Action vs. Reaction

S

stephen426

New member
I have read multiple times that action beats reaction. This always seems to come up on threads where someone is pointing a gun at you. I hate to say it but I really don't believe that action beats reaction. Some have even gone as far as saying it takes almost 2 seconds to react. I have very quick reflexes and I would not take a gamble that the person holding the gun does not. Do a quick calculation. How long does it take for you to move your foot from the accelerator to the brake if the person in front of you slams on their brakes? Calculate your speed and see how far you would travel if it took you 2 seconds to react to the brake light in front of you. The actions involved are even more than simply pulling a trigger since a driver must register the brake light, determine the rate of deceleration to calculate how hard he or she must brake, lift his or her foot from the accelerator, move his or her foot to the brake and press the brake. The only motion required for firing a gun when your fnger is already on the trigger is very short and simple. Unless the shooter is within contact distance and unless I can distract him somehow, there is no way I would draw on a drawn gun.

There are many factors that may have enabled people to draw on a drawn gun and win, but I see that as the exception rather than the norm. Maybe the person has slow reflexes. Maybe he was really not ready to pull the trigger and hesitated. Maybe you are really quick on the draw. My problem with the whole action beats reaction arguement it that someone will assume it is true and get themselves shot or even killed.

I am not saying that one simply give up and wait for the other person to shoot you. The most important thing is to catch the person off guard and not telegraph your intentions. Some bad guys would shoot you just because you've seen their face. If they got the feeling you were going to fight back, they would probably shoot you first. I believe that everyone should learn disarming techniques or at least slap the pistol away from your body and move before trying to draw. The most important thing is to get out of the line of fire. At contact distance, I might actually go for my knife before I go for my gun. I would also consider going for debilatating strikes such as the throat or a palm to the nose. If you are willing to take your safety into your own hands and carry a gun, I feel some disarming techniques would complement your training.

By the way, if there is any credible information to "prove" action really does beat reaction, please provide some links.
 
Maybe I am just the hopeful sort, but I wouldn't try drawing on a drawn gun or trying to jump a gun holder unless it was the last resort. Something like VT, it would be necessary because you know there are two alternatives, action or almost certain death. But in most situations (a stickup, say) it would be nuts to try to beat the twitch of a trigger finger no matter how fast you think your reflexes are.

Remember, the shooter does not really need to assess the situation and make a conscious decision, like the motorist approaching a red light. He will act from instinct since he is already primed to fire; he doesn't have to move his finger from one place to another or assess anything. His decision is already made.

Jim
 
It can and has been done. Most notably by Bill Jordan, but there are others.
It is fairly easy if you are skilled enough. What you fail to take into account is everything that happens before the brain sends the signal to pull the trigger. Most people who don't train their mind to react, react in the .35 - .50 second range. Your assailant probably is expecting you to comply (which you can set up by what you say and how you act). Even if he isn't, he has to first interpret your movement, then he has to decide if it is threatening or not. After that, he has to decide what his response is, then execute it. That entire process can take .75 seconds or more. Someone skilled in pistolcraft can draw and hit faster than that at one or two yards. As the distance increases, the difficulty increases as well out to about 10 -12 feet. Then it gets easy again.

Also, remember that this does not take place in a vacuum. It's not two people facing each other waiting for someone to say go. You can create distractions by saying things like "officer, thank god you're here!" while looking over the bad guy's shoulder. You can take the bad guy's mind off of pulling the trigger by reassuring him that you are going to comply or many other things. If you carry your weapon near your wallet, that will buy you time as well.

Like any other skill, it takes training and practice to master. If you can't draw and hit a target well under 1 second at 1 -2 meters, then you shouldn't attempt it. It is also not something that is applicable to every single situation. However it can and has been done.
 
Most people who don't train their mind to react, react in the .35 - .50 second range. Your assailant probably is expecting you to comply (which you can set up by what you say and how you act). Even if he isn't, he has to first interpret your movement, then he has to decide if it is threatening or not. After that, he has to decide what his response is, then execute it. That entire process can take .75 seconds or more.
Click to expand...

