You’re not ready to defend yourself with a firearm. It’s a bold statement I know, but unfortunately it’s true for the vast majority of self defense shooters. This happens because of poor, unrealistic training, which gives the average shooter a poor understanding of the kind of shooting ability that is required to be proficient with a handgun. Don’t believe me, try out standards and see for yourself.
You might be asking yourself why should I bother, there are many qualification standards, and many of them are quite good, however often times they are geared towards training shooters, like Army Special Forces, SWAT officers, and combat personnel.
These standards are great, but they are not ideally designed for someone who carries a gun for self defense purposes. Sure, there is some carry over, but I like to compare it to driving a car and driving a dump truck. They are both vehicles, and they both have to obey the rules of the road, but they require much different skill sets.
The Origin of the Pistol Standards
When I was designing these standards, I wanted to create something that was above all realistic. This means they had to accurately replicate the types of encounters one might realistically be faced with in a self defense situation.
To do this I looked at the research and statistics behind ballistic wounding, defensive gun use, and video analysis of real world engagements. This lead me to produce what I consider a much more realistic requirement to defend yourself, and your loved ones.
Before we get into the drills and standards themselves, we need to first discuss who they are appropriate for.
Master the Basics
Before anyone should attempt these they need to master the basics. If you’re told to load your pistol, and you have to think about the steps to do this, then you are probably not ready to attempt these standards.
You should be able to perform basic weapon manipulations including: loading, unloading, and malfunction drills without thinking through these processes step by step.
It’s fine if you aren’t there yet, but you should seek out competent instruction and work diligently on these areas before you move onto more advanced requirements. Remember, if you are learning how to fight you have to learn how to throw a punch first.
It’s also important to look badass while defending yourself. Check out the Tier Three Store for all your badass needs.
The Pistol Standards Background
There are several key assumptions that have driven us to pick these standards. First our analysis of real world pistol accuracy indicates that for the last 100 years most shooters are approximately 30% as accurate in a real gunfight as compared to target shooting.
This has remained stable despite our best efforts to improve. There is some research that shows that force on force training can improve this however.
Secondly, we know that the average male has a chest that is roughly 18 inches in width, and even a cursory knowledge of human anatomy reveals that the most important structures (heart, lungs, spinal column) that keep you alive, are centered in the chest cavity.
Since there is a known accuracy drop off in real world engagements, we must tighten our pistol standards to reflect this. This is why I recommend shooting on a standard IPSC style target, which has a 6 inch wide “A” zone.
If we keep our shots within the A zone, then even with our accuracy degradation we should still be on the torso for an average sized male. Will the hits be optimal? No, but people don’t just drop dead because they are shot through the heart, as it takes time to exsanguinate into your chest cavity. Most often they stop their aggressive actions because they are afraid of incurring more injuries and dying.
Now that we know some of the background behind the standards let’s get to the shooting part!
If you like awesome shooting articles, click here to join the Tier Three Team. You’ll get the latest articles with a no BS guarantee. You can also put your best email in on the right if that’s your malfunction.
The Pistol Standards
There are five drills which are solid realistic standards for self defense shooters. As such you will notice that there are no 25 yard headshots, and there are no slow fire stages.
There are basic, intermediate, and advanced times listed for each drill and those are there for a very specific reason. Research has shown that pulling your gun quickly, upon observing a threat, is a great way to get killed. The vast majority of successful engagements occur when we obscure and delay our draw to the most advantageous time, i.e, when the bad guys aren’t looking.
The times are included to make sure that there is a high rate of fire, and good recoil management. Placing more rounds in vital areas will give you a better chance of walking away from the engagement.
Three in Three
This drill is designed to mimic the average self defense gun use. Hence the range is 3 yards and there is one target. Only hits in the “A” zone count, and each drill is pass fail. You need to pass all five to pass the standard.
One Handed
This drill is designed to test your ability to control a pistol with one hand. You can use strong or weak hand, but the drill does not specify, so feel free to shoot with just strong hand.
This is a standard because approximately 43% of self defense gun uses were one handed. Often times the other hand is engaged with the target requiring us to fire one handed, strong hand.
