PDA

View Full Version : The Quick Peek Technique and Active Shooters


Deaf Smith
April 12, 2009, 09:06 PM
In the May/June issue of American Handgunner magazine, Massad Ayoob has a very interesting article on the technique of ‘The Quick Peek’.

The NYPD back in the ‘70s had the technique of quickly peeking from behind cover. Not to fire a weapon or even aim it, but to just do a recon. After the peek one would then judge what to do about the situation they had seen when they peeked.

At the 2008 IDPA Nationals they had a stage, number 13, where the bad guy was on a swinger that ‘peeked’ out from behind cover JUST ONCE! You had basically a second to hit it. Thing is, YOU started the swinger to do the peek.

Amazingly, out of 300+ shooters, many master, expert, sharpshooters, and others, 186 of them missed the target! And even some of those who hit, just edged the target.

Now consider if you have to go after an Active Shooter. The quick peek may be of value since any shooter out there will not have the advantage of knowing when you will peek, or where you will peek from.

If one does decide to go in alone, you need as many advantages as you can get.

KLRANGL
April 12, 2009, 09:38 PM
Oh yeah, I always used the quick peek in Rainbow Six... Except sometimes the auto aim on the BGs would be so good they'd nail me from 100 ft with full auto fire :mad:

oh wait, wrong forum....

Reminds me of Bruce Willis in The Fifth Element. It worked for him right? :cool: "Seven on the left, five on the right." BANG BANG BANG "Four on the left, two on the right."

dang it, wrong forum again...

Seriously though, I think it is a valid tactic that has its place. Lots of airsoft CQB games were won using the peek technique, and for the lone, unarmed individual could certainly prove useful.

David Armstrong
April 12, 2009, 11:52 PM
Seriously though, I think it is a valid tactic that has its place.
That is the key. It is a useful tool, although the usefulness is quite limited in scope, IMO.

KLRANGL
April 13, 2009, 09:00 AM
although the usefulness is quite limited in scope
I'd agree...

Maybe elaborate on some more useful alternative techniques given said active shooter scenario?

David Armstrong
April 13, 2009, 10:47 PM
Maybe elaborate on some more useful alternative techniques given said active shooter scenario?
Although I'm not that fond of the whole active shooter concept, I've found that in training the traditional slice the pie technique to work well. You aren't having to give up ground automatically after you take it, plus it allows greater mobility should the need arise. If you want to do a sneak peek, use a mirror.

Mas Ayoob
April 13, 2009, 10:54 PM
Agree with David: mirror (if you have one) for "sneak peek."

However, by definition, "sneaking" is slow. Quick peek is QUICK, and works for folks who don't have mirrors (or backup personnel to cover them against close assault when their eyes are in the mirror.)

Quick peek is a SEARCH technique, not an aggress-and-shoot-the-bad-guy-as-soon-as-possible technique.

On the speed continuum, the "sneak peek" is slowest, the "quick peek" by definition is faster, and "slice the pie" is faster still.

However, the faster you go, the more you expose yourself to an armed opponent. Therefore, the totality of the situation, and the speed of response necessary, will determine the appropriate technique. Different tools for different tasks, all of which might be necessary in a given situation at a given moment depending how things go.

matthew temkin
April 15, 2009, 09:38 PM
Nice to hear from the gent who actually wrote the article in question.
The Swedish Police have an interesting take on this--a rapid series of quick peeks ( without going back behind the cover) which is a sort of very fast peeks combined with rapidly slicing the pie.
For use in an active shooter situation where speed is of prime importance.

ChCx91
April 17, 2009, 06:38 AM
The quick peek technique is MUCH more useful IMHO than cutting the pie. You have to quick peek correctly, though. If you decide to quickpeek the same location more than 1 time, make sure the second/third/etc times you do it from a different elevation. You don't want to quick peek and quick peek in the same elevated position, cuz if there IS a threat and he remembered where your melon popped out, he's going to expect you to pop it out again and POP IT. If you quick peek once and decide that you are going to enter and engage after identifying a target, same tactic: engage at a lower or higher elevation that you did at first. The best way to quick peek, in my opinion, is to do it at the highest elevation possible and second peek/engage at a lower elevation. Always practice first and use caution before attempting any tactics that are foriegn to you.

