PDA

View Full Version : Shooting at multiple opponents


Doug.38PR
March 15, 2006, 11:01 AM
With all the storys out there about how "one or two shots didn't drop the bad guy", what would be the best tactic to shooting at say three opponents attacking you?

1) Double Tapping each of them?
2) Single shooting each of them enterchangably?
3) Starting with one and keep shooting until he drops?
4) Other suggestion

HangFire83
March 15, 2006, 11:56 AM
I would shoot the first/closest threat until he went down, drop the mag, empty or not, put in a new mag, and proceed to the next threat. Rinse wash and repeat if necessary.

threegun
March 15, 2006, 12:03 PM
Are they armed and with what?

garryc
March 15, 2006, 12:18 PM
All else being equal, the guy in the middle gets it first because he's probably the leader and taking him out might dis-orient the others. his right, your left, would be next
All not being equal, shotgun first, rifle second, handgun last, knife inside 21ft.
As to how many shots per scum bag, you shouldn't even be asking that question because your training should be an automatic TAC-TAC. You won't have time to ponder such a question and your automatic reflexes, built by training, should kick in.

swmike
March 15, 2006, 12:18 PM
If all armed equally, closest first. Shoot til down. Engage next closest. If all are armed differently, most lethal first. For example, three BG's, one with knife, one with shotgun, one with pistol. My sequence would be shotgun, pistol, knife.

All this being said, real life will be totally different. Probably will engage the first to cross my sights and then to the next in the arc as I swing to engage.

threegun
March 15, 2006, 12:31 PM
Pull out the 2-2-2 drill, blow the smoke from the barrel, and reholster LOL.

Shotgun,rifle,handgun, if armed with a firearm. If all handguns the closest to farthest. edged weapons and bats also closest to farthest. Double taps for all then re-tap anything still a threat. That is the plan. If the charging rhino doesn't fall or stop after the DT the priority is to end the closest threat or the deadliest threat.

Tim Burke
March 15, 2006, 02:01 PM
If you are facing 3 armed guys and you aren't an IPSC Grandmaster, then I'd recommend that you shoot on the move. Even if there is no cover, a moving target is harder to hit. Maybe you can line up the 3 of them, so that only the one in front can engage you; it is always theoretically possible to line up 2 of them.
If you are thinking about the shooting order, you are probably not shooting as fast as you can... or as fast as you need to be.

choochboost
March 15, 2006, 02:37 PM
Double tap each of them as fast as I can. There's no way, I'm going to keep shooting at one guy until he goes down and allow the other two to enjoy the fact that there are no rounds yet coming at them. I want all three of them to sense danger ASAP. Their forward movement will likely stop as they'll be more concerned about ducking for cover. After the three-way double tap, the next guy who gets it is the one still posing the biggest threat.

Hard Ball
March 15, 2006, 02:49 PM
A properly done series of "double taps" is almost as fast as a sinle shot on each target. The double tap is far more likely to put an attacker down than a single hit so fire double taps as fast as you can.

bclark1
March 15, 2006, 03:09 PM
if you can identify an instigator or leader you're most likely to end the situation getting rid of him. if someone had been doing most of the talking or clearly made themselves out to be a leader, and you're not in imminent danger from one of the others, you're best served in cutting the head off the snake. of course to justify lethal force, that means he must have already escalated it, in which case the cronies are probably moving too. so, as with everything, being able to assess and address a variety of situations realtime is more important than a conditioned response. do a little of everything when you train, if you think there's any situation where you might really need to do it.

stephen426
March 15, 2006, 03:33 PM
Just carry a Glock 18 and mow them all down! :eek: :D :p

If there are multiple opponents who are armed with firearms, I would have to be very convinced that they are going to shoot me before I even pull my gun. Even with only one person having a gun trained on you is a major threat. You have to draw, aim, and fire while your threat only has to pull the trigger. Now you have to think about multiple opponents having weapons. Needless to say, unless lead is already flying or definately about to fly, leave your weapon holstered. Material possesions can be replaced... you cannot.

Now if you are talking about contact weapons, I say shoot the closest person. Hopefully the other bad guys think better of it and split while they can. If only one person has a firearm, I would take him out if I thought I could. If you get caught in the crossfire of a gang fight, the best thing to do is go for cover and not draw attention to yourself. It is better than having both sides shooting at you!

The British Soldier
March 15, 2006, 03:43 PM
if you can identify an instigator or leader you're most likely to end the situation getting rid of him. if someone had been doing most of the talking or clearly made themselves out to be a leader, and you're not in imminent danger from one of the others, you're best served in cutting the head off the snake. of course to justify lethal force, that means he must have already escalated it, in which case the cronies are probably moving too.

Intelligent advice; well met bclarke1. This piece of timeless wisdom originated with Blair Mayne, a British SAS Major in WW2 who offered the advice to a colleague regarding entering a room full of enemy;

"Kill the first one who moves or talks - he has started to think and is, therefore, dangerous!"

By contrast...

I would shoot the first/closest threat until he went down, drop the mag, empty or not, put in a new mag, and proceed to the next threat. Rinse wash and repeat if necessary.

