# Accuracy vs Speed



## PhotonGuy (Jan 14, 2015)

Some people here have said that in shooting accuracy is the most important factor. In the classes I've taken we've been taught that accuracy is important but you also need speed. The third factor is power which depends in the weapon and ammo you're using. Now, in terms of speed and accuracy when it comes to hitting the target, what I've been taught is you want the shots on your target to be roughly far enough apart so that you can cover them with your hand but not any further. If your shots are further than that you want to slow down and take your time with your shots to improve your accuracy. If your shots are really close together, if they're right on top of each other, than you want to speed up and sacrifice some accuracy in order to shoot faster. All the accuracy in the world won't be that good if your opponent shoots you first.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 14, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Some people here have said that in shooting accuracy is the most important factor.



Let's be accurate here. Forensics, and actually studying injuries says that accuracy is the most important factor. All anybody here has done (or needs to do) is point out this fact.



PhotonGuy said:


> In the classes I've taken we've been taught that accuracy is important but you also need speed.



People are taught to use multiple shots to make up for poor accuracy. If you're accurate enough, then one shot is all you need. Most people are incapable of that degree of accuracy for various reasons.



PhotonGuy said:


> The third factor is power which depends in the weapon and ammo you're using.



Only if you're talking handguns vs rifles. It's been quite conclusively shown that so far as handguns go, the caliber is irrelevant. And ammo is only a factor if you're too stupid to use a good modern defensive ammo.

None of this is anything you haven't heard before. Why do you insist on rehashing the same questions over and over and over in multiple threads?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 14, 2015)

If you throw a fake jab at your opponent's face, since you know that 99% of the time, your opponent will either dodge it or block it, your accuracy and power won't be important there. Speed is the only thing you need at that moment.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 14, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you throw a fake jab at your opponent's face, since you know that 99% of the time, your opponent will either dodge it or block it, your accuracy and power won't be important there. Speed is the only thing you need at that moment.



There is no such thing as a "fake jab" when you're shooting...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 14, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you throw a fake jab at your opponent's face, since you know that 99% of the time, your opponent will either dodge it or block it, your accuracy and power won't be important there. Speed is the only thing you need at that moment.


If he sees it coming, it was fake and slow.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 14, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> There is no such thing as a "fake jab" when you're shooting...


Sorry! My fault! Didn't notice this thread belong to "The Firing Range (Firearms). Just ignore what I have just said.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 14, 2015)

Anyways, there are about seven types of speed: Mental, Physical, perceptual, etc,, and they all play a role n the over-all thing we call speed.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 14, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> People are taught to use multiple shots to make up for poor accuracy. If you're accurate enough, then one shot is all you need. Most people are incapable of that degree of accuracy for various reasons.



And you wont get in that one shot if you get shot first.



Dirty Dog said:


> None of this is anything you haven't heard before. Why do you insist on rehashing the same questions over and over and over in multiple threads?



I wasn't asking any questions I was pointing out what I had been taught.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 14, 2015)

And you won't get that shot off, no matter how fast you can shoot, if you're shot first.  All the gun skills in the world are useless if you don't perceive the danger first, and react to it.  (You might look into a book called Left of Bang, or the website of the CP Journal.)  Once the shooting starts -- if you're talking handguns, not RPGs -- accuracy matters a lot more in stopping than speed.  One effective round on target will do a whole lot more than an emptied magazine that's hitting targets that'll have little effect.

Once again -- I suspect that you're repeating what you heard, not necessarily the lesson that was intended to be taught.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 14, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> And you wont get in that one shot if you get shot first.



So here's the scenario... you and I face off in a good old fashioned gunfight. DRAW!
I take 0.1 or even 0.2 seconds longer than you to get off that first shot. I plant it right between the 4th and 5th ribs, just to the left of the sternum.
You spray and pray, and of the 6 or 8 rounds you fire, one hits me in the deltoid.
Who wins?



PhotonGuy said:


> I wasn't asking any questions I was pointing out what I had been taught.



I suspect you didn't actually learn the lesson that was being taught.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 15, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> So here's the scenario... you and I face off in a good old fashioned gunfight. DRAW!
> I take 0.1 or even 0.2 seconds longer than you to get off that first shot. I plant it right between the 4th and 5th ribs, just to the left of the sternum.
> You spray and pray, and of the 6 or 8 rounds you fire, one hits me in the deltoid.
> Who wins?



If my shot to the deltoid hits first would you still be able to hit me between the 4th and 5th ribs? Being hit in the shoulder can really ruin your accuracy.



