Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 188

Thread: Viability of Pieing

  1. #151
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    CT
    Quote Originally Posted by KEW8338 View Post
    IIRC it's the only book that's been on every branches suggested reading list at one point in time
    FWIW, I've read it, but maybe it's time to revisit it.

  2. #152
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by KEW8338 View Post
    If speaking from a team perspective. Open stacks, if we are talking about the same thing, can lead to, bad geometries of fire (guys shooting from the back of the bus as people call it), and the limited ability for more than 1 guy to influence what's going on.

    Forge Tactical, which I think is heavily Pat's CQB, is principled in that it always tries to get as many guns forward as possible.

    Most everywhere I've seen or heard of, if terrain allows, goes to some type of cross coverage to max out forward facing guns.

    I have never claimed God mode experience. I'm not the one demanding resumes to be part of this conversation.

    If an organization does something regularly, with good results. Good for them.
    You can have a dispersed stack with cross coverage. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by 43Under View Post
    Like a trainwreck that I have to watch, I have returned to see more.

    I have one question that I pose to all those who know what they are doing when it comes to this stuff. And just for the record, I posted MY resume earlier so that people would know where I was coming from (i.e., Joe Schmo who's taken a bunch of classes, NOT someone who does this stuff for a living).

    The OP much earlier referenced shooting (or at least being ready to shoot) from what he termed "compromised positions", which he said included all one-handed shooting. And he regarded this as a thing to be avoided.

    So here's the question:

    If the only/best way to "take down a room" and "dominate it" is to hit it on the run (and I do believe that's what he's been advocating....and it's what we did in AMIS after first doing some pieing from outside the room), is having to then shoot the bad guy while you are essentially sprinting easier or harder than shooting potentially one-handed from a more stable position?

    I know where my skill level is (based on lots of flat range work and getting shot a lot in AMIS), but I do think it's another consideration. For many of us who aren't Gabe White, etc., shooting while sprinting would definitely qualify as "shooting from a compromised position". Also keep in mind that if I'm sprinting into a room in an occupied dwelling of some sort (in my situation, most likely my own), there are numerous impediments to free movement within said room (furniture, kids' toys on the floor, etc.) that could definitely channel my movement where I'd prefer not to go and/or cause me to slip, trip, etc.

    I know the answer is "practice more", but still.....thoughts?

    Dependent on your capabilities. Then yes. that would be a compromised position.

  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    This brings us back to one of the points first raised in this thread, and in training I’ve had: having to clear a structure by yourself is a shitty thing to be involved in. There are multiple TTPs you can employ but none of them covers every possible scenario or risk. You can try to clear rooms from the threshold, which exposes you to the risk of people shooting you, unseen, through walls or door frames. You can try to enter rooms dynamically and hope that if you run into a deadly force problem, the other guy or guys don’t hit you first. I agree with you in that my understanding of the thought process behind pieing is that it’s partially based on the idea/assumption that people aren’t overly likely to shoot at things they can’t see. I believe the idea of solo dynamic entry is based on the idea/assumption that the other guy isn’t very good with his gun and is going to be unable to put bullets into you before you can put bullets into him.

    Back to the “surprise” issue: as usual, I failed to articulate exactly what I meant in a clear manner and the conversation has drifted. What I was trying to convey was better explained by @HCM when he was discussing cognitive load and overload. I thought I had been more clear in the context of the post in which I initially used the word “surprise” but I obviously was not. I was not using the word in the mindset context you’re using it in. When I wrote “surprise” I didn’t mean finding the contents of the room you just entered to be entirely unexpected because you failed to mentally prepare for conflict. I didn’t mean surprise at actually finding that threats happen to exist inside the room. What I meant was making entry and now having to orient yourself to all of the circumstances inside the room simultaneously in a very compressed timeframe. Pieing from the threshold at least let’s me process a substantial part of the room, let’s say 80%, before I actually get inside. That only requires me to have to process the remaining 20% once I enter. Yes, I’m hoping that no one shoots me through the wall while I’m pieing. Dynamically entering the room requires that I have to process 100% of the room while I cross the threshold, and immediately after entering, and find myself hip deep in whatever ends up being inside.

    You don’t like the idea of hoping people decide not to shoot at you through the wall while you clear from a threshold. I don’t like the idea of hoping whoever is inside the room sucks at shooting and ends up missing me as I enter and get my own gun in the fight. Maybe that’s part of the context and circumstances of our experiences. Most of the structures I end up going into at work are pretty small and have corresponding small rooms inside. I don’t want to have to count on someone missing me in a room small enough that you could probably point your gun in the general area in front of you, close your eyes, crank off a bunch of rounds, and practically guarantee hitting someone. As others have already said, it all depends because there isn’t one correct answer.
    Place holder

  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    This brings us back to one of the points first raised in this thread, and in training I’ve had: having to clear a structure by yourself is a shitty thing to be involved in. There are multiple TTPs you can employ but none of them covers every possible scenario or risk. You can try to clear rooms from the threshold, which exposes you to the risk of people shooting you, unseen, through walls or door frames. You can try to enter rooms dynamically and hope that if you run into a deadly force problem, the other guy or guys don’t hit you first. I agree with you in that my understanding of the thought process behind pieing is that it’s partially based on the idea/assumption that people aren’t overly likely to shoot at things they can’t see. I believe the idea of solo dynamic entry is based on the idea/assumption that the other guy isn’t very good with his gun and is going to be unable to put bullets into you before you can put bullets into him.

    Back to the “surprise” issue: as usual, I failed to articulate exactly what I meant in a clear manner and the conversation has drifted. What I was trying to convey was better explained by @HCM when he was discussing cognitive load and overload. I thought I had been more clear in the context of the post in which I initially used the word “surprise” but I obviously was not. I was not using the word in the mindset context you’re using it in. When I wrote “surprise” I didn’t mean finding the contents of the room you just entered to be entirely unexpected because you failed to mentally prepare for conflict. I didn’t mean surprise at actually finding that threats happen to exist inside the room. What I meant was making entry and now having to orient yourself to all of the circumstances inside the room simultaneously in a very compressed timeframe. Pieing from the threshold at least let’s me process a substantial part of the room, let’s say 80%, before I actually get inside. That only requires me to have to process the remaining 20% once I enter. Yes, I’m hoping that no one shoots me through the wall while I’m pieing. Dynamically entering the room requires that I have to process 100% of the room while I cross the threshold, and immediately after entering, and find myself hip deep in whatever ends up being inside.

    You don’t like the idea of hoping people decide not to shoot at you through the wall while you clear from a threshold. I don’t like the idea of hoping whoever is inside the room sucks at shooting and ends up missing me as I enter and get my own gun in the fight. Maybe that’s part of the context and circumstances of our experiences. Most of the structures I end up going into at work are pretty small and have corresponding small rooms inside. I don’t want to have to count on someone missing me in a room small enough that you could probably point your gun in the general area in front of you, close your eyes, crank off a bunch of rounds, and practically guarantee hitting someone. As others have already said, it all depends because there isn’t one correct answer.
    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
    Last edited by KEW8338; 02-25-2021 at 10:09 AM.

  6. #156
    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.

  7. #157
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Williams View Post
    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.

  8. #158
    On par with the discussion here

    Instagram Video

  9. #159
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by KEW8338 View Post
    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.
    ”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB

  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Totem Polar View Post
    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.
    Do the walls stop bullets?

    If they do. Why abandon cover?

    To play devils advocate everyone else's point. Why rush into a known gunfight?

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •