What is wrong with shooting and moving?

[smince]

If that's the case, I like the better odds of taking MORE than one step off line

[Shawn Thompson]

I like the better odds of taking MORE than one step off line

I'll have to say I agree...

[threegun]

Shooting on the move FOR ME depends on my position in the reactionary curve (as taught by sweatnbullets). I can be ahead, even, or behind in this curve. If ahead in the reactionary curve, meaning my weapon is out and ready while the badguys weapon is not, I can stand and deliver well placed fight ending hits in the most stable of shooting platforms. If I am even or behind in the reactionary curve standing still to delivery gives my opponent the easiest of targets to hit decreasing my odds of survival. In these situations my movement makes it harder for the badguy to hit me increasing my odds of survival. It allows me to seek cover aswell. There are three key factors in a gunfight that reduce the badguys ability to hit the target #1 movement and #2 duress and of course #3 cover (order dependent on situation). Placing rounds on my attacker will furthur arode his ability to hit me (duress). Logically if I learn to move and shoot accurately while doing so I greatly increase my chances of survival.

I want to thank Sweat'n'bullets for turning me on to his shoot on the move method. It isn't difficult and you can litterally run while making good combat hits.

[bambam1723]

Not a thing. We perform how we practice and getting to cover is important.

[BillCA]

Whether you shoot & move or move & shoot isn't important. It's the moving part that's important. And it's not really where you move to, it's the fact that you moved that's important.

Moving means your opponent has to realign and/or recalculate your position to aim his weapon. If you aren't standing still where he expects you to be, he can't hit you.

Tactics change depending on your proximity to your opponent. If you're at bad breath distance, moving to his left or right or continuing around to his 5-6-7 o'clock makes you a difficult target, especially if he's talking and several things are happening at once.

At longer distances I favor the idea of moving away at an oblique angle. The oblique is harder for him to adjust to make a hit and it favors the accurate shooter. As noted by some studies, most punks today are not very accurate shooters, even at close range.

And I remember my early training: C+D = S or Cover + Distance equals Safety. Distance gives you time to react. Cover provides some protection. Ideally, your movements take you closer to cover while keeping your oppoent off balance and unable to connect.

One must also learn the differences between cover and concealment. Much of what we presume to be "cover" in modern buildings turns out to be mere concealment due to construction techniques.¹

Remember, if you're in close quarters with some thug, he stands a better chance of a lucky shot (maybe 1 in 7) hitting you. His odds go down if you can put distance between you (and it's another reason to practice out to 25 yards).

¹ Visiting a store or mall under construction can be educational. What appear to be massively thick support columns are decorated fiberboard shells around a skinny steel I-beam. Little protection in reality. What appear to be thick stucco planters are 1/4" plywood with an applied stucco material and hollow below the 8" deep planter box.

[Shawn Thompson]

"M.O.V.E. - Motionless Operators Ventilate Easily"

James Yeager

[wyatt3d]

smince Quote:
sounds like mall ninja bait.

It's not, I took the class.

There's a lot more to SI than just the 0-5FT Gunfighting course.

I'm not saying there isn't something to be learned, I just find his colorful and over the top bravado speech amusing. Evidently there's also a class where you can learn to throw tomahawks while doing back flips.

http://www.suarezinternationalstore....rodID=753&HS=1

[smince]

Sure, he teaches anything that your standard Modern Technique instructor will shy away from, like actually fighting with a gun instead of just shooting tight groups in your pressed 511's and CCW vest

Actually, if you read the course description, that's likely something Sonny P. did as a former SPETSNAZ operator. (I seriously doubt Sonny would ever get an invite to teach at Ravenville or that ranch that used to be in Texas)

[csmsss]

The only moving I intend to do in such a situation is to find cover. I don't find the idea of shooting while moving to be at all practical, since it will require me to move much more slowly than at a full run. I'd prefer to find cover ASAP over wasting ammo, since it's impossible to fire accurately while running. I don't care what anyone else says or thinks, I know that for me, personally, it's impossible. And the duck walk is just way too slow for my taste. A stationary adversary who isn't afraid of a shot coming his way will have a much easier shot at you than you will at him.

[smince]

since it's impossible to fire accurately while running.

