tactical shooting course... Shooters on boards like this are comparing themselves to the average LEO instead of the 5% that are shooters.

And when you live in a state that has only a couple a LEO involved shootings a year instead of a week, it is very easy get complacent....at the academy, instructor and individual level...

Bob

[Silver Jack Hammer]

I sent you a PM

[44MAG#1]

I may be missing something. But I am interested in knowing what this thread is meaning, trying to say and or indicate.
Please help me to understand it.

BTW I know about average, median, mode and standard deviation.

[rintinglen]

The original post was pointing out, using statistical computer imaging, that dispersion resulting from inaccurate shooting can result in either a good, a bad, or a mediocre result, depending where on the bell curve that particular group of shots landed. The point being IMO, the smaller the average error, the smaller the standard deviation and the greater the likelihood of a preferable result. "Aim small, miss small."

The thread drifted a little as shooting enthusiasts identified causes of the poor shooting performance of the average police officer. Complacency, inadequate training, and lack of a combat mindset were among the causes described.

But my belief is that the underlying message is that if you are going to carry a gun for self-defense purposes, it is not good enough to shoot that one "garage-wall-worthy" group and delude oneself into thinking that one's skill was adequate. A better standard to use is the worst group one shoots.

An athlete once said "you don't practice until you get it right, you practice until you can't get it wrong." That is the standard that defensive shooting skills should be judged against.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

The PM was sent to Cosmic Charlie

[downzero]

It appears this thread has degenerated into a debate about LE firearm proficiency, although it began as a discussion about hit probability and the resulting error.

To answer the initial question somewhat, the answer depends on how much time it took to deliver those three shots. While you can't miss fast enough to win, I really do believe that the first person who scores a round on target will win the fight. In my job, I have spent quite a few hours on the range with the police and I have reviewed dozens of officer involved and "criminal" shootings, but I would not claim that any real patterns have emerged for me. Each case has its own facts and circumstances that are probably more important than assessing the level of training, type of ammo, caliber, etc. Even dark versus light can have an influence on how a real human scenario plays out versus a movie or on a 1 way shooting range.

Accuracy is important and if the world was perfect, every good guy would deliver a round into the CNS with a perfect .8 second draw and shot on target.

In the real world, it's probably more like 2-2.5 seconds from seeing a threat to delivering a round, and while I agree that every shooter should train for aimed fire even under extreme stress, handgun training is missing something very very important if there's a discussion of hit probability without a serious conversation about speed.

IPSC and USPSA (and really all practical shooting sports that were born from them) value speed for a reason, because speed and accuracy are both extremely important.


Certainly does make the case for shotguns.:wink:

This isn't really on point for the thread, which talks about hit probability. Shotguns have multiple projectiles, but they still have to be aimed, or at least very precisely pointed, for those multiple projectiles to do the damage needed. An edge hit that puts half of your 8 pellet buck off target isn't going to produce any better results than 4 shots from a .32 in the same place.

Shotguns can be highly effective, though. Your average joe street cop is probably better off with one than a rifle unless there's body armor, multiple targets, considerable distance, or reloading required, all of which is quite unlikely for policing. It's probably easier to teach the rifle on the range to new shooters, but a shotgun delivers so much payload with one good shot. I can say that I'm in the extreme minority in thinking this, though. My LE firearm instructor friend is absolutely convinced that the shotgun is obsolete (other than for "killing birds and opening doors," as he says).

[44MAG#1]

"The original post was pointing out, using statistical computer imaging, that dispersion resulting from inaccurate shooting can result in either a good, a bad, or a mediocre result, depending where on the bell curve that particular group of shots landed."

To me that goes without saying to anyone that shoots. Take a given shooter with a "given" ability and let them shoot 10 targets in the style shooting they prefer to do. There will be a worst target and a best target with the others inbetween. Anyone, no matter their skill level, will not shoot each and every target with the same degree of accuracy all the time. Accuracy will vary to some degree from target to target and from time to time we go shooting.. With poor shooters it can vary quite considerably. With next to phenomenal shooters it will vary much, much, much less but it will still vary.


"The point being IMO, the smaller the average error, the smaller the standard deviation and the greater the likelihood of a preferable result. "Aim small, miss small.""

