"getting off the x"

[CLHC]

Remember this <one>?

[CarlosDJackal]

I thought it meant getting out of the kill zone..............

It does.

[Submariner]

I agree with you Todd that moving just a couple of steps simply to move is probably a waste of time. The idea of buzzer-step-draw-step-fire is probably pretty pointless.

I can, however, see merit in training to get moving at the point that a threat is realized, draw on the move, and keep moving while assessing and engaging if needed.

Which isn't to say that you shouldn't train standing still and/or from some sort of retention position for those times where your movement is restricted and/or eliminated.

I had two carbine classes with Yeager; one in late 2001 and the other in early 2002. He explained that taking a step off the line of attack on "Fight" was to break the adversary's OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) Loop. This would cause him to have re-orient, giving you, the good guy, an advantage which you would use to ventilate him. Study and application of Col. Boyd's work was a very big deal back then.

That was the theory.

The reality?

Oh, and he said Glock 19s, Bushhampsters and 870's are great; Colts suck, both 1911's and carbines. (What I shot both times.)

[ToddG]

I used to teach the step-as-you-draw thing, too. But as other folks I trust put it to the test, it didn't seem to have any real benefit. People who think a 2' step right or left is going to force an opponent to "reorient" don't understand OODA. "Orient" is as much a mental thing than a directional thing, and even in the directional sense it's not like people are making a major course correction, especially for aiming a weapon.

Carlos's comment about timing makes sense but I think he'd agree it requires quite a bit of training (and an adversary who doesn't feint much) to pull off ... and really has no analogue in missile combat.

In my experience watching relatively new shooters doing FOF, people don't just "stand and deliver." Moving is a pretty natural response.

So from that standpoint, I do think there is a benefit of including some movement in the presentation, at least sometimes. There's a reasonable chance you might be moving while you draw and it's amazing how shirts, jackets, holsters, hands, and arms seem to get screwy when our legs are moving rapidly.

[NCPatrolAR]

In my experience watching relatively new shooters doing FOF, people don't just "stand and deliver." Moving is a pretty natural response.

.

I see it in officers all the time, hence the comment.

[ToddG]

NCPatrolAR -- Interesting data point, then. Thanks!

The next obvious question is, do you believe teaching them to take a step as they draw would (a) actually translate into action under stress and (b) make a difference in how the fight ends? I know you couldn't answer with certainty but just looking for your best informed guess ...

[charlie lairson]

I think as far as moving that aggressing the target may be overly used. I think for the average shooter the notion of moving towards the target while shooting is pretty cool but very counter intuitive. If a review of shootings and FOF scenario based training is conducted I would suspect that the tendency to conduct a flinch and then start to move backward and latterly (if back is an option) is quite common. In a recent Pat Goodale class, Pat demonstrated that some shooters, while moving, will move the firearm to which hand has the shot and move very quickly latterly, with their feet orientated towards the direction of travel. I never thought about it but in several FOF scenarios, I have seen this as well, adding an almost covered up posture, with the shooter ducking and moving. Keep in mind these were shooters who really didn’t take any courses and were novice shooters. I do think there is a lot of valid reasons to move but training is the key to turning that natural reflex of moving away from danger and combining it with aimed shots for a better chance winning.

[Iraq Ninja]

It is an old concept with modern applications. What I think we have to be careful with, is how we apply it.

Getting back to analogy of Japanese sword arts, there was a term used in Japan a few hundred years ago called Kaho Kenpo, or flowery sword arts. The term was used to describe how kenjutsu had drifted away from pragmatic combat techniques to overly complex techniques, often loosing its real world value. That is the problem I see with some folks and the "X", but I see no problems with how Yeager or Gabe are teaching the concept. They are "spot on the X" in this regard.

I have been "on the X" more than a few times, mostly while in vehicles traveling down a road. Every time, the natural response was to get the "hell out of there" by driving forward. We never thought "Oh, I am on the X and now must move off it" but rather responded in a natural manner, made more instinctive through training.

Being in a serious ambush/attack facing overwhelming firepower and underwhelming options tends to kickstart your primordial survival instincts to get the hell out of there. You naturally want to get off the X, and fight from Y, or keeping going to Z and never look back . What may be unnatural and thus requires training, is combining the "flight" with "fight" as in the case of shooting on the move, etc. That is where I see the need for training and the warrior mindset.

