PDA

View Full Version : Offense vs. Defense - Do you fire on the move or go for accuracy?


Guntec
March 25, 2006, 10:07 PM
I've always wondered about this. Many situations, if both you and the bad guy have guns pointed at each other, chances are that as one side fires, the other side woud return fire. No matter who fired fired, both side has a fair chance for hits. Or even if the BG became wounded, he can continue to fire at your direction as you trade shots.

So for the sake of protecting yourself and trying to avoid getting hit, should you fire but with an emphasis on movement (laterally, diagnally, etc)? This way there's less of a chance for BG's shots to hit. Or should you focus on trying to hit the BG first, and worry less about constant movement to avoid getting hit.

XavierBreath
March 25, 2006, 11:08 PM
Given a choice, I am a proponent of diagonal movement away from the attacker. This gives you the lateral movement you need, but also the distance as well. More importantly though, the movement should be towards cover or escape.

I would not use a handgun to lay down suppressive fire unless I had a large capacity gun with extra magazines. The only instance I can recall that this was necessary and worked well was Travis Neel saving Deputy Frank Flores in Houston in 1994. Neel was going to the range and had multiple loaded magazines for his CZ in his truck. He still almost ran out of ammo, but he fought as he had trained in the military for Korea.

At any rate, in a life or death situation, I would not shoot wildly. If I could not be reasonably certain of good solid hits, I would use movement and cover to avoid getting shot and set up an ambush if necessary so i could increase my survival chances with limited ammo. A cylinder of .38 special or even two magazines of .45ACP can be used up very quickly if a person is using it just to suppress the attacker's fire.

As a civilian, my goal is to survive the attack with my life, not take down my attacker. Taking down the attacker is a bonus for the civilian, not a necessity. This gives the civilian a huge advantage over the LEO in this type of encounter, if the civilian will just take it.

pickpocket
March 26, 2006, 01:02 AM
A moving target is harder to hit, especially when the BG is concerned about getting hit himself. Always seek cover if the situation permits, and you only move as fast as you can shoot if you're going to...well...shoot on the move.

However, dynamic shooting is something that you must practice EXTENSIVELY. It's a bit different than stationary shooting.

threegun
March 26, 2006, 05:43 AM
I would retreat while firing deliberate accurate shots while seeking cover no matter what direction. I want duress on my opponent(firing at him), distance, and cover. If lateral movement is the quickest way to cover then movement will be lateral, if straight back is fastest so be it. If you decide to retreat while firing make sure to keep a solid shooting platform.

Sweatnbullets
March 26, 2006, 07:54 AM
Fluid Situational Response

----------------------------------------

In the world of the gun there are two types of responses to a life threatening event. The first and most popular is the conditioned response. A few examples of conditioned responses would be stand and deliver, the controlled pair, and to always make use of your sights. These are responses that we train into ourselves with the hope that when the SHTF we will default to our training and this programming will save the day.

While I was learning the Modern Techniques, (MT) I constantly questioned the logic behind many of the conditioned responses. To me, there was very little common sense attached to these conditioned responses. Even as a newbie I knew that I would never fight in this manner. It went away from the logic of all of my past experiences. As I trained and trained in the MT, I always held on to the realization the MT's were just going to be a foundation, a foundation that I built my fighting style on top of.

As I progressed, I began to incorporate what I thought a common sense fighting style would entail. I began to seek out people that thought as I did. My observations were confirmed again and again by highly respected "been there done that" guys, most notably a Federal Agent that went under the handle 7677.He would write posts of his real world experience that coincided with my thoughts and observations As my suspicions were verified, my training progressed into an area that very few people have explored. I began to embrace the concept of natural human response.

As I participated in and witnessed FOF encounters, it became very clear that the vast majority of the people that trained on a regular basis, cast aside their training when the action was fast and close. They would default to their natural human response. They solved problems at a sub-conscious level. I witnessed many people doing things that they had never been trained to do. After the encounter I would talk to them about their response. The majority actually did not know what they had done to solve the problem. As I told them what they did, they would often look at me in disbelief that they reacted in that manner. This furthered my interest in the subject, which lead me to my next level of enlightenment.

I call this level Fluid Situational Response. The concept is that you can incorporate your natural human response and your conditioned response and use them fluidly in the appropriate situation all along, what 7677 calls the fighting continuum. I know some of you will say that this does not stay within the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle, or that it does not conform to Hicks law (the more options you have, the longer it will take to access an option). IMHO this is just not so. Hicks law applies to conditioned responses, that is why you should have a mastery of a few essential techniques. Hicks law does not apply to natural human response. There is no lag time to access these responses. Your body will choose the solution to the problem in a microsecond at a subconscious level. Accepting this to be fact opens up a world that very few have explored.

My training is now geared to my Fluid Situational Response. The response is dictated by time, distance, and where you find yourself in the reactionary curve. The position on the reactionary curve is the most important factor to your response. This is where natural human response of "fight or flight" takes over. IMHO you should embrace the "fight or flight" response and train within that response. One thing to keep in mind, when it comes to firearms "fight or flight" is also "fight and flight." The direction you move, the speed of your movement, the necessary visual input to maneuver and to comprehend the problem, the necessary visual input needed to make the hits, and the necessary visual input to recognize the situational changes are all dependent on your position on the reactionary curve inside of the 7677 fight continuum.

There is no doubt that at certain distances, going hands on before you access your handgun is the very best response. But for now, let's take a look at responses that are outside of hand to hand ranges.

If you have succeeded in being ahead in the reactionary curve due to awareness, deception, distraction, or metsubishi (throw something in the face of your adversary) you are in a dominant position. Conditioned responses are excellent for this situation. Stand and deliver, sighted fire, aggressively advancing to your 12:00 are all appropriate responses.

If you find yourself even in the reactionary curve, your response will have to be different. Conditioned responses may not get the job done as well as natural human response. The fight and flight response will kick in and you will want to get out of the kill zone. Move as you draw, put hits on the adversary as soon as you can using threat focused skills, work towards getting inside of the adversaries OODA loop by your movement, making hits, and acquiring his flank. Once you have turned the reactionary curve in your favor, embrace your fluid situational response and shift from a reactionary position to the dominant position and eliminate the threat.

If you find yourself well behind the reactionary curve, your response will have to change even more. A conditioned response could be suicide, your best hope is a natural human response. Brownies startle response can be use to your advantage and you must train to be comfortable within your startle response. Flight overrides fight, because you must survive the initial contact so that you can get into the fight. Explode out of the kill zone, move to cover if near or access the weapon on the sprint, put hits on the adversary using threat focus skills, look to turn the tide, if the situation changes, flow into the next appropriate response.

Once you embrace your Fluid Situational Response you will go places that you never thought were possible, Where your mind is the weapon and the gun is just an extension of your mind, and everything flows with no conscious thought.

The inevitable question arises, "what is more important, to get the hits or to not get hit?" The Fluid Situational Response answers that question. When you are ahead of the reactionary curve, it is more important to get the hits. You are in the dominate position....ELIMINATE THE THREAT! If you are even on the reactionary curve the importance are equal. Use a balance of speed (of movement) and accuracy to solve the problem. If you are behind in the reactionary curve it is more important to not get hit. Get out of the kill zone by "thinking move first." Sprint to cover if it is near or access your handgun on the sprint and put hits on your adversary. Always look to get inside of the adversaries OODA loop and progress through your Fluid Situational Response until you are either dominating the confrontation or have put yourself in the position to terminate the confrontation.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php

OBIWAN
March 26, 2006, 10:48 AM
Movement, especially lateral movement is huge

Just like the good guys, the bad guys will often tunnel in on the target to the point where they are often shooting where you used to be

Also, by forcing them to move their body/feet you screw with their aim

Supressive fire has little/no place in defensive use of the handgun

Shoot for the center of whatever target they give you

Besides...any of your shots that miss can be considered supressive fire:D

atlctyslkr
March 26, 2006, 11:27 AM
I second that supressive fire theory. Wasting shots could brind drastic results. I pretty much figure that my attacker will have some sort of 9mm with atleast 15 rounds. Best case senario for me with my 5 shot snub and two speedloaders is I have the same number of shots but am disadvantaged by two reloads. Distance and cover are my main objectives. If my attacker figures out what I am using he may exploit this. By seeking distance and cover I can force him to expose himself if he chooses to pursue me. I feel that in a defensive situation cover is better than firepower. Seeking cover also gives me the opportunity to use the good old cell phone.

