Shooting On The Move

[Mr_White]

It was quite a coincidence that the 'look or no look at the mag well during reload' thread took a side track to the subject of shooting on the move. I was about to start this thread as a continuation of the discussion that began in the 'dude with a knife' thread in the Romper Room.

So, let's talk shooting on the move.

I was originally taught to step laterally during all non-shooting tasks (draw, reloads, malfunction clearance, etc.)

I've since come around to more of JodyH's point of view, expressed in the reloading thread, that I am more likely to either not move, or move a whole lot.

What do other members here think about this subject?

[Odin Bravo One]

It depends on the circumstances. There are certainly many instances where movement is called for. But there are easily as many situations where movement is physically restricted, you have a moral obligation to hold your position, and/or you are otherwise unable to move for whatever reason. I have also found that in a close range engagement, there are times when movement directly into the threat can also be a much better option than trying to move off the line of attack, or create separation to engage, fix a malfunction, or perform a re-load.

The variables when it comes to tactics are so immeasurable that it is essentially impossible to analyze and have a COA for each situation one could face. Having "Default" programming to move might prove helpful at times, but I have found that a sound decision making process is more valuable in a rapidly changing lethal force environment than a conditioned response. Mindset and training to make those decisions quickly, then executing with decisive aggression will be far more useful over a wider variety of circumstances.

Training to move is certainly wise if that is going to be an option during your decision making process. Can't ignore training to execute the decision. But I won't do it every repetition, or every time I clear a malfunction, conduct a re-load, or otherwise have that situation arise on a static range, lest I allow it to become a conditioned response and execute pre-programmed movement when exactly the opposite is the better decision for a particular set of circumstances.

[JodyH]

{cut-n-paste}
Im a fan of moving off line.
Im just not a fan of ingraining a single step as that movement.
When I practice a side step while drawing, its the first step in a series of steps, not one and done.
Once I start moving I usually don't stop moving until I reach cover or my drill is complete.
{/cut-n-paste}

The way I look at it is this.
Either you have a solid position and you'll stay there and deliver rounds from a static position or you'll take off running and won't stop until you either hit something solid (cover) or you take care of the problem (by either outrunning it or persuading it to leave you alone).
I think the single side step and stop on every draw and every reload is programming you to do just that... a single step and then stop.
A single step doesn't get you off the line of attack unless you are belly button to belly button and even at that range I'd try a side step and then push past them before I went to the gun.
Another potential problem is stepping out of the pan and into the fire so to speak. I'd hate to take a big side step to get away from a gun and get hit by a semi doing 75 down the highway (pay attention LEO's, I'm talking to you with this one).

The movement drills I practice now might start at 2 yards, but by the time I've fired 3-5 rounds I'm at 7-10 yards angling away and still moving.
Or I start at 7 yards and move forward at an angle or laterally.
I sometimes start facing uprange immediately behind the target, sidestep and "flank" the target then shoot it "in the back".
Having a large 360 degree bermed range all to myself does have its training benefits.

[David Armstrong]

IMO shooting on the move does two things: it makes you move slower and shoot worse. Sometimes that is an acceptable compromise but for most situations I either want to move as quickly as possible or shoot to the best of my abilities. Intentionally handicapping both of those seems problematic for maximum success. To build off SeanM a bit, my default is to do what is needed most right then to the best of my ability to do it at that time. Sometimes we need to select another option, but for me the default is what gives the best return on that endeavor. If yo are going to shoot, shoot; if you are going to move, move; if you are going to reload, reload; etc. YMMV.

[Mr_White]

Training to move is certainly wise if that is going to be an option during your decision making process. Can't ignore training to execute the decision. But I won't do it every repetition, or every time I clear a malfunction, conduct a re-load, or otherwise have that situation arise on a static range, lest I allow it to become a conditioned response and execute pre-programmed movement when exactly the opposite is the better decision for a particular set of circumstances.

I was working on a post that made many of the same points you did, but you used many fewer words than I would have, and you speak from a position of experience, whereas I do not, so I'll skip all that.

The above quoted part of your post reminds me of a training anecdote though. As I said, I was originally trained at a school that, beyond the earlier classes, teaches everyone to always take a lateral step during the draw, reloads, malfunction clearance, etc. But because it is training on a line with lots of other students, it's limited to one step.

Sometimes, when demonstrating a reload or malfunction clearance or whatever in a more basic class where the students aren't being trained to step laterally yet, an instructor can't/doesn't stop himself from taking a lateral step, so great is the conditioning to do so. I think that's a simplistic training example of one or yours and JodyH's points.



I sometimes start facing uprange immediately behind the target, sidestep and "flank" the target then shoot it "in the back".
Having a large 360 degree bermed range all to myself does have its training benefits.

Huh, cool coincidence. We just worked on this same thing here, but as a low light drill which started with flashing the target in the face/eyes with our flashlight. Otherwise it was exactly the same as you described.

[JHC]

Thanks much Sean for that reply. Very good stuff.

To the OP - the topic is shooting right? Even though the OP also mentions reloads etc. In my modest experience reloading at full tilt is a LOT easier than shooting with precision at full tilt. And if a target I was shooting at was moving at the crawl I see most move at while making A zone hits, I do not think putting hits on them would be a very challenging shot. [yep, I've never been deliberately shot at, I know but I've got to form a plan.]

I'm not at all certain which is the best general approach although I lean towards the ideas I've seen Paul Howe espouse (and David Armstrong here) - generally, if one has to move then haul ass and if you have to shoot, take cover or otherwise pause to shoot with precision. OTOH, I've made a lot of A zone hits on targets when racing past them at close range <5 yards but that's so easy its intuitively obvious to the casual observer what to do in that situation so Sean's decision making dictum seems to apply there.

I look forward to learning a lot more about this from Ken Hackathorn this weekend in TN.

[Mr_White]

To the OP - the topic is shooting right? Even though the OP also mentions reloads etc.

I mentioned reloading because a tangent of 'movement' was starting in the 'looking at the magwell' thread, so I went ahead and started this one.

It doesn't bother me one little bit to bring gunhandling into it in addition to the marksmanship issues.

[Jay Cunningham]

It depends on the circumstances. There are certainly many instances where movement is called for. But there are easily as many situations where movement is physically restricted, you have a moral obligation to hold your position, and/or you are otherwise unable to move for whatever reason. I have also found that in a close range engagement, there are times when movement directly into the threat can also be a much better option than trying to move off the line of attack, or create separation to engage, fix a malfunction, or perform a re-load.

The variables when it comes to tactics are so immeasurable that it is essentially impossible to analyze and have a COA for each situation one could face. Having "Default" programming to move might prove helpful at times, but I have found that a sound decision making process is more valuable in a rapidly changing lethal force environment than a conditioned response. Mindset and training to make those decisions quickly, then executing with decisive aggression will be far more useful over a wider variety of circumstances.

Training to move is certainly wise if that is going to be an option during your decision making process. Can't ignore training to execute the decision. But I won't do it every repetition, or every time I clear a malfunction, conduct a re-load, or otherwise have that situation arise on a static range, lest I allow it to become a conditioned response and execute pre-programmed movement when exactly the opposite is the better decision for a particular set of circumstances.

Oh man I'm digging this post - I'm ripping down my Twilight poster and putting up a Sean M poster!!

[JFK]

It depends on the circumstances. There are certainly many instances where movement is called for. But there are easily as many situations where movement is physically restricted, you have a moral obligation to hold your position, and/or you are otherwise unable to move for whatever reason. I have also found that in a close range engagement, there are times when movement directly into the threat can also be a much better option than trying to move off the line of attack, or create separation to engage, fix a malfunction, or perform a re-load.
.

I think movement, especially in open spaces is important in defending yourself, or minimizing damage in a force on force situation. Because all creatures must follow the process of 'look - assess - act' this gives you time and advantage. Having said this in the force on force class I have taken moving at an offline, but in the direction of an attacker has often produced favorable results. Not only do they have to look at what I am doing, assess where I am going, but when they act they often have to change direction, or switch balance that give me an edge, however so slight to get a sight picture, reload or just get some distance in between.

Of course this is not for every situation, but just what I have noticed in my limited experience.

[Joseph B.]

It depends on the circumstances. There are certainly many instances where movement is called for. But there are easily as many situations where movement is physically restricted, you have a moral obligation to hold your position, and/or you are otherwise unable to move for whatever reason. I have also found that in a close range engagement, there are times when movement directly into the threat can also be a much better option than trying to move off the line of attack, or create separation to engage, fix a malfunction, or perform a re-load.

