The 360 Degree Scan

D

Deaf Smith

New member
Guys,

I have this gripe.

It's about the 360 degree scan.

See what one is supposed to do is after they have fired at the targets in front (or in real life an attacker or more) is supposed to do a 360 scan around them to make sure there are no others. Sort of an extension of the +1 rule. It's a good thing to learn, kind of like the tac-load (hahaha.)

Anyway the gripe is I see this technique quite often at training classes and I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM ARE EVEN REALLY LOOKING! They just go through the motions, usually with the weapon in the SUL position (which is a good idea.)

I’m tempted to get a ASP ‘Red’ gun, paint it black, and twirl it behind them to see if they are even observing what is around them. I bet few notice.

Anyway, that’s my beef for tonight.
 
I just wonder about the situations where you would engage targets in real life, and how much use a 360 sweep would be.

The bigger part of me screams out about the fact that if you are doing a training course with rules, then you need to 110% take those rules seriously. If you won't follow the rules in training, how many rules will you break in real life? How unsafe is a shooter in the real world, who can't be bothered to follow the rules when nothing is on the line?
 
I just wonder about the situations where you would engage targets in real life, and how much use a 360 sweep would be.
Click to expand...
This would also apply to probably about 95% of the topics posted on this forum.
 
The "big look around" serves a dual purpose. The first of course is to ensure that anyone around you that would benefit from being shot, has in fact been shot. And yes, for this reason they should be more observent while looking around. The other is a little tip trainers have picked up from the physiologist types. It seems that looking around, that swinging of the head from side to side, actually helps break up tunnel vision. It's not a bad practice to develope.
 
Last edited:
This would also apply to probably about 95% of the topics posted on this forum.
Click to expand...
Fair enough... and we should take each one individually, and determine how much each hypothetical applies to the real world. That's sort of the point, isn't it?
 
I think that the 360 scan is something that normally wouldn't be done in real life (do to the effects of fight or flight and tunnel vision), but its something that tactically is important, so its trained in. I agree that it should be done from SUL or a high ready position (muzzle up), depending on the environment. In reality based training, its advantageous to teach students how to scan and move in a 360 degree area, with a gun in their hand. Many ranges / schools frown upon this but its something that needs to be learned and learned how to do it safely.
A common problem does seem to be that students fail to truely access their surroundings during a scan. Personally, I've had students who I suspected were not really observing when they did their area scans. I've stood behind them with my finger pointed at their head like a gun to see if they would notice. Usually, they don't. If you're going to teach the 360 scan or 180 scan, you do need to instill in your students that they need to not just go through the motions.
 
agreed in that the 360 scan serves 2 purposes. first is to see any other threats that are in your area. bag guys often travel in herds and you should be aware of who else needs to be shot ( tongue in cheek there folks...)

the other is breaking the tunnel vision that often occurs. obviously you dont want to turn your back on a threat..but once you have assessed that the threat you just shot is no longer a threat..then scan.

you are correct in that most of the vid's showing folks appear to just be going thru the motions..but the instructors that i have trained with make eye contact with you as you spin and generally made sure you were " seeing "..not just spinning.
 
Scanning

I make my students/operators call out the number of fingers I am holding up to their sides and rear, together with 'hidden' targets in the tree line or in a room that they must actually engage.

If they do not engage those hidden targets I can see that they are not properly seeing while scanning, rather, they are simply "scanning" to appease me. If I see this, I will correct them immediately.

In this training exericse, after a vehicle ambush, I am showing my student how to properly clear the immediate area around the vehilce and due to worst case scenario, charge the attackers with little to no cover.

In keeping with my Israeli combat training doctrine, the scanning is done in a different way than is commonly taught in the USA. This is Israeli counter terror training. The scanning was fast but to the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm7im7Ab36A
 
Deaf Smith,

I was mentored like this, as there is a difference in "seeing" and "looking" just as there is a difference in "hearing" and "listening".


Repetition becomes habit, habit becomes faith.

We would best advised to ingrain correct basic fundamentals than not.
 
Sm,

Miyamoto Musashi wrote about sight and preception, hearing and listening, touching and feeling, and the difference between them.

I think that applies to the 360 scan as well as other things.

And yes, repetition becomes habit, habit becomes faith. We fight as we train, and even then in the heat of battle we tend to not remember everything, but hopefully the basics we grounded in come through.

And faith? As they say in fighter jock school, keep the faith and check your six.

And that is what the 360 is all about!
 
Let's ask a serious question though: which is better, looking around, or practicing Nike Kwan Do to the nearest hard cover and THEN looking around?

Seriously, immediately running for cover may be the more survival-positive response even if cover is 21+ feet away. I'd rather dart over behind a nice solid engine block or whatever, threatscan what's behind it, then slowly peek everywhere else with gun at a low ready.
 
Jim,

All self-defense is situational. If it's in a parking lot with lots of cars, then the cars are cover. If it's in a stop-n-rob, well some concealment but no real cover except the counter. If it's in a eatery, like a McDonalds, it will depend. Like I said, it's all situational. But if one does stay put and do a 360, do look!
 
All self-defense is situational. If it's in a parking lot with lots of cars, then the cars are cover. If it's in a stop-n-rob, well some concealment but no real cover except the counter. If it's in a eatery, like a McDonalds, it will depend. Like I said, it's all situational.
Click to expand...

Sure, no argument there.

But if one does stay put and do a 360, do look!
Click to expand...

Right, but...what I'm saying here is that even with cover a LONG ways away...

