PDA

View Full Version : Shoot 'em to the ground....



tb1911
11-27-2004, 10:30 PM
This related to the thread about mag capacity (in my mind anyway):
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?p=52613&posted=1#post52613

Gabe and others now teach to "shoot 'em to the ground". Assuming one opponent, I learned to take 2 fast aimed shots, quickly evaluate, and reengage as the situation dictates (head or whatever).

For "shoot 'em to the ground" What is the process? Do you shoot as fast as you can until empty or they are down, or is there a pause between rounds for evaluation?

Do a Bill Drill and look at the splits between shots for a good shooter. For a close target, I believe one could easily empty the magazine before the opponent drops where maybe by the second round, he was going down. Am I wrong?

I guess the real question is about focus shift between the target and the gun and when/if you do it. So what is the right way to do this?

battleground
11-28-2004, 12:25 AM
Do the physics on a dead body dropping. If you kill the BG on your first shot and he collapses, he will be out of your sights by your third shot, unless on recoil recovery you lower your sights towards the ground. (I guess I should ask, how many in your magazine? ;) )

m4r1n5
11-28-2004, 02:03 AM
Shoot until the threat is is no longer a threat. If you had to shoot, it should have been in fear of your life or someone else's. If you pause, you gamble your life and liability.

If there are more than one, the scenerio should dictate your response.
1) one round for each BG to throw off balance
2) this is an area where double taps could be considered
3) nearest imminent threat. where are the others
4) surroundings. car, bldg, wall, cover/concealment nearby?
5) your position. in a enclosed area. ouside in a parking lot. crowded area. hallway. doorway.
6) who's with you? a gun slinging partner, mom & dad, wife & kids :eek: ...?

OODA LOOP.

Charles Rives
11-28-2004, 07:49 AM
From game experience, it's easy to see how shooting them to the ground may play out if you shoot either steel pepper-popper targets that are set "heavy" or bowling pins. "Heavy" poppers don't want to go down and take some convincing from quick strings of fire toward their center. Bowling pins only clear the table from very well centered shots and can move around without going off the table unless they are hit well.

The gun games have some benefits for gunfighters when kept in context and here's one of them. When you shoot either one of these reactive targets for speed, you get accustomed to making quick aimed shots, tracking from target-to-target, and interpreting a target's reaction as you shoot.

The assess phase of the shoot and assess efforts is extremely compressed and doesn't interupt your shooting pace. I think that shooting an attacker until he stops being an attacker can work the same way.

Chuck

Gabriel Suarez
11-28-2004, 09:46 AM
The main difference between the "Shoot-Two and Assess" (ST&A) method and the "Shoot E'm To The Ground" (STTG)method is that the ST&A assumes the two shots will work, whereas the STTG method assumes they will not.

The ST&A method is a Gunsite development and let's remember that they profess that 19 times out of 20 one single 45 round will drop a man in his tracks. Wishful thinking in my opinion.

The STTG method is one that comes from the streets and assumes body armor, dope, etc. thus always looks for the head shot.

IMHO, shooting a pair and dropping to guard is a silly range technique that will get you killed.

The Searcher
11-28-2004, 11:37 AM
At what point do you shift to headshots when using "STTG?"

Steve Camp
11-28-2004, 01:06 PM
At what point do you shift to headshots when using "STTG?"

Well... after three, four, or five shots to the torso (COM, high COM, whatever)... if your assailant is still assailing... you should be starting to think, "gee, what's not working here? maybe I oughta try something different -- like a head shot!"

Depending on situation, you may want to fire two to the chest (e.g. COM) and if your assailant is still in your sights (that is, he is still upright), immediately transition to the head shot. That is, if after two shots, the head is still available, take the head (if it's a doable shot -- e.g. close enough, not moving / bobbing everywhere like a bobblhead doll).

One might fire those first two as a controlled pair, or a hammer pair (e.g. double tap).

Different situation, one might fire three, four, or five into COM. However, if after five, the head is still available, and you're not dead yet... I'd recommend trying the head shot at that point -- at least something different than your previous aim point, cuz that don't seem to be gettin' the job done.

Does that answer help?

jack76590
11-28-2004, 01:44 PM
I suspect in some cases the shooter will follow the BG to the ground and shoot him a few times while on the ground. I suppose this is not a bad idea as even on the ground BG may be able to return fire. But we don't want to forget potential friends of BG and need for movement and creating distance and finding cover, if possible.

Dan-O
11-28-2004, 02:12 PM
Shooting a B.G. to the ground just means that you keep shooting untill you no longer percieve the B.G. as a threat.

If you stand over a B.G. and continue to pump rounds into an unmoving corpse,is just wasting time and ammo if the B.G. has pals.

This is one of those "Gray" situations where folks may be looking for a "Textbook" maneuver to cover all situations.
Sorry sportsfans,real life isnt always cut and dry.

Train yourself to STTG being mindfull of the other considerations.

Who was it who said that "Multiple armed,highly motivated oponents is more akin to an Assination attempt than a pistol fight"?

Same thing goes for all fights and weapons,you keep hitting all of em with the mostest,till you are either only one left,or you decide to boogie on out of there.

BTW, you can do everything "Right" just like your favorite gun guru of the month says you should,and still get killed.
Your Mindset and attitude in the fight will be way more important than the "Exact" "Right" "Textbook" maneuver you use to turn your enemy into a greasy stain.

