"getting off the x"

[Nathan_Bell]

At the last M4C/LAV pistol class Ken Hackethorn described a demonstration of the usefulness of the one step to the side. It involved a (IIRC) 12 year old, some simunitions, and a bruised (body and ego) of the guy who was the proponent of that taking the one step was a must.

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

[Iraqgunz]

Iraq Ninja,

I agree with your assessment. In our situations being in a vehicle is significantly different than being on foot.

Although everyone has their own TTP's I am fairly confident in basic form they are all the same. Basically push forward (keep moving) return fire when possible and watch for the next shit storm that is around the corner.

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...

[Neville]

Todd, Ben- it really puzzles me that the conclusions drawn from force on force drills can be so different. Ken Hackathorn completely discards it as gimmicky while
Gabe Suarez is all for it. To illustrate his technique:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qTNK...eature=related

Just to clearify- do you think stepping aside while drawing is worthwhile at, say, 5-10 meters?

What about a continuous cicrling/flanking movement? Gabe Suarez sees it as elemental (quote from Suarez Newsletter):

The concept of getting off the "x" allows the good guy to evade an onrushing contact weapon attacker for a moment in time. This allows the good guy to deploy the gun and get
a couple of shots into the bad guy. This can happen at any distance. Predominantly, it is within 5 yards. [...]
We worked on these range transitions and evasion footwork structures to good effects. Initial evasion via lateral/diagonal lines of movement is easily proven to save you from getting shot or
stabbed from an attack outside the 0-6' range. In the event of a failure to stop, delay in stopping, or due to missing from the dynamics of the event, secondary lines of evasion such as circling
or switchback will keep your stand-off distance so you can continue shooting until the adversary literally runs out of blood, steam, or intent.

I just took SouthNarc's "In Extremis Knife class" and in pre-fight movement, the circling step(s) to 3°° helped a lot to see the other bad guy coming from behind. This way one can still
focus on threat #1 but widen ones peripheral vision to see a potential threat #2. To me the concept seemed very valid. Much better than training to turn the head to break tunnel vision.

Or is it more a question of timing- with the one side arguing for first trying to get good hits, then moving and the other doing all at the same time?

[Iraqgunz]

Cato,

One size doesn't fit all and everything is situational dependent. Personally the first thing I would do is seek some cover, draw my weapon and then assess the situation. I have done CQB training in conjunction with FOF and I believe that it can be a valuable tool. It is probably the closest thing to a gunfight that you can do.

Todd, Ben- it really puzzles me that the conclusions drawn from force on force drills can be so different. Ken Hackathorn completely discards it as gimmicky while
Gabe Suarez is all for it. To illustrate his technique:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qTNK...eature=related

Just to clearify- do you think stepping aside while drawing is worthwhile at, say, 5-10 meters?

What about a continuous cicrling/flanking movement? Gabe Suarez sees it as elemental (quote from Suarez Newsletter):


I just took SouthNarc's "In Extremis Knife class" and in pre-fight movement, the circling step(s) to 3°° helped a lot to see the other bad guy coming from behind. This way one can still
focus on threat #1 but widen ones peripheral vision to see a potential threat #2. To me the concept seemed very valid. Much better than training to turn the head to break tunnel vision.

Or is it more a question of timing- with the one side arguing for first trying to get good hits, then moving and the other doing all at the same time?

[NCPatrolAR]

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 ...

I think it would help if it was reinforced through more training. I think it gets the officer in the mindset of "hey, I dont have to stand here in order to get good hits". When we do active shooter training here; it isnt uncommon to see officers moving to engage the shooter stop before firing. Same thing is seen during suspect encounters and in the FATS Simulator. Guys have a tendency to train like they are on the square range and think that just a quick draw is what is going to get them through the situation.

[NCPatrolAR]

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.

This is where stepping to an angle pays off. When I am teaching officers and we come to the inevitable traffic stop scenerio; moving off the line at an angle is what I teach. This puts the officer closer to the suspect vehicle (more difficult angle for the suspect) while keeping the officer out of traffic. Another way to combat this is to reinforce the idea of doing the passenger-side approach.

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.

Sounds like this stems from the Tueller principle. According to Tueller, the only people that were able to react successfully to an edged weapon threat at 21' side-stepped which gave them a greater window of oppertunity to draw their windows and fire a round.

