The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 3, 2008, 07:19 PM   #51
Avenger11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 311
GEEEEEEEEZ! Why make it so complicated!! It's all common sense!! Hit your target and make sure the BG doesn't! Practice often with your weapon of choice so you know it's capabilities and limitations.
Move on or off the X, scenario's, and such is just filler for trainers to enhance their income.
Avenger11 is offline  
Old March 3, 2008, 11:24 PM   #52
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,148
Quote:
Just remember, most of those video taped gun encounters are of store clerks who frankly have no wear to go. Think about your local stop and rob, the cashier is standing in a little box. THEY have to fight from a standing position.
Whole point. They had no where to go and they still won. Maybe all this dancing really isn't needed.
__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old March 4, 2008, 12:18 AM   #53
Sweatnbullets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2002
Posts: 271
Quote:
Maybe all this dancing really isn't needed.
"Maybe" being the operative word.

"Maybe" you don't need a gun...."maybe" you don't need hand to hand skills....."maybe" they just need a hug.

The fight will be what the fight will be......and "maybe" there won't even be one.

The adversary dictates the dynamics of the encounter......or "maybe" they won't.

I do not know about any of you, but I will not gamble the lives of my beautiful wife, two beautiful daughters, or my son on "maybe."
__________________
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."
Roger Phillips, Suarez International Specialist Instructor http://www.suarezinternational.com/
Sweatnbullets is offline  
Old March 4, 2008, 12:31 AM   #54
evan1293
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 784
Quote:
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."
I couldn't agree more.
evan1293 is offline  
Old March 4, 2008, 12:34 AM   #55
Sweatnbullets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2002
Posts: 271
Quote:
Quote:
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."

I couldn't agree more.
The world of firearms training is definitely changing......and that is a very good thing!
__________________
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."
Roger Phillips, Suarez International Specialist Instructor http://www.suarezinternational.com/
Sweatnbullets is offline  
Old March 4, 2008, 12:36 AM   #56
Sweatnbullets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2002
Posts: 271
Quote:
It's all common sense!!
You are absolutely correct!

Yet, "common sense is not common."

Quote:
Practice often with your weapon of choice so you know it's capabilities and limitations.
The mind is the ultimate weapon.....everything else is just a tool.
__________________
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."
Roger Phillips, Suarez International Specialist Instructor http://www.suarezinternational.com/
Sweatnbullets is offline  
Old March 4, 2008, 03:01 PM   #57
vox rationis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 15, 2007
Posts: 1,855
Quote:
The mind is the ultimate weapon.....everything else is just a tool.
...this reminds me of the diabolical experiments the Soviet Commies used to do , trying to stop the hearts of frogs with their "mental powers"...
vox rationis is offline  
Old March 4, 2008, 03:36 PM   #58
Whirlwind06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 727
Quote:
..this reminds me of the diabolical experiments the Soviet Commies used to do , trying to stop the hearts of frogs with their "mental powers"...
Yeah the CIA spent a few million trying the same thing.
Whirlwind06 is offline  
Old March 6, 2008, 12:42 AM   #59
Sweatnbullets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2002
Posts: 271
Quote:
...this reminds me of the diabolical experiments the Soviet Commies used to do , trying to stop the hearts of frogs with their "mental powers"...
I know that you are joking around......and that is pretty funny.....

As we see in this thread and many of the recent threads, there is a huge number of people that still look at their gun as a talisman. They own it....they shoot it....what else is there?

I have trained with hundreds and hundreds of people that were at their very first course. Out of all that I spoke with, there was the very same reaction to their first course. They simply could not believe how much that they did not know. They may have been shooting and carrying for decades but they acknowledge that "they did not know what they did not know."

Out of all of the people that I have talked to, I never met one that did not see the benefit of a quality training course.

A gun is just a tool.....you are the weapon. Owning a tool does not make you a weapon.....it makes you a tool owner.
__________________
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."
Roger Phillips, Suarez International Specialist Instructor http://www.suarezinternational.com/
Sweatnbullets is offline  
Old March 6, 2008, 07:57 PM   #60
Avenger11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 311
Owning a weapon and not practicing regularly makes you a tool! Common sense is the rule! Wasting $$$$ on unnecessary training makes you a fool.
Avenger11 is offline  
Old March 6, 2008, 09:40 PM   #61
vox rationis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 15, 2007
Posts: 1,855
Quote:
Yeah the CIA spent a few million trying the same thing.
yeah, but I hear that the program was canceled when they caught the would be remote heart squishers tuning in to the Playboy channel instead..

