Bad habits can get you killed

[Deaf Smith]

Draw speed is a very limited element in a very dynamic encounter. Can it be the deciding factor?..sure. Is it likely to be? Probably not

Just depends folks. Alertness no doubt overall is more important, but drawing speed is part of the skill set just as marksmanship, and skill, like alertness, is vital.

Learn to draw fast and shoot strait, and then keep your eyes peeled and wits about you.

Deaf

[DT Guy]

Well, as a CHL holder, I'm VERY likely to start any encounter with a holstered pistol; while I was taught as an LEO that the best place for your weapon during any potential encounter is your hand, as a CHL holder I don't have that option.

So yes, I'll be drawing my pistol to start just about every defensive situation I'll ever (hopefully, NEVER) be in. That said, a speedy draw seems relevant to all that follows, no?



Larry

[45_auto]

Seems that there are a couple of opposing opinions on the value of a fast draw here. It's either "hogwash" or it's important. I personally have a hard time believing that using a timer to improve and validate my draw speed / effective first hit performance relative to others is "hogwash". Nonetheless, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Originally Posted by zombietactics

That notion is complete and utter hogwash

Originally Posted by DT Guy

So yes, I'll be drawing my pistol to start just about every defensive situation

Originally Posted by Deaf Smith

drawing speed is part of the skill set just as marksmanship, and skill, like alertness, is vital.

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

And since I can't know how much time I'll have, I'd rather not give up time if I can avoid it.

[jimbob86]

IMHO, as a CCW permit holder, if you need your gun, you'll need to draw it under pressure, and speed may be very important (though it might not)...... ask yourself this:

"Would it be better to have practiced your draw to the point that you can do so reflexively, such that you can draw and present the gun as fast as possible ....... or not?"

It's better to have a skill, and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Practice what you might need.

[zincwarrior]

As a CHLer, I've drawn twice (both against loose pit bulls strangely enough).
I practice drawing quite a bit, as I compete (badly). Its so ingrained now that both times I didn't realize I'd drawn until I had the lead pit's head lined up.

[zombietactics]

... Seems that there are a couple of opposing opinions on the value of a fast draw here. It's either "hogwash" or it's important.

You do a tremendous job of not understanding what is actually written. Nowhere did I say that a fast draw itself is "hogwash" or of no value. I did however, refer to the "Cowboy Quick-draw Myth", which is something entirely different: The notion that a super-fast draw is THE thing that will determine success in a self-defense encounter. The distinction is fairly clear.

I personally have a hard time believing that using a timer to improve and validate my draw speed / effective first hit performance relative to others is "hogwash". ...

It's getting to be hilarious. Again, I never said that using a timer for draw practice was "hogwash". I went so far as to note that I personally use a timer for draw practice.


Frank Ettin and FireForged seem to have grasped the concept and explained it pretty well.

[zombietactics]

... Its so ingrained now that both times I didn't realize I'd drawn until I had the lead pit's head lined up. ...

I would humbly suggest that drawing a gun without realizing it might be a problem. IMHO, the decision to draw should always be a conscious and deliberate one ... and as fast as can be done efficiently and safely.

You might even practice that with a timer, and that would not be "hogwash".

I would consider drawing without realizing a range scar of some kind or another.

[zincwarrior]

I should clarify. My mind thought threat, and I didn't have to consciously waste time drawing to deal with that threat. Practice allowed me to deal with the threat without "taking time off" to think about doing it. I could focus on handling the potential threat itself. This enabled me to safely back the dogs off with verbal commands (read verbally raging at them like an old silverback gorilla).

I'll note a counter example. I'm not as proficient with pepper spray. In a third instance after, instead of already having the pepper spray out and ready to go, I fumbled, got tangled up, slightly sprayed myself, and ended with my own dogs being attacked*. I have since corrected that.

*Protip. If you're going to jump someone going for a walk, be it person or dog, think about it first. Old part caucasian mountain dog and wiener dog ambushed by pit bull equals very bloodied pit bull. There's a life lesson there.


I'm not getting what the argument here is. If you have to think through everything step by step, you're wasting time and brain watts vs. dealing with the sitation itself. You don't think through braking a car. You just brake.

