Moving off the X

Aren't victims often ambushed in just this manner?
Click to expand...
That depends on how you define "ambushed". In the loose sense, most are ambushed in that they are not expecting a gunfight. On the other hand, most of the incidents that take place in the home (and a good portion at work) unfold slowly enough that the "victim" has already reached condition orange.

. . . everyone moves at the sight of a gun. I will state if you aren't moving you probably won't live through it.
Click to expand...
Again, the data doesn't support either statement. Also, moving when you see a gun is different than moving off of the X. One is a reaction to the situation, the other is an action based on a doctrine in which you have been trained. Big difference - especially in the context of this thread.

As is typically the case, as soon as one source comes to a conclusion, others soon follow. Here is a quote from an article just written by Dave Spaulding:

The history of gun fighting for more than a century has shown that the person that lands the first solid hit will usually win the confrontation.
Click to expand...
Expect to see more as more people begin to question the efficacy of some of the doctrines forwarded by industry "experts".
 
Lurper, Thanks for all your posts in this thread. They've been very helpful in addressing my initial question. I have another question for you though...It seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your point is that if you move off the X, your first shot speed will be slower than if you just remained planted and drew and fired. I agree with what you've said and what the shooting data seems to indicate; that the first to fire is usually going to be the victor. If its possible to move and not loose time on the initial shot, nor loose accuracy causing a miss, wouldn't it be benificial to move off the X, though?

In my experience with a shot timer, I'm equally as fast drawing and shooting from a stationary platform as I am from moving and shooting, at least within 5 yards or so.
Heres a short clip of me shooting while moving to my strong side (2 shots to the body, 2 shots to the head):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6Yb8NehQc


If I had to shoot from 10 yards and out, I would probably plant and shoot so as not to miss any of my shots.
 
. . . your point is that if you move off the X, your first shot speed will be slower than if you just remained planted and drew and fired.
Click to expand...
Actually, my point is this: in spite of what many of the trainers say or train, there is no evidence that moving off of the X does anything to increase the likeliehood that you will prevail in a gunfight. There is however much evidence that shows the person who hits first usually prevails.

If you can use the time it takes for you to draw to move, then move. But don't use the time you should be shooting for moving. That is the first problem with movement. The second is that IMO (keeping in mind my background), shooting while moving costs you accuracy. I can shoot better than most people (on the move or otherwise) and I still would choose to plant and shoot. The trade off of time for making yourself harder to hit isn't worth it. Primarily because at typical distances the amount of time you can move within the space allowed does not really make you harder to hit.

Finally, keep in mind that part of the reason for the research is to develop a training method/doctrine that is useful for the majority of CCW holders. The crowd that pays for all of the fancy training is a small minority of not just CCW'ers, but the shooting community as a whole. The typical person involved in an armed confrontation has little or no training and uses no tactics, yet survives. So if there is one thing to make people understand it is: "hitting the target quickly is the single most important skill to develop." Note that I didn't say the "only" skill to develop.
 
In my experience with a shot timer, I'm equally as fast drawing and shooting from a stationary platform as I am from moving and shooting, at least within 5 yards or so.
Click to expand...

Good job evan. Outstanding demonstration!

Since there is no legitimate data that supports 'not' moving....I say use your common sense and your inborn reactions to an attack – move. The average attacker is untrained and will find a moving, shooting target much harder to hit.

Your video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6Yb8NehQc clearly shows the advantages of moving off the X.
(a picture is worth a thousand words)

You move off the X and shoot the 'stand and deliver', stationary target in two seconds or less. (2 shots to the body, 2 shots to the head)
I wouldn't want to be that stationary target.

Even if you were shot through the heart you would still be very able to kill the 'stand and deliver', stationary target.
.
 
2 seconds is too long:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzuRXy_Kij8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQKr2AkKDU

Moving introduces a whole additional set of variables. Is the way clear? How many feet of unobstructed movement do you have? Have you practiced it enough that you don't need to think about it? If you move, will you trip? Run into some heretofore unseen object? Again, proponents of moving ignore some very important and real issues: it is not without risk, it adversely effects hit probability (which is the most important factor), no proof that it has any correlation to survivability (just like there is no proof that not moving is more likely to get you killed). Many continued to hold the belief that the world was flat for a long time after Columbus' journey. Doesn't change the facts.