Naturally the smaller the average the smaller the standard deviation, or it should be. We can only aim as small as we can hold. If a new shooter can only hold in an area that is 6 inches at a given range that is his small. Hopefully as he practices and shoots many, many, many rounds over a long period of time his holding area will get smaller so he "AIMS" smaller.

"The thread drifted a little as shooting enthusiasts identified causes of the poor shooting performance of the average police officer. Complacency, inadequate training, and lack of a combat mindset were among the causes described."

While not pro law enforcement I am not anti law enforcement. To me it is just a "half a glass of water" when it comes to them. Their mind set is, to me, questionable. Plus it is fueled by far less fear of being held accountable for their actions when they are questionable, which is fueled by the many citizens that still think the are still always right no matter what they do.

[pettypace]

I may be missing something. But I am interested in knowing what this thread is meaning, trying to say and or indicate.
Please help me to understand it.

BTW I know about average, median, mode and standard deviation.

Good question, 44.

As someone who has never pulled a trigger in fear or anger, it was certainly not my intention to bad-mouth the shooting skills of those who have. As the title of the thread suggests, I had hoped to promote some discussion about the element of chance as it might apply to civilian self defense. I offered the Monte Carlo shooting simulator as a tool to facilitate that discussion. I probably should have offered some examples of how the simulator might be used.

For example, if we accept a hit ratio of something under 50% (standard deviation = 9"), what's the probability of a "vital" hit (as define by MacPherson) on the first shot? Here's how the the Monte Carlo simulator might answer that question:

http://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/oneskunk.php?Sd=9&Dd=0&N=10000

So, it looks like Sd=9 offers less than a 7% chance of a "vital" hit. And if that's the case, then "spray and pray" begins to look like a rational tactical choice because (if distant memories of Prob & Stat serve me) it would take 10 shots just to have a 50/50 chance of a "vital" hit.

I wonder how Dr. Deming might have approached the problem?

[Larry Gibson]

It appears this thread has degenerated into a debate about LE firearm proficiency, although it began as a discussion about hit probability and the resulting error.............

The OP stated in his original post; "I've read that "the majority of shots fired in the field by U.S. LE officers miss their intended target." (source) If that's true, it probably means a standard deviation not less than 9" on the target. And it's hard to believe the average "Armed Citizen" would do much better." Thus the OP opened the door for the discussion and included in the title of his thread "the element of chance". I stated my thoughts on "chance" in a shooting situation and went on the clarify that position based on actual experience. The computer program simple uses an SD variable and does not consider trained vs untrained, aimed vs unaimed fire [even when shot very quickly]. Yes, speed is important but as you mention, so is accuracy. That is because; only the hits count....and in the real world he hits first wins (not to be confused with shoots first).

[dverna]

This reminds me of a lady I saw shooting at the RCMP range in Ottawa over 45 years ago. She was just terrible and I made a snide comment to one of the guys near me. His comment was very astute.

"She just needs one lucky shot to kill you".

[Silver Jack Hammer]

While not pro law enforcement I am not anti law enforcement. To me it is just a "half a glass of water" when it comes to them. Their mind set is, to me, questionable. Plus it is fueled by far less fear of being held accountable for their actions when they are questionable, which is fueled by the many citizens that still think the are still always right no matter what they do.[/QUOTE]

No element of society is subjected to the level of scrutiny that a law enforcement officer is. I have investigated officers actions and been investigated for my actions as a law enforcement officer.

These investigations are conducted by an independent agency which dispatches a team of seasoned investigators, and this team is the legitimate authority over the matter.

That team presents its findings to the legitimate charging authority. Generally a three inch binder is on the desk of the DA or prosecutor the morning after the incident. This is the preliminary report.

The charging authority panels a review consisting of three or more deputy prosecuting attorneys. And the investigation continues in the background of those involved.

The opinion of the legitimate charging authority, be it a DA or Prosecutor’s Office, is attacked by the media.

The entire process is ultimately reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Let’s go back to that team of independant seasoned investigators. Every report they write is up Superior Court standards.

A law firm is hired to attack the opinion of the DA or Prosecutors Office. That law firm has months to pour over the incident and can hire other law firms to join in the review.

[country gent]

First look at the statistics from ww1 ww2 Korea and Vietnam on rounds fired versus actual hits. Its quite high, I think Vietnam was over 10000 rds fired for each hit.

