PDA

View Full Version : Moving off the X


evan1293
February 29, 2008, 06:27 AM
I've heard some very different things from different people on this subject, and Im wondering what you guys think. In a reactionary gunfight, the type a civillian is most likely going to face, is it all important to move off the X and then engage? If so, assuming all directions are available, what seems to be the best direction to move in? Does the distance you find yourself from the adversary at the start of the conflict affect if,when, and how you move in the fight?

I've heard some of the more older school guys preach gaining distance as a number one priority. Others, particularly from competition circles, have said to just plant your self and shoot first and fast. I watched Gabe Suarez's latest video, which I thought was great by the way, and he says its best to move towards the back of the assailants gun hand (so that they have to sweep to their outside to hit you.) This makes sense to me, especially if the fight is an upclose one, as it most likely will be.

Moving off the X seems important especially in the light of Col. Boyd's OODA loop and resetting your opponent. What do you guys think on this subject?

wjkuleck
February 29, 2008, 09:29 AM
Kinda depends on how you've trained. If you haven't trained to hit while moving, your fire may be ineffective. However, one of the more respected resources (Farnam? Smith?) avers that moving laterally gives your opponent a sufficiently more difficult problem that his hit probability goes waaay down.

Dunno what your state laws require, but here in Ohio our first duty is to run away. Moving laterally certainly satisfies that requirement whilst giving the bad guy a more elusive (literally) target. If you've trained to hit while moving, then that's the cherry on the whipped cream.

Regards,

Walt

Lurper
February 29, 2008, 10:28 AM
You can debate whether it's effective or not until the cows come home. The reality is that it usually doesn't happen (by design) in civilian gunfights. It's far more important to hit your target than it is to move off of the X. It's also better to shoot then move than it is to try to shoot while moving. If you can't/don't hit your target, nothing else matters since in the majority of cases the person who hits their target first finishes the fight in better shape.

crucible
February 29, 2008, 10:34 AM
Evan, if you've seen the DVD, take the next step: the Force on Force class (from Suarez or anyone else teaching this for that matter). This process, directions, and how well some things work or don't work will be quite graphically shown to you (and your body:)).

Short answer: everything is situationally dependant on any number of things. Things such as obstacles in your way (cars/bushes/buildings/other people, etc.) will limit your directions. Are you in a hallway of some kind? A large limitation. Does the goblin have a friend-or several? More limitations. Does he initially present himself behind your field of vision? Etc. It's even possible that things happen so quickly one might not be able to move much at all; that's possible.

I believe that just gaining distance for distance sake isn't enough here to be the overriding concern. What if that means you running directly away from the goblin? That isn't too much different than just standing there for the first precious few seconds, and doesn't make him change his OODA loop much (read aim). Running to your 9:30 (and he is at your 12) certainly will: you move in some lateral fashion, and he must change his OODA. The more lateral, the more he'll have to change.

The point here isn't to say you do this and you won't get hurt. The point here is to do what it takes to improve the odds. And doing this in a FoF class against live folks will definitely show you that standing there trying to out draw a bad guy is a virtually assured recipie for getting shot (or cut/stabbed if thay are attacking you). Yes, you might be the fastest shot in your state and you may even shoot the bad guy, but if they shoot/stab you at the same time (perhaps in multiples), is that winning?

IMO, YMMV, blah, blah.

C-

pax
February 29, 2008, 10:38 AM
Marty Hayes, at the Firearms Academy of Seattle (www.firearmsacademy.com), is fond of telling his students that the thing to remember is that every gunfight has two targets. It is not enough to hit your own target -- you need to stop the other guy from hitting his.

pax

Deaf Smith
February 29, 2008, 12:31 PM
If 'getting off the X' is so important, why are bullet proof vest not emphasized?

Plenty of videos on the net of real shootings show shop keepers and the like not jumping off the 'X'.

There are some very light and very easy to conceal vest made nowdays.

What? You mean it makes trainers more money if they can get you to a dynamic class to show you how to hit while moving instead of simply buying a vest? Say it ain't so, Joe.

jfrey123
February 29, 2008, 12:59 PM
I always kinda figured it's best to move to your left if you need to get off the 'x'. Posts way back talked about diving that direction if you ever needed to dive out of gunfire, because that would force the shooter to start spinning to his right. Assuming he's right handed (for the sake of argument, most people shoot pistols righty) with a two handed grip, he can swing to his left and across his body much easier than swinging out of his platform of stability by swinging right.


As far as real world application of this theory, it's probably not as drastic of a change up as we need, but it's just something to consider. Overall, I'll probably be running to the closest cover or in front of my loved ones.

buzz_knox
February 29, 2008, 01:02 PM
Plenty of videos on the net of real shootings show shop keepers and the like not jumping off the 'X'.

They do that for the same reason that drivers in a skid turn the wheel in the wrong direction in a vain effort to get control. They don't know any better. Hunching over is a natural human reaction to stress. It doesn't make it the optimum reaction.

What? You mean it makes trainers more money if they can get you to a dynamic class to show you how to hit while moving instead of simply buying a vest? Say it ain't so, Joe.

That vest covers a relatively small portion of your body. Unless you are wearing armor that covers your head, brachial complex, femoral artery, groin, etc., not being shot is preferable and moving assists that.

Jim March
February 29, 2008, 02:54 PM
Anybody else noticed that sideways-from-incoming-fire movements are easier from a Weaver hold versus Isosceles?

buzz_knox
February 29, 2008, 03:00 PM
Anybody else noticed that sideways-from-incoming-fire movements are easier from a Weaver hold versus Isosceles?

Depends on which way you are going and what else you are doing. When doing movement drills, I find myself using multiple stances as necessary to keep the target in the sights.

MLeake
February 29, 2008, 03:38 PM
... this sounds like yet another reason to plug at least rudimentary martial arts training.

Learn to move, and not be a target.

No, you won't block bullets.

But if you are used to moving laterally, backwards, even dropping under an attack, it should translate well to other encounters, such as gunfights.

As far as gaining distance, that tactic favors the better shot. Wild Bill Hickock used to get as close as possible, in order to unnerve his assailants. That worked better for him.

Situationally and individually dependent.

DCJS Instructor
February 29, 2008, 04:50 PM
I have a saying in my school that I learned from a very experienced Instructor.

When in a gun fight you must do (3) things.............

1. Move
2. Shoot
3. Communicate


Why Move?........Because:

M=motionless

O=operators

V= ventilate

E=easily

I would suggest moving to cover, however if cover is not available just move or
GET OFF THE X. While shooting. This if nothing else will disrupt your opponents OODA loop and serve to put you in a better position tactically.

Just my $0.02

Tom Perroni

Scattergun Bob
February 29, 2008, 06:45 PM
So many things to think about, in such a short time.

The average defensive gun fight is:

at close range 0-10 ft
is over in less that 3 seconds
is in less that good lighting conditions
our enemy is generally moving toward us
WE are under stress!

MOVING FORWARD DOES NOT SEEM THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

MOVING FAST AND SHOOTING ACTURATLY SEEMS RIGHT.

IF YOU CAN SAFELY MOVE AWAY, WHY NOT?

I think all issues must be judged on " will this help me win this fight, and how long with it take me to stop this attack.


first, with the most, WINS Scattergun Bob

Deaf Smith
February 29, 2008, 07:10 PM
They do that for the same reason that drivers in a skid turn the wheel in the wrong direction in a vain effort to get control. They don't know any better. Hunching over is a natural human reaction to stress. It doesn't make it the optimum reaction.

Well if that the case, then let's turn this into a pointshooting thread. After all, it's a natural human reaction and why...they don't know any better.

I'd like to see some documented evidence from actual shootings that moving off the 'X' is actually any better than other alternatives. Especially since most people havn't trained to hit moving targets, nor hit while moving, and especially not hitting moving targets while they are moving themselves.

See, the bullet proof vest option isn't so bad, is it? There is pleny of documented cases where it worked quite well.

Steve in PA
February 29, 2008, 07:29 PM
Moving AND shooting at the same time is a very difficult thing to master.

Moving makes its difficult (we hope) for someone to hit you, however it also makes it equally difficult for you to hit them. And if they are also moving....the difficulty is multiplied.

You have three options on moving; before, during or after the shot.

Moving forward, among other things, makes you a bigger (growing) target.

Moving backward is slow, especially if the attacker is coming towards you. You cannot go back faster than he can go forward. Also moving backward can cause you to trip and fall, thereby becoming for all intents and purposes, a stationary target.

Moving to the side, or off-line from the threat is generally the prefered course of action. If you can't shoot & move at the same time, the best course of action is to move, stop, fire......move.

It all depends on your level of training.

AK103K
February 29, 2008, 07:42 PM
I practice moving and shooting and close range shooting more than anything else. One thing I've noticed more than anything else is, its very easy to hit what your looking at while you are moving. I practice with both a live P229 in 357SIG and a P229 Airsoft at home in the yard and in the house.

With the Airsoft in the yard by myself, I often practice using a 4x4 clothes pole as my opponent. From a contact distance to about 5 yards, I have no troubles hitting that post as I draw and move off line. Even the few misses are very close to the edges as you can see them go by. The post itself is dimpled from the pellets.

I have very similar results at the range with live ammo. Even at 10 to 15 yards, its pretty simple to rapidly put and keep all rounds in the COM of a IPSC type target.


At close range, I cant see doing anything but moving while drawing and shooting, especially if there is more than one target. If you stand still and try to draw and shoot, especially against multiple targets, your dead, or at least that is what seems to happen the most when your "targets" are actually trying to shoot you back.

At the very least, when you move, your forcing your opponent(s) to deal with a rapidly changing situation and moving target. Your forcing him/them to the back side of the curve and having to react to your action.

I think MLeake is on point about the martial arts thing. One thing I've noticed since I started working on doing this is, I seem less worried about form, or technique, this stance or that, and I just let go and do it as it comes without thinking about it. I'm less concerned with trying to shoot "groups" and more comfortable with good, fast, multiple hits, any way I can deliver them. So far, its not hard at all to do just that, and the results have been good.

MLeake
February 29, 2008, 07:43 PM
Granted, these could be nice to have at times. However, look at the number of incidents where LE types, who are provided with vests, have opted not to wear them due to comfort and temperature issues, or at detectives who can't conceal them adequately with plain clothes, and then try to argue that regular, civilian CCW types will regularly be willing to wear vests...

The reality is that people most likely won't. Even though vests would offer protection against torso hits (though not in the armpits or neck... or groin... hmm...)

OTOH, if you aren't crippled with injuries or slowed drastically by old age, you can always move. Therefore, it would seem prudent to learn how to move during stress situations.

Then again, there are times when it is illegal to carry a weapon. This is one of the other reasons why I advocate physical training. You always have brain, hands, feet....

Skyguy
February 29, 2008, 08:06 PM
Handgun bullets rarely drop a threat instantaneously. It takes a few deadly seconds for an adrenaline charged aggressor to react to their wounds or to bleed out.

Times and self defense training have changed....remarkably.

For the average Joe, stand and deliver is rarely the wise thing to do in a deadly encounter because the odds of mutual death or injury are so high. That is classic old school training.

At close range and with ambush on the BG's side, the best tactic is to 'not' get shot....that means 'move' first!

So the drill is 'move' off the X as you draw your weapon and shoot. Miss or not, just shoot.

Anyone who has been in firefights or shootouts knows that the whole idea of surviving a deadly encounter is to 'survive'....not bullet placement or hitting the threat first.
In a real life encounter one has only seconds to react and those few seconds are best used to move first, draw then shoot.
.

Lurper
February 29, 2008, 08:18 PM
You can create all the acronyms you want for military and LE engagements, but they don't apply to civilians. Here's some of the many reasons why:
In the military and LE confrontations, you are in some way shape or form expecting some sort of trouble. You have different equipment, tactics, mindset and environment. You should rarely be in condition white (or yellow depending on the environment). Usually you will face more than one attacker and it will usually be at a much greater range. Your adversaries typically have decided to kill you before the confrontation starts.

Civilian encounters typically occur one of two ways: one minute you're minding your own business, the next minute, guns are out or you're alerted (or awakened) to a problem and you act accordingly. The latter case is where tactics are applicable. The former case, doing anything but shooting will probably get you shot. Most of the time, the intended victims are in condition white. The engagement distance is much closer. More often than not, cover is not available. It is more often than not one on one or two on one and the number of rounds fired is much smaller. Also, your adversaries have not made up thier mind(s) to kill you before the encounter - if they had they would have just walked in and shot you. Additionally, most of the time the desire for self-preservation overrides the desire to kill and the assailants will run away (sometimes while shooting, sometimes not). Most of the time the determining factor in who comes out of the fight in the best shape is who hits their target first. Ergo; hitting the target first is the most important skill to develop. Everything else is secondary. The only way to ensure your safety is to remove the threat.

It's kind of pointless to argue that shooting while moving is as efficient or effective as shooting when not moving. It isn't. Additionally, the wild card is the skill (or luck) of your opponent. Given the choice of getting the first shot off or moving off of the X and being the second one to fire the shot should be a no brainer. I'll take being first to hit the target every time hands down.
Show me the evidence that moving off the X is more important than hitting the target and I'll gladly embrace the idea. But, you can't because the evidence doesn't exist. There is plenty of evidence that shows that he who hits his target first wins.

MLeake
February 29, 2008, 08:29 PM
If my gun isn't in my hand, I need to draw. I can step forward, left, right, or back and still draw simultaneously. Depending on how the holster is rigged, some directions of travel may be easier for drawing purposes, but that's situation dependent.

If his gun is already in his hand, I definitely need to move while drawing. That move could be behind cover, off to the side (and moving to the back side of his weapon hand probably is best, if no cover is available), or I may even be best served by stepping in on an angle and trying to deflect his shooting arm and therefore his muzzle as I draw.

There is absolutely nothing gained by standing still as I draw, aside from the gain to the other guy of giving him a mostly stationary target.

If you can't draw while moving, then practice it. Practice changing facing. Practice drawing while changing facing. If you want to make it really challenging, practice muzzle awareness while drawing and changing facing.

I frankly don't understand the rationale for just standing there to draw and fire, unless somebody is a phenomenal quickdraw artist. Even then, moving is a better idea.

A compromise might be step and draw. Stop for an instant and fire. Move again. Stop and fire.

