Stand there and shoot or get off the X?

It's my understanding that fire and maneuver has been standard infantry doctrine since trench warfare was abandoned after WWI. I have no military experience, but isn't it true that F&M is implemented with at least two units -- one moving while the other provides suppressive fire from, ideally, cover? A lone civilian with a CPL can't replicate such tactics. For most folks, shooting while moving seems like a good way to deplete one's ammo supply when it's most needed. The FBI reports that 70-80% of shots fired by LEOs in a gunfight miss.

For me the issue is moot, because I'm gimpy and my running days are well behind me. Unless cover is extremely close, I have no choice but to stand my ground.
 
Posted by Limnophile:
A lone civilian with a CPL can't replicate such [(infantry)] tactics.
The objectives of infantry are to defeat an enemy. The objectives of a civilian engaging in self defense are to avoid being injured. The tactics will differ accordingly.

For most folks, shooting while moving seems like a good way to deplete one's ammo supply when it's most needed.
It may also be a good way to avoid being shot, slashed, or stabbed.

The FBI reports that 70-80% of shots fired by LEOs in a gunfight miss.
Interesting, and probably close to the truth, but rather irrelevant, don't you think?

Unless cover is extremely close, I have no choice but to stand my ground.
Could you perhaps not get just a little farther from a man with a blade before you can stop him?
 
The FBI reports that 70-80% of shots fired by LEOs in a gunfight miss.
Interesting, and probably close to the truth, but rather irrelevant, don't you think?
No, not at all.
The original question was about the risk of moving into the path of one of those misses.
 
Posted by g.willikers:
The original question was about the risk of moving into the path of one of those misses.
Think abut it and perform sone time and distance calculations.

Would you really expect to move into the path of the bullet after the shooter has unsuccessfully attempted to fire at your starting position?

You may be able to move out of harms way from him as he charges, but his bullets will travel much more quickly.
 
You may be able to move out of harms way from him as he charges, but his bullets will travel much more quickly.

While a bit of an extreme example, the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout revealed some interesting problems. The robbers spent a goodly amount of time walking back and forth out in the open, and firing. Seems like it would be easy to aim and hit one of them. While the robbers were hit about 10% of the time, their body armor protected them fairly well.

Why were the hit amounts so low? No doubt part of the reason is that they were able to move out of the way of some of the bullets being fired at them. Except for early in the fight, most of the cops were about 75 yards distant from the robbers and were mostly firing pistols and shotguns early one (the AR15s came late in the fight). A variety of pistol rounds were fired at the bad guys and for sake of simplicity, we can say that the bullets were 1200 fps. At 75 yards, the bullet had a flight time of 0.2 seconds. Assuming the bad guys were moving at just a slow 2 mph back and forth, then the bad buy would have moved a full 7" while the bullet was in flight which means the bad guy could have moved out of the way of the bullet. At 3 mph, the bad guy would have moved 10.5" during the flight time. So unless the cops were leading their targets with accurate shots, there is a good chance the shots missed while the suspects were in motion, at least when the motion was perpendicular to the direction of fire.

If somebody was shooting a 230 gr. .45 at 950 fps, then the flight time was a full .25 seconds. So that much more time to walk out from accurate shots that were not leading, or that much more possibility to walk into inaccurate shots.
 
The objectives of infantry are to defeat an enemy. The objectives of a civilian engaging in self defense are to avoid being injured. The tactics will differ accordingly.

Depends. If a bad guy declares war on me by committing or threatening to commit an act of war against me, others, or my property my objective is to win the battle by stopping him. If the goal were to avoid being injured there would be no need to carry; rather, we would just need to be prepared by wearing running shoes at all times.

It may also be a good way to avoid being shot, slashed, or stabbed.

Frittering away ammo might result in a psychological stop, which counts as a win, but winners plan for worse case scenarios, and those require hitting the target in the vitals to cause rapid incapacitation.

Interesting, and probably close to the truth, but rather irrelevant, don't you think?

Missed shots cannot be counted on to produce a stop. A miss rate of about 75% is highly relevant in planning one's gear purchases and tactics. For example, ways gear can mitigate the known miss rate include:
  • Increase firepower (volume of fire potential) by carrying a high-capacity pistol;
  • Increase firepower by carrying an additional spare magazine;
  • Carry a caliber that is not hampered unnecessarily by recoil to increase accuracy and firepower.
In terms of tactics, I see two choices -- dazzle the bad guy with firepower (actual volume of fire), or take time to put rounds accurately on target. Of course, there is an infinite number of positions in between these two extremes.

