Defensive Carry banner

An outstanding article in "Handguns" magazine about shooting on the move - or not!

6K views 89 replies 26 participants last post by  Matthew Temkin 
#1 ·
An outstanding article in "Handguns" magazine about shooting on the move - or not!

After nearly 300 hours of training at the likes of Blackwater, Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, and Tactical Shooting Academy, and especially FOF scenarios at Gunsite in their advanced handgun classes, I have come to some definitive conclusions about shooting while moving.

But, the article in this month's "Handguns" said it as well, if not better, than I could and with more authority and support. It is interesting that the author, Dave Spaulding, after experiences in SWAT, etc., observation of combatants in FOF scenarios, and interviews with people who have been in gunfights, arrives at the very same conclusions I have, in a nutshell - if you have to move, move as fast as you can, if you need to shoot, stop plant and shoot. As a civilian, except in rare, extraordinary circumstances, NEVER move toward a shooting threat, that just makes it easier for the threat to hit you.

The article is well done and well supported. Before you judge my statements above, read the article to get the whole picture. Shooting and moving is a bad combination and is primarily a tactic for SWAT/Military type units. Read the article.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
After nearly 300 hours of training at the likes of Blackwater, Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, and Tactical Shooting Academy, and especially FOF scenarios at Gunsite in their advanced handgun classes, I have come to some definitive conclusions about shooting while moving.

But, the article in this month's "Handguns" said it as well, if not better, than I could and with more authority and support. It is interesting that the author, Dave Spaulding, after experiences in SWAT, etc., observation of combatants in FOF scenarios, and interviews with people who have been in gunfights, arrives at the very same conclusions I have, in a nutshell - if you have to move, move as fast as you can, if you need to shoot, stop plant and shoot. As a civilian, except in rare, extraordinary circumstances, NEVER move toward a shooting threat, that just makes it easier for the threat to hit you.

The article is well done and well supported. Before you judge my statements above, read the article to get the whole picture. Shooting and moving is a bad combination and is primarily a tactic for SWAT/Military type units. Read the article.
Is there a link to the article?

I would hate to pay for something that IMHO is sooooo very incorrect at so many levels.

Knowledge, training, and "putting in the work" over rides any lack ability to make solid combat hits with dynamic movement. I prove this with every course that I put on.

I would like to read the article, but I will not pay to read something that I know to be absolutely incorrect.
 
#3 ·
I'll tell you what Roger, I've seen this same attitude too many times. The 'master', himself posted a thread on another board that irritated the other member/trainers so badly that "he" finally volunteered to leave that board.

There is no link to the article. The article appeared in the Guns & Ammo, "Handguns" magazine.
 
#10 ·
Tangle,

My apologies if my post appears to have attitude, that was certainly not my intention. The written word is obviously the very worse form of communication. I am a self proclaimed "nobody" so I have no concept of "the master."

This is just a difference of opinion .....nothing less and nothing more. I am all for well thought out reasonable debate on topics such as this. I do not have to have people see things my way, I just make sure that everyone can see both sides of the issue. Since this is all "user dependent" there is no right or wrong answer, but there are two sides to the issue that are equally correct inside of the context of the fight.

This is all about context.

Many of the magazines have featured articles that are online. My request for a possible link was a simple request.

If I buy the magazine would you be interested in my opinion on it? Or would you rather me not reply to this thread again? As we see from the responses this seems to be a "user dependent" topic. I feel that it would be a disservice to the readers to only discuss one side of a "user dependent" skill set.

Respectfully, Roger Phillps
 
#4 · (Edited)
Hummmmmmmmm....if one makes the argument that moving in the direction of the known threat makes a defensive shooter an easier target to hit - then wouldn't one also have to logically accept the fact that planting yourself in order to return fire does make you a stationary target that is also much easier to hit?

Just trying to stir up the soup here. :yup:


May I suggest one additional variable to be tossed into the pot?

That would be that the chances are greater than 50/50 that the adversary will be a very poor shot yet possibly have a high capacity firearm that will be unleashed (somewhat haphazardly) in your general direction.

My conclusion is that bullets emanating from the deadly threat could VERY LIKELY be all over the place and that no matter exactly HOW an individual trains...one can just as easily move into volumes of misdirected gunfire as to stand stationary and be missed.

This is especially true these days when the adversaries are determined killers but, not marksman with even rudimentary target acquisition skills.