Dirty Dog said:


> I suspect you didn't actually learn the lesson that was being taught.



What I've been taught at the multiple shooting classes I've taken is that you want your shots to be roughly a handspan apart in distance, that should be adequate accuracy. If you disagree with that you can argue with FrontSight.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 15, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> And you won't get that shot off, no matter how fast you can shoot, if you're shot first.  All the gun skills in the world are useless if you don't perceive the danger first, and react to it.  (You might look into a book called Left of Bang, or the website of the CP Journal.)  Once the shooting starts -- if you're talking handguns, not RPGs -- accuracy matters a lot more in stopping than speed.  One effective round on target will do a whole lot more than an emptied magazine that's hitting targets that'll have little effect.
> 
> Once again -- I suspect that you're repeating what you heard, not necessarily the lesson that was intended to be taught.



How about this, lets say you're accurate enough that you can place your shots within a handspan and you're really fast. The perpetrator is accurate enough to place all his shots within the bullseye one right on top of the other but to do so he has to take a few extra seconds to concentrate. Who would win?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 15, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> If my shot to the deltoid hits first would you still be able to hit me between the 4th and 5th ribs? Being hit in the shoulder can really ruin your accuracy.



Spoken like someone who has never dealt with someone who has a superficial GSW.


----------



## Argus (Jan 15, 2015)

As a general rule, whether we're talking about martial arts or defense shooting, you should strive to be _efficient_ and _effective; _not "fast." If you chase speed in your training, you'll be neither fast nor effective.

Handguns are notoriously difficult to shoot, and lacking in stopping power regardless of caliber. Couple that with the fact that accuracy plummets in high-stress situations, and you'll be lucky if you land any of your shots if you're not making a conscious, ingrained, trained effort to be accurate and deliver well-placed rounds. Nothing short of those one or two well-placed rounds will incapacitate your opponent and ensure your safety. If your efforts are elsewhere, you might as well be flailing your arms around -- or better yet, simply running in the other direction and taking a reasonable bet that your assailant is as inaccurate as you strive to be.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 15, 2015)

Argus said:


> As a general rule, whether we're talking about martial arts or defense shooting, you should strive to be _efficient_ and _effective; _not "fast." If you chase speed in your training, you'll be neither fast nor effective.
> 
> Handguns are notoriously difficult to shoot, and lacking in stopping power regardless of caliber. Couple that with the fact that accuracy plummets in high-stress situations, and you'll be lucky if you land any of your shots if you're not making a conscious, ingrained, trained effort to be accurate and deliver well-placed rounds. Nothing short of those one or two well-placed rounds will incapacitate your opponent and ensure your safety. If your efforts are elsewhere, you might as well be flailing your arms around -- or better yet, simply running in the other direction and taking a reasonable bet that your assailant is as inaccurate as you strive to be.


I was about to post some very accurate quick draw vids, but I will just say that much of what we think of as speed is perceptual. It looks fast but it is actually a series of well trained habits. Plus hours and hours of shooting, of course.


----------



## Argus (Jan 15, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> I was about to post some very accurate quick draw vids, but I will just say that much of what we think of as speed is perceptual. It looks fast but it is actually a series of well trained habits. Plus hours and hours of shooting, of course.



Yep -- exactly. People who are fast are fast because they train to be _efficient_, rather than quick. What's the old saying? Fast is slow; slow is smooth; smooth is fast.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 15, 2015)

If you can place 3 rounds touching in 30 seconds... You need to speed up. If you hit a limb with one out of 3 shoots in 1 second...you need to slow down.

I know I know...we all heard the old saw that "smooth is fast". Yes.

However that doesn't mean what most people think it means. I can be smooth AND SLOW. You need to shoot as fast as you " smoothly " can.

Professional shooters use shot timers for a reason. You need to balance speed and accuracy with a smooth presentation/gun handling.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 15, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> How about this, lets say you're accurate enough that you can place your shots within a handspan and you're really fast. The perpetrator is accurate enough to place all his shots within the bullseye one right on top of the other but to do so he has to take a few extra seconds to concentrate. Who would win?


Who shoots first?  Doesn't matter how fast the second person shoots if they're already dead.

Hint: that's why I pointed out sources about staying AHEAD of the shot.  Do it right, and there's a damn good chance you won't have to shoot at all...  unless you're in a profession like the military or law enforcement.  

