Square off against the target/aggressor?`

[falnovice]

Looking for some experienced opinions here.

It's a slow Saturday here so I found myself watching a couple vids on youtube. I don't typically do that as most of the stuff on youtube is, to put it nicely, crap. But I was bored so I thought I'd look up some gun reviews and wound up watching a few shooting clips with people that are far more tacticool than me. (Actual videos unimportant) One thing that jumped out at me was the comment of squaring yourself against the target, as you would in a real fight with the "body alarm" response. I've heard this and thoughts like it before but I had never really thought about it much.
It is my experience that people don't square themselves up against an attack, surprise or not.
Later this evening I was chatting with a friend and shooting buddy of mine and I mentioned it to him. He was taught, by Magpul I believe but perhaps someone else, that yes; you instinctively square up with the target, bend at the knees to lower your center of gravity and bring your head down.....all the while your heart rate doubles and your eyes try to pop out of your head. I agree with most of that I suppose, but I question the "square up" portion of it.
I have some experience with HTH altercations having done a bit of doorman work in the past and it is my observation that people tend to angle or blade themselves from an attacker, with the weak/non-dominant side forward. Admittedly I have not studied any after action reports regarding this, and my personal experience is comparatively limited, both in duration and scope, compared to lifer LEO/Mil/.gov types and therefore my sample size is small. But I don't remember anyone ever squaring off with me, or another doorman, or another patron/aggressor. The only time guys "squared off" was when they were going to talk a lot of smack, typically getting right in each others face. But that is macho posturing BS. While I am willing to buy into that sort of posturing as a genetically hard-wired process I don't believe it is the same as the fight or flight reactions.....I suspect it is a whole different phase of a confrontation.
I expressed this at greater length to my buddy who expressed that the "squaring off" is a "body alarm" response and it is hard-wired into everyone......it is something you WILL do not matter what. Completely unavoidable, and therefore it is wise to train for it as you WILL respond that way.
Interesting.
So I went back to youtube and watched a few more vids.....not convinced. People don't fight like gingerbread men, at least not in my experience or observation. Surveillance vids of fights show people often leading with the weak/off side, though a found a few that were the exact opposite with the person leading with the strong side, notably when they have a weapon it in. My search was not exhaustive by any means, but it is after 01:00 here so I have to get to bed soon and I'm not really interested in filling my head with any more images of people getting attacked/hit/knifed/shot/killed before tuck in time at the pillow ranch.

I'm not trying to kill any sacred cows here guys, or piss off any trainers. I am just curious to hear what people have seen/experienced first hand. I am totally prepared to be wrong.

Thanks

[vicious_cb]

You are probably mistaken or confusing what was said. No where have I heard that squaring up to the target is a body alarm response, in fact its the opposite since we have to consciously train ourselves to do it. The reason being that we want to present our body armor in the direction of the threat.

[Inkslinger]

Squaring off to a target/aggressor is taught in shooting situations for many reasons. You will have better recoil control of your weapon. If you end up being shot, it's probably better having the bullet go straight through you front to back, and not on an angle. Also it's taught for those using body armor for maximum efficiency of the armor. Hand to hand combat is a different story. Squaring off would be detrimental in my opinion. You wouldn't be able to generate as much force in your punches or kicks as you would in a more bladed or boxer type stance. I am by no means an expert, so take my opinion for what it's worth...

ETA:
Squaring off also allows for multi-directional movement better then a bladed stance.

[Chameleox]

When I hear the phrase "squaring off" or "squaring up", I envision someone getting into a fighting or ready stance of some sort, not necessarily a specific square, parallel foot stance. If I saw two aggressors both get into a boxer's stance after a drunk altercation, I'd still call that "squaring off"; same if I saw two guys with grappling experience both get into quasi-wrestler's stances. It depends on an individual's training and experience (or lack thereof), and the specifics of the environment, if the individual is able to process them on any level.

Some things are fairly universal: bent knees, weight slightly forward, hands and forearms come between the body and the threat (where specifically depends on intent and training). You even see people who are surrendering put their weight forward and their surrendering hands in front of them, either high or low. This is in case their surrender ritual doesn't work and they get rushed.

Some things are dependent on the person's training or prior experience. Boxers will sometimes tuck their chin into a shoulder. Grapplers will often open their hands while boxers will make a fist. How that fist is made will also tell you some things, if you have an opportunity to watch this unfold (rare, but the OP's prior life as a doorman would afford some chances to see this unfold in slo-mo). Both groups will adjust their shoulders from their position of rest in some fashion.

With so many more people having exposure to mixed martial arts, hydrid arts, military or police combatives, or self defense training, it's more common to see people blend and mix these traits depending on how adept or inept they are with striking, grappling, or employing a weapon. Even with those with no formal training or stress inoculation, people who have grown up around violence and the threat of it their whole lives, the school of hard knocks if you will, you will see a distinct shift from their restive, conversational stance to a stance more conducive to attacking or defending. Unless they're crazy good or just plain crazy, in which case they might go from calm to full on thirdmonkeyinlinefortheArk with almost no warning. From a practical standpoint, it's important to recognize that shift, regardless of the specifics that give away the aggressor's style. Bonus points if you can pinpoint the subtleties, but by this point the clock is ticking, and you should be starting to put your own plan into action, Fight, Flight, Posture, or Submit.

IME, "squaring off" is more of a metaphorical/semantic issue, vs a specific foot and hip position.

[Eurodriver]

IME, "squaring off" is more of a metaphorical/semantic issue, vs a specific foot and hip position.

This,

You will have better recoil control of your weapon. If you end up being shot, it's probably better having the bullet go straight through you front to back, and not on an angle. Also it's taught for those using body armor for maximum efficiency of the armor.