How many magazines do you carry? A Bandolier full?

atlctyslkr
March 15, 2006, 03:49 PM
I'm with Mr. Burke there. I think the haul a$$ approach may be your best bet. I generally try think logistically when I'm in parking lots, gas stations ect and look for things that could help me out and buy me time like vehicles, dumpsters, stand alot ATM's ect. I wouldn't even try to take out three armed people. I'd use my ammunition to buy me time on the path of my escape route. Unless these people are out for me specifically I doubt they will give chase. Sometimes retreating may be the best bet. Property can be replaced but people can't. Also if I had family with me I'd be concerned about getting them and others out and less about being Wyatt Earp.

threegun
March 15, 2006, 04:05 PM
Atl, Wise advise but the question was how to engage multiple opponents. I would run if possible myself but once that possibility has gone byebye how would you handle three opponents to best keep you alive?

atlctyslkr
March 15, 2006, 04:16 PM
If backed into a corner as you allude to I would shoot the closest first. The closest person threatening me has the greatest chance of harming me but I have a better chance of hitting them and stopping that attacker. Then I would move on to the next one. I would still be looking for cover, alternatives, ect the entire time. Some other issues in the post reference each attacker having different arms (knives, shotgun, handgun ect). That's a whole different set of variables. I have to hope that if that ever happens I'll be able to caclulate the right choice in the split second I'll have to do it. There are numerous things that could go wrong for me but one thing I always think about is the fact that things can go wrong on the other side too. Criminals have their guns jam, misfire, lock up ect just like us.

I've talked to many LEP in my time and I've heard on several occasions that many criminals that use firearms in their crime have never used the firearm they are carrying (they got it from a buddy, stole it ect) and are not well versed with it like you and I are. Also I was told that many have NEVER FIRED ONE AT ALL and hope that the sight of it will do the job. I don't know about you but I wouldn't put my life on the line with something I'd never tried. I know this is a long winded response and it's kind of a compliation of things I think about when I'm out and about.

Runsalone
March 15, 2006, 04:27 PM
Three guys intent on Killing you are probably gonna do just that. Very doubtful theyed give you the opportunity to do anything about it in the first place. You would be walking along and the lights would go out, and if your lucky youd wake up In the E.R. missing wallet, watch, CHILDREN, WIFE...etc.

The way to deal with three attackers is to NOT get into that situation in the first place.

Handguns are not the SOLUTION they are a last ditch resort when Plan A,B, and C all fail.

Self defence should be a social art first, a handgun is a FIRST thought for those not willing to develop that skill.

All that being said ......three on one in a gunfight, and possible just if there armed with anything, is an assasination of the one guy. If it HAS come down to that your probably going to get shot/cut/hit/stabbed. The BEST POSSIBLE outcome is to survive..TO LIVE THROUGH IT.

If there is a guy with a gun he WILL shoot you before you can shoot him. Unless youre a ninja. If theres a guy with a knife close enough, its HIGHLY POSSIBLE he will cut you before you can shoot him-or during shooting him.

The best bet, and I say best loosley, is to fire on the guy who is most able to cause you immediate damage, despite the results-shot -cut-hit. Then haul a$$ as best as you can hobble with your new bullet/knife/blunt trauma wound to the nearest saftey.

Keep fighting and running. Until for whatever reason you can no longer.



Kinda makes just paying attention sound a little more worthwhile dont it?



Im really not trying to rant or flame, maybe I just needed to get this out of my system. I understand thinking about scenarios, but sometimes if youre gonna carry, you have to really wake up and look at it.

threegun
March 15, 2006, 04:36 PM
Atl, I once tried (just for fun guys) to shoot gangsta style with the gun canted sideways. I couldn't hit snot with it. While we are usually forced to respond to danger (meaning the badguy made the first move) and thus already at a disadvantage, once the shooting starts we regain the advantage again because of our training. The badguys as you stated usually have little or none.

With my luck the badguy who attacks me will be none other than Rod leatham Jr LOL.

Runsalone
March 15, 2006, 04:49 PM
and thus already at a disadvantage, once the shooting starts we regain the advantage again because of our training. The badguys as you stated usually have little or none.


Underestimating someone who is trying to kill you would seem a mistake no? You HAVE to be skilled in order to hopefully survive, all the BG has to be is lucky, and as was stated they already have the drop.

Predetors have something we dont, the apptitude to prey. On people. Added to an already present disregard for Law and right. A bad enough BG will have this down to an art, you will be needing a lucky break to survive an encounter like the one described, and unfortunately the attackers wont be handing them out.

CabinJohn
March 15, 2006, 05:26 PM
As two of my instructors have said, "its just like Thanksgiving - everyone gets one helping [one shot] then go back for seconds as needed". Yes, double taps are almost as fast as single shots, but the key word here is "almost". Shootings are often won or lost in fractions of a second. It may be only a fraction of a second difference between three single shots and three double taps, but that fraction may mean the difference between winning (survival) and losing.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 15, 2006, 07:06 PM
One thing that always interests me in these scenarios is someone saying that you should shoot the person with the most lethal weapon first or the closest person first.