You're looking at the wrong issues.  I don't think I can explain it any plainer.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 16, 2015)

Argus said:


> As a general rule, whether we're talking about martial arts or defense shooting, you should strive to be _efficient_ and _effective; _not "fast." If you chase speed in your training, you'll be neither fast nor effective.
> 
> Handguns are notoriously difficult to shoot, and lacking in stopping power regardless of caliber. Couple that with the fact that accuracy plummets in high-stress situations, and you'll be lucky if you land any of your shots if you're not making a conscious, ingrained, trained effort to be accurate and deliver well-placed rounds. Nothing short of those one or two well-placed rounds will incapacitate your opponent and ensure your safety. If your efforts are elsewhere, you might as well be flailing your arms around -- or better yet, simply running in the other direction and taking a reasonable bet that your assailant is as inaccurate as you strive to be.



What's been taught in my classes is that you need to balance speed with accuracy. If you were to put your hand on the bullseye you would want all your shots to land within the area covered by your hand, that's the accuracy you need. If any of your shots are falling outside that area you want to slow down and improve your accuracy. If your shots are right on top of each other you want to speed up a bit but not so fast that your shots land outside the area that your hand would cover. Another words, you want to be as fast as you can be while still keeping your shots within an area roughly the size of a hand. So obviously if you're shooting Center of Mass COM and you hit the shoulder you're shooting too fast and you need to slow down and have better accuracy. You need to balance speed and accuracy. Power also does play a role when you consider factors such as if the perpetrator is wearing body armor, if he's on drugs, and/or if he's particularly determined. As far as accuracy plummeting in a high-stress situation, what they teach is that generally in a high-stress situation your shots will be about twice as far apart as they are in a non high-stress situation, so that is partially why they emphasize being able to land all your shots within a hand's area.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 16, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> What's been taught in my classes is that you need to balance speed with accuracy. If you were to put your hand on the bullseye you would want all your shots to land within the area covered by your hand, that's the accuracy you need. If any of your shots are falling outside that area you want to slow down and improve your accuracy. If your shots are right on top of each other you want to speed up a bit but not so fast that your shots land outside the area that your hand would cover. Another words, you want to be as fast as you can be while still keeping your shots within an area roughly the size of a hand. So obviously if you're shooting Center of Mass COM and you hit the shoulder you're shooting too fast and you need to slow down and have better accuracy. You need to balance speed and accuracy. Power also does play a role when you consider factors such as if the perpetrator is wearing body armor, if he's on drugs, and/or if he's particularly determined. As far as accuracy plummeting in a high-stress situation, what they teach is that generally in a high-stress situation your shots will be about twice as far apart as they are in a non high-stress situation, so that is partially why they emphasize being able to land all your shots within a hand's area.


I would just move in, so that one of us can't miss.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 5, 2016)

This thread is a bit old but I am going to revive it. There's the debate of speed vs accuracy. Some people have said that accuracy is most important but how about this. Lets say that when taking a bunch of shots to the center of the chest you're accurate enough that all your shots can be covered with a quarter. Now, lets say you can be a little bit faster but at the expense of being a little less accurate. By being a little bit faster you now need a coffee mug to cover all your shots. So would you rather be a little slower and be able to cover your shots with a quarter or would you rather be a little faster and require a coffee mug to cover your shots?


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 5, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> This thread is a bit old but I am going to revive it. There's the debate of speed vs accuracy. Some people have said that accuracy is most important but how about this. Lets say that when taking a bunch of shots to the center of the chest you're accurate enough that all your shots can be covered with a quarter. Now, lets say you can be a little bit faster but at the expense of being a little less accurate. By being a little bit faster you now need a coffee mug to cover all your shots. So would you rather be a little slower and be able to cover your shots with a quarter or would you rather be a little faster and require a coffee mug to cover your shots?


As described... the difference is likely to be meaningless.  You're talking a 1 inch circle versus a 4 inch circle.  Assuming shooting at center mass... Yeah, that's not likely to make a difference worth noting.  Coarse ground hamburger versus medium ground in the chest cavity.  Still hamburger in the chest cavity.

But here's the real thing... it's not the grouping that matters.  It's whether you get a hit or not.  Never shoot faster than you can actually hit the freakin' target.  Only after you hit it in the first place do you need to worry about groupings.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 5, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Some people here have said that in shooting accuracy is the most important factor. In the classes I've taken we've been taught that accuracy is important but you also need speed. The third factor is power which depends in the weapon and ammo you're using. Now, in terms of speed and accuracy when it comes to hitting the target, what I've been taught is you want the shots on your target to be roughly far enough apart so that you can cover them with your hand but not any further. If your shots are further than that you want to slow down and take your time with your shots to improve your accuracy. If your shots are really close together, if they're right on top of each other, than you want to speed up and sacrifice some accuracy in order to shoot faster. All the accuracy in the world won't be that good if your opponent shoots you first.


