CCW & Speed of Deployment

[Unique 5.7]

Some of your questions are answered in my original post. Since I am referring to CCW, then you know that your "Both guns in hand..." question is irrelevant, since it does not fit the criteria. Leaving out so many variables is totally intentional so as to uncloud the issue and make the respective guns the only significant variable. Your questions make me think you are not familar with this methodology. I suggest you read about the scientific method and your questions will be answered about what "all else being equal" means. This is to make the difference in the guns the meaningful variable. What do I mean by deployment? The firing of the first shot is completion of the deployment, that seems quite clear, no? What am I trying to say? How about this: I see a lot of talk here about which gun, caliber, and load "should" be used without much heed to how quickly the first round(s) may be fired. I sometimes wonder if, all else being equal, (skill of shooter, reaction time, awareness, concealment method, etc.) if some Beretta 92FS shooter using Cor Bon 115's @ 1350 fps (me) is going to find himself stitched up with 2 or 3 .22LR shots from somebody with a Beretta Bobcat or .32ACP Tomcat.
My post was not carefully read, all this talk about bets and holsters misses the point. Dwight, nice post, but you are one of several who introduced a new variable, that is not the point at all. One person using the open hands at his sides start and the other with a gun in his pocket now makes a variable more important than the guns, not what the question was about. But, I'll agree, the guy with the pea shooter in his hands hsa an advantage over the guy with the .45 in his pocket. See what I mean?

[Dave R]

I believe that a TRAINED shooter can draw from concealment and get several shots on target in under 3 seconds.

I have been shooting with my Bro. in Law several times. He's FBI, and his training regimen is specifically designed to speed the draw from concealment and get rapid on-target shots. I have watched him draw from concealment and put 3 shots on target in under 2 seconds. Sounds close to full-auto. BAM-BAM-BAM. This is with a Glock .40. I don't see how he can come down from recoil and get his sight picture so accurate, but he says its all training. Apparently, you can train your grip and wrist to the level of recoil, so the muzzle flip comes back to the sight picture, with fairly good accuracy. He doesn't try for one-hole group. Palm-sized at 10 yards is good enough.

He really changed the way I train. I could print smaller groups than him--slow-fire, offhand, because that's how I trained. Not very practical for those situations in which you need a handgun for defensive purposes.

Now I train for rapid follow-ups (where ranges allow--mostly "informal" ranges), and I train in "draw from concealment." Most ranges won't allow that, so I do that training in my garage with Speer's plastic training bullets. Primer-only power, but the POI is close enough to regular ammo that the training effect holds. I have seen my draw-to-first-shot-on-target times fall significantly with training.

And if you have ever seen Jerry Miculek's (sp?) video of his world-record performance with a revolver, you will never doubt that a repeater can be shot a quick as a full-auto.

[dawg23]

Quote From 5.7: "I sometimes wonder if, all else being equal, (skill of shooter, reaction time, awareness, concealment method, etc.) if some Beretta 92FS shooter using Cor Bon 115's @ 1350 fps (me) is going to find himself stitched up with 2 or 3 .22LR shots from somebody with a Beretta Bobcat or .32ACP Tomcat.

You came asking a question, but want to argue with those who give you an answer that you don't like.

Yes, the .45, or .40 or the 9mm will likely be faster. Have you ever timed your draw from concealment (all things being equal) - same vest or jacket and same stlye of CCW holster (let's say Comp-Tac Kydex for a common example) with a small framed "mouse gun.?" I have. And I can get a grip MUCH faster on my "full size" Glock 19 or Glock 23. And faster grip is key to faster deployment.

I would suggest getting a timer and renting/borrowing a few handguns - and then go practice. I'm not fast, and I'm no expert (IDPA SS in SSP). At 7 yards it's not hard (with practice) to get two COM hits and one head shot (on IDPA target) in 2.5 seconds from concealment (using IDPA legal holster) with 9mm Glock 19. My times with .40 Glock are ~0.2 seconds slower.

I've done enough of this to know that if I were to go to a SIGNIFICANTLY larger pistol (not larger caliber - larger PISTOL), or to a SIGNIFICANTLY smaller pistol, those times (even with practice) will suffer. There's an ergonomic "point of diminishing returns" (for ME).

Getting back to your original question/scenario: Your friends say that THEY can deploy the .32ACP and get multiple hits quicker than THEY can get one hit with a .45ACP. This may certainly be the case - but their ability, or inability to perform, doesn't represent the norm. Maybe THEY have simply praticed more with their mouse guns.