Much will always depend on exactly how Lady Luck will deal your individual hand as to if you'll go home for dinner or to the morgue for a toe tag.
 
#5 ·
I would like to read the article, but I will not pay to read something that I know to be absolutely incorrect.
The magazine costs a whopping $3.99 on the newstands.
:rolleyes:

It's a good article. Several more in this issue, too.
 
#6 ·
Shouldn't we also define the mission of the good guy before we judge?

Who are you? A SWAT guy, a body guard, a citizen trying to get out of there alive?

If you are a SWAT guy, your mission is to neutralize the bad guy. You NEED to get hits. I know the SWAT guy doesn't want to get shot, but he may end up getting shot in order to accomplish his mission.

A body guard's mission is to protect his VIP. He can't move if it would put his VIP in danger. No shooting much on the move here.

If you are a citizen being attacked by a bad guy, your mission is DON'T GET SHOT!!! It doesn't matter if you hit the bad guy; you simply are trying to survive. If FOF shows that you have less chance of getting hit by shooting on the move, that's what I'll do if my mission is that of a armed citizen.

I can't put in much about force on force until after this week (I taking my first FOF class next weekend). Then I can give you a rookie's perspective.

About the magazine, I might get it whether I agree or not. I always want to know what others think. Plus, I just love to argue. :argue:
 
#7 ·
Great addition by PaulG

For me personally (as an armed citizen)...I would like to stay alive...to live to moderate...yet another day. :yup:
Also...as things are now in Pennsylvania I am legally bound to a first obligation to retreat a perceived deadly threat. That is the way it is here.
Whatever gets me to the EXIT sign asap is my most viable option.
 
#8 ·
Tangle. how do you do it? Just kidding!!! Believe it or not I was working on this while shooting this week. I didn't realize how weak I was on being able to connect with the target while moving.
In a real scenario it isn't just about missing the target while moving; it's also about the fact that your round is going to hit something if it misses the target.
Right now in a public situation my skill level demands that for the safety of others, I need to stop and plant before I fire. This is not about anyone else just me. I'm working on improving my skill level but I'm not to the point of shooting on the move confidently.
 
#9 ·
Dave has some unconventional ideas, but I have to say that 95% of what he comes up with is correct. Keep in mind the article was written for the common denominator, not the practiced advanced shooter.
 
#58 ·
I thought that was worth a refresh - "common denominator, not the practiced advanced shooter." Yes, but we don't have many practiced advanced shooters that have survived a gunfight by shooting while moving against moving, partially hidden threats that are shooting back. They are few, if any.

We do seem to have a lot of LEO that shoot while moving and miss a lot, and/or sadly get injured or killed in the process.
 
#12 ·
Roger,

I think it only reasonable that if someone is going to critisize or disagree with an article, that he read it first. The article points out that the threat may be bobbing and weaving and we may be too. How many of us civies shoot regularly at targets like that, even when we're standing still? Seldom. Even if I go to a school for five days we don't do that the full five days. Then what about the rest of the 360 days of that year? I shoot stationary targets - that's all that's availabe.

I think it is highly likely that none of use shoot as nearly as well moving as planted. Now, that doesn't make moving wrong or planting right. But I can say this, if the situation gives me a choice, I'm gonna plant, I simply can't afford to miss.

I can say this too, I know for a fact, I can shoot much better not moving than moving. I can move better, faster, and more securely without trying to shoot at the same time.

It takes some time to develop shooting on the move, it takes time to retain it. Most of us civies simply don't have a place where we can shoot and move.
 
#13 ·
Tangle,
I have spent the last couple of hours driving around looking for the magazine and the article. I can only locate March and April editions and I could not find any articles on movement in those.

Am I correct that this article is in the February addition?

As you see I am making the effort to read the article.

Until then.....
 
#16 ·
Here is an article that everyone can read

Movement Inside of the Fight Continuum

"The fight will be what the fight will be." There is a definite fight continuum and inside the fight continuum there are a number of other continuums. There is of course, 7677's sight continuum there is a reaction continuum, and a movement continuum. There are even lesser continuums including grip, trigger, etc. but let's concentrate on the main three.

React as you need to react, move as you need to move, and see what you need to see within the context of the specifics of the fight. This is very straight forward and simple, yet each of these are intertwined. Each works in conjunction with the other and each has an effect on the other. The dynamics of the fight will be dictated by your position in the reactionary curve, the proximity of the threat, and the urgency of the situation. How you deal with the specifics of the fight will depend on your mindset, experience, training, and skill level.