Buy a shot gun


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 5, 2016)

Touch Of Death said:


> Buy a shot gun



It's a bit difficult to conceal a shotgun... even one of the tactical bullpup designs would require a trench coat to conceal.


----------



## marques (Mar 6, 2016)

I apologise first training accuracy. Then accuracy and speed together. Anyone alone is worthless.
When fighting... It depends on the moment. To made (too) simple, speed to open the guard, accuracy to KO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 6, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Only if you're talking handguns vs rifles. It's been quite conclusively shown that so far as handguns go, the caliber is irrelevant. And ammo is only a factor if you're too stupid to use a good modern defensive ammo.



I'm curious about this statement that caliber is irrelevant. I would assume that is meant to exclude the extremes, as surely the caliber is relevant when comparing .45 or .44mag to .22lr. So, am I right in assuming this is in reference to "defensive" calibers (most define as starting with either .38 or 9mm)?

And I see a lot of argument back and forth about accuracy. I'd like to point out that some of those points are actually about "precision", not "accuracy". Accuracy means hitting your target (so, if you're shooting center-mass, you hit center-mass), whereas precision is about how close together your hits are. One can theoretically be very precise without being accurate (5 shots within 1 inch of each other, but 8 inches away from the intended target, so perhaps COM shots landing just to the left of the person's side, entirely missing within a 1-inch diameter). One can also be accurate without being highly precise (5 shots in center mass, within an 8-inch diameter). The ideal is to have high accuracy and reasonable precision. Accuracy is paramount, since (by definition) low accuracy means not hitting the intended target.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 6, 2016)

Touch Of Death said:


> I would just move in, so that one of us can't miss.


Let's hope it's not the other guy.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious about this statement that caliber is irrelevant. I would assume that is meant to exclude the extremes, as surely the caliber is relevant when comparing .45 or .44mag to .22lr. So, am I right in assuming this is in reference to "defensive" calibers (most define as starting with either .38 or 9mm)?



Since we're talking about defensive shooting, then yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that I'm talking about centerfire handgun rounds. 



gpseymour said:


> And I see a lot of argument back and forth about accuracy. I'd like to point out that some of those points are actually about "precision", not "accuracy". Accuracy means hitting your target (so, if you're shooting center-mass, you hit center-mass), whereas precision is about how close together your hits are. One can theoretically be very precise without being accurate (5 shots within 1 inch of each other, but 8 inches away from the intended target, so perhaps COM shots landing just to the left of the person's side, entirely missing within a 1-inch diameter). One can also be accurate without being highly precise (5 shots in center mass, within an 8-inch diameter). The ideal is to have high accuracy and reasonable precision. Accuracy is paramount, since (by definition) low accuracy means not hitting the intended target.



Accuracy means hitting your target. OK, I agree with that. In a defensive shoot, my target is your heart and/or your brain. If I am accurate, you will die. If I am accurate, I will also be precise, since my shots will be hitting the target.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2016)

I wouldn't call caliber irrelevant, I would say it's not as important as accuracy or speed respectively.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious about this statement that caliber is irrelevant. I would assume that is meant to exclude the extremes, as surely the caliber is relevant when comparing .45 or .44mag to .22lr. So, am I right in assuming this is in reference to "defensive" calibers (most define as starting with either .38 or 9mm)?
> 
> And I see a lot of argument back and forth about accuracy. I'd like to point out that some of those points are actually about "precision", not "accuracy". Accuracy means hitting your target (so, if you're shooting center-mass, you hit center-mass), whereas precision is about how close together your hits are. One can theoretically be very precise without being accurate (5 shots within 1 inch of each other, but 8 inches away from the intended target, so perhaps COM shots landing just to the left of the person's side, entirely missing within a 1-inch diameter). One can also be accurate without being highly precise (5 shots in center mass, within an 8-inch diameter). The ideal is to have high accuracy and reasonable precision. Accuracy is paramount, since (by definition) low accuracy means not hitting the intended target.


It's not irrelevant, but it's also, apparently, not nearly as important as certain factions of The Great Caliber Wars would prefer to believe.