[Ben Lenett]

Todd, Ben- it really puzzles me that the conclusions drawn from force on force drills can be so different. Ken Hackathorn completely discards it as gimmicky while
Gabe Suarez is all for it. To illustrate his technique:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qTNK...eature=related

Just to clearify- do you think stepping aside while drawing is worthwhile at, say, 5-10 meters?

What about a continuous cicrling/flanking movement? Gabe Suarez sees it as elemental (quote from Suarez Newsletter):


I just took SouthNarc's "In Extremis Knife class" and in pre-fight movement, the circling step(s) to 3°° helped a lot to see the other bad guy coming from behind. This way one can still
focus on threat #1 but widen ones peripheral vision to see a potential threat #2. To me the concept seemed very valid. Much better than training to turn the head to break tunnel vision.

Or is it more a question of timing- with the one side arguing for first trying to get good hits, then moving and the other doing all at the same time?

I completely understand the principle behind people wanting to move while shooting and i agree in theory, but the reality is that most people don't shoot well under stress and this is just compounding the problem.

Personally no I do not think that stepping off at 5-10 meters is worth it. Have your friend stand 10 meters away and point your finger at him. Now have him take one step offline...you will move your finger a few inches at most to catch up to him. That isn't enough distance in my mind to make up for the time/movement/stability issue.

Everytime you pick your foot up and move it you run the risk of stepping on something that moves, which can/will cause you problems while shooting. there are very minimal gains that I have seen from stepping in this fashion.

Force on Force in a good tool when used properly. The major issue is that 90+% of FOF drills are not run properly, so the student does not actually gain any positive knowledge from it nor can the instructor actually draw valid conclusions from the scenario at hand.

[Ben Lenett]

This is where stepping to an angle pays off. When I am teaching officers and we come to the inevitable traffic stop scenerio; moving off the line at an angle is what I teach. This puts the officer closer to the suspect vehicle (more difficult angle for the suspect) while keeping the officer out of traffic. Another way to combat this is to reinforce the idea of doing the passenger-side approach.







Sounds like this stems from the Tueller principle. According to Tueller, the only people that were able to react successfully to an edged weapon threat at 21' side-stepped which gave them a greater window of oppertunity to draw their windows and fire a round.

I understand your position on the stepping off at an angle. That is what Gunsite specifically teaches during the charger drill.

At the end of the day everyone has to go to work with what skills make them comfortable, and must train others in what skills they believe work for the real world.

A topic such as this could eventually turn into a "9mm vs. 45" type discussion.

My personal viewpoint is that causing the suspect to move his pistol several inches to play catch up isn't worth the possible delay in getting hits on target. I would rather take the time to get my average officer better at hitting centermass vice stepping offline and engaging. Again that is just my thought process.

If you get multiple trainers who have all been in deadly physical force situations and ask them how they would respond to a specific situation, I would venture a guess that you will have different viewpoints from most. I can say from personal experience with my own encounters that I disagree with what some trainers teach, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong. It is just that my experience has shown me something different.

You are 100% spot on with the traffic stop passenger side approach. It still amazes me when I see cops on the driver side.....

Stay safe.

Ben

[ToddG]

Cato -- I think the phrase that really stood out to me was evasion footwork structures. Fancy footwork frequently fails for fierce fighting, as an old MA instructor of mine liked to say. It's all but impossible for me to believe that most people will be so situationally aware while responding to a surprise close-range lethal threat that their brains will figure out the "right" direction to shuffle towards, anyway. Sidestep yourself into a wall on your gun side and you may very well hinder your ability to draw.

And no, I don't think a single step (or two) is likely to make much of a difference. Maybe you'll zig off the line of the bullet's trajectory. Maybe you'll zag into the line of the bullet's trajectory. Who knows?

Also, at 0-5' I'm hard pressed to think that drawing my gun is going to be the best response to just about any armed attack. In the 1-2 seconds it takes someone to bring a pistol from holster to fire, your aggressive opponent is going to frak you up.

Making distance = good.
Doing the Curly Shuffle != making distance.

I have absolutely no objection to moving & shooting on the move. As stated earlier in this thread, it's a very natural reaction for many people. Getting away from the sharp pointy stick makes sense if you can effectively deliver hits while doing so.

The winner in a fight is usually the first one who kills, not the one who dodges the most bullets.

[macman37]

I don't know how well Kelly McCann is regarded around these parts but I have a lot of respect for him... Here is a video from one of his tapes that I stumbled upon before...

Click

Interesting and informative thread. I should stop saying that here... There are LOTS of threads like these here.