In matches, you get some knowledge of the appropriate tactical order unless you are shooting a blind stage.

But in the real world, I know that trying to analyze the weaponery or nuances of position will take a bit of time. I would estimate about a 1/4 to 1/2 second given standard object recognition and decision times. That's a lot of time to get shot.

I might suggest that you need to get off the X as James Yeager is fond of saying. Farnham says the same - start doing stuff.

I would suggest that you need to move as Tim said and put a round in each person. Forget thinking about the weapons type. You don't need to be doing fine distinctions of type and distance.

If the person is so far away that you can easily judge this, then you might not shoot him or her. But the difference between 5 and 8 yards, for example - so what. If one person has a 1911 and the other a shotgun, so what - both are going to shoot you unless you act, rather than putzing around in your visual cortex parvocellular object recognition stream. Use your magnocelluar stream to send a round quickly into the big blob and then the next big blob, etc.

At the NTI, I had the unfortunate luck to run into four guys - one with a fully auto airsoft gun, one sims shotgun and 2 sims handguns. I had a J frame. I fired one shot and then I was hosed. It was rather painful through a t-shirt. Wah, wah!

I think it is equally important to reduce your target status as shooting. Tim was correct - time to move.

In IDPA tactical order, the second guy isn't shooting you as you shoot the first. That's because he is cardboard.

armedandsafe
March 15, 2006, 10:07 PM
Move and COVER (and I don't mean Elbows Over Ears.) Fire while moving, even though it reduces your chances of lethal hits. The one time I had to take on multiple shooters, I had the advantage of some BIG rocks to hide behind. I still had to come up to shoot back, however. Sphincter Cramp time. We were pistols against M1s until I slithered back to the car for the 03A3.

Pops

threegun
March 17, 2006, 12:03 PM
Glenn, Theoretically the last guy in your one shot each sweep has the best chance of putting accurate lead in your direction. I would much rather have the guy with the weapon most difficult to hit me with take that shot.

The time you estimated should have already been eliminated having already made the decision to fire on all three.

In the close call that I have had (thankfully I didn't have to shoot) my brain processed so many things in under 1/2 second that it was incredible. My draw at that time was sub 1/2 second from buzzer to gun clearing the counters at work. When a customer pulled what later turned out to be a bb pistol from under his coat and pointed it at a coworker before asking if he could pawn it (admittedly to scare to coworker) I drew my gun, thought how big the gun was that this guy is pulling, thought about front sight, thought how skinny this butthole was pulling his gun and feared missing, and finally realized that the gun was fake before firing. Everything was in slow motion to me despite my partner saying that I looked normal. If I looked normal then everything was over in just over 1/2 second because I didn't make it to his shoulder area before ending the encounter. Some have said that the brain in times of trouble shuts down unnecessary systems and speeds up others. I now believe it as well. I also belief that the slow motion feeling is mealy your brain processing information much faster then you are used to. Giving the feeling that things are taking to darned long.

Maybe you are correct I don't know but man did I do an aweful lot of thinking and quick. My little pea was smokin afterwards LOL,

gunmoney
March 17, 2006, 12:07 PM
Practice the ultra tactical Run Away!! Do it as rapidly as possible

threegun
March 17, 2006, 12:28 PM
Really the odds ain't very good facing three guys.

HangFire83
March 17, 2006, 01:22 PM
How many magazines do you carry? A Bandolier full?

I don't carry....yet! But why not have a spare mag. Is that unheard of? Everyone here only carries one mag, so when your out your out? Doesn't sound to prepared to me. Maybe I am just crazy. I DO admit that "tactic" is not great for three or more people. But if you do have to shoot multiple rounds at the first guy why not pop in a new mag so that there are no surprises when on of his buddies pulls his gun.

invention_45
March 17, 2006, 02:14 PM
3gun: you're right about the slow motion effect really being your brain running faster than it ordinarily does. It's from adrenaline.

So you have a lot of thinking time you wouldn't imagine you'd have in a second or two.

That's why training, knowing the law, deciding the whether-to-shoot issues are so important. This super processing power should be used to make tactical decisions, not strategic ones.

That's one of the reasons I like the scenarios that get posted, often by Doug.38. Sometimes they make me think through things I hadn't before, and probably should have settled before the shooting starts.

Anthony2
March 17, 2006, 03:26 PM
Personally, I would double-tap the closest threat first...all the while keeping in mind that the remaining BG's will be closing the distance rapidly...and address each accordingly.

Solve a potential armor problem...Practice double-tap head shots!

After all the survivors tell the tale...if the BG's don't survive:rolleyes: ...

SIGSHR
March 17, 2006, 03:30 PM
I would put one in each, then repeat. One hit is better than no hit, I think
too many of us think of stopping power in terms of a lightning bolt, better to
think of it like pulling the plug on an electric motor-it will run for a few seconds but will shut down PDQ. Granted in a gunfight everything looks different-the muzzle of a .25ACP pointed at you looks like a 12 gauge and time seems to slow down.

