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

[rsa-otc]

In a recent thread discussing the proposed changes to the IDPA rule book I remarked that tactics are fluid and change over time. What was considered good yesterday maybe frowned upon tomorrow. Since shooting while moving is such an important part of IDPA my thoughts focused there and that got me to thinking about recent posts on Dave Spaulding’s BLOG concerning shooting on the move. Then I listened to Tom Givens on ballistic radio concerning the side step. So stay with me as I work through my thoughts.

Shooting on the move: I have always embraced the importance of this skill to the point that not only is it part of my training program but it is part of our Q course. But how important is it.

Larry Vickers feels that it is an extremely important skill. His thoughts can be found here. http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-...g-on-the-move/

Mr. Vickers “Been there done that” credentials are impeccable.

Yet Dave Spaulding questions its importance in the following BLOG posts:

http://www.handguncombatives.com/blo...6b71fd-27.html &
http://www.handguncombatives.com/blo...a3c9e9-38.html

Dave in his first post references Paul Howe’s thoughts (a respected “Been there done that” type as well). His thoughts start on page 4 here: http://www.combatshootingandtactics....real_fight.pdf

In Dave’s second post he references Nir Mamam who if you except his resume is also a “BTDT” person. Nir’s thoughts can be found here: http://www.handguncombatives.com/res...rticle2013.pdf

While I have carried a gun for 35 plus years and have had to draw it on two occasions fortunately I haven’t been in the crucible like these gentlemen. But through my limited experience both carrying a weapon and as a trainer I can see the logic in Dave Spaulding, Paul Howe & Nir Mamam’s points. Their thoughts are that if you are moving it is probably to cover and you are best served by doing that as fast as possible by not trying to add making accurate shots at the time. Similarly if you are shooting you are best served to do that in the best manner possible and that is by standing still. All three have a great deal of operational experience and did not just think this stuff up on the “Square Range”.

With regards to the side step, when I was first introduced to this technique it was purported to be a training tool to help our students to think movement and to keep their feet from being glued to the ground. It slowly seemed to morph into a “Tactic” which was then poopooed as useless by some in the training community. I recently was listening to Tom Givens being interviewed by our own Sparks2112 on Ballistic radio. Everyone here is familiar I’m sure with Mr. Givens and his student’s record in gun fights. It seems the only ones who have lost failed to follow rule number one, Have a Gun. This is not a comment on them as I am not familiar with the circumstances and there may have been a valid reason to be unarmed at the time such as the law. What I found interesting is that Mr. Givens talks about keeping training simple and how a side step during the draw is effective. He has actual video footage of a student’s gunfight to support his thoughts. The podcast of his interview can be found here: http://ballisticradio.com/2013/05/14...0-may-12-2013/

Given today’s training environment and that organizations training budgets are constantly being squeezed simplifying one's training curriculum to concentrate on effective techniques has great appeal.

Thoughts?

[Jay Cunningham]

I say consider the instructor's background and how that shaped their experience. This will assist you in understanding why something in particular (like SOTM) is either extremely important to them or of low importance.

After you carefully process the above, run it through your own filter and determine if their reasoning then applies to you and your situation. Trainer X may promote a certain thing for a certain reason and Trainer X's logic may be impeccable when teaching students who find themselves in similar situations, but may not particularly apply to other students in different situations.

[JHC]

Nice post to capture so many relevant references. It's still a bit of a mystery to me. Ken Hackathorn taught moving off the line and shooting while moving was valuable but not just one step. He said if you have to start moving, keep moving way beyond one step.
The time I spent training with Frank Proctor, dealt with moving a good bit. Frank didn't discuss it extensively from the standpoint of the avoiding being shot in a street hold up. His perspective was more as a Soldier or USPSA competitor who is trying to get X amount of "work" done while moving from point A to point B. And moving while shooting was often (not always - largely distance dependent) the most efficient (total time to get the hits and get to point B) means to that end.

[Sparks2112]

I say consider the instructor's background and how that shaped their experience. This will assist you in understanding why something in particular (like SOTM) is either extremely important to them or of low importance.

After you carefully process the above, run it through your own filter and determine if their reasoning then applies to you and your situation. Trainer X may promote a certain thing for a certain reason and Trainer X's logic may be impeccable when teaching students who find themselves in similar situations, but may not particularly apply to other students in different situations.

