Moving off the X

Yeah the CIA spent a few million trying the same thing.
Click to expand...

yeah, but I hear that the program was canceled when they caught the would be remote heart squishers tuning in to the Playboy channel instead..

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?

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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for understanding my cheeky, if not totally lame, humor :D I don't know what possessed me to make that KGB joke, except that I was trying to be funny:o. I totally understand the point that you were trying to make about one's fighting attitude being more important than the tool used....but on a "serious" note, come think of it, even if one was able to pulverize one's heart with one's "mental powers", there still is no such thing as true "mental powers stopping power", as the bad guy would still have approximately 10 seconds or so before being truly physiologically incapacitated :D (ok I know I know I'll shut up about this now :D)

On truly serious note, I don't pretend for one second that I have expertise or even personal experience in the area of moving of the X, moving for cover or standing one's ground. But here's a very interesting article written by Paul Howe of Delta "Blackhawk Down" fame. Check out his theories on "Training for the real fight".

http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/TrainingForTheRealFight.pdf

I found the whole read very very interesting, but for his specific thoughts on using cover and shooting on the move, scroll down to "the fight and setting up your opponents" section. I'd love to hear your, the professionals that is, thoughts on what Mr. Howe writes.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to hear your, the professionals that is, thoughts on what Mr. Howe writes.
Click to expand...

We need to understand the context from where Mr Howe speaks from. He is part of a special military team that is almost always in a "proactively dominant" position. They also generally use long guns at typical military distances. The difference between a typical civilian defender or lone LEO in a reactive situation, with his handgun, at three to fifteen feet is very different than a special teams guy in a "proactively dominant" situation, with his long gun, at thiry to ninety feet. There is simply no comparison at all. Dynamic movement at logical distances with threat focused skills are an absolutely obtainable skillset with a handgun. Being able to engage with accurate fire, with a long gun, with dynamic movement, out to thiry yards, while taking incoming from another long gun is an entirely different animal. This is why all of this is contextual and situationally dependent. This is also why it is like comparing apples to oranges.

Let's not forget the context of the situations when we are recommending tactics. And god forbid, let's not let "past technique limitations" dictate our tactics.

Owning a weapon and not practicing regularly makes you a tool! Common sense is the rule! Wasting $$$$ on unnecessary training makes you a fool.
Click to expand...

Just keep repeating this over and over again in order to try to convince yourself that this statement actually has "common sense."
 
Paul Howe of Delta "Blackhawk Down" fame has the actual experiences of being ambushed, taking deadly fire, casualties, being outnumbered, on the run and fighting under totally 'reactive' and changing situations. He knows what's up.

Like Matthew Temkin said:
"One of the reasons why I have sought the advice of combat veterans is...that these men have insights that can only be learned by placing one's butt on the line. Anything else is second rate.
(someone) with zero military/police/security/combat experience should be more humble in the attitude department."
Click to expand...

Many trainers have never even been in one gun battle or even been shot at. They teach tactics from hearsay to the less informed and not from real life experience. Case in point: 'stand and deliver', commonly known as stand and 'die', will get one killed needlessly.
Anyone that would opt for 'stand and deliver' - except in the most dire and uncompromising circumstances - is a fool. Period.

A ¼" of muzzle deviation off target moves the POI 12" at 15ft. A moving target is harder to hit. So, move!

Bottom line........It's about surviving. Pay attention. Don't freeze. Whenever possible, always move when under an up-close attack.
.
 
Yes, but in that article Mr.Howe is warning against movement.
I think this is because his experience is military and not law enforcement/civilian.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and my point was that they looked at data, maybe not the same as yours, but self defense data, and arrived at a different conclusion.

Here we have a difference of sampling between gunfights and shootings. You are referring to gunfights and so have introduced a significant bias into the interpretation to support your conclusion that it is more important to neutralize the threat instead of moving. Many gunfights NEVER become gunfights and simply remain as shootings because people didn't stand around trying to neutralize the threat. They move off the X and moved through the rest of the alphabet to safety.

If your sampling is of gunfights, then you have missed a huge body of data on how people avoided being shot or killed because you haven't looked at the data on folks who didn't return fire and egressed to safety.

I do agree with you, however. If you are going to stand and fight, then you darned well better neutral the threat ASAP.
 