Capt Charlie
March 26, 2006, 01:19 PM
Unpredictable movement is extremely important in defending against a handgun attack, but moving and firing (accurately) can be difficult and requires a lot of practice. I personally find move & shoot exercises to be one of the most trying of drills.

You'll find yourself almost duck-walking, which takes a lot of strength. Spend several hours on this & you'll find your muscles protesting loudly the next day :D .

But the real problem to work on is moving towards your weak side (away from your gun hand). Without practice, you'll quickly find yourself side-stepping (and tripping ;) ), while firing with much reduced accuracy.

Try this drill: Post 4 silhouette targets, side by side in a straight line, with about 8 feet between targets. With your weapon in your strong side hand, walk parallel to the targets at the 10 yard line, and while walking, double tap each target. Walk past the 4th target, insert new mag, do an about face, and repeat in the opposite direction, with your weapon still in your strong hand.

You'll find that walking towards your strong side while firing is relatively easy, but the return trip will have you doing a dance that Fred Astaire would be proud of :D .

Now try the same drill, but switch the weapon to your weak hand on the return trip. It's much easier, but if you haven't practiced weak hand shooting?...... :eek: ;)

A person practiced in both strong hand and weak hand shooting won't have much trouble with this, but those that aren't will find this difficult. If anyone has any doubts on the importance of weak hand shooting, this drill will disperse them forever.

OneInTheChamber
March 26, 2006, 04:04 PM
Would you advise advancing on your adversary if it made cover more available??

What if you a vehicle between the two of you, but he was closer to the car than you were? WOud you try to force him from the cover to take it as your own if other cover wasn't readily around?

What do you consider suppressive fire? Accurate shots meant to keep him down as you carefully get to cover or firing as fast as you can into his general area while running as fast as you can?

To me; walking backwards presents the danger of falling over something and possibly losing sight with the BG, or giving him a chance to take a shot at you when you are still and vulnerable. Also, although it shouldn't happen, you could lose your weapon if you were to fall.

CraigJS
March 26, 2006, 04:31 PM
If possible move in the direction of his strong side. That is if he's right handed move to his RIGHT, your left. It's harder for him to hit you in that direction..

pickpocket
March 26, 2006, 11:11 PM
You guys are getting distracted and are starting to "what if" this to death. You move if it makes sense to move. How do you know when it makes sense to move?...well, if standing still feels really stupid, then you know it's time to move.
If a covered position is in front of you and it makes sense to move in that direction, then it makes sense to move in that direction. To analyze the merits of advancing to cover vs. moving laterally to cover is ridiculous.

Suppressive fire are any rounds sent in the direction of your target with the intent of preventing him from leveraging effective fires against you. Since we're mostly talking about CCW here, it doesn't make sense to use any round for anything other than putting a hole in someone, because the chances that you are carrying enough ammo to make "suppressive fires" effective are pretty slim.
I don't know about most of you, but I carry two 6 round mags, and I'm not going to waste any rounds with poorly aimed shots into the "general area" in the hopes of keeping his head down. That time is better spent seeking cover and those rounds are more valuable in your magazine because you have no idea how long you're in this for.
Another thing about suppressive fires that needs to be considered is that it's only effective if it's well-aimed and is only used to cover movement -- and if you're taking well aimed shots from your one carry pistol that pretty much makes the entire argument moot.

I don't know how many people here have had the opportunity to leverage "suppressive fires" against a target to keep them from shooting at you while you move, but I can tell you that you're not going to do it with a pistol in the hasty seconds after you've identified that your life is in danger...all it's going to be is a waste of valuable rounds and something that you have to explain later when five of your shots went through occupied cars across the street.

This is tactics and training, so please let's put some thought into it.

This is one of those discussions that would be better if it were geared towards how one could train himself/herself to react to said situation rather than "what's the correct answer". Anyone who understands tactics knows that the only right answer is the one that lets you walk away alive.

5whiskey
March 26, 2006, 11:24 PM
Now, I realize everything is situational dependant. It all depends on a thousand and one variables. +1 if you're not LEO or military on popping smoke and bugging out if possible. Some dude trying to steal $100 from a conveniance store register is not worth getting in a firefight over, even if you know you could drop the punk. I don't really want to hurt anyone unless it's in defense of myself or other innocent people. This being said, the rest of my post is geared more for the advance to detain/destroy the threat. Mainly because that's what I have been trained to do (and have done too often already).

Remember this golden rule. Fire without movement is a waste of ammo, movement without fire is suicide. This is an old adage that usually applies to squad-level and up infantry tactics, but can even apply to one man advancing.

Envision this. You're a bad guy, you shoot at someone and they curl up behind cover. You can advance and you know you have scared the crap out of this guy. Now, picture being a bad guy and all of a sudden your "target" starts firing back as he advances. Approach this with an open mind.

I'm not saying suicide rushes, and if there is cover available you most certainly may utilize it to your advantage (covered position, fire while pre-selecting next covered position, move to next covered postion, fire while...). Force and violence of action that is controlled and negated to be effective (meaning you're actually hitting the guy or hitting so close that he needs a fresh pair of underwear) is your most powerful tool if you go head to head when lives are at stake.

Now, how to move. As capt charlie said, lateral movement to your weak side is bad juju. You cannot shoot effectively. Also mentioned is the fact that shooting on the move is one of the most difficult drills there is, thus requiring much practice. And know this, it is easier to hit a moving target when you're static than to hit a static target when you're dynamic. Practice, practice, practice. 10 to 1 says the bad guy hasn't practiced dynamic shooting enough to be effective. The shock and awe effect of violence of action will do you alot of good if you have practiced enough to actually fire effective dynamically.

Now, about the fluid movement response or whatever it's called. Dude, you lost me when you said everyone ditches IA drills (immediate action) as soon as the shtf. Have you ever been shot at? I have, and IA drills for hours at a time has seemed more and more like a good idea ever sense. You practice your fluid response stuff, and I'll keep taking my squad thru mout town at lejeune with sim rounds. Come find me sometime and we'll test each others theory with sims. Still not the real thing, but as close as it gets. Go with your IA drills and practice with dynamic shooting.

Sweatnbullets
March 26, 2006, 11:32 PM
Dude, you lost me when you said everyone ditches IA drills (immediate action) as soon as the shtf.

I obviously lost you well before this because nowhere in my post does it say "everyone ditches IA drills."

You may want to actually read what is actually written before you jump to conclusions.

5whiskey
March 26, 2006, 11:51 PM
"everyone ditches IA drills" = short way of saying this...

"As I participated in and witnessed FOF encounters, it became very clear that the vast majority of the people that trained on a regular basis, cast aside their training when the action was fast and close."

I fully read your post, and don't get me wrong, there is obviously common sense. If someone is shooting at you before you can present your weapon then I probably wouldn't just stand there while I draw/get shot at/die.

Not trying to ridicule you brother, and sorry if it came off that way. I'm just saying that conditioned response (IA dirlls) can mitigate alot of variables. The Marine Corps doesn't make platoons stand on-line doing FTF and mag change drills because it's pretty. It is effective. IA drill for any form of unknown contact? Seek cover, determine where the fire is recieved and have the securtiy element lay down a base of fire while the assault element manuevers to the enemys' flank.

