I Shoot Too Well ~ I'm Too Accurate.
This is a discussion on I Shoot Too Well ~ I'm Too Accurate. within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; My 2 cents worth... of the people I've seen (at a range, controlled conditions, no threat) try to draw and fire quickly, many put their ...
May 1st, 2006 02:40 PM
My 2 cents worth... of the people I've seen (at a range, controlled conditions, no threat) try to draw and fire quickly, many put their first shot in the ground about 10 feet out in front of them.
I prefer to get that bullet into the target. Oh, and I can stack one bullet right in behind the other, provided the bad guy is very close and holds still!
May 1st, 2006 02:40 PM
May 1st, 2006 03:03 PM
Originally Posted by CopperKnight
I agree with this, and other have spoken simurlely, With the stress of the situation, I can't see anyone shooting to match their best range time. The only experience I have to draw on is hunting, and that's far less then life threatining. I've never shot as acurate hunting as I have in practice. But I still manage to get'em
Just my two cents worth.
Hey, maybe we could get a new smiley holding two pennies.
Moderators, what do you think. Just an idea.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
May 1st, 2006 05:07 PM
It is no more an argument for threat focused training than it is for front sight press.
Originally Posted by Pickpocket
May 1st, 2006 05:21 PM
Originally Posted by Tangle
Tangle - you have already placed yourself in the remaining .1%. My comments are meant for the rest of us who don't/can't/won't spend years of training to compete at your level.
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Threat-focused skills can have someone hitting consistent groups with only a fraction of the time on the gun, and therein lies the REAL benefit - and as I've said before it's not for everyone.
While it may not be for you - many of us are not as talented.
May 1st, 2006 09:28 PM
Well I got a chuckle outta this discussion....tight groups versus spread em! Since I figured if I ever did have to use my weapon, I'd empty the mag and be prepared for a rapid reload. Given that, tight groups would likely blow a hole clean thru, in which case the BG's insides would come spilling out. If it's spread, then hey, just go to the range often enough to put your shots into a basketball. Now that is spread and hey, doesn't cost much to maintain that level of accuracy! Anyway, I don't buy the 2 COM and 1 to the head. If I've got 8 rds, they are all gonna leave my gun !
"Endeavor To Persevere"
Chief Dan George
May 1st, 2006 09:41 PM
Prospector's brought up a very good point. The Failure to Stop drills are a lot harder to do than many people think.
May 2nd, 2006 07:21 AM
Originally Posted by Pickpocket
You keep making inaccurate statements and claims. First, you said I could improve my speed by some fantastic amount. I think we both now know that isn't true.
Then you claimed that the flash sight picture is target focused shooting, and we all know that's not true.
Now you're making up wild numbers. You claim I'm in 0.1% group. Let's look at some real numbers, not some made up numbers.
I belong to a shooting club with 1000 members. That's a fact. we've been there for some time because that's the limit. I went to one of the Practical Pistol Matches and came in eighth. Not number one. That means there were 7 guys ahead of me on that particular day. That means that there are a bare minimum of 8 shooters and if you count the top ten there are ten shooters of very equal skill. That's 10 out of 1000. That's 1% not the 0.1% you claim. So your numbers are off by a factor of 10! And the guys that beat me, have had no formal training to speak of.
So not only is your 0.1% claim erroneous, it also shows you don't have to have all that training to be a good shot.
Plus, not everybody in the club shoots in the match, and there are likely many more in the club just about as good. So that makes the percentage much and your error much higher.
Then, on this board, I suspect the number of shooters that have not had the training I have that can shoot comparable to me are much higher than 0.1%
Then let's all take a look a this video again:
Here we see a young CCW man defend himself and others by taking on and shooting a BG. The young man has not had nearly the training I have, so by your erroneous assumption and claim, he should not have been able to do this. But, here it is on video, a man using a two-handed extended grip and the guy doing the shooting actually said that he saw his sights. He fired three shots and got three hits.
Also notice in the video that he had to shoot over a barricade. QK would not have worked at all there.
But you know what's really obvious. You've (and me) have high jacked this thread. You did it to advertise Quick Kill. I did it to bring some reason and another perspective. But nonetheless we have really diverted the thread.
May 2nd, 2006 08:45 AM
The idea that shots 5-6 inches apart as opposed to 1 inch make a major difference in the trauma inflicted seems reasonable at first blush.
Originally Posted by QKShooter
But if you consider that the human body is not a uniform, homogenous mass (like a block of ballistics gel), it looses its validity.
Because of varied tissue density, bullets seldom follow a straight path through the human body. They change direction as they strike bone, or pass through the boundary between tissues of different densities. If the round is deformed on contact, this will also alter the path the round takes.
