The Sight Continuum

This is a discussion on The Sight Continuum within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Blackhawk6; The variables are still there regardless. You'll still have to decide if it is a shoot or no shoot situation. It's when the decision ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36

Thread: The Sight Continuum

  1. #16
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,644
    Blackhawk6;

    The variables are still there regardless. You'll still have to decide if it is a shoot or no shoot situation.

    It's when the decision to shoot has been made that threat focused skills will benefit the defender where time requirments are concerned.

    The brain is able to compute faster than anyones physical skills at all times. It remains ahead of the physical skills whether you are using your sights or not.

    Consciously thinking before acting is not the same as picking the best option once the decision to act is made.

    I believe that by reducing the number of responses the brain has to choose from we can further accelerate the process.

    That may well be true, I've not seen supporting evidence to deny or confirm this medically. That does not negate the fact the brain functions at speeds that are always faster than the physical response times will ever be. Thus, the brain can determine the physical response long before the hand/arm/ can move to accomplish the request.

    Consider a shooter who is trained to engage targets that suddenly appear.

    Where in the trainingcommunity is this occuring? Not anywhere even in swat, nor military, nor civilian training that I'm aware of. The highest levels of training like building entries requires the shooter to determine a threat first, not shoot first. Again, the brain is processing visual data and making determinations of courses of actions before the physical skills can be executed.

    The sight continuum requires the individual to discriminate between three different criteria before selecting a response.

    You'll discriminate it the same way with sights only training. The difference is you don't have the ability to gain time with the threat focused skills.

    As has been stated previously, while the physical act of engaging a target with a point-shooting method may be slightly faster, the cognitive requirements slow the shooter down.

    Again, the brain is way out in front processing the visual inputs long before the physical act is executed. The cognitive skills are not slower than the physical skills, and if for some reason they are, there is another underlying reason/s for this to be happening.

    Using sighted-shooting almost exclusively may be marginally slower than point-shooting. However, it requires less analysis prior to implementation and provides fewer opportnities for the shooter to err.

    I disagree for the reasons stated above. The analysis is coming from the brain prior to the implementation of the physical skills. If the brain has determined to shoot, it has already determined a response. It can also determine the type of response necessary long before the physical skills come into play.

    edited to add: It's probably time to introduce a term most will have never heard of---- proprioceptive mechanism.

    Brownie
    Last edited by AzQkr; July 6th, 2006 at 04:42 PM.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array Blackhawk6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    That may well be true, I've not seen supporting evidence to deny or confirm this medically. That does not negate the fact the brain functions at speeds that are always faster than the physical response times will ever be.
    See Hick's Law as it relates to reaction time.

    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    Where in the trainingcommunity is this occuring? Not anywhere even in swat, nor military, nor civilian training that I'm aware of.
    It happens all of the time. Disciriminatory shooting is frequently introduced after the shooter develops the skill to engage the target successfully. The military, law enforcement and civilain personnel engage in non-dicriminatory shooting all of the time. Check military and law enforcement qualification courses. Civilian courses generally introduce discriminatory shooting in "advanced" classes. Are you telling me that in your Quick Kill courses students are required to discriminate between "shoot" and "no-shoot" targets from the start?

    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    You'll discriminate it the same way with sights only training.
    Will I discriminiate between targets the same? Sure. Do I have as many things to consider prior to pulling the trigger? No. I simply determine whether or not my sight picture is acceptable.
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    The analysis is coming from the brain prior to the implementation of the physical skills. If the brain has determined to shoot, it has already determined a response. It can also determine the type of response necessary long before the physical skills come into play.
    The analysis is coming from the brain throughout the implementation of the physical skills.
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    It's probably time to introduce a term most will have never heard of---- proprioceptive mechanism.
    I'll bite. I know proprioception deals with the body's awareness of its own position and affects balance.

  4. #18
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,644
    I'm familiar with Hicks Law, it's been discussed ad nauseum on the net and elsewhere. I don't believe it relates well to this discussion. You may, and we'll just agree to disagree on that subject.

