Offense vs. Defense - Do you fire on the move or go for accuracy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Three things come to mind in answer to the original question:

1) In the military we were always taught to get some kind of cover if it was at all possible before returning fire. These are the professional gun fighters, . . . and that is what they do.

2) The lawyer a few years ago that was shot at with a revolver by his unhappy client stayed alive by getting behind a tree.

3) Xavier's comment above: "As a civilian, my goal is to survive the attack with my life, not take down my attacker."

May God bless,
Dwight
 
Sweatnbullets, In this explosive retreat and subsequent fire covered retreat are your students all out running or moving while maintaining a good shooting platform, or both? Without compromising your class curriculum, can you give some details?
Click to expand...

It is a full run for the statled response drills (behind the reactionary curve.) But since there is a fight continuum we cover "stand and deliver" for speed when you are in a dominate position. Controlled movement when your have distance and are equal in the reactionary curve. Sight focus and Threat focus are both covered. But most people come to us with substantial sighted skills so we focus on what they do not already own.

Which is usually the full run out of the startled response.

You are right this stuff is going to be saving lives. The reviews of our couses and techniques are already coming in at the Threat Focus forum that I posted above.

Three gun, make sure you read my Fluid Situatuional Response, the course works off of those principles.

We are on the same page.
 
S'N'B, When even in the reactionary curve I was taught to retreat toward cover while engaging your adversary. This means that I must face the adversary while retreating. I retreat while maintaining a stable weapons platform, which is much slower than simply back pedaling, side pedaling, or turning a sprinting. In the fight continuum you teach, is this incorrect in the even position?
 
Sweatn -
It's not that dynamic shooting takes lots of practice to learn...it's that it takes continuous practice to maintain. It's a use it or lose it skill - at least in my experience.

Additionally, I would wager that someone who has practiced dynamic shooting extensively (and efficiently) would be able to process a situation and react to it while shooting on the move much more quickly and effectively than a fresh student who spent a day learning the technique.

Practice doesn't necessarily mean that it's a secret ninja move that takes years to master. It does, however, usually mean that it takes a while to learn how to incorporate a specific technique into your bag of tricks and figure out how to employ it effectively in a time of stress.

Someone mentioned Immediate Action drills up there and whether or not they are important. While the average CCW'er isn't going to practice IA drills such as Close-Ambush, Sniper, or Contact-Left - that is not the full scope of an IA drill. Immediate Action is exactly what the name implies... it is a conditioned response to a specific situation. Magazine drills are the perfect example of an IA drill that would benefit the everyday CCW'er. Can you drop, possibly retain, and load a magazine without taking your eyes off of the threat area? How about practicing different types of draw for different types of situations? How about practicing off-hand draw if your strong-hand is injured? Practicing "seeking" cover in all three areas of the reactionary curve?

IA drills are not Gospel: They are a foundation. However, practicing these types of drills until they become ingrained responses and continuously developing, adapting, and improving these drills will ensure that an individual is as prepared as they can be.
You don't want the first time you need a skill to be the one time your life depends on executing it flawlessly and without hesitation.

Another take on IA drills is that conditioning your mind to automatically take care of certain tasks under stress will allow your mind more time to process and react to your situation. We've all heard of people who suddenly looked at their hands and noticed that they had drawn their weapon and dropped into a combat stance. This is the result of IA drills...it happened without thought, and it happened efficiently.
 
S'N'B, When even in the reactionary curve I was taught to retreat toward cover while engaging your adversary. This means that I must face the adversary while retreating. I retreat while maintaining a stable weapons platform, which is much slower than simply back pedaling, side pedaling, or turning a sprinting. In the fight continuum you teach, is this incorrect in the even position?
Click to expand...

The stable shooting platform idea comes from not having the knowledge to get hits on the run. Shooting on the run has been the focus of my training for years now. It is something that I have done very well for a while now and have yet come across someone that did it as well as I. But this is before I was taught Quick Kill. As soon as I learned it, I knew that this was the missing piece of the puzzle. One threat focused technique that had been virtually lost since 1980 is the difference between what everyone else is teaching and what is really possible. Not only does QK make this possible, it makes it a fact that I can teach the skill (shooting on the run) to almost anyone in a very short time.

We do not like back peddeling at all. We have three different responses to the rear, each one is done while turned toward the threat, with the feet pointed the direction that you are moving and they are deadly accurate. The speed of this movement is situationally dependent. Being even in the reactionary curve could allow for slower movement, but if you have the skills to get the same hits with faster movement, your body would probably choose the faster movement.

We do not always agree with the idea of "retreat to cover." It has it's place, but that is it. It does not cover every situation. What we do is teach you the skills to work in whatever direction is best for the situation. Even while being even in the reactionary curve, we see appropriate movement in numerous directions.

What we do is give you tools to cover as many situations as we can. We are not going to tell you "do this and do that" because we believe that your body will choose the appropriate response for the situation. What we give you is options and the confidence to make all of the options work for you. We cover why you may choose this direction and that speed, but nothing is set in stone like your prior instructors. We want a Fluid Situational Response and you to have the confidence and the skills to make that response work for you.
 
S'N'B I just tried to walk in one direction and shoot behind me and cannot with a two handed hold. Do you shoot one handed while retreating?

We have three different responses to the rear, each one is done while turned toward the threat, with the feet pointed the direction that you are moving and they are deadly accurate.
Click to expand...

I like the concept but need more info to try it.

We cover why you may choose this direction and that speed, but nothing is set in stone like your prior instructors.
Click to expand...

