The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 21, 2015, 08:13 AM   #51
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
Get off the x
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old March 22, 2015, 09:19 PM   #52
Limnophile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 976
Quote:
A charging attacker may cover five meters in the time it takes to fire four shots. I would not count on dissuading him with gunfire during that part of the incident.
I agree, which is why I would lean toward standing my ground (not that I have much choice) and delivering accurate fire. If I were young and spry I think I would still lean that way, but I was never much of a runner.

Quote:
Consider also that in a self-defense encounter, one is not on a battlefield. Nor is one on a shooting range, where bystanders are behind the line and where there is a good backstop. I fact, you may have to move to get a clear shot and to get in line with a backstop.
I view the location of a self-defense encounter as a battlefield. A modern battlefield does not have nice, organized lines. If I have to move to get a clear shot I'm probably leaving a covered position, which may be unwise unless it is necessary to defend another who is not under cover. If I am truly in imminent danger, to be honest my last concern will be ensuring I have a safe backstop. If innocents are in the background I would hopefully try to ensure hitting my target and hope that the energy of a fully penetrating bullet would be insufficient to do great harm to a bystander. Yes, that means abandoning a key safety rule, but if I'm on the verge of losing my life I have an unalienable right to defend myself, and I'd rather be alive and facing criminal and civil consequences than be dead because I was a slave to Jeff Cooper's rules. Having said that, I would certainly be willing and able to take a few steps, time permiting, in search of a safe backdrop; it's just that running is not a likely option for me.

Quote:
One more time, there is a significant difference between the objectives of self defense and those of infantry engagements.
Once again, if winning is seen as the ultimate objective, both types of engagements have their similarities, too. Military tactics have worked their way into domestic law enforcement. One way this is manifested is that the number of shots fired per LE shooting has gone up, a military "firepower is supreme" tactic made possible by double-stack auto-loading pistols having replaced revolvers.

Quote:
They savages go everywhere, and they have no problem selecting a victim from a crowd.

Try paying attention all the time, and if you see someone with a cell phone who seems to be noticing you, change your speed and direction instantly.
I guess I have been fortunate to have been raised in a relatively safe environment, and wise enough to choose to dwell in such environments. My current neighborhood is dominated by Microsofties. While they tend to be annoyingly progressive, they are a placid lot.

Taking the recommendation of this thread -- to move when under threat -- to the extreme, it would be even better to not venture into a dangerous environment in the first place. Violent crime statistics are available by location, so it can be easy to avoid nasty places.

While I did not do an exhaustive search, I could find no YouTube videos showing or endorsing the idea of shooting on the run. Delivering accurate fire from a stable stance seems to be preferred for obvious reasons. Those videos that do address shooting while moving emphasize walking slowly in a non-bobbing manner.

I can think of no legitimate self-defense reason for shooting while advancing on a bad guy, as I assume any decrease in range is more than countered by decreased accuracy and precision imparted by movement. Also, proximity to a bad guy puts you in increased jeopardy. I can understand a need to shoot while moving backwards to put distance between you and the bad guy, or, better yet, to reach cover behind you. Moving laterally makes sense to reach cover or to make you a harder target to hit, but a walking speed isn't going to throw a bad guy off by much at self-defense distances.

Combat gaming videos that I recall seeing also don't show any shooting on the run, but rather running between stations where stable stances are taken from which to deliver fire balanced to an optimal mix of accuracy and rapidity. Perhaps I've misunderstood the OP in interpreting the advice to move as meaning to shoot while moving quickly. I can understand the advantages of the combat-gaming tactic of running between stations where solid stances are assumed from which to deliver fire. If I were to participate in such games I would, due to my foot, be walking between stations.
Limnophile is offline  
Old March 23, 2015, 07:44 AM   #53
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,854
Posted by Limnophile:
Quote:
I agree, which is why I would lean toward standing my ground (not that I have much choice) and delivering accurate fire.
Have you tried that, in any kind of realistic simulation-based training?

You have to (1) recognize the threat, (2) draw and present, and (3) shoot as many times as necessary. AND--your attacker has to stop before striking you.

If you detect and start acting when the attacker is six yards away, and if he moves a five yards per second, that must all take place in 1.2 seconds--including the time for the attacker to be stopped.

You can increase the time by moving--away from him, or laterally and forcing the attacker to change direction.

Quote:
I view the location of a self-defense encounter as a battlefield.
???

Quote:
A modern battlefield does not have nice, organized lines.
Nor is the location of a defensive encounter likely to have such lines. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Quote:
If I have to move to get a clear shot I'm probably leaving a covered position, which may be unwise unless ...
Why would you ever think that?

