Moving off the X

lateral movement

This has been a pretty good discussion -- the following points particularly struck me as important:

"everything is situationally dependant on any number of things" --Crucible
-------------------------------------------------------------
"comparing military and LE confrontations (to self-defense situation involving a citizen) is comparing apples to oranges" --Lurper
------------------------------------------------------------
"practicing for any situation is a good idea" -- Matt Temkin
------------------------------------------------------------
"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. "--Roger Phillips

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"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." --Lurper
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I've recently attended training with John Farnam & Louis Awerbuck. Both taught to move laterally while drawing, and then to stop (or nearly stop) movement while engaging the target. I think that idea still has lots of merit, depending upon situation, but there are lots of times when lateral movement may not be possible. What happens when you're on a stairway or in a hallway? Or if you're confronted at night in an icy parking lot -- rapid movement may cause you to fall.

There is no one answer that fits all situations. It's always good to evaluate the rationale behind the options, to see what fits in a given situation, and what does not.
 
Jeff22,
What happens when you're on a stairway or in a hallway? Or if you're confronted at night in an icy parking lot -- rapid movement may cause you to fall.
Click to expand...

The above are, indeed, dire and compromising situations. But, there is an answer:

* Pay attention. Gun in hand if suspicious.

* Even if ambushed - always move! Bob and weave, roll if down. Don't freeze!

* Move laterally as much as possible. There is 'still' room to move if even only a step or two.

* Draw as you crouch-blade–shoot. Hit or miss, just shoot.

Try it, train it.
It's still better than remaining a wide unmoving target.
.
 
One additional benefit to the "move" mindset; & the value of patience

If you train to move off the line of attack, it can benefit you in unexpected ways.

Got caught in the middle of a horse fight today... nothing serious, just two large (1500# plus) Holsteiner geldings trying to decide who's boss. Only problem was, I was affixing a halter to one, when the other kicked him.

Good thing I do a lot of pull-ups, or I think my arm might have been dislocated when the one I was holding reared up and wheeled toward the aggressor, with my hand still stuck in the halter...

Anyway, the aggressor then slammed by me and through the open gate (I was preparing to take them, one by one, to the barn...). So I locked up the one that now had a halter on, and took off after the troublemaker.

Well, he decided to turn around and run right at me. I'll tell you what, I now know why they say infantry had a hard time standing up to a cavalry charge... I wanted to catch the horse, and so I initially moved to block his path, halter and lead line in hand, figuring I could will him down.

I figured wrong. Let's just say that 1500# of hooves at the gallop make a real impression, especially when the li'l #*&$ decides to lower his head and aim right at you. The flash of light on horseshoes really draws the eye's focus.

So here's where training to move came in handy. Because I trained at this for years (aikido), I was able to advance on a 45 degree angle and execute a matador style pivot out of the way(tenkan). I think if I hadn't had years of practice at this, I might have frozen there and been seriously hurt, but I was able to stay in relatively fluid motion, and I'll tell you, it was in spite of being more than a little bit stressed.

Here is where patience enters the equation. Eventually, the #*&$ ran into one of the paddocks on property, where I was able to lock a gate on him. Then, I just let him snort and challenge the stallion across the way, and run around like an idiot until he tired himself out. He was much easier to deal with, a while later, when he was lathered up and wound down.

This post may not be directly firearms related, the point is that training a muscle response of movement, and using awareness and patience have broader application to potential threat situations that do not involve firearms.
 
I'm coming in late to this thread, but I noticed this while skimming it over:

Lurper said:
So, I figured what better source is there than looking at civilian shootings in which the victim prevailed?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that only give half the picture? What about incidents where the victim lost? Staying on topic for the thread... if 100 people survived by standing their ground and shooting without moving, the meaning of that would be impossible to judge without knowing how many people didn't survive while doing the same.
 
Wouldn't that only give half the picture?
Click to expand...
No, the question is; What do shootings where the good guy prevailed have in common? So, what happens when they lost isn't part of the question. But I can tell you this; The results would be the same. The person who scored the first solid hit wins. Additionally, you cannot claim that someone lost because they didn't move. There is no way to support that contention. They lost because they suffered a hit to a vital area (and usually are the first one hit). Moving does not stop that. In fact what some fail to acknowledge is that you are just as likely to move into the line of fire as out of it. Anyone who contends that moving is more important than hitting the target is basing their conclusions on pure speculation, not fact.

It really isn't a question of move or not. Some other posters have tried to make it that, but it really isn't. It is a question of the single most important factor in determining who prevails in a gunfight. That is hitting the target first, hands down by a large margin.

Also, in spite of what anyone claims, there is no proof of the efficacy of moving. Certainly no justifcation for sacrificing hits for movement. Movement is what it is, but there is a difference between those who move due to tactics or training and those who move otherwise and a huge difference between those and the idea that moving is more important than hitting the target first.
 
