Food for Thought--Reality vs Misconceptions
- Thread starter OldMarksman
- Start date
OldMarksman
Staff
I strongly recommend reading the post linked by JohnKSa in his note above.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
My "simple plan, such as it is, is to try to not be surprised and ambushed, by avoiding walking close to corners, dumpsters, vans, pickups, and so on. It is to go elsewhere immediately at the first sign of trouble. Avoidance comes first.
Should things appear to be going downhill, I would hope to not assume that a person who has first drawn my attention necessarily constitutes the entire threat by himself--there may well be more than one.
And I would still try to get somewhere safe.
On at least one occasion I failed to do those things. Like a donkey heading to the feed trough, I walked right into what was obviously a robbery about to happen.
My first action after looking around and assessing the situation was to move quickly to a place where I would not endanger others moving into the foreground or in the background if I ended up having to shoot. My next thought was "backstop".
I knew that at least one accomplice was waiting in a car outside. I was worried about whether there were others.
I did not have to draw--the would-be robber noticed my movement, panicked, dropped what he had in his hands, and ran from the store. Luckily, there was no other accomplice inside.
Things never got to the shooting stage.
Why didn't I just high-tail it out of the store? Judgment call. Might have been poor judgment. My car was close to what I had learned to be the getaway car.
Gotta tell ya, that was just about as scary as anything I had ever experienced. I could not give a description of either participant, or of the car. Heck, I could barely talk.
That store environment was about as far from the square range as you can imagine.
Some time later I did change from pocket holster carry to OWB, after comparing draw times.
Should things appear to be going downhill, I would hope to not assume that a person who has first drawn my attention necessarily constitutes the entire threat by himself--there may well be more than one.
And I would still try to get somewhere safe.
On at least one occasion I failed to do those things. Like a donkey heading to the feed trough, I walked right into what was obviously a robbery about to happen.
My first action after looking around and assessing the situation was to move quickly to a place where I would not endanger others moving into the foreground or in the background if I ended up having to shoot. My next thought was "backstop".
I knew that at least one accomplice was waiting in a car outside. I was worried about whether there were others.
I did not have to draw--the would-be robber noticed my movement, panicked, dropped what he had in his hands, and ran from the store. Luckily, there was no other accomplice inside.
Things never got to the shooting stage.
Why didn't I just high-tail it out of the store? Judgment call. Might have been poor judgment. My car was close to what I had learned to be the getaway car.
Gotta tell ya, that was just about as scary as anything I had ever experienced. I could not give a description of either participant, or of the car. Heck, I could barely talk.
That store environment was about as far from the square range as you can imagine.
Some time later I did change from pocket holster carry to OWB, after comparing draw times.
Last edited:
There is very little black and white, right and wrong in any of this. It is all personal preference and how we each perceive risk and risk mitigation. And I make clear distinctions between LEO experiences and non-LEOs. LEOs have a duty to intentionally go in harm's way and are expected to stay in the fight. As a private citizen, my first priority is to get away from the danger, not take it on. So my defense priority is for the close range ambush that I can't immediately get away from.
I remember an article by a Vietnam vet gun writer years ago where a reader challenged him on his choice of carrying a snubby. He was asked what would he really want to have if he got into a real gunfight. He said, "An M-60 with a full belt of ammo and walkie-talkie that I could use to call in artillery. But that isn't practical and I am no longer at war."
Grant Cunningham says words to the effect, "A platoon of N. Korean paratroopers could land in your front yard. But it's not very likely." The point he goes on to make is, almost everyone has a limited amount of training time and limitations on concealment. It does not follow that preparing for the worst automatically prepares you for the likely. He recommends prioritizing your training and equipment for the likely, and once you have that nailed down, if you have more resources, prepare for the N. Koreans.
I see people preparing on the range training to get into all out gunfights with multiple armed aggressors, spraying and praying 15 round mags with two-handed holds and practicing 25-yard headshots. That's great, but does that train you for an ambush at arms distance or less? Because that is the more likely scenario. If I am jumped at close range, I would rather have some basic H2H skills that allow me to get to my snubby than anything else I can think of.