When it comes to training and skill level, I believe that we should strive to be as well rounded and versatile as possible. To understand the fight continuum and to cover as many bases as possible within that continuum, there needs to be a priority set on "the most likely situations." But training should not stop there. In regards to the movement continuum, I have broken the skill sets into four categories.

Stand and Deliver

Controlled Movement

Dynamic Movement

"Get the Heck Out of Dodge" Movement

Stand and deliver is the entry level skill set. This is where you nail down your fundamentals. You should have stand and deliver skills down cold to truly excel in the skill sets that follow. Many very good men have come home after very tough nights with stand and deliver skills.... a few of them right here on this forum. One should not discount this skill set when it is used within the correct context of the fight.

Controlled movement is an intermediate skill set and would include the groucho (duck walk,) the side step (crab walk,) and "just walk." Controlled movement has it place also. When the urgency is lower and the proximity/distance requires more precision (sighted fire.)

Dynamic movement is the "high priority" movement that I referred to earlier. This is where you will most likely find yourself. Dynamic movement excels when you are behind in the reactionary curve, the proximity is close, and the urgency is high. This movement can range from "faster than a walk," to a jog, to a stride, to a run, and finally to a sprint. This type of movement really works well within the reaction continuum and the sight continuum. The use of threat focused skills takes this skill set well beyond what has been considered "possible" in the recent past. One handed skills are a "must" with dynamic movement.

“Get the heck out of Dodge” movement is simply sprinting to cover without engaging until you are behind cover. This has its place, especially in the military. It's use by a civilian defender is becoming less and less necessary due to the huge advancements in dynamic movement shooting over the past year. If cover is a couple of yards away.....by all means get to it! But do not die trying to get to something that is just too far away.

One should be well rounded. Prioritize your training to the "most likely situation." Work the other areas of the fight continuum, so that if you find yourself in a specific circumstance you will be comfortable there. Stay within the safety level of your skill level, but strive to improve each time out. Find, explore, and push your limitations within the fight continuum.
 
#19 ·
How you deal with the specifics of the fight will depend on your mindset, experience, training, and skill level...

...One should be well rounded. Prioritize your training to the "most likely situation." Work the other areas of the fight continuum, so that if you find yourself in a specific circumstance you will be comfortable there. Stay within the safety level of your skill level, but strive to improve each time out. Find, explore, and push your limitations within the fight continuum.
That sort of says it all. There is no one set way to do things. Use your training and best judgement, and hope to live for another day. :smilez:
 
#17 ·
Spaulding makes some of the same points in policeone as in the other article but the point isn't really the same. In the magazine, his point is that moving backward or sideways shooting in a controlled movement takes longer than just running to cover - making you a target longer, gives a greater possibility of stumbling and becoming a sitting target, and decreases the probability of hits on the BG. On the other hand, running to cover takes much less time and shooting from a stable position from cover produces a greater probability of hits. I believe the article is really aimed at the run of the mill LEO or CCW holder who probably does not have a huge amount of training. Since I don't have a lot of training or any gunfighting experience, I can't really evaluate his point. However strictly from a logic standpoint, it seems to make sense.
 
#20 · (Edited)
Thanks for the clarification, Texas Yankee. It does sound as if the article is contextual on a lower skill level of a novice shooter. With that in mind, then the article would be correct with in it's context.

The concept of "controlled movement" is a concept that is dictated by skill level and the lack of adequete techniques. In this case the technique is dictating the tactic (move slowly so you can see your sights).....which is obviously backwards. The problem with this is that there are techniques that would be better suited and also lead to much smarter tactics. In other words the tactics is dictating the techniques (move explosively and put threat focused hits on board)..... as it should be.

We have tested this is FOF and have found that the "Get the heck out of dodge" movement was very limited in sucess if cover was more than a couple of yards away. The BG's simply shoot the GG's in the back or the sides. By going completely defensive, the BG's had nothing to worry about. They just stood there and put hits on the fleeing GG's.

The way that we found around this obvious problem was to learn to shoot while moving dynamically. This gives the BG something to worry about. He does not simply pump lead into the GG. He is taking hits! I teach a "Get out of the kill zone draw stroke" that does not slow you down one bit. You simply explode off the line of attack while simultaneously acquiring your handgun. Threat focused skills combined with dynamic movement lead to excellent hits in dynamic FOF encounters for those that "put in the work."

