Moving off the X

[Lurper]

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!

Here are the problems with your example:
1. It rarely happens this way. You rarely have 2 shooters of equal skill. But skill is only part of what factors into winning.
2. Usually, you don't draw and fire. Most often both parties have a gun in hand or they retirieve it from a closet, shelf, etc.
3. It assumes that both parties hit their target. There are a number of factors that effect that.
4. It assumes that being hit kills them both simultaneously (you levelled criticism against that position in an earlier post even though no one made that claim).

This is typical of the pat self-serving argument that many schools present. They try to support an argument that cannot be proven.

The fact remains that there is only one thing you can do to guarantee your survival and that is to remove the threat before it removes you. How you do that is up to you. But to make statements like moving guarantees you won't be hit or guarantees your survival, etc. is just not true. Likewise saying lack of movement will get you killed. The only sure way to survive is to remove the threat (by killing them or otherwise) as quickly as possible. The surest way to remove the threat is to put lead on the target.

 

[Allstar]

So I have decided to test your theory and myself and others tried it 10 times moving and 10 times stationary. Using sim rounds and between myself and 4 others these were our results.

When an opponent wasn't moving they landed 100 out of 100 shots all were considered critical/kill shots. (Head, heart, lungs)
When the opponent moved there was only 15 out 100 shots that were considered critical/kill shots. This was the person was able to adapt to the movement.

There was another 12 shots landed that were non critical shots (2 shoulder, 5 arms, 3 hands, 2 legs) the leg shots were from someone that had a FTF and dove out of the way.

 

[JohnKSa]

Which proves (as does most other force-on-force scenario training) that if you set up an artificial situation where both opponents are equally prepared and have generally similar skills, agility is a very important component of the resulting engagement.

What's missing is the proof of how well these scenarios apply to the much less structured scenarios that occur in real life.

When I read story after story about the elderly successfully defending their home against young, armed attackers, I have to think that maybe real world scenarios don't usually play out exactly the way they do on the FOF "training" field.

 

[Lurper]

Again for the millionth time, it's not about move - don't move. It's about what is the most important factor. I could conduct the test and the results would be dramatically different due to my speed and skill level. It doesn't matter if you move or not, I will hit the target 90+% of the time. More importantly, the average citizen would have still a third dramatically different result.

Which proves (as does most other force-on-force scenario training) that if you set up an artificial situation where both opponents are equally prepared and have generally similar skills, agility is a very important component of the resulting engagement.

What's missing is the proof of how well these scenarios apply to the much less structured scenarios that occur in real life.

Precisely!

You can create whatever "test" you want. It doesn't change reality. All the movement in the world does you no good if the threat isn't removed. FoF, paintball, sims, etc. are all artificial environments. Some of the most important factors cannot be simulated. The biggest one is state of mind. I have cited a couple of instances where the bg lost even though they had the drop on the good guy. Also, as I metioned, more often than not the bg flees when shots are fired (not something to stake your life on though). You cannot predict how someone will react to being shot or shot at. It can't be simulated. Yet countless so called experts try to say that it can. If that were true, those who didn't use tactics or had little training would lose. The reality is otherwise.

Again, no matter what anyone says, the fact remains that the person who scores the first solid hit has a much greater chance of surviving. That is fact and can easily be proven. The statement that moving will save your life cannot be proven or is blatantly false. It cannot be determined. As I've state many times already, if you want to move, move. If not, don't. But, don't spend time that you should be shooting moving.

 

[Allstar]

You are right state of mind is completely different. As for the set ups here is how it went down. You were told if you were to move or not move, then you were put into the kill house. You made your own movements and choices. Sometimes you made it back to the door without an engagment. You really didn't know when you would be engaged. This problems with our controls, we are all highly trained individuals. We have great reaction times and keep our heads calm under fire. I wish I had access to less trained people to put them in this and try. But I don't.

I guess this will always be a dead issue, because both sides have valid points.

If I move and get away then I have survived the engagement.
If I shoot and survive and he dies theni I have survived the engagement.

 

[Avenger11]

Perhaps we should all move off the "X" and move on!!

 

[Skyguy]

The fact remains that there is only one thing you can do to guarantee your survival and that is to remove the threat before it removes you.

Wow. That's very risky advice for a newcomer to ccw tactics. It suggests a reactionary, quick draw response to a deadly threat already in motion. Most gun owners are not prepared for a reactionary shoot-out from behind their loop. Fortunately, there's more than "only one thing you can do".

The civilian's first order of business is to 'not' get shot. Moving is designed to evade the first shot and then counter. Shooting it out is secondary.

The novice gun owner should become a hard to hit target by immediately moving out of the line of fire as he draws and shoots. Hit or miss, just shoot.

Moving out of an attacker's tunnel vision upsets their loop. Shooting at them freaks them out. Both tactics require the attacker to redirect his aim and his attention which forces muzzle deviation and usually causes him to miss the original point of aim. All are good reasons for moving off the X and out of the kill zone as you draw and shoot.

Defense first! Then offense.

if you want to move, move. If not, don't. But, don't spend time that you should be shooting moving.

That's an either/or. How about the more sensible approach;moving as you draw and shoot? lol

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

 

[Lurper]

It suggests a reactionary, quick draw response to a deadly threat already in motion. Most gun owners are not prepared for a reactionary shoot-out from behind their loop. Fortunately, there's more than "only one thing you can do".

It suggests nothing of the sort. The only thing it suggests is that the most important thing to do is to hit the target. Most civilian shootings are reactive. That is their nature.

The civilian's first order of business is to 'not' get shot. Moving is designed to evade the first shot and then counter.

Not so. The evidence shows otherwise and this is the meat of the argument. There is nothing you can do to guarantee that your opponent won't hit you except to remove him from the fight. That is the only thing you can do that is 100% effective. Offense should be first, defense (like cover) is secondary. You cannot say that your movement will help you evade the shot, if you don't evade the shot then you won't get a chance to counter. Counting on movement to save you is a leap of faith at best and a roll of the dice at worst. This is where the movement argument falls flat on its face. It cannot be supported by real life. Most often (58% of the time according to AZ DPS), the first shot misses whether the target moves or not. The real question becomes why did it miss? Again, it is a combination of factors of which movement is only a small part. The opponent's skill, experience, state of mind, training, equipment, vision, hearing, reaction time and other factors all play a role in whether he hits you or not. What is the common thread in all of those? They are not under your control. Why would you stake your life on something(s) that is not under your direct control?

Moving out of an attacker's tunnel vision upsets their loop. Shooting at them freaks them out. Both tactics require the attacker to redirect his aim and his attention which forces muzzle deviation and usually causes him to miss the original point of aim.

Oh really? What if your opponent doesn't buy into Boyd's theory? Let's see, it worked well with Platt and Mattix, Phillips and Matasareanu and countless others, right? Boyd's OODA loop is just that: theory. Not everyone subscribes to it. Staking your life on theory is a risky proposition.

If I move and get away then I have survived the engagement.
If I shoot and survive and he dies theni I have survived the engagement.

Absolutely!

 

[David Armstrong]

There is nothing you can do to guarantee that your opponent won't hit you except to remove him from the fight.

I'll disagree a bit. Removing yourself from the threat works as well as removing the threat from you. The problem becomes one of recognizing which option is the best to try.