Stand there and shoot or get off the X?

[OldMarksman]

Pax, that sounds like an excellent course.

Shooting at moving plates at seven yards should certainly help with shooting skills, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to know how it would translate directly to defiensive training. I see people shooting at seven yards all the time. If we accept that distance, or thereabouts, as at least a somewhat valid general indicator of ability (in the context of a, o, and j) with an edged weapon, it would seem to me that a more likely shooting distance would be somewhere between three and five yards, including whatever distance the defender may have been able to move......

Interestingly, there are old police training videos that show officers firing revolvers at targets seven yards away. They were made long before Dennis Tueller conducted any time and distance studies.

 

[Limnophile]

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.

Different incidents. In the one I referred to the defending pharmacist was successful. I try not to be very critical of those who win self-defense encounters, but I do think something can be learned from after-action assessments, acknowledging that Monday morning quarterbacking is very easy.

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.

Not ever having stumbled upon the scene of a crime in progress, the closest I can come to understanding what you thought and did is hunting experiences. As a starving graduate student I once passed up an easy shot at a tasty-looking doe sauntering up a hill, because not long before her appearance a party of hunters -- heard, not seen, disembarked from the FS road above me and took up positions on the other side of a stand of trees that formed the backdrop behind the deer.

As to not recognizing an oddly parked car as a threat, I can understand that. Making the connection after the fact shows how experience offers big benefits. Just as on the battlefield, experienced combat vets have a much better chance of survival than do new replacements. In lieu of actual combat -- whether military, law enforcement, or civilian self defense -- the best experience is gained through training that is as realistic as prudent safety allows.

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".

Fortunately, WA use-of-force laws are fairly reasonable, but I agree that collateral damage would always be a burden to bear. It would be easier to bear if the damage was balanced by the successful defense of myself or others.

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.

Good shooting is relative to the situation. A 20-moa group at the range is a great group for me. An accurate, rapid-fire, 332-moa group under the stress of an actual self-defense encounter is a great group for almost anyone, as every shot should hit the target and the FBI reports 75% of shots in a LE gunfight typically miss. If I ever get around to practicing for IDPA, in the hope of achieving 332-moa groups in an actual gunfight, I would strive for 153-moa groups (the -0 thoracic zone at 5 yd) where the only added stress is the clock.

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

With all due respect to you and Pincus, if 75% of gunfight shots are misses, folks are shooting way too fast. You agree that the goal is a physiological, not pychological, stop, and physio stops only come about with hits.

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.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, one who is incapable of shooting tight groups under little or no pressure at the range will be unable to shoot with adequate accuracy and precision in an actual defense situation.

The definition of "small" is relative. I personally have defined "small" to be 20 moa at the range, and 332 moa in a real encounter -- at 5 yd these equate to 1.1-inch and 17-in groups, respectively. Under any training or gaming scenario I would consider 332 moa unacceptable, as any training scenario will be less stressful than an actual threat. More stress = less precision.

 

[Limnophile]

It was/ is John Farnam that advocates "stitching them up the middle", going for the Aorta and up into the Thoracic triangle.

From what I understand, the 10-round zipper stitch with .22 LR, starting at the crotch and finishing at the forehead, was the preferred tactic used very effectively in Chicago drug gang wars during the '70s. The near absence of recoil helps, but more so is the fact that these were assassinations, not self-defense encounters. The assassins got close by stealth or by deceipt, and they were acting, not reacting.

 

[OldMarksman]

As to not recognizing an oddly parked car as a threat, I can understand that.

This is off topic, but it may prove very valuable to anyone here who has not thought about it.

A parked car headed outward by the door of a convenience store near a highway, with a person in the driver's seat, is a pretty obvious danger sign. It would not be prudent to ignore it. Best to drive on, and maybe come back later. That has been covered in the literature and on television programs.

What I saw was a car pointed the wrong way in a parking lot, with a very nervous driver looking around furtively, repositioning his car for the purpose, as it turned out, of gaining better visibility into the store.

Obviously very suspicious, but since the store was at least two miles from any highway, with heavily trafficked city streets and with stop lights and stop signs on every road, I did not think foul play likely. But my risk assessment turned out to be faulty.

I made a mistake by going in, but what I had observed enabled me to recognize the threat very quickly indeed.

Back to the topic: my long familiarity with the staff led me to decide against non-intevention, but the layout made movement necessary to afford a clear shot with no one between me and the would-be robber, with no one behind him, and with a hard backstop. I would never have considered drawing without those conditions. Not for a moment.

My movement and attention evidently spooked him.

The pocket holster I was using provided me with a distinct advantage under the circumstances, but I soon came to realize that the J-Frame was not the best--I would not want to try one in the exercises that pax described in the John Farnham course. There may be this who can do that, but I cannot. Were the situation to arise today, I would have to manage a shirt-tail to access a firearm in an OWB holster.