YMMV

[riverkeeper]

that's why my 40 oz 44 mag AND the 15 oz 38spl mouse guns have after market grips that perfectly fit my hand, come to hand, naturally point, come to target and fire by themselves.

[MX5]

Wow, lots of thread drift. I know Ed Cantrell, I had his kid in a class (I are a skool teacher). Gerry Spence grew up and lived about 20 miles form my home, I have visited with him too. FWIW, Cantrell shot Rosa in a car and the only account we have is Ed's story. The driver just heard a boom and ducked. As for Jordan's court room antics, yes he is fast but, well never mind. Sooner or later common sense might prevail.

Comparing apples to oranges makes for interestng Internet chatter, but speed of deployment is pretty easy to measure. It's a simple matter to strap on your pistola, get a timer, and go see what your reaction time happens to be as well as your draw time.

As for which is faster to draw and shoot, a 1911 or a Tom Cat, well I own both. I am much faster with the 1911 because of the size of the pistol. More positve grip, better trigger, superior ergonomics, better pointing characteristics and so on.

Let's try this. I have a digital movie camera. I'll strap on my trusty old 1911 and go film a couple of draws. Have your mouse gun buddy do the same. We can watch the films and compare the timers and see how it all shakes out.

[FrankDrebin]

And if you have ever seen Jerry Miculek's (sp?) video of his world-record performance with a revolver, you will never doubt that a repeater can be shot a quick as a full-auto.

What kind of full auto can Jerry shoot as fast as?

[Unique 5.7]

Dawg23 - Some of the discussion wasn't relevant to the topic, so I am not arguing, but dismissing those irrelevencies (bets?. You make a good point, perhaps people should practice more with their mouse guns so they can draw them more quickly than heavy guns. I think you may be right about ergonomics and avoiding extremes. It seems that the mouse guns would also give one many more options in concealment, which could aid of speed of deployment even more.
MX5 gets the idea and lists some criteria that could make "all else" not equal and favour the heavier gun in his particular case.

[Vanguard.45]

"Are we looking too much at one stop performance statistics and not paying enough attention to first hits and multiple hits?"


A Response:

From the context of this question, it would seem that you are wanting to know how relevant the issue of "quick-draw and the weight of one's gun" is to self-defense. I would say that the weight of one's gun or the nano-seconds difference in draw times is no more relevant to a real gunfight than the effectiveness of the caliber one is employing.

Again, to put the "all else being equal" stamp on a self-defense scenario is like saying "What if Muhammad Ali fought Muhammad Ali and each wore different sized gloves- who would win?" The reason no one seems to worry too much about the single aspect of "quick draw and the weight of one's gun" is because the "all else being equal" gunfight is never going to happen. I realize that you seem to believe that no one here trying to respond to your question is being realistic.

The reality is that those of us interested in surviving a gunfight do work on our speed of draw along with sight picture, sight alignment, use of cover, movement while engaging targets, trigger control, handgun retention techniques, handgun disarms, and the deadly art of the NINJA!!!! Okay, maybe not that last one, but you get the idea.

It is an interesting idea you bring up, but as I said in my last post on this topic, speed comes in many flavors, and the .45 in your hand is worth 10 mouseguns in the holster.

Vanguard.45
Gunfighter and Astronaut (Okay, maybe not that last one)

[MX5]

Plenty of thread drift, but some of it is pretty interesting. The film of Jerry setting the record is really making the rounds on the Internet shooting forums. I wonder why it took so long? Smith and Wesson's write up is on their Website here.

Jerry fired 8 shots in one second from the first shot to the last shot. That's seven splits averaging .14 seconds. That's just absolutley incredible with a revolver. Wouldn't that be 428 rounds per minute? What's the cyclic rate of something like an UZI or an HK MP5?

[MCIWS]

In the movie Collateral, Tom Cruise shoots some thugs in an alley VERY fast. He draws from concealment and places two shots in the first BG and one in the second BG for a total of three shots fired. He might have fired more, but this is what I remember. I don’t know if it was under one second, but it was fast enough. I understand it is a movie, but if you watch the “making of” section on the DVD you will see him training at a range practicing this very same move. I believe the guy training him is a former British SAS operator who also did the firearms training for the movie Heat. If you have seen Heat, you know it has great weapons handling. I think anything is possible, so three shots under one second from concealment... why not?

[PressCheck]

I'd take that bet in a heartbeat, using a Glock 21, and a Kydex holster. My fastest time .78. My average time 1.2sec. I am not a "gamer".

[MX5]

I think anything is possible, so three shots under one second from concealment... why not?

It's called the limits of human function. Then again just because world class shooters aren't performing at that level doesn't mean some Hollywood actor can't pull it off with ease.