There is more to the X than just getting off of it. You can also "destroy the X" by removing the attacker's ability to focus on the X, or by putting the attacker on his own X.

There are times when you can't get off the X. You have to learn to live on it as well.

X may "mark the spot" but the X can be big or small. The X may not be static, and you may move off an X, only to find yourself on another one. That is the problem I see in applying it to a dismounted gunfight situation.


The OODA loop is a great concept, but it is not a universal law. I have seen what can be described as OODA Warp, in which the loop is apparently broken, lost, or just ignored. Most commonly in the case of stupid people! Lady Luck is a real bitch at times and she don't use the OODA loop...

[Nathan_Bell]

Out of my lane on this, but curious.

I have never been in an armed ambush, but I have been in my share of bar/party/ I was in a bad mood fights. I found that attacking the major threat tended to work the best. It's you and two buddies at a party and there are 6 on the otherside: move-in and leave the leader on the ground puking up his courage in a can, this would usually stop most of the drama.

Is approach not used in gunfights because of the much higher punishment for failure? Or is that the ideal approach, but the situation dictates otherwise too often to focus on this type of approach? or am I missing the whole point of the discussion?

[Ben Lenett]

Both the concept and the motto pre-date Yeager et al by many years. It was primarily intended as part of a counter-ambush strategy ... the idea being that if a bunch of BGs had picked the place to ambush you, being somewhere else asap was probably a good idea. The enemy probably picked their location for maximum effect so getting out of that location lessens their advantage. Of course, if the goal of the ambush is to drive you into another even more dangerous location ...

From an individual "tactics" standpoint it's a bit different. Ken Hackathorn has done a lot of testing when it comes to the often-taught "take a step as you draw" thing, and last I spoke to him about it he still felt it added zero to your defensive capability. Basically, at handgun distances, moving two feet isn't likely to save you from a hail of bullets, a knife, or whatever.

On the other hand, if you can actually get away from the attack while delivering fight-stopping hits then do so. Making distance is a key to dealing with contact weapons (assuming you're beyond contact distance when the fight starts), for example. As rharris points out, it's a very natural ingrained reflex to get away from lethal danger. Contrary to popular belief, most untrained people do not stand still when being shot at. They move. Incorporating that natural response into your planned response might be a smart idea, then.

Furthermore, distance benefits the skilled shooter. If your opponent is just spraying & praying, the farther you get from him the more bullet-free space exists inside the funnel of random unpleasantness he's pointing at you. While we're all familiar with the KILOD numbers that officer deaths occur at a range of something like 5-10 feet on average, studies examining shootings in which officers prevailed tend to place the ranges much farther away. I don't have my notes in front of me but I remember learning at an IALEFI conference a few years back that when an officer is able to get 15yd away from his attacker, he's almost always the victor in a shootout.

So from my perspective:

Taking a step out of the way for the sake of moving one step: waste of time.

Initiating movement, moving toward cover, etc.: valid.

I think Todd is spot on. The principal of training shooters to step offline while drawing a pistol, while great in theory is not always practical nor does it do much. Taking one or two side steps and planting your feet while shooting doesn't really improve your chances enough to justify the time/movement to accomplish this action.

Think about a patrol officer on a traffic stop...now he side steps into traffic while drawing his pistol because that is what he was conditioned to do every time. That is one possible draw back of that type of techinique.

The prinicpal of moving one of two steps offline from the shooters angle doesn't change much, except for you having to adjust you front sight a few inches over to catch up.

The other end of it is training time. The average citizen/cop doesn't shoot enough or train enough (I differentiate since they mean two seperate things), so asking them to throw something else into the moment when they could just be looking at their front sight and putting rounds on target is not doing them justice. Hitting the bad guy is hard enough for the average person.

When I teach at Gunsite they are big on taking a step offline when using the charging target simulating a man running at you with an edged weapon. The typical shooter has great difficulty hitting the charger while stepping. The shooters that plant their feet and shoot typically hit it in time. Either way in reality you will get cut. I will take my chances and shoot rather than step off.

I think that the concept of getting away from the problem is quite sound and should be done at the first possible moment. That is assuming you are running to cover or getting out of the area in some way. Just taking one step offline and shooting is a waste of your limited time to end the act of aggression against you.

Stay safe.

Ben