Actually, I have answered that question more than once. However, my experience means nothing in the big picture. As I stated in the original post, my experience and that of several of my friends ran counter to what some of the so called "experts" teach. That was the impetus for me to take a closer look at what really happens and what really works. It was all there in several of the earlier posts. You only need to read them.
Moving off the X
- Thread starter evan1293
- Start date
Of course a the ones that had the first solid shot lived. That is kind of common sense, I don't know to many people that have been shot first then prevail by landing the second shot. I would like to see why they landed the first shot, was it because they were already drawn, they pulled first, they moved...etc. Go back and get that info then come to us and present you case again and tell us if getting off the X is as important as landing the first solid shot.
Lurper, I hope what I posted earlier did not imply that I was not interested in your work. I am very interested in your work and will be very interested in your conclusions.
I look forward to reading your work. I have learned quite a bit from your earlier postings and the lessons you have submitted regarding shooting. I am sure this next project will be very valuable to me also.
David Armstrong
Moderator
We will strongly disagree. Whether I post my analysis or not has no bearing on whether the analysis has been done or what the facts are. The reader will have no way of knowing if the numbers used are accurate or made-up, or any of a variety of other things that are important. If the reader, on the other hand, takes the time to look up some of the stuff themselves they will be in a much better position to not only decide if the information given is accurate, but also to discuss the issue.
But that has nothing to do with being able to do decent research. FWIW, virtually EVERY trainer out there produces students that are incredibly successful when placed in lethal confrontations. That is because almost any advanced training, even of low quality, still puts the student far ahead of the curve.
Again, no disagreement. I'm a strong supporter of "whatever works". Where I think the stats and research are the most useful, particularly from the training aspect, is to allow one to better understand what is needed and thus best use their resources. Outliers may be outside of the norm, but they are still part of the population.
A summary is far different than asking for the data. Heck, that is what started this conversation. Lurper offered a summary of some research he has been doing "in the majority of the shootings I have looked at, the biggest determining factor of who prevails is who hits the target first". Somebody else said that it was wrong, and said he should post his data. My point is that if you don't like that brief summary, or you disagree with it, go do some research on your own and tell us what you find. Would it really matter if Lurper were to post "OK, I have 400 shootings I looked at and in 390 of them the winner was the guy that got the first hits on the other guy." Do we really know any more, and do we really know if that is what the data says, or is it just what Lurper wants it to say? That is my only real issue here--you've just got to take a fair amount of stuff on face value in these forums. It's not a professional journal nor is the discussion in that vein.
But should you have to give them the history of the FAA hearings and tests that lead to the findings that caused the regs to be written? I think that is the difference. "You should do this because Regulation XYZ says so" is no different than "you should do this because the research says so".
Exactly. I can say that I have conservatively looked at over 10,000 shootings at one level or another over the last 30 years. Trying to cite-source them is virtually impossible, but that doesn't mean I haven't learned a few things from them or seen certain trends or discovered specific facts. I've read hundreds of articles and papers on the use of force and shootings. Whether I give a citation for them or not has no bearing on that.
Last edited:
Lurper said:
Hey, I took the bait and did the research in this thread. All I found were two vague and ambiguous references to "BTDT" and "survivors surviving gunfights".
If you were in a fight could you elaborate on the circumstances of the fight and whether you stood and delivered or moved off the X....and why.
Did you kill? Did you wound? Did you miss?
This has piqued my interest and seems like a learning lesson in waiting.
David Armstrong said:
And my 'real issue' here is that it is not good training advice for an average gun owner to be taught to stand and deliver....rather than move off the X. Even an untrained shooter can hit a stationary target right in front of them.
I'm still 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. Details appreciated.
.
A person can have lots of experience and still draw the wrong conclusions from his own experience.
A person can have no experience and still draw the right conclusions based on information derived from the experiences of others.
Opinions can be based on experience or research (formal or informal) and frankly, experience tends to be far more subjective than properly done research.
The bottom line is that there's no benefit to anyone in turning this thread into a "measuring" contest. Besides the fact that it's difficult or impossible to verify what people claim about themselves, it's also a sure recipe for turning a thread personal which is unproductive.
Lurper...
I am trying to reconcile these statements:
All these statements made by you and it would seem to me backtracking and revisionist.
I'll ask specifically. What is the most important thing to do to get the first hit? This is important as it is a high indicator of surviving an armed encounter based on your statistics.
You have specifically lessened the importance of "moving of the X notion" as people do not shoot most accurately when moving (even for at-one-time world class shooter). So... you seem to specifically state that "stand and deliver" will have a greater chance of improving your chances of survival and in a later breath state you don't speak one way or the other, just that you must deliver the first hit.