A defensive shooting is seldom static one or both sides are moving, a lot of stress and fear. How many shooters "come apart" in their first few matches do to the pressure and stress, before they learn to control it. Let alone life and death levels.

I agree Law enforcement and armed organizations should be getting more training and trigger time under realistic conditions, flashing lights low light bright lights horns, sirens, bangs, uneven footing off balance positions and everything that occurs in real life. And the big one being out of breath with a racing heart beat from running and adrenaline.

Standing there heart racing breathing hard sweat running in your eyes poor footing and balance then bad light people yelling screaming and movement on all sides all degrade your accuracy and ability to make solid hits. The throw in a firearm thats hard to shoot and hit with on top of it

[downzero]

The OP stated in his original post; "I've read that "the majority of shots fired in the field by U.S. LE officers miss their intended target." (source) If that's true, it probably means a standard deviation not less than 9" on the target. And it's hard to believe the average "Armed Citizen" would do much better." Thus the OP opened the door for the discussion and included in the title of his thread "the element of chance". I stated my thoughts on "chance" in a shooting situation and went on the clarify that position based on actual experience. The computer program simple uses an SD variable and does not consider trained vs untrained, aimed vs unaimed fire [even when shot very quickly]. Yes, speed is important but as you mention, so is accuracy. That is because; only the hits count....and in the real world he hits first wins (not to be confused with shoots first).

A simple SD variable does take into account all of the factors that influence hit probability. It sounds to me that you simply don't recognize how strong inferential statistics are at producing the truth.

If only hits counted, speed would not matter. Fast hits are what matter, even if that means some misses. That doesn't mean that we should train people to spray and pray. But if you use that hit probability calculator successfully, you realize just how explanatory it is. A coworker and I were talking about it and consider this:

An IPDA target has an 8" circle in the middle of it as the main scoring zone. For the 95% confidence interval, that means a standard deviation of 2 goes into the calculator. In practical terms, that means if you assume a perfect sight picture, the sight picture can literally be anywhere within that 8" circle and the SD will calculate to two. In reality, nobody is going to purposely aim a perfect sight picture to the edge of the 8" circle, but instead is going to have a generally centered, but likely imperfect sight picture. So long as the sight picture, if perfect, would be within that 8" circle when the trigger breaks, the hits look like this:

273466

I do not think it's unreasonable at common self defense distances to expect people to be able to aim within an 8" circle when practicing. I understand that real world stress is going to spread that out, but this seems like an acceptable level of practical accuracy to me.

I used the IDPA target as an example because the highest scoring zone is a circle so it made it easy for me to choose a number that is 1/4 of the size of the scoring zone to illustrate the 95% confidence interval. A larger confidence interval than that would stretch it out another 1 sd in every direction, but I'm sure we can all agree that a discussion about 95% of the observations is close enough for our purposes. (Empirical rule)

273467

A standard deviation of 9" would put 95% of observations within a 3 foot circle. At common self defense distances from contact to 7 yards, that it not realistic and is an abysmally low expectation. Maybe you're confusing the concept of standard deviation with the range of the observations? Because my assumption of a 2" standard deviation puts almost all the shots within your 9" circle, I simply used 8" because of the IDPA target scoring zone example. It sounds to me like that's what you wanted, but misapplication of statistics resulted in you assuming a 3 foot circle of hits instead of 8 inches.



No element of society is subjected to the level of scrutiny that a law enforcement officer is. I have investigated officers actions and been investigated for my actions as a law enforcement officer.

These investigations are conducted by an independent agency which dispatches a team of seasoned investigators, and this team is the legitimate authority over the matter.

That team presents its findings to the legitimate charging authority. Generally a three inch binder is on the desk of the DA or prosecutor the morning after the incident. This is the preliminary report.

The charging authority panels a review consisting of three or more deputy prosecuting attorneys. And the investigation continues in the background of those involved.

The opinion of the legitimate charging authority, be it a DA or Prosecutor’s Office, is attacked by the media.

The entire process is ultimately reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Let’s go back to that team of independant seasoned investigators. Every report they write is up Superior Court standards.

A law firm is hired to attack the opinion of the DA or Prosecutors Office. That law firm has months to pour over the incident and can hire other law firms to join in the review.