Lurper,

My point is that you do not know who you are up against. People have been shot just for making sudden moves. I have yet to see old guys hold someone up, and maybe then I would say their reaction times are slower. Many robbers/gangsters tend to be on the younger side, and their reaction times will be faster then the average.

I agree with using distractions and buying time. That is my main point of this thread. I'm afraid some people might actually believe that they can draw and shoot someone who has a gun pointed at them (with their finger on the trigger) because of this whole action versus reaction arguement. Set up the situation as best possible, don't telegraph your intentions, get out of the line of fire or sweep the attacker's weapon away from you, and then go for your own. There are still no guarantees so only resist if you believe you are going to be shot anyway. A few bucks isn't worth your life.
 
The concept of action beating reaction is pretty close if not 100% true...in regard to brain signals. With that said, when it comes to completion of necessary tasks, action often does NOT beat reaction.

If action always beat reaction as many gun trainers claim (and yes I have heard this from instructors/schools, then things like drawing on a drawn gun would be no problem. In fact, boxers would never be able to block or duck incoming punches except through random circumstance. Running backs would be able to out manuever any tackler they saw in their way.

Since successful completion of a task before getting harmed by the opposition is our key goal here, then why won't action 100% beat reaction of action gets started first (hence being called the action)?
There are several potential reasons. If drawing on a drawn gun, the person with the drawn gun will need about a quarter of a second for the brain signal to go from spotting the action and then to providing a response, a half second if the brain is slow. Here is it assumed that the person with the drawn gun has already made the decision to fire if the person held at gunpoint doesn't act properly. Once the signal has gotten to the fire to fire, the finger needs to travel anywhere from 1/8" to a 1/2" depending on the trigger type and the gun will discharge, ostensibly into the person atttempting an action against the drawn gun.

The person attempting the action may be able to start first, but is going to have a hand that travels many inches to a few feet in distance and change direction several times in order to go from the starting point of where the hand is before the draw, move to the gun, grab the gun, extract the gun, orient the gun toward the opposition, then the trigger finger moving the last 1/8 to 1/2" to finalize the task.

People often state that action beats reaction in regard to resetting OODA loops (observe, orient, decide, act) because if you do something, then it resets the other person's OODA loop and they have to start the process anew. This simply isn't true across the board and not true if the person has already pre-completed the OODA loop such that the middle two stages are already handled.

In situations where the person with the drawn gun isn't actually prepared to fire, the person starting the action has a better chance of being successful because there will be a delay on the part of the drawn gun after the action against it starts. The action will be spotted, danger will be realized, and then the decision has to be made as to whether or not to respond and how to respond, then take action. It is the decision making process that really slows things down, especially if the person is conflicted about shooting another person.

All things considered, you can only count on action beating reaction when you have like individuals having to perform like tasks. In drawing on a draw gun is not completing like tasks. As such, this is why it is not always prudent to be an immediate person of action. There are a lot of folks here who will quote the (para)phrase "All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good people to stand idly by" to justify taking immediate action, usually with the claim that they could not live with themselves if they didn't do something to prevent the given evil act. It most definitely is not always prudent to respond in an immediate manner, such as drawing on a drawn gun. Here, biding one's time and waiting for a chance to act when the person with the drawn gun is otherwise occupied might be the best option. Waiting for a chance to start a counter assault isn't standing by, but is a form of taking action such that when the physical action starts, there may be a higher chance for success. The Japanese mounted several banzai charges against drawn guns. They took action and often paid dearly for it because the timing of the tactic was stupid.
 
You usually don't know who you are up against and this is where the debate goes down a slippery slope. Just because someone is young doesn't mean they are fast. I am 48 and my reaction times are in the .14 -.16 range, but I train. Also, I would guess that many of them get high before committing a robbery because it takes the edge off. That would also slow them down. I don't believe that most want to kill anyone (if they did, they would just walk up to you, shoot you and take your money) which also effects their reaction. This is where the debate turns to compliance -v- resistance and degenerates into something that cannot be definitively supported either way.