A better idea would be to find an outdoor range where you can move and fire. You probably won't be able to change facings, but you should be able to move laterally and engage multiple targets downrange.

After reading about guys in Iraq and Afghanistan putting up to 8 rounds of pistol ammo into bad guy torsos, and still having those guys fight or run until they died, I wouldn't be too sanguine about thinking my first or second shot will decisively end the threat.

My $.02

AK103K
February 29, 2008, 09:45 PM
It's kind of pointless to argue that shooting while moving is as efficient or effective as shooting when not moving. It isn't. Additionally, the wild card is the skill (or luck) of your opponent. Given the choice of getting the first shot off or moving off of the X and being the second one to fire the shot should be a no brainer. I'll take being first to hit the target every time hands down.
I dont understand why you cant do both at the same time? Are you saying its not possible to shoot and shoot well while you move?

If your slow and standing there you will be shot. If there are more than one and you stand there, you will be shot. Even if its a draw, your probably going to be shot if you are where you were when the whole thing starts, as thats where their rounds will be going. At least if you move, you force them to deal with that while your shooting them. If they remain still, they become the easier target.

Lurper
February 29, 2008, 10:12 PM
You are absolutely correct. If you can move without it costing you time then it is wise. More often than not though, it doesn't work that way.

If his gun is already in his hand, I definitely need to move while drawing.
Based on the data I've studied, you don't. In fact doing so could get you shot. In the incidents I have studied, even though it is a small number (around 10%), it is remarkable how often someone who is facing a gun already, pulls their own and shoots (often killing) their attacker. This is where human nature flys in the face of theory and why comparing military and LE confrontations is apples to oranges. Most of the time, the badguy wants your money, car, etc. He doesn't enter into the confrontation intent on killing you. When suddenly faced with someone not following his script, he has to react as opposed to act. I was also amazed at the number of times (again a small percentage) that the assailants ran away as soon as the victim opened fire even though they outnumbered the victim 2, 3 4 or in one case 7 to 1! I wouldn't stake my life on it, but more often than not, hitting one assailant causes the other(s) to flee.

There is absolutely nothing gained by standing still as I draw
That sentence in that context is true. As long as you stop moving by the time you pull the trigger. My argument is that there really is no advantage to moving. Particularly while shooting. Moving involves inherent risk as well. Unless you are acutely aware of your surroundings you may stumble over something, you may see something (like a bystander) that draws your attention. So moving is not without a downside. Again, it's better to shoot then move rather than shoot while moving.

It's not a question of skill or training. I am a world class shooter. I shot professionally for Springfield Armory,Safariland and others. I practice more in a year than most people do in a lifetime - multiple targets, varying distances, different positions, while moving, crouching, kneeling, just about anything you can think of. So for me the answer is easy. But it is even more important for someone less skilled. Not only that, but as I mentioned, the common thread in all of the information available is the the person who hits their target first comes out on top.

Lurper
February 29, 2008, 10:22 PM
I dont understand why you cant do both at the same time? Are you saying its not possible to shoot and shoot well while you move?
No, what I am saying is that for most people the trade off isn't worth it. Very few people (even the top shooters) can shoot as well when moving as when not. If you can shoot 20% faster stationary than moving and you are 35% less accurate while moving, it is smarter to shoot while stationary then move.
Your average CCW is probably 50% or more less accurate while moving, so why would anyone advocate that they move when doing so doubles the odds of them missing the target?


If your slow and standing there you will be shot. If there are more than one and you stand there, you will be shot. Even if its a draw, your probably going to be shot if you are where you were when the whole thing starts, as thats where their rounds will be going.
The information available on civilian shootings doesn't support any of those contentions. I can cite hundreds of instances where the victim pulled their gun and fired without moving and came out on top (whether they were already facing a gun, multiple assailants or not). I'll probably go through another sixty shootings tonight and don't expect I'll see a change in trends.

Skyguy
March 1, 2008, 01:00 AM
I am a world class shooter. I shot professionally for Springfield Armory,Safariland and others.

Since you brought it up, I'm a former world class shooter, too.

I shot professionally for the US Army 173rd AB in vietnam central highlands, et al. We fought the NVA in operation Junction City, operation MacArthur, charlie in many encounters and firefights and hill 875 near Dak To (my Purple Heart). I also shot on the job professionally for the Cook County Sheriff's gang unit.

It may not be the same as studying data or shooting at unarmed stationary paper targets or gun games, but incoming bullets do have a special way of convincing you to 'move'.
.

Lurper
March 1, 2008, 01:33 AM
Again, it's apples and oranges. Civilian shooting confrontations have very little in common with military or LE ones.
It's not so much a question of move or not. It's question of what is more effective: hitting your target first or moving. Based on the information I have seen, my own experience and those who I have interviewed, the biggest determining factor in coming out on top is hitting the target first - not moving. If you can move without it costing you any time, then move. But to trade a second (or even half of one) for a few feet isn't wise.

evan1293
March 1, 2008, 02:24 AM
I could understand that if the GF occurs at 10-15 yards or so, then movement may not be crucial. At 15 yards, the level of precision needed to fire an accurate shot is much higher than say 6'. Movement may make it difficult for the shooter to accurately engage the BG at these long distances.

That being the case, we know that most gunfights do not occur out at 15 yards, especially in the civillian world. The size of the average room in a house is only about 12' wide. Carpeting, for years, came in 12' sections and to have a room carpeted with anything wider, would cost big bucks. As a result, most rooms were built to this width or less. Additionally, as a civillan we're most likely to be robbed or car-jacked up close. You don't usually hear of people getting mugged at 15 yards! Law enforcement on the other hand, often has to approach a BG from a distance. As the officer(s) respond to a call, they make arrival on the scene and then move to the problem area. If a BG decides to shoot at the cop, he could potentially do so as the officer approaches from a distance. That said, most police shootings still happen within 20'. In the civillan world, the distance would much more often be in these close ranges.

In my original post I stated that I had seen Gabe Suarez's new video. For those of you who haven't seen it, Gabe makes a good point about awareness. The color code of awareness is a good thing. It makes sense, and we should all strive to remain in a state of condition yellow...not just for self defense but for many areas of life. Gabe says that we're still all humans. We get sick, we get preoccupied, we have distractions. Its impossible to stay fully aware all of the time. Even when we are alert, we still miss things. In terms of a self defense situation, we may be behind the reactionary curve when the threat imerges. Even if we are alert/ aware, we may misjudge a person as not being a threat, and before we know it, he/ she could try to rob us. We can't assume all people are a threat to us, to function in a healthy way in society. Being aware, we still make 'booboos.' Being distracted, we become even more vulnerable. If we're behind the curve, a threat very well could already have a weapon in hand before we realize that they are a threat. It seems to me that the only way we could fight and hope to have any positive outcome is to move and shoot. Even the fastest world class shooters aren't going to be able to out draw and shoot down a BG who already has a weapon in hand. Movement could potentially buy us a precious 1/2 second or so to get into the fight and reset our oponents game plan. If we stand still, we're likely to get shot when the fights up close, as it most likely will be. Its just my observation that most competition shooters preach stand and shoot while others, typically exmilitary, LE, and those particularly who have trained a lot with force on force preach movement. Competition shooters are used to running to a stage and then planting and shooting. I know that from FOF, the environment is much more dynamic. There is no firing line, but rather a 360 degree area from which out of any direction a threat could emerge. In my very limited experience with FOF I found that in order to succeed, especially in tight areas in, you have to move. In my opinion, lateral movements seem to be the best option, if available....but as I said in my OP, I'm interested in others' thoughts and opinions on this subject.

evan1293
March 1, 2008, 02:45 AM
One other thing... I believe in "shoot first and shoot fast." I think thats a good attitude to have when fighting for your life. The reason why I think its a good idea to move prior to and during shooting is because its uncertain how many rounds its going to take to drop the threat. I've heard of accounts were POs fired 5-6 rounds of .40 into a BGs head and finally after the 6th he went down. He was still talking up until round #5 and fighting until round #6. I think that we would all consider the "computer" to be pretty good shot placement. We just never know for sure how many rounds a BG is going to suck up before hes put down. Looking at this subject from this point, it seems like if we move prior to drawing our weapon and then plant and shoot, we're relying on the fact that the first shot or first pair is going to drop the threat. What if we plant and are shooting, and shooting, and shooting and the threat is still fighting? He can more easily shoot us if we're stationary. Say that we initially move to get out of the adversary's line of fire and then we shoot. What if that initally shot or volley of shots is ineffective and the adversary is able to reaquire us, shouldn't we move again, or better yet just have kept moving until the threat is neutralized?

For myself I don't loose on accuracy at all moving while shooting when Im within 10 yards. Maybe I can't punch out a one whole group as I could if I was planted, but I know I could hit head shots all day on the run, inside of 30' (at least in the calm setting of training.) ;)

Lurper
March 1, 2008, 03:43 AM
Even the fastest world class shooters aren't going to be able to out draw and shoot down a BG who already has a weapon in hand.
That just isn't true. It happens all of the time. It has more to do with the fact that action beats reaction and that the assailant doesn't intend to kill you than it does with physical speed. But it isn't that hard - try it.
Perfect example:
Two men one armed with a shotgun walk into a senior center during poker night. Four seniors are enjoying their weekly card game. The man with the shotgun fires a round into the floor to prove he means business then points it across the table. One of the seniors is so startled he falls out of his chair at the sound of the shot. Thinking his friend has been shot, another of the seniors pulls out his licensed .38, shoots the assailant once. As he is hit, the shotgun weilding assailant turns, shoots his accomplice in the arm and drops dead. His wounded accomplice flees and is arrested later at the hospital.

That's one of the most comical. But it is not an uncommon occurance even for those who aren't that skilled.

I could understand that if the GF occurs at 10-15 yards or so, then movement may not be crucial.
It's the inverse: at longer ranges movement is better. At closer ranges, speed is better. The other thing that advocates of moving fail to acknowledge is that it doesn't necessarily mean you are going to be harder to hit. Particularly at 6 feet or less.

I've heard of accounts were POs fired 5-6 rounds of .40 into a BGs head and finally after the 6th he went down. He was still talking up until round #5 and fighting until round #6. I think that we would all consider the "computer" to be pretty good shot placement.
You can cite statistical outlyers all you want, but they dont' prove a thing. That happens in less than one percent of the cases. Again, 85% of the time handgun wounds are survivable. It doesn't matter whether it kills them or not. What matters is that they stop what they are doing. In the majority of the cases, the assailant is more concerned with their survival than with killing you.


What if that initally shot or volley of shots is ineffective and the adversary is able to reaquire us, shouldn't we move again, or better yet just have kept moving until the threat is neutralized?
Shoot again, moving does not neutralize the threat.

matthew temkin
March 1, 2008, 08:07 AM
Lurper makes some good points.
Quite a few of the old gunnies..Askins, Bryce, Jordan..were known for their speed and not their ability to move.
In fact one of our members here ( LeadButt) trained with all three of these men and talked about this.
Since most gunfights happen so close your best bet is to get lead into them ASAP and any movement--as I was taught--will probably be moving in as opposed to back or laterally.
I still like to practice moving off the X and have done so in Sims, since practicing for any situation is a good idea, but don't neglect that standing one's ground and pouring in the lead ( and then, perhaps, moving) as an option.

Double Naught Spy
March 1, 2008, 08:46 AM
Even the fastest world class shooters aren't going to be able to out draw and shoot down a BG who already has a weapon in hand.

That just isn't true. It happens all of the time.

I don't know about it happening all the time, but it does happen. If the two fighters are comparable in skill and awareness or when the person with a drawn gun has a higher level of skill and comparable awareness, drawing on a drawing gun isn't going to be a winning endeavor.

The reason drawing on a drawn gun often works in the various examples I have seen over the years is because of factors such as the person with the drawn gun is unskilled, has the gun on safe and doesn't know to disengage it, the drawn gun is unloaded, isn't really willing to shoot in the first place, the person with the drawn gun has attention elsewhere, or the person without a drawn gun bolts to a position of safety, draws and fires.

It is sort of like the silly notion that action beats reaction as the justification for drawing on a drawn gun. Action may beat reaction in terms of the start of motion, but does not necessarily mean action will beat reaction for the end result. The person drawing the gun usually will have further to travel in motion (hand, arm, gun) than the person with the drawn gun. So while the guy with the undrawn gun may start first with an action, he may not be physically capable of drawing and firing before the person with the drawn gun makes the necessary 1/8" to 1/2" trigger pull.

Moving off the X is fine as long as you don't then stop on the W or Y. Keep moving through the alphabet. One step left or right is very difficult to defeat and requires only a slight aiming adjustment.

AK103K
March 1, 2008, 02:09 PM
Lurper,

Would it be safe to assume, that in all your research, most of those who participated, were either recreational shooters and/or shooters trained (or untrained for that matter) to shoot "standing still" and on static targets that dont shoot back?

Seems to me, there will not be enough of a paper trail available yet for those who are now learning to move as they shoot for your results to be entirely correct, if your basing them on older reported shootings. Also, what about the shootings where the shooter didnt prevail because he was in fact shot where he stood trying to (out)draw and shoot, instead of moving off line while drawing? Are those to also reported, or do they simply fall under another classification and report?

Lurper
March 1, 2008, 03:09 PM
Would it be safe to assume, that in all your research, most of those who participated, were either recreational shooters and/or shooters trained (or untrained for that matter) to shoot "standing still" and on static targets that dont shoot back?
Yes, but that is exactly the point. The vast majority of civilians invovled in shootings have little or no training. Yet, they constantly prevail in spite of this even when the BG already has his gun out and they don't. The one single thing that stands out in the data is the person who hits first usually wins. In the vast majority of the cases (90%+) tactics are not even used, let alone a factor in the outcome. Yet many schools try to tell you that "this technique/tactic will save your life". There is no proof of that. What there is proof of is; the person who hits the target first usually is the victor. Not the person who moves first or seeks cover first. It's just common sense that the BG can't hurt you if he's dead. Therefore the best way to insure your safety is to remove the threat. Nothing removes the threat like putting lead on the target.

Also, those who advocate training to the point where you could be a cage fighter have a very narrow view of reality. If you want a defensive system/philosphy that works, it has to work for the largest audience possible. It's easy to train high speed low drag individuals because they are just that. But if you are addressing the CCW population as a whole. NONE of that stuff is applicable.