Observing one statistic is not proof. I could research and generate any number of correlated statistics that have no affect on the outcome. Please make a case for "stand and deliver" over "moving of the X". You clearly believe that shooting and then moving is more effective. Make the case for why that is so beyond a single statistic. I could make any number of (incorrect) arguments based on a single statistic.
I am trying to reconcile these statements:
All these statements made by you and it would seem to me backtracking and revisionist.
I'll ask specifically. What is the most important thing to do to get the first hit? This is important as it is a high indicator of surviving an armed encounter based on your statistics.
You have specifically lessened the importance of "moving of the X notion" as people do not shoot most accurately when moving (even for at-one-time world class shooter). So... you seem to specifically state that "stand and deliver" will have a greater chance of improving your chances of survival and in a later breath state you don't speak one way or the other, just that you must deliver the first hit.
Observing one statistic is not proof. I could research and generate any number of correlated statistics that have no affect on the outcome. Please make a case for "stand and deliver" over "moving of the X". You clearly believe that shooting and then moving is more effective. Make the case for why that is so beyond a single statistic. I could make any number of (incorrect) arguments based on a single statistic.
Each statement clearly reconciles with the other and is not backtracking. The first statement is simple: the data shows that the single most important factor is who hits their target first. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that hitting the target is more important than anything else.
The second statement is based on the fact that most people will suffer a degradation in accuracy if they shoot while moving. It makes more sense to shoot then move or move then shoot (providing that you aren't burning up time you should be shooting). That means fire 3 or 4 shots then move or move while drawing, stop, fire the shots and move again if the situation allows.
The third statement stands on its own.
That is an excellent question and one of the most difficult to answer. My opinion is that one needs to develop the skill set which allows them to hit the target quickly and repeatedly.
Gee, if 400 + cases isn't enough for you, I don't know how to make the case. I might point out that the argument never was "stand and deliver" -v- "move off the X". I specifically did not say don't move. What I said was basically don't trade movement for hits. I stand by that. I never said stand and deliver was the way to go. If you read it that way then I need to restate that. What I said was: the single most important skill to develop is the ability to hit the target quickly.
Aboslutely! Even more so for the average CCW'er. Again, for most people accuracy will suffer when shooting while moving. Additionally, for most people speed decreases if they shoot while moving. If hitting the target first is the most important factor, then it stands to reason that you want to do everything you can to increase the likelyhood that you will.
Fair enough assertion. There are several reasons for that. First, no one can prove that moving effects the outcome one way or the other. There are plenty of instances where even trained LEO's have missed close stationary targets. It cannot be proved that moving was the reason that the shot missed anymore than lack of skill was. Yet, one thing that is clearly not just correlated but causal is scoring the first hit. So, again it stands to reason that this should be the primary concern.
Lurper...
Thanks for the response. This has been one of the more interesting exchanges I have read on this board and has provided much food for thought.
Everyone has to decide for themselves how they integrate information into their practice and mindset. I'll take from this discussion that there is no one technique that will be THE one that wins the fight. Focus on what will enable you to get the first hit. IMO I think an equal amount of focus should be place on not being the first one hit (or even better not at all!) in which I see the potential for a technique like "moving of the X" providing one way of doing that. I also see that I should also consider my choices in context with my current skill level and what might apply to some, might not be the best for me.
Thanks again to all here for a very interesting discussion.
Thanks for the response. This has been one of the more interesting exchanges I have read on this board and has provided much food for thought.
Everyone has to decide for themselves how they integrate information into their practice and mindset. I'll take from this discussion that there is no one technique that will be THE one that wins the fight. Focus on what will enable you to get the first hit. IMO I think an equal amount of focus should be place on not being the first one hit (or even better not at all!) in which I see the potential for a technique like "moving of the X" providing one way of doing that. I also see that I should also consider my choices in context with my current skill level and what might apply to some, might not be the best for me.
Thanks again to all here for a very interesting discussion.
So once again I will ask the question what do you consider a win? Do you consider killing the other a win or do you consider living a win?
My main concern here is that you read, i don't know what you read but you did, a bunch of stories of people who said that when they shot the BG he went down, but what you are not answering is why they got that shot off which is the most critical part of your answer. It is cool that you are blindly willing to stand by a general answer with absolutely no background of the situation. I have asked you many questions in this thread and every time you decide to answer none of them, it makes me doubt your credibility.
