Oh look, Shawn and I disagree! I realize, it is a shock.
All kidding aside, I give the guy credit for at least attempting something unorthodox. But by failing to give any context to the technique it ends up looking a bit silly. But put it in context and shooting to the rear without turning can be a valid drill. So instead of writing a few more pages about how much better our draws look than his lets find something useful from it.
Hm. Talk about taking things out of context. "Shooting to the rear without turning" is of course a valid thing to practice.
However, that isn't what he is doing, even initially. He may not be moving his feet, but he is definitely turning. And his technique while doing so is extremely poor.
Which, of course, is what is being ridiculed. (Well, that plus the fact that on the third take he moved his feet when he specifically said "without moving your feet".)
If he had decent technique that was effective and efficient for shooting to the rear, that would be different. Giving the guy "credit for at least attempting something unorthodox" makes as little sense to me as telling the guy doing backflips as punch evasions that he gets kudos for "at least attempting something unorthodox."
First off, the technique has to be effective and efficient. Random poor movement? Not so much.
As he has it set up there appears no reason to stand and shoot. With the target at that distance, as JT stated, I would be moving, drawing and shooting, putting as much distance as I could between us. Moving to some type of cover (preferred) or concealment (better than molecules of air).
We agree on that---given a situation where movement is possible, there isn't already a direct attack that needs to be deflected or blocked, and there is enough time to begin movement---then moving away while drawing is a viable choice.
I will note that at contact distance, often the first useful motion is not to draw the pistol. However, given no extra context, that is a completely different discussion.
Moving left, right or at an angle away I dont see how you would get two hands on your gun without turning and moving backwards. Which we know is slower than going forwards and a pretty good way to end up on your rear end and why we practice one handed shooting.
Hm. So let's clarify here before I comment further:
You are saying that the best choice is to be facing away from the attacker and running forwards away from the attacker, and firing behind you one-handed as you move? Or are you saying the best choice is to have your head turned toward the attacker as you run with your body forward away from the attacker, firing behind you one-handed as you move?
As opposed to backing away from the attacker shooting two-handed while looking at them?
Because that discussion is going to be a whole 'nother thread by itself.
So lets change the drill and give it some context. It could be a hostage situation (I know, no one on here would ever be caught unaware and taken hostage...) You could be standing, kneeling or even prone. Put the bad guy a lot closer, so even if you could move, it will no longer give a tactical advantage. Add a covert draw so the gun is in hand and unseen. Now a quick shot to the rear without turning is something to consider.
Again---to clarify here: You are saying we are a hostage, which means there is a gun in our ear, and you are saying that having the gun in hand, performing a quick shot to the rear without moving, is something to consider? Really?
(Note: I'm not even going to comment about how much the technique from the video is completely non-workable for this context.)
This is absolutely quicker than turning and shooting and science will back this up.
Don't you mean quicker than
moving your feet to turn and shoot? Because in the video he is obviously turning. His entire upper body rotates around (slowly) as he brings the gun the long away around his body (slowly).
The following study was done to examine how quickly a prone suspect could turn and fire on a Police Officer. IMO exactly what we are discussing. Threat to the rear, covert draw, shooting without moving the feet.
Force Science News #113 New Study Explores Threats Posed by Prone Suspects.
http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/113.html
Several months ago Lewinski conducted some rough preliminary testing on prone action times at the FSRC lab at Minnesota State University-Mankato. Role-playing a prone, armed offender with hands tucked under his body, he repeatedly turned to present and fire a gun as if shooting at a contact officer approaching him from the feet or side. A time-coded video camera recorded his movements. You can view a short video clip of the movement here: http://www.forcescience.org/video.html
The average time it took him to make his threatening moves was “about one-third of a second,” Lewinski says. “This speed would likely be faster than an average cover officer could react and shoot to stop the threat, even if the officer had his gun pointed, his finger on the trigger, and had already made the decision to shoot. In other words, the officer would stand little chance of being able to shoot first.”
Well, first I'd really like to see that movement and shot at full-speed, because the idea that sequence averaged a 1/3 of a second seems---optimistic, to me. But hey, we can't tell from that video.