Now, take a squad who has never practiced this IA drill together. Make them patrol thru an urban training enviorement with a couple of aggressors in unknown locations. Give everyone involved sim rounds. Sit and watch how many get painted the first time they do the drill. Repeat process 6 hours a day once weekly in flak and kevlar...

...one week later, same squad. You see if there isn't alot less paint on their cammies than when they first started.

Double Naught Spy
March 27, 2006, 02:32 AM
gun tec stated, So for the sake of protecting yourself and trying to avoid getting hit, should you fire but with an emphasis on movement (laterally, diagnally, etc)? This way there's less of a chance for BG's shots to hit. Or should you focus on trying to hit the BG first, and worry less about constant movement to avoid getting hit.

Whether or not you are moving really should be obvious. If you are behind cover, then moving to somewhere else will expose you to getting shot and injured/killing since you likely don't have covere during the move.

If you are out in the open, movement will make you a harder target to hit. Here is should be noted that while a gun can be used to defend yourself by stopping the threat (usually the operators of the opposition's guns), but guns are extremely poor protection for stopping incoming rounds.

What about moving off the line? It is a good thing, but many instructors fail to provide much instruction on what to do once off the line.

In more than one class I have had, I had instuctors have me take one side step, draw and fire. In a carbine class, I had an instructor tell us (while we advanced toward targets) to take one step to the side to get off the line of attack, stopping, while bringing the sights up on target and firing a single shot. This was argued to get us out of the line of attack and the stopping gave us a stable shooting platform. It was reasoned that the sidestep would upset the bad guy(s)' OODA loop so much that we would get off the first shot.

A step to the side isn't going to mess up anyone's OODA loop with the possible exception of a person charging you with a knife or charging you with their car and you move out of the way at the very last moment. You have to make the change after the attacker can no longer alter direction.

When it comes to stepping off the line of attack just one step in a gun fight, the OODA loops isn't upset at all and nothing more is required than a slight adjustment to the gun's sighting for the attacker to shoot you. Your opposition will undoubtedly be expecting that one of your options will be to move/flee. So stepping off the line doesn't upset his OODA loop because your tactic is expected. If you want to upset the opposition's OODA loop, then you need to do something completely unexpected. For example, if you can burst into flames on demand, doing it in front of the opposition will undoubtedly catch him off guard, resting OODA.

Once you move off the line of attack, you don't stop there unless you are behind cover, as noted in previous posts.

threegun
March 27, 2006, 07:11 AM
movement without fire is suicide

A+.

Oh yeah and don't get caught behind the reactionary curve.

Sweatnbullets, If caught behind the reactionary curve are you suggesting that we turn and run while accessing our weapon?

Explode out of the kill zone, move to cover if near or access the weapon on the sprint, put hits on the adversary using threat focus skills,

Mannlicher
March 27, 2006, 07:12 PM
Like the vast majority of folks, I have never been fired upon. However, I believe my first reaction might be to seek cover, and move as quickly as possible away from the source. Of course, ascertaining the proper direction in which to move has got to be a priority. :)
This is where training comes in. Rather than just trust to extemporaneous thought, knowing in advance what course of action puts the odds more in your favor is a good idea.

2IDdoc
March 27, 2006, 09:07 PM
If you start moving, don't stop until you are behind cover. This was stated before, but I thought it was worth repeating.
With regards to the original question posed in this thread, I try for accuracy while moving if I need to move.
Oh, and another option for moving laterally to the weak hand side is to shoot strong hand only as opposed to weak hand shooting. I like SHO better than weak side shooting, but as always YMMV. I like SHO for shooting from behind a barricade on the weak hand side as well, but that's another topic.

I would suggest getting some training with a course that has a dedicated shooting on the move element or module. The Tri Con shooting on the move module is top notch. It's an entire day dedicated to SOM.
Shooting on the move is a higher skill level than square range shooting. Have a solid foundation with the basics before you try it.

Sweatnbullets
March 27, 2006, 11:43 PM
Not trying to ridicule you brother, and sorry if it came off that way.

First of all Wheeler, thank you for your service to this country. I can not possibly tell you the amount of respect I have for all of our Marines.

I try to be very careful not to use words like "always, never, everyone, and no one"....you get the idea. When I wrote the Fluid Situational Response I was thinking of the average CCWer or the average LEO. It was not really intended for the military. I see the two as being very different. The CCWer or the cop will usually be in it alone or with very little help. They are also not bound by the duty that they have to a squad. Let's face it, you Marines (God bless you) will lay down your life for another Marine or the squad much quicker than the average Joe. An IA drill for you guys is absolutely the best way to go. An AI is also essential to us average Joe's, but if the situation has us far behind the reactionary curve and we find ourselves in a startled response, we need to be comfortable fighting from that startled response.

Sweatnbullets, If caught behind the reactionary curve are you suggesting that we turn and run while accessing our weapon?

We train our students to respond in the direction that makes the most sense. We train our students to run and shoot in every direction except straight to the rear.

When you are behind in the reationary curve that leaves every direction but straight forward and straight to the rear.

Movement should always have a purpose. You would use rearward movement to get to cover, to create distance, or to eventually acquire their flanks. Movement should be fluid, just because you were startled and began to run rearward while shooting, it does not mean you have to keep moving that direction. If there is no cover that direction the rearward run could turn eliptical to acquire their flanks.

I had a private session with a student last weekend. He had never used threat focus shooting before and sure the heck had never accomplished hits while on a full run. He had a lot of Modern Technique training and was very squared away with keeping the gun running and hitting while using his sights.

I taped up his sights and in seven hours and 1250 rounds I had him absolutely confident in every aspect of Threat Focus shooting. He was making 96% of his hits, while at a full run, in every direction (except straight to the rear) at logical distances.

I keep reading on this thread and the other just like it at GT, that making hits on the run takes a lot of practice. I say BS! It does not take a lot of practice, it takes knowledge on how to get it done. This is something that can be learned in one day of training. (if you already have the basic fundamentals and safety down cold.) Once you have recieved that training you will own it for the rest of your life with very little need to practice it on a regular basis.

This is a threat focus skill that relies on your natural abilities. This is something that all of you are already capable of doing. All you need is someone to guide you to the knowledge or what you are all truly physically capable of.

A lot of practice......poppy cock! One day and you will own it.

Back to the question. We teach an explosive move out of the kill zone (in all but one direction) while simultaneously drawing your handgun. Once you have been shown it, you will have it down in a couple of minutes. You will be on target and getting hits within two steps of your run and you will continue to hit as you run through your appropriate response.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php

threegun
March 28, 2006, 06:23 AM
Sweatnbullets, In this explosive retreat and subsequent fire covered retreat are your students all out running or moving while maintaining a good shooting platform, or both? Without compromising your class curriculum, can you give some details?

I never really trained for getting caught BEHIND the reactionary curve. It seems that running all out while not recommended when things are even or you are ahead in the curve, makes sense when behind in it. Why not run all out while accessing your weapon. It creates distance, makes you harder to hit, and gets you closer to cover. Makes sense.

For those who don't believe that the stress of getting shot at make people miss or even lose simple motor functions read this story.

A highway patrolman was patting down a suspect on the side of the roadway when he felt what he thought was a handgun in the suspects front waistband. The suspect grabbed for the gun and a brief scuffle ensued for it. The suspect pushed the officer away (back wards) and the officer lost his balance and tripped in the soft sand on the shoulder of the road. As he was falling he was going for his service weapon. The suspect turned pulled the Smith and Wesson 9MM pistol and pointed it at the officer, smiling as he pulled the trigger. The gun was on safety and wouldn't fire. The officer now with weapon raised said that when he leveled his pistol on the suspect his facial expression changed to horror. As the officer began shooting and subsequently killing the bad guy, he said the man couldn't manipulate the safety he was so stressed by fire.