These techniques require absolute confidence in your proficiency of threat focused shooting and high skill level of one handed shooting. This is something that most novice shooters do not have but is something that can be taught to a person with solid fundamentals in a day or two (believe it or not.)

Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictate tactics, tactics dictate techniques. Techniques should never dictate anything, except to the complete novice. As soon as a shooter has the fundamentals down (drawstroke, keeping the gun hitting and running) they should get themselves in to some good FOF courses. This way they can see the real dynamics of a mock life threatening encounter. This is where you see the limitations of the fundamentals and the need to be much more well rounded and versatile.
 
#21 ·
That's why, in my orginal post, I emphasized reading the article.

I would like to think that I am far from novice both in shooting and tactics. I've had tons of training and average about 200 rounds every week. But while I shoot around 10,000 - 12,000 rounds a year, I have little opportunity to move and shoot because of range restrictions, and I sure don't have a range where I can move and the target moves at the same time and is trying to shoot me.

The article deals with that very thing - we rarely get to train in a dynamic situation where the target is moving at the same time and as fast as we are, both with random motion and random timing, with the goal in mind to not get shot and to shoot us.

Going to a school once a year or once every 5 years and being exposed to this environment cannot be called training. Training is an on going exercise to retain and improve skills. When that person gets back home, he has had some training, but he is far from trained.

Then he goes back to his range, shoots a stationary target from a stationary position for the rest of the year. What do we think he's really good at?

Air soft is a possiblity for combative scenarios. But 'fun-n-gun' with non lethal weapons against a non-lethal opponent could be detrimental or advantageous. If you use paint ball guns with only head protection and T shirts, you may get a more realistic reaction.

I once read of a training exercise on a war ship and the commander noticed the troops were pretty brave with all their paint ball gear on. When he made them take everything off but head protection, tactics changed dramatically.

I think the article addresses the vast majority of people who carry guns. The real question each of us has to answer is, "Is that where I am?" As I said earlier, I've had tons of training, including lots of Simunitions FOF where I and others have come out literally bleeding, and I consider shooting on the move as one of my weakest assets.

I think a lot of this will subside if we'd just read the article.
 
#22 ·
If I could, I would stop, plant, shoot and then move some more. I'd move sideways or backwards, whatever got me out of harms way. It would depend on the situation.
I did indeed have a problem with with charging at the chargers when they were retreating. I think getting yelled at over and over again might have broke me of that(?).
Like Clint says ..." figure every bullet out of your gun has a lawyer connected to it".
 
#23 · (Edited)
You know that nobody can ever "cherry pick" their future deadly threat.
As a non LEO civilian I will say that I sure can envision possible scenarios where heading for immediate (even very close cover) is not a realistic option.

For instance...Scenarios change radically when you're not alone.

There is not one civilian defensive shooter that I know that would head for cover if they walked into a chance deadly threat with 80 year old Mom, their Kids...or the Wife.
It is total insanity to believe that your small children are going to instantly react the way you want them to react in an immediate surprise SHTF scenario. Be certain they will freeze solid and will act like lumps of clay.
"Come~on kids let's hurry up and get behind Mr. Mailbox so Daddy can shoot the Bad Guy."
Sorry...that just ain't gonna work. You're dead.
If we were walking in the mall & gunfire erupted X # of feet away - I can guarantee that my own Wife would immediately fall apart.
It is a "given" to me...that no matter how many times we have "gone over" things...she will panic/fall apart.
When fractions of a second count I don't think that anyone is going to clear leather...w/ support hand violently toss brittle boned Mom down onto the sidewalk and then head for safe cover.
Me personally I'm either planting my feet or (more likely) I'm aggressively advancing on the Adversarial shooter.
If the predator is hungry...I'm going to force feed him my weapon right up until my muzzle is flaming his nostril hairs if need be.
 
#26 ·
For instance...Scenarios change radically when you're not alone.
So far in this discussion, the assumption has been that if you're a not an LEO, the priority is not to get shot. All the discussion (some personal sniping aside) has been over whether the best strategy for not getting shot is to move to cover, then shoot, or shoot while moving to cover.

As QK rightly points out, if you've got loved ones with you, not getting shot yourself may be less important than ensuring your wife/kids/parents don't get shot. If they don't know how (or aren't able) to respond tactically, the best way to keep them from getting shot may be to neutralize the BG as quickly as possible, while diverting his attention from others.

