Moving off the X

[MLeake]

Doing own research

David Armstrong makes a valid point, that it would be potentially more valuable (and possibly more ethical, though I don't want to put words in DA's mouth) to do individual research instead of asking questions of the researcher (Lurper, in this case).

However, with all due respect, in some cases that would be very difficult. Theoretically, an established researcher has contacts established, case studies identified, and a core body of work to which to refer. Ideally, an established researcher also has knowledge of proper methodology, statistics, etc...

This isn't true of most of us.

I don't want to put words in Lurper's mouth, either, but from interacting with him in this forum, I don't think he objects to being asked questions about his data or his methodology, so long as people are respectful in the way they ask.

Personally, I think that somebody who has done their research, and is preparing a dissertation, benefits from being asked questions. It helps them fine tune their work, and hammer out any possible weaknesses in their case.

Cheers,

M

 

[Koz]

Playing Call of Duty 4 has shown me that getting off the X is very important

 

[Skyguy]

Read this excerpt from some writings by Gabe Suarez. He is in tune with most of the modern day self defense instructors with the following information:

"The first drill we run in our gunfight class is one where guys face each other at 4 yards and they try a shot against each other under equal initiative as well as unequal initiative. End result...both guys get shot.

There are those in the training industry that dislike our use of force on force and gunfight simulations. They say that "force on force" is not real. Quite true...we never said it was real. But it is the best alternative available today to the common man without going out and getting into gunfights. Still, how much convincing does someone need? I recall a couple of years ago, several instructors set up a drill. The commands were simple as each man was given a simmunitions gun. "When I say GO, the man in front of you has a gun and is trying to kill you".
The guys who stood their ground and tried to out draw the other man, ended up getting shot at the same time they fired their pistols. Mutual suicide.
The guys who moved sharply off the adversary's line of fire were generally able to evade the first shot. (I say generally as there are no guarantees in the gunfight).

In FOF they were eventually shot as the bad guy was able to recover and move through the OODA loop, but the fact that they were able to evade the first shot is telling. They were also able to hit the other man and it is the timing of that event that contained the greatest lesson. If the good guy is able to evade the first shot and counter, there may not be a second shot coming from the bad guy at all.
Getting off the line of fire is not an end in itself, it is a means to get inside the bad guy's decision and action cycle. What getting off the X does is reset his OODA loop back to Observe.

Now you can certainly do this with other means such as throwing something in his face, or even looking over his shoulder, but what moving also does is get you clear of his gun muzzle which the other distractions do not. Moving off the X as you draw and fire helps your survivability. This makes eminently more sense to me than working on perfecting your weaver stance!

Still, there is resistance.
I think much of it comes from the inability of some instructors to successfully teach getting off the X. Some guys have been planted on the range for so long that even a lateral side step on the draw looks like stolen alien technology to them. Couple that with the over-reliance on the tool and the prevalence of portliness in the shooting community and you end up with feet planted in a weave-a-soceles shooting group again.

Guys who move off the X generally have the ability to evade their adversary's gun muzzle and shot, while placing three to four shots on the bad guy before the bad guy is able to catch up." – by G. Suarez

Check out the following videos and picture yourself in a confrontation. Which gunfight method makes more sense?

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 his left side with his arm.
A smaller moving target is harder to mortally hit than a stationary, stand and deliver target, especially for an untrained shooter.

In comparison, a stand and deliver guy becomes an easy, non-moving, double wide target.
.

 

[Allstar]

thanks Skyguy that was a great post to what we have all been saying.

 

[Lurper]

Again, you can obsfucate the issue all you want with posts and videos, but the indesputable fact remains: the most important factor in winning is hitting the target first.
The attempts to twist my position into a move -v- don't move argument is clearly just an attempt to prove through repetition what you cannot through fact.
It doesn't matter who moves, or who does not. It is who hits the target first, period. So if you move off of the X and you can't hit the target, all the movement in the world won't save you if your opponent can. If you don't move, the same applies. If you don't move and hit the target first, your chances of survival are exponentially increased. If you are hit first, the ratio is inverted. It's that simple.