Think "If someone tries to hurt me or my loved ones(Team) Im going into full tilt boogie scorched earth overdrive till he(they) are all dead or fleeing,or Im Dead."
It's really simple. :)

battleground
11-28-2004, 02:35 PM
Hey BG, I know that you were trained exactly like me, what exactly are you saying here? Are you saying two and assess is still what you are doing?

Just curious since our training has taken us on two different paths.


No, I'm saying that you shoot him to the ground. Butr if your first shot is effective he will not be in your sights long enough to empty your magazine. The laws of physics still govern gunfights. My assessment is whether he is still filling my sights.

A dead weight falls at 1 feet per square second * time squared. So if the first shot is efffective a body will fall the following distances in the following amounts of time (excuse the extra _ needed to make the spcing come out right):


_______________falling
seconds_____ distance in feet_____shot #
0_______________0__________________1
.25_____________1__________________2
.5______________4__________________3
.75_____________9__________________4

If your splits are .25 seconds, you are going to have to drop your sights to hit the bad guy for your third shot, and he will be on the ground when you shoot your fourth.

I'm not saying that the first shot will be magic. I'm only saying that it is that if you are a good shot and the bad guy is taken out (unconcious, dead,loss of motor control), you are not going to empty your magazine before he falls.

NorthernExtreme
11-28-2004, 05:38 PM
I hope I can word this rite without POing some people off. But I feel it is far better to ST&E.

Let me try a possible scenario with you.

You have tried everything you can to avoid a conflict with a BG. He pulls his coat back and you can see is going for a gun (but is slow). You draw and shoot first. On the first shot the GB drops his gun and stumbles forward (he is still standing, and your weapon obstructs your vision to see he has dropped his gun) You continue to shoot 4 more rounds. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. A witness sees you continue to shoot an unarmed man (a pistol cannot be expected to overcome physics and create enough energy to drop him. nor does a man dropping from site constitute the only determination of the threat being gone). Can we say excessive force? What if he is trained to drop and fire prone.

What I'm saying is shoot twice and evaluate does not mean shoot twice and lower your guard. It means shoot twice and evaluate quickly weather more shots are needed or if the situation has changed. (BG buddies appear to your right)

I think the concept of ďshoot till the threat is gone or bigger threats ariseĒ is a better concept, but you cannot take the evaluation part out of it.

I hate to play devils advocate because I understand why some believe in STTG (I just think the concept is not developed enough). And a lawyer will have a field day with the term (STTG) and crucify you for excessive force. (When the shooting stops, the next-phase of the fight continues ((LAWYERS)).

Combat is not scripted, you must constantly be able to evaluate your surroundings and adapt. Evaluation does not take long +/- .25 sec. STTG to me seems to cause a person to zero in on 1 threat (till the process is complete) at the expense of total awareness and other threats that may arise.

I know I may be making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I enjoy discussion and would just like the STTG concept evolve with an E in there somewhere.

Steve Camp
11-28-2004, 06:01 PM
I know I may be making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I enjoy discussion and would just like the STTG concept evolve with an E in there somewhere.

OK.... STTTGWCATS

Shoot Them To The Ground While Constantly Assessing The Situation

But this is not nearly as sexy as even the computer term whizzywig (WYSIWYG), so STTTGWCATS gets shortened to STTG.

battleground
11-28-2004, 06:07 PM
Flip side is the bad guy does not drop his gun gets a shot off and kills you while you are doing your quick assessment. Most of us were taught to lower our weapon while assessing, and the assessment takes us out of the fight for about a second. That is about four shots for a trained shooter.

The point will be that when we start shooting we are justified, rightfully fearing for our lives. Once the battle starts we continue until we perceive the bad guy is no longer a threat. If I have to choose between the risk of being shot by someone who is drawing down on me, or firing an extra shot or two in the heat of battle, I'll take the latter.

If I see the bad guy drop his weapon after I start shooting I'll stop. My goal is to defend myself effectively, not commit murder.

NorthernExtreme
11-28-2004, 06:08 PM
OK.... STTTGWCATS

Shoot Them To The Ground While Constantly Assessing The Situation

But this is not nearly as sexy as even the computer term whizzywig (WYSIWYG), so STTTGWCATS gets shortened to STTG.


Now we are getting somewhere!! :)

NorthernExtreme
11-28-2004, 06:45 PM
The point will be that when we start shooting we are justified, rightfully fearing for our lives. Once the battle starts we continue until we perceive the bad guy is no longer a threat. If I have to choose between the risk of being shot by someone who is drawing down on me, or firing an extra shot or two in the heat of battle, I'll take the latter.

If I see the bad guy drop his weapon after I start shooting I'll stop. My goal is to defend myself effectively, not commit murder.


My point is that ST&E or STTG is a process. I'm not saying STTG is a bad idea, or that it ill conceived. Both concepts are based on the idea that the GG (us) is making hits. Handguns being what they are, are limited in power (but not devoid of power). Assuming the GG makes hits COM as we are taught, a person will have a reaction to being hit. If a BG is hit 2 times in the chest he will react. An effective evaluation can be done in much less than 1 second, and a BG will not be able to counteract the effect of 2 or 4 shots in the time to it takes to make an effective evaluation. Even is he/she is wearing a vest or on drugs. The process of STTG takes longer to complete if the BG does not fall to the ground after the 2nd shot. A longer process is not a good thing in a gunfight because more than 1 threat can exist (or become an issue after the first shot is made).