[Sharkbite]

Quote:
... Its so ingrained now that both times I didn't realize I'd drawn until I had the lead pit's head lined up. ...
I would humbly suggest that drawing a gun without realizing it might be a problem. IMHO, the decision to draw should always be a conscious and deliberate one ... and as fast as can be done efficiently and safely.

You might even practice that with a timer, and that would not be "hogwash".

I would consider drawing without realizing a range scar of some kind or another.

Wow...serious misunderstanding of the goal of weapons handeling training and practice.

The ultimate result of weapons manipulation training is to become Unconsciously Competent with those skills. If weapon skills are ingrained to a level of subconscious action, that leaves the conscious thought process free to make the tactical decisions. Things like WHEN to shoot, WHERE to move, SCANNING for additional threats all require conscious thought.

Drawing the pistol, performing a reload, clearing a malfunction SHOULD all be reflexive.

I dont say this as a result of being a highend tactical instructor for 20+ years (i have been)... I say this as someone that has been in numerous armed encounters. Both in the US and overseas.

I can say that in NONE of those encounters did i have to think about drawing my pistol or mounting my rifle. Those things happened on "auto-pilot" upon recognizing a threat.

[zombietactics]

... I'm not getting what the argument here is. If you have to think through everything step by step, you're wasting time and brain watts vs. dealing with the sitation itself. You don't think through braking a car. You just brake. ...

Meh ... we're probably just mincing words. I certainly don't think you need think through it (and write a term paper) step-by-step, lol.

If you perceive a threat and make the conscious decision to draw ... that's all I'd suggest. From there it's pretty much game on.

[zincwarrior]

I think we're generally in agreement on this item. To the larger topic we should indeed be aware of "training routines" that may not be the best.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by FireForged:

Draw speed is a very limited element in a very dynamic encounter. Can it be the deciding factor?..sure. Is it likely to be? Probably not.

Well, it would seem obvious to me that if a defender cannot or does not access and present and fire his firearm quickly enough to stop a violent ambush, that would decide the outcome.

How, then, could it be a "very limited element"?

Detecting the threat timely, deciding, moving as necessary, drawing fast, and hitting fast and effectively if still necessary are all very important.

Posted by Sharkbite:

The ultimate result of weapons manipulation training is to become Unconsciously Competent with those skills. If weapon skills are ingrained to a level of subconscious action, that leaves the conscious thought process free to make the tactical decisions. Things like WHEN to shoot, WHERE to move, SCANNING for additional threats all require conscious thought.

Drawing the pistol, performing a reload, clearing a malfunction SHOULD all be reflexive.

Yes indeed.

[Jim567]

Just my thought. I am not a trained "gunfighter" but I have my CWP thus I have to put thought to this subject.

The Army ( in ancient days lol ) taught me cover and concealment first.

The only time I was surprised by brandished weapons, that's what kicked in.

Was walking out of a sandwich shop when in a flash cars speed into the parking lot in front of the shop . Unmarked cars and undercover officers took down drug dealers just two vehicles in front of me.

All I saw -- was folks flashing guns and yelling. I immediately ducked down behind the closest car as my friend just stood there until I yelled at him.

It could have gone badly with rounds flying about.

If it was a different situation and I had to defend myself, I would have had cover. If I stood and drew - well they other guys had their guns out first.

I would not want to be poky drawing but -- chances are you could be drawing from a difficult prone position ect,

So many variables.

If I shot and trained competitively with a pistol, I don't believe I would have automatically became a robot and stood there and shot for time.

Still woulda ducked lol!

I kinda like my cover and concealment habit.

As a civilian, I don't see a stand up fast draw high noon gunfight happening to me.

[zombietactics]

... it would seem obvious to me that if a defender cannot or does not access and present and fire his firearm quickly enough to stop a violent ambush, that would decide the outcome. ...

I am not aware of anyone, aside from a few outliers, who can outdraw a gun which is already drawn. This is adequately proven from countless dashcam and security videos.

