Understanding and Applying Automaticity<\/p>
In the defensive scenario<\/p> "},"content":{"rendered":"\n
By Kjell Rosenberg, MD, Rangemaster and NRA instructor<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here is a concept which needs to be understood and discussed: Automaticity. One expert, John Hearne, considers it one of the most important features of a fighter. It weighs in strongly in his model of what tips the scales in the equation of combat outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another shooting legend, Gabe White, created a model that showed how performance in certain categories indicates lack of, some, nearly complete, or positive indication of automaticity. Some of the variables include competitive classes which I no longer do. But! One of the scales is the casino drill (Created by Tom Givens) –which is a new favorite of mine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The standards when shooting a clean casino drill are as follows:
Over 27 seconds: pretty much no automaticity present.
21-27: partial automaticity is present
15-21: you\u2019ve probably got it.
Under 15: impossible to perform this well without it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Look at the skill levels now in lay mans terms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Over 27 unskilled
21-27: some skill
15-21: adequate skill
Under 15: highly skilled <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now consider this concept of automaticity and what it means in the context of decision making, target differentiation, trying to stop a trigger press that\u2019s already been initiated -even if the length of trigger pull is somewhat longer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In my opinion automaticity is great. It\u2019s what allows humans to shoot sub 1 second shots from the holster with sub 0.25 splits. The average <\/em>person cannot shoot a controlled pair in 0.2 seconds because your mind can\u2019t Observe, Orient, Decide, and ACT (OODA) on a second sight picture that fast. By definition pretty much <\/em>any split under .25sec is a double tap. I know several shooters who can make accurate 0.2 sec splits, because they are great at managing recoil and they know that their muzzle will align with the (stationary) target again in very close to the same spot. As Chris Cerino says, \u201cIt\u2019s a piece of paper, glued to cardboard, stapled to a stick.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But, I wonder if achieving that degree of habitual<\/em>speed is necessary and if it might be potentially<\/em>detrimental in real life. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This is why: The caveat to that is: Can a bad guy actually move in less than 0.3 seconds? Possibly. I\u2019ll touch on this with practical data later in the article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I propose that for civilians (sworn officers included) where a miss is an inappropriate hit: While the primary researcher did not return my attempts to contact, Greg Ellifritz indicated that LAPD METRO have a very high rate (compared to other departments) of hits at 85% in actual shootings. This is a similar generalized qualification rate in LE agencies across the country. However, I am told by Tom Givens that the real life hit rate averaged across the country is closer to 20%. That statistic correlates with this study by the NYPD that shows an 18% hit rate when subjects are not shooting back. The rate increases slightly as distance decreases but stays inadequately low. (study found in link below)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
-Am I sure my target is still where I left it? Because I cannot physiologically OODA on the next site picture, I am essentially removing the OO&D from the loop and just acting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Getting a true sight picture and responding with a follow up shot in 0.3 to 0.35 seconds may be a better skill on the street<\/em>than the ability to control recoil enough to double tap a stationary target. <\/p>\n\n\n\n