Musketeer
March 17, 2006, 03:34 PM
Stephen Wenger's book I believe addresses this question. He is also a regualr poster on www.Packing.org

The bottom line is you want to get one in each ASAP. At least if they are not down they are seriously hinderred. He documents at least one officer who, when facing multiple attackers, duly applied two tot he first while the second killed him. It may only take a second or less to put that second round into the first target but you are assuming you have that time. You want to even the odds up as fast as possible while minimizing the chance that you get shot. For that reason you apply one to each and then repeat as needed. MOVING would also be a very good idea.

threegun
March 17, 2006, 06:15 PM
Anyone time a draw and fire on 3 targets or a 1-1-1 ? I saw a video posted on sightless in philly and the guys shot a 2-2-2 drill in 2.14 seconds. Thats pretty good if the hit were decent. I'm curious as to the difference in time.

We all know that putting an adversary under duress will see his skills erode in a hurry so maybe a 1-1-1 is better than a 2-2-2 against three armed opponents. I'm gonna start a thread with just that question.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 18, 2006, 11:13 AM
You cannot speed up basic object recognition times. A lot of the slowing down effects people report are after the fact memory reconstructions.

Novices in the world of visual perception don't understand the reaction time processing models.

I will repeat, that if you are faced with multiple opponents, your best bet is to starting shooting rather than wasting a 1000 milliseconds for evaluation of guns. Shoot one and move on.

OBIWAN
March 18, 2006, 11:17 AM
With the emphasis on MOVING

There are too many variables for any hard/fast rules

Moving off the line of fire (hopefully towards cover) will pay the most dividends

As for those that are double tapping each one.....how do you like that revolver now?:D

Tim Burke
March 18, 2006, 12:09 PM
You cannot speed up basic object recognition times.Not only can you not speed it up, I suspect once you have a definitive threat you will have a difficult time even assessing the other 2 until you have somehow dealt with the first threat. The oft cited tendency toward tunnel vision is not necessarily affected by multiple potential targets.A lot of the slowing down effects people report are after the fact memory reconstructions.How do they know this? I've experienced the slowing down of time, and the novelty of it registered on me as I was experiencing it. I've also experienced gaps in my memory after the fact... and I'm sure that is ripe for the brain to "create" the filler to smooth out the memory.

Tim Burke
March 18, 2006, 12:28 PM
You know, you can evaluate the original question somewhat objectively if you know what you are capable of doing.
For instance, let's say you are capable of a 1.4 second draw, .2 second splits on the same target, and .3 second splits transitioning to another target.
If you go 2-2-2, it will take you 1.4+0.2+0.3+0.2+0.3= 2.4 seconds before you get the first shot on the 3rd target. If you go 1-1-1, it will take you 1.4+0.3+0.3= 2 seconds to get a hit on the third target. Now, what percentage of BGs will be incapable of making the shot in 2 seconds, but can make it in 2.4 seconds? Probably a significant percentage, and if one of them is 3rd in line, you are going to regret going 2-2-2. Now, if you are a speed demon, and you can do a 0.5 second draw, 0.15 splits, and 0.18 transitions, you are looking at 1.16 vs 0.86 seconds. You can probably beat all 3, regardless of how you approach it. And, if your draw is 4 seconds, it probably doesn't matter how you do it either, because all 3 of them will likely get hits on you.

atlctyslkr
March 18, 2006, 01:37 PM
Big issue is what gun are you using to mitigate this threat? If I'm using a 5 shot snub I can't put two rounds in each BG without a reload. I'll have to do 1-1-1 and then do a tactical reload (ditching two live rounds but trading for 5). I'm more likely to try a reload if I'm behind cover than if I'm not. Say one drops then I'll do a 1-1 or 2 in the remaining. Then the issue of a reload is forced.

threegun
March 18, 2006, 03:43 PM
Tim B, You just hit my dilemma square on the head. The trade off of .0something secondfor the higher potential that badguy's one and two will be neutralized. If I shoot only a 1-1-1 and badguy #1 (the closest) doesn't stop is that better or worst that the extra tenth's given to badguy #3. Tough choice.

Tim Burke
March 18, 2006, 07:47 PM
I don't count on 1 shot (or even 2) neutralizing a target. However, I'd like to think that a hit on a target disrupts its ability to shoot back significantly more than it just hearing shots being fired. Consequently, since I doubt I could get multiple hits on all 3 before any one of them can return fire, I'd settle for 1-1-1, in theory. In practice, I'd move, and take what shots were offered to me.

Shakazulu
March 18, 2006, 09:00 PM
There is only one absolute to this question. PAY ATTENTION. Don't get yourselves into a nasty situation like this. Watch what goes on around you, watch people. Use streetsmarts and so forth.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 19, 2006, 12:02 AM
Reaction times are pretty standard items of study as are perceptions of time. The time it takes to shift attention from target to target is about 40 msec. The time it takes to move the gun off target to next target is going to be fairly constant in most situations. If anything, with more targets, your time to more to the next target usually slows down a touch. Tim has a good analysis.