The point there being that simply outdrawing the "ambusher" (especially if it's an ambush) isn't a solution. Typically such an incident will start with a gun in your face and perhaps even being fired ... that's your first cue to do something. In such cases, you'll have your gun out late in the game, no matter what your draw time is.

That's not an argument for being slow or giving everyone with a 3-second draw time a trophy (lol), it's just forming a logical context for coming up with a rational solution to the problem. Certainly, being able to draw quickly is important. It's just not the one all-inclusive solution, or even the most important part of the solution.

Even if we look at some kind of "duel", where both participants receive a cue at the same time, it doesn't change things much.

Let’s take one thing we know for certain: pistol rounds do not instantly physically incapacitate someone, unless it’s a direct hit to the brain or upper spine. Even direct hits to the heart, which completely destroy the function of the organ, will typically leave the wounded person with somewhere around a dozen seconds to keep doing whatever they were doing beforehand. It’s often the case that people shot several times don’t even know they've been shot. There are plenty of verified cases of people soaking up dozens of rounds before they finally succumb.

So suppose we have that duel ... the perfect case for a faster draw being the determiner of who "wins". Two men hate each other so much that they have agreed to a pistol duel. On a given day, they line up at 15 yards and agree to draw and start shooting upon the beep of a competition timer. The timer beeps, they draw and fire, and the entire event is recorded by multiple high-resolution cameras.

The record shows that one man draws to first shot in a blisteringly-fast .96 of a second and delivers a total of 4 perfect A Zone hits in 1.5 seconds. The second draws much slower. It takes him 1.5 seconds for that first shot, and he is only able to manage 3 hits (having fired 4 times), in 2.5 seconds.

In the world of movies and TV (and the minds of some who just can’t get past the programming) the faster guy is the “winner”. He drew quicker, shot faster, more accurately, and was able to shoot the other guy 4 times before he was able to fire even once. In this media-fantasy-inspired narrative, it’s likely the second guy didn't even get off a shot … he flipped over backwards under the withering fire of the “victor”, and is lying on the ground dead or in agony. The “hero” tips his hat, mounts his horse and rides off into the sunset.

This is where we have to cue that record-scratch sound effect and slap ourselves back to reality. In the real world, there is nothing about shooting someone 4 times in 1.5 seconds which prevents them from shooting back. They may be affected (it might even be part of the reason for the second guy shooting so poorly) … but they can still shoot. Those 4 A Zone hits are likely to be fatal if not treated quickly, but so are those 3 C-Zone hits. Frankly, there are plenty of spots in the B, C, and D Zones (or “worse)” which are plenty ugly: subclavian, carotid, brachial and femoral arteries are all famously “killing wounds”, yet squarely outside of the A Zone.

Contrary to the world of movie/TV fantasy, nobody “wins” this duel. This is the classic definition of a “tactical tie”. Both men are going to hospital, and perhaps the morgue. Believing otherwise is to turn off our brains in favor of comforting hallucinations.

Now consider that none of us will ever be in that perfect duel ... we start after someone else has already taken violent action or has posed a threat.

The point of this is not to dissuade the achievement of faster draws, lower split times and scoring better hits. It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where faster-and-more-accurate does not convey some advantage. The illustration shows the results of a fight, not a standard for training purposes. Even in the example given, I’d much rather be the faster guy than the slower guy … who wouldn't?

The point is that there is a value to superlative skill, but raw drawing/shooting skill alone (in isolation) is not the determiner of success in conflict. This truth is as old as the Biblical adage:

“... the race is not always won by the swiftest, the battle is not always won by the strongest; prosperity does not always belong to those who are the wisest, wealth does not always belong to those who are the most discerning, nor does success always come to those with the most knowledge--for time and chance may overcome them all.”

There are countless videos showing defenders in situations where a gun is already in the hands of the attacker from the outset. There is no outdrawing an opponent who has already drawn, and might be already shooting.

So where does this leaves us? Should we avoid all attempts to get faster? I hope I've been clear enough that this is not my opinion. A skill untrained can never be a skill deployed. As such, we should all strive to continuously improve.

