The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 12, 2017, 05:24 PM   #51
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,397
Quote:
The times for the for the 7 yards ranged from about 1.3 seconds to about 1.7 seconds.


The times of those who chose to participate were all between 1.4 and 1.6 seconds.
Range is not a 'average'. You could have 15 of them do 1.3 seconds and just one to 1.7 and that is a 'range'.

Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 05:30 PM   #52
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 2,392
You guys are spliting hairs

The point of the Tueller drill was to show how dangerous a suspect with an edged weapon was, even when that person was not in "contact" range.

The take home message was 7yds is just about a tie to your first shot.

A "TIE" is not good enough.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 05:33 PM   #53
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deaf Smith
...Range is not a 'average'. You could have 15 of them do 1.3 seconds and just one to 1.7 and that is a 'range'....
Do you have some kind of point?

My point is that the generally accepted average of 1.5 second falls within the ranges observed during various repetitions of the drill with subject populations having a variety of physical characteristics.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 08:12 PM   #54
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,397
The point is that it is NOT AN AVERAGE. Not even good science. You said RANGE, not average. Did they clock each one and totaled the time and divided it by the number of shooters? Did they research to see what the percentage of population (tall, short, old, young, etc.) matches the sample they chose to test?

No? Yes?

Then, you see, their 'generally accepted average of 1.5 second' is totally bogus.

Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 08:40 PM   #55
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,469
Quote:
The point is that it is NOT AN AVERAGE.
Why do you so contend?

Quote:
You said RANGE, not average.
Frank stated that the "generally accepted average" was well within the range measured in a couple of experiments.

Quote:
Did they clock each one and totaled the time and divided it by the number of shooters?
Someone surely has--that's how one calculates a mean.

Quote:
Did they research to see what the percentage of population (tall, short, old, young, etc.) matches the sample they chose to test?
Probably not, but why would that be remotely necessary, with all of the tests that have been conducted over time? As ShootitPRS stated, "It has been verified many times with runners and shooters under a variety of conditions".

What kind of precision are you looking for? Why?

Quote:
Then, you see, their 'generally accepted average of 1.5 second' is totally bogus.
Why would you so assert, after having made it clear that you do not know how the average was derived?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 10:46 PM   #56
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,062
the relation of the 1.5s par time to the Tueller drill is logical, thanks for sharing this.

the discussion on the average of the Tueller drill is mildly entertaining....

The idea the Tueller drill is bogus is silly. I'm pretty certain the biggest skeptic would suddenly be immensely grateful of the accuracy of the Tueller statistics if they needed to show that in court someday.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 11:00 PM   #57
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deaf Smith
The point is that it is NOT AN AVERAGE. Not even good science....
In other words, you don't have a point that's relevant to the discussion.

The point of the Tueller study is that someone 7 yards away with a contact weapon can be a credible threat because he can reach someone in a time that's comparable to the time it would take a reasonable proficient defender to deploy and fire, with reasonable accuracy, a gun that's holstered at the start of the exercise. The value of that information is that it can help someone assess his danger zone and consider and implement possible ways to reduce the danger.

In his article Tueller says that the time window, based on his observations, was about one and one-half seconds.

You obliquely suggested in post 49 that the time window was not useful unless the group of persons performing the drill was appropriately divers:
Quote:
...So they used old arthritic people? Obese people? Short legged? Pygmies? Or just police recruits?

Just what kind of pool of 'volunteers' did they use?...
But as I pointed out, repetition of the drill with a diverse sample doesn't change things by much. The "take home" message of the Tueller drill remains the same:
  • If someone armed with a contact weapon and manifesting an intention to immediately attack you is about 7 yards away (and there are no obstacles in his way), and you're standing there with your gun in your holster, you are in imminent danger.

  • You need to do something right away. What you do will depend on the exact situation. Is cover immediately available? Can you put obstacles between yourself and the assailant? Can you increase distance? Draw your gun and be ready?