Blue Steel
May 12, 2009, 02:08 AM
My training avoided the quick-peek and focused more on what the staff called "limited entry". The limited entry was partially entering a room or wrapping around a corner by leading with your gun. If you identified a threat you would engage it, as opposed to a quick peek where you look, possibly identify a threat, and then give up ground.

The idea was that situations are dynamic enough that a quick peek was of limited value because circumstances are often changing as fast as the clock is ticking. What you see is often times not going to be what you get when you re-engage. If an opponent is waiting to ambush you, he may learn more by watching your head peek out and disappear than you do in the limited time you get to view the scene.

As far as "slicing the pie" I think this is an excellent technique for searching that allows you to clear around corners while keeping a position of advantage. You can slice as fast or as slow as the situation allows, either cutting inches as your creep the corner or slicing big chunks as you move quickly through the corner.

Also, remember when you are working corner or utilizing cover you do not have to be right up on your cover. If you are coming around the corner of a building for instance, you can back away from the building while slicing and still have the advantage of the building for cover.

grumpycoconut
May 16, 2009, 07:56 PM
Quick peek is a horrible technique! Your view is limited, the amount of detail you can accurately perceive is minimal, you give up any ground you've gained the moment you stop peeking, you've given away your position by rapidly bobbing your melon around and a truly aggressive opponent is going to start punching rounds through the corner you just peeped around.

If you've really got to get into the space that quickly you are much better off with a hyperaggressive full entry and contact. Smarter still, slice that pie and snipe 'em as soon as you see any portion of their meat.

Quick peek looks good on TV but that's about it.

kraigwy
May 17, 2009, 12:28 PM
I dont know about quick peek. Not sure I want to poke my head into something I dont know about.

I've done thousands of building searches 'n such. I carried a Mechanics inspection mirror on an extending handle I carried in my pocket. It worked great for peaking in unknown areas.

Seems to me peaking your head in a door/window, etc would just telegraph your actions. Not many bandits expect a little mirror poking around the corner.

Deaf Smith
May 17, 2009, 12:50 PM
Keep in mind several things.

One this thread is bout active shooters. It may be a school, office, warehouse, building, etc..

When you realize something is happening, you may be on the ground floor, outside, inside, in the john, etc..

Your knowledge of the layout may be nonexistent, spotty, or quite detailed.

Each and every incident will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

The QP is a recon method. It is only one of many methods you may use (if you know how and have trained.)

One picks what one needs for that particular moment. It may be using the QP to check out halls that are quite long, the grounds outside, or areas where you can hear the shooter and others at a distance, etc... and do not want to engage the shooter yet (but you want to narrow down just where they are without much exposure and without engaging them.)

Using the mirror you will find out, if you have trained with it, that does not take in the whole room. It has gaps and must be moved back and forth, up and down, to get a good view of the area, and any long hallway will be difficult to discern what is at a distance (especially if you do not have good eye sight.)

You may use the pie method once you decide to enter the room and if you encounter the shooter fight it out with them. One thing about the pie method, once you enter the room and they spot such as your shoes, and there are hostages about, you will have to fight it out with them and deal with others who may run, scream, drop down, or just get in the way.

Make sure you know several methods and fully understand them. Then pick what is needed.

Kmar40
May 17, 2009, 01:15 PM
Quick peek is a horrible technique! I tend to agree, mostly because the item you're peaking around is rarely cover. And it's not even concealment once you peak around.

This is one of the reasons that airsoft/paintball whatever is generally poor training. Everything is cover to a paintball gun. Very little is cover to a real firearm, especially a rifle.

My other objection is that rapid movement draws the eye. You may be able to slowly cut the pie and avoid detection but a quick peak will usually draw attention and have the bad guy dialed in on your location.

There may be times when it's a sound technique, but it isn't good as a general technique IMO. Mas is undoubtedly right that they won't be able to plunk you between the eyes when you are doing a QP, but that doesn't mean that you aren't then at a tactical disadvantage. Few buildings offer an alternate route once you have drawn the enemies eyes to your QP location.

pax
May 17, 2009, 07:45 PM
Deleted two personal comments above. If yours was one, knock it off please.

pax

grumpycoconut
May 19, 2009, 02:15 AM
Deaf Smith,

Even in, especially in an active shooter situation is a lousy technique. Active shooter responses run at two speeds. Balls out moving to the sound of the shooting and quick but not real quick searching because the bad guy ain't shooting right now. Pie slicing is the way to go at either speed.

