Stand there and shoot or get off the X?

[g.willikers]

Most self defense training involves at least some version of getting out of the way of possible bullets headed your way.
Getting off the X.
But the statistics of gunfights suggest that a whole lot of rounds fired in anger seem to miss their target.
If that's true, are we as likely to step into the path of a bullet as to avoid one, if we attempt to move out of the way?

[2damnold4this]

Perhaps so many rounds miss because people are moving around.

[jimbob86]

Perhaps so many rounds miss because people are moving around.

This.

Add that to the fact that the vast majority of folks that carry a gun rarely, if ever, practice shooting at moving targets, nor practice shooting while they themselves are moving.

[AK103K]

Add that to the fact that the vast majority of folks that carry a gun rarely, if ever, practice shooting at moving targets, nor practice shooting while they themselves are moving.

I think this is the biggest part of it.

If you practice shooting while moving, its not at all hard to get good hits. All those supposed "misses" mentioned, are likely from those who dont practice.

[Blue Duck]

I think getting off of the X is a good idea, when it is practical, but many times there is no where to move due to furniture, seated in a vehicle, unstable footing, etc. A step or two side ways might help, but I have noticed that one thing I noticed in a lot of actual shooting footage taken from surveillance cameras in parking lots, and inside stores, or even police dash cams is that the perpetrators are almost always jumping like jumping beans and can't hit crap, most of the time.

But I have also noticed that someone who stands and shoots from a stable platform often connects with their shots, more constantly.

Shooting and hitting while moving demands practice, and shooting and hitting moving targets demands practice. Shooting and hitting moving targets while moving yourself demands more practice. But I would also say that one basic rule of gun-fighting is don't get shot, which might mean needing to move off of the X. However, shooting and hitting the perp (stopping the threat) as quickly as possible, obviously helps to end the conflict quickly where just moving off of the X doesn't guarantee an end to the conflict.

I would say each gun-fight would have to be evaluated on an individual basis for sure, but things seem to happen so quickly, most of the time, that whatever is done must happen in first couple of seconds, to get ahead of the perpetrator's reaction time, and quick action beats reaction.

[AK103K]

I would say each gun-fight would have to be evaluated on an individual basis for sure, but things seem to happen so quickly, most of the time, that whatever is done must happen in first couple of seconds, to get ahead of the perpetrator's reaction time, and quick action beats reaction.

I agree, every instance is its own animal, but if youre not regularly training to make moving and shooting part of your draw (and moving actually the first part, when possible and appropriate), then I think youre training to fail.

I also agree, action beats reaction, and if youre sure things are going south, by all means, start the show. Id still be moving (as best as I could) while I was doing it though.

[Dragline45]

I am going to do my damndest to make it as hard as possible for them to score hits on me, and that means to either keep moving or shoot from behind cover. This is why static shooting at static targets isn't really great practice at all for self defense shooting other than fundamentals.

[AK103K]

This is why static shooting at static targets isn't really great practice at all for self defense shooting other than fundamentals.

This seems to be lost on a great many people.

[Double Naught Spy]

Yes, but fundamentals are often the single greatest problem with how people shoot, period, be it at the range or in gun fights.

As for getting off the X, that is all situation-specific. When you get off one X, you get onto another one. That is something else many folks often forget

[AK103K]

Yes, but fundamentals are often the single greatest problem with how people shoot, period, be it at the range or in gun fights.

Thats a personal problem though, dont you think?

If youre only at a level where you can barely shoot well (if that), standing still and without pressure, thats a pretty telling, and scary thing right there.

As for getting off the X, that is all situation-specific. When you get off one X, you get onto another one. That is something else many folks often forget

Only if you "stop".

[OldMarksman]

Should someone rush you with a contact weapon, you will want to prevent him and/or his possibly unseen accomplice from striking, slashing, and/or stabbing you.

If gestures and verbal dissuasion fail, you will have to draw--FAST.

Should that not be sufficient, you will have to shoot--quickly, effectively, and in fast succession.

It would be prudent to assume, even if your draw is quite timely, two things: (1) that the assailant will have closed much of the initial distance by that time, and (2) a quick stop with a handgun will be most unlikely.

So, yes, you should "get off the X".

There are at least two rather obvious reasons: to add some distance (and probably to force him to change his path, with the force required for angular acceleration slowing him down); and to get behind something, such as your car or someone else's, a gas pump, a dumpster, etc.

If the attacker is armed with a firearm, the purpose of moving would also include getting behind something.

[zombietactics]

It is far more important to avoid getting hit, than it is to score hits.

Of course, scoring hits is one way that you affect a change in the scenario, tilting it towards not getting hit. You just have to understand that there are other tools available, movement being chief among them.

It's a bit like arguing whether a hammer or saw are of greater importance when building a house.You'd better half both, and other tools are probably necessary as well.

[Double Naught Spy]

Thats a personal problem though, dont you think?

It's a personal problem of a very large number of shooters - not having a grasp of the fundamentals.

If youre only at a level where you can barely shoot well (if that), standing still and without pressure, thats a pretty telling, and scary thing right there.

You are right. It is scary and part of the reason why it is so often discussed here. There are a lot of gun owners who don't have the fundamentals down.

Only if you "stop".

You know, I was probably in 3 or 4 classes where we "got off the X" in drills that involved drawing and firing after sidestepping one step left or right and when we got good at that, we did 2 steps. Invariably, that put us standing on yet another X. What they heck?

All too often I see and read about the X being conceptualized as something of a static entity where you don't want to be, but what is often missing from the concept is that YOU are the X and the X really isn't an arbitrary spot on the ground. If you move, the X moves with you.