That said, I still think there's a valid debate about movement and shooting in these circumstances. Do I stand and deliver (maybe throwing a sidestep in there to get my family out of the line of any incoming fire), or move aggressively towards the BG while firing? I can shoot better stationary than I can while moving, so that would probably result in getting a hit on the BG faster. On the other hand, if I move towards him, the probability of getting a hit increases as I get closer. Multiple hits may be required to neutralize the BG and getting closer maybe a good way to accomplish that. Moving towards the BG also makes it more likely that he'll pay attention to me, rather than shooting at anyone else.

Of course, the best way to resolve this may be to try it in practice, especially since the answer may vary from person to person. How fast can you get hits on target standing still vs. advancing towards it? Does this change if the target is also moving? I think the really important thing here is to understand both your own capabilities and how those may apply to a situation.
 
#24 ·
Sooo much depends on the encounter and no two are likely to be the same. Are you alone, protecting kids, spouse, parents? Can they move, are they handicapped, elderly? Is the opposition alone, a group? Are there innocents around or no one? I don't believe you can say only move and shoot or plant and shoot or move then plant and shoot. You're going to have to some it up in fractions of a second and then act decisively.

Also not all of us are physically up to running around and firing. Some may not have the money for all that training either. If the ultimate bad moment ever comes we can only hope we make the right decisions!
 
#25 ·
QKShooter - what you posted has expressed my thoughts/concerns on this. I do however go back and forth. Do I go directly between my loved ones and the predator (straight line) and possibly have them hit by bullets aimed by me? OR Do I angle off the line of attack and hopefully draw their fire away from my family and towards me.
That is a tough one and a situation I hope we never encounter.
Either way, there will be some type of movement.
 
#27 ·
Well here are my 2 cents...
there is not much you can say unless you are put in that situation..unfortunately a lot of us will react 2 different ways if we have our love ones with us it will be to protect them at all cost if we are alone our own survival instincts will jump in unless like some of us with military or LE back ground we will jump in to a more of a defend the civilians and make a perimeter and control the situation... in our own way...
 
#28 · (Edited)
I'm trying hard not to throw things too far off on a wacky tangent in this thread but, a few things have been on my mind recently...mostly spurred on by a few other past forum posts and news articles.
(their respective titles not being important to this post)

But, here goes one more just to complicate and muddy up the water.

I think that never before in recent US history will the possibility of the "ordinary non~LEO armed civilian" having to face multiple armed Bad Guys be greater than it is now - well, maybe not right now but, in the very near future.
That is because I fully expect terror cell type activity to increase dramatically.
I don't want to get into any specifics or politics of it all but, it's a problem that is not going to away and can only get worse and not better.
The best example being the latest mall shooting where the shooter was a Bosnian Muslim [mentioned ONLY as a FYI statement of fact that went almost totally unreported in the national news] - he happened to be a lone shooter but, as domestic radical terrorists get emboldened (and hatred builds and festers)...they will begin to attack innocent civilians in groups.
Just my opinion that what our future holds for us will be small bands or groups of adversarial suicidal-type shooters in crowded civilian settings.
Probably in groups of 4 or 5.
I am not the only person that believes that.
Retreating on one may mean advancing on another since the defensive shooter may now face multiple BGs in various locations. That has never been a common occurrence for "ordinary folks" in our modern domestic history.
Just something for our trainers to consider is the fact that the face of deadly violence to civilians may morph into that (as a sporadic commonality) & sooner rather than later.
A civilian trainer/instructor wanting to stay ahead of the curve should at least give it some serious consideration now because it will (for sure) be the wave of our future.
 
#30 ·
What am I physically capable of?

I believe that there should be continuity to ones movement. I feel that one should train to get hits through the entire movement spectrum. There is no doubt about the importance of "stand and deliver" skills. I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on this skill with tens of thousands of draw strokes. If I chose this solution to the problem, that skill will be there.

I also see a need for very controlled movement that facilitates a precision shot on the move. This could include skills such as "just walk", side stepping (crab walk,) or even the old groucho (duck) walk. All three of these techniques have there place and should be something that you can do on demand, if that demand arises. I practice head shots at logical distances with this type of movement.

