Moving off the X

[Erik]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Lurper

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.