If you work somewhere where the prosecutor gets a 3" binder of paper the day after an OIS, I want to be wherever you are. When I've been involved in these cases, a month or more after the shooting, I get a 20 slide powerpoint and maybe a few dozen page report. Unless there's something really out of the ordinary, the team can make a decision on that.

And the decision is not reviewed by any court. Our decision is generally final.

And a law firm can attack us all they want. We are absolutely immune.

[44MAG#1]

Where I live it is law enforcement investigating law enforcement so I guess it is the same everywhere.
This is where I say enough said by us all on this subject before it gets too deep.

Sometimes it best for all involved to quit while ahead. Or at least even.

[charlie b]

It's nice to see a distribution of shots, but, it all boils down to what you assume the Sd to be for a given shooter.

What I would rather see is how you come up with the Sd for a given shooter. Do you take a series of shots from that person and calculate an Sd? Or is it assumed from a series of data somewhere? I didn't see any analysis of that in the links posted.

Bottom line is, unless you train to shoot well, you won't.

[pettypace]

It's nice to see a distribution of shots, but, it all boils down to what you assume the Sd to be for a given shooter.

What I would rather see is how you come up with the Sd for a given shooter. Do you take a series of shots from that person and calculate an Sd? Or is it assumed from a series of data somewhere? I didn't see any analysis of that in the links posted.

Bottom line is, unless you train to shoot well, you won't.

I used trial and error!

From my first post:


I've read that "the majority of shots fired in the field by U.S. LE officers miss their intended target." (source (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4331-The-Presumptive-Hazards-of-Over-Penetration)) If that's true, it probably means a standard deviation not less than 9" on the target. And it's hard to believe the average "Armed Citizen" would do much better.

Not very "scientific," I suppose. But for the purpose of the discussion, I doubt that it matters much exactly what standard deviation is used. On the other hand, it's certainly reasonable to ask "just how do you get from data to standard deviation?"

For example, what do you figure is the standard deviation on this famous target? (BTW: The target shown is a faithful facsimile -- not original -- and the old fellow holding the target did not shoot it, although he did rub elbows with the guy who did shoot it.)

273537

Or how about this less famous target?

273538

I have my "guesstimates" in mind. But I'll wait to see what others think.

[44MAG#1]

From Wikipedia

"The standard deviation is the average amount of variability in your dataset. It tells you, on average, how far each value lies from the mean.

A high standard deviation means that values are generally far from the mean, while a low standard deviation indicates that values are clustered close to the mean."

To do that on the target the elder gentleman is holding one would have to find true center of the mass of shots and then measure how far each shot is from true center then put each value into a SD calculator to get it.
How could someone do that on such a large number of shots that are on that target especially on the ones cutting the same holes? One would lose his mind doing it.
So what does this prove?
Depending on the distance that target was shot it could range from an exceptionally good to a pretty bad target.
Who knows the distance?

[pettypace]

From Wikipedia

"The standard deviation is the average amount of variability in your dataset. It tells you, on average, how far each value lies from the mean.

A high standard deviation means that values are generally far from the mean, while a low standard deviation indicates that values are clustered close to the mean."

To do that on the target the elder gentleman is holding one would have to find true center of the mass of shots and then measure how far each shot is from true center then put each value into a SD calculator to get it.
How could someone do that on such a large number of shots that are on that target especially on the ones cutting the same holes? One would lose his mind doing it.
So what does this prove?
Depending on the distance that target was shot it could range from an exceptionally good to a pretty bad target.
Who knows the distance?

That target was 100 shots off-hand at 200 yards.

[44MAG#1]

200 yards.

The target the elder gentleman is holding was shot at 200 yards? With what?

Statistics mean little unless one knows how the data is gathered. Standard Deviation is one component of Statistics.
Gathered statistics can be slanted, swayed, biased depending on what one wants to prove or disprove.

[charlie b]

So, take a target and calculate the Sd. Then take the Sd and do the Monte Carlo to get distribution. Results, same as the target. So why do the Monte Carlo?

Until you know the Sd of the shooter the simulation is worthless.

[44MAG#1]

So, take a target and calculate the Sd. Then take the Sd and do the Monte Carlo to get distribution. Results, same as the target. So why do the Monte Carlo?

Until you know the Sd of the shooter the simulation is worthless.
A great deal of truth in this right here.

