PDA

View Full Version : Failure To Stop...or hit



Gabriel Suarez
11-21-2003, 09:04 PM
FAILURE TO STOP – THE SOLUTIONS

From somewhere in your throat a voice, you hardly recognize as yours, echoes down the alley. “Don’t Move!” The pistol has already snapped into your hand automatically. Perhaps it was the look in your eyes, or the way you avoided covering him with the muzzle of the pistol in your hands, but the three-strike loser, a veteran member of a violent street gang, was not convinced.

You see his hands dart to his oversized waistband, 5 sizes too big. The prison tattoos on his muscular arms seem to move by themselves as his hands start to raise the stolen revolver. Quickly, you visually pick up a marginal flash sight picture on his chest, and press off a quick pair – “POW – POW”!

Again, automatically – you lower the pistol briskly to the low ready position, 45 degrees below horizontal, and prepare to “assess” the results. Fully expecting to see the criminal on the deck with two neat reddening holes in his chest, your elation melts into horror as you see the muzzle of his Smith & Wesson pointing at you!

Popular writer’s comments to the contrary, pistols are all ballistically deficient. It matters not at all what you load them with, as they are not very good at terminating human hostilities. This simple fact alone is widely known and recognized in the tactical community, as well as by defensive minded citizens. This deficiency, again, is one of the primary reasons for the concept of “two quick shots” to the thoracic cavity. (Suarez international advocates "at least two, but not more than four"). The utility of the pistol comes from its ease of carry, concealment, and handiness in close quarters. If you know that trouble is on the evening’s entertainment list, with few exceptions, you are better served with a rifle or shotgun. Sometimes, however, a pistol is all we have…or all we are allowed.

Anytime that you deploy a pistol against a determined and aggressive human being, you must be prepared for the occurrence of a failure to stop that adversary with the usual response of two or three shots. While this article is not a thesis on terminal ballistics, suffice it to say that the statistical outcomes and effects of gunfire against humans are quite variable and we must expect the worst.

An untrained response to the “I Hit Him But He Didn’t Go Down” syndrome often is to simply panic fire the remainder of the magazine toward the adversary in the hopes that he will fall. Such a course of action is rarely effective if the other man is bent on taking the fight to you. Consider how long it takes to fire 10 to 15 rounds into a target (and hit, of course). A man who has already received a good degree of ballistic insult, and is intent on firing his weapon at you, or slicing your melon in two with his machete will easily do so before you can stop him with more body shots!

After the human body experiences the initial trauma created by the first few shots, it tends to disregard any further ballistic insult. In essence, the part of the nervous system that says “Fall Down Stupid, You’ve Been Shot” is no longer operational. Sure, the guy will probably die from the wounds, but he won’t stop what he’s doing right now. Even if the heart was completely destroyed, it would still take up to one full minute before, as my partners say, “all the oil drains out of the motor”, and the adversary dies from suffocation due to blood loss. More shots are not the answer.

Another very widely accepted solution is that if the first shots are not successful in terminating the discussion, a subsequent shot to the Pelvic Region will save the day. Popular belief has it that the adversary will fall down with a broken pelvis. While I agree that a man with a shattered pelvis with have a hard time in a building assault, the hip bone is absolutely not connected to the trigger finger bone! A downed man may not be able to run up to you and tag you “IT”, but he can still press his trigger…and kill you lickety split!

I am not a medical professional, or a ballistician. My interests lie on the more pointy end of things. Wanting to know the “Why Not” of pelvic shots, however, I contacted an Orthopedic surgeon (who is also a graduate of several shooting schools) for his “expert” opinions. He told me that the pelvis is a ring structure, and it would have to be fractured in two separate places for it to be unstable. Additionally, he said that the pelvis was a very substantial bone, and wonders if any a small caliber centerfire rifle cartridge, let alone any handgun bullet, would be able to break it. He believes that in order to fracture this bone, it would have to be hit right on the points of the hips. Not much of a big deal, until you stop to consider the actual size of the target area. The point of a hip is much smaller than the area on the human face where a shot should be placed for best effect. Hmmm! Strike Two.

The third solution to the problem is the Mozambique Drill. In our times of touchy-feelieness, the alternate titles of Drug and Body Armor Drill, or simply Failure to Stop Drill are sometimes used. None of this can hide the fact that this technique was born in the turbulent years in the small nation of Mozambique, Africa.