I've experienced the crystal clarity of an incident and it's clarity sometimes increases after the fact. I think we are mistaking a focus of attention for a time slowing. No one looks like they are moving in slow motion like the movies. People sometimes estimate event filled times as longer, but that doesn't mean things really were going in slow motion.

My comment is that throwing in the often said shoot the most dangerous person first is going to really slow you down if you did not evaluate and plan the sequence of fire before you start to shoot. If you are surprised, just start shooting one at a time.

Nortonics
March 19, 2006, 06:43 AM
This is how I'd do it - or at least hope this is how I could do it:

www.the-roberts.info/gallery/albums/GTFriends/collateral.mpg

Yeah, it's just a movie, but I gotta' say Cruise's shooting form in this movie is outstanding. Speed with precise overwhelming firepower - practice makes perfect...

texgunner
March 19, 2006, 07:58 AM
If the 3 BG's are typical street thugs they are very likely to run away if one of their own gets shot. Of course you can't count on that, they could be on meth or crack, but most criminals are cowards by nature.

Having said that, the situation described would be a very fluid one. Action following opposing reaction. I would take out the most immediate theat then deal with the other 2 if they don't run. And keep moving, you're harder to hit.

Tex

XavierBreath
March 19, 2006, 08:18 AM
With all the storys out there about how "one or two shots didn't drop the bad guy", what would be the best tactic to shooting at say three opponents attacking you?


Run.

Seriously.

Three people cannot run full speed abreast for long. When they give chase, they will string out. Hop a fence. The fat guy in the back won't be able to get over it. Throw something in their path. The leader falls over it and gives up the chase. The middle guy gives up because the leader gives up. He didn't really want to have to deal with you anyway, so he acts like he is helping his friend while hurling curses in your direction.

At the very least, by running, you string your attackers out to where they must attack one at a time, and you can deal with them one at a time.

At best, you may get away with all your ammo.

wayneinFL
March 19, 2006, 08:58 AM
Shooting at multiple opponents

Shooting at opponents is the only way I could win at golf.

threegun
March 19, 2006, 10:48 AM
XB, Running is the best way to get shot in the back. Controlled retreat while engaging the badguys is better. Retreat to the nearest suitable cover. Besides if I'm going to get shot, I would rather get shot fighting back. Before my lights go out I might be able to kill the sorry sucker who shot and killed me.

XavierBreath
March 19, 2006, 11:13 AM
XB, Running is the best way to get shot in the backYou are assuming they are armed with firearms, that they want to kill you, and they are excellent marksmen, able to hit a zig zagging target while on the move themselves. Yep they might get lucky. They might get lucky if you stay and fight too.

Remaining in a conflict is the best way to get killed, whether you are armed or your assailant is armed. Removing yourself from the conflict gives your adversary two choices........pursue you, or find another victim.

Most strong arm robbers will simply vacate the immediate area and find a more compliant victim elsewhere when a victim flees. They will not be targeting you personally. If you resist, you remain in the conflict. If you flee, a simple robber will not risk murder charges by shooting you in the back when he can find a more compliant victim easily.

As long as you have not been personally targeted by the mob or the Crips, there is a good chance your attacker will simply wait for a more willing victim. If you have been personally targeted by the mob, the Crips, or Al Quaida, then you should address that issue prior to venturing out on your own.

The goal when attacked on the street is to survive, not to be a big man.

OBIWAN
March 19, 2006, 11:46 AM
As you move to cover the only real option you have to "spoil thier aim" (other than movement) is to shoot back

Yes, with multiple opponents you are likey to get shot

Most of the "tactics" discussed here center on you NOT getting shot

But just like you should NEVER count on a single hit to stop an attacker, your mindset can allow you to continue the fight even if you have been hit.

GSD
March 19, 2006, 11:58 AM
I think the 1-1-1 and then back will give the best defense/offense in this situation. We are all just thinking of our own speed and how fast we can get the kills, but we also need to take into consideration what the 1-1-1 shot will do to the BG speed. If they see that you are shooting at them all, they will duck, hide or slow down their own attack. But if they see you are focusing on one target, they will increase their attack.

I'm sticking with the 1-1-1.

delta58
March 19, 2006, 05:18 PM
I'd use my claymore first and then I would toss a couple of frag grenades that way just for good measure.(just kidding) but if I had them I would. 3 to 1 odds are not good I would run ( firing as you retreat)and take cover and engage from there.

Anthony2
March 20, 2006, 12:36 AM
"I will repeat, that if you are faced with multiple opponents, your best bet is to starting shooting rather than wasting a 1000 milliseconds for evaluation of guns. Shoot one and move on."

Yes, that's true...but what about evaluation prior to drawing your weapon?(if the situation permits)

Just a thought...:rolleyes: ....

threegun
March 20, 2006, 07:01 AM
XB,
You are assuming they are armed with firearms, that they want to kill you, and they are excellent marksmen, able to hit a zig zagging target while on the move themselves. Yep they might get lucky. They might get lucky if you stay and fight too.