More importantly, the movement required there bears little resemblance to the situation in the original video posted, or anything else that isn't prone. Unless, of course, 1) you actually do already have your hand on the gun AND it is clear of the holster and any concealment garments, 2) it is already in front of your body at the midline at minimum, and 3) when you turn to shoot under your arm A) you don't do anything other than lift your other arm out of the way which is completely different from the video that started this thread, and B) the threat is coming at a 45 degree angle from your back, because if you want to shoot someone behind you, you are going to have to torque around a LOT more than occurred on that video. (And we assume the video is a representative sample, because of course it wasn't cherry-picked to show the best results.)
Effectively, my comment to that study and video is that it is an interesting result and something important to think about for officers approaching prone subjects---and has very little to do with most citizen self-defense situations unless you often end up on the ground with your gun already in your hands as someone slowly approaches you from the rear without already shooting you.
It bears pretty much no resemblance to the original video reason for this thread. Now, standing variations on the "shooting under your arm" can certainly be useful to practice for certain specific situations. However, that still gives no reason whatsoever to NOT make fun of the original video posted, as his technique isn't at all like that.
I will note that the prone study is NOT, in my opinion, "IMO exactly what we are discussing. Threat to the rear, covert draw, shooting without moving the feet" since there is no covert draw, and moving the feet makes no sense as the subject is prone and remains so.
I learned and practiced a drill similar to this at a Suarez class as a response to being grabbed and choked from the rear. As best as I can describe it you are placed in a rear naked choke by someone who knows what they are doing so you cant turn into it. You dont have time to try strikes to the face or groin, your going to be unconscious in a few seconds. You initially defend it by turning your head and getting a hand on the arm choking you and pulling down. At the same time you draw one handed and either push the muzzle under and through your opposite arm pit to shoot or bring the gun around your primary side till you feel it touch the BG and then fire. We did this multiple times with airsoft on role players and then live fire on mannequins.
So, when being choked from behind, with a sunken choke (in other words, already correctly in place) you are saying that you are going to pull the attacking arm down, draw, move the gun across your body to shoot past your weak side, and attempt to shoot him?
Um.
Well, first, that bears no resemblance to the technique in the original video posted. As such, I'm not really sure how that in any way actually gives us a reason to not make fun of the original. You said: "But put it in context and shooting to the rear without turning can be a valid drill. So instead of writing a few more pages about how much better our draws look than his lets find something useful from it."
Shooting to the rear without without can indeed be a valid drill. No argument. However: "instead of writing a few more pages about how much better our draws look..." ----yes, indeed, the children are being unruly, how dare they, let's get them to settle down and learn something from the man who knows.
Oh wait----the video is ridiculously bad. The technique is bad, his ability at the technique is bad, and it would be a shame if anyone attempted to emulate said technique. This is completely separate from someone saying "Hey, let's start a thread on how to effectively shoot to the rear without turning."
I realize that we are supposed to be nice to everyone, no matter what, but in this case we are talking about how people are going to keep themselves alive in dire circumstances. If someone is attempting to promulgate technique that is bad, it needs to be said. (Otherwise we end up with many people saying the CAR technique is fantastic. Oh wait, too late for that debacle.)
If, then, someone wants to say "Hey, here's something that WOULD work!" that's great---it can start a good discussion that can be useful to people. However, starting by telling adults how to act (that they aren't behaving) is---nonsense.
Anyway----back to the situation you are describing, which doesn't resemble the original video in the slightest:
Why shoot across your body under your weak-side arm? Why not shoot back from your strong-side, at approximately pelvis-level? If you shoot across your body, the attacker better be on that side otherwise you might not be able to actually reach far enough.
As an example: Attacker has you in a rear naked choke with his right arm. Given that, most of the time he'll be directly behind you and bladed (in other words, you and he will look like a T where he is the stem of the T), or he
might be directly behind you but if he is he will be flat to you (you and he looking rather like II). Either way, reaching around your weak side to get a bullet into him isn't going to be particularly easy unless the attacker lets you move relative to him (which is unlikely if they have good enough technique to sink a choke in the first place) or you have arms like an orangutan.
If someone gets a choke on your, they tend to block your hips from moving, and stay close to your body. Turning your upper body relative to them is difficult, at best.
Why go around to the weak side?
I also note that I disagree with this statement: "You dont have time to try strikes to the face or groin, your going to be unconscious in a few seconds" particularly with regard to it being a justification for immediately going for a gun.
I'm not saying that going for a gun is always wrong. However, thinking "sunken choke = nothing to do but go for the gun" is just incorrect.