Moving is good, and usually very good. A moving "X," I mean "target," is much easier to hit than a stationary one, but how it moves and where it moves are also critical.

[zombietactics]

The "X" is probably best defined as where your assailant thinks you are, initially because that's where you are.

Getting off the X means creating a reactionary gap between where you (in reality) were, and where you still are (for moments) in the mind of the assailant. That gap is probably no more than a fraction of a second.

The X therefore moves. The goal is to stay ahead of it or off of it ... or to remain on it for as little time as possible.

[jimbob86]

A moving "X," I mean "target," is much easier to hit than a stationary one,

DNS, I'm pretty sure you did not mean this...... movers are MUCH harder for me......

[Erno86]

Sometimes it's good for snipers to relocate after a shooting event --- but that did not bode to well for Russian sniper Kulikov --- in the mostly fiction movie...Enemy at the Gates.
But it's important for a shooter that runs behind cover --- and starts to shoot back at the enemy --- to not expose one's femoral artery too the enemy...and we all know what happens when someone's femoral artery gets hit.

It's also important to not cross one's feet while sidestepping, which can be "extremely dangerous."

Shooting behind cover sometime requires that the shooter stand far enough behind the cover so that he can just say...like behind a car --- rise-up with the firearm mounted an ready to shoot --- instead of rising-up and having to bring the rifle or pistol over the car --- aim and shoot --- which can cause precious seconds.



If a shooter runs behind a car, he should be concerned about bullets heading his or her way underneath a car --- so a likely scenario --- would have the shooter hide behind one or two of the tires and hubcaps; even while returning fire underneath the car in a somewhat fetal position.

P.S. --- Just remember to not shoot the gas tank.

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by g.willikers

are we as likely to step into the path of a bullet as to avoid one, if we attempt to move out of the way?

Statistically, no, methinks.

I suppose the idea is that if the bullet's not in the same space you occupy, the chances that it'll be in the place you move to has increased.

But there are numerous areas in space & time ("degrees of freedom") where the bullet isn't, but only 1 where it is, so you're still much more likely to move into an area where the bullet is not.

[Erno86]

If the shooter is a "spray & pray" shooter --- like sometimes I am myself --- you might be in considerable trouble.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Erno86:

If the shooter is a "spray & pray" shooter --- like sometimes I am myself --- you might be in considerable trouble.

If someone is shooting at you, you are in real trouble.

In such a situation, the primary reason to "get off the X" would probably be to get behind cover.

If that proves successful, one will than have to assess whether it is really necessary to shoot back.

Even if one is not a "spray and pray" shooter, one should be thinking--hard--about whether you have a clear shot, about who is in the background, and about a backstop, before one does shoot.

[AK103K]

and about a backstop

I would hope the backstop would be obvious.

[FireForged]

Many mantras are simply intended to foster an idea or mindset and not to be taken as a rigid absolute. Everyone has their own tactical kabuki dance but I am not going to side step 3 feet just to do it. If I need to move I will move and if I need to remain static and take a knee, go prone or supine- I'll do that. I think what is important is that a person seek out the training which will allow them a good frame of reference to make those kinds of decisions.

[phwe9774]

The way I was trained: move if cover/concealment is readily available, meaning a few steps and a dive at most. If cover/concealment isn't available, drop to a knee, take an extra breath and hit the bad guy every time you pull the trigger

[Deaf Smith]

To move or not to move, that is NOT the question.

Moving off the 'X', so it is called, is not a do in every case procedure.

If surprised it might be a good bet to move and upset their plan, and if forewarned it might be best to just let 'em have it.

Deaf

[JohnKSa]

If youre only at a level where you can barely shoot well (if that), standing still and without pressure...

...then you are WAY ahead of 99% of the shooters I see at the range.

Advanced techniques (like shooting at moving targets while on the move) can surely give a person who can implement them effectively a significant edge in a gunfight.

Basic techniques (like being able to hit a stationary target while standing still) can also give a person who can implement them effectively a significant edge in a gunfight.

Those who have mastered basic techniques should move on to working to master advanced techniques. Those who have not should work on the basics.

[Double Naught Spy]

Statistically, no, methinks.

I suppose the idea is that if the bullet's not in the same space you occupy, the chances that it'll be in the place you move to has increased.

But there are numerous areas in space & time ("degrees of freedom") where the bullet isn't, but only 1 where it is, so you're still much more likely to move into an area where the bullet is not.

A buddy of mine was a firearms trainer in Dallas. He noted that sometimes the best place to be is standing still because in numerous instances of shootings, it was the bystanders around the targets that were shot and NOT the intended victim who did not change position for various reasons.

So enters the conundrum. If you are going against the unskilled or gangster styled shooter who doesn't aim or doesn't have good gun control skills, staying in place may be the best thing you can do because that is where the bullets are not going. If you are up against somebody with experience and can hit targets, then your best bet may be to move. So the question is, how do you know what to do?

Here is a recent example. We discussed this already. The old lady stood her ground, firing. She was shot at by both robbers and was not hit by either one.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...n+shop+robbery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8qj832AaII

There are a tremendous number of factors that can come into play in a gun fight for which we have no control and no way to realistically anticipate. We also have a couple of concurrent and sometimes conflicting goals in gunflighting, to not be hit by incoming bullets (and/or not allowing loved ones to be hit) and keeping bullets from becoming incoming bullets (stopping or suppressing the attacker(s). Unless people are very well trained and maintain a fairly high level of competence, their ability to shoot on the move (getting off the proverbial X) deteriorates their ability to hit targets significantly. Never mind the fact that so many gun owners are doing well to punch paper at 7 yards during leisure shooting and not even under stress.