No, the question is; What do shootings where the good guy prevailed have in common?
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't see the point to knowing the answer to that question without knowing how they differ from shootings where the good guy lost. Sorry.
 
if 100 people survived by standing their ground and shooting without moving, the meaning of that would be impossible to judge without knowing how many people didn't survive while doing the same.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Without both sides of the issue there can be no answer. There's just no scientific data on the subject of moving off the X or standing still....merely anecdotes.

The first priority is to survive and the best bet for surviving is to move out of the line of force. If the victim in the video below didn't move he probably would have died, yet he survived. He moved.

http://www.wnbc.com/video/2600663/index.html

So, what to do in a showdown?
Follow one's instincts - follow the advice of the majority of legitimate trainers - and follow the advice of those who've been there and done that. Don't stay in the kill zone - move off the X.

Below is a demo of move/draw/shoot: Pity that stationary target that chose 'not' to move.
(Two to the body and two to the head in under two seconds.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6Yb8NehQc
.
 
First of all there is a big difference between being unarmed and attacked and armed and attacked. Clearly the video is irrelevant. Personally, I would have charged the attacker, rather than hide behind a tree. Removing the threat is the only sure way to ensure your safety. Despite what you want to claim Sky, the argument was never move or not move and despite what you say, there is more than anecdotal evidence that shows that the most important factor in determining who wins a gunfight is who scores the first hit. That's fact, not anecdote.

Secondly, even in Evan's fine video if he was hit first, he would be far less likely to survive. At the distance his video is shot, a person skilled at pistolcraft would be able to score a hit in well under 1 second. If they already had their gun in hand, it would be far quicker. This is where the logic of your argument falls flat on its face. Your argument assumes that the good guy is going to hit in spite of the fact that he is moving and that the bad guy is not going to hit because of it. Neither is true. It has more to do with skill and luck than movement. The fact remains that if you can't hit your target, the chances of survival drop dramatically.

Here is the fact:
In more than 70% of the 400 cases I have looked at, the person who hits first prevails. Regardless of anything else. That is fact. Additionally, tactics are used in less than 10% of the cases and played no role in the outcome to any greater degree than hitting the target first did (if they played any role at all). Those are facts, they are indisutable.

Looking at what happens in gunfights where the good guy lost is totally irrelevant. Yet, I'm sure it would support the same conclusion. The bad guy won because he hit his target first. You can't surmise what works from looking at what doesn't work. It would be like taking a poll to see how many republicans are going to vote for McCain but including the results from democrats and independents. The latter two bear no relation to the survey question, therefore the data is irrelevant.

Since I have trained civilians, LE and military (over 25 years) and have BTDT more than once, I have to surmise that you use the term "legitimate" to mean those whose philosphy you believe. While classifying anyone who doesn't tow the party line as illegitimate. I put the challenge out before: show me proof that moving is more important than hitting the target. Yet you can't. Instead you choose to obfuscate the issue by trying to say I take a position that I don't and trying to attack my credibility. It's really sad that you have no other way to try to make your point. BTW, this is what I do for a living, what do you do?
 
Response to Lurper

While I accept your proposition that the first to hit will generally win, that still leaves me with another question about your research:

How strong is the correlation between first to hit, and first to fire?

IE, I can get the first hit by shooting first, and hitting, or by making my opponent miss his first shot, and then scoring my hit. Either way results in a first hit for me.

Cheers,

M
 
I can get the first hit by shooting first, and hitting, or by making my opponent miss his first shot, and then scoring my hit. Either way results in a first hit for me.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! That is why I don't say that the person who shoots first wins. That is also why my position has never been move or don't move. My position has always been hit your target first and often.

How strong is the correlation between first to hit, and first to fire?
Click to expand...
I haven't crunched those numbers yet, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd say in the 60% range. Those who fire first hit first. As I said before, another thing that sticks out is the number of times that multiple assailants flee once the shooting starts. This is another problem IMO with a lot of what people base their tactical assumptions on. The assumption seems to be that the badguy is going to hit first, that he is going to continue the fight, that if there are multiple assailants they are all going to engage you rather than flee and that they are all going to hit what they shoot at. None of which are valid assumptions. This is what I pointed out earlier as a shortcoming. Many times, the assailant(s) flees when shots are fired, hit or not. Many times, the flee after one hit (fatal or not). Additionally, many times armed assailants flee without firing a shot (even though they are armed) once the shooting starts.
 
What I would suspect...

... is that known assailants are much more likely to continue the fight.

IE, the random mugger will probably retreat when gunfire starts, but your girlfriend's psycho ex will stay in the fight for the duration. The more personal the reason for the confrontation, the higher the adrenaline rate, etc.