One of the big issues for me is Priming. People in the industry trying to tell the public what is important (the media does it all the time). IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ GUN FIGHTER HERESY, STOP HERE. It started with Cooper. He elevated himself to gunfighting god by telling us what was important and an eager audience ate it up. Cooper had some great ideas, but the minute pistolcraft started going in a direction which he didn't like, he disdained and dismissed it. His disciples did the same. That was the birth of the Martial Artist -v-gamesmen argument that continues to this day. That is why schools still teach techniques that aren't as effective as others. If schools taught what was most effective, they wouldn't still be teaching Weaver. But they again prime the consumer by saying "the other way is good for shooting at paper targets, but this is best for self-defense." If they say it long enough and loud enough, it becomes fact - look at Global Warming for an example. I think it's laughable that people actually believe and forward the idea that the mechanics of shooting somehow change when the target changes. The mechanics are the same no matter what the target. Yet there are people who make a good living telling people otherwise. Make no mistake, firearms training is a multi-million dollar industry and many of those with vested interests do what they can to further those interests. For example: one of the bigger more well known schools created a classification, then they tout their owner and staff as being the first persons to ever achieve that status. Well, duh! If you create it, you should be the first. But the impressive credentials are no guarantee of skill level. I admire that school because the owner is a brilliant marketer. But I have seen him, his staff and students shoot and they aren't particularly impressive (but then again, I do shoot with Rob Leatham on a regular basis). For the record: I was originally a follower of Cooper, Taylor, Kokalis, Ayoob and Chapman was the first World Champion to Mentor me. But the more experienced I became, the more my eyes were opened. END OF HERESY

I won't belabor that point further. If you want to see what works, look at what happens in real life, not sims, fof or in books. You'd be surprised, I was.
In fairness, I am only about half way through the research. I have another 200 cases to analyze next week and tons more interviews to do. But I am far enough along to see what the trends are.

Seems to me, there will not be enough of a paper trail available yet for those who are now learning to move as they shoot for your results to be entirely correct, if your basing them on older reported shootings.
This idea/argument has been around for more than a decade. My data runs from 2007 back to 1987, so it is a fair sample.

Win62a
March 1, 2008, 03:27 PM
Which is more difficult to hit for you? A moving or a stationary target? Just seems to make too much sense not to move. Why make it easier for the other guy. If you can move, MOVE!

Yes, it's more difficult to hit while moving, but there's this thing called "practice."

Double Naught Spy
March 1, 2008, 04:09 PM
I agree with you, Win62a, but where do you propose people practice shooting on the move when the vast majority of ranges don't allow for it? The also don't allow for drawing from concealment, rapid fire, unusualy shooting positions, one-handed racking, etc.

I have met too many people at gun schools that only get to practice live fire self defense drills at gun school - sad but true.

Lurper
March 1, 2008, 06:19 PM
Yes, it's more difficult to hit while moving, but there's this thing called "practice."
Oh! You mean like the 500 rounds a day I fired for all the years I shot for Team Springfield or the 500-1000 rounds a week I still shoot. I shoot more in a year than most people will shoot in their lifetime and have a skill level commensurate with that (not to mention the armed confrontations I have been in). But I still don't recommend shooting on the move. Movement is fine if it doesn't cost you time or accuracy. But the amount that you are going to move in a typical confrontation at typical distances is going to have little effect on whether you opponent hits you or not. The single most important skill to develop is the ability to hit the target quickly.
I'm done Fox Muldering it: The truth is out there. You can find it or continue to drink the Kool-Aid.

Sweatnbullets
March 1, 2008, 06:19 PM
Sometimes you will need to move and sometimes you will not.
Sometimes this movement will be forward and sometimes not.
Sometimes it will be controlled movement and sometimes it will be dynamic movement.


The only way to have all of your bases covered it by being able to stand and deliver, move and shoot in ever possible direction, by using controlled movement and by using dynamic movement, from twenty five yards to two feet.

Combat accurate shooting with dynamic movement inside of seven yards is not hard to learn......not hard at all.

Sweatnbullets
March 1, 2008, 06:25 PM
You can find it or continue to drink the Kool-Aid.

Lots of Kool-Aid being sold by a lot of different sources. The only non-Kool-Aid approach is by knowing and doing it all.

The very best form of movement (or lack of movement) is dictated by the dynamics of the fight.....not by what anyone on a gun forum says.

Double Naught Spy
March 1, 2008, 06:32 PM
Oh! You mean like the 500 rounds a day I fired for all the years I shot for Team Springfield or the 500-1000 rounds a week I still shoot. I shoot more in a year than most people will shoot in their lifetime and have a skill level commensurate with that (not to mention the armed confrontations I have been in). But I still don't recommend shooting on the move. Movement is fine if it doesn't cost you time or accuracy. But the amount that you are going to move in a typical confrontation at typical distances is going to have little effect on whether you opponent hits you or not. The single most important skill to develop is the ability to hit the target quickly.

That's great you have shot so much. Your opinion is noted. It is contrary to that of many others who teach defensive shooting, but noted none-the-less. They don't drink the Kool-Aid either.

David Armstrong
March 1, 2008, 06:59 PM
The vast majority of civilians invovled in shootings have little or no training. Yet, they constantly prevail in spite of this even when the BG already has his gun out and they don't. The one single thing that stands out in the data is the person who hits first usually wins. In the vast majority of the cases (90%+) tactics are not even used, let alone a factor in the outcome. Yet many schools try to tell you that "this technique/tactic will save your life". There is no proof of that.
That is worth repeating, and should probably be pasted at the top of any forum that deals with defensive gun use. The problem with so much training to day is that "tactical training" has become a money making enterprise, and with that one has to meet the expectations of the client. Way too many trainers, some mentioned here, have built up a cult-like following around this warrior/ninja/super-tactical nonsense solely on hype and promotion. There are a number of trainers out there that do train for what the normal gun owner needs and what will actually help them, but they don't get much attention.

Sweatnbullets
March 1, 2008, 08:14 PM
Yet, they constantly prevail in spite of this even when the BG already has his gun out and they don't.

Could you please quote your sources on this. I would really like to read this myself.

I read the "Armed Citizen" in the NRA magazine.....but I also read my "murder and mayham" section of my local papers. After 30 years of Los Angeles County and 17 years of Vegas I find the "Armed Citizen" columns to be slanted (to be kind) or agenda oriented (to be closer to the truth.)

Everyone loves a "Home owner prevailes" article. But that is usually a proactive gun fight and is more of an ambush from a fixed location.

Street encounters is a whole other thing.

The "constantly" part of this statement has me wondering.

Lurper
March 1, 2008, 10:25 PM
SB
My sources vary from newspaper articles, news clips, magazines, books, interviews and even the Armed Citizen. I try to cross verify whenever possible. At this point, I cannot tell you what the converse data is in those situations. I can only tell you that in about 10% of the overall sample (between 300-400 as of today), the BG already has his gun out and usually pointed at the victim and the victim prevails. It wasn't something I was looking for, it just jumped out at me after a while.
Putting that statement into the correct context: it was a retort to
Even the fastest world class shooters aren't going to be able to out draw and shoot down a BG who already has a weapon in hand.
and wasn't meant to make it sound like the majority of the overall cases that's what happened. After about the first ten, I started to notice that these people didn't seem to care if the bad guy had a gun pointing at them or not. They drew anyway and prevailed. Keep in mind, that the sample is shootings in which the gun owner prevailed. So, at this point I can't tell you what the figures are when they don't. Also, I excluded cases where no shots were fired (because we all know that that happens 1.5 - 2.5 million times a year) and those involving animal attacks.

Lurper
March 1, 2008, 10:57 PM
It is contrary to that of many others who teach defensive shooting, but noted none-the-less.
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.

Since I've started repeating myself, I don't think I have any more constructive comments to offer this thread. Re-read my posts, I've said it all before.

Sometimes you will need to move and sometimes you will not.
Sometimes this movement will be forward and sometimes not.
Sometimes it will be controlled movement and sometimes it will be dynamic movement.
I don't disagree with that. Again, I'm not saying don't move. I'm saying that if the choice is moving or shooting, shooting is the better choice. The idea that moving off of the X is necessary to survive or is more important than being the first to hit your target isn't supported by the available information.

Sweatnbullets
March 2, 2008, 03:27 AM
I perfer to work with "the balance, to hit and not be hit."

This balance is dictated by many factors. Position it the reactionary curve, distance, and most importantly is who you are.

People with skill levels such as Lurper will be able to bring their stand and deliver skill sets further into the fight continuum. This is a huge part of who he is. People with skill levels such as this need to understand that the average civilian defender will never meet his skill level. We have to make concessions and compromises in other ways.

As a person that will never have the time to obtain Grand Master status. I need to make myself the best that I can be within the limited training time that is available to me. Adding dynamic movement skill sets to my point shooting skill sets is something that I was able to achieve in a very short amount of time. I move as I draw so my shooting times are the same stationary as they are moving. My point shooting skills allow me to make solid combat accurate hits with extreme dynamic movement.

It is just another skill set to go along with my "stand and deliver" skill set, my "move-stop-shoot" skill set, and my controlled movement skill set. They each have their place in the fight continuum where they are the most effective and efficient answer to the problem.

If I am unlucky enough to get into a gun fight, I pray for the optimal gun fight, where the optimal shooting platform can be employed. But praying and hoping is a long way from the reality of the specific situation that you have to deal with when your number comes up.

Priorities of the Gun Fight and “The Fight Continuum”

Avoid one easily and completely due to preparedness, knowledge, and awareness by being deselected.

See one coming and get the heck out of Dodge due to preparedness, knowledge, and awareness.

See one coming due to preparedness, knowledge, and awareness, but to have no choice but to end it by dominating the action and decisively ending it with solid behind cover or stand and deliver marksmanship skills.

Unfortunately, “The Fight Continuum” does not stop here.

See one coming due to preparedness, knowledge, and awareness, at the same time that a dedicated opponent recognizes that you see it coming. The context of the fight is equal initiative and the victor will be the one that mitigates his weaknesses while maximizing his strengths. Stand and deliver, sighted fire, controlled movement, alternative sighting methods, dynamic movement, or point shooting. It all comes down to who are you, what is your skill level, what are your limitations? The higher the skill level, the lower the chance of taking rounds. Remember “Movement favors the trained shooter….dynamic movement favors them even more so.”

Find out that you are going to be in a gunfight only after you have seen the adversary’s weapon and he has the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm or death……right now! Explode off of the X to get inside of the adversaries OODA loop. Acquire your handgun, put hits onto the adversary as quickly as you possibly can to try to take back the lost initiative. Fluidly move from a reactive position to, to equal initiative, to the point that you are dominating and decisively ending the confrontation by the use of your dynamic movement and the ballistic effect of your “progressively accurate marksmanship.”

Find out that you are going to be in a gunfight, but only after you go “hands on” to get the adversaries weapon off of you and you create enough distance so that you can acquire your handgun. Integrate quality “hands on” skills to the point that the weapon is off of you and that you have the time to access and index onto the threat. The available time that you create dictates the type of response that is most effective and efficient.

“Luck favors the prepared!”

Lurper
March 2, 2008, 12:35 PM
sb
Much of what you say is absolutely fabulous. It is sound doctrinally, tactically and philosophically. Also, I would argue that you fall into the same category that I do when it comes to skill vis-a-vis the average CCW.

I no longer teach military or LE organizations. I really enjoy teaching civilians. Our organization teaches all of the CCW classes for one of the big box outdoor retailers (their competition just contacted us as well). We run anywhere from 60 to 110 students through per month. They just asked us to double the number of classes we offer. The reason they cited for choosing our company was the way we teach. Except for myself, there are no veterans or former LEO's. We teach the class from the perspective of (and specifically for) the average person. We don't teach high speed low drag tactics for three reasons:
1. The average CCW'er isn't interested
2. The average CCW'er won't or cannot use or maintain proficiency in them.
3. Our market research indicates that the average person (particularly women) finds that type of environment intimidating.
We have had numerous comments from people who have taken classes elsewhere about the attitude of the instructors (one started the class by explaining how he was a W.D.M. - Whirling Death Machine) and thier presentations (acting like the students are the "great unwashed" and the instructor is gracing them with his presence).

This led me to (last year) start taking a much closer look at civilian confrontations. I started by searching the CVS, UCR, WISQARS, and several other places. I had trouble finding information. So I e-mailed one of the most well known and respected authors on the subject. He told me "there is no central database on civilian shootings" and was kind enough to give me some contacts who could help. I wanted to develop a curriculum that was tailored to the average person that was based on what really happens (my own personal experiences have run counter to what I hear being taught). Also, by that time I was tired of hearing people talk about the rule of 3 or the FBI says this, so and so says that, because I wanted to know how (if there is no central database on civilian shootings) they obtained the data which they based their conclusions on.

Because people's survival may hinge on what I teach, I wanted a program for the average person. So, I figured what better source is there than looking at civilian shootings in which the victim prevailed? I started compiling data in a spreadsheet (still am) and a few patterns showed up right away. I am nowhere near finished (I will publish it when I am), but every time I double the sample size, the trends and patterns remain.
Obviously, the one thing that really stood out was the fact that the person who hit their target first ended the fight in better shape (I would estimate that it is on the order of 75 to 80 percent).
Another was how often the assailants run away when the victim opens fire.
The third big one was how little role tactics play.

I am not questioning the effectiveness of moving off the X, just the efficacy. The inverse argument is that if you don't move off of the X, you increase your chances of getting hit/killed. I don't see that (part of the reason is that I wasn't looking for it perhaps). The same applies to cover; my personal opinion is that if you make seeking cover your primary concern, you are going to get shot (the primary reasons are 1. it eats up too much time and 2. true "cover" is rarely available). The same for the MA aspect; physical fighting skills seem to play very little role in surviving (mindset and trickery play a bigger one). My own personal experience runs counter to that too. In the last 25 years, I have not been in a fist fight. In those same years, I have needed a firearm 7 times (3 if you remove the work related ones and no, I don't include the attempted bike jacking the other day) [I have to wonder how the law of attraction applies to that].

