Why learn to shoot on the move?

[Failure2Stop]

Has anyone tried "flat on the back" in a FOF exercise just to observe the outcome? Is it too foolish to even consider?

It is a very bad position to be in, don't let "Ender's Game" fool you.
We train for it because sometimes you f**k up and wind up in that position, not because it is a good position to be in.
I personally would never choose to choose laying flat on my back, immobole, in any circumstance other than the most intimate.

Just sayin'.

[Cruncher Block]

It is a very bad position to be in, don't let "Ender's Game" fool you.
We train for it because sometimes you f**k up and wind up in that position, not because it is a good position to be in.
I personally would never choose to choose laying flat on my back, immobole, in any circumstance other than the most intimate.

Just sayin'.

Understood. Thanks.

[RWK]

A few posts have mentioned the possibility of moving backwards leading to a trip-and-fall-on-back-with-feet-facing-threat.

I'm actually wondering if this is such a terrible position to be in.

There's a tremendous difference between intentionally going to your back and falling down backwards. If you go down on a hard surface, there's a good chance of being knocked out if your head takes a bounce. Slips and falls are, after all, the second leading cause of accidental deaths in the U.S.

[Failure2Stop]

So movement is preferred over accuracy always, got it! Don't agree but I see your point.

No. You misunderstand my posts. The only time I advocate firing is if you can be effective with your shots. That is why I brought up the stabilization sysytems in armored vehicles. The LAV-25 is much more effective than the BMP, even if only the fire delivery system is compared. The ability of the LAV to accurately fire while moving makes it exponentially more effective and threatening on the battlefield than the BMP (which is a crappy comparison since the LAV series is better in so many ways).

Further, the subjective part of the statement was "standing in the open, without cover". This is a bit different from all other possibilites. I chose the words I used for a reason.

Using the stand and post = getting F2S drills from your guys comment... your movement is likely becoming much more effective because you are hidden then exposed and their OODA is slower to reset. Doing the same drill with no wall would result in more F2S drills I'm betting.

The guys are starting as a tactical team armed with carbines, usually in the alert or ready position, and actively conducting cleearing operations in a hostile environment. I am starting as a hostile combatant. I am not trying to beat them to the draw (simply doesn't happen in the real world), I am trying to expose their weaknesses in order to let them know when they f**k up.

That illustrates that movement becomes less effective when its predictable, when tracking can be done from the beginning of the fight.

Fights don't happen like this. FWIW- people tend to move to the weak side. Why? No idea, it just is. If the dude already has a gun out, just give him your wallet. Noting in there is worth your life. If he tries to move you somewhere else, it's time to fight for your life. There are a whole lot of factors at this point that come into play, and an internet forum is not the place to discuss what to do in this situation.

When movement is forward or backward as you said it is no longer effective. So why train it in as a reaction when reduces effectiveness and accurate shooting?

No, I said that by my understanding Mr Howe does not put much stock in shooting while closing.
Moving backward can possibly gain an advantace in depth, but only if that depth is actually an advantage and if you actually succeed in gaining distance from your adversary.
I advocate moving laterally or diagonally- how you get to that point is, once agin, not for this venue.

"Why perform SOM when the movement degrades accuracy beyond the benefit of that movement, and when is that the case based on YOUR experience in a civilian CCW scenario?"

It is to be employed when that degredation of accuracy, based on your abilities, is still within the areas likely to result in rapid incapacitation.

As you can guess, I don't take "do it this way because that's how we do it" very well. The mark of a teacher is the ability to explain the "why" behind the "what." If I can't explain something to a student to THEIR level of satisfaction then its my fault, not theirs.

There is a contract between student and instructor, one for the instructor to professionally teach the student what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and why. The student is just as much an active part of the learning process as the instructor, agreeing to maintain an open mind, employ each piece of information or technique as instructed, to weigh the merits of each skill or concept against current and relevant operational experience.

And some people are just dumb .
(Not meaning you, of course)
Any course that passes everyone that attends is a puff-piece, and probably not worthy of your time. Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Seek good training and perform as well as you possibly can. The lack of a standard is the downfall of credability. Schools used to operate by the idea that attrition was the mission. We now know that this is a bad way to encourage learning. Each class is followed by a questionaire to ensure that the operating forces are given all they need.