Fallacy of Rule of 3's Training (Take Heed)

This is not my article.  It was sent to me, but I don't know where it came from.  If anyone knows please let me know so I can give credit where credit is due.  I've recently heard this "Rule of Threes" training, and I agree with the author of this article.

Not sure of the author but this post came from

reddotrange.com   Red dot training range in New Castle, PA

  You’ve probably heard the phrase: “The average defensive shooting is three rounds, at three yards, in three seconds.” It’s repeated so often that it’s treated like gospel in certain circles, usually to justify lazy training, underdeveloped skills, and resistance to progression.

 

While I’m not sure of the origin of the quote, specifically who to attribute it to, I can tell you that person is probably an idiot. Anyone giving definitive advice on self-defense by quoting a statistical average like it’s predictive is either missing the point or deliberately lowering the standard.

 

Let’s be clear: training around the average outcome is a fundamentally flawed approach when it comes to a task as dynamic and unpredictable as armed self-defense. “Average” does not equal “normal,” and it certainly doesn’t mean “sufficient.” If you build your entire skill set around a midline statistic, you are gambling that your future life-or-death scenario will be mild and convenient. That’s not risk management. That’s willful negligence.

 

Here’s why the “Rule of Threes” fails both logically and technically:

 

First, it’s not grounded in serious data. The origin of the “3-3-3” rule is often attributed to outdated summaries or cherry-picked data from limited law enforcement incident reports decades ago, many of which didn’t account for civilian defensive shootings, multiple attacker incidents, or cases that didn’t result in a full investigation. Worse, it compresses a massive range of possible encounters into one neat little phrase. It’s a misleading average, not a representative breakdown.

 

Second, it’s statistically illiterate. Averaging highly variable events and then using that number to dictate training priorities is idiotic. Imagine if you built a fire department’s training program around the “average” house fire. Would you ignore multi-story buildings? Basements? Wildfires? Of course not. You’d train for edge cases, worst-case scenarios, and high-complexity problems, because that’s what preparation looks like.

 

Third, it ignores distance variability. Defensive shootings don’t all happen at three yards. While some do occur at contact distances, many involve threats beyond ten yards, and a non-trivial number occur past twenty-five. Carjackings, active killers, church or school shootings, parking lot ambushes, and third-party defense situations don’t conform to three-yard templates. If your training plan doesn’t include being accountable at 10, 15, or 25 yards, then you’re not training to be a defender. You’re training to feel good in an echo chamber.

 

Fourth, it denies the reality of misses under stress. The “three rounds” idea assumes either a 100% hit rate or an opponent that falls down instantly. Neither is guaranteed. Under duress, shooting performance drops dramatically: cognitive degradation, narrowed focus, elevated heart rate, degraded fine motor control. Real-world footage shows multiple misses, multiple hits, and still-moving threats. Training to fire only “three rounds” sets an artificial mental threshold that could stall you when real resistance shows up.

 

Fifth, it fails to account for attacker resilience. Motivated attackers may be on drugs, wearing armor, or simply unwilling to stop. A single assailant can soak up multiple hits. Or there might be more than one. Limiting your mindset to three rounds assumes you’ll only ever face one compliant threat with no cover, no armor, and no forward drive. That’s fantasy. In a high-stakes scenario, your job isn’t to meet the minimum, it’s to overwhelm the problem decisively.

 

Sixth, the “three seconds” figure is both arbitrary and misleading. Violence doesn’t operate on timers. If you need to draw from concealment, break contact, seek cover, or protect a third party, your timeline could expand or contract rapidly. Assuming you’ll have “three seconds” of clean, uninterrupted control is nothing more than projection. Worse, when people believe this myth, they fail to train decision-making under time pressure. They don’t practice movement. They don’t rehearse complex threat assessment under stress. That’s how people freeze or fumble.

 

Finally, the “Rule of Threes” encourages training to a minimalist standard. It’s the weaponized version of “good enough,” and it pushes people toward mediocrity. It creates shooters who never leave the three-yard line, never push cadence or accuracy, and never stress-test themselves at distance or under duress. That kind of training may feel comfortable, but it isn’t preparing you for reality.

 

The mission of defensive firearms training should be preparedness, not statistical mimicry. You’re not trying to pass a math test; you’re trying to win a potentially lethal encounter where failure has permanent consequences. And if that’s the standard, then any mindset that leads you to prepare for the average, rather than training to handle the worst, is doing you a disservice.