Moving off the X

[Lurper]

So once again I will ask the question what do you consider a win? Do you consider killing the other a win or do you consider living a win?

A "win" is stopping the encounter and living. That was the only question that I saw you pose. The rest were statements.

As far as where the information comes from, it is all in the early posts.

. . . what you are not answering is why they got that shot off . . .

I can't answer that (definitively), nor can anyone else. More importantly is not the shot, but the hit. It could be marksmanship or just blind, dumb luck.

It is cool that you are blindly willing to stand by a general answer . . .

I see, by blindly willing to stand by my answer, you mean taking the time to compile all the data and analyze it to see what the trends are as opposed to taking what my favorite writer/school/instructor says at face value, correct?

You are free to believe whoever or whatever you want. This is nothing new, people as far back as Fairbairn (and farther) have reached the same conclusion. If you look at 1000 shootings and in 850 of those, the person who scored the first hit ended the fight and lived, what conclusions would you draw from that?

[Allstar]

I understand the person that gets the first hit lives, but how did he get the first hit is the more important part for people are looking to this for information. The thread is about moving off the X you make a blanket statement about getting the first solid hit is what matters. But that doesn't help anything. If those 850 people should their ground pulled and lived then it is more realistic to say stand and shoot, if they did move and then pull and shoot. Then it would be better to say yes moving off the X is a good thing to do. The way you make it sound and some newbies have already asked me about it. You make it sound like they all stood and drew.

Your right I did take my favorite instructors words blindly, because out his 37 encounters he took one bullet to the shoulder and that was it. None of the BG lived. I have personally used the moving off the X, and lived while the BG didn't. Yes it has been in war as well as urban situations where I was concealed.

[Lurper]

I understand the person that gets the first hit lives, but how did he get the first hit is the more important part for people are looking to this for information.

No one can answer that question and anyone who claims they can is a liar.

The thread is about moving off the X you make a blanket statement about getting the first solid hit is what matters.

It demonstrably is. Moreover, no one can say that moving off of the X is what determined the outcome. There is no way to prove that. So, to try to tell someone that moving off of the X is the most important factor or tactic to use is disingenuous. Futhermore, saying that you should sacrifice hits for movement is foolish.

You read whatever you want into what I said. I have repeatedly stated that my point was not not to move, nor stand and deliver is best, yet several people want to try to make it into that. My point is that who hits first is the most important factor (not moving off of the X, seeking cover, or dancing a jig). Therefore, the primary goal of training should be to insure you can hit your target rapidly and repeatedly.

[alizeefan]

I realize this is a different situation to a close range pistol fight but I read with interest Paul Howe, during the blackhawk down operation, related that he never shot whilst on the move. He basically sprinted between cover and when he had to shoot he planted his feet, placed accurate aimed fire at his antagonist and then resumed fast move to cover.

[pax]

I understand the person that gets the first hit lives, but how did he get the first hit is the more important part for people are looking to this for information.

No one can answer that question and anyone who claims they can is a liar.

Then I guess you might as well call me a liar, because I can answer it.

People who got the first solid hit did it in one of two ways.

1) They moved, making themselves the most difficult target to hit, and thus slowed down their opponent's ability to kill them while they drew and fired,

OR

2) They stood their ground and drew so quickly that they got a shot off before the other guy could react, and the shot was such a solid one that the other guy did not shoot them either by reflex or design as he fell.

Either method would result in getting the first solid hit, done right.

Which method is more common? Someone here claimed they'd done research on that point.

Love to see data.

pax

[David Armstrong]

And my 'real issue' here is that it is not good training advice for an average gun owner to be taught to stand and deliver....rather than move off the X.

I don't disagree. I think movement is an important part of the equation. Just when that movement should be utilized is an open discussion, IMO, that I'll avoid. My sole concern/issue is this idea that anytime someone claims to have some knowledge of some issue that certain parties want them to post links and give cites and all that stuff rather than discuss the issue itself. Like JohnK said, "The bottom line is that there's no benefit to anyone in turning this thread into a "measuring" contest."