Quote:
If I am truly in imminent danger, to be honest my last concern will be ensuring I have a safe backstop. If innocents are in the background I would hopefully....
In my opinion, you really have to re-think that. Obtain and watch the recent episode of The Best Defense about the pharmacy robbery. It's all about clear shots and backstops.

Quote:
Taking the recommendation of this thread -- to move when under threat -- to the extreme, it would be even better to not venture into a dangerous environment in the first place.
That should always be the first strategy. It is sometimes expressed as "don't go to stupid places."

Quote:
While I did not do an exhaustive search, I could find no YouTube videos showing or endorsing the idea of shooting on the run.
Here is just such a video. You will find it well worth the time. It shows not only what to do, but why.

I have not tried shooting while moving. I have, however, trained in "moving off the X" while drawing. See this.

I have a trick knee, limited stamina, and more frequently than I should, bouts of gout. But I guarantee you that I would never trust my luck to standing still if I were being attacked.

A bood blackthorn walking stick helps with mobility, and if push comes to shove (pun intended) it would be a good thing to have for anyone.

Quote:
Delivering accurate fire from a stable stance seems to be preferred for obvious reasons.
I cannot tell what you are thinking, but it seems to me like you are thinking in terms of group size, as in range shooting. Forget about it. If you are being attacked, you will have no idea where, within that three dimensional moving attacker, the small vital targets are. Nor will you have time to worry about hitting them, even though doing so is critical. I will be a matter of balancing speed and precision, with the hitting of vial areas being a stochastic thing.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 23, 2015, 09:04 PM   #54
Limnophile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 976
Quote:
Have you tried that, in any kind of realistic simulation-based training?
I have not. Neither of the two ranges in my area allows such training on one's own. I noticed recently that one is now offering an 8-hr class that gets into more realistic defensive shooting. That's a long time for my foot, but it's on my to-be-considered list. Unfortunately, the USFS has banned target shooting on all nearby, easily accessible NF lands.

Quote:
You have to (1) recognize the threat, (2) draw and present, and (3) shoot as many times as necessary. AND--your attacker has to stop before striking you.

If you detect and start acting when the attacker is six yards away, and if he moves a five yards per second, that must all take place in 1.2 seconds--including the time for the attacker to be stopped.

You can increase the time by moving--away from him, or laterally and forcing the attacker to change direction.
I'm well aware of the Tueller Drill and its implications. In 1.2 sec I'm not going to be moving fast or far, and when I place my weight on the bum foot I am often unstable. I have to work with what I have.

Quote:
Nor is the location of a defensive encounter likely to have such lines.
One reason I view the location of a self-defense encounter as a battlefield.

Quote:
Why would you ever think that?
Because any intervening objects between me and the bad guy that could interfere with my shot are providing cover (and perhaps concealment) to some degree.

Quote:
In my opinion, you really have to re-think that. Obtain and watch the recent episode of The Best Defense about the pharmacy robbery. It's all about clear shots and backstops.
If you are referring to the recent armed robbery attempt where the pharmacy owner/pharmacist used his two employees/coworkers as concealment to draw his concealed sidearm on the robber who had his handgun trained on the three, I think you might want to watch that again. The gunfighting pharmacist was lucky that the robber was either inattentive or not really committed to firing his weapon in the commission of his crime. I'd be less than thrilled if someone used me as concealment to draw his weapon on a bad guy who was aiming a gun at me. While it's not a literal backdrop issue from the pharmacist's perspective, it amounts to pretty much the same thing, as his actions were a provocation that may have resulted in the bad guy killing one or two of his employees. The pharmacist has the right to put his life in further jeopardy, but did he have the right to put the lives of his two coworkers in further jeopardy? If you believe he did have the right to further jeopardize them, then you agree with me that collateral damage in defense of self or others is morally justifiable. In that particular scenario I do not think the pharmacist's actions were smart or considerate. I'm glad it worked out okay, but given that the guy had the drop on everyone behind the counter, the prudent action would have been to hand over cash, drugs, or both then call 911. Or at least wait until the bad guy's gun isn't trained on a good guy before drawing and shooting.

Quote:
That should always be the first strategy. It is sometimes expressed as "don't go to stupid places."
I realize many don't have this option, being trapped where they are by economic circumstances. Those are the folks who need to carry most, and an even better goal for them would be to move as soon as they can.

Quote:
Here is just such a video. You will find it well worth the time. It shows not only what to do, but why.
Thanks for the link. I shall watch the video and get back to you.

Quote:
I have not tried shooting while moving. I have, however, trained in "moving off the X" while drawing. See this.
I'll watch this, too. If "getting off the X" means only relatively slight movement while drawing, that's acceptable to me if it can be done without sacrificing speed, accuracy, and precision needed to get the job done. But, for me, a quick move that puts my weight on my left foot may well cause a stumble that could significantly delay or interrupt my draw and the quick assumption of a relatively stable stance.