If you are moving flat out you can still slide your way across an opening with a gun between you and the threat area while minimizing your exposure, maximizing your opportunities to see the bad guy first and maintaining your forward momentum.

Momentum may seem silly but it's important. A quick peek necessitates stopping for a moment, jerking forward, jerking backward and then moving forward again. If you are the point on a 4 man hunter element that means you have to stop not one body but 4 and you are only driving one of them. I can see approaching a left side threat area, the point stopping to do his quick peak and a distracted right flanker zipping across the threat area (back exposed) or the tail gunner backing into the point and shoving him into the funnel. No Bueno. On the other hand, a pie slice eliminates the need to stop/start/back/start and keeps the hunter dynamic if the situation calls for continued forward movement or a sudden turn in to aggress against the bad guy.

Pie slicing can be real quick and still give the slicer half a chance at seeing threats around corners.

Pie slicing also gives you the advantage of greater distance from your cover/concealment. I like being as far away from that corner when I look around it. Wall strike ricochets like to hug the wall they just smacked and distance may just keep me out of that angle.

If the bad guy see your shoes with a pie slice you're doing it wrong. The first thing the bad guy should see is your muzzle and one eyeball. The next thing he should see is a bright flash and the deity of his choosing.

Girls should be peaked. Pies and bad guys deserve slicing.

Regolith
May 19, 2009, 03:12 AM
Can someone explain what "slicing the pie" is? I can deduce some limited things about it based on context, but it'd make it a whole lot easier to follow this conversation if it were explained. :o

Blue Steel
May 19, 2009, 05:06 AM
http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p337/tblack859/tactics%20and%20sightlines/587px-Clear_Corner.jpg

Pieing corners or slicing corners is a search technique used for corners, doorways and other obstacles. You work the corner, moving in an arc, "slicing" off pieces of the room, controlling as much of a room or unknown area as you can without advancing into the area. You're looking for a sign or your adversary such as an elbow, the toe of a shoe, or the brim of a hat. If you lean into the corner that you're working this will help limit your exposure.

http://mcsa.kattare.com/mcsa/resource/posts/slicepie2.jpg

Nnobby45
May 19, 2009, 06:30 AM
The quick peek technique is MUCH more useful IMHO than cutting the pie. You have to quick peek correctly, though.


When you peek, it's to fight. You've already seen what you need to see by pieing the room.

Some guy named C. Smith points that out well in his excellent video on the subject. You expose nothing, except to fight. He also points out that you shouldn't do it because it's too dangerous. But shows you how to do it if you feel you must.


The basic principle as it applies to pieing is the same as forthe sight radius on a pistol. Move the gun a little, and that translates to a lot more down range. Same with pie slicing. For every inch you pie out, the amount of room exposed is measured in feet. A couple inches of your head exposed may allow you to see all of Bubba.

You can see it on Blue Steel's diagram where the greater the distance, the more you see for the same amount of self exposure.

Now I'm not talking about being in the middle of a fight where the quick peek may be necessary to keep the enemy from running up on you. Peek quick, often, and not from the same place. At least according to some excellent instructors I've had.

Deaf Smith
May 19, 2009, 06:59 PM
Tell me gang, with all the windows on buildings and class room doors, are you going to pie around every window outside a school building? Are you going to pie around all the class room windows INSIDE a building?

When ever you do the barrel pieing like in the picture above, keep in mind in real life you may very well have other doors and windows behind you. There is no safe way to clear a building by your self.

Don't think inside a box where there is just one door and only one way to look in (or be seen.) And that is why you need many techniques for different situations.

Nnobby45
May 19, 2009, 08:21 PM
Don't think inside a box where there is just one door and only one way to look in (or be seen.) And that is why you need many techniques for different situations.
__________________
Deaf

True, I think we tend to forget that pieing is a technique best suited for when you know (or suspect) you're not alone inside your own home, and it becomes necessary to move from one room to another.