But all of that applies whether it will take the assailant 1.4 seconds or 1.7 seconds to be on top of you.

So ply with yout averages, means, and standard deviations. None of that really means anything with regard to the practical applications of the lessons of the Tueller drill.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 12, 2017, 11:26 PM   #58
Ghost1958
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 153
Frank is on target.

The whole purpose of Tuller drill was and is pretty simple.

Alot of carriers and even cops had and have the misguided notion that unless a person with a knife, club, or even their fists if disparity of force is at play, has to be 10 feet or so to be considered an imminent threat.
They don't. At 21 feet your flirting with not being able to get your gun in play before the thug hurts you or kills you possibly. If you are a tad slow drawing and you just stand there.

Can alot beat the tueller drill.
Of course. It isn't that hard if you simply move and realize you really don't have to aim to hit a person at 3 to five yards multiple times. The thug is closing distance so your not actually firing at a 7 yes target but more likely a three yard target...

It's just a demonstration that if you allow a attacker in 21 feet of you you can't stay rooted in place, have a 2 or 3 second draw, and expect to put lead in thug before he is playing Ginsu chef in your guts or chopsticks on your noggin.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 12:23 AM   #59
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
...It's just a demonstration that if you allow a attacker in 21 feet of you you can't stay rooted in place, have a 2 or 3 second draw, and expect to put lead in thug before he is playing Ginsu chef in your guts or chopsticks on your noggin.
Exactly.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 09:04 PM   #60
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,397
So in essence, none of you have seen any thing but anecdotal "generally accepted average". Sounds like everyone 'assumes' and one knows what assume makes out of you and me.

Quote:
So ply with yout averages, means, and standard deviations. None of that really means anything with regard to the practical applications of the lessons of the Tueller drill.
The lessons of the actual drill depend on if it's accurate. To say the 'average' reaction time is 1.5 seconds and the 'average' time to run seven yards is 1.5 or so seconds is just so misleading.

One may easily have a quicker reaction time and one may be much slower at crossing seven yards than 1.5 seconds.

The only real lesson from that drill is to find out how fast is your reaction time under realistic scenarios that match your skill and training level while also have enough 'gym' time to be able to judge the capability of others to get inside YOUR reaction time.

It surely isn't a mythical 1.5 second or seven yard line.

Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 09:20 PM   #61
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,469
Quote:
So in essence, none of you have seen any thing but anecdotal "generally accepted average". Sounds like everyone 'assumes' and one knows what assume makes out of you and me.
Has expert testimony regarding Tueller timing measurements been admitted into evidence in court in cases in which the defendant was able to properly document that he had acquired his knowledge of the subject beforehand?

If so, under the rules of evidence, the conclusions have been properly established as being much more than "anecdotal".
OldMarksman is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 09:25 PM   #62
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deaf Smith
...The only real lesson from that drill is to find out how fast is your reaction time under realistic scenarios that match your skill and training level while also have enough 'gym' time to be able to judge the capability of others to get inside YOUR reaction time....
Balderdash.

Dennis Tueller told us the reason for demonstration:
Quote:
..let's consider what might be called the "Danger Zone" if you are confronted by an adversary armed with an edged or blunt weapon. At what distance does this adversary enter your Danger Zone and become a lethal threat to you?...
And Dr. Martenelli showed that he understands the exercise:
Quote:
...Tueller designed his firearms action-reaction experiment as a training device to help his students better understand the concept of the "reactionary gap." The reactionary gap is a human factors formula that compares action vs. reaction. In humans, sudden action is usually faster than a defensive response or reaction.....
Of course a well designed training program needs to include timed exercises by which a student can how long it takes him to assess and respond appropriately under various circumstances. But that's something entirely different and has nothing to do with the Tueller drill.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 10:50 PM   #63
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,397
Quote:
Has expert testimony regarding Tueller timing measurements been admitted into evidence in court in cases in which the defendant was able to properly document that he had acquired his knowledge of the subject beforehand?