    The military, law enforcement and civilain personnel engage in non-dicriminatory shooting all of the time.

    Are you aware of the rules of engagement in Iraq? LE circles? Could you give us supporting evidence that either or both are allowed to be non-discriminatory in their actions in the real world without answering for those actions criminally?

    As to civilians being indscriminate-well, they can be, but if they are and those actions result in negligence or misfeasance on their part, they suffer the consequences as well.

    Are you telling me that in your Quick Kill courses students are required to discriminate between "shoot" and "no-shoot" targets from the start?

    The courses teach the physical skills. How those skills are then subsequently used by the student are beyond anyones control but their own at the time of engagement. I don't believe you can teach to discriminate, that would require being able to cover so many variables and controlling their thought processes as to be next to impossible.

    The analysis is coming from the brain throughout the implementation of the physical skills.

    The analysis to engage or not is performed prior to the physical skills being implemented. I didn't suggest that the analysis stopped once the decision to act was made.

    Proprioception deals heavily with eye/hand coordination skills. Eye/hand coordination is part of the body indexing within threat focused skills when there may be no visual reference to the weapon. The research and documentation of this human mechanism is part and parcel to eye/hand coordination training.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  5. #19
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,644
    Not to take this too far off topic, but since blackhawk6 brought up Hicks Law in support of his position, here's some research since it was written in 1952.

    Many modern instructors just associate a doubling ratio to Hicks-that is, for every two choices, selection time doubles per added choice.Yet, despite all these quotes on times, Hick made no official proclamation on the milliseconds it takes to decide between options. There is a general consensus in the modern Kinesiology community that Simple Reaction Time, called SRT, takes an average of 150 milliseconds to decide to take an action. That’s considerably less than a quarter of a second-or 250 milliseconds. Lets re-establish that there are 1,000 milliseconds in one second-a fact that makes all these time studies fall into proper perspective. 1,000!

    Based on the doubling rule with the common SRT average, then choosing between two choices must take 300 milliseconds. Run out the time-table. Three choices? 600 milliseconds. Four choices? 1 second and 200 milliseconds. A mere five choices? 2 seconds and 400 milliseconds! Six? 4 full seconds and 800 milliseconds. Should a boxer learn 5 tactics? That would mean 9 seconds and 600 milliseconds to choose one tactic from another? You would really see people physically shut down while trying to select options at this point and beyond. Has this been your viewing experience of a football game? Basketball? Tennis? Has this been your experience as a witness to life?

    One begins to wonder how a football game can be played, how a jazz pianist functions, or how a bicyclist can pedal himself in a New York City rush hour. How does a boxer, who sees a spilt-second opening, select a jab, cross, hook, uppercut, overhand, or to step back straight, right or left? If he dares to throw combination punches how can he select them so quickly?

    Under this exponential increase rule, it would seem athletes would stand dumbfounded, as index cards rolled through their heads in an attempt to pick a choice of action. Every eye jab could not be blocked if the blocker was taught even just two blocks. The eye attack would hit the eyes as the defender sluggishly selects between the two blocks.

    Athletic performance studies attack the doubling rule. We need not only look to athletes. How can a typist type so quickly? Look at all the selections on a computer? 26 letters-plus options! How can your read this typed essay? How can your mind select and process from 26 different letters in the alphabet? It is obvious that the exponential rule of “doubling” with each option, has serious scientific problems when you run a math table out.

    Hick’s Law has become barely a sketch or an outline for the thousands of performance experiments in laboratories since 1952. New tests upon new tests on skills like driving vehicles, flying, sports and psychology, have created so many layers of fresh information. Larish and Stelmach in 1982 established that one could select from 20 complex options in 340 milliseconds, providing the complex choices have been previously trained. One other study even had a reaction time of .03 milliseconds between two trained choices! .03! Merkel’s Law, for example, says that trouble begins when a person has to select between 8 choices, but can still select a choice from the eight well under 500 milliseconds. Brace yourself! Mowbray and Rhoades Law of 1959, or the Welford Law of 1986, found no difference in reaction time at all, when selecting from numerous, well-trained choices.