What I was looking for was an answer for the average person. Not you or I or anyone of that skill. We really don't need to worry about our skill level. Conversely, if someone wants us dead, we will be dead. They will just shoot us when we are not looking.


So the question was: "What can I give my students that they will use, understand and practice (given that they are all average CCW'ers) that will help save thier lives in a confrontation? The answer is of course is like Chicago voting: hit early and often.



BTW, I wanted to thank you, Brownie, Mr. Temkin and the other QK, PS guys for broadening my horizons by allowing me to realize that my idea of sighted fire actually incorporates many of the same principle's and techniques that those system use and that I need to clarify what "sighted fire" means when I use the term.

matthew temkin
March 2, 2008, 12:43 PM
Well you are very welcome.
And I too would like to thank Brownie ( and Dave James) for showing me just how deadly a stand and deliever series of hip shots can be.
Lurper, I am running courses for both armed security and CCW/homeowners and would be very interested in picking your brains as to what you include, how much time devoted to each class, etc, etc
Can I send you a PM?

Lurper
March 2, 2008, 01:02 PM
MT
Feel free to message me at any time for any reason.
But, bear in mind that in AZ, the DPS dictates the curriculum for the CCW class down to how much time you should devote to each subject. We don't have a lot of leeway there. My colleagues' biggest complaint about me is that I cram a lot of extra stuff into the time with stories/anecdotes and that my classes often run overtime. That's just a polite way for them to say "you talk too much!"

Sweatnbullets
March 2, 2008, 02:27 PM
Nice post Lurper!

I just got done writing a "Know your student base" article. So you and I are on the very same page. What is funny is that I just got done having this same (nearly) conversation with a Spec Ops guys. Of course the context was just slightly different.

My point is that we have a wide range of varying skill levels, experience levels, and missions/strategy that we must deal with. The Spec Op guys deals with the "elite." I tend to deal with the moderately trained, tactically aware individuals. You are dealing with entry level CCW guys. The different context leads to a different focus. The Spec Op guy focused on Grand Master skill level shooting and MMA training. Very much a proactive "dominate" the encounter philosophy (which BTW I agree with.) I tend to focus on being well rounded and very versatile. You focus on the most likely situation for the average CCW.

That is the point about why I keep asking "who are you?" Without the student looking at who they are and figuering out what they need, then their training is not as efficient as it should be.

Good discussion Lurper.....we have a lot in common. Maybe not the exact situation or focus....but the same type of philisophy.

Erik
March 2, 2008, 04:08 PM
This is one of the better threads to come around in a while.

"In a reactionary gunfight, the type a civillian is most likely going to face, is it all important to move off the X and then engage?"

All important? No, but it may be important. I agree that placing rounds on target is paramount, and rank GOTX then using cover after it. However, they don't take each others place. A given situation may require one or all three, and not necessaily in the order that we would prefer. As such, training should reflect that. (And that's just those three factors; there are others.)

On GOTX: It is what it is, which is movement. Whether to shoot-and-move or move-then-shoot, and how to do so in either case, is a related but seperate issue.

Sweatnbullets
March 2, 2008, 08:48 PM
Movement Inside of the Fight Continuum

"The fight will be what the fight will be." There is a definite fight continuum and inside the fight continuum there are a number of other continuums. There is of course, 7677's sight continuum there is a reaction continuum, and a movement continuum. There are even lesser continuums including grip, trigger, etc. but let's concentrate on the main three.

React as you need to react, move as you need to move, and see what you need to see within the context of the specifics of the fight. This is very straight forward and simple, yet each of these are intertwined. Each works in conjunction with the other and each has an effect on the other. The dynamics of the fight will be dictated by your position in the reactionary curve, the proximity of the threat, and the urgency of the situation. How you deal with the specifics of the fight will depend on your mindset, experience, training and skill level.

When it comes to training and skill level, I believe that we should strive to be as well rounded and versatile as possible. To understand the fight continuum and to cover as many bases as possible within that continuum, there needs to be a priority set on "the most likely situations." But training should not stop there. In regards to the movement continuum, I have broken the skill sets into four categories.

Stand and Deliver

Controlled Movement

Dynamic Movement

"Get the heck out of dodge" Movement

Stand and deliver is the entry level skill set. This is where you nail down your fundamentals. You should have stand and deliver skills down cold to truly excel in the skill sets that follow. Many very good men have come home after very tough nights with stand and deliver skills.... a few of them right here on this forum. One should not discount this skill set when it is used within the correct context of the fight.

Controlled movement is an intermediate skill set and would include the groucho (duck walk,) the side step (crab walk,) and "just walk." Controlled movement has it place also. When the urgency is lower and the proximity/distance requires more precision (sighted fire.)

Dynamic movement is the "high priority" movement that I referred to earlier. This is where you will most likely find yourself. Dynamic movement excels when you are behind in the reactionary curve, the proximity is close, and the urgency is high. This movement can range from "faster than a walk," to a jog, to a stride, to a run, and finally to a sprint. This type of movement really works well within the reaction continuum and the sight continuum. The use of threat focused skills takes this skill set well beyond what has been considered "possible" in the recent past. One handed skills are a "must" with dynamic movement.

“Get the heck out of Dodge” movement is simply sprinting to cover without engaging until you are behind cover. This has its place, especially in the military. Its use by a civilian defender is becoming less and less necessary due to the huge advancements in dynamic movement shooting over the past year. If cover is a couple of yards away.....by all means get to it! But do not die trying to get to something that is just too far away.

One should be well rounded. Prioritize your training to the "most likely situation." Work the other areas of the fight continuum, so that if you find yourself in a specific circumstance you will be comfortable there. Stay within the safety level of your skill level, but strive to improve each time out. Find, explore, and push your limitations within the fight continuum.

guntotin_fool
March 3, 2008, 02:46 AM
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.


Thats why they show up on video tape, Go find a big city that will let you search their street tapes that show less confined shootings and usually they are the gangland version of the Jack Ruby/LHO shooting. Guy walking here, pulls gun shoots guy standing or walking here, BG shooter vs BG shootee and shootee never see's it coming till he's popped or the guys rattles of his gang slang.

about 70% of civilian DGU's seem to happen at home, if you take the shop keeper/cashier out of it. The other 30 % seem to happen in your vehicle, with an attempted car jacking.

Avenger11
March 3, 2008, 07:19 PM
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.

Deaf Smith
March 3, 2008, 11:24 PM
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.

Sweatnbullets
March 4, 2008, 12:18 AM
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.:D

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."

evan1293
March 4, 2008, 12:31 AM
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."

I couldn't agree more.

Sweatnbullets
March 4, 2008, 12:34 AM
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!

Sweatnbullets
March 4, 2008, 12:36 AM
It's all common sense!!

You are absolutely correct!

Yet, "common sense is not common.":)

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.

vox rationis
March 4, 2008, 03:01 PM
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"...;)

Whirlwind06
March 4, 2008, 03:36 PM
..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.

Sweatnbullets
March 6, 2008, 12:42 AM
...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?:confused::rolleyes:

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.;)

Avenger11
March 6, 2008, 07:57 PM
Owning a weapon and not practicing regularly makes you a tool! Common sense is the rule! Wasting $$$$ on unnecessary training makes you a fool.

vox rationis
March 6, 2008, 09:40 PM
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..

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 :D I don't know what possessed me to make that KGB joke, except that I was trying to be funny:o. 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 :D (ok I know I know I'll shut up about this now :D)

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.com/published/TrainingForTheRealFight.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.

Sweatnbullets
March 6, 2008, 11:06 PM
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.

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."

Skyguy
March 7, 2008, 12:09 AM
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:
"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.
.

matthew temkin
March 7, 2008, 12:44 AM
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.

Double Naught Spy
March 7, 2008, 06:36 AM
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.

Sweatnbullets
March 7, 2008, 09:29 AM
"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?"

vox rationis
March 7, 2008, 08:44 PM
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.

Lurper
March 8, 2008, 01:02 AM
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.

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.

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.

Skyguy
March 8, 2008, 10:17 AM
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.
.

Skyguy
March 8, 2008, 10:30 AM
And a big hello to you, SNB.

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....
.

Skyguy
March 8, 2008, 10:51 AM
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.
.

Lurper
March 8, 2008, 12:25 PM
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.

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.


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.

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?

DonR101395
March 8, 2008, 12:35 PM
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.

Lurper
March 8, 2008, 01:11 PM
TY

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.

DonR101395
March 8, 2008, 01:15 PM
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.

matthew temkin
March 8, 2008, 02:17 PM
Lurper's posts have made me speechless, since I would have written the exact same thing.
So..put me down as Ditto!!

Sweatnbullets
March 8, 2008, 06:58 PM
Lurper, I am going to have to say that you have come a very long way since I first started seeing you post. Please let me know when your book is coming out.....I would definitely buy that.

They need to have some new high speed low drag tactic to sell.

Not necessarily accurate here. I am pushing the limits of dynamic movement about as far as they have ever been pushed. But I do not see it solely as a marketing strategy (even though I will admit that many students really want to learn it and have a very good time learning it) It is part of the fight continuum......that is simply a fact. It may not be at a percentage rate as high as stand and deliver, but it does have a significant percentage rate. As I have stated this is all dependent on on distance and your position in the reactionary curve. Every point inside of the movement continuum, that is inside of the fight continuum, has it's place. There is a best place for each. If you do not have "stand and deliver, "controlled movement", "dynamic movement" and "Get the heck out of Dodge movement" You do not have all of your bases covered.

I know that you focus on entry level CCW'ers, but that does not mean that that is all there is too it. I have no doubt that stand and deliver is the best place to start. Heck in my two day "dynamic movement focused" course, the first full day is spent on stand and deliver "see what you need to see" shooting.

There does seem to be some major misconceptions on your part IMHO. Movement does not make your first shot slower. You move and draw simultaneously. Combat accurate hits are not difficult at all with dynamic movement, as long as you have the training on how to make it happen.

No training = slower hits and difficult to do.

Quality training = fast and simple to do.

The bottom line is that the situation is the dictating factor. The most important factor inside of that situation is YOU! It is your experience, knowledge, and skill level that dictates the best response for you as an individual for any given situation. No one is in the position to tell anyone what is the best thing to do....except the individual themself.

I teach an inclusive approach that covers as much of the fight continuum as possible. It is an open minded, well rounded and completely versatile approach. The students and I push the envelope and explore the limitations. It is ultimately the students decision on what works best for them in any given circumstance.

"One size does not fit all!" This is the problem with the training of the recent past. "Do it my way or you are doing it wrong." is soon becoming a thing of the past. It is my opinion that the dogmatic training of the recent past is going to fall to the wayside. To only teach and to force fit disjointed techniques into a fluid, ever changing, completely situational confrontation does not cover the most effective and efficient response.

Allstar
March 12, 2008, 11:40 AM
First point, moving off the X refers to the hit sight, usually meaning they planned to take you out at that point (usually a choke point for some reason). So they have the drop on you, they are drawn and either shooting or going to be very shortly. Most people are not going to be in this situation unless it is combat.

Everyone here has very good points. But remember it all comes down to situation. I really don't know a single civilian or military person that won't have some sort of movement when a gun is fired, especially if you realized that gun that fired was at you. I don't know how many people have ever been shot at or how many have ever had to pull and shoot at someone. But I know from experience everyone moves at the sight of a gun. I will state if you aren't moving you probably won't live through it. Most times the bad guy has the drop on you. Move, pull/evaluate, engage/run. This is the most common thing I have ever been trained no matter where I have been.

buzz_knox
March 12, 2008, 11:54 AM
So they have the drop on you, they are drawn and either shooting or going to be very shortly. Most people are not going to be in this situation unless it is combat.

Aren't victims often ambushed in just this manner?

Skyguy
March 12, 2008, 01:11 PM
But I know from experience everyone moves at the sight of a gun.
I will state if you aren't moving you probably won't live through it. Most times the bad guy has the drop on you.
Move, pull/evaluate, engage/run.
This is the most common thing I have ever been trained no matter where I have been.

Amen!

Lurper
March 12, 2008, 01:30 PM
Aren't victims often ambushed in just this manner?
That depends on how you define "ambushed". In the loose sense, most are ambushed in that they are not expecting a gunfight. On the other hand, most of the incidents that take place in the home (and a good portion at work) unfold slowly enough that the "victim" has already reached condition orange.

. . . everyone moves at the sight of a gun. I will state if you aren't moving you probably won't live through it.
Again, the data doesn't support either statement. Also, moving when you see a gun is different than moving off of the X. One is a reaction to the situation, the other is an action based on a doctrine in which you have been trained. Big difference - especially in the context of this thread.

As is typically the case, as soon as one source comes to a conclusion, others soon follow. Here is a quote from an article just written by Dave Spaulding:

The history of gun fighting for more than a century has shown that the person that lands the first solid hit will usually win the confrontation.
Expect to see more as more people begin to question the efficacy of some of the doctrines forwarded by industry "experts".

evan1293
March 12, 2008, 01:57 PM
Lurper, Thanks for all your posts in this thread. They've been very helpful in addressing my initial question. I have another question for you though...It seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your point is that if you move off the X, your first shot speed will be slower than if you just remained planted and drew and fired. I agree with what you've said and what the shooting data seems to indicate; that the first to fire is usually going to be the victor. If its possible to move and not loose time on the initial shot, nor loose accuracy causing a miss, wouldn't it be benificial to move off the X, though?

In my experience with a shot timer, I'm equally as fast drawing and shooting from a stationary platform as I am from moving and shooting, at least within 5 yards or so.
Heres a short clip of me shooting while moving to my strong side (2 shots to the body, 2 shots to the head):

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


If I had to shoot from 10 yards and out, I would probably plant and shoot so as not to miss any of my shots.

Lurper
March 12, 2008, 02:24 PM
. . . your point is that if you move off the X, your first shot speed will be slower than if you just remained planted and drew and fired.
Actually, my point is this: in spite of what many of the trainers say or train, there is no evidence that moving off of the X does anything to increase the likeliehood that you will prevail in a gunfight. There is however much evidence that shows the person who hits first usually prevails.

If you can use the time it takes for you to draw to move, then move. But don't use the time you should be shooting for moving. That is the first problem with movement. The second is that IMO (keeping in mind my background), shooting while moving costs you accuracy. I can shoot better than most people (on the move or otherwise) and I still would choose to plant and shoot. The trade off of time for making yourself harder to hit isn't worth it. Primarily because at typical distances the amount of time you can move within the space allowed does not really make you harder to hit.

