speed draw par time...?

[Deaf Smith]

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

[Sharkbite]

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.

[Frank Ettin]

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.

[Deaf Smith]

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

[OldMarksman]

The point is that it is NOT AN AVERAGE.

Why do you so contend?

You said RANGE, not average.

Frank stated that the "generally accepted average" was well within the range measured in a couple of experiments.

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.

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?

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?

[Koda94]

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.

[Frank Ettin]

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:

...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.

[Ghost1958]

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.

[Frank Ettin]

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.

[Deaf Smith]

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.

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

[OldMarksman]

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".

[Frank Ettin]

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:

..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:

...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.

[Deaf Smith]

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

[Deaf Smith]

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

[Frank Ettin]

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.

[OldMarksman]

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.

[stephen426]

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?

[OldMarksman]

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?

[Nanuk]

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.

[Deaf Smith]

Which question OldMarksman? You rambled so much I'm just not sure what was question and what was not.

Deaf

[Ghost1958]

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.

[Rangerrich99]

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.

[OldMarksman]

Which question OldMarksman?

This one:

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....

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.

[stephen426]

Ranger Rich,

That was a very interesting video. Thanks for sharing. I think the first part was pretty implausible. He knew an attacker was running up on him from behind and was prepared to react as soon as he heard a noise. In the real world, it could just be a jogger running in your direction. You have to really assess the situation before you draw a gun and shoot someone. On the flip side, failure to react could quickly could mean you attacker would be on top of you before you could get a weapon out. The whole draw and shoot behind your back is pure fantasy for 99% of us.

Real world requires assessment time, especially if the noise is coming from behind. Based on the time to turn and draw, even a highly trained person (as shown in the video) would have a very hard time to draw from concealment and bring the gun into play. Even when he did, the momentum of the attacker could still mean he gets cut or stabbed. This is where having some martial arts training could give you some options. If the attacker has a short contact weapon like a knife, a well placed kick could stop him or slow him down enough to get a gun into play. I'm not saying I want to go hand to hand against someone with a knife, but it has already been shown that assessing, reacting, then drawing from concealment is darn near impossible. If all you have is a hammer, you're only looking for nails.

As for the drop to your back or the roll, I really like how it creates space and forces a change of direction for the attacker. We had better practice the roll extensively if we hope to have a chance in hell of pulling it off in a real attack.

[OldMarksman]

He knew an attacker was running up on him from behind and was prepared to react as soon as he heard a noise. In the real world, it could just be a jogger running in your direction. You have to really assess the situation before you draw a gun and shoot someone.

Yep!