Could you perhaps not get just a little farther from a man with a blade before you can stop him?

Perhaps, but I must honestly admit that's not something I can rely on. Who knows?: in a stressful situation an adrenalin rush might make me oblivious to the chronic foot pain from a shattered heel that didn't heal all that well, but I don't set land speed records these days. In addition to pain, whenever I place my weight on my bum foot I am at risk of stumbling, as the tiny muscles in that foot are weak.
 
Posted by Limnophile:
If a bad guy declares war on me by committing or threatening to commit an act of war against me, others, or my property my objective is to win the battle by stopping him.
Well, okay, if and only if "winning by stopping" is immediately necessary as a last resort and includes dissuasion, evasion, and deescalation.

If the goal were to avoid being injured there would be no need to carry; rather, we would just need to be prepared by wearing running shoes at all times.
If retreat is safely possible, even if it not a duty, you will find it your best tactic.

Missed shots cannot be counted on to produce a stop. A miss rate of about 75% is highly relevant in planning one's gear purchases and tactics. For example, ways gear can mitigate the known miss rate include:
Increase firepower (volume of fire potential) by carrying a high-capacity pistol;
Increase firepower by carrying an additional spare magazine;
Carry a caliber that is not hampered unnecessarily by recoil to increase accuracy and firepower.
I agree.

In terms of tactics, I see two choices -- dazzle the bad guy with firepower (actual volume of fire), or take time to put rounds accurately on target. Of course, there is an infinite number of positions in between these two extremes.
I see no benefit reason whatsoever in "dazzling with firepower" if the rounds do not hit the target.

You can only "take the time" if you have the time, and time will likely be a very scarce commodity.

Perhaps, but I must honestly admit that [(getting just a little farther from a man with a blade before you can stop him)] 's not something I can rely on.
I think we all need to realize that if we are attacked suddenly attacked without warning, there is really nothing upon which we will be able to reliably rely--drawing speed, shooting speed, hitting vital parts of the body, so clued "stopping power" .....

If you watch a few training scenarios in which an attacker starts moving without warning at, say five meters per second, and the defender has to draw, present, and start firing at the moving attacker and somehow stop him before being overcome, you will likely conclude that the defender often has little hope of defending against a contact weapon timely without moving.

If he cannot move laterally, he may have no other choice but to drop to the ground, out of the way.

I cannot move quickly. I carry a walking stick, which can help address knee issues, and which can help keep an attacker at bay.
 
you don't have to take a step to get off the X

Measure how wide your chest is. Now assuming some BG is a good shot and aiming at center mass see how far you can move yourself left or right, or just rotate your shoulders, one to the front and the other to the back. I will wager that you could move at least half the width of your chest without moving your feet. If you can, you have gotten off the X. Not as good as running a mile away, BUT you are not a stone cold stationary target. In hand to hand you do not have to move much to avoid a punch. Getting off the X is much the same. A little upper body movement is better than none. Now if you think of getting into a solid firing position and combine that with shuttle movement you get off the X and are no longer a victim, but a fighter.

Even great fighters loose though so your best defense is situational awareness. If it feels hinky , get your a__ out of there.

You can still be EASLY very dead with your CCW and all your thoughts and training. :eek: off the soap box now-
 
Well, okay, if and only if "winning by stopping" is immediately necessary as a last resort and includes dissuasion, evasion, and deescalation.

Naturally. Unholstering one's sidearm as a first resort in any confrontation that starts out nonviolently is a good way to end up surrendering one's property and liberty to one's attorney and the authorities, respectively. I'm not going to unholster my pistol in public view unless I feel legally empowered to shoot in defense of myself, of another, or of my property; in other words, not until it is cleary past time trying to win friends and influence people with my good looks and charming personality.

If retreat is safely possible, even if it not a duty, you will find it your best tactic.

