quote:

Originally posted by JR78:
Closing the gap

cutting the pie

Just intuitively I would say that it adds a huge amount of stress to the shooter you are closing in on. And that would likely reduce his effectiveness in any one of many ways, especially trying to shoot faster than his skill level, fumbling a reload, stuff like that.

Assuming he was the aggressor, you have turned the tables on him, and that in itself is bound to throw him off mentally, and then physically.

*Homer Simpson voice* Mmmmm....pie......

Just based on real world shootings, why would you train any other way? How many shootings take place where you are calmly standing behind a bench shooting at a stationary target?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
I've done it on the range just because it was the simplest way to begin to get acquainted (or begin to get reacquainted) with shooting while moving. Stepping forward is more simple than stepping in any other direction. Shooting while moving toward a target doesn't seem to present the same impulse to overthink having to adjust one's aim for one's movement that it sometimes does for me. That can make it kind of a quick, handy way to warm up before shooting while moving in other ways relative to the target. I don't think of it as being anything more than that, though.

Having said that, I have to admit that there is a certain intriguing quality to Doc H.'s question.

I think this has a lot to do with it. A lot of indoor ranges you cant safely shoot at from extreme angles left or right. The only way to shoot while moving is forward and back..... and walking backward isn't great for newbies with a gun.

I can't speak for the OP, but I think the question may have devolved to 'stand still idiot" or "move". I don't think that was really the intent of his question if I read it right (of course the OP can chime in and tell me to STFU).

I think that the greater question is "move to a position and shoot" or "move and shoot". The correct answer is yes. Frankly, shooting and moving is a specialty skill at any distance and I just don't teach it beyond real conversational distances. Why? The vast majority just can't do it at any distance. Do people/officers get lucky and end fights while moving? Yeah, but that is luck and should not be considered anything else. A blind hog will find an acorn every now and again.

I've trained with some really high speed guys. Most share my opinions, they should because my opinion was formed talking to people like them on the topic. It is far more important to teach people how to get in and out of shooting positions beyond conversational distances than it is to spend gobs of time trying to teach shooting on the move to any level of proficiency. When we enter rooms, we get out of the funnel, about one yard into the room, about one yard off of the walls. Always two to a room. Even in SIMS with trained up bad guys, they may and I mean "may" get a shot on one, but the second eats them alive with accurate gunfire from a stationary position.

Vehicle stops we teach literally running to certain points and shooting. Again, the training time is far better spent teaching them how to get in and out of shooting positions, as to waste time trying to teach shooting on the move.

Driving on people as some form of psych test is meaningless. You are assuming you have hit the lottery, and the guy that is trying to kill you still has a nervous system after long term drug use, or chronic mental illness. Usually, the only thing that impresses these guys are accurate rounds on target. As a general rule, most shit heads that bring guns to robberies are coyotes. The gun is merely a prop to gain compliance. They will only use the gun if cornered. The others will rock and roll at the drop of a hat. It is impossible to tell the difference between the two. So, putting accurate fire COM impresses them all.

We teach movement and shooting at close distances. But, we don't teach shooting and moving past a very close point. Most people's level of proficiency after training quite a bit is so low that they are moving at a snails pace, and are so easy to track that they should just be standing still anyways.

A good run is always better than a bad stand.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I can't speak for the OP, but I think the question may have devolved to 'stand still idiot" or "move". I don't think that was really the intent of his question if I read it right

Thank you! You weren’t the only one to understand my question correctly, but I couldn’t ask for any better validation of my position on the issue than from someone like you.

quote:

Driving on people as some form of psych test is meaningless.

I won’t attempt to explain my personal opinion about all the comments in this thread that I don’t agree with, but the above does an excellent job of summarizing one of my opinions. Many people seem to believe that shooting while moving toward the threatening target is useful because it may cause one’s opponent to seek cover, be disconcerted and lose focus on us, or at least flinch and miss with his shots. In other words, its purpose is to scare the other guy rather than to actually cause the physical damage through the most accurate fire we can deliver that is the only guaranteed way of ending the threat.

Military forces use suppressive fire for the same reason: It can cause the enemy to take cover, be unwilling to expose themselves to fire back or monitor what the rest of us are doing to maneuver and destroy them, or even break and run. In other words, it’s intended to scare the enemy into being ineffective.

Relying on the hope of scaring a murderous bad guy into surrendering or making a mistake is not, however, a good idea for civilians (including LEOs). One of the first things a former Army Ranger who joined our local tactical team was told was, “No, we don’t use suppressive fire in our operations,” and he’s jokingly reminded me of that on numerous occasions when our shots don’t go exactly where we want them to.

Suppressive fire to scare someone in a self-defense situation is a bad idea not only because it may very likely be less effective than actually hitting the target, but because the private individual will probably be operating alone rather than in a squad or fire team, and most of us carry a limited amount of ammunition—especially for our handguns. Now, I’m obviously assuming that most shooters are no better at shooting while moving at speed toward the target than I and everyone else I’ve see doing it are. If you can run forward while keeping all your shots in a nice, tight group (and no one is able to deliver more accurate fire on you because you’re getting closer all the time), great! If you have any tips for the rest of us, please share them.