What we should take away from this is that many of the skills we practice are practiced in isolation, away from the context in which they will be used. It’s like we are training for a race with no other cars on the track, and impressing ourselves with our awesome lap times. We’re playing chess with only our pieces on the board. The range session or pistol match focus on only one part of the defensive equation: putting the hurt on our opponent. We gain skill at shooting, but seldom practice not getting shot.

I submit that this second part - not getting shot (or hurt) - is the actual goal of self-defense training. We want to remain unhurt and alive. Most of what we practice only partly addresses that goal. Shooting someone might stop them … but it might not, and probably won’t do so quickly.

Since that’s the case, and a wounded assailant can keep shooting for many seconds (far more than is required to empty a magazine with carefully-placed shots) maybe should we look into this more carefully. I’d offer that - in the order of important things - learning to not get shot takes precedence over learning to shoot.

This is why there is a difference between doing laps on an empty track vs. racing against other cars. One skill is related to the other, but does not comprise the whole of the matter. This is why very skilled, Grand-Master Class competitors like Mike Seeklander, teach a different class for competition than for defense.

Ron Avery (who can draw and shoot REALLY fast), demonstrates something here of interest: CLICK HERE

How, then, could it be a "very limited element"?

Asked and answered. For my part, I'd remove the word "very", and be doubly sure to note that it is limited, but very important nonetheless. Those are not mutually exclusive notions, and we can learn to walk and chew gum at the same time, lol.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zombietactics:

I am not aware of anyone, aside from a few outliers, who can outdraw a gun which is already drawn.

Agree.

The point there being that simply outdrawing the "ambusher" (especially if it's an ambush) isn't a solution.

Well, any defensive encounter is probably best described as an ambush.

No, "simply outdrawing" is not a solution, but not drawing timely is a sure way fail.

Typically such an incident will start with a gun in your face and perhaps even being fired ... that's your first cue to do something.

Really? By then, the defender is in a world of hurt.

Don't forget the classic "Tueller" encounter, or the man coming around from the back of his truck when you are fueling yours.

That assailant will probably have his gun or knife hidden from other s until it is time to use it.

Certainly, being able to draw quickly is important. It's just not the one all-inclusive solution, or even the most important part of the solution.

No, it is certainly not the "one all-inclusive solution", but how do you determine which part is not the most important when all of the parts have to work?

Let’s take one thing we know for certain: pistol rounds do not instantly physically incapacitate someone, unless it’s a direct hit to the brain or upper spine.

True, and even a hit to the brain won't suffice, unless the cerebral cortex is hit.

So suppose we have that duel ... the perfect case for a faster draw being the determiner of who "wins".

Forget duels--they are illegal, and none of us will engage in one. And if shots are fired in any kind of encounter, no one "wins". It's just that the defender who cannot draw quickly enough and achieve combat accuracy with a sufficient number of shots rapidly enough will certainly LOSE.

It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where faster-and-more-accurate does not convey some advantage.

But it is very easy to see where too-slow-and too-inaccurate would pose an insurmountable disadvantage.

One of the things that we have to keep in mind is that a defender who is not in his home or camping trailer or perhaps auto will necessarily have his or here firearm holstered until the threat becomes imminent.

... raw drawing/shooting skill alone (in isolation) is not the determiner of success in conflict.

True.

There are countless videos showing defenders in situations where a gun is already in the hands of the attacker from the outset. There is no outdrawing an opponent who has already drawn, and might be already shooting.

True.

A skill untrained can never be a skill deployed.

Great choice of words!

What we should take away from this is that many of the skills we practice are practiced in isolation, away from the context in which they will be used. It’s like we are training for a race with no other cars on the track, and impressing ourselves with our awesome lap times. We’re playing chess with only our pieces on the board. The range session or pistol match focus on only one part of the defensive equation: putting the hurt on our opponent. We gain skill at shooting, but seldom practice not getting shot.

WE?

I submit that this second part - not getting shot (or hurt) - is the actual goal of self-defense training. We want to remain unhurt and alive.

Very true indeed.

Shooting someone might stop them … but it might not, and probably won’t do so quickly.

If it doesn't, the defender will likely be injure. Therefore, if shooting is required, it should be quick and effective, and repeated as often and as quickly as is necessary to effect a stop as quickly as possible.