The variables when it comes to tactics are so immeasurable that it is essentially impossible to analyze and have a COA for each situation one could face. Having "Default" programming to move might prove helpful at times, but I have found that a sound decision making process is more valuable in a rapidly changing lethal force environment than a conditioned response. Mindset and training to make those decisions quickly, then executing with decisive aggression will be far more useful over a wider variety of circumstances.

Training to move is certainly wise if that is going to be an option during your decision making process. Can't ignore training to execute the decision. But I won't do it every repetition, or every time I clear a malfunction, conduct a re-load, or otherwise have that situation arise on a static range, lest I allow it to become a conditioned response and execute pre-programmed movement when exactly the opposite is the better decision for a particular set of circumstances.

Good post!

ETA:

My personal view is that shooting accurately on the move (especially with a pistol) is the hardest level of marksmanship to achieve. It is worst case, and it something that requires dedication of training. Is it something for all situations, no but it’s a tool that needs to be in the tool box.

SeanM, hit the nail on the head, and I wanted to add to the “moving on the threat” part. There is a major psychological affect that takes place when you are being charged (someone moving on you), being shot at brings the adrenaline, stress and fear up, but being charged with someone shooting at you is puts it into overdrive. When a threat initiates an attack he has the upper hand as you are now having to see it, control your fear, decide on how to react and then act. The threat has already decided, already committed, but you can still push that threat into a fearful state (flight mode). Overwhelming aggression, instead of turning and running for cover, instead of standing like deer caught in the headlights, you return fire and start closing the distance, etc. It’s surprising how effective it can be. But that option is not always there…

I remember being trained to take a knee to reload and or correct stoppages. This was SOP in my unit and ingrained, however, during sims training we found that our guys were mostly being tagged during reloads and or stoppages (taking a knee and fixing their weapon). We started playing around with it and found the best option was to haul ass to cover, and do it from a position of cover. However that is not always an option either, you may not always have cover, you may not always have the ability to run and get behind something.

So I think it boils down to having developed skills on moving to cover, doing it while moving, doing it while standing static, etc, etc. When you have the skill sets, you can allow your situational awareness and critical thinking take over the big decisions of “do I stand and fight, do I move, do I run” etc. That said I would not ingrain a step off the line every time I did something, I would probably practice it a few times and then practice other things, etc. As pointed out above there are good reasons to not just automatically step during the draw, reload, stoppage.

[LeeC]

How insanely expensive, inaccessible, and painful is force on force training with simunition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simunition)? Is that the next most realistic thing to live rounds flying around? Paintball seems too much like spray and pray, and Airsoft doesn't go bang, but both have the advantage of motion, stress and some amount of pain aversion. And most importantly, you're getting shot at, which stationary targets don't do. As a naive newcomer, it seems that getting as close as possible to real fire fight training would resolve some of these optimization questions (e.g. reload while moving or not, shoot on move or shoot then move, etc) most efficiently on a personal level. What works best for one person won't necessarily work best for another.

Also seems like one good way to define "gunfighting" training. The more the training is like a gunfight, the more it is gunfighting training, in this case "gunfight" meaning pistols at 0 to 50 feet. Of course, that leaves out pistols vs hand-to-hand, rocks, knives, bows and arrows, spears, rifles or hand grenades, but I'm OK with covering the most common scenario and extrapolating from there. Yes, I read the "Fighting with a gun (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?2369-quot-Fighting-With-a-Gun-quot)" thread and that got me to thinking...

[ToddG]

{moved from reload thread, re: taking a step during reload or draw}

I'm teaching a shooting on the move class this week and we played a little bit with this today. Under most circumstances a single step doesn't gain you anything. The only exception -- and this mirrors something that our Culpeper "Staff & Friends" study group has also seen -- is if the other guy is pointed in on you and the distance between the two of you is fairly short. Under those circumstances, even the small amount of muzzle movement he needs gains you at least a little something.

If he's not aimed in on you, by the time he gets aimed in you've finished your step and he's still aiming at a static target.

If you're far away, the arc length of your movement relative to his muzzle is too short to be a challenge (or at least, more of a challenge than the longer range shot was to begin with).

You also don't want to program yourself to sidestep into the street, only to get hit by a car. Or slam yourself into a wall if you're in a narrow space, etc.