    Why the time differences? I conducted an email survey of 50 college university professors of Psychology and Kinesiology. It is crystal clear that training makes a considerable difference. Plus-people, tests and testing equipment are different. Respondents state that every person and the skills they perform in tests vary, so reaction times vary. One universal difficulty mentioned by researchers is the mechanical task of splitting the second in their test-that is identifying the exact millisecond that the tested reaction took place. Many recorded tests are performed by under-grads in less than favorable conditions.

    The test-givers themselves have reaction time issues that effect time recording! Milliseconds are wasted as the tester sees the testee react, then reacts with a stopwatch device, either estimating or losing milliseconds in their own reaction process. Common test machinery takes milliseconds to register a choice. Results can get vague and slippery within the tiny world of a single second. Documenting milliseconds in the 1950s was almost impossible even in the most sophisticated labs, yet modern instructors ignore modern research and use the 1950s numbers to base their training methodolgies.

    Six decades of performance testing have passed, with new technology and on regular "walk-around" people along with low, medium and high performance sports athletes. New methodologies have been created to increase SRT and selection times. Training like;

    <>Sequential Learning- the stringing of tasks working together like connected notes in music, really reduces reaction and selection time.

    <>Conceptual Learning is another speed track. In relation to survival training, this means a person first makes an either/or conceptual decision, like “Shoot/Don’t shoot,” or, “Move-In/Move Back.” Rather than selecting from a series of hand strikes, in Conceptual Learning, the boxer does not waste milliseconds selecting specific punches, but rather makes one overall decision, “punch many times!” The trained body then takes over, following paths learned from prior repetition training.

    Sure, simple is good. I am all for simple. And reaction time is an important concern when you are dodging a knife, pulling a gun, etc. There comes a point in a learning progression when there are too many reactions/techniques to an attack. On the other end of Hock's Law continuum is the brick wall called "Hyper-Vigilance," the subject of another essay.

    For myself, I like to go about three-deep per response as a general rule. Four may be pushing the limit for the moderate student, though I know students who can handle way more. As a professional instructor, I busy myself learning more than three options, so I can teach the best three to differing skill-levels and body shapes.

    Before trainers start bringing up Hick’s Law they need to know the rest of the science since the 1950s, that improved training really decreases reaction time, and not use Hick as an excuse to cage us down to one-step, dumb Neanderthals.

    It seems like the last 6 decades, Hick’s Law has become a legacy of research. Hick’s Legacy is really telling us to train more and smarter, not necessarily to be stupid and learn less. Remember one of Einstein’s Laws-“Keep it simple…but not too simple.” I like the sound of that much better than stupid instructors KISSING me to keep things stupid.

    _________________

    These discoveries made in 1990s, decades after the 1950s Hicks law began, blowing the original, antiquated "mental rolladex/task selection" concept out of the water. The brain has a fast track! Below, Martin D. Topper, Ph.D., Jack M. Feldman, Ph.D. write about them...

    "...Currently, the best explanation is provided by psychologist Gary Klein in Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. He's proposed that the human brain is capable of multi-tasking. His theory works like this: A visual image is picked up by the retina and is transmitted to the visual center of the brain in the occipital lobe. From there the image is sent to two locations in the brain. On the one hand, it goes to the higher levels of the cerebral cortex which is the seat of full conscious awareness. There, in the frontal lobes, the image is available to be recognized, analyzed, input into a decision process and acted upon as the person considers appropriate. Let's call this "the slow track," because full recognition of the meaning of a visual image, analyzing what it represents, deciding what to do and then doing it takes time. Some psychologists also refer to this mental process as System II cognition. If you used System II cognition in critical situations like a skid, you wouldn't have enough time to finish processing the OODA Loop before your car went over the cliff.