[Texas by God]

This is a good training target. Front sight, Front Sight. And Merry Christmas to all!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201219/cefe3f3e8039ff296a89f3f19b6f37ff.jpg

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

[pettypace]

So, take a target and calculate the Sd. Then take the Sd and do the Monte Carlo to get distribution. Results, same as the target. So why do the Monte Carlo?

Until you know the Sd of the shooter the simulation is worthless.

If the simulation is worthless, then don't use it.

[pettypace]

The target the elder gentleman is holding was shot at 200 yards? With what?

Statistics mean little unless one knows how the data is gathered. Standard Deviation is one component of Statistics.
Gathered statistics can be slanted, swayed, biased depending on what one wants to prove or disprove.

If I remember correctly, the "famous" target was shot with a Ballard -- muzzle-loaded. The "less famous" target was shot with Garands.

[44MAG#1]

In the Grand Scheme of things, one target, two targets etc., means very little as to what one can do ability wise.
Several targets have to be shot over a period of time to gather that data or it is pretty useless. Then the statistical data can be figured. If that really proves anything. Too many shoot a couple good targets then start the proud Peacock strut.

[OS OK]

Standard 'D's'...hit miss ratios...computer generated shots?
That all seems meaningless to me in a real life or death active shooter situation. Maybe it is good for evaluating and putting numbers and ratios on an event after the fact, I haven't the slightest idea.

Why, you ask?

Because in my estimation, when you are suddenly hit with a 10 pound dose of adrenaline and the 'fight or flight' takes you over physically, what could happen next is a crap-shoot.

I think this has much more affect on the good guy, the average civilian Joe or LEO than it does on a 'blooded veteran' who has been a life taker many times before and certainly pertains to a criminal type who has shot it out in the barrios most of his life. I think it is the mentally disciplined through experience, that steeled attitude guy who has the better chance.
Take the best shot on the practice range, civilian or LE and without knowing how he or she will react to the physical element of adrenaline and fight or flight, I am thinking you might see any scenario follow.

Give that computer the same adrenaline dump, the fight or flight sensation and I expect the computer would just freeze up somewhere in it's lines of code...people can and do too.

No...I am not a blooded veteran, just a veteran & no I have never taken a life in anger or self defense...but I have experienced adrenaline dumps and the fight or flight sensation several times...it's real.
That alone must have a huge effect on hits & misses.

[pettypace]

This is a good training target. Front sight, Front Sight. And Merry Christmas to all!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201219/cefe3f3e8039ff296a89f3f19b6f37ff.jpg

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

Maybe that isn't exactly the right target. But it's probably better than some. So, what is the "best" target for self-defense training?

Here's the target Fairbairn and Sykes started their raw recruits on:273550

And they stated that "The recruit is to stand not more that 2 yards away from this target."

[W.R.Buchanan]

I don't bet my life or that of my family on "chance".

Most LEOs miss a lot because they are improperly trained. I was an advanced firearms instructor for a state board of police training so I know. With the high capacity semi-autos, too much movie and tv watching and too little training there is too much "spray and pray" and not enough "front sight on target press trigger". LEOs also missed a lot "back in the day" of revolvers too......for all the same reasons....lack of proper weapons marksmanship under stress and lack of proper tactical training.

This is the main reason why 9MM handguns have 17+ rounds in the magazine. The people using them generally "can't shoot worth a hoot," and that is the Very Polite Version of how I feel about it.

Any LEO who doesn't shoot at least once a month under time pressure, and really once a week should be more like it,,,, Should not be allowed to carry a gun in the field. Gun Handling under stress is the whole point of an LEO carrying a gun. In the field every time they draw their weapon, it is under extreme stress!

When I see a kid in a car killed, and there was 3 guys with Beretta 92's with 19 round mags dumping all 57 of them on that car, with only 1 or 2 hits that caused death,,,

I have to ask why were you issued a gun?

I'm thinking a Slingshot is a more appropriate weapon for people who are that incompetent that way they might only get off 1 or 2 shots in a fight or more properly against an unarmed kid! Not to mention the lessening of the risk of collateral damage.

Making them take the Front Sight Skills Test every 2 weeks and if they don't pass they sit on the bench until they do pass,,, would certainly change the attitude of LE in this country towards frequent training.

