Question about side-stepping to the left

[dgg9]

If it helps, you can rephrase the question as: "If I am being shot at and moving in either left and right directions provide equal cover, will moving to one side or the other provide a better chance of me getting to cover without being shot?"

The one observation I can bring from FoF is that moving continuously to his outside at a diagonal seems to help, but of course this depends on where his feet are: the more he's bladed to one direction, the more results you can get going to his outside. If he's not bladed and he's holding a gun in one hand, he doesn't have much of an "outside" so I don't know that anything will help. FWIW.

Further, your odds increase the more you are able to put rounds on the attacker, because now he's not thinking about shooting you, he's also thinking about getting shot.

Of course there's a chicken and egg thing happening here: you want to shoot the attacker to stop his rounds (which you will do at least a little better the less you move), but you want to not be shot (which you will certainly do better moving at a good angle, flat-out). Different trainers optimize one over the other.

My $0.02 is that this is an empirical question, which Force on Force should be able to give a good answer for, as long as you don't restrict the assailant to an iso shooting stance, which may not be representative.

[dgg9]

I understand that the idea is not to get shot, the idea is to stop the threat.

Why do you want to stop the threat, if not to prevent being shot? Is there another reason? Stopping the threat is a means to an end; the end is your personal safety.

In a fairly dire situation like this, IMO it's muy importante to be very clear what the primary goal is, so you can set priorities.

For example, if you want to stop the threat, the quickest path to do so is stand there, draw and fire. You'll get the quickest and most accurate shot on target that way, so if "stopping the target" is THE most primary goal, why not do that? But the plan has a flaw, doesn't it? While you're busy stopping the threat, the threat, with his considerable head start, is busy stopping you.

I propose that the "idea" is unequivocally to not get shot, and that there are various means -- movement; stopping the threat via shooting; maybe even feign submission and hope he gets close enough to initiate combatives -- you can decide to use, maybe in combination, to attain that end. If you decide that "stopping the threat" is the primary goal, then it may be that your best strategy is to exchange gunfire and shoot him, though at the cost of getting shot yourself.

I suggest that scenarios like this deserve some thought about what are means and what are ends.

[Valorius]

In this scenario, I define winning as not getting shot. Any other result is losing.

YMMV.

I actually expect that there's a good chance i'll get shot or stabbed in any realistic self defense scenario.

If you have it in your head that getting shot= you lose, then you do.

Seriously...there is a good chance you'll have to continue to fight even after getting shot. Even a shot straight to your heart will take 15-20 seconds to render you unconscious. That's 15-20 seconds where you can make sure that, at best, the other guy is going to manage a "tie", because i plan on bringing the son of a bitch to hell right along with me, even if i'm mortally wounded.

I am convinced that "stopping power" has more to do with the fighting/survival drive of the person shot than any other factor- even shot placement (short of a CNS hit).

You laying in a crumpled heap unconscious= losing.

Getting shot is not the same as losing.

[dgg9]

If you have it in your head that getting shot= you lose, then you do.

You can survive and kill the other guy and still "lose." Losing in this case is not defined as the result of you vs him. I define it in terms of results to ME, not to him.

Winning/losing, predator/prey are non-specific terms, not especially useful, is my point here. I prefer to try to answer the OP's specific question in terms as specific as possible to the context of his stated scenario.

You start with the scenario. Then you decide what's the best result, the next-best result, etc, and act accordingly. Others may decide differently, but my best-case result is not to get shot; next best is not to get killed. Shooting the adversary is not the primary goal, it's one of many means to the primary goal.

Getting shot is not the same as losing.

That's semantics, though. You're defining anything other than death as "not losing." I'm defining anything other than not getting shot or injured as "losing," with varying degrees of losing.

[dgg9]

This is why I objected to the word "winning" -- aside from the gamer baggage, it doesn't really mean anything. Winning and losing are only two words, but in an armed attack, there are a lot more than 2 results. There's "my party and I end up unscathed, unarrested, unsued" and "we end up dead," with a whole lot of middle ground too.

[FUNDAMENTALS]

Is Erik Lawrence, the Author of "Tactical Pistol Shooting Your Guide to
Tactics that Work" still posting on PAFOA? In his first book, Page 82,
Shooting Positions states the following: "Sidestepping is used when you
pie off(to look tactically around visual barriers incrementally, exsposing
minimal body part) an area. Note: he does state: "Survival modifies many
learned skills". If you have access to the book, check it out for valuable
information you may want to try at the range. I just received the 2nd
Edition on my kindle today. Will be reading it after the Phillies game.

[Valorius]

That's semantics, though. You're defining anything other than death as "not losing." I'm defining anything other than not getting shot or injured as "losing," with varying degrees of losing.

Dying or being crippled is losing. Getting shot and going onto a full recovery is not losing, it's a good cocktail story.

The point i was trying to make in my previous post is not to create an artificial "I lose" scenario in your head, that might cause you to shut down in an attack simply because you got shot. Fight until you can't...and you might still win.

[dgg9]

The point i was trying to make in my previous post is not to create an artificial "I lose" scenario in your head, that might cause you to shut down in an attack simply because you got shot. Fight until you can't...and you might still win.

On that point, I totally agree....especially in the stated scenario, where getting shot is a strong possibility, no matter how well you perform. Sometimes you're dealt a bad hand.

[Shawn.L]

IMHO moving one step is a bunch of marketing and square range BS.

Grab some blue guns and a friend. Have said friend aim in on you.
Then take the worlds biggest step to the left and ask your friend how hard that makes it for him to track you with the sights.......
Then switch roles.

Ken Hackathorn did a great presentation on this during a Advanced Pistol course of his I attended. "If your going to move, KEEP MOVING".

Ive done this FoF with simulated firearms, seen it done in courses with simulated firearms, and I have to say I agree with Ken.

While "stand and deliver" is prob a bad habit to form, and a generous amount of SOTM should be in our practice regime, taking one step and expecting that to do anything for you is nonsense.

The other point that Syn and Val are speaking to is one of mindset. Its a deeper topic.

"the best cover is accurate and sustained fire" ~Kyle Defoor

[rmagill]

Thank you, again, for your replies. I think the parameters for this have been misunderstood. What I am asking is not for the merits of moving out of the line of fire, which I already know one should do. Instead, if I have two options - one is to move to my left and the other is to move to my right, and both are equally beneficial, which direction should I move to cover so I have the best chance of getting to cover without being shot.

I have a few reasons that I said that the idea is to stop the threat and not not get shot. Stopping the threat can certainly be a means to an end - such as not getting shot, going home safe, protecting family, etc., but it is my goal if I should ever need to use lethal force to stop the threat. Lethal force can accomplish these other goals, but the goal of using lethal force is to stop the threat. If I need to use lethal force, I am doing so until the threat is no longer a threat - not until I am not actively taking rounds or until I am shot (or stabbed, beaten, etc.). As I said above, this can serve another purpose, but that other purpose is not the goal of using lethal force.

I should use tactics such that I minimize my risks of being shot. However, if someone is already in the process of drawing on me, the reality is that if I don't move, I am going to get shot (hence my post about which direction minimizes the chances of that). I have also been in airsoft scenarios. While these are fantastic learning experiences, unless they are videotaped, they do little to present a documented case for doing (or not doing) something. The reason I posted is because I was looking for documentation about which direction is preferable to move in. Thank you, again, to those that did answer this question - especially for providing resources.