Good Article by Tam (technical discussion about article content)

[NH Shooter]

...and what's going on at that moment...

Yes, absolutely.

Though undoubtedly a high-percentage tactic, the main drawback I see to the feigned wallet reach is that the decision to shoot has to be made early, before the ruse is initiated. I don't see it working by feigning the wallet reach, drawing the weapon and then delaying delivery to wait-and-see what happens. In essence, its success seems to hinge on combining the draw and trigger pull into a single act, with the decision to fire made before making the move.

There may be situations where that is wholly appropriate, but perhaps others where it is not. In that case, carrying in my JMCK AWIB may retain a distinct speed and economy-of-motion advantage over the more comfortable but longer reach JMCK #3.

[Alpha Sierra]

the main drawback I see to the feigned wallet reach is that the decision to shoot has to be made early, before the ruse is initiated

In what situation would you draw on an opponent before deciding to shoot? Once a confrontation has started one does not draw unless one has decided to shoot, feint or no feint. If you don't mean to shoot, don't reach for it.

I don't see it working by feigning the wallet reach, drawing the weapon and then delaying delivery to wait-and-see what happens.

Of course it works. The decision to shoot can be changed at any point during the draw stroke up until the hammer falls. But the hand does not go to the pistol unless there is a reason to apply deadly force.

[NH Shooter]

Of course it works. The decision to shoot can be changed at any point during the draw stroke up until the hammer falls. But the hand does not go to the pistol unless there is a reason to apply deadly force.

If the assailant breaks off the encounter before the press of the trigger, that would be a STOP regardless of the draw stroke or tactics used.

But short of that (and unless a Mexican standoff is an acceptable outcome), any STOP would 100% forfeit any advantage the deception gave you. Maybe just better to hand over the wallet?

[Alpha Sierra]

If the assailant breaks off the encounter before the press of the trigger, that would be a STOP regardless of the draw stroke or tactics used.

But short of that (and unless a Mexican standoff is an acceptable outcome), any STOP would 100% forfeit any advantage the deception gave you. Maybe just better to hand over the wallet?

I don't understand where your rationale is going

If the criminal breaks off and flees or surrenders during the draw, I don't shoot and I win. If he won't, why would I STOP (to use your word)? I'll shoot him because the threat that made me draw is still present and I win.

Not sure what's unclear about that, and definitely don't understand why this is getting so complicated.

[BehindBlueI's]

That's good and useful info, thanks. I would have to think success also requires the decision to use deadly force from the get-go: the draw and trigger pull programmed as one, because you only get one chance to pull it off.

Yes. It also requires a successful presentation. It doesn't have to be lightning fast but it does have to be completed. Note this isn't to mean "up to up eye level" or whatever, a firing from retention often works just fine, but meaning you don't drop the gun, you don't snag the draw and shoot yourself in the thigh, pulling a trigger without taking the safety off, or dropping the hammer/striker on an empty chamber sort of thing. These all caused losses. Obvious reaching for guns caused losses, *especially* off body guns. Literally nobody that feigned compliance and then did a disguised draw in a one-on-one lost.

[NH Shooter]

If the criminal breaks off and flees or surrenders during the draw, I don't shoot and I win. If he won't, why would I STOP (to use your word)?

Exactly. Any discussion of making a last micro-second decision not to shoot (short of assailant break-off) after committing-to and executing a feign-for-the-wallet ruse is a moot point. The execution of the ruse changes the dynamics of the encounter, especially if spoken words are part of it - "hey, take it easy, let me get my wallet."

The assailant is expecting a wallet, but gets a gun instead. In that split second, the assailant knows you have deceived them in a very bad way. What do you suppose the chances are that not firing would be a viable option?

Thus my point that the decision to use the deception damn-near necessitates the pulling of the trigger.

[Alpha Sierra]

Exactly. Any discussion of making a last micro-second decision not to shoot (short of assailant break-off) after committing-to and executing a feign-for-the-wallet ruse is a moot point. The execution of the ruse changes the dynamics of the encounter, especially if spoken words are part of it - "hey, take it easy, let me get my wallet."

The assailant is expecting a wallet, but gets a gun instead. In that split second, the assailant knows you have deceived them in a very bad way. What do you suppose the chances are that not firing would be a viable option?

Thus my point that the decision to use the deception damn-near necessitates the pulling of the trigger.

It may or it may not. Things don't always work like we imagine especially when someone else has a say.

[Gray01]

meaning you don't drop the gun, you don't snag the draw and shoot yourself in the thigh, pulling a trigger without taking the safety off, or dropping the hammer/striker on an empty chamber

But wait, that's not fair.

[ssb]

I can think of situations where I may justifiably shoot, but have not yet reached the must phase of the decision-making process.

One hypothetical would be an angry person in a parking lot brandishing a tire iron or some other impact weapon (i.e. road rage after a fender-bender) who is not yet within striking distance yet is close enough to give serious concern. I could articulate why shooting road rage guy met my state's statute on self defense. I could also attempt to issue commands while moving to place a barrier in between myself and road rage guy. The situation could well resolve without gunfire due to the display of the potential for/certainty of lethal force (which I consider to be a win), and if it does evolve into a must-shoot scenario I don't have to play out a real-life demonstration of the Tueller principle because a .5 second response is faster than a 1.5 second response.

That analysis obviously changes if the assailant has a firearm, as the opportunity to employ force is different from a weapon which requires contact, or if the impact weapon-armed assailant is within or close to striking distance. Your state laws may vary. Me, I like and practice the Metro Ready (or whatever the smart people are calling it nowadays).

As to BBI's discussion of ruses, I'd like to find a ruse I'd be confident in for an AIWB draw. The best I can think of is talking my way to a cell phone/other valuable in my pocket, which is at least close to the waistline, but it doesn't feel as sure as the wallet/strong-side-hip discussion.

[HCountyGuy]

Excellent, succinct article Tam. Certainly worth sharing.