Another thing I remember was this officer saying that he turned his own fear into calm by understanding that he was either going to died or get shot. He remembered becoming angry that he allowed this scumbag to kill him. His last act if possible would be to take the scumbag with him. I found a similar mindset helpful while shooting competition. I hope to use his mindset should I ever be forced into a shootout.

Dwight55
March 28, 2006, 09:08 AM
Three things come to mind in answer to the original question:

1) In the military we were always taught to get some kind of cover if it was at all possible before returning fire. These are the professional gun fighters, . . . and that is what they do.

2) The lawyer a few years ago that was shot at with a revolver by his unhappy client stayed alive by getting behind a tree.

3) Xavier's comment above: "As a civilian, my goal is to survive the attack with my life, not take down my attacker."

May God bless,
Dwight

Sweatnbullets
March 28, 2006, 09:55 AM
Sweatnbullets, In this explosive retreat and subsequent fire covered retreat are your students all out running or moving while maintaining a good shooting platform, or both? Without compromising your class curriculum, can you give some details?

It is a full run for the statled response drills (behind the reactionary curve.) But since there is a fight continuum we cover "stand and deliver" for speed when you are in a dominate position. Controlled movement when your have distance and are equal in the reactionary curve. Sight focus and Threat focus are both covered. But most people come to us with substantial sighted skills so we focus on what they do not already own.

Which is usually the full run out of the startled response.

You are right this stuff is going to be saving lives. The reviews of our couses and techniques are already coming in at the Threat Focus forum that I posted above.

Three gun, make sure you read my Fluid Situatuional Response, the course works off of those principles.

We are on the same page.

threegun
March 28, 2006, 12:58 PM
S'N'B, When even in the reactionary curve I was taught to retreat toward cover while engaging your adversary. This means that I must face the adversary while retreating. I retreat while maintaining a stable weapons platform, which is much slower than simply back pedaling, side pedaling, or turning a sprinting. In the fight continuum you teach, is this incorrect in the even position?

pickpocket
March 28, 2006, 01:49 PM
Sweatn -
It's not that dynamic shooting takes lots of practice to learn...it's that it takes continuous practice to maintain. It's a use it or lose it skill - at least in my experience.

Additionally, I would wager that someone who has practiced dynamic shooting extensively (and efficiently) would be able to process a situation and react to it while shooting on the move much more quickly and effectively than a fresh student who spent a day learning the technique.

Practice doesn't necessarily mean that it's a secret ninja move that takes years to master. It does, however, usually mean that it takes a while to learn how to incorporate a specific technique into your bag of tricks and figure out how to employ it effectively in a time of stress.

Someone mentioned Immediate Action drills up there and whether or not they are important. While the average CCW'er isn't going to practice IA drills such as Close-Ambush, Sniper, or Contact-Left - that is not the full scope of an IA drill. Immediate Action is exactly what the name implies... it is a conditioned response to a specific situation. Magazine drills are the perfect example of an IA drill that would benefit the everyday CCW'er. Can you drop, possibly retain, and load a magazine without taking your eyes off of the threat area? How about practicing different types of draw for different types of situations? How about practicing off-hand draw if your strong-hand is injured? Practicing "seeking" cover in all three areas of the reactionary curve?

IA drills are not Gospel: They are a foundation. However, practicing these types of drills until they become ingrained responses and continuously developing, adapting, and improving these drills will ensure that an individual is as prepared as they can be.
You don't want the first time you need a skill to be the one time your life depends on executing it flawlessly and without hesitation.

Another take on IA drills is that conditioning your mind to automatically take care of certain tasks under stress will allow your mind more time to process and react to your situation. We've all heard of people who suddenly looked at their hands and noticed that they had drawn their weapon and dropped into a combat stance. This is the result of IA drills...it happened without thought, and it happened efficiently.

Sweatnbullets
March 28, 2006, 11:44 PM
S'N'B, When even in the reactionary curve I was taught to retreat toward cover while engaging your adversary. This means that I must face the adversary while retreating. I retreat while maintaining a stable weapons platform, which is much slower than simply back pedaling, side pedaling, or turning a sprinting. In the fight continuum you teach, is this incorrect in the even position?

The stable shooting platform idea comes from not having the knowledge to get hits on the run. Shooting on the run has been the focus of my training for years now. It is something that I have done very well for a while now and have yet come across someone that did it as well as I. But this is before I was taught Quick Kill. As soon as I learned it, I knew that this was the missing piece of the puzzle. One threat focused technique that had been virtually lost since 1980 is the difference between what everyone else is teaching and what is really possible. Not only does QK make this possible, it makes it a fact that I can teach the skill (shooting on the run) to almost anyone in a very short time.

We do not like back peddeling at all. We have three different responses to the rear, each one is done while turned toward the threat, with the feet pointed the direction that you are moving and they are deadly accurate. The speed of this movement is situationally dependent. Being even in the reactionary curve could allow for slower movement, but if you have the skills to get the same hits with faster movement, your body would probably choose the faster movement.

We do not always agree with the idea of "retreat to cover." It has it's place, but that is it. It does not cover every situation. What we do is teach you the skills to work in whatever direction is best for the situation. Even while being even in the reactionary curve, we see appropriate movement in numerous directions.

What we do is give you tools to cover as many situations as we can. We are not going to tell you "do this and do that" because we believe that your body will choose the appropriate response for the situation. What we give you is options and the confidence to make all of the options work for you. We cover why you may choose this direction and that speed, but nothing is set in stone like your prior instructors. We want a Fluid Situational Response and you to have the confidence and the skills to make that response work for you.

threegun
March 29, 2006, 06:52 AM
S'N'B I just tried to walk in one direction and shoot behind me and cannot with a two handed hold. Do you shoot one handed while retreating?

We have three different responses to the rear, each one is done while turned toward the threat, with the feet pointed the direction that you are moving and they are deadly accurate.

I like the concept but need more info to try it.

We cover why you may choose this direction and that speed, but nothing is set in stone like your prior instructors.

I have no prior personal instruction. My instructors have been books, video's, and friends (some who have had premium training). I have been able to pick and choose what makes sense and mold it all into what feels good to me. If it feels good and makes tactical sense it can't be that bad. So nothing is ever set in stone with me. If your style of retreat fire is faster with equal hit percentage at the same hit speed, I would be a fool not to crave it. Can you describe it better?

DBOUNCE1
March 29, 2006, 10:19 AM
You gotta know how to effectively RUN AND GUN

ppcmaster
March 29, 2006, 11:47 AM
Being a police officer for the last 16 years, all of this sounds really great but in actually it doesn't work. Only the highly trained person under live fire drills (paint ball, type) have the thought to move, granted I loved all the answers and they are the right thing to do, but the human when confronted with deadly force usually freezes and has tunnel vision also doesn't even know how many rounds he/she fired.
So my answer would be accuracy, (head shot) and if BG gets a round off at you take it in the vest. 1 head shot = gunfight over. This is my biggest problem with IPSC. Let's hit the targets 3 times really fast with non-lethal hits, why not get 3 "A" zone hit fast and the fight is over.
Yet another probelm I have with the whole weaver v.s. anyother stance. Shoot weaver against me I'll shoot you through the arm and into your chest cavity. Game over!

pickpocket
March 29, 2006, 12:10 PM
Only the highly trained person under live fire drills (paint ball, type) have the thought to move, granted I loved all the answers and they are the right thing to do, but the human when confronted with deadly force usually freezes and has tunnel vision also doesn't even know how many rounds he/she fired.