Anything that requires thought is detrimental in the time aspect. Whatever your response is, it should be second nature. You don't want to try to formulate a plan while locked in mortal combat. You need to know ahead of time what your response will be.

Much of what has become the "new doctrine" is based on fallacious interpretation or downright desire to create a need for the trainers to fill.
The "Tueller Drill" is a perfect example. Many trainers cite it as proof of many different things. In fact many have never read Tueller's article. If they had, they would understand that the main point Tueller was trying to make was that officers should have their weapon in their hand at the first sign of trouble. Not that a knife is a lethal threat at 21 feet, nor that you need to hit the target twice at that distance in 1.5 seconds. The same applies to civilians, have your weapon in your hand at the first inkling of trouble.
 
Would you still have those times from a real world holster and drawn from concealment?
Click to expand...

Or without the countless hours working to reach a Master level shooter.

One is a reaction to the situation, the other is an action based on a doctrine in which you have been trained. Big difference - especially in the context of this thread.
Click to expand...


I totally disagree with this. You are either going to need to move or you are not going to need to move. Training for both "situations" is the only way to go. If not.....it is dogma! When the action is fast and you are behind in the reactionary curve, you will be working at the subconscious level. If your subconscious mind chooses to move, then you will be moving. If you have not trained to shoot on the move then you are not prepared for the situation that has arisen.

It is not either/or.......it is both.
 
I totally disagree with this. You are either going to need to move or you are not going to need to move. Training for both "situations" is the only way to go. If not.....it is dogma! When the action is fast and you are behind in the reactionary curve, you will be working at the subconscious level. If your subconscious mind chooses to move, then you will be moving. If you have not trained to shoot on the move then you are not prepared for the situation that has arisen.

It is not either/or.......it is both.
Click to expand...
Not in the context of this discussion. One is an almost involuntary reaction, while the other is a premeditated action. Again, the argument isn't whether you will move or not, it is whether movement is beneficial or not. One thing I hadn't mentioned yet is that there is no guarantee that moving off of the X will move you out of the line of fire. The odds are just as likely that you will move into the line of fire. Some departments used to teach their officers to move to their left when facing an armed right handed opponent. Ron Avery's study showed that most unskilled right handed shooters would miss to their right. So, the doctrine had the effect of moving the officers into the most likely area where an unskilled shooter would miss.


Would you still have those times from a real world holster and drawn from concealment?
Click to expand...
That isn't a very fast holster - not a speed rig. It is IDPA legal.
From a duty holster, yes. From my concealed holster, add about .2. Those draws are not particularly fast. They are in the .9-.95 range. The Mozambique was 1.29, do the math. When I do videos, I do them at a pace where I can consistently perform for the camera.
More important is the time between shots. Very few civilians actually "draw" their guns. They either have them in their hands, under a counter, next to the seat, etc.. Tueller's advice is sage: have your gun in your hand at the first inkling of trouble. That's why - contrary to what some claim - I'm not saying it is a quick draw contest. More often than not, draw (like movement) is not a factor. What is the primary factor overwhelmingly is he who hits first wins. This is really such a no-brainer that I am astounded that people dispute it.
 
lateral movement

ATERAL MOVEMENT
From John Farnam www.defense-training.com

John Farnam of Defense Training International teaches lateral movement as a suggested component of the drawstroke.

"Lateral movement is done at the same time that the draw is executed. That is, both actions are performed simultaneously. We routinely do this now with pistols, rifles, and shotguns. The shooter pauses only long enough to fire several times (at least two and not more than four rounds) and then moves again. Movement is hopefully in the direction of cover, but movement, by itself, greatly enhances survivability.

I am not too dogmatic in regard to the particular direction of the lateral move, although one could argue for an automatic left movement, since most right-handed adversaries will miss low and left. I have students move in both directions, since obstacles may prevent movement in one direction or another."

From Skip Gochenour of the American Tactical Shooting Association, the group that hosts the National Tactical Invitational: (www.teddytactical.com)

"We have demonstrated in repeated studies that, even at six feet and less, a quick side step will cause the bad guy's first shot to miss about 75% of the time. There is also a time interval of almost a second until his next shot. The attacker must discover what happened and reorient himself.

Immediate side movement is much more likely to save your life than is a lightning draw without lateral movement. The most that a lightning fast draw gives you is a tie. Each of you shoots the other at about the same time.

