Shooting on the move and the side step are they still relevant?

[Mr_White]

So herein lies the REAL question, at least to me. And this applies to lots of stuff.

The question isn't whether we should "work on" something; the question is: How much should we "work on" something?

I'm talking about relative importance and emphasis. Of course we should all be familiar with ("work on") contact/ECQ shooting. But how much should we work on it? Of course we should all be familiar with ("work on") shooting at 75 yards with our handguns. But how much should we work on it?

Of course we should all be familiar with ("work on") SOTM. But how much should we work on it? Is it something that should be practiced every time we go to the range? Every other time? Occasionally? Rarely?

I'm not going to say that I know the answer to this, but I'll offer my thought process on these questions, especially with regard to your examples of longer-distance pistol shooting and shooting on the move.

Train the hardest problems you can, as heavily and often as you can. Distance shooting, shooting on the move, shooting tiny targets, shooting and gunhandling really fast. Maintain a little familiarity with easier stuff, but devote the bulk of resources available to harder stuff. The ability to handle easier technical problems may be encompassed in developing the ability to deal with harder technical problems. Although I've had a couple-year divergence lately where I've done lots of stand-and-shoot stuff, I used to practice long-ish distance and shooting on the move at every opportunity I had - the vast majority of my practice at the time. I think that skill development helped me in my subsequent static short-drill shooting.

I may be wrong. This is just my subjective impression of how this works for me.

[ToddG]

The question isn't whether we should "work on" something; the question is: How much should we "work on" something?

Probably worthy of its own thread, but the answer to that question, IMHO, is that it's wrong to set "how much work?" as your measure/goal. It's more important to train to a standard than to train to a time limit.

So rather than tell everyone to spend twice as much time on the draw than the reload, and twice as much time on SHO shooting than WHO shooting, and twice as much time on SOM than long distance precision... I'd rather see people figure out what they do well, where their deficiencies lie, and square those to some reasonable standards. From there it's easy to figure out what needs serious training time and what doesn't.

[abu fitna]

It's more important to train to a standard than to train to a time limit.
... snip...
I'd rather see people figure out what they do well, where their deficiencies lie, and square those to some reasonable standards. From there it's easy to figure out what needs serious training time and what doesn't.

I would tend to agree on this one. For example, my own focus on SOM from unconventional body positions and cover angles comes straight from running straight into the deficiency wall during AMIS, and facing the hard reality of singelton problems in cases where my prior such training was all for a stack that will no longer be with me when and where I need it to be. And what I learn as my own weaknesses to be corrected I tend to push to other folks in my professional circles. The question then of course becomes what percentage is live fire vs what percentage broken down across laser / airsoft / simuntion in both static drills and force on force. Training hours are scarce, and facilities are heavily booked, so breaking down what folks can use at which location for what skills fundamental is important here.

This kind of diagnostic based approach is hard to implement in a large group of practitioners, however. It requires that folks be brutally honest with themselves about gaps, and have a recognized set of standards against which to test their own mettle to measure those gaps. It isn't something that works well with mass production Q / certs and folks that want to focus on the easy / fun / lazy range day while getting paid or otherwise skiving off something else that sucks more. But it can be done, and there are a number of gamification type incentives to drive participation and accurate self-reporting that can be thrown into the mix to help manage the issues that we know tend to crop up.

[ToddG]

So, what would be some reasonable standards?

Starting a new thread when the discussion veers sharply from the OP, especially in response to a post that says "this should be a separate thread."

[Bill Lance]

Lawyers.

[Joseph B.]

My thoughts:

SOTM- is one of the hardest skillsets to become proficient in. Its very obvious that in many tactical situations, that having the ability to SOTM would be highly benificial. I really believe that it is something that shooters should work on just as much as any static drills.

Side step-in I can see the benefit (especially in close quarters) but don't personally practice it, or include it in my training programs. I prefer the keep moving school of thought personally.

Static vs SOTM- if the situation allows for you to shoot from a static position then you should do so. If you don't possess the skill set to SOTM in situations where it is needed or optimal, then you have set yourself up for failure.

Trainers who claim SOTM is not relevant to modern gunfighting- I would strongly disagree and would further say that it's an injustice to their students.

[RBid]

I know that I'm late to this discussion, but it's an interesting topic for me. I have had an experience in which a side-step was possibly a key factor. I know a LEO who was sort of on the other side, as he remained stationary as the antagonist moved and fired.

In my experience, the bad guy had a slight head start. He had rotated his shoulders toward me, and used his strong side hand to clear his shirt, then tuck it behind the grip of his pistol. By the time his hand was releasing his shirt and transitioning to his pistol grip, I was in motion. I made a violent side (and back) step, yelled, and drew. When I acted, he froze. I suspect that he thought that he had a clear path, so to speak. In all likelihood, he had a script by which he thought everything would play out. When it didn't, his brain was not prepared to rapidly respond to the new information. My explosive action may have prevented me from having to shoot him.

For the other situation, we'll call the LEO "P", and "BG" is obviously bad guy. P is a uniformed officer, and was on his way to speak to familiar people, in a familiar setting. Somebody unexpected saw a uniform, and assumed that P was after him. P went from walking toward BG with a smile and a friendly greeting to seeing BG draw and begin to flee and fire behind him. Having no available cover or concealment, P got into a shooting stance, and launched rounds at BG. P was hit once, BG suffered multiple hits. The rest of the specifics are trivia. P believes that having focused on getting hits may have saved his life.


Reflecting on these situations, it seems that movement toward cover is sensible. Where cover is not available, it appears that sidestep + draw --> get down to business shooting is sensible.

Having said all of the above, I don't think two events are a large enough sample to "have all of the answers". I am very curious to hear more stories and take aways.