I think this pieing around buildings, down the alley, and every which way is a little silly. House fighting isn't street fighting IMO.:cool:

Pieing doesn't replace peeking as a tactical philosophy nor vice versa--they both have their place.

David Armstrong
May 20, 2009, 10:49 AM
Tell me gang, with all the windows on buildings and class room doors, are you going to pie around every window outside a school building? Are you going to pie around all the class room windows INSIDE a building?

You don't pie objects, you pie areas. Sometimes you have to take into account that there is a window there, or a door, or a desk, and then you incorporate that into the technique.

Deaf Smith
May 20, 2009, 05:06 PM
You don't pie objects, you pie areas. Sometimes you have to take into account that there is a window there, or a door, or a desk, and then you incorporate that into the technique.

Sometimes david? And what, incorporate that into pieing? No david, you use a variety of techniques, not just pieing. And that is what the QP is about. It's an alternative technique for different situations. This is especially true if you go it alone as has been suggested.

David Armstrong
May 20, 2009, 08:59 PM
Sometimes david? And what, incorporate that into pieing?
Yes, deaf, sometimes. Sometimes a window might be positioned in a way where it needs to be taken into consideration when you pie an area, just like sometimes other objects need to be considered. I know you have absolutely no real experience in this and your total understanding of the tactic is very limited and comes mostly from reading stuff, but when you get out and do this for real you can find out the difference.
No david, you use a variety of techniques, not just pieing.
Of course. However, since this was in the context of pieing (your quote: "Tell me gang, with all the windows on buildings and class room doors, are you going to pie around every window outside a school building? Are you going to pie around all the class room windows INSIDE a building?) that is the context in which it was answered.
And that is what the QP is about. It's an alternative technique for different situations.
Nobody has said otherwise. Most of the folks in the know have said it is a bad technique for going in after an active shooter.

Deaf Smith
May 21, 2009, 05:41 PM
Sometimes david? Better look at all those school windows, office windows, doors, etc... Pieing is not the only, nor always the most desirable technique, and thus QP is an alternative.


Most of the folks in the know have said it is a bad technique for going in after an active shooter.

Sure david, at least in your mind.

Deaf

David Armstrong
May 21, 2009, 06:33 PM
Sometimes david? Better look at all those school windows, office windows, doors, etc.
Yes, deaf, sometimes, as I said before. And I have looked at those school windows, office windows, doors, etc. I've actually looked at them when trying to find bad guys. Unlike you, I've cleared buildings for real. Perhaps if you would quit trying to figure this stuff out by reading about it and actually do it for real you could understand this kind of stuff. The fact that you would even phrase the issue as "....are you going to pie around every window outside a school building? Are you going to pie around all the class room windows INSIDE a building?" is pretty indicative that you have no idea how to use the technique in an actual dynamic situation.
Sure david, at least in your mind.
Now deaf, do you really want me to start cutting and pasting from the other forum all those verified cops who posted that you didn't have any idea what you were talking about? Even Mas who you quote to start this thread, pointed it out: "Quick peek is a SEARCH technique, not an aggress-and-shoot-the-bad-guy-as-soon-as-possible technique."

Deaf Smith
May 21, 2009, 07:36 PM
"Quick peek is a SEARCH technique, not an aggress-and-shoot-the-bad-guy-as-soon-as-possible technique."

While you are cutting-and-pasting find where I said the QP technique was anything but a SEARCH technique.

Whle you are at it, when you are SEARCHING just what are you looking for.... duh... the active shooter, right david?

Guys, take the Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City. It has insides that basicly are 360 degrees of windows. Most down to the floor.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,660195049,00.html

and the Spokane WA, Lewis and Clark High School shooting. The school is quite difficult to pie all around the outside, I don't care how you modify the pie technique. And the interior hallways will be even worse.

http://warddesigngroup.us/portfolio/featured/images/lewis-and-clark-ext1.jpg

In order to locate where the active shooter is you are going to have to seach some. Might be lucky and others point out just where they are. Might be very unlucky and have quite a large number off rooms, if not floors, to check and plenty of noise to make it difficult to pinpoint by sound.

