What do YOU think is "good enough" pistol skills for an armed citizen ?

[TonyF]

From the holster.

5 singles @ 7m. 1 second per shot. All POI's inside a 2 inch square.

4 pairs @ 7m. 1.5 seconds per pair. POI is CoM on an option target.

3 pairs @ 10m. 2 seconds per pair. POI is CoM on an option target.

3 singles @ 15m. 2 seconds per shot. POI is CoM on an option target.

3 singles @ 25m. 2.5 seconds per shot. POI is CoM on an option target.

3 pairs @ 25m, standing to kneeling. 3.5 seconds per pair. POI is CoM on an option target.

2 series of "shoot 2 - speed reload - shoot 2" @ 10m. 5 seconds per series. POI is CoM on an option target.

[arjohnson]

Safety, one must be able to safely handle their firearm around themselves and others.

As for accuracy, one should be able to keep all their shoots COM at 5-7yds. Most all defensive shootings will be inside this range.

I'd like to know what the % is of people who carry a firearm carry 24/7, I'm willing to bet it's not many. Most people who do carry cannot carry 24/7 and it has to do with what they do for a living, so maybe more people should concentrate on some type of martial arts training because chances are that you may need to use your fist before your gun in a self-defense situation.

[YosemiteSam]

Just a couple of stats for the conversation.

http://www.guncite.com/kleck3ab.html

[Connal]

I don't think anything is "good enough" unless it works. And, with luck, many of us will never need to try them.

However, that being said, I can't give ideas on time to draw, and react. I would say being able to hit center of mass at 15 yards. Maybe a grouping of 6 inches. At that range, it will be more than adequate for most people. I personally am not happy with adequate, and strive for above average.

Once at a group shoot, I was shown how to fire and move, by the OP as a matter of fact. Since then, I have always practiced that when I get a chance, rather than just accuracy from a draw.

I also work on speed of my draw, many times finishing with a dry fire and back into the holster.

I just wish I had actual numbers to try and pin it down more.

[TonyF]

Bear in mind that "standards" have little relevance in the real world due to the vagaries and fluid dynamics present in a gunfight.

They are "academic / in a vacuum" yardsticks to measure progress and test skill level.

Even if you achieved the ability to exceed any of the standards posted thus far, it doesn't necessarily correlate to prevailing in a gunfight. Lots of other variables are far more important.

But to Shawn's point, "what is good enough?", there are many standards in the form of qual courses of fire that range anywhere from "relatively" difficult to those that are "very" difficult without an enormous amount of time, dedication, effort and lots of ammo expended.

[Gun]

... to not get shot, stabbed, punched, or kicked.

[ErSwnn]

To my thinking one should not only know how to safely handle a firearm, but know their own particular firearm well. How it functions, what to expect from it, how to deal with a malfunction. Practice, practice, practice.

Naturally being able to hit a COM target within acceptable SD distances.

A reasonable grasp of laws pertaining to carry and SD uses of a firearm.

Mindset.

[ar15jules]

Bear in mind that "standards" have little relevance in the real world due to the vagaries and fluid dynamics present in a gunfight.

They are "academic / in a vacuum" yardsticks to measure progress and test skill level.

Even if you achieved the ability to exceed any of the standards posted thus far, it doesn't necessarily correlate to prevailing in a gunfight. Lots of other variables are far more important.

But to Shawn's point, "what is good enough?", there are many standards in the form of qual courses of fire that range anywhere from "relatively" difficult to those that are "very" difficult without an enormous amount of time, dedication, effort and lots of ammo expended.

I could not agree more.
Jules

[PeteG]

I find this to be a very useful question, in a number of contexts.

This is going to be a long one!

I have never come up with what I consider to be a definitive or comprehensive answer. The question is nevertheless useful because it forces people to think hard about what they are doing in owning, carrying or training to use a gun. I leads one to question, “what’s all this about?”

We have one or two political responses. If all one intends is to possess a firearm to vindicate his right to do so, then mere possession is “good enough.”

We have responses which say, in effect, “good enough to protect myself.” That states the objective, but not identify or quantify the skill necessary to accomplish the objective. It begs the question.

I have heard that if one survived the fight, they were “good enough” by definition. Very macho, but fatuous. People survive fights for reasons ranging from superlative skills and determination to having their incompetent butt saved by someone else to the complete incompetence of their opponent to plain dumb luck. Mere survival does not necessarily even involve skill, much less define or measure it.