Like most things tactical, it's situational rather than universal. Understand it, practice it, and hopefully use it when appropriate but don't make it a rule.

[TGS]

I remember being trained to take a knee to reload and or correct stoppages. This was SOP in my unit and ingrained, however, during sims training we found that our guys were mostly being tagged during reloads and or stoppages (taking a knee and fixing their weapon). We started playing around with it and found the best option was to haul ass to cover, and do it from a position of cover. However that is not always an option either, you may not always have cover, you may not always have the ability to run and get behind something.

You were initially trained to take a knee in the open? Am I reading that right?

Facepalm.

[Zhurdan]

As a connected "aside", if open ground is available, which way do you move? I only ask because at one class I took, it was pointed out that moving to the bad guys gun side is preferable to moving to his weak side. This notion was based on peoples ability to track better right to left(right handed) than left to right. This was something I took in, but never really dug into it any further. Does this hold water or was it simply the "cool" thing to say?

[Joseph B.]

You were initially trained to take a knee in the open? Am I reading that right?

Facepalm.

Pretty much, we were trained to take a knee period, as in clearing a building take a knee when your weapon is down and your team will cover you, or on a patrol, etc, etc. It really was a failed concept and is not something used in that unit anymore as an SOP.

[Mr_White]

I’d like to survey the members here with a follow-up question:

At what speeds of movement do you practice shooting on the move?

I realize we will not be able to define these speeds exactly, but maybe we could loosely say there are:

Slow (think of the most advantageous speed to use in the IDPA Classifier on the shooting on the move portion – walking in slow motion, and also the shuffle/sidestep, which is a relatively slow way to move)

Fast walk

Running speed

How do you manage the degradation in marksmanship that generally comes with more movement and more chaos in the shooting process? Does this cause so much degradation for you that you simply forego shooting on the move and instead haul ass/stop/shoot, or move at a slower speed than you would ideally, for the purpose of better preserving your marksmanship abilities?

At what rate of movement do you think the threat’s ability to shoot you will be degraded enough to be worthwhile? Of course we cannot know for sure, but what rate of movement do you estimate/assume/hope will degrade the threat’s ability to hit you?

How do you personally practice shooting on the move? Do you incorporate moving targets also? If so, how?

[Odin Bravo One]

As a connected "aside", if open ground is available, which way do you move? I only ask because at one class I took, it was pointed out that moving to the bad guys gun side is preferable to moving to his weak side. This notion was based on peoples ability to track better right to left(right handed) than left to right. This was something I took in, but never really dug into it any further. Does this hold water or was it simply the "cool" thing to say?

Someone over thought the shit out of that.......

It also assumes a lot about your "bad guy". And making assumptions about who he/she is, their level of skill, training, etc., especially when it is an assumption that gives you a false sense of their inferiority is a fast step in the wrong direction with your mindset.

Maybe it has merit? Fuck I don't know. In order to be fair to those who offered that perspective, I would really have to hear their full line of reasoning, and be able to ask questions, provide scenarios, and what not before completely dismissing it. I just don't like any action that is based on underestimating my adversary.

[NickA]

In the first basic class I took movement while not shooting was also stressed. Being a basic class on a square range it was pretty much confined to one or two steps either way, and was presented more as a way to get in the habit of moving than as a solution for every situation. That said I can see where ingraining the one-step movement too deeply may not be desirable.
On which side to move to, I've also heard to move to the gun side. The reason given was that shots tend to be pushed to the weak side (right hand shooters tend to miss low and left). No idea if that actually holds up but I'd be curious to hear from the experts.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[peterb]

As a connected "aside", if open ground is available, which way do you move? I only ask because at one class I took, it was pointed out that moving to the bad guys gun side is preferable to moving to his weak side. This notion was based on peoples ability to track better right to left(right handed) than left to right. This was something I took in, but never really dug into it any further. Does this hold water or was it simply the "cool" thing to say?

I think that comes from folks using the Weaver/Chapman stances. In a bladed 2-hand stance it is somewhat easier to track towards your support hand without moving your feet.

[Zhurdan]

@SeanM and NickA,

Agreed. Like I said, I heard it at the class, put a little thought into it and it sits in the back of my mind. When I practice shooting on the move, I look at it like this...

