NFOA MEMBERS FORUM

General Categories => Firearms Training and Education => Topic started by: Lorimor on December 17, 2013, 06:57:11 PM

Title: I Feel Cheated
Post by: Lorimor on December 17, 2013, 06:57:11 PM
All the training classes I've taken and no one's bothered to show me this secret technique.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b0JOuqmrpn0 (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b0JOuqmrpn0)

I've been ripped off. 


:)
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: abbafandr on December 17, 2013, 08:00:20 PM
Man, better not let jthhapkido see this, he would turn green with envy :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: NENick on December 17, 2013, 09:16:57 PM
I've already incorporated it into my practice...
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: Gary on December 17, 2013, 09:17:00 PM
PPOTH at 110 degrees and we all felt like he looks.  Feet not moving. 
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: JTH on December 17, 2013, 10:11:08 PM
Man, better not let jthhapkido see this, he would turn green with envy :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I actually posted this on my Facebook page yesterday.  It garnered some interesting commentary.  :)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7336/11429462133_763f447bc0_o.gif) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthhapkido/11429462133/)

For the record, I'm pretty sure I could turn, draw, and shoot two-handed in that same amount of time.  I'd actually prefer to turn while moving away, drawing, and shooting two-handed---and I'm STILL pretty sure I could do it in that same amount of time.

But maybe not.  After all, I'm just not really sure I'm as TACTICAL! as that guy is. 

"It's a skill I've developed," he says.  Well, congrats on that, dude.

Tim, in your honor, we'll all be trying this at the next Blacker Ops seminar.  (Actually, no we won't because oddly enough I'm a little against people sweeping half the state when they draw.)
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: SemperFiGuy on December 17, 2013, 11:38:22 PM
So...........

Gotta wonder why this shooter doesn't use a left-handed Hackathorn Rip on his draw.   As it is, he sorta boogers the initial handgun access.   Not criticizing his 6 o'clock technique, but his draw could be speeded up with the Rip.

Just sayin'.................

sfg
[Me??  I practice Situational Awareness and Conflict Avoidance.   And exercise full Duty to Retreat.   Never have to touch the handgun.   At all.][/size]
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: bullit on December 18, 2013, 07:20:26 AM
Are you kidding me.....US Marshall Matt Dillon perfected his ages ago .....  Nothing new under the sun......  :)

And for what it's worth, I echo SFG.....I would "exercise full Duty to Retreat" ala "Nike Defense"......
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: gsd on December 18, 2013, 07:47:28 AM
I see another member had some comedic gold there Thomas ;D
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: bkoenig on December 18, 2013, 08:11:23 AM
A "skill" he's developed.

(http://thesocialrevolutionist.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/napoleon_1.jpeg)

Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: JTH on December 18, 2013, 09:02:40 AM
I see another member had some comedic gold there Thomas ;D

Yep, several of the people who commented on that FB post of mine are NFOA members.  (And they are welcome to take credit for their commentary.  :) )

I just blurred their names and avatars in case someone here actually knew the guy in the video and for some reason liked him.  I'll take responsibility for my own critical comments, but I didn't want to get anyone else in trouble.
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: bkoenig on December 18, 2013, 09:14:27 AM
I'm fine with everyone knowing how snarky I am.
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: sjwsti on December 18, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
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.

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). 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.

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. This is absolutely quicker than turning and shooting and science will back this up. 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 (http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/113.html)

Quote
One of the most dangerous positions a suspect can assume on the ground is prone with his hands tucked under his body, either at chest or waist level. What’s hidden in those hands? And if it’s a gun, how fast can he twist and shoot if you’re approaching him?

Since its beginning more than 4 years ago, FSRC has conducted a series of ground-breaking time-and-motion studies, documenting the amazing speed with which suspects can attack from a variety of positions—turning and shooting while running, drawing and shooting while seated in a vehicle, and so on.
 
“The prone study is an important extension of this sequence,” Lewinski explains, “and is expected to further pinpoint the formidable reactionary curve that officers are behind when attempting to prevent or respond to potentially lethal assaults.”
 
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 (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.”

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.

- Shawn




 
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: bullit on December 18, 2013, 11:58:10 AM
As I pointed out earlier...."been there done that" ala Matt Dillon..... :)
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: JTH on December 18, 2013, 12:13:16 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.)


