Is A .38 Snub Enough? Article By Ayoob, 2000

[dgg9]

Winning the fight is final - you may in fact get shot in the course of winning the fight.

Getting shot is the surest way, by far, to losing the fight, and standing still is the surest way to get shot.

You win the fight when you don't get shot.

The quickest way to win the fight is to deliver accurate rounds COM.

This is demonstrably false as written, or at best misleading. Try FoF some time. If you and an adversary stand still and trade well-aimed shots, you will get shot. It is a FANTASY to think you will draw, shoot, and instantly incapacitate your attacker (who, since this is a BG we're talking about, probably already has his gun drawn), and not get shot. This is very testable.

Getting shot with a pistol means you will most likely survive.

Maybe, maybe not. NOT getting shot is preferable. Keep in mind that if you get shot AND the attacker is still attacking, you lose mobility and possibly consciousness, such that you're now going to get shot more.

It's one thing to say that you need the mindset to persevere even if shot. It's quite another to embrace a game plan ("stand and deliver") that increases the chances of getting shot in the first place.

[Thekatar]

I challenge anyone to show me where I advocated "standing still" while fighting with a firearm.

[dgg9]

I challenge anyone to show me where I advocated "standing still" while fighting with a firearm.

Once you recognize the need for movement, you implicitly concede the fact that your shots will NOT be especially "accurate COM." If you're moving rapidly and not getting perfect sight pictures, you're getting hits that are not COM, but rather minute-of-entire-torso. Some/most of the hits are going to be more peripheral in nature. Hence you will need more of them to incapacitate your attacker. This puts a snubbie at a disadvantage.

Hence "Speed is fine, accuracy is final" is simply wrong. Speed and movement are primary, and accuracy is lower on the priority queue. The only way to optimize accuracy is to stand still, which is death.

FoF shows all this to be true.

[Rule10b5]

Hence "Speed is fine, accuracy is final" is simply wrong. Speed and movement are primary, and accuracy is lower on the priority queue. The only way to optimize accuracy is to stand still, which is death.

ABSOLUTELY!

[TonyF]

I think your adding issues to this thread that while true, aren't relevant to some of the replies you're quoting.

Once you recognize the need for movement, you implicitly concede the fact that your shots will NOT be especially "accurate COM." If you're moving rapidly and not getting perfect sight pictures, you're getting hits that are not COM, but rather minute-of-entire-torso.

I have yet to find an instructor satisfied with "minute of torso" accuracy with respect to shooting on the move.

Some/most of the hits are going to be more peripheral in nature. Hence you will need more of them to incapacitate your attacker.

I have yet to find an instructor satisfied with "minute of torso" accuracy with respect to shooting on the move.

This puts a snubbie at a disadvantage.

IMO only if there is more than one threat requiring you to return fire. A snub nose revolver is a compromise weapon.

Hence "Speed is fine, accuracy is final" is simply wrong. Speed and movement are primary, and accuracy is lower on the priority queue. The only way to optimize accuracy is to stand still, which is death.

There needs to be a balance. No one in this thread is advocating standing still while engaging threats. However, much like race car driving, you should only take the curve as fast as you can maintain control. You won't accomplish the objective by crashing and burning.

FoF shows all this to be true.

FoF is undoubtedly the best type training to prepare one for a gunfight but it is not the be all and end all and it does have its flaws.

[Thekatar]

We have fundamental mindset differences.

I would suspect we would agree that the decision to employ lethal force is predicated upon the circumstance of you or your loved ones being confronted with a potentially lethal threat that you/they cannot safely retreat from.

I suspect we would also agree that the only justifiable end result of the choice to employ lethal force is to stop the threat.

Here is where our mindset differs: your stated mindset is to not get shot. Mine is to win the fight. You may not see much difference between the two, but I see a world of difference.

When a couple of murderous thugs break into your home and the only thing between your two young daughters and your wife is you, your goal better not be "to not get shot."

I am not telling you that you are wrong or that you are a bad person, but I am telling you that I am of a completely different mindset than you.

Also - if you cannot shoot accurately while on the move then I suggest honing that skillset.

One more thing - FoF can be a great training tool but FoF does not conclusively validate everything. FoF is just as staged as shooting reactives on a square range. You are basically pitting two or more individuals similarly armed with similar skillsets and placing them in a situation where they both are in a high level of Condition Orange right off the bat. I suspect it is rare to conduct FoF with a large number of friendly no-shoots scattered about. Like I said, great tool, but not the be-all, end-all.