ST&E is a much shorter process, and if done correctly and quickly will not be any different than STTG if needed. Any difference in time between the 2 will be accounted for by the effect COM hits will have. I cannot stress enough how important it is always stay in the fight. Never drop to Guard as long as the threat is still present.

STTG: if perceived as "Shoot Till Threat is Gone", works for me.
But for someone who is learning the process of defense with a weapon, STTG (Shoot To The Ground) can be a life threateningly long process. There needs to be a process of evaluation impressed in the process.

Just my $.02

Gabriel Suarez
11-28-2004, 07:17 PM
Ok, one more post then its time to watch Around The World in 80 Days with my little ones.

The question is can you assess while shooting. Can you evaluate the results of your shots while placing them, or do you need to go hard to the Guard to see what happened. I submit that you can see the man in front of you reacting (or NOT) to your gunfire.

Remember, he was trying to kill you a few ago. Rather than program a beginner to stop after two, I would have them vary their shoting from 2-5 with an occasional head shot.

Other than an actual gunfight, we have FOF to test the theories.

michael
11-28-2004, 07:47 PM
The question is can you assess while shooting. Can you evaluate the results of your shots while placing them, or do you need to go hard to the Guard to see what happened. I submit that you can see the man in front of you reacting (or NOT) to your gunfire.
Other than an actual gunfight, we have FOF to test the theories.
This is exactly what I did when I shot the BG. I continued firing until he went to the ground. It was not a conscious decision to shoot x number of rounds or to stop at any certain point--that's just what happened. As he slumped down to his knees, I ceased firing as he was armed with a knife and no longer in a position to hurt me. So, obviously my position is that when he is no longer in your sight picture, you lower your weapon as he falls, keeping him covered and then determining if he is a threat from the ground. If so, repeat until he is no longer a threat.

NorthernExtreme
11-28-2004, 09:38 PM
I guess my whole point was that in order to shoot in defense legally, there is a level that must be met (legal use of force). In order to stay legal (which we need to do) there is a level that must not be exceeded (excessive force). Unfortunately we wonít be the ones who make that assessment. But we do have a responsibility to stay between the lines.

I can see that in the long run we are all in agreement (all of us want to survive). It just seems to me the probability of crossing the line on my part is much more probable with STTG. And ST&E(very quickly while staying on target) is effective and measured given everything involved without crossing the line.

Neither is guaranteed to save or cost you your life. I guess I need to attend training in the STTG process in order to properly evaluate and weigh both sides. My guess is there isn't much of a difference except for the emphasis on your surroundings and other/new threats. Iím a firm believer in the thought that the fight is not over until the lawyers are done and you are home safe. I do my best to make sure I will always be there for my family to provide and care for them. I cannot do that if I am dead or in prison. I may be alone on this, but I feel it is prudent to plan and be prepared for the total fight and plan to win on all levils. One you can survive and live with.

Be safe gentleman.

tb1911
11-28-2004, 10:03 PM
Uggg!!!! My world is turning upside down!! Are you guys telling me you aren't focusing on your gun when you shoot, but on the threat???

NorthernExtreme, I am pretty much where you are....

Here is how my current training would manage this - again assume one threat:

Focus on threat (usually a small point on the threat) - determine it is time to shoot. Shift focus (awareness) to gun. Adjust alignment such that you are confident you will hit your intended point and shoot, when gun returns from recoil again adjust and shoot again. (lets say .20 to .25 split) Now focus on threat - DO NOT LOWER GUN - that is just stupid, this is a quick visual evaluation of his/her condition. If not down or gun not dropped or not spun backwards and falling, etc. shift back to gun and shoot again (evaluation phase, say .33 seconds). evaluate, shoot evaluate, for as long as it takes....

Now when I say focus on gun, I don't necessarily mean a crisp clear focus on the front sight, but an awareness of the gun and a conscious effort to adjust things so I will hit. At 4 feet, that doesn't take much.

So, 2 quick shots then evaluate, shoot, evaluate....
It sounds like shoot them to the ground is shoot, evaluate, shoot evaluate, shoot. etc??? It is not shooting as fast as you possibly can is it?

Take a target at 10 feet and shoot it as fast as you can. There is no way you are evaluating the condition of the target after each shot. If you are shooting as fast as you can, you don't have the time or focus to say "Is that enough? (Yes/No)..." You are either shooting in bursts between evaluations or you are shooting (relatively) slow, evaluating after each shot, or you are missing.

Is the real difference here that shoot them to the ground shoots a blast of 4 or 5 rounds between evaluation, or is the tempo just a little slower than full speed like with a Bill Drill?

battleground
11-28-2004, 10:58 PM
I'm not a point shooting advocate, but I do not argue with those who are. I've not had instruction in it, and anything I've tried based on what I've read has been too uncomfortable.

If I'm farther than close contact distances, then I try to focus on the front sight. That said, I am aware of the target. I'll notice it fall or not fall or significantly moving. That is my assessment. I shoot at .25-.30 second splits. (My 40 is not back from recoil at .20.)

The next time I'm at the range I'll time how long an explicit evaluate is the way I was taught.

Perhaps we need a discussion of what it means for the threat to stop. I think it means I have to judge the bad guy to be out of the fight. If he's still in my sights and has not somehow reacted in great pain in some way that makes me believe he's out of the fight or that I should take a longer look, then he still is still in the fight. In fact, after 2-3 shots if he is still standing tall it is time for the failure to stop drill.