Quote:
I have a trick knee, limited stamina, and more frequently than I should, bouts of gout. But I guarantee you that I would never trust my luck to standing still if I were being attacked.
I'm glad you are more mobile than me. I know my limitations. A Tueller Drill and the knockout game are very similar, sudden threats. I've concluded my very best defense is to avoid areas where such threats are more likely, and, fortunately, that's easy for me to do in my locale. If I get around to taking the new 8-hr class I mentioned above, I imagine I will have the opportunity to test my conclusion.

Quote:
A bood blackthorn walking stick helps with mobility, and if push comes to shove (pun intended) it would be a good thing to have for anyone.
I rarely use my cane these days, but if I take a short hike I use trekking poles and rest alot on the way. If I need to hit a store for just a single item, I'll use a shopping cart, because it functions like a walker and attenuates my "drunken walk." I can balance myself on my right foot for considerable time, but cannot do so for more than a second or two on my left foot. As a result, when my weight is on just my left foot I sometimes stagger, which feels and presumably looks like a drunkard's walk -- it can be embarrassing.

Quote:
I cannot tell what you are thinking, but it seems to me like you are thinking in terms of group size, as in range shooting. Forget about it. If you are being attacked, you will have no idea where, within that three dimensional moving attacker, the small vital targets are. Nor will you have time to worry about hitting them, even though doing so is critical. I will be a matter of balancing speed and precision, with the hitting of vial areas being a stochastic thing.
Considering group size is critical no matter what the setting or reason for shooting. We agree that praying and spraying may produce a psychological stop, but cannot and should not be counted on to produce any stop; in other words, hitting the target in the vitals must be the goal for defensive shooting.

For slow-fire range practice, I strive for 20-moa groups, which is good enough to hit the IDPA -0 thoracic zone out to and beyond the game's 35-yd maximum distance. As I ratchet up the complication factor, thus imposing stress on me, I will accept larger groups as the simulated situation warrants.

In a real-world situation at 5 yd, I'd be very happy hitting the bad guy anywhere with each shot, which would make me far better than the average LEO, who misses about 75% of his shots. Using the IDPA target as an anatomical model, the largest circle one can inscribe within the -3 zone is one with a 17.375-inch diameter, which at 5 yd is a whopping 332-moa target. In the hope of achieving that when needed I will train by striving to shoot much tighter groups than that.

Last edited by Limnophile; March 24, 2015 at 09:43 PM.
Limnophile is offline  
Old March 24, 2015, 08:54 AM   #55
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,854
Posted by Limnophile:
Quote:
If you are referring to the recent armed robbery attempt where the pharmacy owner/pharmacist used his two employees/coworkers as concealment to draw his concealed sidearm...
I am not.

The Best Defense takes a realistic incident and shows, through role-playing, how the defender's actions can fail, and then shows a couple of better responses. Theey than show some training exercises appropriate to the kinds of situations at hand.

In the Pharmacy Robbery, a pharmacist drew from a stationary position and fired at an armed robber. In so doing, he got shot, shot an employee, and put a bullet though a glass window with innocents on the other side--a very bad situation.

When the scenario was replayed, just a little movement on the part of the defender caused the robber to miss, allowed the pharmacist to shoot the robber without putting his employee at risk, and put the bullets into a hard backstop.

They then went through the exercises on a range with "good guy" and "bad guy" targets set up and a "backstop" to show how one would go about it.

It was a very good portrayal, and for those who have not seen it, it is worth buying the DVD.

I had not seen it before the one occasion in which I stumbled into an obvious robbery about to happen. The first thing I did was to think "backstop" and "clear shots" (foreground and background), and move accordingly.

Fortunately the robber aborted the attempt. Did I do the right thing? No! I should have reacted to the car situated unnaturally outside and driven away without entering the store.

I am not alone in my immediate thought process. There was a recent post here on TFL in which Pax related having gone through the same step.

Quote:
If you believe he did have the right to further jeopardize them, then you agree with me that collateral damage in defense of self or others is morally justifiable.
We can discuss morality for days, and if you can successfully articulate that you did not act recklessly and that you did act only with immediate necessity, you may ultimately prevail in civil court, but you will always regret that "collateral damage".

Quote:
Using the IDPA target as an anatomical model, the largest circle one can inscribe within the -3 zone is one with a 17.375-inch diameter, which at 5 yd is a whopping 332-moa target. In the hope of achieving that when needed I will train by striving to shoot much tighter groups than that.
That's what many of us start out doing, but we learn after a little training that training for "good shooting" won't really help us much in a defensive encounter, after we have addressed the fundamentals. Practicing by squeezing off 20 moa groups just will not prepare us to put four shots into the upper chest of a moving target at three to five yards in under a second.