I am going to make a statement here, and in no way is it meant to brag about my proficiency with a handgun.

I can beat 98% of them on the job every time. Unless you are "Operator Level Trained" and current or "Well Trained LEO" and Current You are behind the curve ! and have no business carrying a gun professionally.

Ask me how I really feel? I have been to 14 2 and 4 day Pistol classes, 9 Rifle classes and 6 Shotgun classes over the last 15 years at Front Sight. I shoot in the top 10% in those classes.

I am better than most and I don't even carry a gun.

If I did carry a gun for a living I would find some way to practice frequently, because if you do carry a gun for a living the chances that you are going to be involved in a gunfight are much higher than if you don't carry a gun. There are metaphysical reasons for this!

But if you are involved in a gun fight,,, "Winning" should be your only objective.

Anything else is sheer stupidity!

Here's pics of teh Handgun ,Rifle and Shotgun tests all of which should be pushed forward as minimum requirements for monthly qualifications to carry a gun as an LEO!

Randy

[OS OK]

Just a little story about home training & 'hits & misses'!

I like to practice from the low ready with the 1911 full house .45ACP at 10 yards and use a timer.
The idea is 2 shots center of mass and 1 shot in the noggin...the objective of course is to stay at least on target but work my time under 3 seconds but I'm always on both sides of that 3 seconds. I'm old like Gabby Hayes but can't for the life of me throw shots from the hip like he did.

If you have much of an imagination and think the perp is armed, that thought along with that dang intimidating timer makes a practice session a little freaky. Not sure I can explain that any better but for me, here at home and alone with myself...I actually get pretty uptight, I have to talk to myself and remind myself to be calm & deliberate.

I started a few years ago when I took these pictures. At first it was just a small home made silhouette made from corrugated box board and a paint template for a rattle can.

https://i.imgur.com/52UmFN7.jpg https://i.imgur.com/qmftnWq.jpg

The lead catcher backstop opening measures 2' high and 3' wide...you can judge the size of these targets from that standing at 10 yards. I've practiced using only one target at a time with the timer and also used both targets with 6 rounds in the magazine. The idea was for the first 2 shots to go center of mass and the 3'rd shot in the head, that's prolly an unorthodox way to practice but it is a barrel of fun and I actually did improve my quick shooting, I had lots of help from online friends who used to compete in various competitions.

One day I had the idea to make another template with a hostage and do the same drill with the timer. This is a whole-nuther ball of wax here! Not only does my imagination have me pressured from knowing the perp has a gun pointed at me, that I have a dang timer that is intimidating in itself but...now there's a huge risk having the hostage there.
I'm not kidding...this is a mind game that will get you twisted up tight! I suppose if you shot with friends and introduced a little gamesmanship it would bring the intensity down a few notches but I shoot alone here, don't want the liability of someone here that could end all this fun with some errant shot or even an accident with the weapon.

Anyway...after practicing a lot with the single silhouettes, I tend to get a little sure of myself & cocky and I then bring the hostage target out thinking I can ace this exercise!
hahaaa...if I had a picture of a practice target where I didn't at least nick the hostage, I'd show it...usually the practice ends like this day did where literally the last shot took the hostage out. hahaaa...In a microsecond, I went from a hero to a ZERO. OMGosh, that's hard on the ego!

https://i.imgur.com/QZrWf2Z.jpg

I never trained anywhere like you fellas do, never have been part of a shooting team or LE, just make up games to make a practice session more fruitful, more meaningful and hopefully hone my skills some.

[Larry Gibson]

"A simple SD variable does take into account all of the factors that influence hit probability. It sounds to me that you simply don't recognize how strong inferential statistics are at producing the truth.

If only hits counted, speed would not matter. Fast hits are what matter, even if that means some misses."

No, a simple SD does not and can not "take into account all of the factors that influence hit probability". A simple SD can not do that because there is no way to enter the variables of a shooting situation that would affect the SD before that shooting situation occurs. You believe such "hit probability" can be predicted by the numbers but unless you have been in such situations, and apparently you haven't, you won't understand. A human's reaction and performance under such situations is entirely unknown until the person is subjected to the situation.