This,

You are probably mistaken or confusing what was said. No where have I heard that squaring up to the target is a body alarm response, in fact its the opposite since we have to consciously train ourselves to do it. The reason being that we want to present our body armor in the direction of the threat.

And this.

[echo5whiskey]

To link Chameleox's reply to the OP, squaring off in a gunfight vs a fistfight are different (at least as I have been taught).

The self defense posture is part of the fight or flight (or freeze as I learned it) reflex; see:

Some things are fairly universal: bent knees, weight slightly forward, hands and forearms come between the body and the threat (where specifically depends on intent and training). You even see people who are surrendering put their weight forward and their surrendering hands in front of them, either high or low. This is in case their surrender ritual doesn't work and they get rushed.

It's the posturing for body armor/recoil management/etc. that has to be learned.

All of this IMO, anyway.

[Arctic1]

Squaring off towards the target in a literal sense, ie feet towards target and parallell with shoulders gives you less than ideal recoil management. The feet should be offset, with the right foot offset behind the left foot for a RH shooter.
Squaring up against the target also means that you cannot get ideal leverage on the gun, as you cannot run the stock fully extended. By slightly blading your stance, you can run the stock further out, as well as gripping further out on the hand guard.
For guns with shorter hand guards this is especially helpful.

With regards to the body armor, you do not lose very much coverage by slightly blading. If you are fully oriented towards the threat, you get 100% coverage. If you blade slightly, at a 70 degree angle against the threat, you still have 94% coverage from the plate. If in a very bladed stance, at 45 degrees, you still have 70% coverage form the plate. You cannot control where the round will impact, so the more effective stance might be more important....

Look at shooters like Pat MacNamara, Kyle Lamb, JD Potynsky, Dave Borresen et al:

http://davidthedavborresen.blogspot....ne-stance.html

With regards to movement, being in a fighter stance, with the feet offset allows you to start moving quickly by just lifting your front foot.

As with everything, nothing is absolute. Equipment considerations and physical limitations will affect how you can grip the gun and also how you can use your body behind the gun.

[WillBrink]

Squaring off towards the target in a literal sense, ie feet towards target and parallell with shoulders gives you less than ideal recoil management. The feet should be offset, with the right foot offset behind the left foot for a RH shooter.
Squaring up against the target also means that you cannot get ideal leverage on the gun, as you cannot run the stock fully extended. By slightly blading your stance, you can run the stock further out, as well as gripping further out on the hand guard.
For guns with shorter hand guards this is especially helpful.

With regards to the body armor, you do not lose very much coverage by slightly blading. If you are fully oriented towards the threat, you get 100% coverage. If you blade slightly, at a 70 degree angle against the threat, you still have 94% coverage from the plate. If in a very bladed stance, at 45 degrees, you still have 70% coverage form the plate. You cannot control where the round will impact, so the more effective stance might be more important....

Look at shooters like Pat MacNamara, Kyle Lamb, JD Potynsky, Dave Borresen et al:

http://davidthedavborresen.blogspot....ne-stance.html

With regards to movement, being in a fighter stance, with the feet offset allows you to start moving quickly by just lifting your front foot.

As with everything, nothing is absolute. Equipment considerations and physical limitations will affect how you can grip the gun and also how you can use your body behind the gun.

Is that not referred to as the Universal Fighting stance, or am I thinking of something else? The stance one instructor for a course I had taken discussed the Universal Fighting stance as a stance as you describe (right foot offset behind the left foot for a RH shooter, upper body slightly bladed) that can be applied (with minor variation and adjustments depending, but a good foundation) to various weapons and non.

[Inkslinger]

Squaring off towards the target in a literal sense, ie feet towards target and parallell with shoulders gives you less than ideal recoil management. The feet should be offset, with the right foot offset behind the left foot for a RH shooter.
Squaring up against the target also means that you cannot get ideal leverage on the gun, as you cannot run the stock fully extended. By slightly blading your stance, you can run the stock further out, as well as gripping further out on the hand guard.
For guns with shorter hand guards this is especially helpful.

With regards to the body armor, you do not lose very much coverage by slightly blading. If you are fully oriented towards the threat, you get 100% coverage. If you blade slightly, at a 70 degree angle against the threat, you still have 94% coverage from the plate. If in a very bladed stance, at 45 degrees, you still have 70% coverage form the plate. You cannot control where the round will impact, so the more effective stance might be more important....

Look at shooters like Pat MacNamara, Kyle Lamb, JD Potynsky, Dave Borresen et al:

http://davidthedavborresen.blogspot....ne-stance.html

With regards to movement, being in a fighter stance, with the feet offset allows you to start moving quickly by just lifting your front foot.

As with everything, nothing is absolute. Equipment considerations and physical limitations will affect how you can grip the gun and also how you can use your body behind the gun.

When I describe "squared off", that is also how I interpret it. My upper body is more square, with my strong side shoulder ever so slightly rearward. My legs are not as exaggerated as in the picture, but rearward in a comfortable supporting position. To me that is "squared off". When I hear the term "bladed", this is what I envision.Attachment 32724

[26 Inf]

With regards to the body armor, you do not lose very much coverage by slightly blading. If you are fully oriented towards the threat, you get 100% coverage. If you blade slightly, at a 70 degree angle against the threat, you still have 94% coverage from the plate. If in a very bladed stance, at 45 degrees, you still have 70% coverage form the plate. You cannot control where the round will impact, so the more effective stance might be more important....

Artic1 - coming at this from the police angle - since they started keeping records about where shots hit in officers killed while wearing body armor, between 44-49% of the officers killed by shots to the torso while wearing vests were killed by shots that entered through the armhole area or between the side panels of the vest.

For that reason, we address squaring into the threat.