Pincus will tell you that if you are shooting tight groups you are shooting too slowly.

Consider this. Somewhere, and you do will know where, within that three dimensional mass moving at you are a few small internal targets that you can shoot that would help effect a reasonably quick shot. If you miss them--not good. The only way you would have any hope of hitting any of them is to put several shots into the attacker very rapidly indeed.

Striving for small groups will not help you there.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 24, 2015, 09:46 AM   #56
robmkivseries70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2005
Location: free territory
Posts: 198
OldMarksman,
It was/ is John Farnam that advocates "stitching them up the middle", going for the Aorta and up into the Thoracic triangle.
Best,
Rob
robmkivseries70 is offline  
Old March 24, 2015, 10:17 AM   #57
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,854
Posted by robmkivseries70:
Quote:
It was/ is John Farnam that advocates "stitching them up the middle", going for the Aorta and up into the Thoracic triangle.
Bob, that might work.

I'm not sure I could do that very well however. I do not know how practical it would be if the attacker were not facing you and reasonably upright. Visualize someone rounding the pumps or the pick-up next to your car, leaning forward and moving obliquely with respect to your position.

I do not know what Farnham would recommend, but in my case, I would have my hands full moving to gain distance and if possible, nearby cover (pump or car), drawing, presenting, and shooting.

And I most seriously doubt that I would be thinking "aorta". I don't know for sure, but I think it likely that I would be working to hit anywhere on the upper torso several times very quickly.

Understand that I am not a highly trained defensive shooter.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 24, 2015, 11:30 AM   #58
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,447
The frontiersmen Daniel Boone and Simon Kenton practiced to perfection running through the forest, zig-zagging and ducking trees, while reloading and shooting their flintlock rifles.
Talk about getting off the X.
Practicing anything long enough and well enough yields success, whether it's standing pat and shooting or getting out of the way and shooting.
Or both, depending on circumstances.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez:
“Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”
g.willikers is offline  
Old March 24, 2015, 11:52 AM   #59
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
Quote:
I do not know what Farnham would recommend, but in my case, I would have my hands full moving to gain distance and if possible, nearby cover (pump or car), drawing, presenting, and shooting.
Just took a Farnam class this weekend, so his patter is fresh in my mind. Couple of things:

Farnam does advocate the zipper, but not as an uncontrolled "oh I'll accept a hit anywhere" kind of thing. He wants you to place your shots on your target, not just throw them out there somewhere in the target's general vicinity.

He absolutely does not accept the kind of self-justification that says, "Well, I was aiming for the upper center chest, but one of my shots went low and would have hit maybe in the navel and that would kill the bad guy too since that's right above where the femoral arteries split off, so I'm good." That's just denial. And we don't accept denial. If you made a mistake, own it. Then get better.

If you're told to put your shots inside a 5x13 rectangle, and there are shots outside the rectangle, then you weren't controlling your shots. You must control your shots. Regardless of the specific aimpoint you choose, you should be hitting that aimpoint to the degree of accuracy (and with the exact amount of speed) the situation requires.

In class, on paper, he accepts students getting 80% of their shots within a fairly small hit zone; anything outside that small zone is a miss (and we're talking misses by inches, not yards). The reason he accepts that percentage in class is that he wants students to push their current speed limits and regards anything faster than that as a waste of bullets that builds bad habits. You want to be in the habit of hitting your target.

Then he takes you out to the rotating targets and expects you to draw while moving, get your hits on moving 8 inch plates at approximately 7 yards, move abruptly away from your previous position at least every four shots, move again whenever you are not actively shooting (eg, when clearing stoppages or reloading) -- and continue to fire those precisely-timed shots until you have successfully spun the rotator, which is itself not an easy task.

The man does good work. Glad to have had an opportunity to learn from him.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old March 24, 2015, 01:13 PM   #60
Big Shrek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: NorthWest Florida
Posts: 1,330
It is best to have options when one is in a SHTF situation...
whether attacked by another gun or any weapon...

First, if they've already drawn, you can't outdraw, so RUN DUCK & DODGE.

Second...range...
If at extreme close range (within 6 feet), you better know Gun Fu.
If you don't, learn as much as you can. Fast. Sometimes it is better to disarm than gunfight.
And by disarm, I mean tear their gun arm off and beat 'em with it.
Oh, wait, not everyone here is a 6'3 gorilla??
Well, ok, easy-peasy tool that almost anyone can do is an elbow dislocate. Learn it.
Learn how to dislocate a wrist. Takes even less pressure.
Learn how to dislocate a thumb...you get the idea, just get their gun.
Learn how to block the gun to the outside and then throat punch or ridgehand their throat.
Yes, that's lethal, and yes, that's the point.