Quote:
I know that you are joking around......and that is pretty funny.....

As we see in this thread and many of the recent threads, there is a huge number of people that still look at their gun as a talisman. They own it....they shoot it....what else is there?

I have trained with hundreds and hundreds of people that were at their very first course. Out of all that I spoke with, there was the very same reaction to their first course. They simply could not believe how much that they did not know. They may have been shooting and carrying for decades but they acknowledge that "they did not know what they did not know."

Out of all of the people that I have talked to, I never met one that did not see the benefit of a quality training course.

A gun is just a tool.....you are the weapon. Owning a tool does not make you a weapon.....it makes you a tool owner.
Thank you for understanding my cheeky, if not totally lame, humor I don't know what possessed me to make that KGB joke, except that I was trying to be funny. I totally understand the point that you were trying to make about one's fighting attitude being more important than the tool used....but on a "serious" note, come think of it, even if one was able to pulverize one's heart with one's "mental powers", there still is no such thing as true "mental powers stopping power", as the bad guy would still have approximately 10 seconds or so before being truly physiologically incapacitated (ok I know I know I'll shut up about this now )

On truly serious note, I don't pretend for one second that I have expertise or even personal experience in the area of moving of the X, moving for cover or standing one's ground. But here's a very interesting article written by Paul Howe of Delta "Blackhawk Down" fame. Check out his theories on "Training for the real fight".

http://www.combatshootingandtactics....eRealFight.pdf

I found the whole read very very interesting, but for his specific thoughts on using cover and shooting on the move, scroll down to "the fight and setting up your opponents" section. I'd love to hear your, the professionals that is, thoughts on what Mr. Howe writes.

Last edited by vox rationis; March 6, 2008 at 10:18 PM.
vox rationis is offline  
Old March 6, 2008, 11:06 PM   #62
Sweatnbullets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2002
Posts: 271
Quote:
I'd love to hear your, the professionals that is, thoughts on what Mr. Howe writes.
We need to understand the context from where Mr Howe speaks from. He is part of a special military team that is almost always in a "proactively dominant" position. They also generally use long guns at typical military distances. The difference between a typical civilian defender or lone LEO in a reactive situation, with his handgun, at three to fifteen feet is very different than a special teams guy in a "proactively dominant" situation, with his long gun, at thiry to ninety feet. There is simply no comparison at all. Dynamic movement at logical distances with threat focused skills are an absolutely obtainable skillset with a handgun. Being able to engage with accurate fire, with a long gun, with dynamic movement, out to thiry yards, while taking incoming from another long gun is an entirely different animal. This is why all of this is contextual and situationally dependent. This is also why it is like comparing apples to oranges.

Let's not forget the context of the situations when we are recommending tactics. And god forbid, let's not let "past technique limitations" dictate our tactics.

Quote:
Owning a weapon and not practicing regularly makes you a tool! Common sense is the rule! Wasting $$$$ on unnecessary training makes you a fool.
Just keep repeating this over and over again in order to try to convince yourself that this statement actually has "common sense."
__________________
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."
Roger Phillips, Suarez International Specialist Instructor http://www.suarezinternational.com/
Sweatnbullets is offline  
Old March 7, 2008, 12:09 AM   #63
Skyguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2005
Posts: 266
Paul Howe of Delta "Blackhawk Down" fame has the actual experiences of being ambushed, taking deadly fire, casualties, being outnumbered, on the run and fighting under totally 'reactive' and changing situations. He knows what's up.

Like Matthew Temkin said:
Quote:
"One of the reasons why I have sought the advice of combat veterans is...that these men have insights that can only be learned by placing one's butt on the line. Anything else is second rate.
(someone) with zero military/police/security/combat experience should be more humble in the attitude department."
Many trainers have never even been in one gun battle or even been shot at. They teach tactics from hearsay to the less informed and not from real life experience. Case in point: 'stand and deliver', commonly known as stand and 'die', will get one killed needlessly.
Anyone that would opt for 'stand and deliver' - except in the most dire and uncompromising circumstances - is a fool. Period.

A ¼" of muzzle deviation off target moves the POI 12" at 15ft. A moving target is harder to hit. So, move!

