Moving off the X

[AK103K]

It's kind of pointless to argue that shooting while moving is as efficient or effective as shooting when not moving. It isn't. Additionally, the wild card is the skill (or luck) of your opponent. Given the choice of getting the first shot off or moving off of the X and being the second one to fire the shot should be a no brainer. I'll take being first to hit the target every time hands down.

I dont understand why you cant do both at the same time? Are you saying its not possible to shoot and shoot well while you move?

If your slow and standing there you will be shot. If there are more than one and you stand there, you will be shot. Even if its a draw, your probably going to be shot if you are where you were when the whole thing starts, as thats where their rounds will be going. At least if you move, you force them to deal with that while your shooting them. If they remain still, they become the easier target.

 

[Lurper]

You are absolutely correct. If you can move without it costing you time then it is wise. More often than not though, it doesn't work that way.

If his gun is already in his hand, I definitely need to move while drawing.

Based on the data I've studied, you don't. In fact doing so could get you shot. In the incidents I have studied, even though it is a small number (around 10%), it is remarkable how often someone who is facing a gun already, pulls their own and shoots (often killing) their attacker. This is where human nature flys in the face of theory and why comparing military and LE confrontations is apples to oranges. Most of the time, the badguy wants your money, car, etc. He doesn't enter into the confrontation intent on killing you. When suddenly faced with someone not following his script, he has to react as opposed to act. I was also amazed at the number of times (again a small percentage) that the assailants ran away as soon as the victim opened fire even though they outnumbered the victim 2, 3 4 or in one case 7 to 1! I wouldn't stake my life on it, but more often than not, hitting one assailant causes the other(s) to flee.

There is absolutely nothing gained by standing still as I draw

That sentence in that context is true. As long as you stop moving by the time you pull the trigger. My argument is that there really is no advantage to moving. Particularly while shooting. Moving involves inherent risk as well. Unless you are acutely aware of your surroundings you may stumble over something, you may see something (like a bystander) that draws your attention. So moving is not without a downside. Again, it's better to shoot then move rather than shoot while moving.

It's not a question of skill or training. I am a world class shooter. I shot professionally for Springfield Armory,Safariland and others. I practice more in a year than most people do in a lifetime - multiple targets, varying distances, different positions, while moving, crouching, kneeling, just about anything you can think of. So for me the answer is easy. But it is even more important for someone less skilled. Not only that, but as I mentioned, the common thread in all of the information available is the the person who hits their target first comes out on top.

 

[Lurper]

I dont understand why you cant do both at the same time? Are you saying its not possible to shoot and shoot well while you move?

No, what I am saying is that for most people the trade off isn't worth it. Very few people (even the top shooters) can shoot as well when moving as when not. If you can shoot 20% faster stationary than moving and you are 35% less accurate while moving, it is smarter to shoot while stationary then move.
Your average CCW is probably 50% or more less accurate while moving, so why would anyone advocate that they move when doing so doubles the odds of them missing the target?

If your slow and standing there you will be shot. If there are more than one and you stand there, you will be shot. Even if its a draw, your probably going to be shot if you are where you were when the whole thing starts, as thats where their rounds will be going.

The information available on civilian shootings doesn't support any of those contentions. I can cite hundreds of instances where the victim pulled their gun and fired without moving and came out on top (whether they were already facing a gun, multiple assailants or not). I'll probably go through another sixty shootings tonight and don't expect I'll see a change in trends.

 

[Skyguy]

I am a world class shooter. I shot professionally for Springfield Armory,Safariland and others.

Since you brought it up, I'm a former world class shooter, too.

I shot professionally for the US Army 173rd AB in vietnam central highlands, et al. We fought the NVA in operation Junction City, operation MacArthur, charlie in many encounters and firefights and hill 875 near Dak To (my Purple Heart). I also shot on the job professionally for the Cook County Sheriff's gang unit.

It may not be the same as studying data or shooting at unarmed stationary paper targets or gun games, but incoming bullets do have a special way of convincing you to 'move'.
.

 

[Lurper]

Again, it's apples and oranges. Civilian shooting confrontations have very little in common with military or LE ones.
It's not so much a question of move or not. It's question of what is more effective: hitting your target first or moving. Based on the information I have seen, my own experience and those who I have interviewed, the biggest determining factor in coming out on top is hitting the target first - not moving. If you can move without it costing you any time, then move. But to trade a second (or even half of one) for a few feet isn't wise.

 

[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.