If past 6 feet and you can't safely close the distance in time to stop the shot, run duck dodge.
The more room between you and them, the better.
Find cover, get it between you & them, draw yours, return fire when opportunity presents.
Please, do not evade like Paul Blart...that's just sad.

Bulletproof clothing...like Miguel Caballero or Aspetto (Virginia)...
they make some of the best bullet protection clothing known to man.
Very comfy in all weather, light & airy when you need to be...
blazers, suits, comfort wear
__________________
Marlin Specialist
Calico Specialist
A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
Big Shrek is offline  
Old March 24, 2015, 01:25 PM   #61
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,854
Pax, that sounds like an excellent course.

Shooting at moving plates at seven yards should certainly help with shooting skills, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to know how it would translate directly to defiensive training. I see people shooting at seven yards all the time. If we accept that distance, or thereabouts, as at least a somewhat valid general indicator of ability (in the context of a, o, and j) with an edged weapon, it would seem to me that a more likely shooting distance would be somewhere between three and five yards, including whatever distance the defender may have been able to move......

Interestingly, there are old police training videos that show officers firing revolvers at targets seven yards away. They were made long before Dennis Tueller conducted any time and distance studies.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 24, 2015, 10:42 PM   #62
Limnophile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 976
Quote:
I am not.

The Best Defense takes a realistic incident and shows, through role-playing, how the defender's actions can fail, and then shows a couple of better responses. Theey than show some training exercises appropriate to the kinds of situations at hand.

In the Pharmacy Robbery, a pharmacist drew from a stationary position and fired at an armed robber. In so doing, he got shot, shot an employee, and put a bullet though a glass window with innocents on the other side--a very bad situation.

When the scenario was replayed, just a little movement on the part of the defender caused the robber to miss, allowed the pharmacist to shoot the robber without putting his employee at risk, and put the bullets into a hard backstop.

They then went through the exercises on a range with "good guy" and "bad guy" targets set up and a "backstop" to show how one would go about it.

It was a very good portrayal, and for those who have not seen it, it is worth buying the DVD.
Different incidents. In the one I referred to the defending pharmacist was successful. I try not to be very critical of those who win self-defense encounters, but I do think something can be learned from after-action assessments, acknowledging that Monday morning quarterbacking is very easy.

Quote:
I had not seen it before the one occasion in which I stumbled into an obvious robbery about to happen. The first thing I did was to think "backstop" and "clear shots" (foreground and background), and move accordingly.

Fortunately the robber aborted the attempt. Did I do the right thing? No! I should have reacted to the car situated unnaturally outside and driven away without entering the store.

I am not alone in my immediate thought process. There was a recent post here on TFL in which Pax related having gone through the same step.
Not ever having stumbled upon the scene of a crime in progress, the closest I can come to understanding what you thought and did is hunting experiences. As a starving graduate student I once passed up an easy shot at a tasty-looking doe sauntering up a hill, because not long before her appearance a party of hunters -- heard, not seen, disembarked from the FS road above me and took up positions on the other side of a stand of trees that formed the backdrop behind the deer.

As to not recognizing an oddly parked car as a threat, I can understand that. Making the connection after the fact shows how experience offers big benefits. Just as on the battlefield, experienced combat vets have a much better chance of survival than do new replacements. In lieu of actual combat -- whether military, law enforcement, or civilian self defense -- the best experience is gained through training that is as realistic as prudent safety allows.

Quote:
We can discuss morality for days, and if you can successfully articulate that you did not act recklessly and that you did act only with immediate necessity, you may ultimately prevail in civil court, but you will always regret that "collateral damage".
Fortunately, WA use-of-force laws are fairly reasonable, but I agree that collateral damage would always be a burden to bear. It would be easier to bear if the damage was balanced by the successful defense of myself or others.

Quote:
That's what many of us start out doing, but we learn after a little training that training for "good shooting" won't really help us much in a defensive encounter, after we have addressed the fundamentals. Practicing by squeezing off 20 moa groups just will not prepare us to put four shots into the upper chest of a moving target at three to five yards in under a second.
Good shooting is relative to the situation. A 20-moa group at the range is a great group for me. An accurate, rapid-fire, 332-moa group under the stress of an actual self-defense encounter is a great group for almost anyone, as every shot should hit the target and the FBI reports 75% of shots in a LE gunfight typically miss. If I ever get around to practicing for IDPA, in the hope of achieving 332-moa groups in an actual gunfight, I would strive for 153-moa groups (the -0 thoracic zone at 5 yd) where the only added stress is the clock.

Quote:
Pincus will tell you that if you are shooting tight groups you are shooting too slowly.
With all due respect to you and Pincus, if 75% of gunfight shots are misses, folks are shooting way too fast. You agree that the goal is a physiological, not pychological, stop, and physio stops only come about with hits.