Yes in this thread we all have been assuming that they had firearms and wanted to shoot us. You need to understand that when you turn your back on somebody who does decide to shoot at you, their accuracy is much better than if you retreat while firing back.

posted by obiwanAs you move to cover the only real option you have to "spoil thier aim" (other than movement) is to shoot back
posted by delta3 to 1 odds are not good I would run ( firing as you retreat)and take cover and engage from there.

Absolutely right. Never give your opponent a "free" shot especially at your back. Turns them into Wyatt Erp real fast.

Anthony,"I will repeat, that if you are faced with multiple opponents, your best bet is to starting shooting rather than wasting a 1000 milliseconds for evaluation of guns. Shoot one and move on."

Yes, that's true...but what about evaluation prior to drawing your weapon?(if the situation permits)

Just a thought... ....

I asked a similar question. If I know what guns the guys have prior to the draw the shotgun man is getting it first. I'll take my chances with the pistol guys rather than giving the shotgun man the extra time. Glenn's response will be that just thinking about a firing order will take time(and I agree), time that is better spent shooting. I thought about it but decided that either way somebody is going to get extra time, either through the delay caused by thinking (as glenn suggests) or by the shooting order (the last guy will get extra time before his turn arrives). Given this fact, I personally want the shotgun knocked out first. I believe that it gives me the best chance of survival. JMHO.

XavierBreath
March 20, 2006, 07:44 AM
Yes in this thread we all have been assuming that they had firearms and wanted to shoot us. You need to understand that when you turn your back on somebody who does decide to shoot at you, their accuracy is much better than if you retreat while firing back.No where in this scenerio did it say these attackers were armed with firearms. They might be armed with a knife, a pipe, fists. You assume a gun. You might be wrong.

Most people can run faster forwards than backwards. If you retreat straight backwards, you are presenting just as easy a target as you would running straight forwards. The key is erratic movement, not which way you are facing. I'll guarantee you that you cannot run down the street backwards, hopping fences backwards and shooting your gun accurately as fast as an assailant can catch up with you, or as fast as they can find cover and put a bullet in you when you fall over a fire hydrant.

If a person's only tool is a hammer, every fastner looks like a nail.

Captain38
March 20, 2006, 08:50 AM
MOVE!

Tim Burke, bclark1 and British Soldier all have the right idea. Quick lateral movement is most important, preferably toward cover and in a direction that will stack number two and/or number three behind number one so they are in each others way. Once you reach cover, continue to increase the distance between you and your adversaries as long as you can keep the cover between them and yourself. Unless they've already chosen to disengage, they will try to out flank you if you stay right up against it.

threegun
March 20, 2006, 09:27 AM
XB, The thread started with a "depends on weapon" tilt. It evolved into the discussion of which order is most approriate for engaging multiple firearm armed attackers. Either way I'm not a marathon runner and most people aren't either. You might run like a deer but I certainly don't. Running (as in sprinting) is not an option for many.

If you retreat straight backwards, you are presenting just as easy a target as you would running straight forwards.

If you aren't returning fire this is true. If you are returning fire it is absolutely false.

The key is erratic movement, not which way you are facing.

The key is "duress". Placing your oppenent/s under the threat of death, while gaining distance and seeking cover. Thats a common similarity among many professionals. The difference in shooting ability between someone with and without fear of death is said to be tremendous. Statistics agree that your ability goes down hill under stress.

Please don't mistake my not making a sprinting retreat with not being willing to make a hasty withdrawl prior or during any conflict. I will alway try to retreat if possible. Against armed (don't care how) attackers the best,safest, and correct way is to do so while engaging the them.

threegun
March 20, 2006, 09:28 AM
Capt38, Well said.

XavierBreath
March 20, 2006, 02:54 PM
OK threegun. I agree to disagree with you.

FWIW if you examine what I have said which you disagree with and what Capt38 has said which you support, you may find that Capt38 and I are in agreement. :rolleyes:

But you win. OK?

Watch out for those fire hydrants.

threegun
March 20, 2006, 06:05 PM
Given these quotes for tim burke I just assumed that Capt38 was shooting as he moved since he said that tim had the right idea.

by tim burke In practice, I'd move, and take what shots were offered to me.


by tim burkeIf you are facing 3 armed guys and you aren't an IPSC Grandmaster, then I'd recommend that you shoot on the move

I don't want to be right simply because you no longer want to debate. Why not ask some of the gun "experts" if turning and running is better than control retreat while firing at you opponent. You do what you feel is correct........I just wanted to help. I was thankful when I was told the correct way. Some of us get upset when corrected........I apologize for upsetting you.

threegun
March 20, 2006, 06:37 PM
XB, Why do you carry? Since the vast majority of attacks end in the attacker simply leaving you unhurt, why carry. You yourself said that by simply running it will give the badguy.........two choices........pursue you, or find another victim. So that is why I ask the question why do you carry?

Severian
March 20, 2006, 06:59 PM
I had to login just to post this: in my close to 2 years lurking here, I've found XB to be one of THE most valuble members of this board.

There's no reason to make it so personal. His advice is sound. You seem to agree also with the retreating part. Calm down. Why carry? Why, I'd think most everybody carries for the same reason, to protect oneself.