Turn and Fire
This drill requires a 180 degree turn from up range to down range, and engage the target. This is included because almost half of self defense gun uses involved an attack from the rear or flanks.
You’ll notice that the times are the same as without movement. This is because you can draw as you turn and acquire the target.
Three Moving Left, and Right
This drill highlights the fact that shooting and moving is one of the best methods to reduce the likelihood that you will be hit during the engagement. The best method is seeking cover, but you still need to move to get there. Moving and shooting matters.
Transitions
This is the only drill that is further than 3yds, and is a whopping 5 yards! This is because 5yds is about the furthest a self defense engagement normally occurs.
There are two targets because roughly 66% of engagements have more than one bad guy. Often times in a commercial robbery there is a gun man and a bag man. It’s often the same for interpersonal robbery as well.
Discussion
Now I’m sure some of you, looking at you Randy, are saying, “Jake, why are these standards so close and easy, doesn’t accuracy and shot placement count.” Yes it does, but remember a test, or a standard is designed to validate that you have a certain level of skill.
It is not designed to help you train for higher levels of skill. Thats what training and practice are for. With this self defense pistol standard, we are saying that if you pass all five drills then you can feel confident that you have the skills to defend yourself. It doesn’t mean never seek further improvement!
I will also point out that the time constraints are pretty tight, so you will need to shoot quickly. You should also recall that your target zone is pretty small, as the “A” zone is only 6×11 inches.
I would encourage each of you to shoot this standard and let us know how you faired. Feel free to post your times and thoughts in the comments. Now get to the range!
Jake, You have developed a good basic starting standard for any CCW. Once proficient with the timed standards, I would suggest incorporating a visual start stimulus. As we know, a real-life defensive response doesn’t usually start with beep. There may be some significant auditory stimulus, but more than likely it is some type of visual stimulus that initiates a defensive response. Dustin Salomon, in one of his Building Shooters blog articles, recommends using different colored rags introduced into the visual field as a start signal. Different colors could indicate shoot, no shoot, or a not yet shoot situation. This would introduce some important decision making into basic standards training.
Very thoughtful comment Alan. I agree whole heartedly. I’ve actually toyed with the idea of having some standards for a shoot no shoot simulator as I think that the decision to shoot is at least as important as the physical act of doing so. This might be a good way to incorporate the two.
Jake,
In my previous post I mentioned Dustin Salomon’s, “Building Shooters.” Have you had the opportunity to read his book or look over the articles on his blog? Dustin’s focus is changing the poor training models used in institutional settings (law enforcement at all levels) and the poor operational performance that results from faulty training models. Of course, this also applies to civilian firearms training models. I think you will find his thinking “out of the box” but for those (including myself) who have used his neuro-learning model, have found it to be very effective.
We have been having a conversation about minimal standards (I referenced the training model you proposed) and the problem of 99% of CCW holders that won’t avail themselves of further training. One of his responses concerning “standards” was instructive: “Does putting out a “standard” that’s intended for people to use based on the assumption that they don’t and won’t ever develop adequate functional proficiency help anyone? Or does it serve to lock the civilian world in law enforcement’s tried and failed standards box?”
I would be interested in your experience and thoughts.
Alan
I haven’t looked into it, but I will. I hear you on the not seeking further training. I would say it’s also very common on the police side as well. We often spend so much time simply “carrying” that we feel that is a substitute for firearms proficiency. To be honest standards for most law enforcement agencies are simply tools to mitigate law suits as in, “see we trained this officer so he should know how to shoot.” I have never really felt that most of those were particularly useful in gauging real world shooting ability, hence these standards.
The goal with these is to give some useful benchmarks for those that take their CCW seriously. Honestly I don’t think there’s much anyone can do if someone has no desire to continue learning and training, but this could be a tool to point out that more effort is needed for those on the cusp between “i’m good,” and “i need some more work.”
Thanks for the conversation. I agree that the primary reason for law enforcement qualifications are liability issues (which, unfortunately, has application to civilian defensive gun use also). Mandated qualifications, low proficiency, training apathy, etc. all contribute to the 30% hit rate. And as you mentioned, just “carrying” does not make one “proficient. We might call this a carry-proficiency bias; the Dunning-Kruger effect in practice and applies across the board.