I would probably, if things did not conspire to prevent it, try to do that surreptitiously, with my strong side turned away from the parent threat.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

One of the things about citing instructors to bolster an argument is that you can get X instructors and get X different arguments. Which one is right? Pincus says that if you are shooting tight groups that you are shooting too slowly? Okay, Clint Smith doesn't want you shooting any faster than getting good shots (palm-sized group). While Hackathorn believes in making good shots and striving toward good COM shots, he also believes any shots that hit the target are certainly better than shots that do not hit the target. As Pax noted, Farnam would have you zipper people. Wow, look at that. Four different instructors with four different approaches to marksmanship in self defense.

You can pick and choose a singular example such as the pharmacy incident and base your whole defense around it, but it is hardly a universal situation. It provides a singular situational example.

What was it Hackathorn said..."You should move, unless you shouldn't." Sometimes moving will put you in a less advantageous position or put noncombatants into a more dangerous situation.

And what did Clint Smith say..."I can't tell you what your self defense situation will be. Nobody can."

Sounds like Limnophile has worked out a plan that is based on his personal situation.

One of the things I really like about the Tueller drill is how unrealistic it is to the normal self defense situation that is likely to occur. In the Tueller drill, the defender has already decided s/he is going to shoot, but has not drawn a gun and has apparently decided to not draw a gun and not already be move to a better position. In fact, the defender has apparently decided that the best course of action is to not move until the attacker moves. It is just a race between the attacker covering the distance and the defender drawing (who may or may not be moving). In the real world, if you have already made the decision to shoot somebody at that range and don't have your gun out, you have likely made a serious mistake. If you have decided that you might have to shoot the person, haven't drawn, and you aren't already working your way to a better defensive position, you have likely made a mistake. So if you are in an actual Tueller situation, you have already screwed up.

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.

The Tueller Drill is a drill and not a scenario. We should not treat it as a scenario because it is so blatantly unrealistic.

When you run the Tueller drill where the defender doesn't know s/he is going to be attacked in advance of the start of the drill that he doesn't know the person running towards him is an attacker, he loses every time. That is because the Tueller drill removes all that time from the OODA loop that normally would be lost. Being a quick draw is a great skill, but most people lose a LOT more critical time in the OOD part of the loop than the A in real life situations. Attackers usually don't start their running attacks from 21 feet or more when they do attack. They start from much closer. They don't first announce that they have a knife and give the defender the opportunity to go through the OOD portion of the loop first, then start the charge.

This is one of my favorite "Tueller Drill" fail examples. Paul J. Spencer was an arson suspect who led cops on a brief 4 mile high speed chase before wrecking. The video picks up the action from there. You can watch the clock counter in the lower right corner. It gives whole seconds. You need to know that this was a felony chase by multiple officers and that officers immediately drew guns BEFORE the attack started as per procedure in such a chase culmination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xWczh1L8ns

He starts his attack, knife in hand, at 05:01:59 and disappears off camera at the end of 05:02:02/3 (clock doesn't show the 3 for some reason) and the defensive shooting doesn't start until 05:02:05. Officer Ron Dombkowski was stabbed/slashed in the face and Spencer was put down by 7 of 10 shots from officers Jeff Webb and Joe Fisher. Based on the distance estimated in the scene, Spencer undoubtedly covered his Tueller 21 before going off camera. According to PoliceOne, Spencer covered 22 feet before the stabbing started and was shot AFTER the officer was stabbed. http://www.policeone.com/edged-weap...spect-lunges-at-Ind-cop-before-slashing-face/

That the officers took the better part of 6 second to shoot Spencer is a testament to the fact that draw time (guns already drawn) was inconsequential here and yet Spencer still stabbed one target and that target FAILED to shoot Spencer.

Even in a situation where draw time was not an issue in this drill, the attacker managed to hit his mark. A good draw speed is great, but there is a WHOLE LOT more that goes into self defense shooting than the draw speed example of Tueller. Like the El Presidente, the Tueller Drill is a drill and not a scenario.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Double Naught Spy:

One of the things about citing instructors to bolster an argument is that you can get X instructors and get X different arguments. Which one is right? Pincus says that if you are shooting tight groups that you are shooting too slowly? Okay, Clint Smith doesn't want you shooting any faster than getting good shots (palm-sized group). While Hackathorn believes in making good shots and striving toward good COM shots, he also believes any shots that hit the target are certainly better than shots that do not hit the target. As Pax noted, Farnam would have you zipper people. Wow, look at that. Four different instructors with four different approaches to marksmanship in self defense.

Which one is right? Depends upon the situation. Pincus was describing reacting to a surprise violent encounter occurring at three to five yards.