Running was never my forte even before I shattered my heel. But, I believe your advice, while generally sound, has exceptions. For example, if retreating means surrendering my property that is under threat, retreat could be unwise -- eg, consider a situation where someone is threatening to steal your vehicle in the middle of Death Valley, where without the vehicle or supplies inside you are almost certain to perish. Another example -- someone else's life or health is being threatened. You may have an avenue of retreat to safety, but doing so abandons a fellow human to the fate of whatever the bad guy has in store for him. When I took a handgun class three years ago after applying for my CPL, we were told the appropriate action in such a scenario is to retreat, that doing otherwise would expose us to legal liability. I was the only one in the class of about 20 who objected, and I did so on the grounds of morality. I have since read my state's relevant laws and now know that I am legally empowered to defend another with lethal force should that person be in imminent jeopardy of serious harm.

I see no benefit reason whatsoever in "dazzling with firepower" if the rounds do not hit the target.

You can only "take the time" if you have the time, and time will likely be a very scarce commodity.
Dazzling with firepower could produce a psychological stop, or buy you some time to maneuver more safely if the firepower display forces your foe to seek cover. The US military elevated the tactic of dazzlement with firepower to a strategy in the Vietnam War, where the number of bullets expended per enemy killed was outrageous. I remember reading that the Australian Army was trained to aim and fire judiciously. They went on patrols with a much smaller ammo loadout than their American counterparts yet were quite successful in racking up kills.

But, hits that result in wound channels that intersect highly vascularized vital tissues are far more dependable in producing stops, so I try to bias my tactical training in this direction (while opting so far for high capacity pistols).

I think we all need to realize that if we are attacked suddenly attacked without warning, there is really nothing upon which we will be able to reliably rely--drawing speed, shooting speed, hitting vital parts of the body, so clued "stopping power" .....

If you watch a few training scenarios in which an attacker starts moving without warning at, say five meters per second, and the defender has to draw, present, and start firing at the moving attacker and somehow stop him before being overcome, you will likely conclude that the defender often has little hope of defending against a contact weapon timely without moving.

If he cannot move laterally, he may have no other choice but to drop to the ground, out of the way.

I cannot move quickly. I carry a walking stick, which can help address knee issues, and which can help keep an attacker at bay.

A walking stick can be a great self-defense weapon. I rejoiced when a graduated from crutches to a cane, and my hickory can can be a useful defensive tool, too. I find those self-defense umbrellas interesting, as in western WA carrying one anytime from November through March, our monsoon season, would be unobtrusive.

The urban knockout game shows how vulnerable we are to a viscious sneak attack. I don't know of an effective way to defend against such an attack, except to 1) travel only in a group, or 2) avoid areas in which the game is or has been played.
 
Posted by Limnophile:
Dazzling with firepower could produce a psychological stop, or buy you some time to maneuver more safely if the firepower display forces your foe to seek cover.
Maybe.

A charging attacker may cover five meters in the time it takes to fire four shots. I would not count on dissuading him with gunfire during that part of the incident.

Consider also that in a self-defense encounter, one is not on a battlefield. Nor is one on a shooting range, where bystanders are behind the line and where there is a good backstop. I fact, you may have to move to get a clear shot and to get in line with a backstop.

The US military elevated the tactic of dazzlement with firepower to a strategy in the Vietnam War, where the number of bullets expended per enemy killed was outrageous.
One more time, there is a significant difference between the objectives of self defense and those of infantry engagements.

The urban knockout game shows how vulnerable we are to a viscious sneak attack. I don't know of an effective way to defend against such an attack, except to 1) travel only in a group, or 2) avoid areas in which the game is or has been played.
They savages go everywhere, and they have no problem selecting a victim from a crowd.

Try paying attention all the time, and if you see someone with a cell phone who seems to be noticing you, change your speed and direction instantly.
 
A charging attacker may cover five meters in the time it takes to fire four shots. I would not count on dissuading him with gunfire during that part of the incident.

I agree, which is why I would lean toward standing my ground (not that I have much choice) and delivering accurate fire. If I were young and spry I think I would still lean that way, but I was never much of a runner.

Consider also that in a self-defense encounter, one is not on a battlefield. Nor is one on a shooting range, where bystanders are behind the line and where there is a good backstop. I fact, you may have to move to get a clear shot and to get in line with a backstop.