Of course the biggest problem with compliance is the assumption that compliance guarantees survival. It doesn't. I believe that I want to control events, not be controlled by them. As odd as it sounds, verbal distractions etc. actually shift the control from them to you. If you get them to engage in conversation, you have just bought a whole world of time. Because while they are thinking about what they are going to say, you are drawing your pistol. Again, it doesn't happen in a vacuum but there are lots of ifs and variables.

As far as the mechanics and techniques go, I can say that it definately is doable. Not by everyone, nor should it be attempted in every situation by those who can.
 
The ACTION is the Drawn Gun

I have both heard and said that "action beats reaction". The statement, in my mind and I suspect some others, is that the person who is the aggressor has taken an ACTION. In this discussion the act is pointing a gun at someone who has not yet REACTED to that threat.

While it might be possible for that REACTION to be drawing their own gun, I would not consider that a prudent reaction to the threat. The first person is the actor, the second person, based on what they have observered is the reactor.

By comparison, the person in front of you in traffic applying their brakes is the actor and you, behind them are the reactor.

That is the way I see it and I am sticking to that story.

John
Mayberry, NC
 
Take some body guard classes to learn dis arming techniques. There used to be a very good one that taught evasive manuvers in limos, how to sheild a body with yours etc. It can be done, by anyone? I doubt it, but you dont know until you go thru the course.


Dis arming a person can get you shot, complying may also get you shot, just gotta take it one step at a time. Decide for yourself what the situation calls for and act accordingly.
 
Maybe I should have included a poll with this thread.

Lurper said:
Also, I would guess that many of them get high before committing a robbery because it takes the edge off. That would also slow them down. I don't believe that most want to kill anyone (if they did, they would just walk up to you, shoot you and take your money) which also effects their reaction. This is where the debate turns to compliance -v- resistance and degenerates into something that cannot be definitively supported either way.

Of course the biggest problem with compliance is the assumption that compliance guarantees survival. It doesn't. I believe that I want to control events, not be controlled by them. As odd as it sounds, verbal distractions etc. actually shift the control from them to you. If you get them to engage in conversation, you have just bought a whole world of time. Because while they are thinking about what they are going to say, you are drawing your pistol. Again, it doesn't happen in a vacuum but there are lots of ifs and variables.
Click to expand...

Lurper,
You are making some dangerous assumptions here. First of all, you are assuming that you are faster than the other person, even though you do not know your advesary. You assume that they are on drugs which will slow them down. You are also assuming that they do not want to shoot you just because they have not done so initially. From my perspective, you are making lots of dangerous assumptions and I happen to disagree with some of them. I feel that people are more ruthless now and could care less if they killed you. Of course if they got compliance, then they would not have to shoot you. If they are on drugs, it make make them more hyper or jumpy and they might shoot you just for making sudden moves.

I fully agree that compliance does not necessarily mean survival. That is not the point I am trying to make. I would love to take control of the situation, but getting shot because I thought I was faster than the other guy is not my idea of taking control of the situation. My point is wait for the opportunity or try and create an opportunity my distracting the other person before attempting to get your gun.
 
It is an interesting quesion. Here are my comments on the subject.

First of all, you have to be in "good training." Not only that, but you probably would need to be "warmed up." The boxer analogy was good. The question does arise as how much training (or just practice) it takes to be in good form. But that's another quesiton.

Second, when taking fencing way back years ago in college, someone asked this question: What do you watch? Fencing as you know is a game of speed and fast reactions, as well as winners and losers, but at some point you are deciding when to make your move. I think it is particularly relevant here. I think the answer was, watch the eyes.

Another comment only barely relevant is a matter of game versus real. As I mentioned, fencing is a game of speed and fast reactions. However, the swords in use bear almost no relation to those that were actually used in combat and dueling not that long ago. "Real" swords could not be maneuvered anything like fencing foils, sabers and epees. In the context of guns, "practical" leather, especially concealed, could not be expected to be as fast as a speed rig, either a Western fast-draw outfit of any sort, or a demonstation fast draw rig for your custom 1911 with all the gizmos. But, it is relevant only as far as you are talking about outdrawing an opponent.

My form is pretty poor at the moment.
 
