I'm disturbed...

[Excaliber]

I gotta give you credit for posting the first run even though it didn't fully meet your standards.

A less humble guy would have recorded 10 or so runs through the exercise and posted only the best one.

Um... if I'd had more ammo left, I might have done just that

Sriously - I don't want to make myself out to be some fake super-hero, and while it might seem quick, it's full of errors - draw and accuracy-wise - which are good lessons.

I do like the BUG idea. The trial's all about solving the problem of a social encounter, after all, and while there are definite skills I want folks to perform, it would be really nice to allow for some freestyle and creativity, too - and if it then helps someone select a better choice for them for street-carry, so much the better.

The old saying is that "The fastest reload is a NY reload" - but that originally referred to a primary revolver then to a backup revolver. This might not necessarily be true for a pistol primary and revolver BUG...

A second magazine would be faster for me than drawing a second gun, but one's mileage will vary depending on how the magazine is carried. Mine are very readily accessible with no intervening flaps or straps.

Due to the ammo capacity of most combat worthy pistols, in a single digit round count exercise, the reload can be done as a tactical one during a lull in the action or after it's over rather than as a speed reload after slide lockback in the middle of the fight.

[tbrown]

The real world doesn't give you easier problems if you're less prepared. It also doesn't penalize you for making better choices.

[paulhailes]

I suggest your round count not reflect the use of a particular gun or forcing a reload, instead your round count should be determined by the number bgs which if possible should reflect actual incidents in the real world. If people have to reload or switc guns so be it, you should have a set number of minimum shots in a set time, how we get there is up to us. I think the most important thing is that we face a number of bgs that we could expect to encounter, that way we learn to work though it. Is it unfair that some people will have a higher round count before reloading? Yes, this test shouldn't be about what's fair it should be about what's real.

I am really excited to see what you come up with, good luck and good shooting.

[paulhailes]

Sounds like its moving along pretty good then, cant wait to give it a shot.

[Excaliber]

If people have to reload or switc guns so be it, you should have a set number of minimum shots in a set time

Agreed, and there will be.

Is it unfair that some people will have a higher round count before reloading? Yes, this test shouldn't be about what's fair it should be about what's real.

On the street, absolutely - not necessarily in a trial, though. Remember that the point of the exercise isn't about what's fair or "Is a hi-cap pistol better than a low-cap in a gunfight?" - that's not what the trial is about. It's about testing various skills within the framework of a given self-defense situation to see if people can achieve a given, equal standard - regardless of their chosen type of firearm as much as is practically possible.

There are a number of reasons for the reload:

1. To force people to practice their reload, of course - something that the majority of folks never seem to do.

2. To allow commonly-carried, lower-capacity firearms to take part. I absolutely do not want people to avoid trying out with their actual carry-gun and bringing along some 17-shot monster because they think it'll give them an actual advantage in the trial. This is a skills-trial for as much as I can possibly make it, not an equipment race.

3. Creating a level playing field in terms of testing skills - a 15-shot Glock wouldn't have an advantage over, say, a 5-shot Kel-tec in that regard.

how we get there is up to us

To a certain extent, for sure. I'm going to expect that certain mandatory skills be demonstrated, but some parts will also be freestyle so folks can be creative and solve that part of the problem their way.

I think the most important thing is that we face a number of bgs that we could expect to encounter, that way we learn to work though it.

Best I can practically do is 2 BGs - it's a matter of range-safety as I've mentioned before (at a short distance, the more BGs we have, the more the shot-angles tend towards 180-degrees) - plus that should be plenty for anybody to build their skills and become not only more proficient but pretty darned confident, too.

One additional thing, in a nod towards realism:

Initially I had thought that a shooter should have a perfect score within the alloted time - for example, 6 shots only and all shots to be within the 9-ring and head - but what if someone misses a shot?