"One of the reasons why I have sought the advice of combat veterans is...that these men have insights that can only be learned by placing one's butt on the line. Anything else is second rate.
(someone) with zero military/police/security/combat experience should be more humble in the attitude department."
Click to expand...

Hello skyguy....been a long time!

This is exactly where I get my information from.....listening to the guys that have been in numerous gunfights....both in combat and on the streets. I know a bunch of guys that have dominated from stand and deliver. I also know a bunch of guys that reacted.....moved and shot....and won.

Proactive or reactive, that is what it all comes down to.

"What is your position in the reactionary curve?"
 
Yes, but in that article Mr.Howe is warning against movement.
I think this is because his experience is military and not law enforcement/civilian.
Click to expand...

just one point of clarification, if you'll allow me:

I think that Mr. Howe was making the point that when you need to move to get cover, you need to do it as fast as you can and you don't have time to shoot, and that when you have to shoot you have to be as accurate as you can so you don't want to do it on the move. And as Mr. Howe writes, he "never found an in between" where one can shoot on the move; either you are moving with speed and purpose, or you are shooting with accuracy (and speed if you are good), as you cannot do either well at the same time.

SweatnBullets I understand what you mean when you say that Mr. Howe's comments make more contextual sense from the point of view of a [para] military agent engaging a [para] military/terrorist enemy at more extended distances. Being confronted face to face in a parking lot by a parasite of society wishing to victimize you is a scenario not really covered in Mr. Howe's great article. So in a face to face like that, where avoidance and tactical maneuvering has for whatever reason been made moot, the decision to make is still: stand and deliver or move of the X as you draw etc. So, it would appear that I haven't really added anything to this discussion :( But if the bad guy is shooting at you from a longer distance, moving with swiftness out of the kill zone, to cover, and then attempting to decisively engage, would seem to make a lot of sense.
 
Many trainers have never even been in one gun battle or even been shot at. They teach tactics from hearsay to the less informed and not from real life experience. Case in point: 'stand and deliver', commonly known as stand and 'die', will get one killed needlessly.
Anyone that would opt for 'stand and deliver' - except in the most dire and uncompromising circumstances - is a fool. Period.
Click to expand...
And that statement just isn't supported by the data on civilian gunfights, period. What is supported is that the person who hits their targets first wins.

Yes, and my point was that they looked at data, maybe not the same as yours, but self defense data, and arrived at a different conclusion.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of trainers look at law enforcement data, not civilian. As I mentioned, there is no database of civlian shootings. It is painstaking work.

Here we have a difference of sampling between gunfights and shootings. You are referring to gunfights and so have introduced a significant bias into the interpretation to support your conclusion that it is more important to neutralize the threat instead of moving. Many gunfights NEVER become gunfights and simply remain as shootings because people didn't stand around trying to neutralize the threat. They move off the X and moved through the rest of the alphabet to safety.
Click to expand...
Your words not mine. I simply find accounting of shooting incidents and compile the data. The only data I didn't use was when no shots were fired or animal attacks. It's a pretty broad spectrum. Fact is fact you don't have to like it, nor agree with it nor does the "mainstream", but it is what it is. Which is exactly my point: For years we as consumers have been spoon fed what certain people in the industry want to feed us and most lap it right up. The reality is (no matter how you slice it) in the vast majority of incidents where shots are fired, moving off of the X nor any other common tactic has any effect on the outcome to the degree that hitting the target first does. Certainly, don't take my word for it. Do the work yourself and you'll see. A lot of what is forwarded by the "tacticool" crowd is self-serving. How else would you propse to look at what works for civilians? Study LE gunfights? Military? The only way to know what works is to study civilian situations (and you wouldn't study situations where the CCW'er lost if you were looking for what worked). Again, tactics play little or no role in the vast majority of cases. This is primarily because the average CIVILIAN doesn't know or use them. You can argue effectiveness all you want. Again it's the efficacy that I question. The reverse implication of saying "moving off of the X will keep you alive" is "not moving off of the X will get you killed". There is no data that supports that. No matter what anyone says.
 
Yes, but in that article Mr.Howe is warning against movement.
I think this is because his experience is military and not law enforcement/civilian.
Click to expand...

Howe said in that article: "In short, make yourself a hard target. Most of the friendly casualties I observed were shot when they failed to use cover, or stopped in the open and not moving. This is also how I engaged most of the enemy that I know I got solid hits on. They were stopped in the open."