S,
No more dangerous than the assumptions in your post. I can tell you without knowing who I am facing that there is a 99.9% chance that I am faster than them and equally as good odds that I am far more proficient. But that is not the point. I think we both agree on the salient point of your last post:
My point is wait for the opportunity or try and create an opportunity my distracting the other person before attempting to get your gun.
Click to expand...
That is also what I said in my first post in more words.

Here is a test you can try. Get someone with an Airsoft gun. Have them point it at you (actually it is easier pointed at your head). Tell them to shoot as soon as you move. Start out with the gun a few inches from your body. If it is pointed at your chest, quickly turn sideways while simultaneously knocking the gun away with your weak hand (if it is pointed at your head, duck). Another technique is to step slightly forward while turning. Most people will be able to sucessfully execute that manuever the first time. But certainly after a bit of practice you will see how you can easily do it. From that basic move, you can add a disarm technique or draw. I personally would never try to disarm if I was armed. It is much faster for me to get to my gun and less risky than to attempt to disarm someone.
 
Here is a test you can try. Get someone with an Airsoft gun. Have them point it at you (actually it is easier pointed at your head). Tell them to shoot as soon as you move. Start out with the gun a few inches from your body. If it is pointed at your chest, quickly turn sideways while simultaneously knocking the gun away with your weak hand (if it is pointed at your head, duck). Another technique is to step slightly forward while turning. Most people will be able to sucessfully execute that manuever the first time. But certainly after a bit of practice you will see how you can easily do it. From that basic move, you can add a disarm technique or draw. I personally would never try to disarm if I was armed. It is much faster for me to get to my gun and less risky than to attempt to disarm someone.
Click to expand...

Lurper,

I am glad you have had training and practice on a regular basis. That is one of the reasons for starting this thread. As for having an airsoft gun pointed at my face, I'd rather not. Those things hurt! I might go for an airsoft to the body with a sweat shirt on though. I do know some disarming techniques.

The problem is not just evading the first shot. If you cannot control the bad guys weapon, you will need to be able to draw and fire your weapon before he can re-aim his gun and shoot you. He will already have his gun out and his finger on the trigger. You still have to draw, presumably from concealment, deactivate any safeties your gun might be equipped with, aim, and fire. If I was attempting to disarm someone, I would most likely add a few blows to highly sensitive areas in an attempt to disable the attacker. These areas include the throat, nose, eyes, and groin. The shots should be delived hard enough to stun the attacker and buy you enough time to draw your weapon.

Regardless, I think we are pretty much in agreement that one had better practice and create an opportunity rather than simply going for it.
 
Some good stuff here...although most people still default to their handgun without thinking about alternatives...like the disarm, edged weapon, H2H

If you do "go for your gun" then distracting the bad guy is a great idea...as is moving "off the line"

The idea that action beats reaction is central to the concept of a disarm

I notice that our "test" morphed into a disarm rather than a "go for your gun pardner" situation.

And like everything ...it depends on the situation

At contact distances you are probably going to be much better off controlling their weapon rather than drawing yours

Too much can go wrong from your gun snagging in your holster/clothing to actually missing the target in your haste

And don't get me started on those that carry chamber empty...this type of situation is exactly why it can be fatal


You body position plays a part in the decision as well

I am sure the assumption is that you are both standing facing each other at some distance in a well lit area with no cover and your hands are somewhere near your weapon

The real world may be very different

At the very least, having a loaded gun pointed at you brings some physiological factors into play that likely will not exist with an airsoft gun:D
 
My point is that you do not know who you are up against.
Click to expand...
Very true. Perhaps even more true is that "action beat reaction" is based on a number of factors that might or might not be present. I can almost always beat the drawn gun---if I get to set the test up the way I want (I learned the trick from a friend of Bill Jordan's, BTW). There is also the issue that action does not STOP reaction. Doesn't help much if you shoot him and he shoots you.
And don't get me started on those that carry chamber empty...this type of situation is exactly why it can be fatal
Click to expand...
This situation can be fatal with chamber loaded also. The techniques and tactics might need to change, but I doubt you will find much difference in overall outcome.
Of course the biggest problem with compliance is the assumption that compliance guarantees survival. It doesn't.
Click to expand...
Few things are guaranteed. There is no guarantee that you will win the fight if you don't comply. What is known is that compliance significantly reduces the likelihood of increased violence.
 