And therein lies the secret.

zeroskillz
March 29, 2006, 12:47 PM
S&B:
so....
Where do you teach these classes?
-Zeke

ppcmaster
March 29, 2006, 01:40 PM
You learn these things, by living them, or at a police agency or some highly skilled training school like thunder ranch if it is still around, but once you learn you need to practice regularily.
Bob

threegun
March 29, 2006, 04:12 PM
PPCmaster, I have twice had to draw believing the need to shoot was here. In the first incident I did everything as trained. The second time I did everything as trained including drawing, walking back towards cover while looking for the threat (which didn't exist....long story). I am neither tough nor professionally trained yet both times I reverted to what I had practiced. I think you would react as trained also. If that training included those listed in the fluid situational response, I believe you would react instead of freezing. I did and without formal FoF training or Professional tactical training, just lots of repetition both physically and mentally. I know it can be done, heck if I can do it anyone can.

Sweatnbullets
March 29, 2006, 11:20 PM
Threegun, I hate to be a stick in the mud but I will not be able to tell you how to do it. Right now we have something that no one else has. There have been a few well known trainers trying to see what we have discovered and where we are headed. If they were to find out what we have, no one would need to train with us.

Here are a couple of AAR's from last weekend. I had a private session with a student that is ex-military, ex-LEO, and current firearms instructor at one of the big schools. Here is where you will find his AAR.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226

Robin Brown had a private session with a current LEO trainer from the California area, that has 1400 officers under his care. The AAR can be found here.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223

zeroskillz, I am in the Vegas area, Robin Brown is in the Phoenix area. We can travel if the numbers are right.

threegun
March 30, 2006, 05:41 AM
I understand. After reading your links it kinda answered my question anyway. The 2-2-2 drill in 2.14 seconds, was that posted by one of your students?

Sweatnbullets
March 30, 2006, 11:57 PM
threegun, that was a student that was training with Robin Brown. He is now the Quick Kill instructor in the Denver area. Glad that your questions were answered.

Skyguy
March 31, 2006, 10:38 AM
Sorry fellas and experts, but I can't help responding with a bit of reality versus the unending scientific-imaginary response scenarios posted here.

Seems that so far....every solution to a gunfight has been some sort of trick maneuver taught by those who've never shot with bad intentions......or been shot at and is designed for use by a thirty year old semi-athlete.

No expert advisor here has even mentioned the average ccw-Joe who is likely older, fatter, weaker, slower and inexperienced in any type of self defense. And therein lies the achilles heel of so many expert advisors; no experience-reality based training!

My advice...depending on distance....is to seek cover first.
If you are too close or it's too sudden...crouch and point shoot.

Odds are 'that' will assure mutual wounding or mutual death. But that's a gunfight.
.

pickpocket
March 31, 2006, 12:43 PM
Skyguy -
I think that's what we discussed on the first page :)

As for reality-based? What if you ARE trained, 30 years old, and in good shape? What's your reality then? My point is that reality is subjective - that's why tactics are dynamic and never set in stone. What works for one will most definitely be scoffed upon by another. I don't think anyone here is advocating the "off the wall, around the corner, through the window, over the car, nothing but net" approach.

All things being equal - many of the suggestions here are quite valid. If conditions exist that alter someone's "reality" then they have two options: adapt their tactics or adapt their reality.

threegun
March 31, 2006, 01:24 PM
It is well known that most instructors recommend moving toward cover while engaging the badguy. Fat, old, young, weak, whatever doesn't change the fact that in a gunfight it is better to move toward cover while shooting. If a particular drill can't be used by someone for physical reasons, obviously they need to employ a tactic that they can perform based on their limitation. If you can run and gun like a 30 year old better for you. The reality is to do as much as you can to employ the best tactics so that your odds of surviving a gunfight increase.

Skyguy
March 31, 2006, 01:29 PM
Skyguy -
I think that's what we discussed on the first page

I know. :)

I was responding to the question that was asked: "should you fire with an emphasis on movement (laterally, diagnally, etc)? Or should you focus on trying to hit the BG first, and worry less about constant movement to avoid getting hit."

My answer to that question was and still is:
"My advice...depending on distance....is to seek cover first.
If you are too close or it's too sudden...crouch and point shoot.

Odds are 'that' will assure mutual wounding or mutual death. But that's a gunfight.
.

threegun
April 1, 2006, 03:26 AM
Skyguy, Odds are 'that' will assure mutual wounding or mutual death. But that's a gunfight.

Thats why they suggest movement. If you can't run while shooting as Sweat'n'Bullets teaches then walk........but move. If the best I can hope for is mutaul assured wounding or death then why carry? To many instructors agree on movement being correct for me to stand still. Being younger (37) I can still move rather well so I will move quickly. As I age my movement will slow I'm sure but move I will........until the "experts" agree on standing still that is LOL.

Skyguy
April 1, 2006, 08:29 PM
until the "experts" agree on standing still that is LOL.

Keep in mind that, like you threegun, most of the "experts" that ply their trade for money have 'never' been in a gunfight, have never seen combat nor even been shot at. I'm not sure where they get their 'expertise' from, but it's not from experience.
Think I'm kidding....check it out.

Anyway threegun, please don't take my statements out of context. I never said that "standing still" is the way to go.

I said:

"My advice...depending on distance....is to seek cover first.
If you are too close or it's too sudden...crouch and point shoot.

Odds are 'that' will assure mutual wounding or mutual death. But that's a gunfight."
.

Topthis
April 1, 2006, 11:30 PM
Wow, I am impressed at the number and the length of the posts for this thread. Personally, as I have said many times here on TFL, my goal is not to be a hero or take a persons life. If, however, I was somehow miraculously caught in this type of situation. My first and main concern would be to get the hell outta that situation...so, you betcha...I would be moving and firing, moving the hell away from the other guy with the gun. I figure he is concerned with getting shot himself, so would be hiding/covered and not taking the time to aim...just throwin lead. Which would be perfect for me, as I am moving at the utmost of super-humanly speed possible away and firing to keep him pinned. I teach Martial Arts, so I always tell my kids that if a person gets into a fight, there is a very good chance that they are going to be hit, as well as them hitting the other person...the best course of action is not to be in a fight, unless there is absolutely no other choice. I guess the same would go for a shootout with guns, since, from what I have learned here at TFL, most handguns have no One Shot Stopping Power, that gives the BG an opportunity to shoot me, even after I have shot him. Not very good choices. Just my thought.

threegun
April 2, 2006, 09:01 AM
Skyguy, Most of our military prior to the ousting Of Saddam had no combat experience, still they performed like champions. The reason is because they were prepared with excellent training.

Keep in mind that, like you threegun, most of the "experts" that ply their trade for money have 'never' been in a gunfight, have never seen combat nor even been shot at.

Those that have been in a gunfight recommend movement. A friend of mine shot and wounded a robbery suspect who was raising his gun on him. He recommends movement. The reason he only wounded the guy is because he was moving laterally to make himself a tougher to hit target as he fired. The robber was hit and dropped his gun (and the bag of money) and was captured at the hospital. My point is that while you are ultimately going to do what you feel is correct, the majority of those "experts" both with and without actual gunfight experience agree that movement is the best course of action to enhance your chances of survival. We disagree about what to do if things are "too close" or "too sudden" and thats okay. I will say this, if Sweat'n'Bullets sprint fire works for me, you can bet your last dollar I won't be crouching and firing but rather sprinting away and firing.

S'n'B, Can you PM me with the details of your next training session? When, where, how much, and how long.

Skyguy
April 2, 2006, 06:14 PM
the majority of those "experts" both with and without actual gunfight experience agree that movement is the best course of action to enhance your chances of survival.

If distance permits, definitely move. But don't fret, regardless of training common sense alone will force 'movement'.