Maybe our terminology gets in the way of what we would like to achieve. I would call drills that test skills/performance as benchmarks that tells me where I am at and where I can improve. But of course, I am in the 1%. Those who think they are “good enough” really don’t know what they don’t know (D-K effect). For those on the cusp between “I’m good” and “I need some work,” it will take individual encouragement (or maybe embarrassment) to get them to see the light. For example, take someone who carries, but doesn’t train, to the range and let them do the course of fire you propose (providing you can find a range that will allow said drills). If they are not proficient (it should be obvious), then offer to be a mentor to help them improve (if you have the skill-sets) or point them in the right direction for additional training. Not all skill-sets involve accurate shooting (an important skill) as any novice can shoot you in the head. Starting with foundational safe gun handling skills (load/unload, safe storage, decision making, mindset/awareness, etc.) that will do more for the average carrier in decreasing negative outcomes and help mitigate the public bias against gun owners, than all the high-speed shooting classes. Check out Salomon’s, Building Mentors for an excellent training model.
I’ll be happy to continue the conversation.
I became aware of these “Standards” by way of Active Response website, and decided to give it a shot(pun intended) after the holidays. I have access to an agency indoor range, and shot it there, range illuminated. GLOCK Model45, Winchester 147 jhp, out of a Safariland ALS holster concealed under fleece vest.
Results: 2.11, 2.23,2.40,2.24,2.17 and 3.59 for the six rounds(w/1”C”).
So, technically a fail, but it is instructive for me in that I need to work a little more on concealed draws.
I appreciate the thought that went into it. IMHO, many CCW licensees could not break into “Basic”, and should definitely work regularly.
Thats a really good score. I bet if you ran it again it you’d be able to clean up that one flier. I agree that most folks probably would have trouble passing it, but it does give folks something to shoot for. Let us know if you run it again.
Thanks for the positive words. I did indeed run it again, but different gun/carry: GLOCK 43, out of a pocket holster, starting gun hand in pocket:
1.84,2.40,2.36,2.26,2.21,3.76 and all”As”! Intermediate to Advanced times, which I am grateful for. I occasionally pocket carry-find it useful at times, like when pumping gas in a sketchy area.
If one doesn’t train as one carries(even different carry methods) you’re cheating yourself. Thanks again
Very interesting that you were able to improve with a smaller pistol from pocket carry. Just shows you that everyone has some platforms that work well for them. Good times btw.
If I can get range time over the next few days, I may try it with a full size pistol and a holster with no retention. There are a number of variables, from grip size, to holster type/location, to mode of concealment, etc. that come into play. I in some situations use ankle carry. Using a timer, I can say I can deliver ONE shot in 3 seconds to a target @5yards. Is that “bad”?-IMO, just reality-and it means I need to consider other factors (be alert, have a plan,etc.)
Bottom line: practice and test oneself with your gear-holster(s), purse, “fanny pack”, whatever, and be realistic about your abilities/situations.
Again, I appreciate your work and putting this out.
Another run, as I am liking this for simplicity and realism; a chance to work concealed. G26 out of a Tenicor ARX, under a fleece vest.
2.14,2.85,2.38,2.39/2.27,4.11@5yards
W/“C” just high. A little work to do(always).
Thanks for the work getting this out.
No problem. I really appreciate you reporting your times as I was a little worried that this might be a bit too hard with sub compact firearms.
Some more data, this with a GLOCK Model45MOS w/red dot Holosun. Concealed under vest, out of a JMCK IWB holster.
1.99, 2.64, 2.35(turn), 2.33(move right),2.20(left). 3.95 for two targets @5y. Clean on all shots.
Might want to think about times and distance for long guns.
Thanks
Yeah I’ve been thinking about some standards for rifles. Looks like you’re getting pretty good at the qual. Nice work !
Appreciated the fact that the layout on my screen allowed me to highlight and then print the selection without doing any other actions. Now I can take it to the range and we can shoot what we set up easily.
Thanks