Finally, keep in mind that part of the reason for the research is to develop a training method/doctrine that is useful for the majority of CCW holders. The crowd that pays for all of the fancy training is a small minority of not just CCW'ers, but the shooting community as a whole. The typical person involved in an armed confrontation has little or no training and uses no tactics, yet survives. So if there is one thing to make people understand it is: "hitting the target quickly is the single most important skill to develop." Note that I didn't say the "only" skill to develop.

evan1293
March 12, 2008, 02:30 PM
Lurper, thank you...that makes a lot of sense and I'd have to agree 100%.

Skyguy
March 12, 2008, 05:19 PM
In my experience with a shot timer, I'm equally as fast drawing and shooting from a stationary platform as I am from moving and shooting, at least within 5 yards or so.

Good job evan. Outstanding demonstration!

Since there is no legitimate data that supports 'not' moving....I say use your common sense and your inborn reactions to an attack – move. The average attacker is untrained and will find a moving, shooting target much harder to hit.

Your video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6Yb8NehQc clearly shows the advantages of moving off the X.
(a picture is worth a thousand words)

You move off the X and shoot the 'stand and deliver', stationary target in two seconds or less. (2 shots to the body, 2 shots to the head)
I wouldn't want to be that stationary target.

Even if you were shot through the heart you would still be very able to kill the 'stand and deliver', stationary target.
.

Lurper
March 12, 2008, 05:52 PM
2 seconds is too long:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzuRXy_Kij8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQKr2AkKDU

Moving introduces a whole additional set of variables. Is the way clear? How many feet of unobstructed movement do you have? Have you practiced it enough that you don't need to think about it? If you move, will you trip? Run into some heretofore unseen object? Again, proponents of moving ignore some very important and real issues: it is not without risk, it adversely effects hit probability (which is the most important factor), no proof that it has any correlation to survivability (just like there is no proof that not moving is more likely to get you killed). Many continued to hold the belief that the world was flat for a long time after Columbus' journey. Doesn't change the facts.

Anything that requires thought is detrimental in the time aspect. Whatever your response is, it should be second nature. You don't want to try to formulate a plan while locked in mortal combat. You need to know ahead of time what your response will be.

Much of what has become the "new doctrine" is based on fallacious interpretation or downright desire to create a need for the trainers to fill.
The "Tueller Drill" is a perfect example. Many trainers cite it as proof of many different things. In fact many have never read Tueller's article. If they had, they would understand that the main point Tueller was trying to make was that officers should have their weapon in their hand at the first sign of trouble. Not that a knife is a lethal threat at 21 feet, nor that you need to hit the target twice at that distance in 1.5 seconds. The same applies to civilians, have your weapon in your hand at the first inkling of trouble.

AK103K
March 12, 2008, 06:24 PM
2 seconds is too long:
Would you still have those times from a real world holster and drawn from concealment?

Sweatnbullets
March 13, 2008, 01:00 AM
Would you still have those times from a real world holster and drawn from concealment?

Or without the countless hours working to reach a Master level shooter.

One is a reaction to the situation, the other is an action based on a doctrine in which you have been trained. Big difference - especially in the context of this thread.


I totally disagree with this. You are either going to need to move or you are not going to need to move. Training for both "situations" is the only way to go. If not.....it is dogma! When the action is fast and you are behind in the reactionary curve, you will be working at the subconscious level. If your subconscious mind chooses to move, then you will be moving. If you have not trained to shoot on the move then you are not prepared for the situation that has arisen.

It is not either/or.......it is both.

Lurper
March 13, 2008, 03:39 AM
I totally disagree with this. You are either going to need to move or you are not going to need to move. Training for both "situations" is the only way to go. If not.....it is dogma! When the action is fast and you are behind in the reactionary curve, you will be working at the subconscious level. If your subconscious mind chooses to move, then you will be moving. If you have not trained to shoot on the move then you are not prepared for the situation that has arisen.

It is not either/or.......it is both.
Not in the context of this discussion. One is an almost involuntary reaction, while the other is a premeditated action. Again, the argument isn't whether you will move or not, it is whether movement is beneficial or not. One thing I hadn't mentioned yet is that there is no guarantee that moving off of the X will move you out of the line of fire. The odds are just as likely that you will move into the line of fire. Some departments used to teach their officers to move to their left when facing an armed right handed opponent. Ron Avery's study showed that most unskilled right handed shooters would miss to their right. So, the doctrine had the effect of moving the officers into the most likely area where an unskilled shooter would miss.


Would you still have those times from a real world holster and drawn from concealment?
That isn't a very fast holster - not a speed rig. It is IDPA legal.
From a duty holster, yes. From my concealed holster, add about .2. Those draws are not particularly fast. They are in the .9-.95 range. The Mozambique was 1.29, do the math. When I do videos, I do them at a pace where I can consistently perform for the camera.
More important is the time between shots. Very few civilians actually "draw" their guns. They either have them in their hands, under a counter, next to the seat, etc.. Tueller's advice is sage: have your gun in your hand at the first inkling of trouble. That's why - contrary to what some claim - I'm not saying it is a quick draw contest. More often than not, draw (like movement) is not a factor. What is the primary factor overwhelmingly is he who hits first wins. This is really such a no-brainer that I am astounded that people dispute it.

Jeff22
March 13, 2008, 04:06 AM
ATERAL MOVEMENT
From John Farnam www.defense-training.com

John Farnam of Defense Training International teaches lateral movement as a suggested component of the drawstroke.

"Lateral movement is done at the same time that the draw is executed. That is, both actions are performed simultaneously. We routinely do this now with pistols, rifles, and shotguns. The shooter pauses only long enough to fire several times (at least two and not more than four rounds) and then moves again. Movement is hopefully in the direction of cover, but movement, by itself, greatly enhances survivability.

I am not too dogmatic in regard to the particular direction of the lateral move, although one could argue for an automatic left movement, since most right-handed adversaries will miss low and left. I have students move in both directions, since obstacles may prevent movement in one direction or another."

From Skip Gochenour of the American Tactical Shooting Association, the group that hosts the National Tactical Invitational: (www.teddytactical.com)

"We have demonstrated in repeated studies that, even at six feet and less, a quick side step will cause the bad guy's first shot to miss about 75% of the time. There is also a time interval of almost a second until his next shot. The attacker must discover what happened and reorient himself.

Immediate side movement is much more likely to save your life than is a lightning draw without lateral movement. The most that a lightning fast draw gives you is a tie. Each of you shoots the other at about the same time.

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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LATERAL MOVEMENT (continued)
From a post by John Farnam 11-14-2000 www.defense-training.com

Cover and movement. This from a friend who is a training officer in a large PD. This department had just completed exhaustive Simunitions/Force-on-Force drills.

"When a threat presents itself suddenly, such as when a suspect unexpectedly produces a weapon from concealment, turning and running to cover usually produces poor results, particularly when an officer is in the open. The officer is customarily shot as he runs and is unable to effectively return fire, even when he finally gets his sidearm drawn.

A far more effective strategy, but one that requires a great deal of training and personal courage, is aggressive, lateral movement combined with a simultaneous draw of the sidearm. The officer lurches laterally, getting off the line of force, as his sidearm is being drawn. As soon as the pistol is at eye level, the officer stops suddenly and immediately fires a number of rounds in rapid succession from a stationary position. He then immediately moves laterally again and repeats the maneuver.

This aggressive, lateral movement, combined with an aggressive burst of fire from a stationary position is the one tactic that the guys playing the role of felons found most difficult to deal with. They indicated that they would stalk the officer and make a plan to shoot him, usually waiting until he was in the open and far from cover.

When they produced their weapon, the officer suddenly moved laterally, and their first shot invariably went where the officer had been an instant before. By the time they pointed their weapon at the officer in his new position, they were so savagely pummeled with Simunitions that they could not fire accurately or, in many cases, at all.

We now teach our guys that, when they are in the open, aggressive movement, combined with aggressive, accurate gunfire, is their best ally"

MLeake
March 13, 2008, 04:49 AM
When dealing with punches, kicks, grabs, training knives and training sword attacks, getting off the line of attack is one of the first things executed. Usually, this is done simultaneously laterally and forward, closing distance, getting off line of attack, and moving to the flank.

Since physical attacks require movement on the attacker's part, the attacker has to be able to quickly shift direction and still keep on balance in order to complete a strike.

It's not hard to make somebody miss completely, or, failing that, end up landing only a glancing strike (although even a glance with a blade can be bad).

Obviously, less physical movement is required for an attacker to fire a weapon. Odds are much less that his balance will be taken when he moves to track the defender's motion. However, it would make sense that if you can make somebody miss a punch via movement, that you should reduce their odds of a hit with a gun.

Next point I'd like to make here is that not all attackers will use a gun. Against somebody using a knife, baseball bat, bottle, etc, movement is definitely better than non-movement, assuming you don't already have your weapon in hand.

Last point is that while it is a very good idea to have weapon in hand at first hint of a threat, it's entirely possible that the first hint will be when the bad guy makes his approach from rear or flank. There may be no warning. I'd rather train to where my first instinct when something moves on me from behind is to move off the X, because if I don't train that way, the odds of effectively freezing go up when startled.

Lurper
March 13, 2008, 05:40 AM
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.

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

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.

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.

MLeake
March 13, 2008, 05:47 AM
In your research, how many cases did the survivors/victors actually positively state they did not move? How many cases was it not mentioned in definitive terms?

Questions aren't always asked, so data isn't always available. Not impugning your data, just wondering if all respondents were positively asked if they initiated any defensive movement.

AK103K
March 13, 2008, 10:47 AM
What is the primary factor overwhelmingly is he who hits first wins. This is really such a no-brainer that I am astounded that people dispute it.
I dont think anyone is disputing that hitting first is the best thing. Some just want to get out of the way as they do it.

Skyguy
March 13, 2008, 10:55 AM
Here ya go. This shows it all. To me it's a no-brainer.
Make up your own minds as to - what to do when confronted with death.

Below: evan demonstrating the 'move off the X':

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

Below: Lurper demonstrating the 'stand and deliver':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQKr2AkKDU

Evan's move off the X - while shooting - shows a shooter bladed to the threat.....effectively reducing his overall size by about half 'and' covering part of the shooter's left side with the arm. Makes sense to me.
Obviously, a smaller moving target is harder to mortally hit than a stationary, stand and deliver target. Especially for an untrained shooter.

In comparison, stand and deliver provides a non-moving, double wide target.

But then, I've known this stuff for over forty years. :)
.

Lurper
March 13, 2008, 11:09 AM
In your research, how many cases did the survivors/victors actually positively state they did not move? How many cases was it not mentioned in definitive terms?
Excellent question. But the point is also moot. I am not nor have I ever contended that people don't (or even shouldn't move). What I have said repeatedly is that in the vast majority of cases, the person who hits their target first prevails. Therefore, the ability to hit the target qucikly is the single most important skill to develop. Additionally, if movement burns up time that you should be shooting, don't move. Hell, if you can pick your nose before you shoot and it doesn't use up any shooting time, pick away! But if it uses up even a couple of tenths of a second in which you should be shooting, it's not worth it.


This is why it is necessary to make a distinction between those who move due to fear or reaction and those who move because they are trained to.



This really isn't a new idea. People as far back as Fairbairn and farther have been pointing it out. Gunfighting hasn't changed. Tactics have, but gunfighting hasn't. As long as we use firearms, it probably won't. Hitting your target first will continue to be the biggest factor in determining who wins.

Avenger11
March 13, 2008, 06:25 PM
So if I move off the X and pick my nose, does that mean I will be shot?:D

BreacherUp!
March 13, 2008, 07:53 PM
Would someone please explain to me why it is so damn taboo on this forum to recommend getting quality training! Common sense my butt! I have trained with, against and gone into combat with people with the best training and outstanding common sense. On the whole, excellent training beats out common sense.
The "common sense solves all" crowd always uses this excuse b/c:
1) No one is going to tell them anything about tactics, techniques, and procedures. Common sense, through the miracle of ESP, should tell you that.
2) There are actually people out there who do this for a living, and gulp, are BETTER THAN YOU.
3) It may sound too tactcal, and therefore controlled by .gov and its nefarious agents.

What the hell is so common about getting shot at? Unless you train for the worst, and have tested your abilities, you're really just kidding yourself about what you can and will do.

vox rationis
March 13, 2008, 10:48 PM
here is some classic stand and deliver, albeit from a Miami Vice episode :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2Il86-38A&feature=related

(watch for it in the middle of the video clip)

Jeff22
March 13, 2008, 11:29 PM
Quote from Lurper: "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."

Proper exercise design is critical in order for any conclusions that you reach in such training to be potentially valid. It's easy to overthink scenarios, to make them unrealisticaly complicated, or to design scenarios so that they reinforce your pre-conceived notions.

(We just did some training earlier this evening on high risk vehicle stops with a couple of new officers still in field training. One of the supervisors involved did not stick to the script and added her own "improvements" that detracted from the value of the exercise. This has happened before, and I've made an issue of it before, without any change resulting.)

The issue of lateral movement is like a lot of other tactical issues -- very few things are always/never propositions. You have to evaluate different theories and determine for yourself what makes sense and what does not, within the context of your situation, and then test out your conclusions in training.

Oftentimes there are multiple valid methods to solve any given tactical problem -- circumstance may dictate the "best" solution for that particular incident.

Jeff22
March 14, 2008, 04:53 AM
This has been a pretty good discussion -- the following points particularly struck me as important:

"everything is situationally dependant on any number of things" --Crucible
-------------------------------------------------------------
"comparing military and LE confrontations (to self-defense situation involving a citizen) is comparing apples to oranges" --Lurper
------------------------------------------------------------
"practicing for any situation is a good idea" -- Matt Temkin
------------------------------------------------------------
"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. "--Roger Phillips

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"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." --Lurper
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I've recently attended training with John Farnam & Louis Awerbuck. Both taught to move laterally while drawing, and then to stop (or nearly stop) movement while engaging the target. I think that idea still has lots of merit, depending upon situation, but there are lots of times when lateral movement may not be possible. What happens when you're on a stairway or in a hallway? Or if you're confronted at night in an icy parking lot -- rapid movement may cause you to fall.