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

*.22 (short, long and long rifle)* 
% of hits that were fatal - 34%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38
% of people who were not incapacitated - 31%
One-shot-stop % - 31%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%

*.45 ACP* 
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08
% of people who were not incapacitated - 14%
One-shot-stop % - 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 85%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 51%

Statistically speaking, these two are nearly identical.  I'm not sure what his Margin of Error is, but chances are pretty good that the difference between these two falls within it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

*.22 (short, long and long rifle)*


----------



## Tgace (Mar 7, 2016)

You need to read the last few paragraphs of that article. There's more to his point than the numbers.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 8, 2016)

Tgace said:


> You need to read the last few paragraphs of that article.


Why would you assume that I haven't?

It was specifically because of the last few paragraphs that I posted the entire listing, including the "% of hits that were fatal" and "% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit)" not just the "one shot stop."

Perhaps I'm not quite understanding what you're writing here.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tgace (Mar 8, 2016)

Copy.

I wasn't sure what stat you were pointing to as evidence there.



Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 9, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Since we're talking about defensive shooting, then yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that I'm talking about centerfire handgun rounds.
> 
> 
> 
> Accuracy means hitting your target. OK, I agree with that. In a defensive shoot, my target is your heart and/or your brain. If I am accurate, you will die. If I am accurate, I will also be precise, since my shots will be hitting the target.


You've chosen a precise target in referring to the heart, so in this case, your accuracy requirement includes precision. My point was to those saying accuracy was about the spread. The spread is just the precision, and only matters after you're accurate. In your example, if you're aiming for the heart, it only matters how far apart the shots are if they are generally centered around the heart. If they are 2" apart, and 12" to the left of the heart, the precision counts for nothing. Which, I think, was exactly your point in choosing that as one of your targets.

With the head shots, on the other hand, (assuming frontal shots, so we have to allow for face shots to count, perhaps) we have a larger area. Shots within a 6" spread could be considered accurate, while that would likely not be on-target with the heart shots. The need for precision differs because of the size of the target. In both cases, accuracy would properly refer to the center of the group being roughly the same as the center of the target.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 9, 2016)

lklawson said:


> It's not irrelevant, but it's also, apparently, not nearly as important as certain factions of The Great Caliber Wars would prefer to believe.
> 
> An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association
> 
> ...


That's interesting. I'd have expected a minor difference between, say, 9mm and .45ACP, but not the performance shown for the .22's. I do notice the .22's had higher accuracy, which likely offsets the physical advantage of the .45ACP (which had a lower incidence of "incapacitating" shots).

Thanks for sharing that, Kirk!

EDIT: In re-reading your post, I see I swapped some numbers in my head. I wonder why the difference in stopping is so small, when the .45 actually had a higher incidence of hits to the head/torso. Hmm....


----------



## Tgace (Mar 10, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's interesting. I'd have expected a minor difference between, say, 9mm and .45ACP, but not the performance shown for the .22's. I do notice the .22's had higher accuracy, which likely offsets the physical advantage of the .45ACP (which had a lower incidence of "incapacitating" shots).
> 
> Thanks for sharing that, Kirk!
> 
> EDIT: In re-reading your post, I see I swapped some numbers in my head. I wonder why the difference in stopping is so small, when the .45 actually had a higher incidence of hits to the head/torso. Hmm....


The  authors point about what a "stop" means is important. In this "study" stop means the confrontation ended, not death or physical incapacitation.

Most people in this example fled the field (so to speak) after a hit with a .22

That point is important, but I take internet based "blog studies" with a grain of salt...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 10, 2016)

Tgace said:


> The  authors point about what a "stop" means is important. In this "study" stop means the confrontation ended, not death or physical incapacitation.
> 
> Most people in this example fled the field (so to speak) after a hit with a .22


Which is why the "% of hits that were fatal" and the "% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit)" are important; because they don't represent "crap! he's shooting at me!"



> That point is important, but I take internet based "blog studies" with a grain of salt...


Which this one isn't.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tgace (Mar 10, 2016)

An Alternative Look at "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power"

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 10, 2016)

Tgace said:


> An Alternative Look at "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power"


Yeah.  I've seen it.  If Ellifritz is "asking the wrong question" then so too is this author.  He makes the case that "stopping power" is a misleading statement and that "time to stop" is far more important.  However, the best research has indicated that any firearm delivering energy on target in the range of .40S&W and "under" (including the .45ACP) experiences an almost unquantifiable statistical spread in "time to stop."  The truth is that he's asking for a statistic which is impossible, quite literally, to create, not that people haven't been trying to do so for decades.  The first attempt I can recall is Fairbairn's "Timetable of Death."  The truth is that the only way to get "kinda close" to the statistic that he's after is to compile statistics of real world shootings and just accept that there is going to be some level of Statistical Uncertainty.