Quote
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).

Quote
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 (http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/113.html)
Quote
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 (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. 

Quote
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.
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: sjwsti on December 18, 2013, 12:16:58 PM
As I pointed out earlier...."been there done that" ala Matt Dillon..... :)
?  ;D

(http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu72/shawnngina/matt_zps06ae4a9e.jpg) (http://s635.photobucket.com/user/shawnngina/media/matt_zps06ae4a9e.jpg.html)
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: bullit on December 18, 2013, 12:28:41 PM
Shawn...he's so dreamy.......but I of course meant the character on Gunsmoke....

And then there's jthapkido poking the hornet's nest.  Alright something for me to read all afternoon.....  and Thomas I would refer you to the Master of All combat Tactics Rob "ICE" Pincus.... he has a couple of videos on shooting behind you during a "Critical Dynamic Incident" :P
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: JTH on December 18, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
Scariest thing about that original video? 

...is how many comments there are on it saying how great the technique was, how much they appreciate the instructor teaching them, and how they've learned such great things from him.  Yes, that guy is an instructor.

He's not as bad as some others.....but nonetheless, he is teaching people this stuff, and THEY think it is GREAT.

[sigh]



If you think *I* was being rough on him, take a look at Caleb's take on it:

http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/12/17/robin-brown-point-shooting-tactical-derp/ (http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/12/17/robin-brown-point-shooting-tactical-derp/)
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: sjwsti on December 18, 2013, 01:25:07 PM
"Shooting to the rear without turning" is of course a valid thing to practice.

You should have just stopped there.


Quote
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?

Im saying the best choice is the one that makes you the harder target. Distance will favor the trained shooter. So, yes, that means moving forward at an angle, at maximum speed and shooting with one hand looking at the threat when you need to. Could I trip and fall forward? Sure. But I believe there is less of a chance falling moving forward than back.

Are you advocating two handed shooting while moving backwards?
 
Quote
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?


Never said the gun was in your ear. BG is too close for movement to be effective but to far away to be touched. Obviously if a gun were "in my ear" I would have a different response.

 
Quote
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.

Those were the results of the initial study. Are you saying their timing equipment was faulty?

 
Quote
"Hey, let's start a thread on how to effectively shoot to the rear without turning."

Just did.

Quote
If someone is attempting to promulgate technique that is bad, it needs to be said. 

Agreed.

Quote
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..

Done.

Quote
However, starting by telling adults how to act (that they aren't behaving) is---nonsense

But its okay for you to tell me what I should do? Double nonsense!!

Quote
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. 
We did both. Depending on how you end up in relation to your attacker one side is going to offer a better shot than the other. When doing this drill with live people the strong side shot wasnt always there. Go figure.

Quote
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.

Someone choking me from behind will get an immediate deadly force response with whatever weapon I have available.

- Shawn
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: SemperFiGuy on December 18, 2013, 02:26:59 PM
Shawn & Tom:

You Two Mavens of Handgunnery did not listen to me when I suggested earlier that you should collaborate to write a regular joint column on Shooting Issues and get it published in an appropriate venue.   Pick a topic.   Choose an opposite side.   Write it up saying why you are right and the Other Guy is NOT.   Give it to your editor.   Your stuff is as good as Anybody Else's out there.   

Soon you would each have a following and Groupies.   [Lotsa female shooters out there now.   Yeah, I know....each is already married.   Doesn't hurt to have admirers, though.]

Now.....Get Cracking!

sfg















Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: Lorimor on December 18, 2013, 04:26:47 PM
I'm no tactical guru but even I know enough to understand that throwing the heater out into open space without confirming what's behind you is just plain stupid.  How easy would it be for the BG to simply grab the gun, bust off several of his fingers and shoot him full of holes?  This static, contrived scenario assumes the BG will be directly behind the defender, alone, at fairly close range, with no innocents in the vicinity.   (and further assumes the BG is VERY large and very immobile.) 

No, not me.  There is a need to assess the situation before beginning the drawstroke.  How's this guy know there aren't several BG's behind him, maybe one, close in, just off to his side, and moderately skilled in disarming? How's this guy know the BG isn't 15 yards away, bladed to him?  And some hippie dude or some other Texan is directly in the bullet's path?  How's he know he's not going to use a bus full of orphans as a backstop????