Quote:
Consider this. Somewhere, and you do will know where, within that three dimensional mass moving at you are a few small internal targets that you can shoot that would help effect a reasonably quick shot. If you miss them--not good. The only way you would have any hope of hitting any of them is to put several shots into the attacker very rapidly indeed.

Striving for small groups will not help you there.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, one who is incapable of shooting tight groups under little or no pressure at the range will be unable to shoot with adequate accuracy and precision in an actual defense situation.

The definition of "small" is relative. I personally have defined "small" to be 20 moa at the range, and 332 moa in a real encounter -- at 5 yd these equate to 1.1-inch and 17-in groups, respectively. Under any training or gaming scenario I would consider 332 moa unacceptable, as any training scenario will be less stressful than an actual threat. More stress = less precision.
Limnophile is offline  
Old March 24, 2015, 10:49 PM   #63
Limnophile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 976
Quote:
It was/ is John Farnam that advocates "stitching them up the middle", going for the Aorta and up into the Thoracic triangle.
From what I understand, the 10-round zipper stitch with .22 LR, starting at the crotch and finishing at the forehead, was the preferred tactic used very effectively in Chicago drug gang wars during the '70s. The near absence of recoil helps, but more so is the fact that these were assassinations, not self-defense encounters. The assassins got close by stealth or by deceipt, and they were acting, not reacting.

Last edited by Limnophile; March 24, 2015 at 10:58 PM.
Limnophile is offline  
Old March 25, 2015, 08:40 AM   #64
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
As to not recognizing an oddly parked car as a threat, I can understand that.
This is off topic, but it may prove very valuable to anyone here who has not thought about it.

A parked car headed outward by the door of a convenience store near a highway, with a person in the driver's seat, is a pretty obvious danger sign. It would not be prudent to ignore it. Best to drive on, and maybe come back later. That has been covered in the literature and on television programs.

What I saw was a car pointed the wrong way in a parking lot, with a very nervous driver looking around furtively, repositioning his car for the purpose, as it turned out, of gaining better visibility into the store.

Obviously very suspicious, but since the store was at least two miles from any highway, with heavily trafficked city streets and with stop lights and stop signs on every road, I did not think foul play likely. But my risk assessment turned out to be faulty.

I made a mistake by going in, but what I had observed enabled me to recognize the threat very quickly indeed.

Back to the topic: my long familiarity with the staff led me to decide against non-intevention, but the layout made movement necessary to afford a clear shot with no one between me and the would-be robber, with no one behind him, and with a hard backstop. I would never have considered drawing without those conditions. Not for a moment.

My movement and attention evidently spooked him.

The pocket holster I was using provided me with a distinct advantage under the circumstances, but I soon came to realize that the J-Frame was not the best--I would not want to try one in the exercises that pax described in the John Farnham course. There may be this who can do that, but I cannot. Were the situation to arise today, I would have to manage a shirt-tail to access a firearm in an OWB holster.

I would probably, if things did not conspire to prevent it, try to do that surreptitiously, with my strong side turned away from the parent threat.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 25, 2015, 09:01 AM   #65
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,155
One of the things about citing instructors to bolster an argument is that you can get X instructors and get X different arguments. Which one is right? Pincus says that if you are shooting tight groups that you are shooting too slowly? Okay, Clint Smith doesn't want you shooting any faster than getting good shots (palm-sized group). While Hackathorn believes in making good shots and striving toward good COM shots, he also believes any shots that hit the target are certainly better than shots that do not hit the target. As Pax noted, Farnam would have you zipper people. Wow, look at that. Four different instructors with four different approaches to marksmanship in self defense.

You can pick and choose a singular example such as the pharmacy incident and base your whole defense around it, but it is hardly a universal situation. It provides a singular situational example.

What was it Hackathorn said..."You should move, unless you shouldn't." Sometimes moving will put you in a less advantageous position or put noncombatants into a more dangerous situation.

And what did Clint Smith say..."I can't tell you what your self defense situation will be. Nobody can."

Sounds like Limnophile has worked out a plan that is based on his personal situation.

One of the things I really like about the Tueller drill is how unrealistic it is to the normal self defense situation that is likely to occur. In the Tueller drill, the defender has already decided s/he is going to shoot, but has not drawn a gun and has apparently decided to not draw a gun and not already be move to a better position. In fact, the defender has apparently decided that the best course of action is to not move until the attacker moves. It is just a race between the attacker covering the distance and the defender drawing (who may or may not be moving). In the real world, if you have already made the decision to shoot somebody at that range and don't have your gun out, you have likely made a serious mistake. If you have decided that you might have to shoot the person, haven't drawn, and you aren't already working your way to a better defensive position, you have likely made a mistake. So if you are in an actual Tueller situation, you have already screwed up.