Keep in mind guys, the way I was taught the assessment is he is out of the fight, or you are going to switch to a head shot. I'm saying that if he is full in the sights and appearing not to be out of the fight, I don't have to lower my weapon for the assessment. He is right there in front of me.

Sam
11-28-2004, 10:58 PM
I have taken my training almost entirely to reactive targets.
I prefer this one http://www.geocities.com/freeidaho/RRT/RRT.pdf

My training partners and I have made 5 of these, 1 is missing the COM plate and requires the head shot to drop it.
We set them up for each other pretty much like having someone slip a dummy in your mag.
It will teach you to hold harder, place your shots more accuratly and observe the target for effect.
A really good aid to keep from getting into bad habits.

Sam

Charles Rives
11-29-2004, 02:47 AM
Take a target at 10 feet and shoot it as fast as you can. There is no way you are evaluating the condition of the target after each shot. If you are shooting as fast as you can, you don't have the time or focus to say "Is that enough? (Yes/No)..." You are either shooting in bursts between evaluations or you are shooting (relatively) slow, evaluating after each shot, or you are missing.
Again, try shooting reactive targets like bowling pins. Just because you focus on either the target or sights doesn't mean that the other became suddenly invisible. When you shoot these, you will find yourself struggling with focus the entire time as you attempt to fire clean COM shots and things are happening down-range simultaneously.

Chuck

MTS
11-29-2004, 03:55 AM
Assuming the GG makes hits COM as we are taught, a person will have a reaction to being hit. If a BG is hit 2 times in the chest he will react. An effective evaluation can be done in much less than 1 second, and a BG will not be able to counteract the effect of 2 or 4 shots in the time to it takes to make an effective evaluation. Even is he/she is wearing a vest or on drugs.
Unfortunatly not all people show a reaction to being shot, especially right away.

The problem is that if the BG is starting to shoot you while you are assessing then you will not be able to react in time.

tb1911
11-29-2004, 06:13 AM
tb1911, have you ever done any FOF with upclose and dynamic confrontations?

Several years ago, but the thinking was different then (or the training not as good). Clearly it is time again! Gabe's courses will be my first choice, but being here in the east, it will take more time, money, and planning.

Just to clarify what I mean by focusing on the gun though, as I said, I was not talking about a clear sight picture. In one scenario I practiced, I had one target 4 feet in front of me and one 4 feet to my left (90 degrees with me in the center.) On the target to the left, my gun was cocked to the left so much so that I saw its profile. My though was about making the shot, not about the condition of the target. I am sure with FOF you are not just shooting blindly. Somewhere in there you must have some level of thought about making the shot hit, no?

I think I am beginning to understand....

You guys will see that I often question conventional wisdom. One reason is to learn, another is to help refine the thinking. Lastly, I have learned that often, if everybody is doing it, something has gotta be wrong!
I certainly mean no disrespect to those of you with the knowledge I don't possess.

This has been very educational.

Al Lipscomb
11-29-2004, 07:15 AM
I saw a video of a BG taking a .40 hit COM. No reaction. He continued to beat the snot out of the GG who shot him. The GG had his weapon jam (stovepipe) and was able to drop the mag before the BG took it away from him.

Not a pretty fight, but in the end the GG won.

Gabriel Suarez
11-29-2004, 07:52 AM
In the East? We'll be in Dayton, Ohio - Nashua, New Hampshire - Battle Creek Michigan - and Thurmont, Maryland.

Check the schedule on the training site for more details.

Paul Sharp
11-29-2004, 08:47 AM
Without the benefit of FoF, or in addition to, one can use reactive targets like the nice one Sam posted.

Paul Howe showed us a less expensive version, 2"X4" up the centerline behind a cardboard target, mounted by hinge to a platform so a centerline hit, (spinal column), will knock the target down. The board is mounted so the 2 inch surface is facing the shooter similar to the link Sam posted. You would be surprised how hard it is to make good hits at speed while moving. I've had a few made up using angle iron and I fasten the targets to the iron using zip-ties. The angle iron is approximately 1 1/2 inches wide and much more durable than the wood version. 5.56 will smoke right through it but it still goes down when you get a center line hit.


"Lastly, I have learned that often, if everybody is doing it, something has gotta be wrong!"

Like, electricity, dental hygiene, cars, breathing, indoor plumbing........

tb1911
11-29-2004, 08:50 AM
In the East? We'll be in Dayton, Ohio - Nashua, New Hampshire - Battle Creek Michigan - and Thurmont, Maryland.

Check the schedule on the training site for more details.

Duh... I guess I should have looked before making assumptions. New Hampshire may work.

Cool....

tb1911
11-29-2004, 09:39 AM
"Lastly, I have learned that often, if everybody is doing it, something has gotta be wrong!"

Like, electricity, dental hygiene, cars, breathing, indoor plumbing........
I jest of course, but a blind follower, I will never be.... Remember the whole "temporary wound cavity" argument that everyone was flocking to a few years back? How about the "conventional wisdom" our police teach us to not resist an attacker? I got a phone call a while ago by a woman I gave some self defense training to. She fought off an attacker at an ATM and the police completely berated for being so stupid and ignorant as to fight him off and how she is so very, very lucky he didn't kill her for resisting. It took me some time to convince her she did the right thing. (This was LA.) Not even 100 years ago, cocaine was considered good for you. Less than 50 years ago, cigarettes were suggested by Doctors. Many time when something get mass appeal, oftentimes it is because someone has a vested interest in making it popular, not because it is better or right.