I’d offer that - in the order of important things - learning to not get shot takes precedence over learning to shoot.

I'm not sure just what that means. I certain agree that staying away from trouble is priority one, but sometimes hat doesn't work. I appreciate the importance of concealment and cover, but those may not suffice.

Not getting shot or stabbed may well require degrading an attacker's ability to shot or stab. One has to detect the threat timely, decide instantly, move as necessary, draw fast, and hit fast and effectively if it is still necessary.

Now, when it comes to "learning to shoot", forget trying to optimize group size at whatever distance on the square range. One has to learn to draw, move, and achieve combat accuracy with a proper balance of speed and precision against a target in whatever direction and at whatever distance (usually very copse), all without hitting bystanders.

One must use a layered approach to skill development to do that.

This is why very skilled, Grand-Master Class competitors like Mike Seeklander, teach a different class for competition than for defense.

I do not compete. I have no interest n it.

One of Seeklander's best recent demonstrations (the Pharmacy Robbery) entailed drawing fast; moving quickly to gain a clear shot and have an effective backstop; and scoring fast hits on the "bad guy".

[zombietactics]

... One of Seeklander's best recent demonstrations (the Pharmacy Robbery) entailed drawing fast; moving quickly to gain a clear shot and have an effective backstop; and scoring fast hits on the "bad guy".

It also demonstrated that simply drawing fast was not enough ... he got shot during the iteration where he simply drew as fast as possible, and ended up shooting a "coworker" as well. (It didn't help that the gun was in a stupid place as well)

The iteration suggested as "working" involved waiting for the right opportunity, moving off the line of attack (sort of to cover/concealment) while drawing efficiently (how fast? not sure) and then "scoring" ( I hate that word in this context, lol) hits on the bad guy.

The "Church Shooter" episode is good, too.

[FireForged]

Well, it would seem obvious to me that if a defender cannot or does not access and present and fire his firearm quickly enough to stop a violent ambush, that would decide the outcome.

How, then, could it be a "very limited element"?

I am truly baffled by the idea that armed conflict is somehow always likely to be a "ready-set-go" type of situation. Like its likely going to mirror some 1890 duel in the middle of the street.

There are countless situations where [draw speed] is irrelevant simply because violence is occurring and weapons are already in play. Most people are not going to challenge an armed and active combatant from a holstered status.

How is draw speed a limited element? It is a limited element simply because speed its no absolute guarantee. It is limited by those specific circumstances where it could be the deciding factor.

I am not suggesting that a person strive for a slow draw speed but if the idea is that the difference between an average draw speed vs a really fast draw speed is going to be the saving grace in the majority of conflicts... i disagree.

Many elements can make a difference

Strategics- Knowing what things need to get done
Tactics -Knowing how to get those things done
Mindset- fortitude and willingness to act
Skill- proficient in those things that need doing
Gear - equipped to carry out those things that need doing

[zombietactics]

... I am truly baffled by the idea that armed conflict is somehow always likely to be a "ready-set-go" type of situation. Like its likely going to mirror some 1890 duel in the middle of the street. ...

The belief that it will approximate or mirror a "1890 style duel in the middle of the street" forms the basis of the "Cowboy Quick Draw" mythos, ethos and dogma.

You can't blame people ... they've seen hundreds (maybe thousands) of such "gunfights" on TV and in movies over the course of their lives. That's the best representative model they have available in most cases. They see a movie like "Tombstone" or "The Quick and the Dead" and almost think of them as documentaries.

It's only very recently that we've had ready access to visual recordings of actual incidents.

The funny thing is, those cowboy quick draw duels likely never actually happened. They are almost certainly fabrications of pulp-novel writers and Eastern newspapers looking to sell sensational stories of Western derring-do.

Nonetheless, that mythology holds a lot of sway.

[zombietactics]

... I can say that in NONE of those encounters did i have to think about drawing my pistol or mounting my rifle. Those things happened on "auto-pilot" upon recognizing a threat. ...

This is one of those cases where I truly hope we mean the same thing and are getting hung up on semantics.