If the excrement hits the oscillator, and you are ahead of the curve (draw) get your gun out as fast as possible and put rounds on target. If they've already "got" you on the draw, MOVE MOVE MOVE while drawing your weapon. Direction... well, distance is your friend as long as you can hit at distance.

I agree that making assumptions is bad, but when, and I'd think most of us fall into this category, a person doesn't have actual real world experience of bullets flying their way... you have to take someones word for it. Boiling that information down is the hard part.

[jetfire]

Under most circumstances a single step doesn't gain you anything.

306

In all seriousness, I can't really say anything to this thread that I haven't already said on Gun Nuts (http://gunnuts.net/2011/07/20/get-off-the-x/). I really believe that if I'm moving in a fight, I'm moving with a purpose - I have a reason to move instead of "just because."

[JodyH]

From my research on defending against the knife, moving to the weapon side if possible seems to be the preferred tactic.
The thing is, if you're the same handedness as you opponent you just theoretically placed yourself at a disadvantage.
:cool:
Don't try and overthink it, just make a decision and do it with aggression.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[Joseph B.]

I’d like to survey the members here with a follow-up question:

At what speeds of movement do you practice shooting on the move?

Only move as fast as I can get my hits, it’s dependent on the distance (i.e. the farther away you are the more you have to slow down).

I realize we will not be able to define these speeds exactly, but maybe we could loosely say there are:

Slow (think of the most advantageous speed to use in the IDPA Classifier on the shooting on the move portion – walking in slow motion, and also the shuffle/sidestep, which is a relatively slow way to move)

Fast walk 10 yards and in with a pistol.

Running speed I have never tried running and shooting, but I doubt I would be able to hit anything with any effective hits (maybe at contact distance)

How do you manage the degradation in marksmanship that generally comes with more movement and more chaos in the shooting process?

You have to understand your own skill level, consistency in making your hits. At about 10 yards and in I have a lot more tolerances than I do at 25 yards, etc. It’s shooter dependent, but I personally set the distances and speed based on my ability to achieve my hits.

Does this cause so much degradation for you that you simply forego shooting on the move and instead haul ass/stop/shoot, or move at a slower speed than you would ideally, for the purpose of better preserving your marksmanship abilities?

That is more situational dependent that shooter dependent, if you have cover close by and the situation allows running to cover and then shoot, then I think most would agree that would be better. However, not all situations allow for this, you may not have cover, you may be too close to run, you may need to shoot and retreat, etc.

At what rate of movement do you think the threat’s ability to shoot you will be degraded enough to be worthwhile? Of course we cannot know for sure, but what rate of movement do you estimate/assume/hope will degrade the threat’s ability to hit you?

I think this is a little off in the weeds, trying to game plan the threat and their ability or skill level is setting yourself up for an epic fail. Never assume anything about a threat…

How do you personally practice shooting on the move? Do you incorporate moving targets also? If so, how?


I practice at all distances, moving lateral, forwards and backwards (pistol out to 25yd and rifle out to 100yd). I find that the more you stretch out the distance, the more you have to drive the sights and focus on moving smooth. This has really increased my speed and marksmanship whiling moving up close.

The shooting a moving target aspect is limited to shooting matches as I don’t have the equipment to set up movers, except for a small cart target that requires another person to use. My view is that you can move backwards and forwards on a target that is moving forward or backwards. But trying to shoot and move lateral with a target that is moving lateral is incredibly hard, not impossible but incredibly hard.

[Mr_White]

I couldn’t get the quote feature to work right so I’m cutting and pasting instead.

I said: “At what rate of movement do you think the threat’s ability to shoot you will be degraded enough to be worthwhile? Of course we cannot know for sure, but what rate of movement do you estimate/assume/hope will degrade the threat’s ability to hit you?”

You said: “I think this is a little off in the weeds, trying to game plan the threat and their ability or skill level is setting yourself up for an epic fail. Never assume anything about a threat…”

On the contrary, I think that’s practically half the equation – the other half being how much the movement degrades our own marksmanship ability, and how we estimate those two factors to balance out, in addition to the numerous environmental considerations that might be in play.

If it doesn’t matter or isn’t worth considering how much our movement may or may not degrade the threat’s marksmanship ability, then wouldn’t we not move at all so we can preserve our own marksmanship abilities?