 

[Erik]

Bearing in mind that I agree that hitting first is important, even paramount, I disagree that it is all that is necessary and that movement does not matter.

I look forward to your efforts, by the way.

 

[Lurper]

E
I feel like I need to restate that I am not saying it is the only thing. Just the most important thing. Nor am I arguing move -v- don't move. What I am saying is that there is no evidence to suggest that anything else plays as big a role as hitting first. What I have issue with vis-a-vis movement is the implication that somehow it is more important than scoring the first hit or that it somehow guarantees survival. Neither is true.

 

[David Armstrong]

However, with all due respect, in some cases that would be very difficult. Theoretically, an established researcher has contacts established, case studies identified, and a core body of work to which to refer. Ideally, an established researcher also has knowledge of proper methodology, statistics, etc...
This isn't true of most of us.

True, but I think that actually reinforces my point. Someone who has researched the field has studied all these different things, maybe looked at dozens or hundreds of pieces of data, and so on. Now someone comes along and says "oh yeah--show me the data/evidence/proof!" Not only will few researchers post those hundreds of bits of data, most forums don't want it. Equally important, the person usually asking for the data will not believe it, in my experience, and will just ask more questions and ask for more proof. If, on the other hand, they will go and do some research themselves, even of a less-than-professional quality, then they can see for themselves what the data is and discuss the facts from a position of knowledge.

Personally, I think that somebody who has done their research, and is preparing a dissertation, benefits from being asked questions.

Agreed, but on an internet forum asking for the data is a bit out of line, IMO. Questions about what the data show, or how one comes to the conclusions is appropriate, but unless one is accusing the other person of making up the data or lying demanding the source material itself is a bit overboard. My $.02.

 

[Charles S]

True, but I think that actually reinforces my point. Someone who has researched the field has studied all these different things, maybe looked at dozens or hundreds of pieces of data, and so on....

As a trained researcher I am sure you realize that after looking at dozens or hundreds of pieces of data without a true analysis the data provided is still anecdotal evidence. While certain professions have chosen to ignore it...there are a number of methods for taking a number of studies (even case studies) and combining the evidence for statistical analysis...

Agreed, but on an internet forum asking for the data is a bit out of line, IMO.

Obviously...we should all believe what we read on the internet. I know I personally believe everything I read....

Without data to back it your word...IMHO that data is worth what I paid for it.

It you are a an expert like Gabe, Ayoob etc I am more willing to believe your assertions....If I don't have a clue who you are.....well

I am not disagreeing with Lurpur....I do however think that one should look at both wins and losses for a better analysis of what works and what does not.

I believe that Lurpur's basic assumption is quite sound. I would however like to see evidence also.

 

[MLeake]

Asking for Data

Hey, my old call sign was "Data".... go figure.

I think an appropriate, though not required, response to a request for data might be a point toward a case study or set of case studies, or a case that could be easily googled (EG Stockholm Syndrome; Miami FBI Incident; LeGarde/Thompson ballistics tests etc)

At least some of us aren't trying to be rude, but we would like to know where we could find some of the stats to do our own math.

Cheers,

M

 

[Allstar]

I pose a question to you then. When a BG pulls a gun, what do you consider a "win". I consider living the greatest "win" ever. If I have to shoot I will (and have). But if I can move to cover and escape then I will. I know a lot of people that said in their last breathes I should have moved. They are both equally important and if used together yield a higher probability of living then just trying to use on.

It is just like people that talk about breathing while shooting. I had a retired SEAL say once in a class, "Tactical breathing is being the one that is breathing after the shots are fired." But I have heard other instructors preach to breath in and breath out and hold on the out then shoot which is great for targets not get for being shot at.

One more question ok two. How many times have you had to pull your weapon?
How many times have you had to fire it? When I say had, I mean you had to shoot to live.

 

[David Armstrong]

As a trained researcher I am sure you realize that after looking at dozens or hundreds of pieces of data without a true analysis the data provided is still anecdotal evidence.

No disagreement with that. That goes back to the "Questions about what the data show, or how one comes to the conclusions is appropriate" statement. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Obviously...we should all believe what we read on the internet.

Obviously that is quite different from asking someone to post their data.