So if you do this, especially if by yourself, I strongly suggest you have several good techniques you can interchange as needed. Including the quick peek.

David Armstrong
May 22, 2009, 10:05 AM
While you are cutting-and-pasting find where I said the QP technique was anything but a SEARCH technique.
You are pushing it as a technique to go after active shooters. You have said how it would be of value in that effort. Seems like a whole lot of folks involved in actually doing that job have said you are wrong.
Whle you are at it, when you are SEARCHING just what are you looking for.... duh... the active shooter, right david?
Sometimes, deaf, your lack of knowledge about some of these things is downright embarrassing. And no, as a general rule, you are not SEARCHING for an active shooter. You know roughly where the shooter is and are moving as rapidly as feasible to get to him and engage him.
Trying to discuss police work and tactics with you is like trying to discuss sex with a virgin.
But here, let's see what others in LE or the military have said to you previously in reference to this same issue:
"Suarez says you're wrong. Ayoob says you're wrong. Armstrong says you're wrong. All identifiable guys with known backgrounds. Multiple guys with real-world experience (Spade, Foster, Rex, more) who're more anonymous but still in the trenches say you're wrong."
"I don't see the quick peek as a generally viable technique for the active shooter."
"In an active shooter scenario, a quick peek around the corner to assess the situation is a wasted time. "
"The problem with drawing tactical anecdotes from IDPA is that few of us will ever be attacked by cardboard. I have nothing against gun games. I think they are fun and serve a good purpose, but in this instance, as others have said, Take the ground and hold it. "
"IMO, you're extrapolating a drill into a situation where it really doesn't fit very well. I don't see the quick peek as any real advantage in your scenario. I do see huge problems with it. "
"Quick peek is set up for a methodical search of a structure that may or may not be occupied by a bad guy. If you respond to a scene and hear gunshots, quick peeking your way to the shooter is gonna result in a lot of shot up people. I don't think NTOA is teaching that either and there is a reason for that - wrong tactic for the wrong time."
"Quick Peek is inappropriate for use in an active shooter response. You understand that active shooter response is *exactly* an "aggress-and-shoot-the-bad-guy-as-soon-as-possible", right?"
"Other areas where you're showing severe lack of knowldege---such as the thread where you wrongly commented on SWAT's active shooter SOPs---show that you're not prepared to advocate tactics in this area."
"After a while it gets tiring listing to Deaf, whom as far as I know has no military or police experience and has never been in what the bureaucracy likes to refer to nowadays as a 'critical incident', pontificate on the right way to do this or that with regards to tactics."
"When I 1st landed (here), Deaf's post would have made a lot of sense. Today, a post like that, and his continued vacillation in this thread is a clear indication that a lot of where he is coming from has no basis nor foundation in the real world."
"In an active shooter situation, as much as I hate clearing rooms alone, or even in a pair, I would rather pie a corner, or do a dynamic entry (being a moving target with a gun is better than a popup target) and dominate the room, not peek in and announce "here i am!" to a possible shooter, and thus be either ventilated through the wall, or as I came in after, since no single peek will let you see a entire room. "
None of those statements are from me, deaf, but they are all from BTDT guys responding to you advocating the QP for going in after an active shooter. So it's not just David, or just in David's mind, it is from a whole lot of folks who have played this game for real.

Capt Charlie
May 22, 2009, 11:48 AM
C'mon guys. There's nothing wrong with a good, old fashioned debate, so long as it remains impersonal and civil.

This one's starting to loose those qualities. Step back, count to ten, and tone it down.... please!

Deaf Smith
May 22, 2009, 06:03 PM
Yes david you are searching. To know roughly where they are does not mean you know what room, or even floor they are on. In fact in many of the actual Active Shooter attacks across the country the police did not know where they were in some very large buildings. What is more you know neither their numbers nor dispositions or weapons, so yes you have to search to find them in many cases. The larger the area, as I showed above with pictures of actual buildings where Active Shooters did kill many, show that very fact.