Should that be a reason for them to be considered immediately as having crashed & burned - or should they be allowed a make-up shot to cover that miss, risking the extra time that shot takes? I believe that they should - because 1. it forces a shooter to look for the result of their hits on the BG, just as in real life and 2. it allows for some creativity if the shooter has enough time remaining to take advantage of it.

I think the test should be based on performance, not required tactics.

I agree on allowing makeup shots. They cost time and ammo and the shooter should take away the consideration of where that (or those) round would have gone and what the consequences would have been in a real encounter. However, because they are a fact of life in the real world, they should be allowed.

I do not concur with forcing a reload on everyone. Yes, reloading is a skill everyone should practice but in real life, but reloading during a 2 - 3 second firefight almost never occurs in citizen defensive encounters, regardless of weapon type. Shooters of hi cap guns have enough rounds to finish the fight. Shooters of lo cap guns run out of ammo and lose. Almost no one has the opportunity to complete a speed reload.

If someone elects to handicap himself with a firearm with such low capacity that a reload would be necessary under these circumstances, he should be allowed to use that option and learn what he can from the experience. However, I am not aware of any incident where someone drew from concealment, executed 5 shots on 2 targets, reloaded, and shot again in real life within the 2 - 3 defensive encounter time frame.

I think requiring a reload would reduce realism and introduce an unnecessary game element. Let's keep it real.

[CWOOD]

I find the reload/no reload requirement discussion interesting because there are valid arguments on both sides.

For the purposes of full disclosure my carry weapon is 10+1.

On the pro-reload side, reloads can be needed for reasons other that ammunition capacity. It can be necessitated due to a mechanical failure as well. I think we can all agree that the ability to reload effectively and quickly under pressure is an important and often overlooked skill.

On the 'real world" side of the debate, it is reasonable to assume the barring a malfunction, someone with adequate capacity is going to blast away as fast as accurately possible to neutralize any and every threat presented and then reload as necessary...don't forget to reload at the end of the confrontation as it might not be over.

There is no way that AndyC, or anyone can design a quick and dirty drill of take into account every permutation of circumstances. I suggest that he accept any suggestions that seem to fit within his goal. In fact, he already seems to be doing this. Then he can design whatever suits him and present it as he intends.

He is not requiring that we walk lockstep and always do as he suggests. I think we all agree with this. However, if we want credit for doing HIS exercise successfully, we should do it HIS way. Then we can get the patch, or gold star or gunfighter certificate or whatever. THEN:

If we have adequate capacity then we can try it without the reload if we want to see what we can do for what might be real world for us. Nothing prevents us from doing it that way for our own purposes.

AndyC, I look forward to trying whatever you come up with.

For what it is worth, my suggestion would be to allow make up shots as long as they are within the time parameters.

This is a very engaging discussion. The tone and mutual respect shown here certainly demonstrate why this is a superior site and why many of us hold it in high regard. Thanks all!

[The Annoyed Man]

Andy, I have another question/suggestion....

In your video, you "mozambiqued" the left target, and double tapped the right target, and you did so shooting right handed, but a couple of different ideas come up, and maybe they unnecessarily complicate what you're trying to accomplish, maybe not. Anyway, here's what occurs to me:

1) If the drill you shot in the video is the standard, does it reverse for a left handed shooter? I.E., does the left handed shooter triple tap the right target and double tap the left target?

2) The drill in the video assumes two bad guys roughly the same distance from the shooter. Would there be any value in staggering the bad guy distances? For instance (and I realize that the target placements were determined by Elm Fork's target hangers) would there be any value in putting one of the targets in a free-standing frame, maybe 4 or 5 feet closer to the shooter? The reason I suggest this is that your decision to triple the first target in a real life situation would be dictated by that target being the greater threat to the shooter—either because of proximity, or because that bad guy has a gun or something—and the second target being the lesser of the two immediate threats.