Pretty sure there's a rule about being sure about your target and what's behind it.   

Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: Lorimor on December 18, 2013, 04:37:13 PM

Tim, in your honor, we'll all be trying this at the next Blacker Ops seminar.  (Actually, no we won't because oddly enough I'm a little against people sweeping half the state when they draw.)


Good.  I don't want to be associated with this guy's um... "manure-ver"  :)
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: RedDot on December 18, 2013, 06:53:55 PM
I wanna see the edited first take where he catches a round in his ass after hitting steel from 5 feet away :laugh:
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: whatsit on December 18, 2013, 07:09:10 PM
I'll just leave this here. Yet another option for blindly killing what is behind you.  :laugh:
http://youtu.be/C8cvk06hfVs (http://youtu.be/C8cvk06hfVs)
Title: Re: I Feel Cheated
Post by: JTH on December 19, 2013, 12:09:40 PM
It is kind of annoying that when quoting, it will only include the material from the previous poster, and not the entire thing.

You should have just stopped there.
Nope.    Why would I want to do that, when I could instead comment more and then watch you take things out of context while mischaracterizing what I've said? 

...
I said: 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?

Quote from: sjwsti
Im saying the best choice is the one that makes you the harder target. Distance will favor the trained shooter. So, yes, that means moving forward at an angle, at maximum speed and shooting with one hand looking at the threat when you need to. Could I trip and fall forward? Sure. But I believe there is less of a chance falling moving forward than back.

Are you advocating two handed shooting while moving backwards?

"The best choice is the one that makes you a harder target" ---shouldn't that also include some aspect of effective _response_, too?

"Distance will favor the trained shooter" --- only after a certain separation is managed, I think.  5 feet, for example, will be little different than 3 feet.   And also, there is the accuracy difference between the attacker (who if he has a distance weapon, doesn't need to move and can shoot two-handed) and the defender who is running away while facing away, trying to look and shoot behind them while running.

As such, I think---it depends.  I can think of situations in which running directly away is the best choice.  I can think of situations in which moving away directly while shooting behind you and looking behind you is the best choice.  And I can think of situations in which backing up while shooting two-handed is the best choice.

I can certainly think of situations in which running away while looking/shooting backward is not the optimal choice.

I think that too many people have gone along with Suarez's conclusions regarding movement and shooting, that were based on various versions of airsoft vs knife scenarios.

Example:  Airsoft gun versus knife, where the knife-wielder charges the gun holder.  If the gun holder doesn't move, the knife person often reaches them and "kills" them.  (Big surprise, we knew this from Tueller, since most people's draws aren't very fast.)  If the gun holder backs up and shoots and the knife person keeps coming, the gun guy still gets stabbed.  So Suarez's conclusion was that since backing up wasn't fast enough, the defender should turn and run away, firing behind them while attempting to look behind them while running away.  In those cases, the knife person reached the defender the least out of the three scenarios given.

The problem with that, of course, is that:
1) in the "backing up" scenario they are ignoring the effect of any hits on the knife wielder (particularly since plenty of other instructors and researchers have looked at movement backward in terms of this situation),
2) in the "running away" scenario they are ignoring not only the effect of any hits on the knife wielder, but they are also ignoring the change in accuracy level due to running away and shooting behind them.

In other words, I am not convinced that running away and shooting behind you one-handed results in a better outcome for the defender compared to other choices.  I can see the utility in certain aspects---but that doesn't mean it works best in all.

In particular, the hugest difference (in my opinion) lies in how far the knife-wielder was from the defender in the first place.  Given distance in the first place, back up and shoot accurately and quickly with both hands.  Given a closer-range situation, running away and shooting behind with one hand A) means you are less likely to receive a a knife wound given the close distance as compared to backing up, and B) since the attacker is so much closer in the first place, the reduced accuracy of the "running away shooting backward" situation is minimized.

So, in answer to your question:  "Are you advocating two handed shooting while moving backwards? "

Yes.  Sometimes.  Because running full-tilt in one direction while looking in a different direction while shooting one-handed opposite of your direction of motion is not always the optimal answer.

Now, that is versus a knife.  Versus a gun---again, let's see.  Both people are trying to use distance weapons.  One person is standing there shooting with two hands.  The other is running away while attempting to shoot behind them while not looking where they are going.

