View Single Post
Old March 13, 2008, 05:40 AM   #92
Lurper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
So much of what Farnam and Gochenaur contend just isn't supported by fact. You will notice though that both advocate stopping and shooting. As I have said repeatedly movement if it doesn't cost you shooting time may be beneficial.

Quote:
since most right-handed adversaries will miss low and left.
This is exactly the opposite of what other studies have shown.

Quote:
The most that a lightning fast draw gives you is a tie. Each of you shoots the other at about the same time.
Again contrary to the evidence, but also moot. It's not who shoots first that matters, it's who hits first.

Quote:
Lateral movement gives you time: time for you to deliver accurate fire and time for your pistol rounds to take effect. In the meantime, the probability that you are shot is substantially reduced."
Wholly unsuported by real civilian gunfight data. This is the problem with FOF and sims. Unless the environment is strictly monitored, you can't get a realistic result. You cannot predict nor simulate the effect being hit has on an attacker. Additionally, the player's mindset is to get the other guy. In civilan confrontations, this is usually not the case. The vast majority of civilian encounters do not result in death. That means the assailant usually stops the fight and flees or surrenders when shots are fired. This is a point that cannot be overlooked. A lot of doctrine is based on bad or false theses. The assumption that the assailant must be killed to stop the fight for example.
Another assumption seems to be that the assailant is going to hit you with his first shot and that shot is going to kill you. Once more, there is no evidence that moving plays a factor in determining the outcome of a gunfight.

This is so much arguing fact with theory. The facts from real gunfights where the good guy prevailed -vs- our theories have shown . . . or our simulations show that . . . .
Just like Global Warming, based on simulations and theory, not supported by actual data, yet said long enough and loud enough becomes accepted fact.
Lurper is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04784 seconds with 7 queries