All of those things you mentioned above, while not discounted, were improved by a questioning, critical eye. :rolleyes:

Paul Sharp
11-29-2004, 10:01 AM
Well of course....

Sounds like you are incredibly squared away so, have a good one.

NorthernExtreme
11-29-2004, 11:21 AM
I feel the same as tb1911. I will not follow blindly, but I will learn every chance I get.

When are you guys coming to Alaska?

Would some guided fishing or hunting help make it possible?

Gabriel Suarez
11-29-2004, 12:06 PM
"...Would some guided fishing or hunting help make it possible?"

:D :D :D

Let's talk.

tb1911
11-29-2004, 01:06 PM
When are you guys coming to Alaska?

Would some guided fishing or hunting help make it possible?

Alaska??? Hunting????? Fishing???? When does the next plain leave!!! :D

NorthernExtreme
11-29-2004, 02:46 PM
P.M. me for plans. I'm sure we could make it work.

jas
11-30-2004, 01:30 PM
New at this so bear with me.

When you decide to shoot a person in defense of yourself or a third party, you do so until the threat is gone.

I have over ten years experence in law enforcement. I just took Gabe's class early this year.

He taught me things that I had not seen before. I agree with the shoot until the person or thing is no longer a threat. Knowing that once you make up your mind to shoot, you will shoot until the threat is no longer there. Once you see the threat is no longer there, it will take you a second or soo to stop shooting. This has to do with you preciving the threat, processing the information and then tell your body what to do.

When the threat stops you have to do it all over again.

I have been trained over the years to shot two and look. I like the Gabe's training better. Their is no handgun round that will stop a person with one shot to the chest.

It is better to shot until the threat is gone and then take a look for his friends and cover. Then to stand there shoot two and look.

NorthernExtreme
11-30-2004, 03:37 PM
[QUOTE=jas] Once you see the threat is no longer there, it will take you a second or soo to stop shooting. This has to do with you preciving the threat, processing the information and then tell your body what to do.
QUOTE]


"a second or Soo", I hate to keep beating this, but these statements are what concern me. (not to flame anybody I assure you, but this isn't the only statement in this vane I have seen)

"A second or soo" = about 1 +/- .25 sec, or at .22-.25 sec between shots = 3-5 shots after the threat is gone. 3-5 more shots than are needed can land you in jail. (Excessive force / Murder).

This all seems to hinge on the fact that S2&E or S3&E allows the BG the opportunity to shoot you during your evaluation (which people here seem to think takes a lifetime, I don't agree). I accept this is a possibility though logically a limited possibility.

Defending yourself for against charges of excessive force for firing an extra 3-5 rounds is possible, but logically in the eyes of the law being moderately to highly improbable.

In training; have any instructors seen students continue to fire at targets, after the (reactive) target has fallen. What is the average number of rounds fired (in excess)? And how many of those rounds are in the target (as it falls) vs. how many went down range (liability going down range) to who knows where.

Am I being totally off the wall? I really need to attend your training. I guess it will be the only way I'll get it straight in my own mind. The progressive nature of STTG just seems to be eluding me (vs. LFI 1 and Tac-pistol 1&2). I never have been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I've never been accused of being too dull to do the job either. At least till now.

jas
11-30-2004, 04:09 PM
Northen Extreme

No offense taken.

In real life, when you have made the decesion to shot,it is alot different then fireing on the range.

On the range you know that the target is not going to shot back or try to kill you. When you have a person trying to kill you different parts of your grey matter kick in.

Your fight or flight syndrome kick in. I will not go into all the things that happen, but one of them is the shunting of blood to the major muscle groups of the body.Your blood pressure goes up, your vision goes into tunnel vision and you can only focus on the threat.


I am no expert in this and am not trying to show myself off as one.

From what I have read and expernce under high stress. It takes me a second or so( sorry about the time, I am not sure of the time it take to process info under stress.) to go from shot to stop. I will have to find the article I read that goes into this in mutch more depth. It is in the current Police Marksmen.


You will expernce differnt things under the high stress of a life and death expernce. We are program to ether fight or run away. When we do ether one, and you want to change something you have to process the information, understand it and then act on it. That is the lag time and Gabe can explain it alot better then I can.

NorthernExtreme
11-30-2004, 08:19 PM
Jas

Without going into detail I know about the stress you are speaking of. I have experienced it a time or two. And here is where (with my limited knowledge) I see an issue. (please feel free to correct me where Iím wrong)

A person who is not exposed to the level of stress you speak of (on a regular gases, or several times) will not be operating at full capacity. (Tunnel vision, Decreased fine and gross motor skills, loss of situational awareness, loss of feeling of touch, smell, etc) It is at this time; (in a life or death situation) if a person is conditioned, or naturally react in a defensive manner that their training comes to play. That training should be geared toward driving a person to do what is needed to survive and win. And it would be remiss of me not to include staying within the realm of legality. Though I agree with others in the fact you have to survive a gunfight to stand trial (IF YOU CROSS THE LINE, or the DA sees a need), and it is morally better to be in jail than be dead (it is questionable for me for I fear a cage more than death),. I feel ones training should not place them in a position where they are more likely to be put in jail because their training didnít take into account the stress factor.