Quote:
You have to (1) recognize the threat, (2) draw and present, and (3) shoot as many times as necessary. AND--your attacker has to stop before striking you.

If you detect and start acting when the attacker is six yards away, and if he moves a five yards per second, that must all take place in 1.2 seconds--including the time for the attacker to be stopped.
The Tueller Drill is a drill and not a scenario. We should not treat it as a scenario because it is so blatantly unrealistic.

When you run the Tueller drill where the defender doesn't know s/he is going to be attacked in advance of the start of the drill that he doesn't know the person running towards him is an attacker, he loses every time. That is because the Tueller drill removes all that time from the OODA loop that normally would be lost. Being a quick draw is a great skill, but most people lose a LOT more critical time in the OOD part of the loop than the A in real life situations. Attackers usually don't start their running attacks from 21 feet or more when they do attack. They start from much closer. They don't first announce that they have a knife and give the defender the opportunity to go through the OOD portion of the loop first, then start the charge.

This is one of my favorite "Tueller Drill" fail examples. Paul J. Spencer was an arson suspect who led cops on a brief 4 mile high speed chase before wrecking. The video picks up the action from there. You can watch the clock counter in the lower right corner. It gives whole seconds. You need to know that this was a felony chase by multiple officers and that officers immediately drew guns BEFORE the attack started as per procedure in such a chase culmination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xWczh1L8ns

He starts his attack, knife in hand, at 05:01:59 and disappears off camera at the end of 05:02:02/3 (clock doesn't show the 3 for some reason) and the defensive shooting doesn't start until 05:02:05. Officer Ron Dombkowski was stabbed/slashed in the face and Spencer was put down by 7 of 10 shots from officers Jeff Webb and Joe Fisher. Based on the distance estimated in the scene, Spencer undoubtedly covered his Tueller 21 before going off camera. According to PoliceOne, Spencer covered 22 feet before the stabbing started and was shot AFTER the officer was stabbed. http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapo...slashing-face/

That the officers took the better part of 6 second to shoot Spencer is a testament to the fact that draw time (guns already drawn) was inconsequential here and yet Spencer still stabbed one target and that target FAILED to shoot Spencer.

Even in a situation where draw time was not an issue in this drill, the attacker managed to hit his mark. A good draw speed is great, but there is a WHOLE LOT more that goes into self defense shooting than the draw speed example of Tueller. Like the El Presidente, the Tueller Drill is a drill and not a scenario.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old March 25, 2015, 09:55 AM   #66
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,854
Posted by Double Naught Spy:
Quote:
One of the things about citing instructors to bolster an argument is that you can get X instructors and get X different arguments. Which one is right? Pincus says that if you are shooting tight groups that you are shooting too slowly? Okay, Clint Smith doesn't want you shooting any faster than getting good shots (palm-sized group). While Hackathorn believes in making good shots and striving toward good COM shots, he also believes any shots that hit the target are certainly better than shots that do not hit the target. As Pax noted, Farnam would have you zipper people. Wow, look at that. Four different instructors with four different approaches to marksmanship in self defense.
Which one is right? Depends upon the situation. Pincus was describing reacting to a surprise violent encounter occurring at three to five yards.

It doe not take much in the way of speed and distance analysis and anatomical assessment to lead one to the clear conclusion that, in such situations, speed is of the essence and that a palm-size group would not provide much benefit at all. One who thinks about it will come to those conlusions without listening to any instructors.

But Pincus' entire philosophy is centered on the idea of a balance of speed and precision. In other situations, precision takes priority. His targets also have small circles on them.

Obviously, shots that miss have little positive value and quite a bit of potential negative value.

Quote:
You can pick and choose a singular example such as the pharmacy incident and base your whole defense around it, but it is hardly a universal situation.
Well, one would not "base [one's] whole defense around it", but the concepts of clear shots and safe backgrounds are pretty universal indeed.

Quote:
It provides a singular situational example.
Yes--a very good one.

Quote:
What was it Hackathorn said..."You should move, unless you shouldn't." Sometimes moving will put you in a less advantageous position or put noncombatants into a more dangerous situation.
Sure. Depends upon where everyone and everything happens to be.

Quote:
And what did Clint Smith say..."I can't tell you what your self defense situation will be. Nobody can."
True indeed.

Quote:
Sounds like Limnophile has worked out a plan that is based on his personal situation.
Maybe, but I am somewhat concerned about what I took to be his low level of concern about hitting innocents.