Respectfully submitted.

[Thekatar]

FoF is undoubtedly the best type training to prepare one for a gunfight but it is not the be all and end all and it does have its flaws.

Wow! I didn't read your post until after I posted mine and we said the same thing! Now that's cool!

[TonyF]

One more thing - FoF can be a great training tool but FoF does not conclusively validate everything. FoF is just as staged as shooting reactives on a square range. You are basically pitting two or more individuals similarly armed with similar skillsets and placing them in a situation where they both are in a high level of Condition Orange right off the bat. I suspect it is rare to conduct FoF with a large number of friendly no-shoots scattered about. Like I said, great tool, but not the be-all, end-all.

Respectfully submitted.

This is precisely the flaw to which I was referring. It takes allot of discipline to go into a FoF scenario in condition yellow but that is never typically the case as Thekatar points out. Thus the data derived from the outcomes are oftentimes skewed.

When we conduct FoF classes we always try to recruit as many "innocent bystanders" as possible. The problem is outfitting everyone with the appropriate safety gear.

[dgg9]

I have yet to find an instructor satisfied with "minute of torso" accuracy with respect to shooting on the move.

That's because very few instructors have totally let go of the square range shooting mindset. At most, you'll see them advocate taking a single step off line first, but most are teaching more or less stationary shooting.

A few instructors -- Suarez comes to mind, but there are others -- have tried all that in FoF and found it wanting.

If you are facing an armed adversary, you need to move FAST, not just a single shuffle to the side, then stand and deliver in a new location. Otherwise, you just get shot at the new location.

If you're moving very fast, shooting one handed, you will not get much better than pie-plate size groups and likely less than that. That's the observed reality.

The whole idea of rapid continuous movement off the X is still not pervasive in the training community. That tells me that the lessons of FoF are not yet integrated into the conventional wisdom.

IMO only if there is more than one threat requiring you to return fire. A snub nose revolver is a compromise weapon.

Or, if you are shooting and moving, and not punching out the X ring.

There needs to be a balance. No one in this thread is advocating standing still while engaging threats. However, much like race car driving, you should only take the curve as fast as you can maintain control.

It is easy to show that you can get reasonable hits while running flat out. But you won't get fist-sized groups. The problem most instructors seem to have is that they are wedded to a firm sight picture, which is indeed not possible above a certain speed of movement. You have to be willing to use a coarse sight picture, or occasionally none.

FoF is undoubtedly the best type training to prepare one for a gunfight but it is not the be all and end all and it does have its flaws.

However, if you posit as doctrine something that fails during FoF, it is incumbent on you to show where the flaw is: in FoF or in your doctrine.

I say the best way to see what works against an armed adversary is to face someone with an Airsoft and see what gets you shot and what doesn't. Do you seriously dispute this?

[dgg9]

We have fundamental mindset differences.

Not really. We are simply not talking about the same things.

Here is where our mindset differs: your stated mindset is to not get shot. Mine is to win the fight. You may not see much difference between the two, but I see a world of difference.

When a couple of murderous thugs break into your home and the only thing between your two young daughters and your wife is you, your goal better not be "to not get shot."

You are reading in way too much, in the wrong context. Are there times where you have to stand and fight, regardless? Sure. But I'm not talking about larger calculations like that. I'm talking about the simple dynamics of facing an armed adversary, and what works and what doesn't. Standing and delivering generally gets you shot if the BG already has a gun out.

Now, even in your scenario, how does your getting shot IMPROVE your family's chances with the BGs? Note that when I say "movement" I'm not talking about "running away." I'm talking about rapid movement so you can hit the BG and not get hit in return.

My scenario -- what I've been talking about -- is more generic, such as a street robbery.

Also - if you cannot shoot accurately while on the move then I suggest honing that skillset.

I suggest that I can shoot about as accurately as anyone can, while moving flat out. If you can run flat out, and still make fist-sized groups at 20 feet, I suggest you're not moving fast enough. But frankly, I don't believe that.

One more thing - FoF can be a great training tool but FoF does not conclusively validate everything.

Yet if something fails consistently in FoF, that is strong evidence it's going to fail for real, when all conditions are worse.

When FoF refutes cherished shibboleths, the reaction is often to say things like "FoF doesn't prove everything," etc. Well, if it fails in FoF, what exactly are you expecting to happen for real? When you are, as you say, amped up and in condition orange at the training course, and it fails then, what deus ex machina are you hoping for to make it work for real?