    Fortunately, there's a second track, which we'll call "the fast track," or System I Cognition. In this system, the image is also sent to a lower, pre-conscious region of the brain, which is the amygdala. This area of the brain stores visual memory and performs other mental operations as well. The visual image is compared here on a pre-conscious level at incredible speed with many thousands of images that are stored in memory. Let's call each image a "frame" which is a term that Dr. Erving Goffman used in his book Frame Analysis to describe specific, cognitively-bounded sets of environmental conditions. I like to use the word "frame" here because the memory probably contains more than just visual information. There may be sound, kinesthetic, tactile, olfactory or other sensory information that also helps complement the visual image contained within the frame...fortunately, the fast and slow tracks are usually complimentary, one focusing on insight, the other on action. Together they produce a synergistic effect that enhances the actor's chances of survival.

    But even though these two tracks are complimentary, we know that some people seem to be much more skilled than others at integrating System 1 and System 2. These especially competent individuals seem to resolve critical situations and also adapt to rapid changes in those situations. They invent routines they have never before performed and act in a fluid, seamless manner without employing full focal awareness.

    So at this point in our understanding, we have a model that tells us something about how the brain can operate on two tracks at the same time, but we don't really have a good idea of how the two levels interact, except to say that the interaction is very complex, and some people do it better than others. We really don't know everything we'd like to know. But we do know that specific types of training can help a person develop unconscious competence, and this is enough to make some suggestions about the kind of training that will help make relatively unskilled people more competent in finding solutions to potentially violent encounters.
    ________________________

    The above research since 1952 really does beg the question if Hicks Law applies to this discussion and has any relevance at all here. I don't believe it does based on the subsequent research since that paper was written.

    Hence my opinions about Hicks Law having relevance here. This information was easily found on the internet, the article was written by Hock Hockeim with the exception of Martin and Topplers, PhD's, research as noted.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  6. #20
    Member Array Blackhawk6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    370
    This discussion has obviously run its course. I will clear up a few misconceptions and be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    Are you aware of the rules of engagement in Iraq? LE circles? Could you give us supporting evidence that either or both are allowed to be non-discriminatory in their actions in the real world without answering for those actions criminally?
    Am I aware of the ROE in Iraq? Yes, I am aware of the ROE in Iraq and elsewhere. I was not referring to how military personnel are conducting operations when I discussed non-discriminatory practices. I was referring to how personnel are prepared to operate in an environment such as Iraq. The typical progression in skill development is to first have the individual build proficiency in the skill and then begin to exercise discrimination of the target to determine whether or not it is appropriate to engage the target. (You will note that there are no friendly targets in any of the service's qualification courses nor are they present in the majority of law enforcement qualification courses) In virtually every instance once an individual goes from engaging a target without having to discriminate to having to determine whether a target is a "shoot" or "no-shoot" target there is an accompanying delay in engagement time. This decrease in speed can be mitigated with training but never fully removed. Law enforcement follows a similar model of training.

    I am sorry but it is a fact. Having to discriminate between "shoot" and "no shoot" targets increases reaction time. Honestly, I am not sure why this is being debated...

    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    The analysis to engage or not is performed prior to the physical skills being implemented.
    Perhaps that is how your mind works, but not mine. I know several individuals who have made the decision to engage, begun to engage the target, even going so far as to apply pressure to the trigger, and then observed a change in conditions that caused them not to engage. I have done it myself. None of this would have been possible were we not continuosly analyzing the threat throughout the engagement process.

    I found the article you provided interesting. However, as it relates to Hick's Law, the article you cited is incorrect. First, Hick's Law deals with Choice Reaction Time not Simple Reaction Time. Second, Hick's Law does not double reaction time for each response. Hick's Law simply states that reaction time increases in logrithmic proportion to the number of choices.(other studies have actually indicated a greater increase in reaction time.) One has to wonder what other mistakes/mischaracterizations the author made with regard to reactions time studies and their conclusions.