I would offer that the act of "recognizing a threat" is on some level a conscious act or decision. Either that ... or we're losing each other somewhere in the middle. I agree with you that the application of the skills themselves should be (to some degree) "second nature".

Nobody can reflexively recognize the difference between a toy gun and a real one, or a butter knife and a dagger, for instance. Those who think they can have ended up too often shooting people with butter knives, toy guns, cell phones, etc. ... which can't be a recommended course of action.

[leadcounsel]

I'm not picking on MrBorland, but his picture demonstrates two very bad habits in my view.

1) He cannot see anything - no threats, no movements, nothing - because his eyes are DOWN and covered by the brim of a hat. Total tunnel vision and lack of situational awareness for the moments he looks down. A reload should be practiced to be done blindfolded, in dark, whatever, so you can be looking/scanning for threats.

2) I would never remove my hand from the most secure grip of the weapon - the handle - during a reload. Too easy to lose positive control, drop it or have it taken by surprise. That revolver reload should be done by feel as follows with all eyes up and forward, A) when ready to reload, left hand goes under and opposite cylinder, pressing through while right thumb presses release; B) simultaneously gun is pointed upward; C) cylinder opened; D) left palm smacks down hard and fast three times to pop out shells onto ground; E) left hand sweeps cylinder to knock free any cases; F) left hand moves to belt by feel, grabs reloads; G) simultaneous tip gun barrel downward; H) insert reloads using left hand - speedloader, speed strip, etc; I) drop speedloader device and close cylinder; J) return gun to low ready or ready as appropriate. Eyes should never leave scan except to look slightly down during reload, using peripherals to scan for threats.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by FireForged:

I am truly baffled by the idea that armed conflict is somehow always likely to be a "ready-set-go" type of situation.

Do you not believe that a defensive incident will not be started by some kind of stimulus?

Like its likely going to mirror some 1890 duel in the middle of the street.

I know of no training that is based on that ridiculous idea.

There are countless situations where [draw speed] is irrelevant simply because violence is occurring and weapons are already in play. Most people are not going to challenge an armed and active combatant from a holstered status.

Allrighty then.

How is draw speed a limited element? It is a limited element simply because speed its no absolute guarantee.

That does not follow ay all.

I am not suggesting that a person strive for a slow draw speed but if the idea is that the difference between an average draw speed vs a really fast draw speed is going to be the saving grace in the majority of conflicts... i disagree.

Consider this: an assailant with a contact weapon starts moving toward a defender at a gas station from a distance of two car lengths, moving at a speed of five meters per second. The difference between a draw-and-fire time of 1.5 seconds and a time of 2.5 seconds allows the assailant to get five meters closer before the first shot is fired--and there is still the little mater of stopping him.

Is that not important?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zombietactics:

The belief that it will approximate or mirror a "1890 style duel in the middle of the street" forms the basis of the "Cowboy Quick Draw" mythos, ethos and dogma.

The myth of the duel in the middle of the street has a lot to do with a lot of things, but I doubt that anyone believes, even subconsciously, that "it", where "it" refers to a defensive use of force incident, will "approximate or mirror" such fiction.

You can't blame people ... they've seen hundreds (maybe thousands) of such "gunfights" on TV and in movies over the course of their lives. That's the best representative model they have available in most cases. They see a movie like "Tombstone" or "The Quick and the Dead" and almost think of them as documentaries.

Perhaps some people may think of them that way, but I seriously doubt that they carry firearms.

The funny thing is, those cowboy quick draw duels likely never actually happened. They are almost certainly fabrications of pulp-novel writers and Eastern newspapers looking to sell sensational stories of Western derring-do.

That's irrelevant to the discussion of armed self defense, and none of that bears any resemblance whatsoever to realistic defensive pistol shooting.

[Sharkbite]

Quote:
... I can say that in NONE of those encounters did i have to think about drawing my pistol or mounting my rifle. Those things happened on "auto-pilot" upon recognizing a threat. ...
This is one of those cases where I truly hope we mean the same thing and are getting hung up on semantics.