Lateral movement gives you time: time for you to deliver accurate fire and time for your pistol rounds to take effect. In the meantime, the probability that you are shot is substantially reduced."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LATERAL MOVEMENT (continued)
From a post by John Farnam 11-14-2000 www.defense-training.com

Cover and movement. This from a friend who is a training officer in a large PD. This department had just completed exhaustive Simunitions/Force-on-Force drills.

"When a threat presents itself suddenly, such as when a suspect unexpectedly produces a weapon from concealment, turning and running to cover usually produces poor results, particularly when an officer is in the open. The officer is customarily shot as he runs and is unable to effectively return fire, even when he finally gets his sidearm drawn.

A far more effective strategy, but one that requires a great deal of training and personal courage, is aggressive, lateral movement combined with a simultaneous draw of the sidearm. The officer lurches laterally, getting off the line of force, as his sidearm is being drawn. As soon as the pistol is at eye level, the officer stops suddenly and immediately fires a number of rounds in rapid succession from a stationary position. He then immediately moves laterally again and repeats the maneuver.

This aggressive, lateral movement, combined with an aggressive burst of fire from a stationary position is the one tactic that the guys playing the role of felons found most difficult to deal with. They indicated that they would stalk the officer and make a plan to shoot him, usually waiting until he was in the open and far from cover.

When they produced their weapon, the officer suddenly moved laterally, and their first shot invariably went where the officer had been an instant before. By the time they pointed their weapon at the officer in his new position, they were so savagely pummeled with Simunitions that they could not fire accurately or, in many cases, at all.

We now teach our guys that, when they are in the open, aggressive movement, combined with aggressive, accurate gunfire, is their best ally"
 
From an aikido standpoint

When dealing with punches, kicks, grabs, training knives and training sword attacks, getting off the line of attack is one of the first things executed. Usually, this is done simultaneously laterally and forward, closing distance, getting off line of attack, and moving to the flank.

Since physical attacks require movement on the attacker's part, the attacker has to be able to quickly shift direction and still keep on balance in order to complete a strike.

It's not hard to make somebody miss completely, or, failing that, end up landing only a glancing strike (although even a glance with a blade can be bad).

Obviously, less physical movement is required for an attacker to fire a weapon. Odds are much less that his balance will be taken when he moves to track the defender's motion. However, it would make sense that if you can make somebody miss a punch via movement, that you should reduce their odds of a hit with a gun.

Next point I'd like to make here is that not all attackers will use a gun. Against somebody using a knife, baseball bat, bottle, etc, movement is definitely better than non-movement, assuming you don't already have your weapon in hand.

Last point is that while it is a very good idea to have weapon in hand at first hint of a threat, it's entirely possible that the first hint will be when the bad guy makes his approach from rear or flank. There may be no warning. I'd rather train to where my first instinct when something moves on me from behind is to move off the X, because if I don't train that way, the odds of effectively freezing go up when startled.
 
So much of what Farnam and Gochenaur contend just isn't supported by fact. You will notice though that both advocate stopping and shooting. As I have said repeatedly movement if it doesn't cost you shooting time may be beneficial.

since most right-handed adversaries will miss low and left.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the opposite of what other studies have shown.

The most that a lightning fast draw gives you is a tie. Each of you shoots the other at about the same time.
Click to expand...
Again contrary to the evidence, but also moot. It's not who shoots first that matters, it's who hits first.

Lateral movement gives you time: time for you to deliver accurate fire and time for your pistol rounds to take effect. In the meantime, the probability that you are shot is substantially reduced."
Click to expand...
Wholly unsuported by real civilian gunfight data. This is the problem with FOF and sims. Unless the environment is strictly monitored, you can't get a realistic result. You cannot predict nor simulate the effect being hit has on an attacker. Additionally, the player's mindset is to get the other guy. In civilan confrontations, this is usually not the case. The vast majority of civilian encounters do not result in death. That means the assailant usually stops the fight and flees or surrenders when shots are fired. This is a point that cannot be overlooked. A lot of doctrine is based on bad or false theses. The assumption that the assailant must be killed to stop the fight for example.
Another assumption seems to be that the assailant is going to hit you with his first shot and that shot is going to kill you. Once more, there is no evidence that moving plays a factor in determining the outcome of a gunfight.

