Moving off the X

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
It is contrary to that of many others who teach defensive shooting, but noted none-the-less.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!”
 
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.
 
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?
 
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!"
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
GEEEEEEEEZ! Why make it so complicated!! It's all common sense!! Hit your target and make sure the BG doesn't! Practice often with your weapon of choice so you know it's capabilities and limitations.
Move on or off the X, scenario's, and such is just filler for trainers to enhance their income.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Whole point. They had no where to go and they still won. Maybe all this dancing really isn't needed.
 
Maybe all this dancing really isn't needed.
Click to expand...

"Maybe" being the operative word.

"Maybe" you don't need a gun...."maybe" you don't need hand to hand skills....."maybe" they just need a hug.:D

The fight will be what the fight will be......and "maybe" there won't even be one.

The adversary dictates the dynamics of the encounter......or "maybe" they won't.

I do not know about any of you, but I will not gamble the lives of my beautiful wife, two beautiful daughters, or my son on "maybe."
 
Quote:
"Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques.....techniques should not dictate anything."

I couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...

The world of firearms training is definitely changing......and that is a very good thing!
 
The mind is the ultimate weapon.....everything else is just a tool.
Click to expand...

...this reminds me of the diabolical experiments the Soviet Commies used to do , trying to stop the hearts of frogs with their "mental powers"...;)
 
..this reminds me of the diabolical experiments the Soviet Commies used to do , trying to stop the hearts of frogs with their "mental powers"...
Click to expand...

Yeah the CIA spent a few million trying the same thing.
 
...this reminds me of the diabolical experiments the Soviet Commies used to do , trying to stop the hearts of frogs with their "mental powers"...
Click to expand...

I know that you are joking around......and that is pretty funny.....:)

As we see in this thread and many of the recent threads, there is a huge number of people that still look at their gun as a talisman. They own it....they shoot it....what else is there?:confused::rolleyes:

I have trained with hundreds and hundreds of people that were at their very first course. Out of all that I spoke with, there was the very same reaction to their first course. They simply could not believe how much that they did not know. They may have been shooting and carrying for decades but they acknowledge that "they did not know what they did not know."

Out of all of the people that I have talked to, I never met one that did not see the benefit of a quality training course.

A gun is just a tool.....you are the weapon. Owning a tool does not make you a weapon.....it makes you a tool owner.;)
 
Owning a weapon and not practicing regularly makes you a tool! Common sense is the rule! Wasting $$$$ on unnecessary training makes you a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top