Movement off the X - the kill zone - is meant to make oneself a difficult target...to 'not' get shot.
Most movement has the common purpose of seeking cover. Being shot at – with real bullets - is a great motivator to move yo ass and not stand and deliver.

I believe a good part of SD training should be move-draw-shoot.
Fast or slow, just move. Hit or miss, just shoot.
.
 
And a big hello to you, SNB.

Proactive or reactive, that is what it all comes down to.
Click to expand...

Exactly! You're either the ambusher or the ambushee. I've been both, and being the ambushee sucks.

A 'fair gunfight' is an oxymoron and High Noon was just a movie. :)

Move off the X....
.
 
And that statement just isn't supported by the data on civilian gunfights, period. What is supported is that the person who hits their targets first wins.
Click to expand...

You keep talking data, yet you show no data. Show me the damn data!
Reminds me of a professor who taught business, but had never been in business. Where's the credibility of his 'knowledge'. Hearsay? Must I have faith in his word?

A gunfight isn't a quick draw contest. Nor is it decided by who 'hits their target first'. Many, many people have been hit first and proceeded to eliminate the attacker. Me being one of them. But that's not my point.

My point is 'surviving' an attack and step one is to move out of the kill zone – to move off the X. A moving target is a hard to hit target.

The worst part of your inexperienced advice and 'booklearning' is that some average gun owner might be led to believe in 'stand and deliver' over moving out of the line of fire. That is a tragedy waiting to happen and that's on you.
.
 
Howe said in that article: "In short, make yourself a hard target. Most of the friendly casualties I observed were shot when they failed to use cover, or stopped in the open and not moving. This is also how I engaged most of the enemy that I know I got solid hits on. They were stopped in the open."
Click to expand...
This is fine for military engagements. It doesn't apply to civilian nor necessarily LE. The Force Science Institute has done several studies. One showed that in around 70% of the 400 cases studied (LE) cover was not available or the shooting happened so fast that seeking cover wasn't possible. Also conventional wisdom taught police officers to move to their left to avoid being hit while one of their studies showed that was moving into most likely direction an unskilled shooter would miss. So, just because it's mainstream doctrine doesn't mean it is correct.

Additionally, Military, Law Enforcement and Civilian shootings are three totally different situations, each having its own unique settting, requirements and solutions. If you don't accept that, you are ignoring reality.

You keep talking data, yet you show no data. Show me the damn data!
Reminds me of a professor who taught business, but had never been in business. Where's the credibility of his 'knowledge'. Hearsay? Must I have faith in his word?
Click to expand...
Go back and read all of my posts and you'll see where the data is or just wait 'til I publish the book. Why wouldn't you have faith in their word? Some of the big name "tactical trainers" have never been in a gunfight, yet everyone takes their word for it? One person's first hand knowledge doesn't mean anything in and of itself. It is a small snapshot. That is part of what started this. My personal experiences in armed confrontations and those of a few of my friends was so outside of what was taught, that I knew something wasn't right. Personal experience only gives you insight into a very small aspect of the entire phenomenon. Looking at several hundred or more allows you to see a better picture. Look at Mas Ayoob, he is one of the most well known experts in the field and rightly so.

Additionally, one person surviving gunfight is neither a gunfighter, nor a qualified expert. They are a survivor.


Nor is it decided by who 'hits their target first'.
Click to expand...
Well, actually in the 400+ cases I've compiled so far it is. At least 70 - 80% of the time anyway. It really is simple. Moving does not eliminate the threat. Shooting does. At typical civilian encounter ranges, moving does not make you harder to hit. Quite freqently, there is no place to move or no cover available. The other guy can't kill you if you kill him first (or take him out of the fight). That is really such a no-brainer that many trainers and experts either don't see it or ignore it. They need to have some new high speed low drag tactic to sell.

The worst part of your inexperienced advice and 'booklearning' is that some average gun owner might be led to believe in 'stand and deliver' over moving out of the line of fire. That is a tragedy waiting to happen and that's on you.
Click to expand...
Yeah and the thousands of students I've trained over the last 25 years have all died using my "booklearning".

The worst part of your inexperienced post is that you have the gaul to launch a personal attack without even reading the previous posts. Otherwise you would have known what my background is, where the data comes from, what my position is etc. You really should refrain from attacking the messenger when you can't attack the message. Makes you look like a Democrat.