At least some of us aren't trying to be rude, but we would like to know where we could find some of the stats to do our own math.

But you don't find "the stats" lots of time. What you find are hundreds of reports and articles that are available, and anybody can pull them up and check them for themselves. I personally am not about to go back and post links or cites to each individual gunfight I've analyzed over the last 30 years!

It you are a an expert like Gabe, Ayoob etc

And therein lies part of the problem. One of those trainers is an individual who has actually done lots of research in the field and truly is an expert on gunfights. The other, to be charitable, isn't. When people can't tell the difference between the quality of work and qualifications of the persons, I doubt that tossing a bunch of data at them would make any difference.

 

[Charles S]

As a trained researcher I am sure you realize that after looking at dozens or hundreds of pieces of data without a true analysis the data provided is still anecdotal evidence.

But you don't find "the stats" lots of time. What you find are hundreds of reports and articles that are available, and anybody can pull them up and check them for themselves. I personally am not about to go back and post links or cites to each individual gunfight I've analyzed over the last 30 years!

Exactly! Which is what I have always asserted....So unless you have done statistical analysis (that you can post) what you do post is your opinion. Nothing more, with no more basis in reality than my opinion when I read an individual event....Which is why you cannot post statistical data.

And therein lies part of the problem. One of those trainers is an individual who has actually done lots of research in the field and truly is an expert on gunfights. The other, to be charitable, isn't. When people can't tell the difference between the quality of work and qualifications of the persons, I doubt that tossing a bunch of data at them would make any difference.

...but both produce students that are incredibly successful when placed in a lethal confrontation...

....no amount of reading or statistical data give those same results! Never loose sight of that fact. People who worship at the alter of statistics often forget that statistical success and real life success don't always correspond. If anything....my training in statistics has taught me that if something (e.g. the training of the individual whom you are referring to) works it really does not matter whether the statistics support that fact.

 

[Skyguy]

Oh c'mon.....

A thesis or theory that claims to be based on valid research is meaningless without providing proof in the form of verifiable data, stats and/or sources.
It is 'not' out of line to ask for - or be supplied - a summary of sources, stats or data. That's just pro forma.

With over 3000 views here, the real issue begs the question….
Where are the combat vets, leo's or civilians who could post their experiences and whether they stood and delivered to incoming bullets or whether they moved off the X.
.

 

[MLeake]

+1 to Skyguy

This would be true for any ground training I give on flying. I should be able to cite each applicable Federal Aviation Regulation, Operations Specifications Manual Section, etc each time I give students a reason to do x,y, or z.

Cheers,

M

 

[Charles S]

Where are the combat vets, leo's or civilians who could post their experiences and whether they stood and delivered to incoming bullets or whether they moved off the X.

Just to note...Lurper is, I believe, experienced in both Military and LEO, and is know a civilian trainer.

 

[MLeake]

Response to Charles S

I'm pretty sure Skyguy isn't calling Lurper's credentials into question. I know I am not.

However, it would be useful to hear from a wide selection of people who have been in gunfights and survived them, to see if there are overall trends. The other advantage to hearing from members who have been there done that is that, unlike reports of old gunfights, the members could actually answer questions.

For instance, if a report makes no mention of whether the gunfighters moved, used cover, etc, it's hard to determine whether they did.

With a live person, you can ask those sorts of questions.

Oh, to clarify my take on being able to cite sources when teaching, that wasn't a dig at Lurper's or David Armstrong's credibility. My intended, implied point was that it is beneficial to the student to enable him to look up the data/procedure/regulation himself, for better reinforcement and/or awareness.

Cheers,

M

 

[Allstar]

Military combative right here. Have trained at places such as blackwater, Shaws,.... etc. Help to train law enforcement officers and swat members around the country as well as foreign special forces.

 

[Lurper]

RE: data
Go back and read the early posts. There is no central bank of data on civilian shootings. Therefore, the only way to provide the source would be to provide the accounts of each shooting. If you want to find out, do it yourself. It is a gigantic undertaking. When the project is finished, the numbers will be there, so will the methodology. If you don't like it, don't read it, post counter arguments or write your own book. One of the outcomes I would like to achieve is to have a databank (for lack of a better word) of civilian shootings. I am in the process of talking to a couple of organizations to try to find a home and money for the project.