But most gunfights occur at very close distances where you cannot employ the run and gun tactic.

So, the odds say that at close range you'll 'not' run.....rather you'll react with a startle response and you 'will' crouch out of fear. In that situation you must be able to point shoot.

My advice...depending on distance....is to seek cover first.
If you are too close or it's too sudden...crouch and point shoot.

Ask any "expert". :)
.

ceg35173
April 2, 2006, 09:21 PM
I was invited to bring our tactical team to participate in a paintball contest by the owner of a local paintball facility. He said he had a group that would like to challenge us in a friendly competition. While discussing the idea, I was pretty confident that he would come up on the short end of the stick. He made the statement that police officers were the first to get shot in their competition. He told me through personal experience that officers almost all stopped, got into their shooting stance and were immediately shot by the other team who were constantly moving. I know accuracy is what wins the confrontation but these guys train to hit the target while moving. My department does some firing while moving, but once or twice a year does not make a person proficient. I know paintball guns hold more rounds and have no recoil than duty weapons, but we need to look at concealment if we are to carefully take aim during an armed engagement. Maybe we can learn something from these shooters of paint.

Sweatnbullets
April 2, 2006, 09:44 PM
What am I physically capable of?

I believe that there should be continuity to ones movement. I feel that one should train to get hits through the entire movement spectrum. There is no doubt about the importance of "stand and deliver" skills. I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on this skill with tens of thousands of drawstrokes. If my body chooses this solution to the problem, that skill will be there.

I also see a need for very controlled movement that facilitates a precision shot on the move. This could include skills such as "just walk", side stepping (crab walk,) or even the old groucho (duck) walk. All three of these techniques have there place (however small they might be) and should be something that you can do on demand, if that demand arises. I practice head shots at logical distances with this type of movement.

I also see a need to be able to get hits with your toes pointing the direction that you are moving. This type of movement has your upper body working independent from your lower body, "like a turret of a tank." Toes point the direction you are headed, body turreted the direction that you are shooting. This type of movement brings in your bi-lateral skills. Shooting to the firing side can be done two handed to a certain point, then you need to go one handed. The possible speed of this movement can cover the full spectrum, from a walk, to a jog, to a stride, to a run, and finally to a sprint. This is where you find what you are physically capable of. This is where the limitations are pushed, and the standards are set.

Feints, jukes, cut backs and directional changes are also part of the movement skills set. One should explore there ability to use these skills and the limitations that different terrain/footing give you.

React as you need to react, move as you need to move, and see what you need to see to solve the problem that you are confronted with. If you train with these basic concepts, you will have covered the vast majority of the possible situations. In covering these situations, your body will chose, with confidence, the appropriate solution.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php

threegun
April 3, 2006, 05:16 AM
Skyguy,

My advice...depending on distance....is to seek cover first.
If you are too close or it's too sudden...crouch and point shoot.


Odds are 'that' will assure mutual wounding or mutual death. But that's a gunfight."

No thanks. I would rather take my chances going unarmed, begging for my life, than settle for mutual assured wounding or death. Thats just my opinion. Movement is a key component in gunfight survival no matter the range IMO. The faster I can move, while still making contact with my adversary, the better my odds are of ending the threat without getting wounded or killed. If I am correct then the absolute most important time to move would be at close range while even or behind in S'n'B's reactionary curve.

BTW,I always prepare for being wounded (the best I can anyway) by drilling weak hand reloading and shooting and by mentally focusing on how to react if shot. Because "thats a gunfight". I just prefer to use the best tactics that would make those odds as small as possible. You yourself seem to agree that movement is recommended.

If distance permits, definitely move. But don't fret, regardless of training common sense alone will force 'movement'.


I don't believe that common sense will cause anyone to move though. You must train to move if you hope to move when fear of death causes you brain to go into autopilot. Common sense has nothing to do with it except to tell me that if movement is good from distance, it is vital sans distance. The closer to the threat you are the greater the danger. Anyway thank for the suggestions to you and Sweat'n'Bullets.

Skyguy
April 3, 2006, 10:12 AM
I don't believe that common sense will cause anyone to move though. You must train to move if you hope to move when fear of death causes you brain to go into autopilot.

After reading that, my last suggestion is for you to seek training from someone who has actually been in shootouts and/or firefights; like Cirillo.
There's a world of difference between play fighting and real fighting....between harmless paper targets and someone determined to kill you.

...and if mutual wounding or mutual death scares you, stop carrying and just practice the tactic of raising your hands in surrender. Remember, you will most likely be ambushed rather than forewarned.
.

threegun
April 3, 2006, 01:48 PM
Skyguy, Let me ask you some questions.

1. Why is it recommended that we train regularly?

2. Why is it recommended that we move toward cover while engaging the treat?

3. In a super stressful encounter what happens to most well trained individuals?

4. In the same super stressful encounter what happens to the untrained individuals?

My answers are below and are as I believe them to be true. They are also similar to many if not most of the firearms trainers I have looked at.

1. It is recommended that we train regularly so that we are proficient with our chosen weapon and so that when the poop hits the fan our brain will revert back to the training without conscious thought. IMHO

2. It is recommended that we move toward cover while shooting because it is harder to hit a moving target, cover can shield us (further increasing the chances of survival), and firing puts the bad guy under duress reducing his marksmanship. IMHO

3. In a super stressful situation most well trained individuals revert back to their training. IMHO

4. In a super stressful situation most untrained individuals......freeze. IMHO

Based on what I have learned over the course of 15 plus years, common sense has nothing to do with someones response in a life and death encounter. That statement along with your suggestion that I should crouch and shoot so that I can achieve the hope of mutual wounding or death is what has me wondering the above questions. If only common sense is needed to know what to do in a gunfight then training would be as simple as an eight week college course on common sense.

I could be wrong on my answers. If you disagree with the answers please give the source of your disagreement ie instructor saying different etc. Don't take this debate as argumentative. I'm always searching for better ways to do things. If your way is better, I am open to change. Thats why I want the source of your training, so that I can research that\those instructors. A prime example of my quest to get better is S'n'B's fluid response. I never tried to run while shooting one handed behind me. From very close distances (as you and I are discussing) this might work. If it does, I will be better. Thats fine by me.

David Armstrong
April 3, 2006, 03:13 PM
Those that have been in a gunfight recommend movement.
And those that have been in a gunfight also recommend not moving. That is the problem with these overly broad blanket statements. I've trained with a lot of folks and with some of the best, and I have never met anyone who would suggest that there was only one response to all different situations. In some situations you might be better off moving. In others you might be better off standing and shooting.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 3, 2006, 03:27 PM
Just back from Givens' CPII class. We did lots of movement. One thing Tom points out is that most civilian interactions occur close up. Thus, movement is to unhinge the opponent's OODA loopy. There isn't time to move to cover in this type of instance. Most movement is short and lateral for the disruptive factor of moving out of the spotlight of attention and forcing an opponent's reorientation, giving you a time advantage.

As David points out, all these are heuristic. There is no guarantee.

Move to cover is more appropriate in some prolonged fight. When a guy is a few feet away, looking for cover, moving to cover takes a bit of planning(why-that takes a bit of time, doesn't it). Identifying cover will divert your attention from who is shooting at you. Thus, we spent time on lateral moves and shooting.

The drills were very useful. Again, training and FOF are quite a different enviroment from matches. Look at how people misuse cover at matches and then if you do it correctly, you slow down the match - you won't win, blah, blah.

threegun
April 3, 2006, 04:53 PM
David, We were talking about being even or behind in the reactionary curve that Sweat'n'Bullets described. It is my fault for not more clearly explaining myself or assuming that others know what I am thinking. Still I have never read or seen any instructor recommend standing still unless a well aimed shot is needed.

And those that have been in a gunfight also recommend not moving.