I view the location of a self-defense encounter as a battlefield. A modern battlefield does not have nice, organized lines. If I have to move to get a clear shot I'm probably leaving a covered position, which may be unwise unless it is necessary to defend another who is not under cover. If I am truly in imminent danger, to be honest my last concern will be ensuring I have a safe backstop. If innocents are in the background I would hopefully try to ensure hitting my target and hope that the energy of a fully penetrating bullet would be insufficient to do great harm to a bystander. Yes, that means abandoning a key safety rule, but if I'm on the verge of losing my life I have an unalienable right to defend myself, and I'd rather be alive and facing criminal and civil consequences than be dead because I was a slave to Jeff Cooper's rules. Having said that, I would certainly be willing and able to take a few steps, time permiting, in search of a safe backdrop; it's just that running is not a likely option for me.

One more time, there is a significant difference between the objectives of self defense and those of infantry engagements.

Once again, if winning is seen as the ultimate objective, both types of engagements have their similarities, too. Military tactics have worked their way into domestic law enforcement. One way this is manifested is that the number of shots fired per LE shooting has gone up, a military "firepower is supreme" tactic made possible by double-stack auto-loading pistols having replaced revolvers.

They savages go everywhere, and they have no problem selecting a victim from a crowd.

Try paying attention all the time, and if you see someone with a cell phone who seems to be noticing you, change your speed and direction instantly.

I guess I have been fortunate to have been raised in a relatively safe environment, and wise enough to choose to dwell in such environments. My current neighborhood is dominated by Microsofties. While they tend to be annoyingly progressive, they are a placid lot.

Taking the recommendation of this thread -- to move when under threat -- to the extreme, it would be even better to not venture into a dangerous environment in the first place. Violent crime statistics are available by location, so it can be easy to avoid nasty places.

While I did not do an exhaustive search, I could find no YouTube videos showing or endorsing the idea of shooting on the run. Delivering accurate fire from a stable stance seems to be preferred for obvious reasons. Those videos that do address shooting while moving emphasize walking slowly in a non-bobbing manner.

I can think of no legitimate self-defense reason for shooting while advancing on a bad guy, as I assume any decrease in range is more than countered by decreased accuracy and precision imparted by movement. Also, proximity to a bad guy puts you in increased jeopardy. I can understand a need to shoot while moving backwards to put distance between you and the bad guy, or, better yet, to reach cover behind you. Moving laterally makes sense to reach cover or to make you a harder target to hit, but a walking speed isn't going to throw a bad guy off by much at self-defense distances.

Combat gaming videos that I recall seeing also don't show any shooting on the run, but rather running between stations where stable stances are taken from which to deliver fire balanced to an optimal mix of accuracy and rapidity. Perhaps I've misunderstood the OP in interpreting the advice to move as meaning to shoot while moving quickly. I can understand the advantages of the combat-gaming tactic of running between stations where solid stances are assumed from which to deliver fire. If I were to participate in such games I would, due to my foot, be walking between stations.
 
Posted by Limnophile:
I agree, which is why I would lean toward standing my ground (not that I have much choice) and delivering accurate fire.
Have you tried that, in any kind of realistic simulation-based training?

You have to (1) recognize the threat, (2) draw and present, and (3) shoot as many times as necessary. AND--your attacker has to stop before striking you.

If you detect and start acting when the attacker is six yards away, and if he moves a five yards per second, that must all take place in 1.2 seconds--including the time for the attacker to be stopped.

You can increase the time by moving--away from him, or laterally and forcing the attacker to change direction.

I view the location of a self-defense encounter as a battlefield.
???

A modern battlefield does not have nice, organized lines.
Nor is the location of a defensive encounter likely to have such lines. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

If I have to move to get a clear shot I'm probably leaving a covered position, which may be unwise unless ...
Why would you ever think that?

If I am truly in imminent danger, to be honest my last concern will be ensuring I have a safe backstop. If innocents are in the background I would hopefully....
In my opinion, you really have to re-think that. Obtain and watch the recent episode of The Best Defense about the pharmacy robbery. It's all about clear shots and backstops.

Taking the recommendation of this thread -- to move when under threat -- to the extreme, it would be even better to not venture into a dangerous environment in the first place.
That should always be the first strategy. It is sometimes expressed as "don't go to stupid places."

While I did not do an exhaustive search, I could find no YouTube videos showing or endorsing the idea of shooting on the run.
Here is just such a video. You will find it well worth the time. It shows not only what to do, but why.

I have not tried shooting while moving. I have, however, trained in "moving off the X" while drawing. See this.

I have a trick knee, limited stamina, and more frequently than I should, bouts of gout. But I guarantee you that I would never trust my luck to standing still if I were being attacked.

