I ran accross this thread today and thought it would make a good discussion.
What are your thoughts?
What other studies have you seen?
How does this information affect your training?
Does it make you more inclined to choose a revolver over an auto? (please, do not start an auto vs. revolver discusion!)
The study is going on 40 years old, and has relevance where individuals or departments dedicate a whopping 50-100 rounds (or less) per annum to training.:rolleyes:
If one wishes to shoot better:
1) dry fire. Lots.
2) .22 LR makes the best/most economical live fire those of us not working for Uncle Sugar can get (...and even then, sometimes.)
3) know your gun (note, I did not say "guns." Not that one cannot attain proficiency with a variety of arms- it's just more labor intensive, and most people won't dedicate the work to become proficient with one.) Using your pistol should be as natural as taking a leak.
+1 , especially for dry fire.
Originally Posted by Rob72
That study is an oldie but goodie in a way. The main criticism is what you've pointed out, the lack of extensive practice. That, unfortunately, is a reality for many firearm owners, and that's why it's still a good study in some regards.
Even though the material was outdated, it was a really good read… I really like the links that to point and shoot training information.
Like others have said in other forums here on DC. Training and drills-practice at 15 yard targets can mean the difference between life and death.
Definately a good read. Also a good reason to practice threat-focused type shooting techniques. Funny, I've been running around my house with a snap-cap for 30 minutes quick drawing and shooting golf bags from the hip with imaginary bullets hahah.
Then I come here and read this!
I ran across another study a while back but have misplaced the link. It was based entirely on NYPD shootings as well and weapon reliability. The study covered several decades and apparently there were no revolver failures, and only a few semi auto failures.