When is this recommended besides when a well aimed shot is needed?

I tell you if an instructor told me to stand still and deliver my return fire, in the face of someone firing back as in (equal or behind in the reactionary curve), I would question his or her reasoning and the usefullness of the rest of their training material.

threegun
April 3, 2006, 05:29 PM
Glenn, Your instructor probably reminded everyone again about the importance of not getting caught even or behind in the RC and about being aware of your surroundings at all times. You're right looking for cover in the middle of the fight at close ranges is not good. Knowing where it is prior to the fight is key. Regardless of cover, movement is vital to increasing the chances of survival (or so I've been told). I asked David when his instructors recommended standing and shooting, can you also answer that? You have the most formal training of the people I talk to and your input would be awesome. Thanks.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 3, 2006, 05:41 PM
You can talk to awesome old me, all you want. I strongly, again, recommend, that you save some pennies and go train in such dynamic situations. Listening to my opinion is worth little without experiencing it yourself.

As far as not moving, squatting or whatever - it's all whatever - there is not guaranteed solution. If I tried to squat - my old knees would probably fail me and I would fall and die. Sometimes, you might actually approach your opponent - isn't that contrary to dogma? It depends.

There is a grammar and semantics of skills like there are for language. You try to learn the rules, not as to generate fixed utterances but to produce a fluent story or act coherently and fluidly in an incident.

pickpocket
April 3, 2006, 05:59 PM
Those that have been in a gunfight recommend movement.

Actually - those of us that have been in gunfights recommend doing what will keep you alive.

Whether or not to move is going to be a decision that can't be played out until the moment of truth - just like so many other decisions (whether to aim for the head, whether to shoot on the move, whether to shoot to the weak-side, whether to use weaver or isosceles or modified weaver....whatever).

Sitting here arguing about which tactical decision is the best solution before you even have a problem against which to apply that solution is a waste of time. Tactics is not about deciding which solution will work for every situation, it is about developing your bag of tricks and then figuring out how to use that bag of tricks in any given situation. The difficulty with tactics is that you must develop your ability to assess your situation and choose a course of action QUICKLY, and the more tricks you have down pat then the better off you are. You will not have time to think, you will not have time to string together three coherent thoughts, so you need to continuously practice EVERYTHING in your bag of tricks so that you don't HAVE to think about them.
Dynamic shooting has its place, so its only prudent to practice it to the extent that you are able. Stand and deliver has its place, so it's only prudent to practice it to the extent you are able. This goes for everything that doesn't fly in the face of common sense.

At the end of a gunfight, the only right answer was the one that kept you alive. Save the rest for the Monday-morning quarterbacking.

5whiskey
April 3, 2006, 06:58 PM
There have been many good points made in this thread, some that I've never even thought of and I have been in a firefight. The bottom line is, everything is situation dependant. I've always been trained in the force and violence of action department, so movement there is always required. Of course, I do cordon & searchs and hard hits for a living, and I have the finest supporting arms in the world that I can't even use because of collatoral damage and the "hearts and minds" thing. But I do have a whole squad/platoon supporting me, and we have belt-fed weapons providing suppresion fire while we move. We also prefer fire and menuever to fire and movement. All of this really doesn't apply to a someone with ccw. There will be times, when you have cover, that you will not move. There will be times, when you are in the open, that you will (or better) move. Most would pop smoke and run while firing to cover their retreat. That's fine. I personally (because I have seen it work well) would probably advance as I fire, because if done properly and violently enough you will petrify your assailent to the point where they can't function. There are a thousand schools of thought on this, but most of the time you have to move to survive (especially if caught in the open). I am a strong advocate that you should always fire while you are moving unless there is a chance of hitting civilians.

So... we have basically all come to the conclusion that movement is good. What we are not in aggreance on is how to move, where to move, ect. I'm sure someone is going to come up and say I'm insane for closing with the target. Even the military trains for one on one engagements (when we do mout and room clearing), and they train to close with the enemy obliquely while firing on the move. Marine Corps enhanced marksmanshep program (EMP for those who know what I'm talking about or have heard of it, which was invented by my old Battalion Gunner) covers dynamic movement while closing extensively. That's what I've been taught to do, and have done.

SNB's system, which I have not studied extensively, may be another viable option. I know for a fact that he is well versed in dynamic shooting from the following statement...

quote
also see a need to be able to get hits with your toes pointing the direction that you are moving. This type of movement has your upper body working independent from your lower body, "like a turret of a tank." Toes point the direction you are headed, body turreted the direction that you are shooting.

I've heard some other very logical options. Everything is situation dependant, and probably the most important part of this thread that everyone has taken away in this

#1. Dynamic Firing is an important skill that anyone who trains to be in a firefight should cover.

#2 Movement+fire= higher probability of survival... Stationary+careful aim+slow steady squeeze= certain death.

#3 Training is the key. Train to fire while closing. Train to fire while retreating. Train to fire while moving obliquely. Train to quickly eliminate a stoppage. Train to... Train for every situation you can think of, but prioritize to fit your needs.

threegun
April 4, 2006, 05:07 AM
Wheeler,
#1. Dynamic Firing is an important skill that anyone who trains to be in a firefight should cover.

#2 Movement+fire= higher probability of survival... Stationary+careful aim+slow steady squeeze= certain death.

#3 Training is the key. Train to fire while closing. Train to fire while retreating. Train to fire while moving obliquely. Train to quickly eliminate a stoppage. Train to... Train for every situation you can think of, but prioritize to fit your needs.

Nice. On #2 I would add (while equal or behind in the reactionary curve). As for advancing.......that would be offensive. In the military or maybe swat this is great but for the civilian it would mean a jail cell most likely.

Glenn and David, Many have suggested, as have both of you, that movement equals safety. I stated above that none of the informal instruction I have had has suggested standing still in the face of a gunman (assuming his gun is drawn). I got the feeling David suggested that some formal instructors suggested standing still in this instance. Question to both of you. Have you ever been instructed to stand still while even or behind in the gunfight(assuming not behind cover)?

Glenn, Advancing is moving which is why I left it out. I was taught to advance (with a gun)but only in certain circumstances and most of them are offensive. Thanks for the training suggestion also I know you are trying to help. I also understand that you can't pre-program your course of action as the gunfight includes to many variables. Still you must train the skills you hope to employ if that gloomy day ever comes right? I promise not to move if behind cover or if I have the upper hand in the gunfight(if the situation warrants it),but I can't imagine in my wildest what if scenario, standing still, while even or behind in the gunfight, while in the open.

threegun
April 6, 2006, 05:38 AM
Pickpocket,
Actually - those of us that have been in gunfights recommend doing what will keep you alive.

I should have clearified my statement better. Those that have been in a gunfight recommend movement when even or behind in the reactionary curve and exposed. We had been talking about being even or behind at close distance when Skyguy recommended crouching and firing to insure mutual wounding or death. I have never been instructed to do so by anyone in the know. IMO Sweat'n'Bullets hit the nail on the head in his fluid situational response post #6.

pickpocket
April 6, 2006, 09:13 AM
No, I've kept up with the thread and I understood your post. My response was aimed at all of the left or right, black or white arguments. Wasn't meant to invalidate your view in any way.

Lurper
April 6, 2006, 10:39 AM
Just to put in my two cents worth:
Given the scenario (both with weapons pointing at each other), you guys go ahead and move. Me, I'm going to shoot my assailant in the head twice. There is only one sure way to guarantee your survival in a confrontation: remove the threat(s).

threegun
April 6, 2006, 10:50 AM
Lurper, I have never been in a gunfight. Those that have and statistics seem to suggest that with adrenaline flowing and bullets flying, getting center mass hits is hard enough, much less head shots. These folks also say movement can increase your odds of survival. I have to consider the odds and the information learned by those who have been in gunfights.