There is no one answer that fits all situations. It's always good to evaluate the rationale behind the options, to see what fits in a given situation, and what does not.

Skyguy
March 14, 2008, 09:24 AM
Jeff22,What happens when you're on a stairway or in a hallway? Or if you're confronted at night in an icy parking lot -- rapid movement may cause you to fall.

The above are, indeed, dire and compromising situations. But, there is an answer:

* Pay attention. Gun in hand if suspicious.

* Even if ambushed - always move! Bob and weave, roll if down. Don't freeze!

* Move laterally as much as possible. There is 'still' room to move if even only a step or two.

* Draw as you crouch-blade–shoot. Hit or miss, just shoot.

Try it, train it.
It's still better than remaining a wide unmoving target.
.

MLeake
March 15, 2008, 09:16 PM
If you train to move off the line of attack, it can benefit you in unexpected ways.

Got caught in the middle of a horse fight today... nothing serious, just two large (1500# plus) Holsteiner geldings trying to decide who's boss. Only problem was, I was affixing a halter to one, when the other kicked him.

Good thing I do a lot of pull-ups, or I think my arm might have been dislocated when the one I was holding reared up and wheeled toward the aggressor, with my hand still stuck in the halter...

Anyway, the aggressor then slammed by me and through the open gate (I was preparing to take them, one by one, to the barn...). So I locked up the one that now had a halter on, and took off after the troublemaker.

Well, he decided to turn around and run right at me. I'll tell you what, I now know why they say infantry had a hard time standing up to a cavalry charge... I wanted to catch the horse, and so I initially moved to block his path, halter and lead line in hand, figuring I could will him down.

I figured wrong. Let's just say that 1500# of hooves at the gallop make a real impression, especially when the li'l #*&$ decides to lower his head and aim right at you. The flash of light on horseshoes really draws the eye's focus.

So here's where training to move came in handy. Because I trained at this for years (aikido), I was able to advance on a 45 degree angle and execute a matador style pivot out of the way(tenkan). I think if I hadn't had years of practice at this, I might have frozen there and been seriously hurt, but I was able to stay in relatively fluid motion, and I'll tell you, it was in spite of being more than a little bit stressed.

Here is where patience enters the equation. Eventually, the #*&$ ran into one of the paddocks on property, where I was able to lock a gate on him. Then, I just let him snort and challenge the stallion across the way, and run around like an idiot until he tired himself out. He was much easier to deal with, a while later, when he was lathered up and wound down.

This post may not be directly firearms related, the point is that training a muscle response of movement, and using awareness and patience have broader application to potential threat situations that do not involve firearms.

Skyguy
March 19, 2008, 12:07 AM
There's just something about getting shot at that gets ya....moving off the X.
....and there was no training required. :)

Check out the video below:
http://www.wnbc.com/video/2600663/index.html
.

ATW525
March 19, 2008, 06:24 AM
I'm coming in late to this thread, but I noticed this while skimming it over:

So, I figured what better source is there than looking at civilian shootings in which the victim prevailed?

Wouldn't that only give half the picture? What about incidents where the victim lost? Staying on topic for the thread... if 100 people survived by standing their ground and shooting without moving, the meaning of that would be impossible to judge without knowing how many people didn't survive while doing the same.

Lurper
March 19, 2008, 06:18 PM
Wouldn't that only give half the picture?
No, the question is; What do shootings where the good guy prevailed have in common? So, what happens when they lost isn't part of the question. But I can tell you this; The results would be the same. The person who scored the first solid hit wins. Additionally, you cannot claim that someone lost because they didn't move. There is no way to support that contention. They lost because they suffered a hit to a vital area (and usually are the first one hit). Moving does not stop that. In fact what some fail to acknowledge is that you are just as likely to move into the line of fire as out of it. Anyone who contends that moving is more important than hitting the target is basing their conclusions on pure speculation, not fact.

It really isn't a question of move or not. Some other posters have tried to make it that, but it really isn't. It is a question of the single most important factor in determining who prevails in a gunfight. That is hitting the target first, hands down by a large margin.

Also, in spite of what anyone claims, there is no proof of the efficacy of moving. Certainly no justifcation for sacrificing hits for movement. Movement is what it is, but there is a difference between those who move due to tactics or training and those who move otherwise and a huge difference between those and the idea that moving is more important than hitting the target first.

ATW525
March 19, 2008, 10:31 PM
No, the question is; What do shootings where the good guy prevailed have in common?

I guess I just don't see the point to knowing the answer to that question without knowing how they differ from shootings where the good guy lost. Sorry.

Skyguy
March 20, 2008, 09:59 AM
if 100 people survived by standing their ground and shooting without moving, the meaning of that would be impossible to judge without knowing how many people didn't survive while doing the same.

Exactly. Without both sides of the issue there can be no answer. There's just no scientific data on the subject of moving off the X or standing still....merely anecdotes.

The first priority is to survive and the best bet for surviving is to move out of the line of force. If the victim in the video below didn't move he probably would have died, yet he survived. He moved.

http://www.wnbc.com/video/2600663/index.html

So, what to do in a showdown?
Follow one's instincts - follow the advice of the majority of legitimate trainers - and follow the advice of those who've been there and done that. Don't stay in the kill zone - move off the X.

Below is a demo of move/draw/shoot: Pity that stationary target that chose 'not' to move.
(Two to the body and two to the head in under two seconds.)

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

Lurper
March 20, 2008, 10:54 AM
First of all there is a big difference between being unarmed and attacked and armed and attacked. Clearly the video is irrelevant. Personally, I would have charged the attacker, rather than hide behind a tree. Removing the threat is the only sure way to ensure your safety. Despite what you want to claim Sky, the argument was never move or not move and despite what you say, there is more than anecdotal evidence that shows that the most important factor in determining who wins a gunfight is who scores the first hit. That's fact, not anecdote.

Secondly, even in Evan's fine video if he was hit first, he would be far less likely to survive. At the distance his video is shot, a person skilled at pistolcraft would be able to score a hit in well under 1 second. If they already had their gun in hand, it would be far quicker. This is where the logic of your argument falls flat on its face. Your argument assumes that the good guy is going to hit in spite of the fact that he is moving and that the bad guy is not going to hit because of it. Neither is true. It has more to do with skill and luck than movement. The fact remains that if you can't hit your target, the chances of survival drop dramatically.

Here is the fact:
In more than 70% of the 400 cases I have looked at, the person who hits first prevails. Regardless of anything else. That is fact. Additionally, tactics are used in less than 10% of the cases and played no role in the outcome to any greater degree than hitting the target first did (if they played any role at all). Those are facts, they are indisutable.

Looking at what happens in gunfights where the good guy lost is totally irrelevant. Yet, I'm sure it would support the same conclusion. The bad guy won because he hit his target first. You can't surmise what works from looking at what doesn't work. It would be like taking a poll to see how many republicans are going to vote for McCain but including the results from democrats and independents. The latter two bear no relation to the survey question, therefore the data is irrelevant.

Since I have trained civilians, LE and military (over 25 years) and have BTDT more than once, I have to surmise that you use the term "legitimate" to mean those whose philosphy you believe. While classifying anyone who doesn't tow the party line as illegitimate. I put the challenge out before: show me proof that moving is more important than hitting the target. Yet you can't. Instead you choose to obfuscate the issue by trying to say I take a position that I don't and trying to attack my credibility. It's really sad that you have no other way to try to make your point. BTW, this is what I do for a living, what do you do?

MLeake
March 20, 2008, 11:00 AM
While I accept your proposition that the first to hit will generally win, that still leaves me with another question about your research:

How strong is the correlation between first to hit, and first to fire?

IE, I can get the first hit by shooting first, and hitting, or by making my opponent miss his first shot, and then scoring my hit. Either way results in a first hit for me.

Cheers,

M

Lurper
March 20, 2008, 11:16 AM
I can get the first hit by shooting first, and hitting, or by making my opponent miss his first shot, and then scoring my hit. Either way results in a first hit for me.
Absolutely! That is why I don't say that the person who shoots first wins. That is also why my position has never been move or don't move. My position has always been hit your target first and often.

How strong is the correlation between first to hit, and first to fire?
I haven't crunched those numbers yet, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd say in the 60% range. Those who fire first hit first. As I said before, another thing that sticks out is the number of times that multiple assailants flee once the shooting starts. This is another problem IMO with a lot of what people base their tactical assumptions on. The assumption seems to be that the badguy is going to hit first, that he is going to continue the fight, that if there are multiple assailants they are all going to engage you rather than flee and that they are all going to hit what they shoot at. None of which are valid assumptions. This is what I pointed out earlier as a shortcoming. Many times, the assailant(s) flees when shots are fired, hit or not. Many times, the flee after one hit (fatal or not). Additionally, many times armed assailants flee without firing a shot (even though they are armed) once the shooting starts.

MLeake
March 20, 2008, 11:21 AM
... is that known assailants are much more likely to continue the fight.

IE, the random mugger will probably retreat when gunfire starts, but your girlfriend's psycho ex will stay in the fight for the duration. The more personal the reason for the confrontation, the higher the adrenaline rate, etc.

Just out of curiousity, Lurper, did you notice any such correlation in your data?

Lurper
March 20, 2008, 11:51 AM
My gut instinct is that you are correct, but I haven't gotten into those numbers yet.

Allstar
March 20, 2008, 12:02 PM
Your are completely correct in the first solid hit wins. I say as long as you live then you win. So how many of those people that landed that first solid shot moved how many didn't. I am not saying movement is the key to winning, I am saying it is good thing to use. How many of them were shot at first but the BG missed.

ATW525
March 20, 2008, 12:03 PM
Looking at what happens in gunfights where the good guy lost is totally irrelevant. Yet, I'm sure it would support the same conclusion. The bad guy won because he hit his target first. You can't surmise what works from looking at what doesn't work.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

Skyguy
March 20, 2008, 01:20 PM
BTW, this is what I do for a living, what do you do?

As a renowned researcher, I would have expected you to at least check my public profile here. It says what I do for a living. lol

I'm very proud of having spent nineteen months in true combat, numerous firefights and large scale battles in the highlands of vietnam. Hill 875 in particular where I was wounded (shot) in the right arm, liver and lung resulting in a 10% forearm disability.
Flying bullets prove that if you don't move, if you freeze – you can die. Simple as that.

I don't give much credence to amateur, untested gunfighter opinions. Especially from those who've never been shot at nor fired a shot with bad intentions, other than at a pesky target. I usually just shine them on. No point in arguing with the 'experts'.

Following my service I spent a decade in plain clothes for Cook County in the gang unit dealing with the Blackstone Rangers/El Rukns, the Disciples, the Outlaws mc, etc. Worked the whole county and Chicago.

I was a white guy getting shot at from...and in...Cabrini Green and the Robert Taylor Homes, et al. I have buku experience in getting shot at by determined trash. I learned a lot from my mistakes and the mistakes of others and I try to pass it on.

And don't tell me about shooting is apples and oranges. I worked in plain clothes on the south and west sides of Chicago, in black gang areas, mc clubs....been shot at in the car, in stairwells and from high up in Cabrini Green, from gangways/alleys, from NVA bunkers and bamboo, up close and far....and on and on.

Anyway, once I wised up I became a general contractor/builder where I made a great living....and still do.

So there you are; my short bio.
My advice to you; Learn to move off the X - out of the kill zone or risk a quick demise in a real deal.
.

MLeake
March 20, 2008, 01:30 PM
Be careful about asking a question to which you don't know the answer...

Cheers,

M

PS No I'm not a lawyer, thankyouverymuch...

Lurper
March 20, 2008, 01:49 PM
As a renowned researcher, I would have expected you to at least check my public profile here.
Your words, not mine. I was a renowned shooter, not researcher.

While everyone should be proud of their service (myself included), it bears no relevance to the topic. You refuse to accept that because it doesn't support your argument. Military and LE confrontations are totally different. I've cited the differences several times, so I won't again.

Your experience in gunfights is no more valid than mine. The fact that we survived makes us survivors, not experts. Knowledge makes one an expert, not experience by itself.

You have every right to disagree and try to disprove my contention, yet instead you choose to attack me personally. As I said, it's sad that you have to resort to that.

mjoy64
March 20, 2008, 11:57 PM
You have every right to disagree and try to disprove my contention

Why should any responder have to "disprove" your assertion? It would seem that you must prove your assertion... and not the other way around.

If you stick to the notion that whoever shoots the other guy first wins most of the time, I highly doubt you'd get much argument from anyone on this thread.

When you make statements like...

It's far more important to hit your target than it is to move off of the X.

and

It's also better to shoot then move than it is to try to shoot while moving.

you are reaching for a conclusion without the supporting facts in evidence. I think one of the other posters made an excellent point in that there could be several other reasonable explanations that the winner got the first hit... other than just going stand and deliver on the other guy.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!

David Armstrong
March 22, 2008, 03:11 PM
Looking at what happens in gunfights where the good guy lost is totally irrelevant.
I think you are underestimating or failing to recognize the importance of such information. If there is a common factor to winning shootings that is also a common factor to losing shotings all we have is a factor common to shootings. It's like distance. Most LE that lose a gunfight are closer than 10' to the perp. However, most LE that win a gunfight are closer than 10' to the perp. So what we learn is not that close distance factors into the gunfight, but that most gunfights occur within a close distance.

Having said that, here is my soapbox rant for the day: Folks, if you don't like what Lurper (or anybody else) has to say about their findings, for Pete's sake go out and do some research of your own instead of questioning the poster for his data and sources and such. That is the better way. Challenging design and methodology might be appropriate (and frequently it is flawed) but if you are unwilling to spend some time looking things up and verifying them don't expect anybody else to do it for you. Rant mode off.

While everyone should be proud of their service (myself included), it bears no relevance to the topic.
While LE, military, and civvy roles certainly differ, I fail to see that making a difference in the movement factor for close-range shooting. Unless you are contending that the shoot/movement framework changes the chances of winning based on the fact that you are LE, military, or civvy I'm not sure I'm following you.

MLeake
March 22, 2008, 04:09 PM
David Armstrong makes a valid point, that it would be potentially more valuable (and possibly more ethical, though I don't want to put words in DA's mouth) to do individual research instead of asking questions of the researcher (Lurper, in this case).