Here's an article which I think you'll like more   :
The 4 Ways to Stop an Opponent

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tgace (Mar 10, 2016)

IMO "psychological stopping" is a meaningless term in this discussion. Hell, a BG just running off if a cap gun was presented (or missed shots from any weapon) sort of qualifies....

I believe you need to carry a handgun that delivers the most powerful round you can accurately use. With factors such as capacity and size/ease of carry as considerations.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 10, 2016)

Another article you might like:
'More people have been killed with the .22 than any other caliber'

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 10, 2016)

Tgace said:


> IMO "psychological stopping" is a meaningless term in this discussion.


No.  It's not meaningless because it is a *REAL* effect.  I recall reading of one person who was "shot" with a starter gun and proceeded to fall to the ground and flop like a fish until someone disabused him of the notion.



> Hell, a BG just running off if a cap gun was presented (or missed shots from any weapon) sort of qualifies....


Of course it qualifies as a "Psychological Stop."  But, as I point out, they're not *DEPENDABLE*.  Not that any others are "dependable," per se, but psychological effects are dependent upon a thought process which must happen in the target.  Don't bet your life on it.



> I believe you need to carry a handgun that delivers the most powerful round you can accurately use. With factors such as capacity and size/ease of carry as considerations.


OK.  That's important for around 3% or less, maybe only 0.5%, of actual Self Defense with a Firearm, at least according to the ShootingTheBull guy referenced above.
Does Caliber Even Matter?



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tgace (Mar 10, 2016)

We have to agree to disagree. IMO, a gun is a tool that works by putting lead into a body. That effect is measurable...the distinctions may be slight, but it's scientifically quantifiable.

Individual psychology and who will run or not has nothing to do with a gun or its projectiles. Meaningless to me when it comes to what caliber I will choose.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 10, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Individual psychology and who will run or not has nothing to do with a gun or its projectiles.


I believe that I have stipulated to this more than once.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 10, 2016)

Tgace said:


> The  authors point about what a "stop" means is important. In this "study" stop means the confrontation ended, not death or physical incapacitation.
> 
> Most people in this example fled the field (so to speak) after a hit with a .22
> 
> ...


I went back and actually read it after my post, and it makes more sense. I do like that they included "psychological stops", which is a realistic point to consider. He also did a good job providing a possible explanation why some guns had higher hits-to-stop, mostly based on firing speed.

As you, I take these studies with a grain of salt. He seems to have been reasonably diligent, and took the data the way it came (rather than trying to judge whether the stop was physical or psychological, for instance), so I'll accept that it has some merit. I'd love to see a researcher with proven ability and a history of proper rigor do a similar study.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 10, 2016)

Tgace said:


> We have to agree to disagree. IMO, a gun is a tool that works by putting lead into a body. That effect is measurable...the distinctions may be slight, but it's scientifically quantifiable.
> 
> Individual psychology and who will run or not has nothing to do with a gun or its projectiles. Meaningless to me when it comes to what caliber I will choose.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


To an extent, I can agree with you. However, we are defending against people, and people have psychological reactions. If I had to choose between a completely silent .45 or a very noisy .380, I'd choose the latter. A miss with the .45 in the heat of battle is useless to me. The noisy shot might have a significant psychological effect, which is a potential bonus. I won't depend upon it, but I will take it into account. Physics is a pure science, but people are far more variable than physics can account for. We have to consider the people in our choices - it's why I keep a pump shotgun, rather than a semi-auto. The ballistics are the same, but one has a distinct sound that warns an intruder that he's about to face a shotgun.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 10, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> To an extent, I can agree with you. However, we are defending against people, and people have psychological reactions. If I had to choose between a completely silent .45 or a very noisy .380, I'd choose the latter. A miss with the .45 in the heat of battle is useless to me. The noisy shot might have a significant psychological effect, which is a potential bonus. I won't depend upon it, but I will take it into account. Physics is a pure science, but people are far more variable than physics can account for. We have to consider the people in our choices - it's why I keep a pump shotgun, rather than a semi-auto. The ballistics are the same, but one has a distinct sound that warns an intruder that he's about to face a shotgun.


I would never choose a handgun caliber based on psychological stop data. Choosing on a .22 because "most people run when shot with anything" is a non starter because some people will keep on trying to kill you till you bleed out. 