That’s just one point I could discuss, but I’ll leave it at that. Thanks to everyone who responded, though; I always learn a lot about other thoughts and ideas through these discussions. There’s no better test of my own opinions than to challenge them with contrary views.

Odds are...especially for a civilian, the fight is going to happen at 0-15ft. Within these distances I think shooting while moving (somewhere) is very important. Odds are, the "fight" also starts at arms length then opens as you/they begin to move. If practiced, you can get 1-2 fast hits while on the move.


I think shooting while moving all directions should be practiced (at close range), but for me straight forward and straight back would be my last choices. More a fan of lateral and angled, even semi-circular movement.

Most people I see shooting while moving are doing it so slow like jljones said, they might as well not be. As a matter of fact, the hardest thing for an instructor to get a newbie to do is shoot while moving, they always stop even when they don't mean to.

Get an airsoft gun and a target at 3-6ft (the distance your being mugged). Draw while running laterally and shooting 1 hand point transitioning to 2 hands and sights. You should get 1-2 torso hits on the move then by the time the sights are there, a well-placed heart shot or head to end it.

Oh, the whole Rangers specifically train to move forward isn't correct. The 75th Regt. is just the Army's best light infantry unit, they train all the battle drills to include breaking contact (I distinctly remember working on it at least once in my time there). However, they are much more likely to be used for agressive, offensive operations; raids, deliberate attacks, airfield seizures etc. And, there is a very aggressive mentality there so that will result in aggressive operations though not a formal thing like Spartans never retreating.

They cross-train with other Spec Ops units and send Rangers to all the high speed schools so their CQB methods will reflect whatever the latest TTPs are in SOCOM, of which I am woefully out of date.

I think the tactic of firing while walking as it pertains to civilian training is more of an exercise in difficulty rather than a training tool. I think you nailed it when you pointed this out. As others have pointed out, LEO's don't use covering fire, and regardless of your skill set you will be more accurate firing while not on the move.

One other advantage to this type of training that I can think of is that it forces you to constantly seek out the proper sight picture. I don't have a whole lot of experience shooting while moving, but being forced to track that front sight while the rest of my body is trying to go different directions is incredibly hard, and I think very useful for developing that muscle memory for when you aren't moving.

I'm a bit late to the party, but oh well...

My first thought on this subject wasn't some bright idea about why this technique might be required in a self defense situation, but rather, "Yeah but what if it is?" (Profound, I know.)

OP said something in a post earlier (at least I think it was OP) about no longer teaching his students this drill and not really practicing it himself? That seems like a bad idea, a terrible idea really. You don't practice your skills because you know EXACTLY what is going to happen in the future, and most of us private citizens on this forum don't carry because we expect to get in a fire fight.

We carry because we would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. The same goes for shooting while moving... Just because you can't imagine a scenario where it would be useful doesn't mean it is a skill you should ignore. (Thought I admit you sought to mitigate this by asking others here if they could find a justification for spending training time on it.)

But in essence this would be my argument for it, although I understand it sort of dodges directly answering your question... Despite training time being limited, wouldn't you rather be proficient in a skill you never actually need rather than be clueless in something you might end up needing one day, even if you can't imagine why? Particularly when the situation has such a high chance of being a life or death one?

quote:

It seems they are taught/trained that whenever you are backed up into a corner the thing to do is go forward.

It gets old fast seeing people read what is not there. Makes me wonder if it will happen to them in a tight situation. And it most assuredly will.

Take for instance, suppressive fire. Apparently there are two kinds. On one hand, the The Walking Dead suppressive fire where they have so much ammo that they have to lighten their load because in any event the producers can obtain some more and it looks good on screen.

And the one where you are trying to kill the other one with all you've got.

Regardless, motives seem to always obscure discussions. Starting with the reading and comprehension part.

And it's a burden when you type with one finger. Gets old fast. So fast it hits the end already.

This last shootout is a giant mess.

Good guy gets knocked down before he can draw. The bad guys beat him over the head a couple times and walk past him, and he's still trying to grab onto their legs.

Then he draws, but his gun isn't chambered. He racks his slide, but at the same time drops his mag.

Picks up his mag, racks his slide again, and then starts shooting blindly over the top of the display, right at where the innocent bystander was would have been.

quote:

Originally posted by ggile:
The value of shooting while moving forward is evident if you are assaulting a position i.e. the BG is where you want to be. What bendable posted is applicable, if you can keep up a steady rate of fire while moving forward you can keep the BG from returning fire until you take him out. However, distance and the number of rounds you are able to fire are critical factors.

J-Frame heroes need not apply?

A. How many people ( with or w/o a gun) will confront an armed attacker ?

B. How many people that carry a gun would confront an armed attacker, that was farther than 30 feet? if they were not in danger.

C. How many that carry a gun would confront an armed attacker ? if he was farther than 55 feet ?