I wonít let that go unqualified so let me explain. You gave a time of about a, ďsecond or sooĒ. To describe the time it takes to process and respond to a person concluding the threat is gone. I would assert that may be on the short end of the time scale. When I was in the army I watched my men continue to fire for 4-5 seconds after they heard a cease fire order given. I also watched men continue to pull the trigger on a weapon that had gone dry and had locked to the rear. They were very well trained and they corrected their actions quickly once they realized what they were doing. (Donít let me sound like I didnít make mistakes too. I know I did.) But I was lucky enough to have instructors who impressed upon me how important it was constantly re-evaluate my situation. And during those times I had remembered to re-evaluate are the times of my highest situational awareness (even while engaging targets). I was able to see and respond quicker and more deliberately than when I was in the grips of stress/fear and focused on engaging 1 target. I believe this is because I was taught a process that forced a conditioned response that combats the stress you speak of.

If a person is conditioned to respond to a threat with a STTG mentality and not break away from the stress; I feel they #1 will loose sight of the changing situation, #2 be less likely to understand when the threat is gone, and there by cross the legal limit, and #4 waste time and ammo (firing till dry due to stress). Not because it is foolish to keep engaging till the threat is gone. But because the process (imbedded in the response) is focused on the threat only. I watched a man shoot a target several times even after the target went down without realizing. (Itís amazing what can come out of an AAR).

Now, bringing the stress, and response to the street, (I BELIEVE) I see the probability of the best of people, with the best of intentions, trained by people with the best of intentions, with the best of training equipment and tactics, responding in a perfectly legal way, ending up in jail for crossing the line. Not because the reaction was wrong, but because the Process is too long and focuses on the cause of stress thereby causing a problem that does not exist and making matters worse. I would like to believe that since I have experienced this stress in the past that I would not make mistakes a second time. But the reality is there was a second time and though I was less stressed I was operating far from 100%. But both times (though short and ultimately not eventful) it was the evaluate portion of the process that kept me aware of my surroundings and able to respond effectively.

My understanding of STTG so far goes like this; (again itís very limited) Make distance while drawing and seeking cover concealment, Insure you are on target (sighted / point) and fire. If he/she is still standing (or a threat when the weapon returns from recoil), shoot again and repeat 3-5 times. If the threat still exists; transition to a head shot and keep shooting till the threat goes down and is no longer a threat. Now why does anybody believe theyíll be able to process a lucid thought in the time it takes a weapon to come out of recoil when trained soldiers couldnít process a cease fire order, or realize they were out of ammo in 4-5 seconds. Mind you, these soldiers received extensive training, and were ELITE by every sense of the word. It was just their first/second/or third time in a firefight, and hadnít yet fully conditioned themselves to the input from a new environment.
Now let me explain why the double/triple tap and evaluate (ST&E) works to my mind. The process is the same up to the first shot. In ST&E the conditioned response is (regardless of the effect of the first shot) another 1 or 2 aimed (sighted/point) shots follow. It assumes the first didnít work, and 2or3 are more effective than 1. It also allows for the next 1 or 2 shots to be fired faster because there is no consideration as to weather he/she is still a threat (legal representation of the limited power of a handgun, and at most 1 or 2 more rounds than needed not 3-5). Now is where past training can fail a person. If you are trained to go Hard to the Guard by lowering to the ready and evaluating the initial (first) threat you are using bad tactics. If on the other hand you stay on target and evaluate the threat and surroundings, you force your mind away (but not be ignorant to) the cause of your stress. It creates a break that allows you to be in a better position to think quickly and be effective in your actions. Thoughts such as better cover, escape routs, increasing distance, and such become clear as your mind is able to process input better. If you evaluate and see the threat is still up and a danger (you are still on target and ready to fire. It will be the first thing you notice, exactly the same as STTG) shoot 2 more. Then assess the need for a head-shot.

Iíll say again that my knowledge of STTG is by no means on par with those who know far more than I do. With luck (and some Hunting and fishing bribes) I will get the chance to train with Gabe and see the errors of my ways. Or Iíll be able to come South to train and see the errors of my ways.

Then I can annoy others as I have managed to annoy all of you fine folks. :) :) :)

striped1
12-01-2004, 05:44 AM
I tend to think, and Gabe please correct me if I am wrong, the shoot two and assess is a holdover from the revolver only days, ie no large cap semis. If I recall, the philosphy was shoot a third of your ammo in the fight ie 2 shots and assess if more are needed. It was kind of 2 for the intitial, 2 for more and 2 in reserve. Over the last 20 or so years with the advent of the hi-cap semi, you now have the shoot to the ground, zipper techinque and others that are similar.

The shoot 2 was due to the ammo capacity limitations inherent in carrying a revolver.

Gabriel Suarez
12-01-2004, 07:14 AM
striped,

I've heard that before. I'm not sure if it correct. I am studying some older sources to see where some of the range things come from and to see if there is a reason for why something is taught.

I think it is partly due to an instructor's need to score targets.

Geezer
12-01-2004, 12:16 PM
In support of Gabe's supposition that S2E makes it easier for instructors to score targets..I am a just-retired college instructor, almost ABD for an Ed.D., and I concur.

It is standard practice, rarely questioned, for educators of all types to modify the material so that it can be more accurately and easily tested. In fact, there are graduate courses that show you how to do that. No one ever questions this, it is just the way it is.

Actually, there are lots of reasons for this practice, so it really isn't the fault of the insructors, but as Deming pointed out, at least 99% of the problem is the system.

God bless and y'all be mindful out there.

tb1911
12-01-2004, 02:02 PM
OK... I gonna ask this:

What about 2 (or more) equal threats? Totally focus on one and STTG or what? :confused:

I am afraid to ask...

BTW: This has been very educational......