So, you could run the drill so that 20 rounds total are fired, in 4 parts:

1. left target is the bigger threat and closer to the shooter; triple the left target and double the right target;
2. right target is the bigger threat and closer to the shooter; triple the right target and double the left targe;
3. left target is the bigger threat but furthest from the shooter; triple the left target and double the right target;
4. right target is the bigger threat but furthest from the shooter; triple the right target and double the left target.

Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but that is what occurs to me.

[Excaliber]

Andy, I have another question/suggestion....

In your video, you "mozambiqued" the left target, and double tapped the right target, and you did so shooting right handed, but a couple of different ideas come up, and maybe they unnecessarily complicate what you're trying to accomplish, maybe not. Anyway, here's what occurs to me:

1) If the drill you shot in the video is the standard, does it reverse for a left handed shooter? I.E., does the left handed shooter triple tap the right target and double tap the left target?

2) The drill in the video assumes two bad guys roughly the same distance from the shooter. Would there be any value in staggering the bad guy distances? For instance (and I realize that the target placements were determined by Elm Fork's target hangers) would there be any value in putting one of the targets in a free-standing frame, maybe 4 or 5 feet closer to the shooter? The reason I suggest this is that your decision to triple the first target in a real life situation would be dictated by that target being the greater threat to the shooter—either because of proximity, or because that bad guy has a gun or something—and the second target being the lesser of the two immediate threats.

So, you could run the drill so that 20 rounds total are fired, in 4 parts:

1. left target is the bigger threat and closer to the shooter; triple the left target and double the right target;
2. right target is the bigger threat and closer to the shooter; triple the right target and double the left targe;
3. left target is the bigger threat but furthest from the shooter; triple the left target and double the right target;
4. right target is the bigger threat but furthest from the shooter; triple the right target and double the left target.

Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but that is what occurs to me.

There's another tactical consideration here. In a 2 BG confrontation at short range, both are likely to be nearly equal threats. Firing 3 rounds at one while not engaging the other at all until the 4th round leaves #2 enough free time to effectively counter and ruin the defender's day.

Shooting 1 round COM on the first, followed by a double tap on the second, and another 1 or 2 on the first followed by more on the second if the threat remains is regarded by many as the best solution for a very dangerous problem.

[The Annoyed Man]

There's another tactical consideration here. In a 2 BG confrontation at short range, both are likely to be nearly equal threats. Firing 3 rounds at one while not engaging the other at all until the 4th round leaves #2 enough free time to effectively counter and ruin the defender's day.

Shooting 1 round COM on the first, followed by a double tap on the second, and another 1 or 2 on the first followed by more on the second if the threat remains is regarded by many as the best solution for a very dangerous problem.

I understand, but that isn't how Andy shot in the video, which I presumed was the course of fire he was proposing. I might not be right in the particulars of how to address it, but I was mainly trying to convey an element of target selection into the drill, which is more like real life, rather than having a standardized "shoot the guy on the left, then shoot the guy on the right;" and also to introduce the variable of "handedness" for the shooter. After all, in real life, regardless of how may rounds you serve each target with, you're going to have to make a decision on who to shoot first, how many times, based on which is the biggest danger of the two. It seems to me that target selection is going to be the first priority, regardless of whether you shoot the first one twice, the second one twice, and the first one a third time; or shoot the first once, the second twice, and the first twice more.

OTH, if there is no particular significance to his shooting of FIVE rounds, then maybe I've just posted twice for no particularly good reason.

[suthdj]

This is getting interesting, I have not read all 6 pages, but a lot is being said about realism, that being said what is the most likely encounter a person would expect to come across 1 ,2, 3 BG's, how many armed, trained or untrained etc... from there how you succeed is up to the shooter as long as all threats are stopped in the expected time frame. What a person brings to a fight is up to them. Can low tech targets be built so if you hit a vital area it drops indicating the threat is gone like steal plates that drop, a simple 2x4 on a hinge so if a bullet hit the vital area it has enough force to drop it, but if it hits the cardboard area it does not drop.