I also see a need to be able to get hits with your toes pointing the direction that you are moving. This type of movement has your upper body working independent from your lower body, "like a turret of a tank." Toes point the direction you are headed, body turreted the direction that you are shooting. This type of movement brings in your bi-lateral skills. Shooting to the firing side can be done two handed to a certain point, eventually you need to go one handed. The possible speed of this movement can cover the full spectrum, from a walk, to a jog, to a stride, to a run, and finally to a sprint. This is where you find what you are physically capable of. This is where the limitations are pushed, and the standards are set.

Feints, jukes, cut backs and directional changes are also part of the movement skills set. One should explore there ability to use these skills and the limitations that different terrain/footing give you.

React as you need to react, move as you need to move, and see what you need to see to solve the problem that you are confronted with. If you train with these basic concepts, you will have covered the vast majority of the possible situations. In covering these situations, your subconscious mind will choose, with confidence, the appropriate solution.

Training to move and shoot in every direction is the best way to go. The only thing that I refuse to teach is back peddling. There are ways to engage while moving rearward without back peddling.

I believe that getting off of the line of attack is very important. This accomplishes getting out of the kill zone as quickly as possible. Moving straight in or straight back simply does not get you off of the line of attack. But there are times when advancing straight forward is a very good idea. If you find yourself in a position where you can not avoid the situation, but you are in a dominant position (inside of the BG's OODA loop), due to awareness, distraction, deception, metsubushi, or ballistic effect moving forward aggressively and stopping the threat has its place.

Movement needs to have purpose. Getting to cover would be the most obvious purpose. But many times cover is just not a reality. In this case, movement to acquire the adversary flanks is an outstanding tactic. Moving forward to the oblique or using elliptical movement to try to get behind the adversary is as solid a tactic as there is.

If your instinctive reaction is to move in one direction, due to the fact that you are behind the reactionary curve, that does not mean that you need to keep moving that direction. Direction can be changed with elliptical movement or "cutback" type moves. The directional changes can come out of the visual input of the dynamics of the encounter. You need to be able to recognize the changes in your position in the OODA loop. Making adjustments to your movement due to this visual input is something that everyone should be aware of.

Moving rearward to the oblique while putting accurate hits on board is an outstanding skill to own. This can be accomplished quite easily with the correct training and tools. The LEO's that I have taught in my courses have considered these skills "life saving” skills for officers that have been caught behind the reactionary curve. In a typical traffic stop, the officer cover, radio, long gun......down right security is behind him. To be able to fight their way back to the patrol car, while delivering accurate hits, can be an excellent tool to own.

Lateral movement is the best way to not get hit, but it is also the most difficult way to get hits. The dynamics of this displacement dictate this as fact. This is why the ability to make hits laterally, on a full run is one of the highest skill levels obtainable in the movement spectrum.

The bottom line is that it is a very good idea to "train for the worst and hope for the best." You never know what the dynamics of the fight are going to be. It is the wise man that trains him self to be well rounded as possible in order to cover as many bases as he can. Training in just one response will make you a "flat sided" fighter. Flat sided fighters can not adapt to varying tactics, if you can not adapt, you will not overcome. Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, and tactics dictate techniques. Techniques should never dictate anything except for the beginner or the lowest common denominator.

I regards to movement, the KISS concept is for the lowest common denominator. This is for those that do not learn, do not train, and do not practice. Every top athlete that I have ever seen has a vast number of skills, techniques, and tactics ingrained at a subconscious level. They can access these ingrained responses easily....at top speed, with zero conscious thought. They can also transition from one, to another, to another seamlessly. This is what all students of the art, that are serious about their training, should be striving for.
 
#31 ·
To add another thought, nobody said you couldn't move a step, plant and shoot, and do it again if the situations calls for it. We need to recognize any shooting method/tactic has to be driven by the situation - which is what many have been saying.

For example, if I decide to shoot this guy and realize he's about to shoot in my direction, I must react to that situation. If I'm alone, I may sidestep and shoot the instant I stablize in the new position. Given the exact same situation, I could choose the same size step in the same direction but shoot in mid step. That wouldn't be my first choice, but my first choice may not be an option - plan B.

Which is better? I don't know, how far apart are we? The situation dictates the response. Let's say we're 9 feet apart. I'm gonna respond differently than if we're 20 feet apart.

But I think we've long since stopped discussing the article since most haven't even read it to see why the author says what he does. Let us not forget, a gunfight is what it is, not what it has been in the past, or what we think it's gonna be - it's just what it is as it happens and that's what we have to respond to.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top