For practical purposes, you are firing into a box of meat. You know where the round enters the box. You might know where the round leaves the box. Only the pathologist knows where it goes in between.
An example from real life:
The county police were dispatched to an apartment complex in our first due area - one of the livelier once - for shots fired. The first units on the scene found nothing, but as they were getting ready to clear, one officer noticed a blood trail. About 100 yards away, they found a man down in the foyer of one of the buildings.
We arrived to find a healthy looking young adult male, with a single small caliber wound to the front of the right chest, about on the nipple line. Single entrance, no exit. He was not breathing and had no pulse. Although we restored a heartbeat for a while with aggressive resuscitation, he was pronounced dead a short while later.
From looking at the location of the entrance wound, one might expect to find the bullet in the right chest.
But it was not. The round, a .25 cal FMJ, entered the right chest nearly perpendicular to the body, passed through the lung, and struck the rib on the other side. It then rebounded off the rib and passed directly through the left ventricle of the heart, coming to rest in the front wall of the left ventricle.
Goes to show that just because you know where the round entered the body does not mean you know the path it took once it was in there.
May 2nd, 2006 08:54 AM
"Goes to show that just because you know where the round entered the body does not mean you know the path it took once it was in there."
That's a good point!
But you're in agreement that we should shoot for the COM as presented rather than intentionally try to spread the shots out by 5-6 inches?
May 2nd, 2006 09:12 AM
Absolutely. I think that shooting COM is the way to go.
Besides, I am very skeptical of claims that pinpoint shooting is going to be an option under actual life-and-death stress fire conditions anyway.
May 2nd, 2006 10:49 AM
Tangle - that was a bit flamboyant, wasn't it?
Not once have I attacked anyone's intelligence, nor have I sought to devalue anyone else's system or experience.
My .1% comment was figurative - so you're wasting your time splitting hairs and trying to prove that my estimate was off by a factor of 10. Come on, man. The point was to illustrate that you already consider yourself a top shooter, so to keep coming back to me telling me that you can't improve is moot... it's pointless.
The guy in your video? He's an NRA instructor and trains every weekend.
I didn't advertise QK, I advocated Threat-Focus. Just to be clear, Paul Castle's C.A.R. system is considered Threat-Focused, as is the FSA system. Both are well established and proven in combat and LE.
This is what I see - another sight shooter that won't accept that sights aren't the only game in town. Threat-Focused shooters are all about putting as many tools in the toolbox as we can fit - we even use sights, believe it or not. If you can accept that there are better shooters than you, why can't you accept that there are other systems that work?
Look, you repeatedly misqoute and try to bait me - I won't dignify it by getting sucked in to a mud-slinging contest.
It's obvious that you believe your skill to be superior to mine, and that's ok. I'm not all about thumping my chest to show everyone who's is bigger - especially with someone who's never fired a shot in anger.
Essentially we're saying the same things - so why do you feel compelled to take an opposing stance?
May 2nd, 2006 11:17 AM
You've got this a little backwards. You're the one that claimed I could do a lot better with your system than mine. It was not I that claimed my system could improve your shooting.
But when you openned the door by saying that this was an inadvertent argument in favor of your shooting system, I simply pointed out it was no more of an arguement for your system than mine.
Then you made remarks directed specifically toward me and they were very inaccurate to put it mildly. Picking numbers out of the clear blue aren't justified because you're speaking figuratively. It was a gross assumption, with very erroneous numbers that gave a distinctly biased impression.
But you didn't stop there, you went on to critisize sight shooting by insinuating that not everyone had all that time to train to sight shoot.
I haven't misquoted you once. I can go back and extract exact quotes if you like.
And here you are focusing on me again, as if I'd done something wrong by expressing an opposing opinion. And the one that started this whole thing was when I accruately pointed out that this topic was no more of an arguement for your system than mine.
I think you would have said the same thing if I had made the claim about my system that you did. There was nothing wrong, rude, inaccurate, or personal with what I said. OTHO you have made numerous very pointed remarks toward me personally.
And that's always what it boils down to isn't it? If us sight shooters offer any opposing views, it can't possibly be true, it's got to be just us not accepting something.
Out of respect to the forum, I offer my apologies for my part in this degrading debate and concede the last last word to you if you choose.
By wildfire adn in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
Last Post: May 12th, 2010, 10:11 AM
By HappyDog in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: March 29th, 2010, 11:08 PM
By Bowdenknxvll in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: January 28th, 2009, 07:40 PM
By '75scout in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
Last Post: October 13th, 2006, 03:31 PM
By ArmyCop in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: July 12th, 2005, 01:49 AM
Search tags for this page
take your time quickly wyatt
Click on a term to search for related topics.