A bood blackthorn walking stick helps with mobility, and if push comes to shove (pun intended) it would be a good thing to have for anyone.

Delivering accurate fire from a stable stance seems to be preferred for obvious reasons.
I cannot tell what you are thinking, but it seems to me like you are thinking in terms of group size, as in range shooting. Forget about it. If you are being attacked, you will have no idea where, within that three dimensional moving attacker, the small vital targets are. Nor will you have time to worry about hitting them, even though doing so is critical. I will be a matter of balancing speed and precision, with the hitting of vial areas being a stochastic thing.
 
Have you tried that, in any kind of realistic simulation-based training?

I have not. Neither of the two ranges in my area allows such training on one's own. I noticed recently that one is now offering an 8-hr class that gets into more realistic defensive shooting. That's a long time for my foot, but it's on my to-be-considered list. Unfortunately, the USFS has banned target shooting on all nearby, easily accessible NF lands.

You have to (1) recognize the threat, (2) draw and present, and (3) shoot as many times as necessary. AND--your attacker has to stop before striking you.

If you detect and start acting when the attacker is six yards away, and if he moves a five yards per second, that must all take place in 1.2 seconds--including the time for the attacker to be stopped.

You can increase the time by moving--away from him, or laterally and forcing the attacker to change direction.

I'm well aware of the Tueller Drill and its implications. In 1.2 sec I'm not going to be moving fast or far, and when I place my weight on the bum foot I am often unstable. I have to work with what I have.

Nor is the location of a defensive encounter likely to have such lines.

One reason I view the location of a self-defense encounter as a battlefield.

Why would you ever think that?

Because any intervening objects between me and the bad guy that could interfere with my shot are providing cover (and perhaps concealment) to some degree.

In my opinion, you really have to re-think that. Obtain and watch the recent episode of The Best Defense about the pharmacy robbery. It's all about clear shots and backstops.

If you are referring to the recent armed robbery attempt where the pharmacy owner/pharmacist used his two employees/coworkers as concealment to draw his concealed sidearm on the robber who had his handgun trained on the three, I think you might want to watch that again. The gunfighting pharmacist was lucky that the robber was either inattentive or not really committed to firing his weapon in the commission of his crime. I'd be less than thrilled if someone used me as concealment to draw his weapon on a bad guy who was aiming a gun at me. While it's not a literal backdrop issue from the pharmacist's perspective, it amounts to pretty much the same thing, as his actions were a provocation that may have resulted in the bad guy killing one or two of his employees. The pharmacist has the right to put his life in further jeopardy, but did he have the right to put the lives of his two coworkers in further jeopardy? If you believe he did have the right to further jeopardize them, then you agree with me that collateral damage in defense of self or others is morally justifiable. In that particular scenario I do not think the pharmacist's actions were smart or considerate. I'm glad it worked out okay, but given that the guy had the drop on everyone behind the counter, the prudent action would have been to hand over cash, drugs, or both then call 911. Or at least wait until the bad guy's gun isn't trained on a good guy before drawing and shooting.

That should always be the first strategy. It is sometimes expressed as "don't go to stupid places."

I realize many don't have this option, being trapped where they are by economic circumstances. Those are the folks who need to carry most, and an even better goal for them would be to move as soon as they can.

Here is just such a video. You will find it well worth the time. It shows not only what to do, but why.

Thanks for the link. I shall watch the video and get back to you.

I have not tried shooting while moving. I have, however, trained in "moving off the X" while drawing. See this.

I'll watch this, too. If "getting off the X" means only relatively slight movement while drawing, that's acceptable to me if it can be done without sacrificing speed, accuracy, and precision needed to get the job done. But, for me, a quick move that puts my weight on my left foot may well cause a stumble that could significantly delay or interrupt my draw and the quick assumption of a relatively stable stance.

I have a trick knee, limited stamina, and more frequently than I should, bouts of gout. But I guarantee you that I would never trust my luck to standing still if I were being attacked.

I'm glad you are more mobile than me. I know my limitations. A Tueller Drill and the knockout game are very similar, sudden threats. I've concluded my very best defense is to avoid areas where such threats are more likely, and, fortunately, that's easy for me to do in my locale. If I get around to taking the new 8-hr class I mentioned above, I imagine I will have the opportunity to test my conclusion.