I have seen 20+ people doing the 'impossible' at a few of the classes I've taken (3/4 to full-speed, too)...

I know that for me, personally, it's impossible.

Have you ever even tried it?

[csmsss]

Smince, it is 100% impossible to fire accurately while in a full run. In a full run, one is swinging one's arms, making any sort of aimed shot utterly impossible. Please show me otherwise.

[smince]

It's not just me. See threegun's post #53 above:

It isn't difficult and you can litterally run while making good combat hits.

I present for your video enjoyment, "Sweat'n'bullets" (aka Roger Philips) from the same post as mentioned above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnrId...layer_embedded

I see very fast running, arms swinging, and hits being made, along with using (gasp!) point-shooting

[csmsss]

You and I see two entirely different things. I see no running whatsoever. I see a dude duckwalking, not even coming close to a full run. In fact, I see nothing impressive in that video whatsoever - he's not moving nearly fast enough to make a difficult target. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

[smince]

No, this is "duckwalking" (emphasis on 'walking'):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAHDgmWOkCE

At any rate, the first vid is as fast as anyone will move off the line of fire after finding yourself behind the curve in an attack.

In fact, I see nothing impressive in that video whatsoever - he's not moving nearly fast enough to make a difficult target.

Perhaps not to you, but he is making hits, and any hit on the BG is bad for him and good for you. I would say that absorbing rounds is going to make his concentration on hitting a moving target (even as "slow" a target as you say) more difficult.

It's still way ahead of what most 'tactical trainers' are teaching. Try it sometime in FoF against another person and see how well it can work.

[csmsss]

You completely ignored the point I made, which is that the guy ISN'T RUNNING. He's walking at a fast pace, regardless of what nomenclature you choose to apply, but he ain't running. He's easy to track and an easy target. Notice he is only shooting at stationary targets which he's already shot at countless times and therefore has built-in muscle memory. How likely are bad guys to stand like statues while you walk around them shooting at them? Bloody UNlikely, I'd say. This is an entirely unrealistic and unworkable demonstration in my opinion.

Show me someone in a flat-out run, firing at and hitting targets and you'll get my attention. That video shows nothing of the kind.

[NCPatrolAR]

What are "good combat hits"? Not really able to take a good look at the target in that video, but it looks like a hit anywhere on the paper is sufficient.

[smince]

What are "good combat hits"? Not really able to take a good look at the target in that video, but it looks like a hit anywhere on the paper is sufficient.

While I've not personally trained with Roger (yet), I have trained with 11-12 guys who have. They (and he, I've been told) can keep their shots in a paper plate size group while moving (at whatever speed you consider that on the video to be).

[markj]

My plan is to try to avoid gun fights. People can get hurt.





Disclaimer:
This method works well for me, do not attempt to try this in real life unless you recive the proper training.

[rduckwor]

Wow! Major thread drift and a real ******* match to boot.

Anyway, there was an SI course at our club last weekend. Pretty well attended judging from the cars. I was otherwise occupied shooting the IDPA match and moving while I was shooting.

Bottom line:

To be proficient at moving and shooting AND GETTING THE NECESSARY HITS, it take a bit of instruction, and lots of practice. Shooting IDPA or USPSA is pretty decent practice and fun as well. There are plenty of people to evaluate and offer constructive criticism.

And if you think USPSA involves running from one box to another and then shooting, you haven't been to the right matches.

[NCPatrolAR]

While I've not personally trained with Roger (yet), I have trained with 11-12 guys who have. They (and he, I've been told) can keep their shots in a paper plate size group while moving (at whatever speed you consider that on the video to be).

Thanks

[smince]

Anyway, there was an SI course at our club last weekend. Pretty well attended judging from the cars. I was otherwise occupied shooting the IDPA match and moving while I was shooting.

I know a couple of the guys that were there. I didn't get to make this one.

[threegun]

He's easy to track and an easy target.

I tried the home version of FoF (me vs my buddy with airsoft) and the above statement is true up until you add the part about getting shot back at by the swiftly moving target. Now add a pinch of YOU MIGHT DIE to the equation and it ain't gonna be easy.

Funny how some folks make such fuss over the speed of movement in the video yet completely discount the documented effects of duress on ones shooting ability by making the above statement.

[smince]

Some more pot-stirring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT4FM...eature=related