IMO bullet construction and loading is more important than caliber. I'll take a 9mm+p bonded JHP over a .45 FMJ anyday in terms of what it will do regarding penetration and tissue damage.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 10, 2016)

Tgace said:


> IMO bullet construction and loading is more important than caliber. I'll take a 9mm+p bonded JHP over a .45 FMJ anyday in terms of what it will do regarding penetration and tissue damage.



There are a number of solid studies showing that caliber makes little or no difference. They pretty much all stipulate that they are studying handguns using modern defensive ammo. The "bigger is better" mantra perhaps made a lot of sense when hardball or bare lead were your only options. Given a modern, centerfire handgun and modern ammo specifically designed for personal defense, there is no significant difference in real world penetration and tissue damage. All that really matters is: did you hit something vital. 
Hence the decision of the FBI to change from .40 cal to 9mm. Commonly available 9mm semiautos offer the largest capacity for a given frame size, and more rounds available (and sent down range) means a greater chance of hitting something vital. There is a good summary HERE, including a link to the actual FBI report. The science is solid.

I love to shoot different calibers. I own (and shoot) hanguns chambered in .380, 9mm, .40 cal, and .45. I'm currently looking for a bargain for a .44 Mag and a .500 S&W. And there are specific applications where I do choose a lower-capacity gun. My bedside gun, for example, is a Glock 41. For this application, the .45 ACP round makes perfect sense. Not because it will be more effective, but because it is inherently subsonic, and subsonic rounds are important for a suppressed handgun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2016)

Tgace said:


> I would never choose a handgun caliber based on psychological stop data. Choosing on a .22 because "most people run when shot with anything" is a non starter because some people will keep on trying to kill you till you bleed out.
> 
> IMO bullet construction and loading is more important than caliber. I'll take a 9mm+p bonded JHP over a .45 FMJ anyday in terms of what it will do regarding penetration and tissue damage.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


We can definitely agree on that latter point. It's hard to talk about "a caliber" as a group - too much variability. I'd rather have a better bullet than a bigger bullet. In the words of Richard Bowe, "More isn't better. Better is better."


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> And I see a lot of argument back and forth about accuracy. I'd like to point out that some of those points are actually about "precision", not "accuracy". Accuracy means hitting your target (so, if you're shooting center-mass, you hit center-mass), whereas precision is about how close together your hits are. One can theoretically be very precise without being accurate (5 shots within 1 inch of each other, but 8 inches away from the intended target, so perhaps COM shots landing just to the left of the person's side, entirely missing within a 1-inch diameter). One can also be accurate without being highly precise (5 shots in center mass, within an 8-inch diameter). The ideal is to have high accuracy and reasonable precision. Accuracy is paramount, since (by definition) low accuracy means not hitting the intended target.



Well yes, accuracy is how close you are to the bullseye or wherever your aiming and precision is how close your shots are to each other. So, if your shots are right on top of each other but nowhere near the bullseye you've got excellent precision but really bad accuracy. If one of your shots lands on the bullseye but your other shots are far apart than you've got some accuracy but bad precision. To have really good accuracy though you would also need precision. To be accurate enough for all your shots to land on the bullseye that would obviously mean that you're also very precise.

Now, what Im talking about is speed vs accuracy/precision. If you're able to shoot the bad guy first and get a good hit chances are you've won the gunfight. So if you're able to hit the bullseye, in this case the center of the chest, where your shots are right next to or right on top of each other so you can cover them with a quarter you've got tremendous accuracy. If I was that accurate I would want to build up my speed, even if it meant losing some of my accuracy. If my shots were far enough apart that it would take a coffee mug to cover them those are still good shots. I would still be hitting the heart and lungs and if Im even just a little bit faster than the guy who can have his shots covered by placing a quarter on the center of the chest, I will be shooting him first and still getting good hits. So that's why I believe speed can be just as important as accuracy.

There has also been some talk about taking head shots. From what I've been taught head shots should only be taken in certain situations. Very rarely do you want your initial shot to be aimed at the head. Head shots are usually only used when body shots have failed to stop an assailant or if they've got a hostage, ect. Otherwise it can really be used against you in court, if you don't have a justifiable reason for taking a head shot.