Some people have answered the question by reference to a timed drill or test. But then, like my friend Tony, turn around and say, “but that might not be good enough depending on the circumstances.” Quite right.

So, right off the bat, we have to either limit our answer to a very specific factual context (describe the attack, the attacker, distances, weapons, who initiates and how, and everything else that is going on at the time), or start making assumptions and predicting “odds” of what we might actually confront.

When we make training choices, this is exactly what we do. We have to recognize answer to when we are “good enough” is a soft estimate, dependent upon probabilities.

An even more difficult problem in answering “what is good enough” is defining, and then measuring, “good.” If “good” means the skills and characteristics necessary to post a competent response under the range of hypothetical circumstances in which we estimate we are most likely to be called upon to post a competent response (enough qualifiers in there for you?), then what are those skills and characteristics and how are they measured?

This leads some to focus upon those skills that can easily be measured with a rule and a stop-watch. In my view, this leads to artificial inflation of the importance of those easily measured skills over other, equally necessary skills. To say that if marksmanship is good enough to hit within x inches at y distance within a set number of seconds they are “good enough” is not necessarily true. They are good enough speed and accuracy, but then what about mind set? Where is the scoring ring for coolness, alertness or discretion? What gizmo measures heart?

This certainly reflects some value judgments on my part. I believe that being cool, alert, determined, decisive, having the ability to exercise discretion between aggression and restraint, balance, tactical sense, etc. are much more important to the objective of posting a competent response in an emergency than speed and accuracy.

While I do think the (probable) winner in a gun fight (assuming that is the kind of fight in which we find ourselves) will be the first person to get a good hit, I also believe the first person to get a good hit will (probably) be the first person to realize he is in a fight and make a good decision. Being first to realize he has a problem, and the first to make a good decision, can offer an advantage of two minutes rather than .2 seconds. Working a month to bring one’s presentation time down from 1.2 seconds to .8 seconds is wasted if one takes three seconds to make a good decision.

I am not suggesting that speed and accuracy are not important. I am saying that just because they are easy to see and measure does not mean their importance should be elevated. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

We can limit the question to “how much speed and accuracy is enough?” At least then we are talking about specific skills.

But the answer still depends upon predicting the skill level of our “probable” attacker. We have to make sure we are faster and more accurate than that, all other factors being equal, which they never are. And here we are back in never-never land.

We can reliably predict we will not carry rifles around all day (except the survivalists, who expect to start carrying rifles any day now), and if we don’t have a gun with us we won’t use it. My thanks to many for those astute observations. Now, tell me if I can expect strong-armed assaults on the South Side and knife attacks in Monroeville, or the other way around? Tell me how fast will the bad guy be, so I can predict how fast I have to be to beat him, assuming we both start at the same instant, which we won’t.

Some of us feel we are never “good enough.” But that, too, begs the question. We have limited training time, and are therefore forced on any given day to accept something less than “as good as we can be” (whatever that is). The functional, practical question still stands.

For myself, I answer the question whether my pistol skills are “good enough” by comparing one part of my personal skill set to the other parts of my personal skill set, with due regard for what I think other people (my potential attackers) can actually pull off in a fight. I look at what I can do in one area (e.g., how fast I can smoothly get the gun on target) and work on that if I think it is my current weak link. Otherwise, I take a look at something else (e.g., my turns). It is relative, it is subjective and it is ambiguous, and it is hard to do without somebody’s help

For those who lose bowel control when confronted with ambiguity, I will share that my own “numbers-based” criteria for speed and accuracy, with a hand gun, is a controlled first hit under 1.5 seconds on 10 inches at 7 yards when stationary. If I fall below that level, I work on it.

Some will sniff; “not terrific.” Okay. I’m not interested in “terrific” (or, at least, not interested enough to devote all my time and effort to impressing anyone with my blazing speed). The question is “good enough.” That level of accuracy at that trange at that speed is good enough, in my estimation, to get the job done in any situation where presentation time and accuracy matter, and is the point at which I am comfortable devoting my training time to other aspects of the process.

[gnbrotz]

I think good enough is being able to hit what you are shooting at, even under presure, without hitting anything else.

So a standard higher than police are required to meet?

Shawn, can you please clarify "good enough" for what? To not be criticized if force is employed, etc? My answer depends on the "what for" part of the question, and I'm unclear on that.