In any shooting on the move, there is implicit recognition that standing still is likely to be unhelpful in keeping us from getting hit before we can stop the threat with our own hits.

It’s not that we need to actually know the answer to ‘how much will his hitting abilities degrade because of my movement’ – because we can’t know – but it does contain an implicit estimation of that on our part.

And my curiosity on that point is, what rate of movement do members here estimate will actually help them not get shot long enough to stop the threat with our own shots? Obviously it is specific to each individual and their abilities; I am trying to see where people here are on that point.



But trying to shoot and move lateral with a target that is moving lateral is incredibly hard, not impossible but incredibly hard.

I think that's a pretty worthwhile thing to practice.

[Joseph B.]

I couldn’t get the quote feature to work right so I’m cutting and pasting instead.

I said: “At what rate of movement do you think the threat’s ability to shoot you will be degraded enough to be worthwhile? Of course we cannot know for sure, but what rate of movement do you estimate/assume/hope will degrade the threat’s ability to hit you?”

You said: “I think this is a little off in the weeds, trying to game plan the threat and their ability or skill level is setting yourself up for an epic fail. Never assume anything about a threat…”

On the contrary, I think that’s practically half the equation – the other half being how much the movement degrades our own marksmanship ability, and how we estimate those two factors to balance out, in addition to the numerous environmental considerations that might be in play.

Okay well there is no way in possibly telling how effective someone will be in shooting you, without knowing their skill level and or marksmanship abilities. So without that information you’re guesstimating at best. I don’t look at it from that stand point, I look at it from a stand point of what the situations is that I face, the environment I am facing it in and then I develop a plan of action from there.

If it doesn’t matter or isn’t worth considering how much our movement may or may not degrade the threat’s marksmanship ability, then wouldn’t we not move at all so we can preserve our own marksmanship abilities?

I do not view the lone purpose for shooting on the move is limiting the threats ability to effectively engage me, although there are some aspects to that. Being able to shoot and move allows me more flexibility in my response or counter attack.

MIL/LE Example: CQB, clearing rooms, moving down long hallways, etc.
CIV Example: Fighting out of a close attack, out in the open with no cover, etc.


In any shooting on the move, there is implicit recognition that standing still is likely to be unhelpful in keeping us from getting hit before we can stop the threat with our own hits.

It’s situational dependent.

It’s not that we need to actually know the answer to ‘how much will his hitting abilities degrade because of my movement’ – because we can’t know – but it does contain an implicit estimation of that on our part.

I think in the limited application that shooting on the move has, it’s more important to focus on how fast and accurately you can shoot and move, understanding that and then deciding for yourself on how to apply it to the situation and environment you are facing.

And my curiosity on that point is, what rate of movement do members here estimate will actually help them not get shot long enough to stop the threat with our own shots? Obviously it is specific to each individual and their abilities; I am trying to see where people here are on that point.

Again, I “personally” do not see it as just for limiting the possibilities to be shots myself (however there are aspects to that). I see it more as giving me another option to address the threat, based on the situation, the environment and my personal ability. I can move fast and get my hits up close (10 yds and in) I slow down in order to get my hits at longer distances.

I think that's a pretty worthwhile thing to practice.

If you have the equipment and facility to do so, then yes it’s worth practicing and learning your capabilities on.

[JHC]

I’d like to survey the members here with a follow-up question:

At what speeds of movement do you practice shooting on the move?

Slow - I don't mess with the slow crawl much

Fast walk - Fastish or fast walk when I'm advancing to a target at close and closing range. And much beyond 7 yards (at the shot) I can't hit shit moving. But good hits < 5yds. I have only rarely practiced shooting while backing up. It's slow and I feel too exposed to believe in it. As a civvie.

Running speed - this is the speed I'm most interested in. And it's hard as hell to hit all A's hauling ass. I've worked on this while running perpendicular to the targets. Good hits only from 5 yard range and less. And in my limited experience and less formal instruction on it - I think if you are really running, you may as well not even try to put two hands on the pistol; just go "duelist" and see metal on meat. Contorting to the side with both hands on the pistol in full tilt boogie seems to screw up a lot of agility.




Primarily self deducted and taught. I could be full of crap and just lousy at this.

[Odin Bravo One]

One of my mentors (who has never taught me one thing about how to shoot) passed me the following nugget of information sometime ago while observing/training/mentoring/grading me during a live fire exercise............