Sorry, but I got real irked when I saw you attacking XB.

Severian, logging off until I'm again moved to speak (it'll next be in the rifle section, as I'm planning to get some type of AR by this summer)

Runsalone
March 20, 2006, 07:12 PM
XB, Why do you carry? Since the vast majority of attacks end in the attacker simply leaving you unhurt, why carry. You yourself said that by simply running it will give the badguy.........
Quote:
two choices........pursue you, or find another victim.

So that is why I ask the question why do you carry?

For that 1 in a million chance that you cant outthink, outrun, or outplay an assailant. They are for saving your life not your dad-gum manhood.:rolleyes:

XavierBreath
March 20, 2006, 08:05 PM
Thank you gentlemen.

I had written a rebuttal, but I have chosen not to waste my time. After a prior post review, it seems the ignore button is the proper response.

Edison Carter
March 20, 2006, 09:28 PM
If a man CAN'T move when faced with 3 attackers, he is in trouble.
If a man WON'T move when faced with 3 attackers, he is a fool.

If you think it's more important to shoot badguys, than to avoid
getting shot, maybe you need to reevaluate your priorities.

If you have not done the Tueller drill at 7, 5, and 3 yards, you can't
possibly understand how 3, 2 or even one dedicated attacker can
pummel you, or stick a knife in your chest, before you can draw and fire.
You WILL lose, you MAY die. About the 20th time you get beat over
the head with a rubber stick, maybe you'll be smart enough to MOVE!
At least that was my experience.

Walking laterally? Walking backwards? Yeah, whatever... walk on your
hands if you think it'll work for you. I don't trip over as many things
when I walk in the direction my body is pointing... but YMMV Whatever
your THEORY, try it out with a friend who is either armed with an air
pistol, or a rubber stick and THEN tell me your way is better.

The bad guys are not going to be obvious from 20 yards away.
They'll come from behind cars, or one will be "innocently"
panhandling, or they will converge from concealment. Even if you
think you are so good that you'll see them coming, the chances are
really good that one fine nite, you'lll be surprised with 3 thugs within
3-5 yards.

Maybe you feel fine with a tie in a real gunfight, none for me, thanks.


EC

tshadow6
March 20, 2006, 09:39 PM
I was trained to shoot each bad guy once, then shoot them all again. If you leave one guy un shot, he has time to reach you and kill you.

threegun
March 20, 2006, 10:28 PM
Not attacking anyone, just asking questions and debating differences. XB has been very respectful to me and I believe I have been the same to him. I have 15 years of tactical education and never has it been recommended or even suggested to turn and run. If I can't recommend what I understand is the correct course of action the why have a forum? Is it better to remain quiet while a fellow ccp holder does what most pro's say not to do? Prehaps I should offer a 3 sentence disclaimer on how my post is not intended on harming, insulting, degrading, bla, bla, bla. Just a debate or an exchange of ideas to see which is right, better, ect. Anyway turning and running is not recommended by most professionals and that is a fact. If you accept it cool if not cool to.

P.S. XB please don't bruise so easy dude, I meant you no harm.

XavierBreath
March 20, 2006, 10:53 PM
threegun,
I will give you one tidbit if you are willing to click and read. You may go here (http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/03/surviving-gunfight.html) to learn more about my view if you are interested in challenging your own thoughts.

Unless you are a LEO, I believe you have been sold a false bill of goods. Shooting instructors are unable to sell DVDs and classes on survival. They are able to sell DVDs and classes on shooting. Thus, they teach shooting, not survival. There have been many who learned that shooting skills are not the same as survival skills. Most of them never get the chance to tell what they learned to late.

You have neither bruised me nor upset me. You are simply being ignored.

Eghad
March 20, 2006, 11:03 PM
Ima thinkin that the first rule would be to shoot and move and cover to take away the advantage. Probably realize that you might take a hit.

riverkeeper
March 20, 2006, 11:08 PM
for your thoughts on your site -- good stuff and simple to understand.
:D

threegun
March 21, 2006, 07:08 AM
XB, We completely agree (after reading your link) up and until you suggest that I should turn and run from someone armed with a gun. The reason that I have chosen to carry is because I don't want you or anybody else controlling whether I live or die. I don't want to have to hope that the BG doesn't decide to shoot as I turn and run. We do know that if he does shoot while my back is turned his aim is better. Yes distance and cover are friends but so is duress.

If my prewarning sensors are functioning then retreat, running away, hiding, whatever are all desireable to confrontation since the escape is before my life is in danger. If all my pre warning sensors failed and 3 armed attackers got within striking distance of me I will engage them while retreating to cover. This we might disagree on but thats okay. By carrying I have chosen to risk death on my own terms to preserve my life. I believe you have also chosen to risk death by carrying. We just have different terms thats all.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 21, 2006, 10:53 AM
Loren Christensen (a police writer) in his book Far Beyond Defensive Studies quotes a study (without reference though) that if one decides to run, one might as well run straight line away as it was found in trying to hit a running target most shooters were so crappy that zig-zagging made little difference.