I essence I guess your position is:
"I have survived a gunfight. Therefore I am an expert in gunfighting. Even though in the majority of civilian cases the person who hits the target first wins, that isn't what is important. In spite of the fact that most people don't move off of the X and still prevail, moving off of the X is the most important thing to do. While removing the threat is the only guaranteed way to survive, I advise you to move and not remove the threat. Don't worry about what other civilians have done that have survived, just listen to me, because I survived."
Is that correct?
 
Lurper,
We don't always agree on this stuff, but I do have to give you credit for making me look at things on a "deeper" level.
While I still don't 100% agree with your stance, IMO there are times for stand and deliver and there are times for seeking cover. Everything in between is a judgement call based on training and experience that can only be made by the individual in the engagement.
 
TY

IMO there are times for stand and deliver and there are times for seeking cover.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think I have been deliberately careful to not say it in absolute terms. There are no absolutes. I teach people to seek cover first in those situations which unfold slowly (burglaries for example). Again, I'm just pointing out what the data shows. I'm beginning to feel like the guy who pointed out the Emperor's New Clothes.
 
Lurper, I am going to have to say that you have come a very long way since I first started seeing you post. Please let me know when your book is coming out.....I would definitely buy that.

They need to have some new high speed low drag tactic to sell.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily accurate here. I am pushing the limits of dynamic movement about as far as they have ever been pushed. But I do not see it solely as a marketing strategy (even though I will admit that many students really want to learn it and have a very good time learning it) It is part of the fight continuum......that is simply a fact. It may not be at a percentage rate as high as stand and deliver, but it does have a significant percentage rate. As I have stated this is all dependent on on distance and your position in the reactionary curve. Every point inside of the movement continuum, that is inside of the fight continuum, has it's place. There is a best place for each. If you do not have "stand and deliver, "controlled movement", "dynamic movement" and "Get the heck out of Dodge movement" You do not have all of your bases covered.

I know that you focus on entry level CCW'ers, but that does not mean that that is all there is too it. I have no doubt that stand and deliver is the best place to start. Heck in my two day "dynamic movement focused" course, the first full day is spent on stand and deliver "see what you need to see" shooting.

There does seem to be some major misconceptions on your part IMHO. Movement does not make your first shot slower. You move and draw simultaneously. Combat accurate hits are not difficult at all with dynamic movement, as long as you have the training on how to make it happen.

No training = slower hits and difficult to do.

Quality training = fast and simple to do.

The bottom line is that the situation is the dictating factor. The most important factor inside of that situation is YOU! It is your experience, knowledge, and skill level that dictates the best response for you as an individual for any given situation. No one is in the position to tell anyone what is the best thing to do....except the individual themself.

I teach an inclusive approach that covers as much of the fight continuum as possible. It is an open minded, well rounded and completely versatile approach. The students and I push the envelope and explore the limitations. It is ultimately the students decision on what works best for them in any given circumstance.

"One size does not fit all!" This is the problem with the training of the recent past. "Do it my way or you are doing it wrong." is soon becoming a thing of the past. It is my opinion that the dogmatic training of the recent past is going to fall to the wayside. To only teach and to force fit disjointed techniques into a fluid, ever changing, completely situational confrontation does not cover the most effective and efficient response.
 
First point, moving off the X refers to the hit sight, usually meaning they planned to take you out at that point (usually a choke point for some reason). So they have the drop on you, they are drawn and either shooting or going to be very shortly. Most people are not going to be in this situation unless it is combat.

Everyone here has very good points. But remember it all comes down to situation. I really don't know a single civilian or military person that won't have some sort of movement when a gun is fired, especially if you realized that gun that fired was at you. I don't know how many people have ever been shot at or how many have ever had to pull and shoot at someone. But I know from experience everyone moves at the sight of a gun. I will state if you aren't moving you probably won't live through it. Most times the bad guy has the drop on you. Move, pull/evaluate, engage/run. This is the most common thing I have ever been trained no matter where I have been.
 
So they have the drop on you, they are drawn and either shooting or going to be very shortly. Most people are not going to be in this situation unless it is combat.
Click to expand...

Aren't victims often ambushed in just this manner?
 
But I know from experience everyone moves at the sight of a gun.
I will state if you aren't moving you probably won't live through it. Most times the bad guy has the drop on you.
Move, pull/evaluate, engage/run.
This is the most common thing I have ever been trained no matter where I have been.
Click to expand...

Amen!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top