"The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you are going to get".

How I elected to do it was on me, but his point was for me to think faster, and not hesitate to make bold and aggressive moves with the assets available. I have used his training philosophy and simple ideas often as I apply them to my own individual training and continued development at the individual level, as well as team level. To me, the bigger issue is developing the proper mindset and mental faculties to process information faster, make decisions faster, then implement those decision with the proper amount of aggression. Having cookie cutter physical techniques are great. Right up until they don't fit the situation.

Practice some shooting on the move. Practice shooting from other than picture perfect positions. Practice moving, then shooting, and vice versa. Practice combinations of it all. Training the physical aspect is relevant. But in moderation.

I am of the opinion that you will be much more successful by developing and perfecting your mindset and decision making process than attempting to perfect a physical technique. Especially when trying to develop a "Inside 5 yards, I do this, except when he has the drop on me, the 3rd Sunday of even numbered months, in which case I do this other technique, but if it is a full moon, and I have candy in my pocket, I run 7.2 feet that direction, then execute my secret 5th degree black ops belt technique".

Of course, I make up half the shit I say anyway, so it may not be remotely applicable.

[TCinVA]

It seems to me that you're saying combat is an exercise in improvisation where success is often dictated by the ability to recognize the need/opportunity for action and an unflinching willingness to take it rather than by having the best technical plan thought up for every situation.

[Joseph B.]

One of my mentors (who has never taught me one thing about how to shoot) passed me the following nugget of information sometime ago while observing/training/mentoring/grading me during a live fire exercise............

"The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you are going to get".

How I elected to do it was on me, but his point was for me to think faster, and not hesitate to make bold and aggressive moves with the assets available. I have used his training philosophy and simple ideas often as I apply them to my own individual training and continued development at the individual level, as well as team level. To me, the bigger issue is developing the proper mindset and mental faculties to process information faster, make decisions faster, then implement those decision with the proper amount of aggression. Having cookie cutter physical techniques are great. Right up until they don't fit the situation.

Practice some shooting on the move. Practice shooting from other than picture perfect positions. Practice moving, then shooting, and vice versa. Practice combinations of it all. Training the physical aspect is relevant. But in moderation.

I am of the opinion that you will be much more successful by developing and perfecting your mindset and decision making process than attempting to perfect a physical technique. Especially when trying to develop a "Inside 5 yards, I do this, except when he has the drop on me, the 3rd Sunday of even numbered months, in which case I do this other technique, but if it is a full moon, and I have candy in my pocket, I run 7.2 feet that direction, then execute my secret 5th degree black ops belt technique".

Of course, I make up half the shit I say anyway, so it may not be remotely applicable.


I agree for the most part, I think it is extremely important to have skill sets (shooting, moving, etc) that you do not have to think to do. In other words build solid second nature skill sets that cut down the decision process “I don’t have to think my way through flexing the knees and bending the elbows, when it comes time to shoot on the move”. When you build those skill sets into muscle memory, the decision become “I’m moving to here and shooting this guy while I do” or “while in the process of moving this threat jumped out so I shot him while moving, etc”.

I agree mindset, critical thinking, and aggression are things that must be developed, so I fully agree with what you are pointing out there.

[Odin Bravo One]

It seems to me that you're saying combat is an exercise in improvisation where success is often dictated by the ability to recognize the need/opportunity for action and an unflinching willingness to take it rather than by having the best technical plan thought up for every situation.

Uh...................yes?

I guess.

I don't know. Like I said, I make most of this up as I go along.

The most successful people I know execute the basic fundamentals and apply them on demand to the situation faced, versus practicing techniques for various situations, then hoping the situation they face is one they have practiced for.

[NickA]

It seems to me that you're saying combat is an exercise in improvisation where success is often dictated by the ability to recognize the need/opportunity for action and an unflinching willingness to take it rather than by having the best technical plan thought up for every situation.

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. "
George S. Patton

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[JHC]

Uh...................yes?

I guess.

I don't know. Like I said, I make most of this up as I go along.

The most successful people I know execute the basic fundamentals and apply them on demand to the situation faced, versus practicing techniques for various situations, then hoping the situation they face is one they have practiced for.