Presscheck has posted some very realistic times for a very accomplished shooter. He doesn't state what yardage his 1.2 second par time draw is performed at, but that's about the time an IPSC Master will take to an 8 inch plate (with excellent sight picture) at 10 yards in practice. In a match the time will obviously vary depending on the difficulty level of the shot. Presscheck's personal best draw is on par with on demand draws done at spitting distance by world class pistoleros using a stock gun out of a kydex holster when doing speed demonstrations to students.

It's pretty obvious the majority of the guys posting on this Website aren't competition shooters and I suspect most of them don't have timers. Unfortunately, Internet lore has warped reality for a lot of folks. If you get a chance to work with a timer, start with the pistol in your hand at low ready (forget the draw) and at the beep shoot two rounds into a target then a third round into another target. Check your time. See if you can beat Tom.

I posted a brief film in another thread just to see what guys thought about the shooting in relation to elapsed time. I posted the frill because I am the shooter and I know the draw time, split, and transition. It's three shots on some Steel Challenge plates at 7 yards with a 1911 and an Uncle Mike's holster. Here's the link. To do that drill in one second I would need to be at least 30% faster. Kind of puts things into perspective.

[PressCheck]

He doesn't state what yardage his 1.2 second par time draw is performed at

Five yards. Again, I'm not a "gamer", but I shoot 12-1,300 rounds a month.

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

There is no substitute for good, old-fashioned Muscle Memory developed through Good Training, Good Habits and LOTS of practice. Whether dry-firing or live-firing on the range, practice and more practice will help you develop the skills.

I concur with those that say drawing from concealed carry is the best way to practice. I do that on a regular basis and I encourage others to do the same thing.

The likelihood of using the skill is one factor. The 'muscle memory' of a thousand repetitions is another. Draw from concealed carry as you would as a CCW permit holder. Practice in combat-realistic ranges. Don't stand still.
Practice drawing, issuing a verbal command and shooting as you move laterally or away from the threat. Practice as you would "do" not as it might look in front of some silly mirror.

And - just for realism - though I normally recommend eye & ear protection, just once in a very blue moon, try shooting your daily carry gun at your IDPA type target on the outdoor range without ear protection sometime so that the loud BOOM is something you've experienced, at least once. I don't recommend it very often because of the damage you can do to your hearing, but hey, how many of us walk around in daily carry with our eye & ear protection on while carrying our CCW firearm????

[dawg23]

Quote: Unique 5.7 said: "It seems that the mouse guns would also give one many more options in concealment, which could aid of speed of deployment even more."

Concealment options? Yes.

Aid speed of deployment? Not likely.


Quit listening to your friends. Quit listening to us. Quit speculating. Go borrow a timer, practice, and draw (no pun intended) your own conclusions.

[MCIWS]

MX5,
I still think anything is possible. Sure it is HIGHLY unlikely that one can shoot 3 shots in 1 second from concealment in a REAL situation, but with practice you never know what could happen. By the way, your movie clip seems pretty good. You are fast, but are you saying there is no one on this earth 30% faster? Also, I don't pretend to know the limits of human function, although some have made accusations that they do, such as the claim that man will never break 10 seconds in the 100-meter dash, or that man will never break a 4-minute mile. You pose great points, but anything is possible.

[Archie]

Is the difference between reaction time and self-initiated time.

The Bill Jordan story is the illustration of this. Mr. Jordan initiated the action, and the deputy reacted to it. Mr. Jordan was drawing and shooting out of an open topped, exposed duty holster, not a tight to the body concealment rig. At best, the deputy would fire shortly after Mr. Jordan, simply because of the reaction time lag.

So we're back to the speed difference between the .32 Auto and the .45. How are each carried and what is the impulse to fire? If the scene is the .32 is in a pocket and the shooter has his hand on it and he gets to initiate, he can possibly beat someone to the first shot. I flat do not believe anyone can get any handgun out of a pocket and score a hit faster than a average shooter can draw from a concealed holster and make a hit; if both start at the same impulse. (That is, a third party starter blowing a whistle or turning on a light.) By the way, the greater part of the time is to the first shot; second and subsequent shots are fairly easy, absent some montrously recoiling thingie.

I often carry a K frame revolver in a trouser pocket. If I have to draw and shoot someone, you can be sure I am not going to ask, "shooter ready?"

The best I've ever done speed shooting was 3.0 seconds. That was drawing from a belt holster, and making one hit on each of five 12x18 gong targets at 25 yards. I was shooting a 4 inch double action revolver.