Bottom line........It's about surviving. Pay attention. Don't freeze. Whenever possible, always move when under an up-close attack.
.
__________________
First off.....'she' is a weapon, not a girlfriend;
a genderless, inanimate mechanism designed to mete out mayhem in life threatening situations.
Skyguy is offline  
Old March 7, 2008, 12:44 AM   #64
matthew temkin
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 369
Yes, but in that article Mr.Howe is warning against movement.
I think this is because his experience is military and not law enforcement/civilian.
matthew temkin is offline  
Old March 7, 2008, 06:36 AM   #65
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,226
Quote:
Duh! You dont' think that is my point? Read the post that explains priming, then tell me that it's not done. I'm not saying what they teach is bad, I am just pointing out the lack of efficacy in the common SD/tacticool/ninja/jedi warrior mindset. If one says that "moving off of the X is the most important thing you can do" then when one looks at gunfights, one should see a pattern that supports the statement. The pattern doesn't exist. The only pattern I can see at this point is that the person who hits first wins. Therefore: it stands to reason that hitting the target first is the most important skill to develop.
Yes, and my point was that they looked at data, maybe not the same as yours, but self defense data, and arrived at a different conclusion.

Here we have a difference of sampling between gunfights and shootings. You are referring to gunfights and so have introduced a significant bias into the interpretation to support your conclusion that it is more important to neutralize the threat instead of moving. Many gunfights NEVER become gunfights and simply remain as shootings because people didn't stand around trying to neutralize the threat. They move off the X and moved through the rest of the alphabet to safety.

If your sampling is of gunfights, then you have missed a huge body of data on how people avoided being shot or killed because you haven't looked at the data on folks who didn't return fire and egressed to safety.

I do agree with you, however. If you are going to stand and fight, then you darned well better neutral the threat ASAP.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old March 7, 2008, 09:29 AM   #66
Sweatnbullets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2002
Posts: 271
Quote:
"One of the reasons why I have sought the advice of combat veterans is...that these men have insights that can only be learned by placing one's butt on the line. Anything else is second rate.
(someone) with zero military/police/security/combat experience should be more humble in the attitude department."
Hello skyguy....been a long time!

This is exactly where I get my information from.....listening to the guys that have been in numerous gunfights....both in combat and on the streets. I know a bunch of guys that have dominated from stand and deliver. I also know a bunch of guys that reacted.....moved and shot....and won.

Proactive or reactive, that is what it all comes down to.

"What is your position in the reactionary curve?"
__________________
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."
Roger Phillips, Suarez International Specialist Instructor http://www.suarezinternational.com/
Sweatnbullets is offline  
Old March 7, 2008, 08:44 PM   #67
vox rationis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 15, 2007
Posts: 1,855
Quote:
Yes, but in that article Mr.Howe is warning against movement.
I think this is because his experience is military and not law enforcement/civilian.
just one point of clarification, if you'll allow me:

I think that Mr. Howe was making the point that when you need to move to get cover, you need to do it as fast as you can and you don't have time to shoot, and that when you have to shoot you have to be as accurate as you can so you don't want to do it on the move. And as Mr. Howe writes, he "never found an in between" where one can shoot on the move; either you are moving with speed and purpose, or you are shooting with accuracy (and speed if you are good), as you cannot do either well at the same time.

SweatnBullets I understand what you mean when you say that Mr. Howe's comments make more contextual sense from the point of view of a [para] military agent engaging a [para] military/terrorist enemy at more extended distances. Being confronted face to face in a parking lot by a parasite of society wishing to victimize you is a scenario not really covered in Mr. Howe's great article. So in a face to face like that, where avoidance and tactical maneuvering has for whatever reason been made moot, the decision to make is still: stand and deliver or move of the X as you draw etc. So, it would appear that I haven't really added anything to this discussion But if the bad guy is shooting at you from a longer distance, moving with swiftness out of the kill zone, to cover, and then attempting to decisively engage, would seem to make a lot of sense.
vox rationis is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 01:02 AM   #68
Lurper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
Quote:
Many trainers have never even been in one gun battle or even been shot at. They teach tactics from hearsay to the less informed and not from real life experience. Case in point: 'stand and deliver', commonly known as stand and 'die', will get one killed needlessly.
Anyone that would opt for 'stand and deliver' - except in the most dire and uncompromising circumstances - is a fool. Period.
And that statement just isn't supported by the data on civilian gunfights, period. What is supported is that the person who hits their targets first wins.