I've found that to hold true in a rather pacific life in the realm of rapelling emergencies, car wrecks, near car wrecks, first responding to serious trauma, and some interactions with criminals - none of which I had specifically rehearsed, the way they played out, but worked out pretty well applying fundamentals, in some cases aggressively.

It sounds like the FAST writ large. Rather than train the FAST, practice the building blocks of it, and apply them to the FAST or somewhat differently for another shooting challenge.

[JSGlock34]

Those that are interested in pushing their shoot on the move skills should consider training with Ernest Langdon. His Advanced Tactical Pistol class culminates with shooting moving targets while on the move. Much of the class is spent shooting on the move. Ernest's guiding principles during the class were "Nobody stands still in a gunfight" and "Proximity negates skill" - the latter meaning that rapidly increasing your distance will favor the better trained combatant. Of course, I'm overly simplifying Ernest's thoughts on the subject here with these two sound bites. In any case, his class was excellent and I highly recommend it. AAR here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1065-AAR-Ernest-Langdon-Advanced-Pistol-Class-21-22-August-2010-Culpeper-VA).

[ToddG]

At what speeds of movement do you practice shooting on the move?

Meaningful pace.

Now, you can debate what that means and it will certainly vary by circumstance. But if the pace of my movement doesn't gain me something greater than what it costs me in terms of shooting speed and/or accuracy, then I shouldn't be shooting on the move.

When maximum shooting performance is required, shoot, don't move.
When maximum speed of movement is required, move, don't shoot.
When a combination will get you something better than any one of them alone can deliver, shoot on the move.

I'd say most of my shooting on the move is done somewhere between a fast walk and a jog, depending on circumstances (distance, target size, target movement, backdrop, footing, etc.):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlJdC9_VkEs

[addiction]

I would move because I want to break the bad guys OODA loop, action beats reaction, so break their OODA and start yours and get ahead of the bad guy.....

[jthhapkido]

I would move because I want to break the bad guys OODA loop, action beats reaction, so break their OODA and start yours and get ahead of the bad guy.....

Problem with that is that moving doesn't automatically break their loop, and we _know_ that it decreases our accuracy.

I'm not saying that moving is a bad thing---there are a number of occasions where moving immediately, in my opinion, is THE thing to do.

However, movement doesn't automatically do anything to the other guy's decision/action process. So if it doesn't hurt them, but _does_ hurt our ability to put fire on target as fast as possible, we probably don't want to do it.

If you can't tell, I agree with the people who have been saying "it depends on the situation". :)

[JodyH]

Problem with that is that moving doesn't automatically break their loop,
Exactly.
It takes an unexpected/significant event to interrupt/reset the OODA loop.
A single side step isn't going to be a "deer in the headlights" OODA reset.
Getting inside your opponents OODA isn't a fight ender, it's just a possible opening that might allow you to gain the initiative.
I think too many instructors leave their students with unrealistic expectations regarding OODA interruptions/resets.

[Jay Cunningham]

I think too many instructors leave their students with unrealistic expectations regarding OODA interruptions/resets.

I agree except I'm wondering if it's really something that instructors are teaching, or if it's more a result of student embellishment of a presented concept or technique.

I'm questioning a lot that I see and hear these days, and it's astounding what some students will attribute to an instructor, only to have that instructor refute it when queried ("I never said/taught that!")

[JDM]

I agree except I'm wondering if it's really something that instructors are teaching, or if it's more a result of student embellishment of a presented concept or technique.

I'm questioning a lot that I see and hear these days, and it's astounding what some students will attribute to an instructor, only to have that instructor refuted it when queried ("I never said/taught that!")

People like to speak with authority on matters they have little knowledge of, and attaching Xxxxxx instructors name to the otherwise nonsense statement helps it hold more water.

[JodyH]

I agree except I'm wondering if it's really something that instructors are teaching, or if it's more a result of student embellishment of a presented concept or technique.

I'm questioning a lot that I see and hear these days, and it's astounding what some students will attribute to an instructor, only to have that instructor refute it when queried ("I never said/taught that!")
This is probably a whole different topic.
It's also interesting to see what some instructors will deny teaching, but the entire class of students will learn.

[Jay Cunningham]

This is probably a whole different topic.
It's also interesting to see what some instructors will deny teaching, but the entire class of students will learn.

You're right, both of those topics would make for an interesting thread.