I hear this argument all the time, "You should prepare for the worst case." I don't disagree, but the worst may not be movie-style gunfight. It is more likely to be a close range ambush. I don't see that being trained much. So people are preparing for something that could happen, but is not likely, at the expense of preparing for what is likely.
Also consider that as EDC'ers of any kind, we are in a small minority in society. Anyone with any gun who has SA, training and the will to shoot when necessary is in the 95+ percentile of being ready. The people on this site are more similar than we are different.
I remember an article by a Vietnam vet gun writer years ago where a reader challenged him on his choice of carrying a snubby. He was asked what would he really want to have if he got into a real gunfight. He said, "An M-60 with a full belt of ammo and walkie-talkie that I could use to call in artillery. But that isn't practical and I am no longer at war."
Grant Cunningham says words to the effect, "A platoon of N. Korean paratroopers could land in your front yard. But it's not very likely." The point he goes on to make is, almost everyone has a limited amount of training time and limitations on concealment. It does not follow that preparing for the worst automatically prepares you for the likely. He recommends prioritizing your training and equipment for the likely, and once you have that nailed down, if you have more resources, prepare for the N. Koreans.
I see people preparing on the range training to get into all out gunfights with multiple armed aggressors, spraying and praying 15 round mags with two-handed holds and practicing 25-yard headshots. That's great, but does that train you for an ambush at arms distance or less? Because that is the more likely scenario. If I am jumped at close range, I would rather have some basic H2H skills that allow me to get to my snubby than anything else I can think of.
I hear this argument all the time, "You should prepare for the worst case." I don't disagree, but the worst may not be movie-style gunfight. It is more likely to be a close range ambush. I don't see that being trained much. So people are preparing for something that could happen, but is not likely, at the expense of preparing for what is likely.
Also consider that as EDC'ers of any kind, we are in a small minority in society. Anyone with any gun who has SA, training and the will to shoot when necessary is in the 95+ percentile of being ready. The people on this site are more similar than we are different.
OldMarksman
Staff
And shooting slowly at seven yards.
That is one scenario, but with any luck a defender will be acting before that and will be shooting at a distance somewhat greater than two arms lengths, even if he has to move fast to maintain that distance.
But the point is well taken that that kind of practice is not very useful for preparing a defender for an ambush at close range.
If it gets to H2H, it is really serious. Avoiding the edged weapon, maintaining control of the weapon...
Better to try to keep things just a bit farther away, to create some additional distance fast.
A snubby is better than nothing, and I think having one as a back-up is a great idea, but for primary carry, I prefer something else.
One sees few people preparing for it--they have gotten the 21 foot marker into their heads, and, they practice shooting at targets that far out.
But really good defensive training, such as that offered by Rob Pincus, Grant Cunningham, and others in the PDN group does, address the close range ambush.
Exactly.
OldMarksman
Staff
HAH! Good one!
When I first started shooting handguns, a friend had his Dad's well-worn Army .45 that had seen hard use in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. We were shooting at bull's eyes at some distance. None of that counter ambush stuff for us then.
We couldn't hit a thing with it at that distance. Sights, trigger, wear....
But it never failed--not once.
Another guy had a Luger--probably put together from parts.
Maybe three jams in every magazine.
No need to quibble about the poorly designed safety or the bad trigger when it wouldn't go off anyway.
I know the data about Glock vs 1911 reliability, but I still have great confidence in the reliability of a 1911.
And with my STI Guardian, I can hit pretty well with it. Not as well as with a really good full size model, but pretty well.
I entered LE in 1981 and retired in March / 2010.
As a police officer, I had one motto that I followed from day #1, up to the very day I retired.
"If you don't take CONTROL of the situation, the situation will take CONTROL of you"!
As a civilian.......I hope for the best, but I'm prepared for the worst.
As a police officer, I had one motto that I followed from day #1, up to the very day I retired.
"If you don't take CONTROL of the situation, the situation will take CONTROL of you"!
As a civilian.......I hope for the best, but I'm prepared for the worst.