Action vs. reaction depends upon the distance at which the attacker is from you. More distance SHOULD = more reaction time. However, if you are not in tune with the situation, this may not be true for you.

I believe that for the most part action is NORMALLY faster than reaction. This can also work towards your advantage should you make the first move. As it has already been mentioned, the attacker does NOT expect you to do anything. If they did, they would not have chosen you as a victim.

However, if you or an attacker telegraphs your intentions, action may not be faster because you can predict they are going to do something.

In fact, boxers would never be able to block or duck incoming punches except through random circumstance. Running backs would be able to out manuever any tackler they saw in their way.
Click to expand...

The problem with the boxer analogy is that the boxer IS EXPECTING TO BE HIT. The attacker is not. Boxers are also taught to bob and weave. So, them slipping a punch can be part of their “routine”. Also, a boxer is not in a life or death situation so he can take the “chance” of attempting to block a punch whether it is actually there or not. The boxer may also “feel” they are open and about ready to get hit and put their defenses up.

Someone who hasn’t trained a lot may not have the confidence to react or act. Therefore their thoughts are more focused on “man, I should have trained, or what am I going to do?” rather than doing something. So, they are going to be a bit slower in reacting or acting.

I think that without a doubt the more you train, the quicker your response. But also be AWARE there are normally signals that the attacker will give you before they do something. Likewise with yourself so be AWARE that you are not doing them!

At contact distances you are probably going to be much better off controlling their weapon rather than drawing yours
Click to expand...

This is one of the smartest things I have ever heard anyone say on a discussion forum! I agree TOTALLY. Control their AND draw yours IF that is the thing to do!

It is easier to miss your target in a gunfight than it is to hit it!
 
I believe that for the most part action is NORMALLY faster than reaction.
Click to expand...

The start of action is always faster than reaction, but we are not concerned so much with the starts as we are with the completions of the salient tasks. If the Action task takes .15-.35 seconds longer to complete than the Reaction task, the Reaction task very well may be completed before the Action task even though it started .15-.35 seconds later.

The notion of distraction was mentioned previously above. Distraction is a whole other concept in addition to simple Action-Reaction. Distraction works by inducing multiple reactions responding to multiple actions in an attempt to overwhelm the Reactor's ability to respond. You have one or more Distraction Actions that occur before or intermixed with the actual Intended Actions.
 
the two items that come to mind here are fencing and a man named Delf "Jelly" Bryce.

The big trick in fencing is using the maximum area of your foil to intercept the other foil as it comes in (combined with a fairly stylized method of fighting as well of course).

The big trick with Mr. Bryce was that he was just inhumanly fast overall.
 
Bryce was apparently gifted--and also not handicapped by some of the attitudes we have today. I would venture to say that many of the well known shooters, either gunfighters, lawmen, hunters, and exhibition shooters were gifted or talented. It might be better to say that they exploited the talents they had along these lines. There is also the matter of physical ability. It should be obvious that someone with better eyesight should be a better marksman but it is also claimed that a shorter person, or at least with shorter arms, will be a better handgun shot, and it goes without saying they would have to be in good shape.

I mentioned before here or elsewhere that fencing did not use realistic weapons. Mostly that has been true but fencing gear is evolved from 18th Century smallswords that were mostly very lightweight but nonetheless lethal. Handling one is nothing like handling a cavalry saber. The analogy here with guns is that small handguns can be handled much easier than heavier guns, all else being equal. That might be obvious but it also might be part of the reason that N-frame S&W revolvers were not used as much as lighter revolvers. Someone might have thought they were much quicker with a medium or small frame revolver. In fact, all revolvers, including N-frames used to be rather lighter than contemporary revolvers while more likely to have a longer but lighter barrel (which, I might add, does make it a little harder to move around). Even the little I and J frames used to come with 5 and 6 inch barrels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top