I'm still calling out combat vets, leo's or civilians who could post their fighting experiences and whether they stood and delivered to incoming bullets or whether they moved off the X.

Well, I've been in fights as LE, military, and civilian. And some I moved then shot, some I stood my ground and shot, some I moved and shot. So I'm not sure what that means<G>!

[Skyguy]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

Well, I've been in fights as LE, military, and civilian. And some I moved then shot, some I stood my ground and shot, some I moved and shot. So I'm not sure what that means<G>!

It means to me that you moved when you were vulnerable and stood your ground when you had the relative safety of cover; that's fighting 101.….and that's the kind of priceless experience that stats can't convey.
Stats count and record things - experience knows, prepares and teaches things. Stats are valuable – experience is invaluable.
I don't want the guy next to me to be the statistician, I want the guy that knows what the hell to do in 'this' mess.

DA, you have the experience that needs to be passed along as learning lessons and reinforcement of proper action.

You understand the voluntary-involuntary reactions to an ambush. You know why not to freeze, the danger of stand and deliver, the fact that the threat is a deadly, thinking, equal foe. You've experienced how a threat moving out of one's tunnel vision upsets the loop and redirects one's attention, muzzle deviation consequences, missing the target, etc....all reasons for moving off the X, out of the kill zone.

You know that hits have little immediate effect on a determined threat unless it's a direct central nervous system hit....and how many have been shot com with multiples and still kept moving and fighting before bleeding out. You know how to cheat the odds and on and on.

You have something that most plebes yearn for, even pay for; real life experience and how 'not' to die in a confrontation.
.

[Allstar]

Skyguy you put out a very good point. I am lucky enough to be in a position to train at least once or twice a week with sim rounds. This allows me to constantly work on paying attention to my surroundings. Real experiences that I have had pushes me to pay attention harder ever time I step into a training sceanrio.

If you want practice on this kind of stuff, as corny as it sounds get airsoft pistols with your friends and find a building somewhere and set each other up. Granted the fear of death isn't there, but if you are in CQB distance and get hit with that BB flying 300-400 feet per second, you are going to want to move a little bit faster. I do this stuff with some of my other support guys that don't get the training oppurtunities that I do.

[Yellowfin]

Paintball is even more to that point and reveals a number of things that I wouldn't have known if I hadn't been involved in it for 6 years. One, people move, so a stationary full face target isn't very relevent past learning how to shoot what you have and how it performs. Secondly the value of mere inches of cover becomes immediately obvious. Third how easy it is to get hit--only with the idea that one hit can mean game over forever. Fourth you don't ordinarily realize how even sticking out for a second is plenty enough time to get shot, and anything that is exposed will be. A second is a very long time when you're dealing with 1/300th of it...then step that up to 1/1000th when you're dealing with pistol rounds. Fifth you see that plenty of shots against moving targets becomes not such a bad idea, and that followups aren't just hypothetical. Sixth you realize just how hard a target a wily individual who thinks constantly about avoiding your shots and connecting with theirs really is.

Standing in front of a paper or cardboard target that isn't moving, isn't shooting back, and doesn't have a brain doesn't teach one bit of that.

[Skyguy]

you realize just how hard a target a wily individual who thinks constantly about avoiding your shots and connecting with theirs really is.
Standing in front of a paper or cardboard target that isn't moving, isn't shooting back, and doesn't have a brain doesn't teach one bit of that.

Exactly! Stand and deliver target practice is one faceted – it's only ½ of self defense handgun training.
It's just 'offense' training for offense fighting. Like a baseball player always training to hit and never training to field.

Moving off the X as you draw and shoot is the more complete 'defense plus offense' training.
Move whenever possible. Even one step helps. Move, draw, shoot. Hit or miss, just shoot.

Why? Because moving out of an attacker's tunnel vision upsets their loop. Shooting at them freaks them out. Both tactics redirect their aim and attention which forces muzzle deviation consequences and usually causes them to miss the original point of aim....all reasons for moving off the X and out of the kill zone as you draw and shoot.