A bood blackthorn walking stick helps with mobility, and if push comes to shove (pun intended) it would be a good thing to have for anyone.

I rarely use my cane these days, but if I take a short hike I use trekking poles and rest alot on the way. If I need to hit a store for just a single item, I'll use a shopping cart, because it functions like a walker and attenuates my "drunken walk." I can balance myself on my right foot for considerable time, but cannot do so for more than a second or two on my left foot. As a result, when my weight is on just my left foot I sometimes stagger, which feels and presumably looks like a drunkard's walk -- it can be embarrassing.

I cannot tell what you are thinking, but it seems to me like you are thinking in terms of group size, as in range shooting. Forget about it. If you are being attacked, you will have no idea where, within that three dimensional moving attacker, the small vital targets are. Nor will you have time to worry about hitting them, even though doing so is critical. I will be a matter of balancing speed and precision, with the hitting of vial areas being a stochastic thing.

Considering group size is critical no matter what the setting or reason for shooting. We agree that praying and spraying may produce a psychological stop, but cannot and should not be counted on to produce any stop; in other words, hitting the target in the vitals must be the goal for defensive shooting.

For slow-fire range practice, I strive for 20-moa groups, which is good enough to hit the IDPA -0 thoracic zone out to and beyond the game's 35-yd maximum distance. As I ratchet up the complication factor, thus imposing stress on me, I will accept larger groups as the simulated situation warrants.

In a real-world situation at 5 yd, I'd be very happy hitting the bad guy anywhere with each shot, which would make me far better than the average LEO, who misses about 75% of his shots. Using the IDPA target as an anatomical model, the largest circle one can inscribe within the -3 zone is one with a 17.375-inch diameter, which at 5 yd is a whopping 332-moa target. In the hope of achieving that when needed I will train by striving to shoot much tighter groups than that.
 
Last edited:
Posted by Limnophile:
If you are referring to the recent armed robbery attempt where the pharmacy owner/pharmacist used his two employees/coworkers as concealment to draw his concealed sidearm...
I am not.

The Best Defense takes a realistic incident and shows, through role-playing, how the defender's actions can fail, and then shows a couple of better responses. Theey than show some training exercises appropriate to the kinds of situations at hand.

In the Pharmacy Robbery, a pharmacist drew from a stationary position and fired at an armed robber. In so doing, he got shot, shot an employee, and put a bullet though a glass window with innocents on the other side--a very bad situation.

When the scenario was replayed, just a little movement on the part of the defender caused the robber to miss, allowed the pharmacist to shoot the robber without putting his employee at risk, and put the bullets into a hard backstop.

They then went through the exercises on a range with "good guy" and "bad guy" targets set up and a "backstop" to show how one would go about it.

It was a very good portrayal, and for those who have not seen it, it is worth buying the DVD.

I had not seen it before the one occasion in which I stumbled into an obvious robbery about to happen. The first thing I did was to think "backstop" and "clear shots" (foreground and background), and move accordingly.

Fortunately the robber aborted the attempt. Did I do the right thing? No! I should have reacted to the car situated unnaturally outside and driven away without entering the store.

I am not alone in my immediate thought process. There was a recent post here on TFL in which Pax related having gone through the same step.

If you believe he did have the right to further jeopardize them, then you agree with me that collateral damage in defense of self or others is morally justifiable.
We can discuss morality for days, and if you can successfully articulate that you did not act recklessly and that you did act only with immediate necessity, you may ultimately prevail in civil court, but you will always regret that "collateral damage".

Using the IDPA target as an anatomical model, the largest circle one can inscribe within the -3 zone is one with a 17.375-inch diameter, which at 5 yd is a whopping 332-moa target. In the hope of achieving that when needed I will train by striving to shoot much tighter groups than that.
That's what many of us start out doing, but we learn after a little training that training for "good shooting" won't really help us much in a defensive encounter, after we have addressed the fundamentals. Practicing by squeezing off 20 moa groups just will not prepare us to put four shots into the upper chest of a moving target at three to five yards in under a second.

Pincus will tell you that if you are shooting tight groups you are shooting too slowly.

Consider this. Somewhere, and you do will know where, within that three dimensional mass moving at you are a few small internal targets that you can shoot that would help effect a reasonably quick shot. If you miss them--not good. The only way you would have any hope of hitting any of them is to put several shots into the attacker very rapidly indeed.

Striving for small groups will not help you there.
 