Let's start with a worst case scenario: you've just flat-out killed a mugger with a gun 10 feet in front of you. Great. There's another one 20 feet to your rear and you don't know it.

If you scan 360, spot him, make the choice to shoot and do so, a LOT of time is involved (when "time" means "mid-gunfight time").

What are the odds he's going to shoot you by the time you've done most of that, versus the odds he's going to do an effective shot on somebody beating feet crouched over, likely in low light conditions?

In this worst-case situation where there's another on your six, which plan is more or less likely to get you shot? Even if the cover you're running for is 50, even 100 feet away?

Next, odds are cover isn't near that far out. In an urban area, likely a lot less - and 21ft (even including up and over a McDonald's cash register counter) is 1.5 seconds away if you're amped up enough. In other words, if what's ingrained in your training is "shoot and MOVEMOVEMOVE!!!" and you do that *immediately* upon having to fire and you down the opponent...that seems like it's overall more survival oriented than pausing in place for a threatscan.
 
Jim March,

It seems to me that, based on your last post, a good compromise would be to put something solid at your back and do a 180 scan if possible? I doubt that most of us will ever be in a SD situation where there isn't a wall, car, or other solid cover within a few feet of us.
 
Jim,

Not in total disagreement with the stategy of finding cover, but there is something you might consider. There was an incident in NY just a week or so ago. There was an off duty officer chasing a man with his gun drawn (I'm not going to debate whether or not what this officer was doing was right or wrong - it's just what he was doing). An officer who was on duty, witnessed the chace in progress, and shot and killed the off duty officer.

Now, lets go back to where we started. There has just been a shooting, and you are seen "fleeing from the scene" with gun in hand. Do you really want to be that guy!?
 
Last edited:
Yes this is all situational.

I once "skimmed" (not a full scan) during a set up and when I went for cover, that is where the tailgunner was.

Mentor sort had a evil grin when he said "Young'un, you dead".

I was not having a good day, that day. I turned right around, on the next set up, scanned 360 and hit the nearest exit and ...talk about being in the fatal funnel of a exit .

These set ups (stages) were run both with me being armed, and being in NPEs.

Third time is charm... The next set up...I "survived" although I did take a wax bullet in the leg.

I learned "pull to open" means "push to exit". Like a dingbat, and being into this set up , I tried to pull the door open to exit and that "delay" is what got me shot.

WE get goofy, make mistakes, motor skills erode...
Big letters and I cannot operate a door correctly...still I did evade, and survive...got shot in the process, but at least I did not get killed.
 
It seems to me that, based on your last post, a good compromise would be to put something solid at your back and do a 180 scan if possible?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Plus, I suspect the initial rapid movement can derail the tail-gunner's "train of thought".

This in part stems from that crazy "subway train and hammers" thing I went through in real life some years back. No guns involved, but I made direct contact with four lunatics trying to kill somebody, two armed with hammers I didn't notice. I pushed 'em off their victim, he jumped to his feet and ran, I backed up to cover his retreat. I was in contact with the baddies for such a brief period (under a second), they never had the sense to bring the hammers to bear.

"By the book", that incident should have got me a bad case of dead and would have done so (rightly) in any drill. Yet here I am...

So that's a big part of what's driving my thinking here.

Not in total disagreement with the stategy of finding cover, but there is something you might consider. There was an incident in NY just a week or so ago. There was an off duty officer chasing a man with his gun drawn (I'm not going to debate whether or not what this officer was doing was right or wrong - it's just what he was doing). An officer who was on duty, witnessed the chace in progress, and shot and killed the off duty officer.

Now, lets go back to where we started. There has just been a shooting, and you are seen "fleeing from the scene" with gun in hand. Do you really want to be that guy!?
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference here, in that the off-duty cop was chasing a fleeing goblin, something I have no intention of doing. Because he was chasing, he was part of a whole net of cops closing in on the goblin, and that's why target ID became a huge issue.

But in the case of, say, a mugging, what are the odds a cop will be there in the first five seconds post-gunfire?

A *LOT* lower than the odds there'll be a second (or more!) goblin.
 
That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Plus, I suspect the initial rapid movement can derail the tail-gunner's "train of thought".

This in part stems from that crazy "subway train and hammers" thing I went through in real life some years back. No guns involved, but I made direct contact with four lunatics trying to kill somebody, two armed with hammers I didn't notice. I pushed 'em off their victim, he jumped to his feet and ran, I backed up to cover his retreat. I was in contact with the baddies for such a brief period (under a second), they never had the sense to bring the hammers to bear.

"By the book", that incident should have got me a bad case of dead and would have done so (rightly) in any drill. Yet here I am...

So that's a big part of what's driving my thinking here.
Click to expand...
That brings up all sorts of questions and comments, foremost being the possible effectiveness of warning shots. I've never considered a warning shot to be a great idea before... but in reality, is it likely that a guy robbing my house or trying to hold me up going to maintain the presence of mind to ignore a warning shot and go through the process of target acquisition necessary to shoot me?

Drills teach you how to handle things in the worst scenario, but are you really likely to face off against people who are anywhere near as well trained as you? That doesn't mean that you should be so cocky as to allow a good chance of a "lucky" shot killing you, but at the same time I think it might mean that you don't just straight to lethal force at the first sign of trouble.
 
Interesting discussion. I'm also a huge fan of scanning, but what seems to work for me (IME) is a quick initial scan for threats, followed by a more detailed scan.

On another note, I train hard to move when drawing. A step or three to the left or right as the gun is presented seems like a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top