Quote:
In the Tueller drill, the defender has already decided s/he is going to shoot, but has not drawn a gun and has apparently decided to not draw a gun and not already be move to a better position. In fact, the defender has apparently decided that the best course of action is to not move until the attacker moves. It is just a race between the attacker covering the distance and the defender drawing (who may or may not be moving). In the real world, if you have already made the decision to shoot somebody at that range and don't have your gun out, you have likely made a serious mistake. If you have decided that you might have to shoot the person, haven't drawn, and you aren't already working your way to a better defensive position, you have likely made a mistake. So if you are in an actual Tueller situation, you have already screwed up.
That is all very true, and well put.

Quote:
The Tueller Drill is a drill and not a scenario. We should not treat it as a scenario because it is so blatantly unrealistic.
When I said
Quote:
You have to (1) recognize the threat, (2) draw and present, and (3) shoot as many times as necessary. AND--your attacker has to stop before striking you.

If you detect and start acting when the attacker is six yards away, and if he moves a five yards per second, that must all take place in 1.2 seconds--including the time for the attacker to be stopped.
..I did not mention the "Tueller Drill". I simply described a realistic scenario and performed some time and distance calculations to illustrate the problems that may arise from standing still.

Dennis Tueller did that too, a little differently and for a different purpose, but that does not change the point.

Quote:
When you run the Tueller drill where the defender doesn't know s/he is going to be attacked in advance of the start of the drill that he doesn't know the person running towards him is an attacker, he loses every time. That is because the Tueller drill removes all that time from the OODA loop that normally would be lost.
That's one reason. The other is that the defender stands still. That is the point of the thread, and it is the point of the first Pincus video that I linked above

Quote:
Being a quick draw is a great skill, but most people lose a LOT more critical time in the OOD part of the loop than the A in real life situations. Attackers usually don't start their running attacks from 21 feet or more when they do attack. They start from much closer. They don't first announce that they have a knife and give the defender the opportunity to go through the OOD portion of the loop first, then start the charge.
Good points.

Quote:
A good draw speed is great, but there is a WHOLE LOT more that goes into self defense shooting than the draw speed example of Tueller.
Of course.

Quote:
Like the El Presidente, the Tueller Drill is a drill and not a scenario.
The Tueller Drill is different, and it is a "scenario" in the context of its purpose, which was to demonstrate scientifically and objectively, for those evaluating lawful justification in the presentation of a firearm, that an attacker with an edged weapon can constitute an imminent threat long before closing to slashing range.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 25, 2015, 12:09 PM   #67
Erno86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2012
Location: Marriottsville, Maryland
Posts: 1,566
With a charging attacker at 5 yards...I might shoot from retention or just use pointed fire, instead of sighted fire from a pistol or rifle; meanwhile picking & concentrating on a small target inside the target itself.

You can point shoot practice on moving targets by having someone shoot paintballs across your line of fire --- as long as your bullets hit the backstop.

They do sell a moving spring loaded target frame that is mounted on rails, that can have the target approach the shooter; or have it move laterally.
__________________
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

--- George Orwell
Erno86 is offline  
Old March 25, 2015, 03:43 PM   #68
Jim567
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2014
Location: NE FL
Posts: 533
My head is spinning after reading all this.

Maybe you should --- just think.
Jim567 is offline  
Old March 25, 2015, 04:39 PM   #69
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,854
Posted by Jim567:
Quote:
Maybe you should --- just think.
That is the first thing one should do.

Think about avoidance, and think about what is happening when avoidance has failed.

But it is necessary to have some trained responses ready to go. A surprise attack is not the time for improvisation.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old March 27, 2015, 07:11 AM   #70
walks with gun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2014
Location: northern Mn.
Posts: 271
I'm a thinkin, In some of the taticool classes in California, don't they teach a mixture of line dancing and defensive handgun. Keep moving, keep moving.
walks with gun is offline  
Old March 27, 2015, 11:08 PM   #71
Deja vu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2010
Location: Border of Idaho & Montana
Posts: 2,541
This may sound a little childish and goofy but I have been playing a little airsoft with my son. He is much more athletic and movable than I am but I actually feel like I am becoming at least a little better at moving and shooting. I know its not the same as live fire practice but I feel that there is technique that is coming back to me. We have done lots of stuff around the back yard but also a few indoor stuff (when the MRS is gone of course).

As I stated above I don't think this will replace live fire but it does require you to shoot and move.

p.s. it also lets me feel younger.
__________________
Shot placement is everything! I would rather take a round of 50BMG to the foot than a 22short to the base of the skull.

all 26 of my guns are 45/70 govt, 357 mag, 22 or 12 ga... I believe in keeping it simple. Wish my wife did as well...
Deja vu is offline  
Old March 27, 2015, 11:42 PM   #72
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,447
Nothing childish about it.
The military uses simunition and airsoft for training, along with video simulations.
It's easier to learn from mistakes than with live fire.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez:
“Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”
g.willikers is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11813 seconds with 8 queries