Just out of curiousity, Lurper, did you notice any such correlation in your data?
 
Your are completely correct in the first solid hit wins. I say as long as you live then you win. So how many of those people that landed that first solid shot moved how many didn't. I am not saying movement is the key to winning, I am saying it is good thing to use. How many of them were shot at first but the BG missed.
 
Looking at what happens in gunfights where the good guy lost is totally irrelevant. Yet, I'm sure it would support the same conclusion. The bad guy won because he hit his target first. You can't surmise what works from looking at what doesn't work.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree then.
 
BTW, this is what I do for a living, what do you do?
Click to expand...

As a renowned researcher, I would have expected you to at least check my public profile here. It says what I do for a living. lol

I'm very proud of having spent nineteen months in true combat, numerous firefights and large scale battles in the highlands of vietnam. Hill 875 in particular where I was wounded (shot) in the right arm, liver and lung resulting in a 10% forearm disability.
Flying bullets prove that if you don't move, if you freeze – you can die. Simple as that.

I don't give much credence to amateur, untested gunfighter opinions. Especially from those who've never been shot at nor fired a shot with bad intentions, other than at a pesky target. I usually just shine them on. No point in arguing with the 'experts'.

Following my service I spent a decade in plain clothes for Cook County in the gang unit dealing with the Blackstone Rangers/El Rukns, the Disciples, the Outlaws mc, etc. Worked the whole county and Chicago.

I was a white guy getting shot at from...and in...Cabrini Green and the Robert Taylor Homes, et al. I have buku experience in getting shot at by determined trash. I learned a lot from my mistakes and the mistakes of others and I try to pass it on.

And don't tell me about shooting is apples and oranges. I worked in plain clothes on the south and west sides of Chicago, in black gang areas, mc clubs....been shot at in the car, in stairwells and from high up in Cabrini Green, from gangways/alleys, from NVA bunkers and bamboo, up close and far....and on and on.

Anyway, once I wised up I became a general contractor/builder where I made a great living....and still do.

So there you are; my short bio.
My advice to you; Learn to move off the X - out of the kill zone or risk a quick demise in a real deal.
.
 
Trial lawyers' truism

Be careful about asking a question to which you don't know the answer...

Cheers,

M

PS No I'm not a lawyer, thankyouverymuch...
 
As a renowned researcher, I would have expected you to at least check my public profile here.
Click to expand...
Your words, not mine. I was a renowned shooter, not researcher.

While everyone should be proud of their service (myself included), it bears no relevance to the topic. You refuse to accept that because it doesn't support your argument. Military and LE confrontations are totally different. I've cited the differences several times, so I won't again.

Your experience in gunfights is no more valid than mine. The fact that we survived makes us survivors, not experts. Knowledge makes one an expert, not experience by itself.

You have every right to disagree and try to disprove my contention, yet instead you choose to attack me personally. As I said, it's sad that you have to resort to that.
 
You have every right to disagree and try to disprove my contention
Click to expand...

Why should any responder have to "disprove" your assertion? It would seem that you must prove your assertion... and not the other way around.

If you stick to the notion that whoever shoots the other guy first wins most of the time, I highly doubt you'd get much argument from anyone on this thread.

When you make statements like...

It's far more important to hit your target than it is to move off of the X.
Click to expand...

and

It's also better to shoot then move than it is to try to shoot while moving.
Click to expand...

you are reaching for a conclusion without the supporting facts in evidence. I think one of the other posters made an excellent point in that there could be several other reasonable explanations that the winner got the first hit... other than just going stand and deliver on the other guy.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!
 
Looking at what happens in gunfights where the good guy lost is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I think you are underestimating or failing to recognize the importance of such information. If there is a common factor to winning shootings that is also a common factor to losing shotings all we have is a factor common to shootings. It's like distance. Most LE that lose a gunfight are closer than 10' to the perp. However, most LE that win a gunfight are closer than 10' to the perp. So what we learn is not that close distance factors into the gunfight, but that most gunfights occur within a close distance.

Having said that, here is my soapbox rant for the day: Folks, if you don't like what Lurper (or anybody else) has to say about their findings, for Pete's sake go out and do some research of your own instead of questioning the poster for his data and sources and such. That is the better way. Challenging design and methodology might be appropriate (and frequently it is flawed) but if you are unwilling to spend some time looking things up and verifying them don't expect anybody else to do it for you. Rant mode off.

While everyone should be proud of their service (myself included), it bears no relevance to the topic.
Click to expand...
While LE, military, and civvy roles certainly differ, I fail to see that making a difference in the movement factor for close-range shooting. Unless you are contending that the shoot/movement framework changes the chances of winning based on the fact that you are LE, military, or civvy I'm not sure I'm following you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top