OldMarksman,
It was/ is John Farnam that advocates "stitching them up the middle", going for the Aorta and up into the Thoracic triangle.
Best,
Rob
 
Posted by robmkivseries70:
It was/ is John Farnam that advocates "stitching them up the middle", going for the Aorta and up into the Thoracic triangle.
Bob, that might work.

I'm not sure I could do that very well however. I do not know how practical it would be if the attacker were not facing you and reasonably upright. Visualize someone rounding the pumps or the pick-up next to your car, leaning forward and moving obliquely with respect to your position.

I do not know what Farnham would recommend, but in my case, I would have my hands full moving to gain distance and if possible, nearby cover (pump or car), drawing, presenting, and shooting.

And I most seriously doubt that I would be thinking "aorta". I don't know for sure, but I think it likely that I would be working to hit anywhere on the upper torso several times very quickly.

Understand that I am not a highly trained defensive shooter.
 
The frontiersmen Daniel Boone and Simon Kenton practiced to perfection running through the forest, zig-zagging and ducking trees, while reloading and shooting their flintlock rifles.
Talk about getting off the X.
Practicing anything long enough and well enough yields success, whether it's standing pat and shooting or getting out of the way and shooting.
Or both, depending on circumstances.
 
I do not know what Farnham would recommend, but in my case, I would have my hands full moving to gain distance and if possible, nearby cover (pump or car), drawing, presenting, and shooting.

Just took a Farnam class this weekend, so his patter is fresh in my mind. Couple of things:

Farnam does advocate the zipper, but not as an uncontrolled "oh I'll accept a hit anywhere" kind of thing. He wants you to place your shots on your target, not just throw them out there somewhere in the target's general vicinity.

He absolutely does not accept the kind of self-justification that says, "Well, I was aiming for the upper center chest, but one of my shots went low and would have hit maybe in the navel and that would kill the bad guy too since that's right above where the femoral arteries split off, so I'm good." That's just denial. And we don't accept denial. If you made a mistake, own it. Then get better.

If you're told to put your shots inside a 5x13 rectangle, and there are shots outside the rectangle, then you weren't controlling your shots. You must control your shots. Regardless of the specific aimpoint you choose, you should be hitting that aimpoint to the degree of accuracy (and with the exact amount of speed) the situation requires.

In class, on paper, he accepts students getting 80% of their shots within a fairly small hit zone; anything outside that small zone is a miss (and we're talking misses by inches, not yards). The reason he accepts that percentage in class is that he wants students to push their current speed limits and regards anything faster than that as a waste of bullets that builds bad habits. You want to be in the habit of hitting your target.

Then he takes you out to the rotating targets and expects you to draw while moving, get your hits on moving 8 inch plates at approximately 7 yards, move abruptly away from your previous position at least every four shots, move again whenever you are not actively shooting (eg, when clearing stoppages or reloading) -- and continue to fire those precisely-timed shots until you have successfully spun the rotator, which is itself not an easy task.

The man does good work. Glad to have had an opportunity to learn from him.

pax
 
It is best to have options when one is in a SHTF situation...
whether attacked by another gun or any weapon...

First, if they've already drawn, you can't outdraw, so RUN DUCK & DODGE.

Second...range...
If at extreme close range (within 6 feet), you better know Gun Fu.
If you don't, learn as much as you can. Fast. Sometimes it is better to disarm than gunfight.
And by disarm, I mean tear their gun arm off and beat 'em with it.
Oh, wait, not everyone here is a 6'3 gorilla?? ;)
Well, ok, easy-peasy tool that almost anyone can do is an elbow dislocate. Learn it.
Learn how to dislocate a wrist. Takes even less pressure.
Learn how to dislocate a thumb...you get the idea, just get their gun.
Learn how to block the gun to the outside and then throat punch or ridgehand their throat.
Yes, that's lethal, and yes, that's the point.

If past 6 feet and you can't safely close the distance in time to stop the shot, run duck dodge.
The more room between you and them, the better.
Find cover, get it between you & them, draw yours, return fire when opportunity presents.
Please, do not evade like Paul Blart...that's just sad.

Bulletproof clothing...like Miguel Caballero or Aspetto (Virginia)...
they make some of the best bullet protection clothing known to man.
Very comfy in all weather, light & airy when you need to be...
blazers, suits, comfort wear :)
 
Back
Top