FWIW, I've read it, but maybe it's time to revisit it.
Printable View
The assumption of moving targets being hard to hit, to me is a fairly safe assumption. As example go to a USPSA match that has swingers or movers and take note of the hits. If you ever have the ability to use ranges with movers, take note of scores. If you have ever tried to shoot someone who is moving broad side to you. It can be challenging.
Now go to USPSA and look at the scores for a partial target with hard cover.
This idea of you will see them first with pieing is somewhat unsettling to me. If you have truly ninja'ed your way up on him. He is either static in that room (easy shot all day long if you are dynamic or pieing). Or he is moving around inside that room. Anyone ever get so focused on the sliver you are pieing that when a guy walks past that it is a surprise (in the actual sense of the word)? That has 100% happened to me. Now with an unassuming target (this assumes proper ninja'ing) those shots on a dynamic entry are easy. Same as they are with pieing.
If you have not properly ninja'ed your way up on him (which honestly is the case 99% of the time) and you have the worst case scenario of him drawing a bead on the door. Im sorry, I dont believe it works, nor havent seen that work. Im sure guys will say it works in sims. Which Im sure it does. Im sure guys HAVE HAD IT WORK FOR REAL, its not my cup of tea for the potential of the cascading negative effects. Im not telling dudes with experiences to the contrary of mine are wrong.
Doesnt Tom Givens teach a 3 foot side step or something like that because it statistically reduces your chances of getting shot by an ungodly amount? If I am wrong on that let me know....
Sorry for the above post hold. I have forgotten how to edit posts. Likely because I am a hero boob noob IIRC....
ETA:
Laterally not broadside
I mentioned High Threat CQB earlier in the thread. It's advocated by the group 88 Tactical. Its basically fighting from the doorway using the "snapping the 45-90-45 angles" prior to going in the room . When the question of getting shot through the walls comes up, the trainers say it's concealment is better than being out in the room plainly visible like points of domination. The trainers give the example of a target in the middle of a room. In points of domination they'll have you bypass that target and go to your point of domination. Which doesn't make any sense. In High Threat CQB you just address that target from the doorway prior to entry. They believe you will instinctively back out of the room on taking fire, so why not fight from the doorway where it's easier to back out. They say the system is behavior based.
I think it's Israeli based @HCM
https://88tactical.com/le-mil/high-threat-cqb/
https://www.projectgecko.info/itcqb
The above link, project gecko is another similar version of it I believe.
The 88tactical trainer, Trevor Thrasher, a sf soldier/swat cop, is an advocate of this system. He's also an advocate of threat focused shooting.
Watching people well versed in this High Threat CQB clear rooms is impressive.
You may want to look into this system.
A few thoughts:
There’s only so many ways to skin a cat so duplication is inevitable.
Target audience matters. If your target audience and mostly conscripts and reservists a system that minimizes cognitive load is going to more effective for those people.
It’s not the answer for everyone or every thing.
Clearing / addressing threats through the doorway doesn’t necessarily mean at/in the doorway or being static. This is where a lot of theme US based threshold evaluation schools of thought break from the Israelis.
On par with the discussion here
Instagram Video
Quick Q, and I really am asking: once the first shots are let loose during “pieing,” would that change things to a more dynamic approach, since the whole “stealth” thing is off the table at that point?
In other words, what are the pros/cons of continuing to carefully cut that 30-45-60-90 once a couple of 5.56 rounds have gone off inside a structure.
I’m interested in thoughts on that.