----------



## marques (Apr 4, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Some people here have said that in shooting accuracy is the most important factor. In the classes I've taken we've been taught that accuracy is important but you also need speed. The third factor is power which depends in the weapon and ammo you're using. Now, in terms of speed and accuracy when it comes to hitting the target, what I've been taught is you want the shots on your target to be roughly far enough apart so that you can cover them with your hand but not any further. If your shots are further than that you want to slow down and take your time with your shots to improve your accuracy. If your shots are really close together, if they're right on top of each other, than you want to speed up and sacrifice some accuracy in order to shoot faster. All the accuracy in the world won't be that good if your opponent shoots you first.


+Speed to open. +Accuracy to finish.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 4, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> If my shots were far enough apart that it would take a coffee mug to cover them those are still good shots.




Depends on the coffee mug...


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 4, 2016)

I was talking more along the lines of this.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 4, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Head shots are usually only used when body shots have failed to stop an assailant or if they've got a hostage, ect. Otherwise it can really be used against you in court, if you don't have a justifiable reason for taking a head shot.


If you are legally justified to use deadly force then you are legally justified to use dealy force where you shoot is irrelevent


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 5, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> There has also been some talk about taking head shots. From what I've been taught head shots should only be taken in certain situations. Very rarely do you want your initial shot to be aimed at the head. Head shots are usually only used when body shots have failed to stop an assailant or if they've got a hostage, ect. Otherwise it can really be used against you in court, if you don't have a justifiable reason for taking a head shot.



Utter nonsense. If you're justified in shooting them, your specific target is irrelevant. If you've been taught this, find another teacher.


----------



## lklawson (Apr 6, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Utter nonsense. If you're justified in shooting them, your specific target is irrelevant. If you've been taught this, find another teacher.


Absolutely correct.

Deadly Force is Deadly Force, regardless of where you aim.

If you're not legally justified in shooting someone in the head, then you're not legally justified to shoot them *ANYWHERE*.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Apr 6, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Now, what Im talking about is speed vs accuracy/precision. If you're able to shoot the bad guy first and get a good hit chances are you've won the gunfight. So if you're able to hit the bullseye, in this case the center of the chest, where your shots are right next to or right on top of each other so you can cover them with a quarter you've got tremendous accuracy. If I was that accurate I would want to build up my speed, even if it meant losing some of my accuracy. If my shots were far enough apart that it would take a coffee mug to cover them those are still good shots.


To expound on this, there are some theories of combat, which hold that those shots may be too close.  In the days following WWII, the U.S. Army taught Combat Pistol Shooting and specifically taught that hits spreading out over the torso, not too close to each other, were better than hits all in exactly the same spot because 1) this meant that more internal organs were being damaged, which increased chances of incapacitation and kill 2) the trade-off in "accuracy" was replaced with quicker hits on target at follow-up shots, and 3) it fit well with the Instinctive Shooting method they were using at the time.

The first is the most important, imo.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 6, 2016)

lklawson said:


> To expound on this, there are some theories of combat, which hold that those shots may be too close.  In the days following WWII, the U.S. Army taught Combat Pistol Shooting and specifically taught that hits spreading out over the torso, not too close to each other, were better than hits all in exactly the same spot because 1) this meant that more internal organs were being damaged, which increased chances of incapacitation and kill 2) the trade-off in "accuracy" was replaced with quicker hits on target at follow-up shots, and 3) it fit well with the Instinctive Shooting method they were using at the time.
> 
> The first is the most important, imo.
> 
> ...



It's worth pointing out here that at that time, the available ammo was pretty much limited to what we would call (today) "crappy hardball target ammo" and that modern defensive ammo is quite different.
It was also though, at that time, that cavitation from the shot added to the damage and that spreading out the shots led to larger cavitation injury. This is not true, however, when talking about handguns.
I train, and I encourage others I work with to train, to put all my shots in an 8-9" circle, as rapidly as possible.


----------



## Hudson69 (Apr 24, 2016)

Well to add my .02¢ into this.  Accuracy is most important with speed being a bonus.  As far as caliber goes, who cares. If you want a cannon that will load 7 (+1) of 50 AE or 6 of 500 mag then carry a cannon.  If you just want something that hides great and is super light but only carries 5 rounds of .22LR and that works for you.... good. Whatever you are going to carry just train with it, work to make it work for you.  Don't just carry it because its either the biggest or smallest thing around, or because it has some other trait that speaks to you, train to best operator (of said firearm) you can be.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 24, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Utter nonsense. If you're justified in shooting them, your specific target is irrelevant. If you've been taught this, find another teacher.



We were taught by the MOD basically (and I'm simplifying), 'shoot what you can see'.


----------