[LAK]

Double Naught Spy,

There are a number of plausible reasons why the Jordan demo man didn't pull the trigger. Those which I think is most likely are a combination of over confidence and surprize. I have never seen film footage of Jordan in action, but I suspect he was very smooth with an economy of movement; perceiving the beginning of the draw may have been difficult were both subjects making eye contact at the time. I do not think it was staged beyond that. The "deputy" may have been a regular court bailiff - I have a written account somewhere and shall have to track it down.

[Unique 5.7]

Okay, I'm trying to discuss ONE variable and we are getting talk about all kinds of variables. "All else being equal" doesn't seem to work here, but I thought up a better one (I think). Okay, for any given one of you, do you think you could deploy your gun faster if it weighed, oh, let's say 15% less than it does now, with no change of balance or physical dimensions or concealment method or any other variables? Yes or no. My answer is "yes."

[MX5]

Okay, for any given one of you, do you think you could deploy your gun faster if it weighed, oh, let's say 15% less than it does now, with no change of balance or physical dimensions or concealment method or any other variables?

Yes and no, or it depends. This isn't as cut and dried as one might think. The heavy and stable vs. light and fast debate has raged on for decades when shooters discuss the "shootability" of a handgun. For the sake of discussions let's consider weight as it realtes to the draw stroke a part of the "shootability" equation.

I shot an IPSC open division pistol for a couple of years that was quite heavy. The gun had a 9 ounce tungsten magazine well from Beven Gramms and a tungsten guide rod. I removed the tungten and downloaded the magazine when I shot steel Challenge. Why did I put the gun on a diet? Simple because the pistol was faster to draw without the tungsten. Was it fater to index? Nope. In this case, the weight reduction was more than 15%.

Let's move to a more common pistol. Let's say my Limited 10 gun, a Les Baer Premier II. I shoot IPSC with a 10 round magazine and I also use a tungsten guide rod. Is my draw faster with a standard recoil plug and one round in the chamber with an empty 7 round magazine. No, there is no difference at all. Now let's go to my lightweight commander sized pistol at 28 ounces. Is the lighter gun with an empty magazine faster to draw than the full size 1911 with a full magazine of 230 ball and the tunsten rod? Nope, it's not any faster.

Let's talk about my Glock 26. Is the gun faster to draw with one round in the chamber and no magazine than fully loaded with 12 rounds? No it is not. Would the gun be faster if it weighed 12 ounces empty instead of 20 ounces? I honestly believe I would be slower to the first shot and here is why.

When one considers the mechanics of a super fast draw, we find the time to the gun isn't as important as what happens once the grip is formed. Slapping leather doesn't make you substantially faster, popping the pistol quickly out of the holster is what makes us fast. Physics is physics and once the inertia is quickly over come, the heavier pistol will actually want to stay in motion on a line to the target better than a light whippy pistol. Yes, if the gun is too heavy we run out of steam, but too light and another set of problems will surface.

Another key to getting a shot off very quickly is to fire the gun at the very instant the gun reaches the end of the draw stroke. I can ease a 1911 to full extension and fire at the instant the gun is in alignment, even during the last part of the extension, because the pistol is easing to a halt and the stability of the gun (weight) helps. If you thrust a mouse gun to full extension the gun will bounce around like a tuning fork. A person can only move just so fast while still performing the mechanics of the draw stroke. Is a sub compact pistol faster to draw than a full size gun? Not for me.

[CB3]

Quote:
"Okay, for any given one of you, do you think you could deploy your gun faster if it weighed, oh, let's say 15% less than it does now, with no change of balance or physical dimensions or concealment method or any other variables?"


Ahhhh. Finally you understand that we didn't understand what you were getting at.

No.

CB3

[Unique 5.7]

MX5 - Nice post. In your "physics is physics" paragraph you mention inertia. I don't see how a heavier gun is going to be accelerated more quickly than a lighter gun. I assume you will be shooting as the heavier pistol is still moving, since if you slow it down, it will take more time than a lighter pistol to slow it down, causing it to be slower to manipulate at the start and the finish of the draw.

[MX5]

Unique 5.7:

Yes, a lighter gun takes less effort to put in motion and it is easier to slow down once in motion. I snap the pistol out of the holster with vigor and a heavy gun (to a point) stays on line better than a light whippy gun and it slows down by itself as it runs out of momentum without me inducing a bunch of human error. I believe that's why it slides to the end of the draw stroke without bouncing all over the place.

[Unique 5.7]

MX5 - You make a very good point about controllability with a heavier gun and it not bouncing around. The physics of this has a lot to do with deployment of tennis racquets, not just guns, and I play with just about the heaviest racquet made for stability. A heavier gun sure will be more stable on follow up shots.