However, with all due respect, in some cases that would be very difficult. Theoretically, an established researcher has contacts established, case studies identified, and a core body of work to which to refer. Ideally, an established researcher also has knowledge of proper methodology, statistics, etc...

This isn't true of most of us.

I don't want to put words in Lurper's mouth, either, but from interacting with him in this forum, I don't think he objects to being asked questions about his data or his methodology, so long as people are respectful in the way they ask.

Personally, I think that somebody who has done their research, and is preparing a dissertation, benefits from being asked questions. It helps them fine tune their work, and hammer out any possible weaknesses in their case.

Cheers,

M

Koz
March 23, 2008, 07:38 PM
Playing Call of Duty 4 has shown me that getting off the X is very important

Skyguy
March 25, 2008, 10:33 PM
Read this excerpt from some writings by Gabe Suarez. He is in tune with most of the modern day self defense instructors with the following information:

"The first drill we run in our gunfight class is one where guys face each other at 4 yards and they try a shot against each other under equal initiative as well as unequal initiative. End result...both guys get shot.

There are those in the training industry that dislike our use of force on force and gunfight simulations. They say that "force on force" is not real. Quite true...we never said it was real. But it is the best alternative available today to the common man without going out and getting into gunfights. Still, how much convincing does someone need? I recall a couple of years ago, several instructors set up a drill. The commands were simple as each man was given a simmunitions gun. "When I say GO, the man in front of you has a gun and is trying to kill you".
The guys who stood their ground and tried to out draw the other man, ended up getting shot at the same time they fired their pistols. Mutual suicide.
The guys who moved sharply off the adversary's line of fire were generally able to evade the first shot. (I say generally as there are no guarantees in the gunfight).

In FOF they were eventually shot as the bad guy was able to recover and move through the OODA loop, but the fact that they were able to evade the first shot is telling. They were also able to hit the other man and it is the timing of that event that contained the greatest lesson. If the good guy is able to evade the first shot and counter, there may not be a second shot coming from the bad guy at all.
Getting off the line of fire is not an end in itself, it is a means to get inside the bad guy's decision and action cycle. What getting off the X does is reset his OODA loop back to Observe.

Now you can certainly do this with other means such as throwing something in his face, or even looking over his shoulder, but what moving also does is get you clear of his gun muzzle which the other distractions do not. Moving off the X as you draw and fire helps your survivability. This makes eminently more sense to me than working on perfecting your weaver stance!

Still, there is resistance.
I think much of it comes from the inability of some instructors to successfully teach getting off the X. Some guys have been planted on the range for so long that even a lateral side step on the draw looks like stolen alien technology to them. Couple that with the over-reliance on the tool and the prevalence of portliness in the shooting community and you end up with feet planted in a weave-a-soceles shooting group again.

Guys who move off the X generally have the ability to evade their adversary's gun muzzle and shot, while placing three to four shots on the bad guy before the bad guy is able to catch up." – by G. Suarez

Check out the following videos and picture yourself in a confrontation. Which gunfight method makes more sense?

Below: evan demonstrating the 'move off the X':

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

Below: Lurper demonstrating the 'stand and deliver':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQKr2AkKDU

Evan's move off the X - while shooting - shows a shooter bladed to the threat.....effectively reducing his overall size by about half 'and' covering part of his left side with his arm.
A smaller moving target is harder to mortally hit than a stationary, stand and deliver target, especially for an untrained shooter.

In comparison, a stand and deliver guy becomes an easy, non-moving, double wide target.
.

Allstar
March 26, 2008, 09:05 AM
thanks Skyguy that was a great post to what we have all been saying.

Lurper
March 26, 2008, 12:56 PM
Again, you can obsfucate the issue all you want with posts and videos, but the indesputable fact remains: the most important factor in winning is hitting the target first.
The attempts to twist my position into a move -v- don't move argument is clearly just an attempt to prove through repetition what you cannot through fact.
It doesn't matter who moves, or who does not. It is who hits the target first, period. So if you move off of the X and you can't hit the target, all the movement in the world won't save you if your opponent can. If you don't move, the same applies. If you don't move and hit the target first, your chances of survival are exponentially increased. If you are hit first, the ratio is inverted. It's that simple.

Erik
March 26, 2008, 01:45 PM
Bearing in mind that I agree that hitting first is important, even paramount, I disagree that it is all that is necessary and that movement does not matter.

I look forward to your efforts, by the way.

Lurper
March 26, 2008, 03:43 PM
E
I feel like I need to restate that I am not saying it is the only thing. Just the most important thing. Nor am I arguing move -v- don't move. What I am saying is that there is no evidence to suggest that anything else plays as big a role as hitting first. What I have issue with vis-a-vis movement is the implication that somehow it is more important than scoring the first hit or that it somehow guarantees survival. Neither is true.

David Armstrong
March 26, 2008, 06:05 PM
However, with all due respect, in some cases that would be very difficult. Theoretically, an established researcher has contacts established, case studies identified, and a core body of work to which to refer. Ideally, an established researcher also has knowledge of proper methodology, statistics, etc...
This isn't true of most of us.
True, but I think that actually reinforces my point. Someone who has researched the field has studied all these different things, maybe looked at dozens or hundreds of pieces of data, and so on. Now someone comes along and says "oh yeah--show me the data/evidence/proof!" Not only will few researchers post those hundreds of bits of data, most forums don't want it. Equally important, the person usually asking for the data will not believe it, in my experience, and will just ask more questions and ask for more proof. If, on the other hand, they will go and do some research themselves, even of a less-than-professional quality, then they can see for themselves what the data is and discuss the facts from a position of knowledge.
Personally, I think that somebody who has done their research, and is preparing a dissertation, benefits from being asked questions.
Agreed, but on an internet forum asking for the data is a bit out of line, IMO. Questions about what the data show, or how one comes to the conclusions is appropriate, but unless one is accusing the other person of making up the data or lying demanding the source material itself is a bit overboard. My $.02.

Charles S
March 26, 2008, 06:12 PM
True, but I think that actually reinforces my point. Someone who has researched the field has studied all these different things, maybe looked at dozens or hundreds of pieces of data, and so on....

As a trained researcher I am sure you realize that after looking at dozens or hundreds of pieces of data without a true analysis the data provided is still anecdotal evidence. While certain professions have chosen to ignore it...there are a number of methods for taking a number of studies (even case studies) and combining the evidence for statistical analysis...

Agreed, but on an internet forum asking for the data is a bit out of line, IMO.

Obviously...we should all believe what we read on the internet. I know I personally believe everything I read....

Without data to back it your word...IMHO that data is worth what I paid for it.

It you are a an expert like Gabe, Ayoob etc I am more willing to believe your assertions....If I don't have a clue who you are.....well

I am not disagreeing with Lurpur....I do however think that one should look at both wins and losses for a better analysis of what works and what does not.

I believe that Lurpur's basic assumption is quite sound. I would however like to see evidence also.

MLeake
March 26, 2008, 08:12 PM
Hey, my old call sign was "Data".... go figure.

I think an appropriate, though not required, response to a request for data might be a point toward a case study or set of case studies, or a case that could be easily googled (EG Stockholm Syndrome; Miami FBI Incident; LeGarde/Thompson ballistics tests etc)

At least some of us aren't trying to be rude, but we would like to know where we could find some of the stats to do our own math.

Cheers,

M

Allstar
March 26, 2008, 09:27 PM
I pose a question to you then. When a BG pulls a gun, what do you consider a "win". I consider living the greatest "win" ever. If I have to shoot I will (and have). But if I can move to cover and escape then I will. I know a lot of people that said in their last breathes I should have moved. They are both equally important and if used together yield a higher probability of living then just trying to use on.

It is just like people that talk about breathing while shooting. I had a retired SEAL say once in a class, "Tactical breathing is being the one that is breathing after the shots are fired." But I have heard other instructors preach to breath in and breath out and hold on the out then shoot which is great for targets not get for being shot at.

One more question ok two. How many times have you had to pull your weapon?
How many times have you had to fire it? When I say had, I mean you had to shoot to live.

David Armstrong
March 27, 2008, 07:55 PM
As a trained researcher I am sure you realize that after looking at dozens or hundreds of pieces of data without a true analysis the data provided is still anecdotal evidence.
No disagreement with that. That goes back to the "Questions about what the data show, or how one comes to the conclusions is appropriate" statement. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Obviously...we should all believe what we read on the internet.
Obviously that is quite different from asking someone to post their data.

At least some of us aren't trying to be rude, but we would like to know where we could find some of the stats to do our own math.
But you don't find "the stats" lots of time. What you find are hundreds of reports and articles that are available, and anybody can pull them up and check them for themselves. I personally am not about to go back and post links or cites to each individual gunfight I've analyzed over the last 30 years!

It you are a an expert like Gabe, Ayoob etc
And therein lies part of the problem. One of those trainers is an individual who has actually done lots of research in the field and truly is an expert on gunfights. The other, to be charitable, isn't. When people can't tell the difference between the quality of work and qualifications of the persons, I doubt that tossing a bunch of data at them would make any difference.

Charles S
March 27, 2008, 08:09 PM
As a trained researcher I am sure you realize that after looking at dozens or hundreds of pieces of data without a true analysis the data provided is still anecdotal evidence.

But you don't find "the stats" lots of time. What you find are hundreds of reports and articles that are available, and anybody can pull them up and check them for themselves. I personally am not about to go back and post links or cites to each individual gunfight I've analyzed over the last 30 years!

Exactly! Which is what I have always asserted....So unless you have done statistical analysis (that you can post) what you do post is your opinion. Nothing more, with no more basis in reality than my opinion when I read an individual event....Which is why you cannot post statistical data.

And therein lies part of the problem. One of those trainers is an individual who has actually done lots of research in the field and truly is an expert on gunfights. The other, to be charitable, isn't. When people can't tell the difference between the quality of work and qualifications of the persons, I doubt that tossing a bunch of data at them would make any difference.

...but both produce students that are incredibly successful when placed in a lethal confrontation...

....no amount of reading or statistical data give those same results! Never loose sight of that fact. People who worship at the alter of statistics often forget that statistical success and real life success don't always correspond. If anything....my training in statistics has taught me that if something (e.g. the training of the individual whom you are referring to) works it really does not matter whether the statistics support that fact.

Skyguy
March 27, 2008, 10:47 PM
Oh c'mon.....

A thesis or theory that claims to be based on valid research is meaningless without providing proof in the form of verifiable data, stats and/or sources.
It is 'not' out of line to ask for - or be supplied - a summary of sources, stats or data. That's just pro forma.

With over 3000 views here, the real issue begs the question….
Where are the combat vets, leo's or civilians who could post their experiences and whether they stood and delivered to incoming bullets or whether they moved off the X.
.

MLeake
March 28, 2008, 06:12 AM
This would be true for any ground training I give on flying. I should be able to cite each applicable Federal Aviation Regulation, Operations Specifications Manual Section, etc each time I give students a reason to do x,y, or z.

Cheers,

M

Charles S
March 28, 2008, 07:03 AM
Where are the combat vets, leo's or civilians who could post their experiences and whether they stood and delivered to incoming bullets or whether they moved off the X.

Just to note...Lurper is, I believe, experienced in both Military and LEO, and is know a civilian trainer.

MLeake
March 28, 2008, 08:15 AM
I'm pretty sure Skyguy isn't calling Lurper's credentials into question. I know I am not.

However, it would be useful to hear from a wide selection of people who have been in gunfights and survived them, to see if there are overall trends. The other advantage to hearing from members who have been there done that is that, unlike reports of old gunfights, the members could actually answer questions.

For instance, if a report makes no mention of whether the gunfighters moved, used cover, etc, it's hard to determine whether they did.

With a live person, you can ask those sorts of questions.

Oh, to clarify my take on being able to cite sources when teaching, that wasn't a dig at Lurper's or David Armstrong's credibility. My intended, implied point was that it is beneficial to the student to enable him to look up the data/procedure/regulation himself, for better reinforcement and/or awareness.

Cheers,

M

Allstar
March 28, 2008, 10:15 AM
Military combative right here. Have trained at places such as blackwater, Shaws,.... etc. Help to train law enforcement officers and swat members around the country as well as foreign special forces.

Lurper
March 28, 2008, 11:09 AM
RE: data
Go back and read the early posts. There is no central bank of data on civilian shootings. Therefore, the only way to provide the source would be to provide the accounts of each shooting. If you want to find out, do it yourself. It is a gigantic undertaking. When the project is finished, the numbers will be there, so will the methodology. If you don't like it, don't read it, post counter arguments or write your own book. One of the outcomes I would like to achieve is to have a databank (for lack of a better word) of civilian shootings. I am in the process of talking to a couple of organizations to try to find a home and money for the project.

No one person has enough personal experience to say that their experience qualifies them as an expert. To assert otherwise is absurd. The only way to have enough "experience" is to look at the experience of others.

Here is a question for all:
What makes one an expert?


Quote:
It you are a an expert like Gabe, Ayoob etc

And therein lies part of the problem. One of those trainers is an individual who has actually done lots of research in the field and truly is an expert on gunfights. The other, to be charitable, isn't.
Can you elaborate on that? Which is which?

Many of the so called "experts" are self-proclaimed. Some are in fact very credible, others not. This is one of the reasons I decided to look into the issue myself. Much of what we are told by some is self-serving. Much is designed to get you to buy into a mindset which feeds itself (and the "expert's" wallet) and bears little semblance to reality.

The other problem is that much of what is taught is not applicable. No matter what anyone wants to claim, military, LE and civilian confrontations are three totally different animals. What applies to one does not apply to the other,nor to the third. Additionally, the skillset to prevail in each is different.

RE: lost fights
Remember that I was looking for what happened in the confrontations where the good guy prevailed. Therefore, the fights where they didn't are immaterial. Even if you could say that in the majority of the cases where the good guy did not move, he lost. It doesn't mean anything. You cannot claim that movement or the lack thereof determined the outcome (correlation does not equal causality). What you can claim is the fact that they were hit was what determined if they won or lost. Therefore, the ability of the bad guy to hit was the determining factor. This is where the whole movement argument falls on its face. You cannot prove, nor demonstrate that movement does anything to determine the outcome. The only real causal link is being hit.
I guarantee you that if you move against me, you will still get hit. However, if you move against an average person, you MAY not. But, that begs the question: Did he miss because you moved or because of his lack of skill?