    You may feel that Hick's Law has no bearing on the issue. I disagree. As in all matters relating to personal defense, it is best to do the research yourself. A good summary of the literature regarding reaction time can be found here:

    http://biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm

    I appreciated the discussion and even learned a few things. Stay safe.

  7. #21
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,644
    The comment I made was:

    The analysis to engage or not is performed prior to the physical skills being implemented. I didn't suggest that the analysis stopped once the decision to act was made.

    Thus, when you state that:

    Perhaps that is how your mind works, but not mine. I know several individuals who have made the decision to engage, begun to engage the target, even going so far as to apply pressure to the trigger, and then observed a change in conditions that caused them not to engage. I have done it myself. None of this would have been possible were we not continuosly analyzing the threat throughout the engagement process.

    I'm in agreement with that not disagreement.

    I've done some considerable research in reaction times [ lag times ] in years past myself. The research was on the lag times of pilots who had to multitask within short frames of times due to the speed with which they were traveling and how long it took to make decisions once they became aware of something. There is much research on this subject which can be well worth the read and research.

    Hick's Law simply states that reaction time increases in logrithmic proportion to the number of choices.(other studies have actually indicated a greater increase in reaction time.)

    According to the authors who were given mention, those increases are recorded in milliseconds and happen long before any physical reaction could possibly take place.

    "Larish and Stelmach in 1982 established that one could select from 20 complex options in 340 milliseconds, providing the complex choices have been previously trained."

    Seems one can decide to stand by research from the 1950's or more updated research with better testing equipment than could possibly have been used by Hicks. Ongoing and more recent relevant research should not be discounted IMO.

    It comes to training. One either has that training or they do not. That would suggest that one can use that training or one can not, solely based on the training provided which is what I was suggesting in previous posts. You can't use something you don't have, and time is never on the side of the defender. If a situation dictates one can save ANY time with a skill, when time is of the essence, it would be prudent to have the training that allows that savings.

    Where we may be differing the most here is the mindset of being proactive and it's training and reactive training in our actions.

    Brownie
    Last edited by AzQkr; July 6th, 2006 at 07:50 PM.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  8. #22
    Member Array Blackhawk6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    370
    I hadn't planned to discuss this further, but I found my copy of Joe Ferrera's 1996 study entitled A STUDY OF REACTION AND RESPONSE TIME IN SUBJECT CONTROL TRAINING.

    From the conclusion (my emphasis added):
    We know reaction time is the time it takes between perception of a threat and initiation of an action to counter the perceived threat. Response time adds to this the time it takes to complete the initiated action. This study demonstrates that with only two choices, i.e. forearm block or wrist block, the time it takes for humans to perceive, evaluate, formulate a plan, and initiate action increases by as much as 23% over a single choice. The more choices in response techniques the mind has to evaluate for a given threat the longer it takes to initiate action. This study supports the theory of teaching fewer response techniques to cover a wider range of threat cues. By providing the officer the least amount of choices in responding to a threat you increase the officer’s ability to respond faster. As instructors we should be teaching effective techniques that apply to many situations thereby reducing the number of choices an officer has to evaluate. Teaching fewer techniques and using the limited training time for more repetitions gives an added advantage of increasing the officer’s confidence in his, or her, ability to perform the techniques under stress. Confidence in their ability coupled with faster reaction time provides the officer with increased safety for a given situation.
    He summarizes my position regarding the sight continuum nicely.

  9. #23
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,644
    So, to summarize your position, we should have one trained response for the gun, including one draw, one way to get the gun to our line of sight, one way of using the sights, one way of using the trigger, only one way to hold the gun [ one or two handed ], etc?

    I suppose that various defensive edged weapons training should include one line of attack, one line of defense, one technique for defending stabs, slashes and overhands?

    That won't really work in the real world. One specific technique for defense against attacks with a knife will of course leave you vulnerable to the other lines of attack the one technique does not cover.