I would offer that the act of "recognizing a threat" is on some level a conscious act or decision. Either that ... or we're losing each other somewhere in the middle. I agree with you that the application of the skills themselves should be (to some degree) "second nature".

Nobody can reflexively recognize the difference between a toy gun and a real one, or a butter knife and a dagger, for instance. Those who think they can have ended up too often shooting people with butter knives, toy guns, cell phones, etc. ... which can't be a recommended course of action.

In the post i took offense to, the writer stated he was charged by 2 pitbulls. He recognized that as a threat. He goes on to say that he then had no conscious thought involved in presenting his pistol. I think his word were "the next thing i knew i had my gun lined up on theead dogs head"

You took umbrage to that. No one has said anything about just whilping a gun out willy-nilly. If you go back and read the posts you will see that the examples given always have a defined threat that is prpperly identified and THEN an autonomic response ingrained through training.

That is not a "training scar" as you put it. It is a validation of proper skillset and the goal of all those long hours training to build that skillset.

Just like in the gym. Youve got to put in the work, if you want the results.

On the topic of timers. I use em...i like em...and i advocate em to my students. It is the only REAL way to "keep it honest" in a square range training environment. Does every attack require a .5sec draw?? No. But a timer will show you that what you thought was a .5 sec draw is really a 1.5 second draw

Situational awareness is mandatory in this game. But the truth is the attacker will decide when the "buzzer" sounds. It is HIGHLY unlikely we will get the chance to draw our pistil from concealment prior to the attack beginning. I guess there are some remote circs that would allow this, but the majority of the time the gun will still be holstered when needed.
I cant think of a SINGLE instance where it would then be advantageous to draw the pistol slowly.

[FireForged]

Do you not believe that a defensive incident will not be started by some kind of stimulus?

Sure- and that belief does not negate anything that I said. The term ready-set-go implies an even fairness to a contest where one person challenges the specific singular skill of another-like a footrace or jump ball. When we begin to examine physical conflict or armed conflicts.. simply being the strongest is no guarantee that you will win physical fight. If we consider that idea to be intellectually honest then I think the same premise should be extended to draw speed. I have already said that I believe that draw speed can make the difference in [some] instances but I will only consider draw speed an imperative if I believe that it rules in a majority of situations - which I dont.

Consider this: an assailant with a contact weapon starts moving toward a defender at a gas station from a distance of two car lengths, moving at a speed of five meters per second. The difference between a draw-and-fire time of 1.5 seconds and a time of 2.5 seconds allows the assailant to get five meters closer before the first shot is fired--and there is still the little mater of stopping him. Is that not important?

Within the context of lawful self-defense:
Is [draw speed] as important as knowing which side of the car will offer the best advantage and making the right choice? Is it as important as having the awareness to have detected the attack much earlier? Is it as important as the means in which you are armed and where you weapon is in relation to your seated position? Is it as important as whether or not you are hindered by a seatbelt at the onset of the attack? Is it as important as a decision to stand and fight or simply drive way or attempt escape? Is it as important as the decision to shoot over your door, under your open door, through the windshield, from the passenger seat or back seat? Is it as important as having the fortitude to act in a controlled, focused and measured manner? Is it as important as not missing your target?- probably not.

[zombietactics]

I can see we - mostly - agree, except for some quibbling at the margins.

I did find this interesting, however:

... I cant think of a SINGLE instance where it would then be advantageous to draw the pistol slowly. ..."

I've seen (video of) dozens of cases where someone drew a pistol in a stealthy, almost leisurely fashion, and it appeared to be necessary so as to not invite attention. It seemed - in those cases - to be a big part of the resulting success of the encounter. The most important factor seemed to be when, not how fast, the pistol was drawn.

Now, in fairness, I have no idea what kind of percentages they represent. They may be common or among the very least likely to occur. I simply know that they occur, and as such no imagination is required to make the case to that point.

What is also certain is that nobody will suddenly get faster if they've been practicing going slow. The fast guy can slow down much easier than the slow guy can (effectively, anyway) speed up. There are plenty of reasons to continue a process of improvement in all of the fundamentals - speed of draw being among them.

The central point is that we cannot rely upon speed alone as the singular "measure of success". It is one factor among many.