No one person has enough personal experience to say that their experience qualifies them as an expert. To assert otherwise is absurd. The only way to have enough "experience" is to look at the experience of others.

Here is a question for all:
What makes one an expert?

Quote:
It you are a an expert like Gabe, Ayoob etc

And therein lies part of the problem. One of those trainers is an individual who has actually done lots of research in the field and truly is an expert on gunfights. The other, to be charitable, isn't.

Can you elaborate on that? Which is which?

Many of the so called "experts" are self-proclaimed. Some are in fact very credible, others not. This is one of the reasons I decided to look into the issue myself. Much of what we are told by some is self-serving. Much is designed to get you to buy into a mindset which feeds itself (and the "expert's" wallet) and bears little semblance to reality.

The other problem is that much of what is taught is not applicable. No matter what anyone wants to claim, military, LE and civilian confrontations are three totally different animals. What applies to one does not apply to the other,nor to the third. Additionally, the skillset to prevail in each is different.

RE: lost fights
Remember that I was looking for what happened in the confrontations where the good guy prevailed. Therefore, the fights where they didn't are immaterial. Even if you could say that in the majority of the cases where the good guy did not move, he lost. It doesn't mean anything. You cannot claim that movement or the lack thereof determined the outcome (correlation does not equal causality). What you can claim is the fact that they were hit was what determined if they won or lost. Therefore, the ability of the bad guy to hit was the determining factor. This is where the whole movement argument falls on its face. You cannot prove, nor demonstrate that movement does anything to determine the outcome. The only real causal link is being hit.
I guarantee you that if you move against me, you will still get hit. However, if you move against an average person, you MAY not. But, that begs the question: Did he miss because you moved or because of his lack of skill?

Again, for the umpteenth time: I am not arguing whether to move or not. I'm not arguing anything for that matter. I am simply pointing out that in the majority of the shootings I have looked at, the biggest determining factor of who prevails is who hits the target first.

 

[Skyguy]

Lurper is, I believe, experienced in both Military and LEO, and is know a civilian trainer.

Only he knows if he's been in a fight. He's never said.

Actually, I was calling out combat vets, leo's or civilians who could post their fighting experiences and whether they stood and delivered to incoming bullets or whether they moved off the X.
My reason for that is to lay down some basics for how to deal with a real encounter/ambush.

Here's an instance from back in the day.
We were after a crazy gang-banger in Chicago's Cabrini Green housing project. My partner was below me on the stairwell. I was in the middle of the up stairway. The door above and to my right opened and 'crazy' pointed his weapon my way and let go with four shots. Loud, really loud.
What probably saved my ass in those two seconds was that I moved hard right into the wall. Not even sure if he was aiming, but I did not stand and go for a shoot-out.

So, I say, number one for the average Joe is; do 'not' try to draw to an ambush....then stand and deliver. That's just stupid. A gun is merely a tool and you're not bulletproof. Use it intelligently.
The objective of an encounter is to survive. Like every cop says: first thing is to stay alive to go home to the wife and kids.

It is well understood that expertly running a gun will not necessarily save one's life. That's stuff for the movies and games. It is also well understood that hitting a threat first will not necessarily keep one alive.
Many people have been hit with multiples and continued to deal out death and destruction. That is a scary fact.

That said, what 'is' proper?
Proper is.....move off the X, move out of the kill zone, even if only a step or two. Move as you draw and shoot. Hit or miss, just shoot.
If ambushed - always move! Bob and weave, roll if you're down. Don't freeze!

Evade first, then counter.
Upset the attackers OODA loop. Keep in mind that a ¼" of muzzle deviation off target moves the POI 12" at 15ft. A moving target is harder to hit. So, move!

If ambushed don't opt for 'stand and deliver' - except in the most dire and uncompromising circumstances. (trapped in a corner or a closet.) What's the point of hitting first then dying last.

Bottom line........Self defense is about surviving 'not' winning a shoot-out. Pay attention. Don't freeze.
Whenever possible, always move first when under an up-close attack.
.