Keep in mind, too......There is no proof 'anywhere' that the first person shot in a gunfight dies, drops or is out of the fight. That's just silly.
Yet, there is plenty of proof that the person who is 'not' shot in a gunfight survives/wins. Be guided accordingly.

Example: Equal opponents at six yards, one car length. Stand and deliver:
In less than two seconds each shooter draws and fires four shots. Neither moves, both die!
Shoulda moved.

[Lurper]

Example: Equal opponents at six yards, one car length. Stand and deliver:
In less than two seconds each shooter draws and fires four shots. Neither moves, both die!

Here are the problems with your example:
1. It rarely happens this way. You rarely have 2 shooters of equal skill. But skill is only part of what factors into winning.
2. Usually, you don't draw and fire. Most often both parties have a gun in hand or they retirieve it from a closet, shelf, etc.
3. It assumes that both parties hit their target. There are a number of factors that effect that.
4. It assumes that being hit kills them both simultaneously (you levelled criticism against that position in an earlier post even though no one made that claim).

This is typical of the pat self-serving argument that many schools present. They try to support an argument that cannot be proven.

The fact remains that there is only one thing you can do to guarantee your survival and that is to remove the threat before it removes you. How you do that is up to you. But to make statements like moving guarantees you won't be hit or guarantees your survival, etc. is just not true. Likewise saying lack of movement will get you killed. The only sure way to survive is to remove the threat (by killing them or otherwise) as quickly as possible. The surest way to remove the threat is to put lead on the target.

[Allstar]

So I have decided to test your theory and myself and others tried it 10 times moving and 10 times stationary. Using sim rounds and between myself and 4 others these were our results.

When an opponent wasn't moving they landed 100 out of 100 shots all were considered critical/kill shots. (Head, heart, lungs)
When the opponent moved there was only 15 out 100 shots that were considered critical/kill shots. This was the person was able to adapt to the movement.

There was another 12 shots landed that were non critical shots (2 shoulder, 5 arms, 3 hands, 2 legs) the leg shots were from someone that had a FTF and dove out of the way.

[JohnKSa]

Which proves (as does most other force-on-force scenario training) that if you set up an artificial situation where both opponents are equally prepared and have generally similar skills, agility is a very important component of the resulting engagement.

What's missing is the proof of how well these scenarios apply to the much less structured scenarios that occur in real life.

When I read story after story about the elderly successfully defending their home against young, armed attackers, I have to think that maybe real world scenarios don't usually play out exactly the way they do on the FOF "training" field.

[Lurper]

Again for the millionth time, it's not about move - don't move. It's about what is the most important factor. I could conduct the test and the results would be dramatically different due to my speed and skill level. It doesn't matter if you move or not, I will hit the target 90+% of the time. More importantly, the average citizen would have still a third dramatically different result.

Which proves (as does most other force-on-force scenario training) that if you set up an artificial situation where both opponents are equally prepared and have generally similar skills, agility is a very important component of the resulting engagement.

What's missing is the proof of how well these scenarios apply to the much less structured scenarios that occur in real life.

Precisely!

You can create whatever "test" you want. It doesn't change reality. All the movement in the world does you no good if the threat isn't removed. FoF, paintball, sims, etc. are all artificial environments. Some of the most important factors cannot be simulated. The biggest one is state of mind. I have cited a couple of instances where the bg lost even though they had the drop on the good guy. Also, as I metioned, more often than not the bg flees when shots are fired (not something to stake your life on though). You cannot predict how someone will react to being shot or shot at. It can't be simulated. Yet countless so called experts try to say that it can. If that were true, those who didn't use tactics or had little training would lose. The reality is otherwise.

Again, no matter what anyone says, the fact remains that the person who scores the first solid hit has a much greater chance of surviving. That is fact and can easily be proven. The statement that moving will save your life cannot be proven or is blatantly false. It cannot be determined. As I've state many times already, if you want to move, move. If not, don't. But, don't spend time that you should be shooting moving.