Again, for the umpteenth time: I am not arguing whether to move or not. I'm not arguing anything for that matter. I am simply pointing out that in the majority of the shootings I have looked at, the biggest determining factor of who prevails is who hits the target first.

Skyguy
March 28, 2008, 11:17 AM
Lurper is, I believe, experienced in both Military and LEO, and is know a civilian trainer.
Only he knows if he's been in a fight. He's never said.

Actually, I was 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.
My reason for that is to lay down some basics for how to deal with a real encounter/ambush.

Here's an instance from back in the day.
We were after a crazy gang-banger in Chicago's Cabrini Green housing project. My partner was below me on the stairwell. I was in the middle of the up stairway. The door above and to my right opened and 'crazy' pointed his weapon my way and let go with four shots. Loud, really loud.
What probably saved my ass in those two seconds was that I moved hard right into the wall. Not even sure if he was aiming, but I did not stand and go for a shoot-out.

So, I say, number one for the average Joe is; do 'not' try to draw to an ambush....then stand and deliver. That's just stupid. A gun is merely a tool and you're not bulletproof. Use it intelligently.
The objective of an encounter is to survive. Like every cop says: first thing is to stay alive to go home to the wife and kids.

It is well understood that expertly running a gun will not necessarily save one's life. That's stuff for the movies and games. It is also well understood that hitting a threat first will not necessarily keep one alive.
Many people have been hit with multiples and continued to deal out death and destruction. That is a scary fact.

That said, what 'is' proper?
Proper is.....move off the X, move out of the kill zone, even if only a step or two. Move as you draw and shoot. Hit or miss, just shoot.
If ambushed - always move! Bob and weave, roll if you're down. Don't freeze!

Evade first, then counter.
Upset the attackers OODA loop. Keep in mind that a ¼" of muzzle deviation off target moves the POI 12" at 15ft. A moving target is harder to hit. So, move!

If ambushed don't opt for 'stand and deliver' - except in the most dire and uncompromising circumstances. (trapped in a corner or a closet.) What's the point of hitting first then dying last.

Bottom line........Self defense is about surviving 'not' winning a shoot-out. Pay attention. Don't freeze.
Whenever possible, always move first when under an up-close attack.
.

Lurper
March 28, 2008, 11:36 AM
Only he knows if he's been in a fight. He's never said.
Actually, I have answered that question more than once. However, my experience means nothing in the big picture. As I stated in the original post, my experience and that of several of my friends ran counter to what some of the so called "experts" teach. That was the impetus for me to take a closer look at what really happens and what really works. It was all there in several of the earlier posts. You only need to read them.

Allstar
March 28, 2008, 01:56 PM
Of course a the ones that had the first solid shot lived. That is kind of common sense, I don't know to many people that have been shot first then prevail by landing the second shot. I would like to see why they landed the first shot, was it because they were already drawn, they pulled first, they moved...etc. Go back and get that info then come to us and present you case again and tell us if getting off the X is as important as landing the first solid shot.

Charles S
March 28, 2008, 02:30 PM
Go back and read the early posts. There is no central bank of data on civilian shootings. Therefore, the only way to provide the source would be to provide the accounts of each shooting. If you want to find out, do it yourself. It is a gigantic undertaking. When the project is finished, the numbers will be there, so will the methodology. If you don't like it, don't read it, post counter arguments or write your own book. One of the outcomes I would like to achieve is to have a databank (for lack of a better word) of civilian shootings. I am in the process of talking to a couple of organizations to try to find a home and money for the project.

Lurper, I hope what I posted earlier did not imply that I was not interested in your work. I am very interested in your work and will be very interested in your conclusions.

I look forward to reading your work. I have learned quite a bit from your earlier postings and the lessons you have submitted regarding shooting. I am sure this next project will be very valuable to me also.

David Armstrong
March 28, 2008, 03:31 PM
So unless you have done statistical analysis (that you can post) what you do post is your opinion.
We will strongly disagree. Whether I post my analysis or not has no bearing on whether the analysis has been done or what the facts are. The reader will have no way of knowing if the numbers used are accurate or made-up, or any of a variety of other things that are important. If the reader, on the other hand, takes the time to look up some of the stuff themselves they will be in a much better position to not only decide if the information given is accurate, but also to discuss the issue.
but both produce students that are incredibly successful when placed in a lethal confrontation
But that has nothing to do with being able to do decent research. FWIW, virtually EVERY trainer out there produces students that are incredibly successful when placed in lethal confrontations. That is because almost any advanced training, even of low quality, still puts the student far ahead of the curve.
If anything....my training in statistics has taught me that if something (e.g. the training of the individual whom you are referring to) works it really does not matter whether the statistics support that fact.
Again, no disagreement. I'm a strong supporter of "whatever works". Where I think the stats and research are the most useful, particularly from the training aspect, is to allow one to better understand what is needed and thus best use their resources. Outliers may be outside of the norm, but they are still part of the population.

It is 'not' out of line to ask for - or be supplied - a summary of sources, stats or data. That's just pro forma.
A summary is far different than asking for the data. Heck, that is what started this conversation. Lurper offered a summary of some research he has been doing "in the majority of the shootings I have looked at, the biggest determining factor of who prevails is who hits the target first". Somebody else said that it was wrong, and said he should post his data. My point is that if you don't like that brief summary, or you disagree with it, go do some research on your own and tell us what you find. Would it really matter if Lurper were to post "OK, I have 400 shootings I looked at and in 390 of them the winner was the guy that got the first hits on the other guy." Do we really know any more, and do we really know if that is what the data says, or is it just what Lurper wants it to say? That is my only real issue here--you've just got to take a fair amount of stuff on face value in these forums. It's not a professional journal nor is the discussion in that vein.

This would be true for any ground training I give on flying. I should be able to cite each applicable Federal Aviation Regulation, Operations Specifications Manual Section, etc each time I give students a reason to do x,y, or z.
But should you have to give them the history of the FAA hearings and tests that lead to the findings that caused the regs to be written? I think that is the difference. "You should do this because Regulation XYZ says so" is no different than "you should do this because the research says so".

Therefore, the only way to provide the source would be to provide the accounts of each shooting. If you want to find out, do it yourself. It is a gigantic undertaking.
Exactly. I can say that I have conservatively looked at over 10,000 shootings at one level or another over the last 30 years. Trying to cite-source them is virtually impossible, but that doesn't mean I haven't learned a few things from them or seen certain trends or discovered specific facts. I've read hundreds of articles and papers on the use of force and shootings. Whether I give a citation for them or not has no bearing on that.

Skyguy
March 28, 2008, 06:44 PM
It was all there in several of the earlier posts. You only need to read them.

Hey, I took the bait and did the research in this thread. All I found were two vague and ambiguous references to "BTDT" and "survivors surviving gunfights".

If you were in a fight could you elaborate on the circumstances of the fight and whether you stood and delivered or moved off the X....and why.
Did you kill? Did you wound? Did you miss?
This has piqued my interest and seems like a learning lesson in waiting.

That is my only real issue here--you've just got to take a fair amount of stuff on face value in these forums. It's not a professional journal nor is the discussion in that vein.

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. Even an untrained shooter can hit a stationary target right in front of them.

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. Details appreciated.
.

JohnKSa
March 28, 2008, 09:21 PM
Did you kill? Did you wound? Did you miss?
This has piqued my interest and seems like a learning lesson in waiting.A person can have lots of experience and still draw the wrong conclusions from his own experience.

A person can have no experience and still draw the right conclusions based on information derived from the experiences of others.

Opinions can be based on experience or research (formal or informal) and frankly, experience tends to be far more subjective than properly done research.

The bottom line is that there's no benefit to anyone in turning this thread into a "measuring" contest. Besides the fact that it's difficult or impossible to verify what people claim about themselves, it's also a sure recipe for turning a thread personal which is unproductive.

mjoy64
March 28, 2008, 09:41 PM
Lurper...

I am trying to reconcile these statements:

It's far more important to hit your target than it is to move off of the X.


It's also better to shoot then move than it is to try to shoot while moving.

I feel like I need to restate that I am not saying it is the only thing. Just the most important thing. Nor am I arguing move -v- don't move. What I am saying is that there is no evidence to suggest that anything else plays as big a role as hitting first. What I have issue with vis-a-vis movement is the
implication that somehow it is more important than scoring the first hit or that it somehow guarantees survival. Neither is true.

All these statements made by you and it would seem to me backtracking and revisionist.

I'll ask specifically. What is the most important thing to do to get the first hit? This is important as it is a high indicator of surviving an armed encounter based on your statistics.

You have specifically lessened the importance of "moving of the X notion" as people do not shoot most accurately when moving (even for at-one-time world class shooter). So... you seem to specifically state that "stand and deliver" will have a greater chance of improving your chances of survival and in a later breath state you don't speak one way or the other, just that you must deliver the first hit.

Observing one statistic is not proof. I could research and generate any number of correlated statistics that have no affect on the outcome. Please make a case for "stand and deliver" over "moving of the X". You clearly believe that shooting and then moving is more effective. Make the case for why that is so beyond a single statistic. I could make any number of (incorrect) arguments based on a single statistic.

Lurper
March 29, 2008, 01:14 AM
Quote:
It's far more important to hit your target than it is to move off of the X.

Quote:
It's also better to shoot then move than it is to try to shoot while moving.

Quote:
I feel like I need to restate that I am not saying it is the only thing. Just the most important thing. Nor am I arguing move -v- don't move. What I am saying is that there is no evidence to suggest that anything else plays as big a role as hitting first. What I have issue with vis-a-vis movement is the
implication that somehow it is more important than scoring the first hit or that it somehow guarantees survival. Neither is true.

Each statement clearly reconciles with the other and is not backtracking. The first statement is simple: the data shows that the single most important factor is who hits their target first. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that hitting the target is more important than anything else.

The second statement is based on the fact that most people will suffer a degradation in accuracy if they shoot while moving. It makes more sense to shoot then move or move then shoot (providing that you aren't burning up time you should be shooting). That means fire 3 or 4 shots then move or move while drawing, stop, fire the shots and move again if the situation allows.
The third statement stands on its own.



I'll ask specifically. What is the most important thing to do to get the first hit? This is important as it is a high indicator of surviving an armed encounter based on your statistics.
That is an excellent question and one of the most difficult to answer. My opinion is that one needs to develop the skill set which allows them to hit the target quickly and repeatedly.

Make the case for why that is so beyond a single statistic. I could make any number of (incorrect) arguments based on a single statistic.
Gee, if 400 + cases isn't enough for you, I don't know how to make the case. I might point out that the argument never was "stand and deliver" -v- "move off the X". I specifically did not say don't move. What I said was basically don't trade movement for hits. I stand by that. I never said stand and deliver was the way to go. If you read it that way then I need to restate that. What I said was: the single most important skill to develop is the ability to hit the target quickly.


You clearly believe that shooting and then moving is more effective.
Aboslutely! Even more so for the average CCW'er. Again, for most people accuracy will suffer when shooting while moving. Additionally, for most people speed decreases if they shoot while moving. If hitting the target first is the most important factor, then it stands to reason that you want to do everything you can to increase the likelyhood that you will.


You have specifically lessened the importance of "moving of the X notion" . . .
Fair enough assertion. There are several reasons for that. First, no one can prove that moving effects the outcome one way or the other. There are plenty of instances where even trained LEO's have missed close stationary targets. It cannot be proved that moving was the reason that the shot missed anymore than lack of skill was. Yet, one thing that is clearly not just correlated but causal is scoring the first hit. So, again it stands to reason that this should be the primary concern.

mjoy64
March 29, 2008, 08:12 AM
Lurper...

Thanks for the response. This has been one of the more interesting exchanges I have read on this board and has provided much food for thought.

Everyone has to decide for themselves how they integrate information into their practice and mindset. I'll take from this discussion that there is no one technique that will be THE one that wins the fight. Focus on what will enable you to get the first hit. IMO I think an equal amount of focus should be place on not being the first one hit (or even better not at all!) in which I see the potential for a technique like "moving of the X" providing one way of doing that. I also see that I should also consider my choices in context with my current skill level and what might apply to some, might not be the best for me.

Thanks again to all here for a very interesting discussion.

Allstar
March 29, 2008, 08:22 AM
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?

My main concern here is that you read, i don't know what you read but you did, a bunch of stories of people who said that when they shot the BG he went down, but what you are not answering is why they got that shot off which is the most critical part of your answer. It is cool that you are blindly willing to stand by a general answer with absolutely no background of the situation. I have asked you many questions in this thread and every time you decide to answer none of them, it makes me doubt your credibility.

To get back to the reason for this thread. Yes I find it very important to move off the X. I was in class this week and they stressed very hard about this point. When we did our practical on it yesterday we focused on different things how close was the BG to us (could we disarm him), what hand was he carrying in, proper direction to move, evaluating cover and concealment, and finally if unable to move ie an alleyway, the to use a technique called ballooning. It is good for low light situations. Mind you we were told what area to goto then all of sudden an instructor would pop out and it was game on from there. We were using sim rounds so you got a very strong grasp of what happens when you don't do something right.

Lurper
March 29, 2008, 10:15 AM
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
March 29, 2008, 01:29 PM
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
March 29, 2008, 03:30 PM
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
March 30, 2008, 03:02 AM
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
March 30, 2008, 10:21 AM
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
March 31, 2008, 09:52 AM
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
March 31, 2008, 12:32 PM
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
March 31, 2008, 05:53 PM
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
March 31, 2008, 06:13 PM
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
April 2, 2008, 11:29 AM
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.

http://photos.imageevent.com/leemutlee/colt/small/donqut.JPG

Lurper
April 7, 2008, 07:03 AM
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
April 7, 2008, 11:00 PM
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
April 8, 2008, 12:04 AM
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
April 8, 2008, 01:41 PM
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
April 8, 2008, 05:45 PM
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
April 8, 2008, 06:13 PM
Perhaps we should all move off the "X" and move on!!

Skyguy
April 8, 2008, 06:24 PM
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.

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
April 8, 2008, 08:06 PM
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
April 9, 2008, 09:30 AM
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.