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?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:
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:
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 r
ead 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.""
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"
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...
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."
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.