[Allstar]

You are right state of mind is completely different. As for the set ups here is how it went down. You were told if you were to move or not move, then you were put into the kill house. You made your own movements and choices. Sometimes you made it back to the door without an engagment. You really didn't know when you would be engaged. This problems with our controls, we are all highly trained individuals. We have great reaction times and keep our heads calm under fire. I wish I had access to less trained people to put them in this and try. But I don't.

I guess this will always be a dead issue, because both sides have valid points.

If I move and get away then I have survived the engagement.
If I shoot and survive and he dies theni I have survived the engagement.

[Avenger11]

Perhaps we should all move off the "X" and move on!!

[Skyguy]

Originally Posted by Lurper

The fact remains that there is only one thing you can do to guarantee your survival and that is to remove the threat before it removes you.

Wow. That's very risky advice for a newcomer to ccw tactics. It suggests a reactionary, quick draw response to a deadly threat already in motion. Most gun owners are not prepared for a reactionary shoot-out from behind their loop. Fortunately, there's more than "only one thing you can do".

The civilian's first order of business is to 'not' get shot. Moving is designed to evade the first shot and then counter. Shooting it out is secondary.

The novice gun owner should become a hard to hit target by immediately moving out of the line of fire as he draws and shoots. Hit or miss, just shoot.

Moving out of an attacker's tunnel vision upsets their loop. Shooting at them freaks them out. Both tactics require the attacker to redirect his aim and his attention which forces muzzle deviation and usually causes him to miss the original point of aim. All are good reasons for moving off the X and out of the kill zone as you draw and shoot.

Defense first! Then offense.

Originally Posted by Lurper

if you want to move, move. If not, don't. But, don't spend time that you should be shooting moving.

That's an either/or. How about the more sensible approach;moving as you draw and shoot? lol

Example below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6Yb8NehQc
.

[Lurper]

It suggests a reactionary, quick draw response to a deadly threat already in motion. Most gun owners are not prepared for a reactionary shoot-out from behind their loop. Fortunately, there's more than "only one thing you can do".

It suggests nothing of the sort. The only thing it suggests is that the most important thing to do is to hit the target. Most civilian shootings are reactive. That is their nature.

The civilian's first order of business is to 'not' get shot. Moving is designed to evade the first shot and then counter.

Not so. The evidence shows otherwise and this is the meat of the argument. There is nothing you can do to guarantee that your opponent won't hit you except to remove him from the fight. That is the only thing you can do that is 100% effective. Offense should be first, defense (like cover) is secondary. You cannot say that your movement will help you evade the shot, if you don't evade the shot then you won't get a chance to counter. Counting on movement to save you is a leap of faith at best and a roll of the dice at worst. This is where the movement argument falls flat on its face. It cannot be supported by real life. Most often (58% of the time according to AZ DPS), the first shot misses whether the target moves or not. The real question becomes why did it miss? Again, it is a combination of factors of which movement is only a small part. The opponent's skill, experience, state of mind, training, equipment, vision, hearing, reaction time and other factors all play a role in whether he hits you or not. What is the common thread in all of those? They are not under your control. Why would you stake your life on something(s) that is not under your direct control?

Moving out of an attacker's tunnel vision upsets their loop. Shooting at them freaks them out. Both tactics require the attacker to redirect his aim and his attention which forces muzzle deviation and usually causes him to miss the original point of aim.

Oh really? What if your opponent doesn't buy into Boyd's theory? Let's see, it worked well with Platt and Mattix, Phillips and Matasareanu and countless others, right? Boyd's OODA loop is just that: theory. Not everyone subscribes to it. Staking your life on theory is a risky proposition.

If I move and get away then I have survived the engagement.
If I shoot and survive and he dies theni I have survived the engagement.

Absolutely!

[David Armstrong]

There is nothing you can do to guarantee that your opponent won't hit you except to remove him from the fight.

I'll disagree a bit. Removing yourself from the threat works as well as removing the threat from you. The problem becomes one of recognizing which option is the best to try.