To get back to the reason for this thread. Yes I find it very important to move off the X. I was in class this week and they stressed very hard about this point. When we did our practical on it yesterday we focused on different things how close was the BG to us (could we disarm him), what hand was he carrying in, proper direction to move, evaluating cover and concealment, and finally if unable to move ie an alleyway, the to use a technique called ballooning. It is good for low light situations. Mind you we were told what area to goto then all of sudden an instructor would pop out and it was game on from there. We were using sim rounds so you got a very strong grasp of what happens when you don't do something right.
My main concern here is that you read, i don't know what you read but you did, a bunch of stories of people who said that when they shot the BG he went down, but what you are not answering is why they got that shot off which is the most critical part of your answer. It is cool that you are blindly willing to stand by a general answer with absolutely no background of the situation. I have asked you many questions in this thread and every time you decide to answer none of them, it makes me doubt your credibility.
To get back to the reason for this thread. Yes I find it very important to move off the X. I was in class this week and they stressed very hard about this point. When we did our practical on it yesterday we focused on different things how close was the BG to us (could we disarm him), what hand was he carrying in, proper direction to move, evaluating cover and concealment, and finally if unable to move ie an alleyway, the to use a technique called ballooning. It is good for low light situations. Mind you we were told what area to goto then all of sudden an instructor would pop out and it was game on from there. We were using sim rounds so you got a very strong grasp of what happens when you don't do something right.
A "win" is stopping the encounter and living. That was the only question that I saw you pose. The rest were statements.
As far as where the information comes from, it is all in the early posts.
I can't answer that (definitively), nor can anyone else. More importantly is not the shot, but the hit. It could be marksmanship or just blind, dumb luck.
I see, by blindly willing to stand by my answer, you mean taking the time to compile all the data and analyze it to see what the trends are as opposed to taking what my favorite writer/school/instructor says at face value, correct?
You are free to believe whoever or whatever you want. This is nothing new, people as far back as Fairbairn (and farther) have reached the same conclusion. If you look at 1000 shootings and in 850 of those, the person who scored the first hit ended the fight and lived, what conclusions would you draw from that?
I understand the person that gets the first hit lives, but how did he get the first hit is the more important part for people are looking to this for information. The thread is about moving off the X you make a blanket statement about getting the first solid hit is what matters. But that doesn't help anything. If those 850 people should their ground pulled and lived then it is more realistic to say stand and shoot, if they did move and then pull and shoot. Then it would be better to say yes moving off the X is a good thing to do. The way you make it sound and some newbies have already asked me about it. You make it sound like they all stood and drew.
Your right I did take my favorite instructors words blindly, because out his 37 encounters he took one bullet to the shoulder and that was it. None of the BG lived. I have personally used the moving off the X, and lived while the BG didn't. Yes it has been in war as well as urban situations where I was concealed.
Your right I did take my favorite instructors words blindly, because out his 37 encounters he took one bullet to the shoulder and that was it. None of the BG lived. I have personally used the moving off the X, and lived while the BG didn't. Yes it has been in war as well as urban situations where I was concealed.
No one can answer that question and anyone who claims they can is a liar.
It demonstrably is. Moreover, no one can say that moving off of the X is what determined the outcome. There is no way to prove that. So, to try to tell someone that moving off of the X is the most important factor or tactic to use is disingenuous. Futhermore, saying that you should sacrifice hits for movement is foolish.
You read whatever you want into what I said. I have repeatedly stated that my point was not not to move, nor stand and deliver is best, yet several people want to try to make it into that. My point is that who hits first is the most important factor (not moving off of the X, seeking cover, or dancing a jig). Therefore, the primary goal of training should be to insure you can hit your target rapidly and repeatedly.
I realize this is a different situation to a close range pistol fight but I read with interest Paul Howe, during the blackhawk down operation, related that he never shot whilst on the move. He basically sprinted between cover and when he had to shoot he planted his feet, placed accurate aimed fire at his antagonist and then resumed fast move to cover.
Then I guess you might as well call me a liar, because I can answer it.
People who got the first solid hit did it in one of two ways.
1) They moved, making themselves the most difficult target to hit, and thus slowed down their opponent's ability to kill them while they drew and fired,
OR
2) They stood their ground and drew so quickly that they got a shot off before the other guy could react, and the shot was such a solid one that the other guy did not shoot them either by reflex or design as he fell.
Either method would result in getting the first solid hit, done right.
Which method is more common? Someone here claimed they'd done research on that point.