Steve Camp
12-01-2004, 02:31 PM
OK... I gonna ask this:

What about 2 (or more) equal threats? Totally focus on one and STTG or what? :confused:


FWIW, I was taught aggressive application of speed and firepower. Rapidly (and I mean rapidly), close the distance on your assailant(s). Either run right over one of them on the end shooting all the way, or to his/her immediate side (like a yard or two away). Engage this person first with one shot. Everyone else get's one shot... then you return to the first and SETTG. Thence you commense working your way down the line depending on who is still a threat.

The idea is that he who controls the distance, controls the fight. Hopefully such aggressive, closing movement will reset their OODA loops a few times, buying you additional time. Nevertheless, as you move fast (and on a straight line -- do not arc)... as you close distance, you present a much more difficult targeting problem to your opponent. Also, by flanking your opponent, you seek to turn a true multiple assailant scenario (e.g. 3v1) into a sequence of multiple 1v1 scenarios.

PM me if you wish to discuss further.

I highly recommend CRG-1 and IGF to you. Get up to Nashua if at all possible.

tb1911
12-01-2004, 02:42 PM
I highly recommend CRG-1 and IGF to you. Get up to Nashua if at all possible.

That's the one for me. I know for some part of July, I'll be away on business. I just have to work throught the details. If not that one, then another.

I've decided.....

battleground
12-01-2004, 06:44 PM
I went to the range today and spent some time doing assessments with my shot timer. I focus on my front sight, so results for point shooters may be different.

Drill 1: Fire a controlled pair, lower the handgun about 15 -20 degrees, switch focus to the target, then bring the gun up and shoot one more round as fast as possible.

The split between the second and third shots was at least a second and a half.

Drill 2: Fire a controlled pair, lower the handgun about 5-10 degrees, glance at the target, then bring the gun up and shoot one more round as fast as possible.

The split between the second and third shot was about .75 - 1 seconds.

Drill 3: Fire a controlled pair, glance over the sights at the target, then shoot one more round as fast as possible.

This took about .5 - .73 seconds. I don't really get any more visual feedback than looking through my sights doing my normal splits.

I did each of these drills several times. My splits between shots 1 and 2 ranged from .23 - .28 seconds.

Conclusions for myself:

If I lower the gun and look in combat I will loose at least 1.5 seconds. This is more than the time it takes me to go to the holster and fire a controlled pair at 7 yards. If I am reacting to a bad guy, I'm already behind the curve and giving a skilled opponent time for 3 more shots than I've taken. Not good odds.

rgrgak
12-04-2004, 02:58 AM
A little while back, I took a course with John Farnam. He taught us to shoot four, then move. This allowed for a second or so of assessment (in all directions) while presenting a tougher target for the opponent (or his buddies). I guess this would be considered SF&EWM (shoot four and evaluate while moving).

I'll try to do some testing tomorrow, but I think the assessment is constant. If your opponent takes a side-step, your gun will follow him as you shoot, right? If he takes a knee, you'll lower your gun as you shoot, right? If we can (must) track these movements mid-battle, then we will also see him fall to the floor and discontinue the fight, right?

NE, I'm familiar with the "keep shooting after cease-fire" stuff in the military, but there's a key difference. In most military battles, most soldiers are shooting at a general area threat. Many will never actually see the enemy soldier(s) that prompted the firing. They'll just know that the battle has begun and the enemy is "over there" and they shoot at anything that might be hiding an enemy. When the leaders call "cease-fire", the soldiers are focused on the area where they are shooting, so it is expected that it will take a moment for the command from outside their area of focus to interrupt their thought process. That doesn't really apply here. Our "cease-fire" command comes directly from the actions of the object of our focus.

As to repeatedly pulling triggers on an empty gun; That's why it's important to train under stressful conditions that replicate battle as closely as possible. It's also why we must spend enough time training that the reaction to a empty or malfuntioning gun will be automatic - without thinking.

m4r1n5
12-04-2004, 04:18 AM
I went to the range today and spent some time doing assessments with my shot timer. I focus on my front sight, so results for point shooters may be different.


Have you ever thought about just pulling your pistol back to a "chest point" hold? This serves two purposes.

1) Allows better field of vision.

There are incidents where a LEO was so intent on what he saw over his sights, that he failed to see the subject pulling a gun from under a pillow(perp was sitting on the couch and the LEO only saw from the stomach up). Perp was shot by the cover officer.

2) Constant "aim" on the subject.

Fire two successfull rounds at center mass from sight picture, pull your pistol straight back where it's still facing the threat, to chest point, then fire. You should be able to fire another round into the target at this position. Not only can you see the whole area, but you can still fire from this position and keep firing until your pistol is back to sight picture/ point shoot.

With training in this method, I feel you can not only successfully fire rounds at the same target, it eliminates the "swinging" and "readjusting" of your weapon if you need to fire at a different target. From chest point, you can turn to the threat, push out and fire, or fire from chest point while going to sight picture/ point shoot.

If anyone sees a problem with my logic, help me out and let me know. :D

Marinesg1012
12-04-2004, 09:32 AM
Please bear with me as I was trained with the whole 2 shots and assess thing.

I am wondering about follow up shots as you shoot to the ground. Do you start aiming higher looking for the head/spin shot?
Does it possible make more sense to shoot lower? You put two into the chest and than transition down to shoot into the pelvic girdle area, this area has a lot of vital parts and is also area responsible for holding a person up. You get two more rounds into the guys hips and break those up a little along with the massive veins and arteries in that area, they are going to be out of the fight fast.
Also your vision would automatically transition to where his hands would probably be coming from (the waist area) and the hips are a lot larger target than the head and wouldn't be bouncing around as much.