    We see in the gun business, we can train in the high retention positions, the low ready, the two handed techniques, the one handed techniques, front sight press, full alignment of sights as in bullseye shooting, cross draw, strong side, IWB, OWB, etc etc.

    Is it your position that they all be thrown out as there are too many options to think about how to perform different tasks based on differing requirements?

    I'm not sure that option is one I'll ever train for. The difference between front sight press and full sight alignment is time on threat. Which one do we then choose if we are to make one choice as two choices slow us down? There are more people who make choices based on circumstances than people who choose one technique to resolve every problem in this world with a particular tool.

    I'm not being facitious in the questions, just trying to determine how we decide which one technique will cover ever situation encountered as when we make choices we slow ourselves down. Personally, I don't feel thats an option anyone really feels is viable or safe where our personal defense is concerned.

    You want to rely on one study to support your position?, I'll rely on many sutdies that counter that as well as my own experiences in the real world which suggest one can have options and through training enhance the appropriate responses needed to solve any particular problem presented on the streets.

    edited to add: Which one technique do you use yourself for every situation you'll encounter? Front sight press? Full sights alignement? More importantly, do you think that the one you have chosen to use as the one [ as two would slow you down ] is appropriate in every situation based on the variables discussed previously?

    As well, we should recognize that the best shooters in the country utilize more than one technique to solve varying problems posed to them.

    Brownie
    Last edited by AzQkr; July 6th, 2006 at 09:14 PM.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  10. #24
    Member Array Blackhawk6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    So, to summarize your position, we should have one trained response for the gun, including one draw, one way to get the gun to our line of sight, one way of using the sights, one way of using the trigger, only one way to hold the gun [ one or two handed ], etc?
    That is not my position. I believe that when he said "the least amount of choices" he neglected to add the word "necessary." My position is that we should adopt the minimum number necessary.
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    I'm not being facitious in the questions, just trying to determine how we decide which one technique will cover ever situation encountered as when we make choices we slow ourselves down. Personally, I don't feel thats an option anyone really feels is viable or safe where our personal defense is concerned.
    Again, I never advocated only limiting yourself to one technique nor do I believe the author did.
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    You want to rely on one study to support your position?
    I posted a portion of the conclusion from the study because I thought the material was relevant and the author expressed my views better than I was able.

    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr
    I'll rely on many sutdies that counter that as well as my own experiences in the real world which suggest one can have options and through training enhance the appropriate responses needed to solve any particular problem presented on the streets.
    If you are the serious student you claim to be, then you know there is adequate material to support both sides of the issue. That would be why the issue exists.

    As to experience, we are all shaped by it and you are not the only person with it. Yours holds no more significance than anyone else's, except for you, just as mine is significant only to me. Its all been done before, by plenty of people, plenty of different ways. Nobody has all the answers.

    I am not opposed to attempting to draw some benefit from another individual's experience, even when it differs or contradicts my own. By the tone of your last post, you evidently are and I am not sure why.

    I have no ego invested in this discussion. I simply hoped to gain some perspective and draw some benefit from 7677's experience by exploring some of what my experience tells me are deficiencies with his sight continuum. I had hoped to learn something, which I did.

    Obviously the value of this thread for me is long gone. Were I a wiser man, I would have departed the discussion as I intended to earlier. I'll now rectify that mistake.

    Stay safe.

  11. #25
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,644
    I am not opposed to attempting to draw some benefit from another individual's experience, even when it differs or contradicts my own. By the tone of your last post, you evidently are and I am not sure why.

    Quite the contrary Balckhawk6. My tone was only in asking for clarification of your position, based on your considerable writings on this subject, which you have now answered.

    Limiting the choices is good. Deciding which choices to keep and use will of course be an individual decision.

