Moving off the X

[evan1293]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.