This. Having interviewed both of them I will also point out that my understanding of Dave's material makes me believe that it is more incident specific than Tom's material if that makes sense. Not to say either is better than the other, just that they are different. Guessing at which skills are important or not beforehand is going to be difficult to do. If my gunfight involves SoM I'm going to probably wish I had practiced it more than I have. On the flipside if I'm entangled and need to go to guns I'm sure I'll wish I had done that more instead. I think doing everything we can to become a well rounded shooter is key, as is developing a mindset that does not accept failure as an option.

[JHC]

Another thought is that the USPSA stages I've seen (and those I've shot) were useful for learning at what range you could be moving at effective speed (IMO that means hauling a$$ pretty good) and still get A zone hits; and at different angles while you're at it. For me that's a pretty short range. But very useful learning embedded in the sport.

[NETim]

I'm a nobody who knows nuthin' but I think I want my feet to move.

[ToddG]

First, I'd echo Jay's comments above. What makes sense for a guy in an open field involved in a two-way battle at 250m with a carbine might not be an equally good tactic for a guy being attacked by three gang bangers in a mall parking lot at car's length distance.

Beyond that, the topic is too complex to make simple universal rulings. Take the side step as an example. Does it help? You can't give an intelligent "yes" or "no" answer to that. It's highly situational. As Tom Givens points out, for example, distance to the threat makes a difference. Another important factor that our local study group has proven is what you might call disparity of condition. If you're both holstered, one or two steps sideways probably won't do much because you're very likely to be stopped and still before the other guy gets his gun out and on target. All you've done is complicate your draw and your own shooting problem. But OTOH if the other guy is pointing his gun at you already and you're holstered, then robbing him of at least that first easy hit is a good thing.

Once we start talking about SOM, it becomes even more complicated because skill plays such a major role. Can you get hits while moving at a meaningful speed? If not, then you either need to move (and skip the shooting) or shoot (and skip the moving).

When you look at how a lot of LE & mil institutional training approaches SOM, it is often (though not always) 100% focused on the shooting with no concern to the movement. As such, they crawl along at a snail's pace. And that, true enough, is pretty ineffectual because it still hurts your shooting without accomplishing much of anything in terms of getting you from point A to point B, making you a more difficult target, etc.

But when you start to make the footwork (and the speed of the movement) part of the equation, the balance shifts and being on the move can -- in some circumstances -- give you a big advantage.

Stand and deliver makes sense sometimes. Shooting on the move makes sense sometimes. Moving, stopping, and then shooting makes sense sometimes. Life is hard.

I'd also agree with JHC that action pistol type matches are a great opportunity to see how movement affects your shooting ability and understand where the tipping point is for you as an individual between what you can accomplish moving versus what you need to plant feet for.

[tdoom15]

Beyond that, the topic is too complex to make simple universal rulings. Take the side step as an example. Does it help? You can't give an intelligent "yes" or "no" answer to that. It's highly situational. As Tom Givens points out, for example, distance to the threat makes a difference. Another important factor that our local study group has proven is what you might call disparity of condition. If you're both holstered, one or two steps sideways probably won't do much because you're very likely to be stopped and still before the other guy gets his gun out and on target. All you've done is complicate your draw and your own shooting problem. But OTOH if the other guy is pointing his gun at you already and you're holstered, then robbing him of at least that first easy hit is a good thing.

I saw this demonstration of action/reaction at a class recently, and it made a lot of sense to me.

If John draws on Bill, Bill is forced to react to John's action and John wins that fight every time.

If John draws on Bill, and Bill explodes off line while simultaneously drawing then that forces John to react and track Bill, which evens the playing field and gives Bill time to get his gun into play.

I could see this information being helpful in real life, so it is something that I will practice more often.

[JAD]

I see things the way Todd explained them. I am curious about how this should influence my practice. I currently drill a step in about half of my draw practice -- so about 25% of my live fire. I have flirted with the idea of cranking that up to 90% either step or SOM, with the intention of pre programming movement, on the principle that it will always be easy to stand and deliver if that's what the circumstance demands. Is that nutty?

[Odin Bravo One]

If my gunfight involves SoM I'm going to probably wish I had practiced it more than I have. On the flipside if I'm entangled and need to go to guns I'm sure I'll wish I had done that more instead. I think doing everything we can to become a well rounded shooter is key, as is developing a mindset that does not accept failure as an option.

Indeed.

Yet we go to the fight with the tools we have, not the tools we wish we had.