Quote:
Yes, and my point was that they looked at data, maybe not the same as yours, but self defense data, and arrived at a different conclusion.
The vast majority of trainers look at law enforcement data, not civilian. As I mentioned, there is no database of civlian shootings. It is painstaking work.

Quote:
Here we have a difference of sampling between gunfights and shootings. You are referring to gunfights and so have introduced a significant bias into the interpretation to support your conclusion that it is more important to neutralize the threat instead of moving. Many gunfights NEVER become gunfights and simply remain as shootings because people didn't stand around trying to neutralize the threat. They move off the X and moved through the rest of the alphabet to safety.
Your words not mine. I simply find accounting of shooting incidents and compile the data. The only data I didn't use was when no shots were fired or animal attacks. It's a pretty broad spectrum. Fact is fact you don't have to like it, nor agree with it nor does the "mainstream", but it is what it is. Which is exactly my point: For years we as consumers have been spoon fed what certain people in the industry want to feed us and most lap it right up. The reality is (no matter how you slice it) in the vast majority of incidents where shots are fired, moving off of the X nor any other common tactic has any effect on the outcome to the degree that hitting the target first does. Certainly, don't take my word for it. Do the work yourself and you'll see. A lot of what is forwarded by the "tacticool" crowd is self-serving. How else would you propse to look at what works for civilians? Study LE gunfights? Military? The only way to know what works is to study civilian situations (and you wouldn't study situations where the CCW'er lost if you were looking for what worked). Again, tactics play little or no role in the vast majority of cases. This is primarily because the average CIVILIAN doesn't know or use them. You can argue effectiveness all you want. Again it's the efficacy that I question. The reverse implication of saying "moving off of the X will keep you alive" is "not moving off of the X will get you killed". There is no data that supports that. No matter what anyone says.
Lurper is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 10:17 AM   #69
Skyguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2005
Posts: 266
Quote:
Yes, but in that article Mr.Howe is warning against movement.
I think this is because his experience is military and not law enforcement/civilian.
Howe said in that article: "In short, make yourself a hard target. Most of the friendly casualties I observed were shot when they failed to use cover, or stopped in the open and not moving. This is also how I engaged most of the enemy that I know I got solid hits on. They were stopped in the open."

Movement off the X - the kill zone - is meant to make oneself a difficult target...to 'not' get shot.
Most movement has the common purpose of seeking cover. Being shot at – with real bullets - is a great motivator to move yo ass and not stand and deliver.

I believe a good part of SD training should be move-draw-shoot.
Fast or slow, just move. Hit or miss, just shoot.
.
__________________
First off.....'she' is a weapon, not a girlfriend;
a genderless, inanimate mechanism designed to mete out mayhem in life threatening situations.
Skyguy is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 10:30 AM   #70
Skyguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2005
Posts: 266
And a big hello to you, SNB.

Quote:
Proactive or reactive, that is what it all comes down to.
Exactly! You're either the ambusher or the ambushee. I've been both, and being the ambushee sucks.

A 'fair gunfight' is an oxymoron and High Noon was just a movie. :)

Move off the X....
.
__________________
First off.....'she' is a weapon, not a girlfriend;
a genderless, inanimate mechanism designed to mete out mayhem in life threatening situations.
Skyguy is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 10:51 AM   #71
Skyguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2005
Posts: 266
Quote:
And that statement just isn't supported by the data on civilian gunfights, period. What is supported is that the person who hits their targets first wins.
You keep talking data, yet you show no data. Show me the damn data!
Reminds me of a professor who taught business, but had never been in business. Where's the credibility of his 'knowledge'. Hearsay? Must I have faith in his word?

A gunfight isn't a quick draw contest. Nor is it decided by who 'hits their target first'. Many, many people have been hit first and proceeded to eliminate the attacker. Me being one of them. But that's not my point.

My point is 'surviving' an attack and step one is to move out of the kill zone – to move off the X. A moving target is a hard to hit target.