If so, under the rules of evidence, the conclusions have been properly established as being much more than "anecdotal".
See if you believe in this 1.5 second/21 ft fantasy as a rule, then if an old man on a walker 'charges' you at 21 ft with a knife you are in desperate need to use lethal force to stop him cause you only have 1.5 seconds to deploy your lethal force. And we all know that is stupid and wrong (or, I guess, just SOME of us.)

Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides

Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 14, 2017 at 12:04 AM. Reason: Delete off-topic comment
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old October 13, 2017, 10:51 PM   #64
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,397
Quote:
Of course a well designed training program needs to include timed exercises by which a student can how long it takes him to assess and respond appropriately under various circumstances. But that's something entirely different and has nothing to do with the Tueller drill.
Of course.

Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old October 14, 2017, 12:10 AM   #65
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deaf Smith
...See if you believe in this 1.5 second/21 ft fantasy as a rule, then if an old man on a walker 'charges' you at 21 ft with a knife you are in desperate need to use lethal force to stop him cause you only have 1.5 seconds to deploy your lethal force. And we all know that is stupid and wrong (or, I guess, just SOME of us.)
Of course everyone who has actually been following this discussion knows that this is drivel. No one claimed that about the Tueller exercise, and it's purpose and value have been described by a number of posters and in sources linked to in posts, including Tueller's own article.

Either you're being intentionally obtuse and argumentative or you're lack the facility to understand the subjects being discussed.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 15, 2017 at 03:49 PM. Reason: correct typo
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 14, 2017, 08:14 AM   #66
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,469
Quote:
See if you believe in this 1.5 second/21 ft fantasy as a rule, then if an old man on a walker 'charges' you at 21 ft with a knife you are in desperate need to use lethal force to stop him cause you only have 1.5 seconds to deploy your lethal force. And we all know that is stupid and wrong (or, I guess, just SOME of us.)

Deaf
You did not answer my question.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 01:43 AM   #67
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,203
Let's agree that contact weapons can be dangerous since 21 feet can be covered in a very short time. My question is, how likely is it that someone will "randomly" approach you with a contact weapon exposed and give you the time to draw your gun? I think it is much more likely that someone would be much closer before they pulled a weapon on you to rob you. I'm talking about the average Joe, not a police officer or someone with a price on their head.

With that said, what do you do if someone gets the jump on you and produces a contact weapon well within the 21 feet often stated for the Tueller Drill. Would most people comply until there is either an opportunity or things go really south? Do you try and run (assuming you are capable)? Do you go for your your weapon and use your weak hand to try and fend off an attack?

I would recommend some hand to hand training if you are physically capable. If I were in a situation where someone with a contact weapon got within contact distance, I would probably comply unless I felt I would be assaulted anyway. I think it would be foolish to draw on a drawn weapon, contact or otherwise (assuming contact distance). If the opportunity presented itself, I would consider strikes to sensitive parts of the body such as throat, nose, or eyes. More likely than not, after complying, possibly draw my weapon and try and get my stuff back. Would that create a legal grey area?
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 09:25 AM   #68
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,469
Quote:
My question is, how likely is it that someone will "randomly" approach you with a contact weapon exposed and give you the time to draw your gun? I think it is much more likely that someone would be much closer before they pulled a weapon on you to rob you. ...

With that said, what do you do if someone gets the jump on you and produces a contact weapon well within the 21 feet often stated for the Tueller Drill.
Where did you get the impression that Dennis Tueller's demonstration involved an advance by a person who had already exposed his contact weapon?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old October 15, 2017, 10:00 AM   #69
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Let's agree that contact weapons can be dangerous since 21 feet can be covered in a very short time. My question is, how likely is it that someone will "randomly" approach you with a contact weapon exposed and give you the time to draw your gun?
http://www.startribune.com/police-ne...ngs/396168391/

But one example. Is it random? You may be a random victim, but attacks are not random.
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:27 PM   #70
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,397
Which question OldMarksman? You rambled so much I'm just not sure what was question and what was not.

Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:04 PM   #71
Ghost1958
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 153
The Tuller drill like so many other things brought up in training schools only loosely applies to civilians.

It's a good indication of how close one can allow a threat to get. And it's not unheard of a drugged up thug may pick up a club etc and approach one from that distance with an exposed weapon while making demands or threats.

But while LEO having interaction with a subject can demand that subject maintain a certain distance and draw if the subject does not, the citizen has it a bit tougher depending on the state they are in.

A citizen cannot demand a person who's not exposed a weapon in a obviously threating manner or made threats or illegal demands with no weapon, stay 7 yards distant because of their looks and draw on them if they don't. The person has as much right to be there as you do until he is exhibiting behavior the shows reasonable suspicion he is a threat.
One can move away, put objects between you and the person. If they continue to follow then a threatening behavior is beginning to emerge.

Tuller is a good general info drill for the civilian, but the civilian won't be able to apply it in most cases the same way an LEO can.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old Today, 12:31 AM   #72
Rangerrich99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Kinda near Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 641
In my admittedly amateur opinion, part of the problem is how many people preconceive of the 'Tueller drill' scenario. Why is it that we all assume that the attacker will be approaching from in front of us? What if he is charging in from the side or even from behind? if he's coming from the front, why wouldn't he stroll for the first few strides and then draw his weapon and charge in for the last two or three strides? Is it realistic that most of us could recognize the threat under these parameters and draw then fire before the attacker shoved a knife in us?

In a Kali class (Filipino stick/sword fighting) I've been taking off and on for the last couple years our instructor had us run the Tueller drill one evening after the regular class had let out. At first, we ran it as everyone probably thinks of it; an attacker charging from a standstill head-on to the defender. Knowing the drill and having the advantage of looking right at our attacker most of us were easily able to mount some kind of defense, even though some of the younger more fit guys could easily cover the 20 ft. in far less than 2 seconds.

Then our instructor changed the drill, putting the attacker behind the defender. Another twist was to have three guys in a half circle around the defender yelling at him then one charging in at random. This type of thing greatly increased reaction time, making an adequate defense much more difficult.

It turned out that our instructor had seen this video with Doug Marchaida and instructor Zero on Youtube and decided to see how those of us that were familiar with the TD reacted to the drill with a few twists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fjMpn7JCJ0

If you don't know who these guys are, Doug Marchaida is an edged weapons specialist with roots in arnis and kali sword fighting, as well as probably a half-dozen empty-hand martial arts. If he was the one attacking you with a knife, it would be a nightmare right out of Hollywood. Instructor Zero is an Italian Spec Ops combat instructor. Not much else known about him other than his videos and that he holds the highest security clearance levels possible in Italy. And he can really shoot really fast from any position.

In other words, most of us aren't going to do a lot of the things you'll see in this video, but it does effectively show us just how difficult the attack from 21 ft. can actually be.

Last edited by Rangerrich99; Today at 12:42 AM.
Rangerrich99 is offline  
Old Today, 08:54 AM   #73
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,469
Quote:
Which question OldMarksman?
This one:
Quote:
Has expert testimony regarding Tueller timing measurements been admitted into evidence in court in cases in which the defendant was able to properly document that he had acquired his knowledge of the subject beforehand?
That referred to your repeated diatribes about the validity of the Tueller measurements, such as....
Quote:
The point is that it is NOT AN AVERAGE. Not even good science. You said RANGE, not average. Did they clock each one and totaled the time and divided it by the number of shooters? Did they research to see what the percentage of population (tall, short, old, young, etc.) matches the sample they chose to test?

No? Yes?

Then, you see, their 'generally accepted average of 1.5 second' is totally bogus.
I have already if explained that if expert testimony regarding a defendant's use of Tueller drill data has been properly admitted under the rules of evidence in a trial to support a defense of justification, the conclusions have been properly established, and your comments are meaningless.
OldMarksman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10675 seconds with 9 queries