    Stay sharp, I appreciated your thoughts and think everyone may have learned things from the ensuing discussion here.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  12. #26
    Member Array 7677's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackhawk6
    7677,

    I agree. However, threats may appear suddenly and require an immediate response.
    Here is my question back to you?
    What is the status of your weapon in this situation?
    Is it in the holster?
    Is it at low or high ready?
    Or, at sights?

    From the holster I draw and fire throughout my draw stoke as I close the ground; from low or high ready I would simply shoot; from sights I place my front sight on the target and shoot.

    I hardly call this giving someone a bunch of choices. It is simply based off of where you are in the draw stroke and when you need to shoot.

    This is exactly were I see the issue. Let's remove the distance equation from the discussion and focus on a threat that is 7 yards distant. What the threat is doing (time equation) is certainly a consideration but so is the amount of the threat available as a target (precision). As I attempted to explain earlier, a fully exposed threat in a parking lot attempting to shoot me with a gun is a different problem than a partially exposed threat on an aircraft attempting to shoot me with a gun.
    You know there are not many places on a aircraft I would call cover, and if in that situation I would drill the SOB through whatever he was attempting to hide behind not try and hit whatever was sticking out.

    I hate to say this, but if a tango has managed to get behind cover and gets the drop on you stopping and attempting to use sights is not the answer because if he has any marksmanship skills what so ever he is going to hit you before you ever get to your sights. In my day this was called an ambush. I'm sure you were not taught to stop in the middle of a ambush and aim in? We were taught to attack the attacker to move towards the threat while firing and hide behind our bullets and take out the threat. Well the reality of this is if the enemy is worth a damn it will be over after the first 30 seconds of the ambush.
    In both examples what the threat is doing (time equation) is the same, yet the degree of precision required differs substantially. Distance alone can not be the determining factor, nor can time nor can the degree of precision when using your sight continuum. All three have to be considered equally before a response can be initiated.

    Once again, my concern is that the shooter is required to evaluate more variables prior to selecting a response. Additionally, stress may corrupt the shooter's analysis of the problem resulting in a less effective or ineffective response. Finally, multiple problems presented simultaneously involving different distance/time/precision requirements would force the shooter to perform the difficult task of moving from one sighting method to another.
    The problem is you are looking at on a forum and not evaluating how you would react in a real situation. At close quarters you are going to be threat focused. Why are you going to take the time to use your sights? Like you have already said to make a precise shot or you had time to get to your sights. Think of it like this if you and I were the exact same speed with our draws and time to sight and first shot. If I could shoot the moment my weapon comes on you and you have to wait until you get to your sights I'm going to get at least three shots on you before you get to the end of your draw stroke. Just ask Sweatnbullets about this.
    The more choices in response techniques the mind has to evaluate for a given threat the longer it takes to initiate action. This study supports the theory of teaching fewer response techniques to cover a wider range of threat cues. By providing the officer the least amount of choices in responding to a threat you increase the officer’s ability to respond faster. As instructors we should be teaching effective techniques that apply to many situations thereby reducing the number of choices an officer has to evaluate.
    I would hardly say that Hick's or any law applies here because to make a precise shot you only have one choice...to use your sights. If I draw my weapon and I will not get it to eye level to use my sights before my enemy does I only have one choice to fire before he does which means using point shooting and shooting him before I gets to sights.
    In none of the situations I have been in have I ever had to make a conscience choice other then when I was going to pull the trigger.
    With your method of sights only the only choice in the above situation is to hope that the other guy misses or take rounds and attempt to shoot him, which is a tie at best. If you ask me, I'll take my way.

    Fighter pilots are taught several different techniques to use against an enemy pilot given their position, and the pilot has to monitor his altitude, his air speed, etc. while performing these techniques but you say if I give a shooter more then one choice they suddenly will go to mush and lock up in the OODA loop which is not true.

  13. #27
    Senior Member Array Sweatnbullets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    728
    I've never read Hocks paper before and this was the first time I used the boxing anology. Seems to have a lot of validity, on a common sense level.