I have no prior personal instruction. My instructors have been books, video's, and friends (some who have had premium training). I have been able to pick and choose what makes sense and mold it all into what feels good to me. If it feels good and makes tactical sense it can't be that bad. So nothing is ever set in stone with me. If your style of retreat fire is faster with equal hit percentage at the same hit speed, I would be a fool not to crave it. Can you describe it better?
 
Accuracy all the way.

Being a police officer for the last 16 years, all of this sounds really great but in actually it doesn't work. Only the highly trained person under live fire drills (paint ball, type) have the thought to move, granted I loved all the answers and they are the right thing to do, but the human when confronted with deadly force usually freezes and has tunnel vision also doesn't even know how many rounds he/she fired.
So my answer would be accuracy, (head shot) and if BG gets a round off at you take it in the vest. 1 head shot = gunfight over. This is my biggest problem with IPSC. Let's hit the targets 3 times really fast with non-lethal hits, why not get 3 "A" zone hit fast and the fight is over.
Yet another probelm I have with the whole weaver v.s. anyother stance. Shoot weaver against me I'll shoot you through the arm and into your chest cavity. Game over!
 
Only the highly trained person under live fire drills (paint ball, type) have the thought to move, granted I loved all the answers and they are the right thing to do, but the human when confronted with deadly force usually freezes and has tunnel vision also doesn't even know how many rounds he/she fired.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the secret.
 
You learn these things, by living them, or at a police agency or some highly skilled training school like thunder ranch if it is still around, but once you learn you need to practice regularily.
Bob
 
PPCmaster, I have twice had to draw believing the need to shoot was here. In the first incident I did everything as trained. The second time I did everything as trained including drawing, walking back towards cover while looking for the threat (which didn't exist....long story). I am neither tough nor professionally trained yet both times I reverted to what I had practiced. I think you would react as trained also. If that training included those listed in the fluid situational response, I believe you would react instead of freezing. I did and without formal FoF training or Professional tactical training, just lots of repetition both physically and mentally. I know it can be done, heck if I can do it anyone can.
 
Threegun, I hate to be a stick in the mud but I will not be able to tell you how to do it. Right now we have something that no one else has. There have been a few well known trainers trying to see what we have discovered and where we are headed. If they were to find out what we have, no one would need to train with us.

Here are a couple of AAR's from last weekend. I had a private session with a student that is ex-military, ex-LEO, and current firearms instructor at one of the big schools. Here is where you will find his AAR.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226

Robin Brown had a private session with a current LEO trainer from the California area, that has 1400 officers under his care. The AAR can be found here.

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223

zeroskillz, I am in the Vegas area, Robin Brown is in the Phoenix area. We can travel if the numbers are right.
 
I understand. After reading your links it kinda answered my question anyway. The 2-2-2 drill in 2.14 seconds, was that posted by one of your students?
 
threegun, that was a student that was training with Robin Brown. He is now the Quick Kill instructor in the Denver area. Glad that your questions were answered.
 
Sorry fellas and experts, but I can't help responding with a bit of reality versus the unending scientific-imaginary response scenarios posted here.

Seems that so far....every solution to a gunfight has been some sort of trick maneuver taught by those who've never shot with bad intentions......or been shot at and is designed for use by a thirty year old semi-athlete.

No expert advisor here has even mentioned the average ccw-Joe who is likely older, fatter, weaker, slower and inexperienced in any type of self defense. And therein lies the achilles heel of so many expert advisors; no experience-reality based training!

My advice...depending on distance....is to seek cover first.
If you are too close or it's too sudden...crouch and point shoot.

Odds are 'that' will assure mutual wounding or mutual death. But that's a gunfight.
.
 
Skyguy -
I think that's what we discussed on the first page :)

As for reality-based? What if you ARE trained, 30 years old, and in good shape? What's your reality then? My point is that reality is subjective - that's why tactics are dynamic and never set in stone. What works for one will most definitely be scoffed upon by another. I don't think anyone here is advocating the "off the wall, around the corner, through the window, over the car, nothing but net" approach.

All things being equal - many of the suggestions here are quite valid. If conditions exist that alter someone's "reality" then they have two options: adapt their tactics or adapt their reality.
 
It is well known that most instructors recommend moving toward cover while engaging the badguy. Fat, old, young, weak, whatever doesn't change the fact that in a gunfight it is better to move toward cover while shooting. If a particular drill can't be used by someone for physical reasons, obviously they need to employ a tactic that they can perform based on their limitation. If you can run and gun like a 30 year old better for you. The reality is to do as much as you can to employ the best tactics so that your odds of surviving a gunfight increase.
 
Skyguy -
I think that's what we discussed on the first page
Click to expand...

I know. :)

I was responding to the question that was asked: "should you fire with an emphasis on movement (laterally, diagnally, etc)? Or should you focus on trying to hit the BG first, and worry less about constant movement to avoid getting hit."

My answer to that question was and still is:
"My advice...depending on distance....is to seek cover first.
If you are too close or it's too sudden...crouch and point shoot.

Odds are 'that' will assure mutual wounding or mutual death. But that's a gunfight.
.
 
Skyguy,
Odds are 'that' will assure mutual wounding or mutual death. But that's a gunfight.
Click to expand...

Thats why they suggest movement. If you can't run while shooting as Sweat'n'Bullets teaches then walk........but move. If the best I can hope for is mutaul assured wounding or death then why carry? To many instructors agree on movement being correct for me to stand still. Being younger (37) I can still move rather well so I will move quickly. As I age my movement will slow I'm sure but move I will........until the "experts" agree on standing still that is LOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top