Suarez said in his part of the thread to 'never say never' to, didn't mention that, did you david? Ayoob says it's a recon method, and so do I. You may very well have to recon to find out approxamatly where the Active Shooter is david. Especially if you go in alone as many have suggested such as Farnam and Haggard:

Single Officer Response in Active Shooter Events By Sgt. Chuck Haggard
http://www.thetacticalwire.com/feature.html?featureID=3593

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/23Apr09.html

IDPA? Now where in this thread, or in the Active Shooter thread at GT have I mentioned IPDA? No, you mentioned it david, not I.

I have been to several schools that taught tactics, among other things. I've teamed up with others to form entry teams as part of the classes and we practiced the very entry maneuvers used by LEO entry teams (yes groucho walk, grasping the person in front of you and the one at the end by the belt, etc..., peeling off on rooms, etc...) And yes, the ones teaching the classes were LEOs.

None of this is rocket science david. It's not LEO only patent-pending top secret. It’s the same tactics anyone would use to stop an Active Shooter. Or do you even know really what an Active Shooter is, david? You can’t spend all day pieing every room and door in the case of an AC. Every second means someone else is dead so speed is important to. It is not the same as a raid on a drug den where you know the layout, the possible number of actors, and the time to set up a team to enter when least expected.

Big difference david.

David Armstrong
May 22, 2009, 07:33 PM
I have been to several schools that taught tactics, among other things.
Yeah, we know, you read a book, you saw an article, you took a class. Yet overwhelmingly it seems those who do this stuff for real say you are wrong. I think that says it all. It's not just David, it's all those other guys.
IDPA? Now where in this thread, or in the Active Shooter thread at GT have I mentioned IPDA? No, you mentioned it david, not I.
Actually, I quoted somebody else who mentioned it in response to you, and yes, you did mention it. Post #1: "At the 2008 IDPA Nationals they had a stage, ..."
Or do you even know really what an Active Shooter is, david?
Yes. Apparently you don't, however, as was pointed out in the other thread and is rather obvious given some of your responses here in this thread talking about searching, doing recon, etc.
Every second means someone else is dead so speed is important to.
Yep, that is why you don't waste time searching, you hunt down the BG and engage him.
Big difference david.
Yes, deaf, it is a big difference. I know the difference from actual experience instead of reading about it. I've done drug raids and I've gone after shooters. Perhaps you would care to tell us about one of the drug raids you led, or one of the times you went into a building after a guy that was shooting at folks? Oh, wait, never mind---you've never done any of that kind of stuff!:rolleyes:

David Armstrong
May 23, 2009, 11:34 AM
Especially if you go in alone as many have suggested such as Farnam and Haggard:
Didn't see anything there from John regarding specific technique, but there was a general "move fast because it will all be over quickly" context, which seems to negate peeking. However, SGT. Haggard was a bit more direct:
"Since response to an active-shooter incident is a race, a race between the responder(s) stopping the shooter and the shooter racking up a greater and greater body count, I strongly advocate that officers should move to contact as quickly as possible, and by themselves if need be, to expedite stopping the shooter from killing more victims."
Note "move as quickly as possible", which tends to negate peeking around things. In discussing an active shooter response of his own, he says: "I bolted up the steps, pistol in hand, moving as fast as I thought I could engage." Not walked up, not snuck up, but BOLTED up steps, moving as fast as he could while still leaving enough control to engage. Looks like another "don't waste time peeking" advocate. In fact, how does he describe his movement toward scene? "I pushed hard and fast, "pieing" the door as I went, hoping to get a slice of the shooter and to open fire as soon as I had a piece of him available to shoot."
Strangely enough, I didn't see him discuss the benefits of the quick peek, or the need to pie every window, or doing a search, and so on. Could be that those who do this sort of stuff regularly just don't understand it the way someone who once went to a school that taught tactics, among other things.

Deaf Smith
May 23, 2009, 10:16 PM
I've done drug raids and I've gone after shooters.

Are these one of the ones you 'participated' in that made you a 'gunfighter', like you mentioned to Talon on Glocktalk?

David Armstrong
May 23, 2009, 10:23 PM
Oh my, are you trying to make this a personal fight, deaf? I believe if you will look at that thread that I made no claims about participating in any particular events or claiming to be a gunfighter. Of course that has nothing to do with the proper tactics for going after an active shooter, so any chance you will try to stay on the topic?

pax
May 23, 2009, 10:41 PM
Looks like this one is done now.

Closed.

pax