This makes sense if a person is running at an angle to the shooter as lead times screw up most.

Second, for controversy's sake, there is a school of thought that the standard cliche of moving to cover is counterproductive. The reasoning is that moving to cover takes time in which you are not shooting or shooting crappy. Thus, another doctrine is to take cover behind your bullets or 'take the fight to the BG' by just shooting them as fast as you can. Cover may be far away or not really cover to most rounds.

The original scenario is ill determined anyway.

Facing three opponents - well:

1. Are they behind cover?
2. Are you behind or really near cover?
3. Did they catch you by surprise?
4. Do they have guns drawn?
etc.

All determine responses, such that there is no one answer.

It is also informative to have done such exercises with opponents that shoot back. Matches against three cardboard warriors are fun but not really enough, IMHO.

I have some limited experience for a fat old civilian in this.

I found:

1. If you come around the corner and there are four opponents with various weapons at a few yards- they just kill you. What a surprise - you get a round off and then you are hosed. When you turn to run, you are hosed in the back. The practice rounds hurt and it is a lesson to remember.

Oh, one should have pied the corner and seen them - unfortunately, I was behind shot up where I was so speed was important. Sometimes, you just are screwed.

2. If you have cover and concealment and the BGs have to come to you, you can pull it off.

3. If you come around a corner and two guys approach you rapidly and start shooting (Steve Moses and Lee, IIRC) - you fight and then sort out the wounds. This was payback for shooting Lee when he was trying to show how at gun point you can avoid the shooter by a move. The mistake was that I was left handed and he moved into my response rather than away. Thus, in FOF, rather than approach me for the typical interaction - Steve and Lee just shot me as I walked into the room. I managed to get good hits on both but took a graze to the noggin and one in the arm - might have made it. I was then out of ammo and was going to continue by beating them with my gun (using a technique Steve taught) but we stopped then.

I have said repeatedly, the identification of the best target because of what gun they are carrying, is absolute ninja bullcrap. You don't have time to do it unless you are secretly observing them.

You don't want to have to reverse directions to shoot someone based on gun type. When you shoot multiple targets, reversing direction is a slow down as you use the gun's bounce to get you down the line.

Also, these scenarios seem to have the implicit assumption that the dudes just stand there like bowling pins. If they spread out and move as they shoot at you, that's trouble.

Moving in a direction off line so that you reduce your vulnerability to the entire set of shooters makes sense - so move at speed. Retreating - does that mean moving backwards? You are such a target. Our Tueller drill exercises shows that consistently, the off line movements are the way to go.

Let's face it - you are going to DIE, DIE, DIE with any competent shooters. You are doomed!!! :D

threegun
March 21, 2006, 11:47 AM
Glenn, Standing your ground to hide behind your bullets? I agree that it would allow you to put the most accurate fire thus putting the most duress on your opponent/s. Then you lose the bonus survival points for distance between you and attacker/s. You also lose bonus survival points for getting to cover if available. So confusing?????? I'm going to continue to retreat while firing while backing towards cover if availible as practiced mucho times. When in doubt do what the professionals do.

Your FOF had you getting beaned while retreating so running is out. Seems maybe, perhaps, possibly, your 1-1-1 is the way to go. Give everyone involved a superfast leak then finish as needed. Duress by fire,pain,and possibly non functioning circuits. Thank Glenn

David Armstrong
March 22, 2006, 01:44 PM
I have 15 years of tactical education and never has it been recommended or even suggested to turn and run.
Perhaps, as has been discussed elsewhere, your "tactical education" is lacking some important elements.
Is it better to remain quiet while a fellow ccp holder does what most pro's say not to do?
Given your admitted lack of professional training I'm not sure where you come up with claims regarding what most professionals say. A large number of courses I've attended have included the instructor saying something to the effect that if you can run away then you should run away, as that is the best chance for your continued survival unless the BG is armed with rifle or shotgun.

threegun
March 22, 2006, 02:42 PM
David, As you are well aware much of my tactical knowledge came from men who have attended some of the most prestigious schools around. I also watched video's from several top instructors years ago. Read some books too. Never did anyone ever advocate turning your back and running from an armed attacker. They did suggest running if doing so was out of the line of fire but never turn and run. Well maybe things have changed in 3/4 decade.

Let me ask you David if you have professional instructors telling you to turn and run from armed attack and pro's telling you to retreat while engaging the threat and seeking cover, which do you believe? Who is right? Sucks to pay the big buck only to have to completely opposite views on such and important decision. I mean its not like some pro's advocating dropping the mag compared to a tactical reload, this is heavy.

David Armstrong
March 22, 2006, 04:55 PM
David, As you are well aware much of my tactical knowledge came from men who have attended some of the most prestigious schools around.
Sorry, but I am not aware of that at all. What I am aware of is that you brag that you have never had any formal training and that you have never participated in FoF, yet you seem to think you have a good grasp of tactics in spite of many highly qualified people disagreeing with you.
Sucks to pay the big buck only to have to completely opposite views on such and important decision.
Not for me. It simply points out that there are multiple solutions to problems and that one should not get locked into a one-size-fits-all response.