Love to see data.
pax
David Armstrong
Moderator
I don't disagree. I think movement is an important part of the equation. Just when that movement should be utilized is an open discussion, IMO, that I'll avoid. My sole concern/issue is this idea that anytime someone claims to have some knowledge of some issue that certain parties want them to post links and give cites and all that stuff rather than discuss the issue itself. Like JohnK said, "The bottom line is that there's no benefit to anyone in turning this thread into a "measuring" contest."
Well, I've been in fights as LE, military, and civilian. And some I moved then shot, some I stood my ground and shot, some I moved and shot. So I'm not sure what that means<G>!
David Armstrong said:
It means to me that you moved when you were vulnerable and stood your ground when you had the relative safety of cover; that's fighting 101.….and that's the kind of priceless experience that stats can't convey.
Stats count and record things - experience knows, prepares and teaches things. Stats are valuable – experience is invaluable.
I don't want the guy next to me to be the statistician, I want the guy that knows what the hell to do in 'this' mess.
DA, you have the experience that needs to be passed along as learning lessons and reinforcement of proper action.
You understand the voluntary-involuntary reactions to an ambush. You know why not to freeze, the danger of stand and deliver, the fact that the threat is a deadly, thinking, equal foe. You've experienced how a threat moving out of one's tunnel vision upsets the loop and redirects one's attention, muzzle deviation consequences, missing the target, etc....all reasons for moving off the X, out of the kill zone.
You know that hits have little immediate effect on a determined threat unless it's a direct central nervous system hit....and how many have been shot com with multiples and still kept moving and fighting before bleeding out. You know how to cheat the odds and on and on.
You have something that most plebes yearn for, even pay for; real life experience and how 'not' to die in a confrontation.
.
Skyguy you put out a very good point. I am lucky enough to be in a position to train at least once or twice a week with sim rounds. This allows me to constantly work on paying attention to my surroundings. Real experiences that I have had pushes me to pay attention harder ever time I step into a training sceanrio.
If you want practice on this kind of stuff, as corny as it sounds get airsoft pistols with your friends and find a building somewhere and set each other up. Granted the fear of death isn't there, but if you are in CQB distance and get hit with that BB flying 300-400 feet per second, you are going to want to move a little bit faster. I do this stuff with some of my other support guys that don't get the training oppurtunities that I do.
If you want practice on this kind of stuff, as corny as it sounds get airsoft pistols with your friends and find a building somewhere and set each other up. Granted the fear of death isn't there, but if you are in CQB distance and get hit with that BB flying 300-400 feet per second, you are going to want to move a little bit faster. I do this stuff with some of my other support guys that don't get the training oppurtunities that I do.
Paintball is even more to that point and reveals a number of things that I wouldn't have known if I hadn't been involved in it for 6 years. One, people move, so a stationary full face target isn't very relevent past learning how to shoot what you have and how it performs. Secondly the value of mere inches of cover becomes immediately obvious. Third how easy it is to get hit--only with the idea that one hit can mean game over forever. Fourth you don't ordinarily realize how even sticking out for a second is plenty enough time to get shot, and anything that is exposed will be. A second is a very long time when you're dealing with 1/300th of it...then step that up to 1/1000th when you're dealing with pistol rounds. Fifth you see that plenty of shots against moving targets becomes not such a bad idea, and that followups aren't just hypothetical. Sixth you realize just how hard a target a wily individual who thinks constantly about avoiding your shots and connecting with theirs really is.
Standing in front of a paper or cardboard target that isn't moving, isn't shooting back, and doesn't have a brain doesn't teach one bit of that.
Standing in front of a paper or cardboard target that isn't moving, isn't shooting back, and doesn't have a brain doesn't teach one bit of that.
Exactly! Stand and deliver target practice is one faceted – it's only ½ of self defense handgun training.
It's just 'offense' training for offense fighting. Like a baseball player always training to hit and never training to field.
Moving off the X as you draw and shoot is the more complete 'defense plus offense' training.
Move whenever possible. Even one step helps. Move, draw, shoot. Hit or miss, just shoot.
Why? Because moving out of an attacker's tunnel vision upsets their loop. Shooting at them freaks them out. Both tactics redirect their aim and attention which forces muzzle deviation consequences and usually causes them to miss the original point of aim....all reasons for moving off the X and out of the kill zone as you draw and shoot.
Keep in mind, too......There is no proof 'anywhere' that the first person shot in a gunfight dies, drops or is out of the fight. That's just silly.
Yet, there is plenty of proof that the person who is 'not' shot in a gunfight survives/wins. Be guided accordingly.
Example: Equal opponents at six yards, one car length. Stand and deliver:
In less than two seconds each shooter draws and fires four shots. Neither moves, both die!
Shoulda moved.