    The boxing anology also got me thinking of running the football. Another fast paced sporting encounter where the choices are numerous and the implementaion of the choices are made at a subconscious level in a micro-second.

    Both the boxing and running the football was started at a very young age. The ability to flow seamlessly through the choices at a subconscious level was something that was picked up almost immediately beginning at the age of 7or 8.

    Since this is something that I have always excelled in, I will continue on this path. I will not limit my options! I will "chunk" them together under certain skill sets, such as a "MOVEMENT" skillset But each skill set will have as many possibilities covered as possible. The Movement skillset will have as many options as when I boxed or ran the football. All I have to do is think "Move" and the full spectrum of choices will be there.....accessible at a subconscious level in a microsecond.

    My experience has proven to me that this is so.

  14. #28
    Senior Member Array Sweatnbullets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    728
    Think of it like this if you and I were the exact same speed with our draws and time to sight and first shot. If I could shoot the moment my weapon comes on you and you have to wait until you get to your sights I'm going to get at least three shots on you before you get to the end of your draw stroke. Just ask Sweatnbullets about this.
    I was training with 7677 last October, we were doing some FOF with airsofts. My training partner has always been more experienced, a better shot, and much faster than I! I have been chasing him for nearly seven years. But as I improved ....so did he.

    After I had been trained to "shoot through my drawstroke" we decided to put to use what we had learned. The drill was for my training partner to come to a "flash sight picture" and shoot me. I was to shoot him as soon as I was on him, which was from the hip using elbow up elbow down (EU/ED). Once again, I have never beat this guy shooting in seven years.

    The results were, out of four attempts, that I would get two to three hits in the thoracic cavity of my buddy, before he would get his first hit on me. This was done after no more than two of three hours training in this particualr skill.

    Simple economy of motion of EU/ED overcame a substantial skill level difference.

    The urgency of the shot will dictate my using this skill. The decision to use it will be made at a subconscious level....because I own this skill now. It is a part of me, just as a good left hook or a nice cutback is part of me.

    I will just think "SHOOT" and EU/ED will happen when it is needed. It is "chunked" with all of my other shooting skills.

  15. #29
    Member Array Dave James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tidewater,VIrginia
    Posts
    298
    I'm old and slow and don't shoot worth a damn,, but you guys getting your heads wraped around times and responces ,, is a waste of time,,, go shoot, shoot how you like,,theres vaule to any and all training, just pick out what works for you and what you can make your head understand

  16. #30
    Member Array kilogulf59's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    West Central Wisconsin
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave James
    I'm old and slow and don't shoot worth a damn,, but you guys getting your heads wraped around times and responces ,, is a waste of time,,, go shoot, shoot how you like,,theres vaule to any and all training, just pick out what works for you and what you can make your head understand
    How true, how true......
    Take Care and Stay Safe,
    Ken

    NRA Member
    Administrator Integrated Close Combat Forum

    REMEMBER – What works for you may not, necessarily, work for me. Keep an open mind!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. OC and the Use Of Force Continuum
    By Bm7b5 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: January 13th, 2010, 05:54 PM
  2. front sight post and holo sight picture
    By Plan B in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 21st, 2008, 10:55 PM
  3. Priorities of the Gun Fight and “The Fight Continuum”
    By Sweatnbullets in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 7th, 2008, 03:05 AM
  4. Eye Dominance, Sight Alignment / Sight Picture and Sights.
    By JD in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 7th, 2007, 10:27 PM
  5. Movement Inside of the Fight Continuum
    By Sweatnbullets in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: November 30th, 2006, 08:20 PM

Search tags for this page

7677 pointshooting
,
7677sight continuum
,
7677?s ?sight continuum
,

7677?s ?sight continuum?

,
concealed carry force continuum
,
defensive carry the sight continuum
,
examples of hick's law in a sport skills
,
eye hand coordination applying hick's law
,

sight continuum

,
sighting continuium
,

the sight continuum

,
what is the sight continuum?
Click on a term to search for related topics.