Just wondering what the experts think about this?

P.D.
12-04-2004, 11:23 AM
Marinesg1012,
Just a quick down and dirty answer.
Basically, as you track him your shot placement will get higher on him. That's partly recoil and partly his movement.

Regarding the hands: one of the reasons so many people take hits in the hands and forearms is that there is an instinct to focus on the threat - the weapon. If the brains and eyes are there the weapon tends to follow, which coincidentally is part of the basis for point shooting.

Be safe.

Steve Camp
12-04-2004, 11:52 AM
You put two into the chest and than transition down to shoot into the pelvic girdle area, this area has a lot of vital parts and is also area responsible for holding a person up. You get two more rounds into the guys hips and break those up a little along with the massive veins and arteries in that area, they are going to be out of the fight fast.


A site search on "pelvic" or "pelvis" should turn up plenty of reading for you. The short answer is:

While the waist / groin area is large, the actual pelvic girdle (the bone you need to break/smash) is rather small... and there are no easy ways to know precisely where one needs to aim to hit the pelvic girdle
The pelvic girdle is one of the strongest bone structures in the body; pistol rounds are notoriously underpowered and lack the necessary impulse / force to reliably break the pelvis


The consensus on this board is after firing two rounds COM (or three or four)... if the head is still available (i.e. still in your sights, still above the plane of your gun -- meaning your assailant is still upright and still a threat) then you take the head shot.

Hope this helps.

Marinesg1012
12-05-2004, 04:16 PM
Thanks for the replies.

Nice to know that the instruction I recieved was wrong. I will continue to practice 2 chest/1 head shots with a pistol.

What about this method for a rifle fight? Guess that same answer would apply?

jas
12-05-2004, 08:29 PM
I agree about the pelvic aarea. But the one thing you need to rember is all the bood vesels in the area. You have the descending Aortia and the bifercation (the Aorita splits into two parts) into the fermoral artery.

These are both very large arteries and a person can and will bleed out very quickly from a hit to one of them.

Just something to think about.

battleground
12-05-2004, 11:00 PM
m4r1n5:

No, I have not thought about that.

I'm not sure about the point of your example about the colp who almost got shot. Had the cop started shooting or was he pointed in while yelling instructions?

A general question to everyone, have you thought about how many failed shots to COM you are willing to take before you transition vs how many rounds in your weapon?

Steve Camp
12-06-2004, 06:35 AM
A general question to everyone, have you thought about how many failed shots to COM you are willing to take before you transition vs how many rounds in your weapon?

And... shooting someone is not like in the movies -- no pyrotechnic squibs exploding blood everywhere, no bodies flying backwards because they were hit with a mighty .45 etc. I have read, and been told, most often you will not see your rounds impacting on your assailant(s). So how do you know if you have even hit them? That is, how do you know if that neat double tap hit the BG in COM? What if you flinched and jerked so bad the first one was on the side of the torso, and the second was a flyer? Or if both missed?

So... my inexperienced take on the question is you shoot until the threat no longer exists. And if after 2-5 shots targeted at COM do not appear to have resulted in the desired effect (i.e. the threat stopping)... I'd better start thinking of alternatives:
KEEP MOVING!
tacticle weapons check
target head if it is available
target pelvic area if it is available
target ANYTHING if I can be pretty sure of hitting it
smash threat in face with slide of 2 1/2 lb of American steel & then transition to blade
transition to H2H


So, I think what Gabe says makes a lot of sense: if, after 2-4, or 2-5 shots... the desired effect is not being achieved... better try something else (e.g. head shot).

Shottist1911
12-06-2004, 08:37 AM
... The "plus one" rule.

If you see one threat, look for the second before it gets you.

If you see two threats, look for the third before it gets you.

And so on ....

P.D.
12-06-2004, 05:29 PM
I spent three tours in RVN and in all three years the only time I had my rifle set for Auto (M16-A1) was on the zero range for test firing, etc. I often used two quick shots (rifle double tap if you will). It worked for me. Like the man said, "One hit is good. Two is better."

Gun Mutt
12-06-2004, 06:39 PM
Head of an IDPA club sent this to all it's members.
Click on it & scroll down to "The Myth of the One Shot Drop" it is well worth the reading but I thought it too long to just post.
IMHO...STTG!

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

battleground
12-07-2004, 11:43 PM
Steve 2267:

Exactly my point! We cannot lose sight of the fact that we have limited ammunition to put COM before the transition, especially since there may be more than one. Multiple attacker rules apply if we see a second, third, ...

m4r1n5
12-08-2004, 02:21 AM
m4r1n5:

No, I have not thought about that.

I'm not sure about the point of your example about the colp who almost got shot. Had the cop started shooting or was he pointed in while yelling instructions?



Officer and his dept made a forced entry into a home. Officer found the male they were looking for in the living room. He was approx 4ft away and his pistol pointing at the subject's chest and was yelling at him not to move. The ofc was so focused on what he saw over his pistol, he didn't notice the person pulling a gun out from under a pillow near the waist. Cover ofc shot the subject.

I was taught the chest point hold, the high, medium and low ready hold. My instructor liked the chest point because of this incident, least amount of swaying when moving your weapon, and better weapon retention. I tend to agree and have been teaching this to my officers, along with the others so they can make their own judgement.