No, I don't think that technique is necessarily going to be optimal for that situation---mostly again depending on how close together you were in the first place. 

And it REALLY isn't going to be optimal if you are anyplace where any misses will have consequences.  I will note that a gun duel isn't really going to be "optimal" in any fashion.  However, minimizing your accuracy while making little difference to their accuracy isn't really going to work, either. 

Quite frankly, versus someone else with a gun, unless you are already at distance (whereupon you should just RUN until you reach cover, instead of attempting to run and shoot---why reduce your running speed while taking shots that most likely will miss when you could simply MOVE?) you will get better results moving laterally.  And that means you can keep your body oriented on the attacker and use both hands.

So, to sum up:  How to move relative to an attacker depends on 1) the weapon used by the attacker (distance versus contact) and 2) the initial distance between the attacker and defender.

I can think of reasonable realistic situations in which any of the following responses would be considered "optimal":
1) standing there, drawing, and firing two-handed
2) drawing /firing two-handed while moving laterally
3) drawing/firing two-handed while moving backward at an angle
4) drawing/firing one-handed while moving away from the attacker
5) drawing while running full out away from the attacker, but not shooting.

Making yourself the hardest target?  Sure, best idea.  However, #4 is not always the best way to do that.  Matter of fact, there are quite a number of situations in which that gives you the worst chance out of the lot.

...
Regarding hostage situations as a reason for this movement:
Quote from: sjwsti
Never said the gun was in your ear. BG is too close for movement to be effective but to far away to be touched. Obviously if a gun were "in my ear" I would have a different response.

You said it was a hostage situation.  I suppose other versions of that would have me standing there facing away from the hostage taker, unbound, with my hands free and out of sight of the hostage-taker, with the hostage-taker at distance from me and not pointing a weapon at me.   However, that seems to be framing the situation to make it about as simple as possible to deal with, and pretty unrealistic.

What range is "too close for movement but too far to be touched," exactly?  If they can't touch me, how is that too close for movement?

...
Regarding the Force Science study:
Quote from: sjwsti
Those were the results of the initial study. Are you saying their timing equipment was faulty?

Did I say that?  Nope.    I said "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."  And that's what I meant.  In that video, it takes a little over 2 seconds for the full action to occur.  And yet, the video doesn't seem to be a 1/6th speed.  So, since I'm someone who actually likes to read the original study to see their experimental data and research procedures, I'm curious as to what those were, and how that movement (which, since they presented it as a representative of the sample) was actually defined.

...
I said:  ""Hey, let's start a thread on how to effectively shoot to the rear without turning.""
Quote from: sjwsti
Just did.

Not really.  That would have looked like: "Hey, let's start a thread on how to effectively shoot to the rear without turning" as the first post on a thread.  Instead, you posted a reply to a video of poor technique and tactics with a chiding comment of "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."

....which actually, reading it again, means that you think that this technique would be valuable within a certain context.  What context, I wonder, would make his particular technique valuable?

Not, I'll note, your descriptions of completely different techniques, but HIS particular technique, which you said looked silly just because it was out of context?

...
I said:  "However, starting by telling adults how to act (that they aren't behaving) is---nonsense"
Quote from: sjwsti
But its okay for you to tell me what I should do? Double nonsense!!

Yes, because one person condescendingly chiding other people, and someone else calling them on it, is EXACTLY THE SAME.

...
Regarding the "I'm being choked" drill from Suarez's class...
Quote from: sjwsti
We did both. Depending on how you end up in relation to your attacker one side is going to offer a better shot than the other. When doing this drill with live people the strong side shot wasnt always there. Go figure.

Hey, I responded to what you said.  If you want me to make up things that you didn't say and respond to them, I can do that, but I think you'd prefer it if I didn't.  If you meant something else, or other things happened, then you should probably say so.  Without, of course, getting all snarky about the fact that you didn't mention it in the first place and someone commented on it.


...
I said:  "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."
Quote from: sjwsti
Someone choking me from behind will get an immediate deadly force response with whatever weapon I have available.

Okay.  And yet, that isn't what I was talking about.  I'm not saying anything about the level of response.  I am saying, however, that from an effective technique perspective, thinking "sunken choke = nothing to do but go for the gun" is just incorrect.  Which is what I said.