The fallacy of what you state is in this sentence; "Fast hits are what matter, even if that means some misses." Yes, fast hits do matter but you can not miss fast enough to win. While you are missing, even if fast, the opponent is shooting also....and he may be hitting........ In "quickness" time is of the essence and any time taken in missing is time lost and wasted. Like we always say, "slow is smooth, smooth is fast.....take your time to hit, but do it quickly......"

The truth of what you say is this; "In practical terms, that means if you assume a perfect sight picture, the sight picture can literally be anywhere within that 8" circle and the SD will calculate to two. In reality, nobody is going to purposely aim a perfect sight picture to the edge of the 8" circle, but instead is going to have a generally centered, but likely imperfect sight picture. So long as the sight picture, if perfect, would be within that 8" circle when the trigger breaks, the hits look like this" The assumption of the sight picture makes my point; The shooter must be sufficiently trained to do that under stress. Most civilians, LEOs and military are not.....that is why there is so much "missing" and all the SD calculations and/or assumptions will not tell you that.

[reddog81]

Standard 'D's'...hit miss ratios...computer generated shots?
That all seems meaningless to me in a real life or death active shooter situation. Maybe it is good for evaluating and putting numbers and ratios on an event after the fact, I haven't the slightest idea.

Why, you ask?

Because in my estimation, when you are suddenly hit with a 10 pound dose of adrenaline and the 'fight or flight' takes you over physically, what could happen next is a crap-shoot.

I think this has much more affect on the good guy, the average civilian Joe or LEO than it does on a 'blooded veteran' who has been a life taker many times before and certainly pertains to a criminal type who has shot it out in the barrios most of his life. I think it is the mentally disciplined through experience, that steeled attitude guy who has the better chance.
Take the best shot on the practice range, civilian or LE and without knowing how he or she will react to the physical element of adrenaline and fight or flight, I am thinking you might see any scenario follow.

Give that computer the same adrenaline dump, the fight or flight sensation and I expect the computer would just freeze up somewhere in it's lines of code...people can and do too.

No...I am not a blooded veteran, just a veteran & no I have never taken a life in anger or self defense...but I have experienced adrenaline dumps and the fight or flight sensation several times...it's real.
That alone must have a huge effect on hits & misses.

I agree with this assessment. During a gunfight any assumptions about about SD’s will be meaningless. All these analysis assume the the shots are centered on the target which probably isn’t likely. When the bullets start to fly I have a feeling most shots will be very random and any SD will measured in feet not inches even at short distances.

I’ve only done informal competitions at the local range but many new competitors had trouble getting getting a majority of shots on an IDPA target at anything over 10 yards. With the timer going and being forced to move between targets you start to realize why so many shots are fired during a gunfight. Even these minor stressors turn a competent shooter into spray and pray newbie for the first couple of rounds. Turn that cardboard cutout into a bad guy who looks like he’s pulling a gun out of his pocket and all the static training you’ve done standing at a firing line shooting at paper don’t mean much.

[Bigslug]

Some thoughts on the reality of the situation:

From the cop's perspective: You're never going to get enough training - from the agency it will come down to budget restraints on ammo, payroll and other demands on your work hours. Within those confines, the agency can/should only throw at you those useful elements that will actually be retained given the amount of training that can be provided. Exposure to bunch of high-speed Navy SeAL tricks that have to be drilled daily is pointless overload if you only get a tiny bit of them every six months. If you can instinctively step off the bullseye when drawing (cleanly), find your front sight, and not bash the trigger, you're probably well ahead of the curve. From the angle of doing it on your own dime as a non-hobby, how much of it can you do and still have a life? At least you DO get SOME formal training at regular intervals - at least if you take THAT seriously, you're somewhat ahead of the game.

Then there's the crappy reality that whatever you do is is REACTION to what the other guy does first. In all likelihood, he's already decided to do you harm and committed to the act. You have to perceive that action, figure out what it means, figure out what to do about it, and then do it. The good news - sort of - is that you at least have Kevlar and a radio to summon the world.

From the scumbag's perspective: where the cop has limits on his training budget, you probably have none. If you did, you'd probably have enough money to not be doing the stupid things you're doing. You're probably armed with something you're not overly familiar with, that hasn't been maintained, loaded with the cheapest or most readily available stuff you can find. In your favor you have initiative and will.

So no. . .this is not usually the epic clash of Doc Holliday squaring off against Johnny Ringo. Given the above realities, there's little reason to expect a high X-count.