It doe not take much in the way of speed and distance analysis and anatomical assessment to lead one to the clear conclusion that, in such situations, speed is of the essence and that a palm-size group would not provide much benefit at all. One who thinks about it will come to those conlusions without listening to any instructors.

But Pincus' entire philosophy is centered on the idea of a balance of speed and precision. In other situations, precision takes priority. His targets also have small circles on them.

Obviously, shots that miss have little positive value and quite a bit of potential negative value.

You can pick and choose a singular example such as the pharmacy incident and base your whole defense around it, but it is hardly a universal situation.

Well, one would not "base [one's] whole defense around it", but the concepts of clear shots and safe backgrounds are pretty universal indeed.

It provides a singular situational example.

Yes--a very good one.

What was it Hackathorn said..."You should move, unless you shouldn't." Sometimes moving will put you in a less advantageous position or put noncombatants into a more dangerous situation.

Sure. Depends upon where everyone and everything happens to be.

And what did Clint Smith say..."I can't tell you what your self defense situation will be. Nobody can."

True indeed.

Sounds like Limnophile has worked out a plan that is based on his personal situation.

Maybe, but I am somewhat concerned about what I took to be his low level of concern about hitting innocents.

In the Tueller drill, the defender has already decided s/he is going to shoot, but has not drawn a gun and has apparently decided to not draw a gun and not already be move to a better position. In fact, the defender has apparently decided that the best course of action is to not move until the attacker moves. It is just a race between the attacker covering the distance and the defender drawing (who may or may not be moving). In the real world, if you have already made the decision to shoot somebody at that range and don't have your gun out, you have likely made a serious mistake. If you have decided that you might have to shoot the person, haven't drawn, and you aren't already working your way to a better defensive position, you have likely made a mistake. So if you are in an actual Tueller situation, you have already screwed up.

That is all very true, and well put.

The Tueller Drill is a drill and not a scenario. We should not treat it as a scenario because it is so blatantly unrealistic.

When I said

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.

..I did not mention the "Tueller Drill". I simply described a realistic scenario and performed some time and distance calculations to illustrate the problems that may arise from standing still.

Dennis Tueller did that too, a little differently and for a different purpose, but that does not change the point.

When you run the Tueller drill where the defender doesn't know s/he is going to be attacked in advance of the start of the drill that he doesn't know the person running towards him is an attacker, he loses every time. That is because the Tueller drill removes all that time from the OODA loop that normally would be lost.

That's one reason. The other is that the defender stands still. That is the point of the thread, and it is the point of the first Pincus video that I linked above

Being a quick draw is a great skill, but most people lose a LOT more critical time in the OOD part of the loop than the A in real life situations. Attackers usually don't start their running attacks from 21 feet or more when they do attack. They start from much closer. They don't first announce that they have a knife and give the defender the opportunity to go through the OOD portion of the loop first, then start the charge.

Good points.

A good draw speed is great, but there is a WHOLE LOT more that goes into self defense shooting than the draw speed example of Tueller.

Of course.

Like the El Presidente, the Tueller Drill is a drill and not a scenario.

The Tueller Drill is different, and it is a "scenario" in the context of its purpose, which was to demonstrate scientifically and objectively, for those evaluating lawful justification in the presentation of a firearm, that an attacker with an edged weapon can constitute an imminent threat long before closing to slashing range.

 

[Erno86]

With a charging attacker at 5 yards...I might shoot from retention or just use pointed fire, instead of sighted fire from a pistol or rifle; meanwhile picking & concentrating on a small target inside the target itself.

You can point shoot practice on moving targets by having someone shoot paintballs across your line of fire --- as long as your bullets hit the backstop.

They do sell a moving spring loaded target frame that is mounted on rails, that can have the target approach the shooter; or have it move laterally.

 

[Jim567]

My head is spinning after reading all this.

Maybe you should --- just think.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Jim567:

Maybe you should --- just think.

That is the first thing one should do.

Think about avoidance, and think about what is happening when avoidance has failed.

But it is necessary to have some trained responses ready to go. A surprise attack is not the time for improvisation.

 

[walks with gun]

I'm a thinkin, In some of the taticool classes in California, don't they teach a mixture of line dancing and defensive handgun. Keep moving, keep moving.

 

[Deja vu]

This may sound a little childish and goofy but I have been playing a little airsoft with my son. He is much more athletic and movable than I am but I actually feel like I am becoming at least a little better at moving and shooting. I know its not the same as live fire practice but I feel that there is technique that is coming back to me. We have done lots of stuff around the back yard but also a few indoor stuff (when the MRS is gone of course).

As I stated above I don't think this will replace live fire but it does require you to shoot and move.

p.s. it also lets me feel younger.

 

[g.willikers]

Nothing childish about it.
The military uses simunition and airsoft for training, along with video simulations.
It's easier to learn from mistakes than with live fire.