This is so much arguing fact with theory. The facts from real gunfights where the good guy prevailed -vs- our theories have shown . . . or our simulations show that . . . .
Just like Global Warming, based on simulations and theory, not supported by actual data, yet said long enough and loud enough becomes accepted fact.
 
Question for Lurper

In your research, how many cases did the survivors/victors actually positively state they did not move? How many cases was it not mentioned in definitive terms?

Questions aren't always asked, so data isn't always available. Not impugning your data, just wondering if all respondents were positively asked if they initiated any defensive movement.
 
What is the primary factor overwhelmingly is he who hits first wins. This is really such a no-brainer that I am astounded that people dispute it.
Click to expand...
I dont think anyone is disputing that hitting first is the best thing. Some just want to get out of the way as they do it.
 
Here ya go. This shows it all. To me it's a no-brainer.
Make up your own minds as to - what to do when confronted with death.

Below: evan demonstrating the 'move off the X':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6Yb8NehQc

Below: Lurper demonstrating the 'stand and deliver':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQKr2AkKDU

Evan's move off the X - while shooting - shows a shooter bladed to the threat.....effectively reducing his overall size by about half 'and' covering part of the shooter's left side with the arm. Makes sense to me.
Obviously, a smaller moving target is harder to mortally hit than a stationary, stand and deliver target. Especially for an untrained shooter.

In comparison, stand and deliver provides a non-moving, double wide target.

But then, I've known this stuff for over forty years. :)
.
 
In your research, how many cases did the survivors/victors actually positively state they did not move? How many cases was it not mentioned in definitive terms?
Click to expand...
Excellent question. But the point is also moot. I am not nor have I ever contended that people don't (or even shouldn't move). What I have said repeatedly is that in the vast majority of cases, the person who hits their target first prevails. Therefore, the ability to hit the target qucikly is the single most important skill to develop. Additionally, if movement burns up time that you should be shooting, don't move. Hell, if you can pick your nose before you shoot and it doesn't use up any shooting time, pick away! But if it uses up even a couple of tenths of a second in which you should be shooting, it's not worth it.


This is why it is necessary to make a distinction between those who move due to fear or reaction and those who move because they are trained to.



This really isn't a new idea. People as far back as Fairbairn and farther have been pointing it out. Gunfighting hasn't changed. Tactics have, but gunfighting hasn't. As long as we use firearms, it probably won't. Hitting your target first will continue to be the biggest factor in determining who wins.
 
Would someone please explain to me why it is so damn taboo on this forum to recommend getting quality training! Common sense my butt! I have trained with, against and gone into combat with people with the best training and outstanding common sense. On the whole, excellent training beats out common sense.
The "common sense solves all" crowd always uses this excuse b/c:
1) No one is going to tell them anything about tactics, techniques, and procedures. Common sense, through the miracle of ESP, should tell you that.
2) There are actually people out there who do this for a living, and gulp, are BETTER THAN YOU.
3) It may sound too tactcal, and therefore controlled by .gov and its nefarious agents.

What the hell is so common about getting shot at? Unless you train for the worst, and have tested your abilities, you're really just kidding yourself about what you can and will do.
 
force on force scenarios

Quote from Lurper: "This is the problem with FOF and sims. Unless the environment is strictly monitored, you can't get a realistic result. You cannot predict nor simulate the effect being hit has on an attacker. Additionally, the player's mindset is to get the other guy. In civilan confrontations, this is usually not the case. The vast majority of civilian encounters do not result in death. That means the assailant usually stops the fight and flees or surrenders when shots are fired. This is a point that cannot be overlooked. A lot of doctrine is based on bad or false theses. The assumption that the assailant must be killed to stop the fight for example."

Proper exercise design is critical in order for any conclusions that you reach in such training to be potentially valid. It's easy to overthink scenarios, to make them unrealisticaly complicated, or to design scenarios so that they reinforce your pre-conceived notions.

(We just did some training earlier this evening on high risk vehicle stops with a couple of new officers still in field training. One of the supervisors involved did not stick to the script and added her own "improvements" that detracted from the value of the exercise. This has happened before, and I've made an issue of it before, without any change resulting.)

The issue of lateral movement is like a lot of other tactical issues -- very few things are always/never propositions. You have to evaluate different theories and determine for yourself what makes sense and what does not, within the context of your situation, and then test out your conclusions in training.

Oftentimes there are multiple valid methods to solve any given tactical problem -- circumstance may dictate the "best" solution for that particular incident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top