Lurper
April 6, 2006, 11:19 AM
You have to make two assumptions to reach that conclusion 3 gun both of which are inaccurate.
1. I have never been in a gunfight
2. I am average shooter

pickpocket
April 6, 2006, 12:44 PM
Lurper -
Any chance we can keep the conversation going without thumping our chests?

Keep it friendly and informative - blowing our own horn is neither necessary nor productive.

If you truly are neither an average shooter nor lacking real-life experience then you are a statistical minority; a fact which you can't really expect people to know outright. Please regard yourself as such and refrain from talking down to others.

threegun
April 6, 2006, 12:53 PM
Lurper, My conclusions are not based on you. They are based on other gunfight hardened individuals and statistics from shootouts. I have confirmed similar things from customers and friends who have been in gunfights.

Look, I didn't intend to insult your ability. I can shoot with the best of them myself. I'm am suggesting that most of the evidence indicates that the stress of a gunfight changes your ability to hit. You might be one that isn't affected and thats great. I see my groups open from trainings one holers, just because of competition pressure. I see friends that shoot great and are very smart guys, completely forget what to do during a competitions course of fire. Stress will effect your groups, with the exception of maybe Joe Montana "Joe Cool". These same stats suggest that movement reduces your chances of getting hit. Movement in a direction that make shooting back even harder for the BG would probably be even better (lateral etc).

I you are Bob Mundon just draw and fire from the hip reholster and light your cigarette.

Lurper
April 6, 2006, 12:56 PM
Pickpocket,
I wasn't being unfriendly, uninformative or thumping my chest. I was merely pointing out the weakness in threegun's statement. The thesis of his statement was that someone who has BTDT has a differing opinion which implies that I have not.


I am sorry you found that offensive.

That is the shortcoming of this type of communication.

Lurper
April 6, 2006, 12:59 PM
No offense taken 3. From my experience and several of my acquaintances (and I believe most statistical data) most gunfights occur close in and last a short duration. My point was that taking time to move can be as much of a liability as an asset. Remember we were given the scenario that both parties had their guns pointing at each other. Given that, I believe the best option is to hit your target.

pickpocket
April 6, 2006, 01:33 PM
Sorry if I misinterpreted your post - chest-thumping is a common occurrence and creeps into many threads.

As for moving vs not moving - threegun makes some very good points about your reaction having a lot to do with where you are in the reactionary curve. If BG has the draw on you, then you're probably more inclined to get the hell out of the way rather than try to draw. If both of you are drawn, then the situation changes slightly.
I can tell you that standing there pointing your weapon at someone who has their weapon pointed at you and NOT getting out of the way will set off every red light and siren in your head. Your brain is going to ask what the hell is wrong with you and why are you still standing here?!?! A person's natural reaction is going to be to get off of the line between you and BG.
It takes a LOT of practice (not to mention mental preparation) to train yourself to face down a drawn gun. It just is not the smartest place to be. Another point is that your body is going to want to do things all by itself once it realizes that you're being shot at - and standing still is not going to be one of them. Takes a lot of time to train yourself to overcome those natural reactions. Contrary to what some people think, your brain reacts poorly to the chance that it might take a bullet.

I think threegun made the point that if you are AHEAD of the curve, then BG should never get the drop on you. If you are BEHIND the curve and BG already has the drop on you then you're going to get the hell out of the way. And if you're IN the curve then it's going to be a split-second tactical decision - and your brain normally reverts to muscle memory or instinct during that time.

I think an important thing to remember is that this REALLY isn't about whether or not you "move", but whether or not you attempt to disrupt the BG's ability to maintain SA/SP. Average CCW'er isn't going to be running around with his/her weapon at the ready, so already you are that much further behind the curve right out of the gate.

Even those of us that have been trained and have operational experience will tell you that standing there looking at someone level a weapon at you is not a natural thing to do - and WE have our weapons AT THE READY. We are trained to shoot someone with a weapon as soon as we have a target, so we STAY ahead of the reactionary curve and maintain the advantage. Unless you have trained in this manner or train yourself to react this way, you are probably not going to maintain POA/POI hits under high-stress. I don't have a report to point to, but I do have operational experience - FWIW. However, I've seen many people (on both sides) react to being surprised by moving out of the way. Whether that's ducking behind a dumpster or just a lateral step it's all the same, and your reaction is going to have a LOT to do with your training, or lack thereof.

What I've seen the most of, and what has worked for me, is to simply drop to the ground. You present a much lower profile and it is a much more natural reaction. It's also fairly easy to complete your draw and acquire a target, especially if you practice it.
Pick a few movement drills and see if they work for you. Like I've said in previous posts, it's not going to be something you have time to think about, so practice it extensively and then find somewhere to practice it for real. See what works for you.

Lurper
April 6, 2006, 01:52 PM
Pick, you make some good points. However, the scenario we were given had both parties pointing weapons at each other. It seems clear to me that the fastest solution is to drop the hammer. I probably would try to disrupt the BG thought process by perhaps saying something to take his mind off of pulling the trigger. But again, in that instance I can see no advantage to any other course of action. In that position, I can eliminate the threat with two in the head in .25 seconds. At that point, I am not behind the curve - it is even. I could not seek cover as quickly as I can eliminate the threat. I guess the one crucial variable that we weren't given is the range. I am assuming it is within normal range (7 yards or less). My argument is that with certain people, seeking cover is not the best option. For me, the only thing that will save me behind or in front of the curve is my speed. That does not hold true for everyone. You hit on a key point with training and (more importantly) mental conditioning. Those are the keys. I am not conditioned to seek cover, it has been too many years since I was trained that way. I am however conditioned to hit my targets very quickly so that remains my best option in general.

This is all hypothetical speculation of course and really bears no resemblance to reality. It does however give us the opportunity to see other's points of view.

threegun
April 6, 2006, 03:12 PM
Given that, I believe the best option is to hit your target.

Lurper, If quickly hitting your target will increase your odds of survival and moving will increase your odds of survival, why not quickly hit your target while moving..........even if the movement is slight? With little practice and I mean little, you can step in any direction while engaging the bad guy and still hitting. There is no delay as your legs can work while your hands shoot. Sweat'n'Bullets says that from closer distances it is possible to run while getting good hits from completely behind you. I have fired while moving but not while running. Anyway the best of both worlds can be achieved with just a little practice (provided you already shoot well).

Lurper
April 6, 2006, 03:59 PM
Might be nitpicking 3. I was thinking specifically of seeking cover. I can shoot well and hit on the move, but given the scenario I don't think I would want to try anything other than dropping the hammer without some type of distraction. Here's why:
I know that I can drop the hammer faster than he can if he has not already committed to the action. That knowledge comes from experience. If he has then I still have a good chance of doing it faster because of my experience. Would taking a step slow me down? Certainly, the question is how much. At normal ranges it probably wouldn't be a whole lot, but I would worry that my movement would accellerate the BG's firing process more than the time it might buy me.
Again, with weapons pointed at each other at 10m or less. I'm taking the shot. If my weapon is already pointed at my target, that means my sights are aligned and I will hit the target.
Change the variables and the answer would probably be different. However, I think too many people tout the virtues of seeking cover over the virtues of removing the threat. There are times when the best solution is to put lead on the target.

Before anyone feels the necessity to point out that real life is different than the range, let me add:
The mechanics involved in hitting your target are the same. What is different is the amount that you let the external (outside of shooting) factors effect your mind. Everytime the shtf, I was completely calm. I didn't get nervous or shakey when it happened. Perhaps afterward, I don't remember. My point is though that you can train your mind to deal with those external factors. You can overcome your inherent fight/flight response and all of the other supposedly physiological responses that (if you listen to some) cripple you. Your mind is the key.

I apologize for drifting a bit from the thread's original topic.