The worst part of your inexperienced advice and 'booklearning' is that some average gun owner might be led to believe in 'stand and deliver' over moving out of the line of fire. That is a tragedy waiting to happen and that's on you.
.
__________________
First off.....'she' is a weapon, not a girlfriend;
a genderless, inanimate mechanism designed to mete out mayhem in life threatening situations.
Skyguy is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 12:25 PM   #72
Lurper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
Quote:
Howe said in that article: "In short, make yourself a hard target. Most of the friendly casualties I observed were shot when they failed to use cover, or stopped in the open and not moving. This is also how I engaged most of the enemy that I know I got solid hits on. They were stopped in the open."
This is fine for military engagements. It doesn't apply to civilian nor necessarily LE. The Force Science Institute has done several studies. One showed that in around 70% of the 400 cases studied (LE) cover was not available or the shooting happened so fast that seeking cover wasn't possible. Also conventional wisdom taught police officers to move to their left to avoid being hit while one of their studies showed that was moving into most likely direction an unskilled shooter would miss. So, just because it's mainstream doctrine doesn't mean it is correct.

Additionally, Military, Law Enforcement and Civilian shootings are three totally different situations, each having its own unique settting, requirements and solutions. If you don't accept that, you are ignoring reality.

Quote:
You keep talking data, yet you show no data. Show me the damn data!
Reminds me of a professor who taught business, but had never been in business. Where's the credibility of his 'knowledge'. Hearsay? Must I have faith in his word?
Go back and read all of my posts and you'll see where the data is or just wait 'til I publish the book. Why wouldn't you have faith in their word? Some of the big name "tactical trainers" have never been in a gunfight, yet everyone takes their word for it? One person's first hand knowledge doesn't mean anything in and of itself. It is a small snapshot. That is part of what started this. My personal experiences in armed confrontations and those of a few of my friends was so outside of what was taught, that I knew something wasn't right. Personal experience only gives you insight into a very small aspect of the entire phenomenon. Looking at several hundred or more allows you to see a better picture. Look at Mas Ayoob, he is one of the most well known experts in the field and rightly so.

Additionally, one person surviving gunfight is neither a gunfighter, nor a qualified expert. They are a survivor.


Quote:
Nor is it decided by who 'hits their target first'.
Well, actually in the 400+ cases I've compiled so far it is. At least 70 - 80% of the time anyway. It really is simple. Moving does not eliminate the threat. Shooting does. At typical civilian encounter ranges, moving does not make you harder to hit. Quite freqently, there is no place to move or no cover available. The other guy can't kill you if you kill him first (or take him out of the fight). That is really such a no-brainer that many trainers and experts either don't see it or ignore it. They need to have some new high speed low drag tactic to sell.

Quote:
The worst part of your inexperienced advice and 'booklearning' is that some average gun owner might be led to believe in 'stand and deliver' over moving out of the line of fire. That is a tragedy waiting to happen and that's on you.
Yeah and the thousands of students I've trained over the last 25 years have all died using my "booklearning".

The worst part of your inexperienced post is that you have the gaul to launch a personal attack without even reading the previous posts. Otherwise you would have known what my background is, where the data comes from, what my position is etc. You really should refrain from attacking the messenger when you can't attack the message. Makes you look like a Democrat.

I essence I guess your position is:
"I have survived a gunfight. Therefore I am an expert in gunfighting. Even though in the majority of civilian cases the person who hits the target first wins, that isn't what is important. In spite of the fact that most people don't move off of the X and still prevail, moving off of the X is the most important thing to do. While removing the threat is the only guaranteed way to survive, I advise you to move and not remove the threat. Don't worry about what other civilians have done that have survived, just listen to me, because I survived."
Is that correct?
Lurper is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 12:35 PM   #73
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Lurper,
We don't always agree on this stuff, but I do have to give you credit for making me look at things on a "deeper" level.
While I still don't 100% agree with your stance, IMO there are times for stand and deliver and there are times for seeking cover. Everything in between is a judgement call based on training and experience that can only be made by the individual in the engagement.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 01:11 PM   #74
Lurper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
TY

Quote:
IMO there are times for stand and deliver and there are times for seeking cover.
I agree. I think I have been deliberately careful to not say it in absolute terms. There are no absolutes. I teach people to seek cover first in those situations which unfold slowly (burglaries for example). Again, I'm just pointing out what the data shows. I'm beginning to feel like the guy who pointed out the Emperor's New Clothes.
Lurper is offline  
Old March 8, 2008, 01:15 PM   #75
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
I agree. I think I have been deliberately careful to not say it in absolute terms. There are no absolutes.

Exactly, and that is what is missed by many.
DonR101395 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15851 seconds with 7 queries