Gabriel Suarez
11-21-2003, 09:04 PM
Part 2 -

Jeff Cooper tells me that one of his students – John Rousseau, was on his way to the airport to catch the “last plane out”, when he was set upon on the street by an AK-47 armed guerrilla, complete with fixed bayonet! The insurgent charged at Rousseau, apparently intent on sticking him en brochette.

Rousseau, an accomplished pistolero in his own right, hauled out his Browning P-35 and masterfully hammered the attacker twice amidships. Pleased with his marksmanship and quick reflexes, he brought his Browning down to admire his handiwork. We can well imagine his astonishment when he realized that his adversary was not nearly as impressed, and was still charging at Rousseau! Hmm…whoops!

Thinking quickly, Rousseau brought his pistol back into a firing position with the intent of shooting him in the brain. According to Cooper, Rousseau was a fine shot, but even the best of us would be somewhat rattled in similar circumstances. Rousseau was no exception. His last shot was fired in the nick of time, but instead of placing it in the command-control center, it was a little low. It entered between the clavicles and broke the spine. A severed spine is pretty conclusive, and the antagonist crashed to the deck. Rousseau was quite relieved that it worked and wrote his friend Jeff Cooper about it. The Mozambique Drill was born.

In the Classic Mozambique Drill, after two shots have been placed in the adversary’s chest area, the operator lowers his pistol to the Low Ready Position in order to view the results over the sights. If the adversary is down, the problem is solved and all is well. But if there is a failure to stop, evident by the adversary still standing, or in training environments – by the instructor’s call for “Head Shot”, the pistol is raised on target and a single surgical shot is fired into the brain-housing group.

But even this classic solution is not without its skeptics. It is one thing to pull this off by accident on the streets of an embattled Third World country, or on demand against benign paper targets on the training range. To execute this technique against a similarly armed opponent who will kill you if he himself is not dropped, is quite another.

The main problem with the standard Mozambique, Drug and Armor (or whatever your preference is) Drill is a matter of reaction time. The first point to consider is that no matter how fast you are - Action Beats Reaction Every Time. The second point is that knowing the ballistic deficiencies of handguns, and the likelihood of a failure to stop, in conjunction with the dire consequences to you if you fail, shooting twice and stopping to evaluate anything suddenly seems foolish!

Think of it in terms of a street fight. Would you hit a determined opponent a couple of times in the ribs and then back off to see if it worked? I hardly think so. More likely, you will hit him until one of two things happen – either he falls down unconscious, or you get too tired to hit him anymore! Gunfighting is no different. The same basic dynamics apply, accentuated only by the fact that you cannot afford for him to land any hits at all on you. The need to turn him off, to shoot him to the ground, is paramount. We can’t do that with gratuitous body shots. We can, however, do so with a pre-planned head shot.

After you place the first shots in the thoracic cavity (chest), automatically stage the pistol for the head shot. If you see the sights super-imposed on a face, you have a failure to stop. The answer is not dependent on evaluating anything, or trying to react faster. If you see his face in front of your sights, shoot – if not, then lower the pistol as your initial shots probably worked. The difference in speed over the standard Mozambique drill is dramatic. Try it.

If you do indeed have a failure to stop, the adversary will not be standing there like a cardboard target waiting for your coup de grace. A real adversary will be attacking or shooting. He will be in his “action phase”. If you rely on the standard Mozambique/failure drill, you will be in the “decision phase”. This is reactive instead of active, and places you up to one full second behind the speed/power curve. You generally can’t react fast enough to make a difference. If you’ve staged your pistol for the head shot, you are bypassing a large portion of the reactive phase without relinquishing the initiative.

There are other solutions to the problem, that tend in the more aggressive direction. Some requiring instant incapacitation of the terrorist they deal with, eschew any preliminary chest shots and advocate the cranial shot as plan “A”.

Don’t dismiss the use of the deliberate head shot for certain situations. It is a wise choice if you have prior knowledge of body armor, drugs, or if you believe that the adversary is in a heightened emotional state. The standard response of two to the body may be ineffective against such people as committed terrorists, religious zealots, or advanced criminals as they may not exhibit a psychological reaction to being shot.

A case to remember is the infamous Miami shooting between two dedicated bank robbers and the FBI agents intent on arresting them. One of the criminals absorbed enough lead to sink a ship, but refused to fall down.

Some decry the head shot as a magnet for lawsuits. What a loss of perspective! Yes, you may have more explaining to do here, but living to explain is better than lying on the deck as a bloody gurgling mess and being liability-free. Lawsuits are bad, certainly, but so are funerals…specially if you are the star of the show! Primary and above all else…Win the Fight!!

Its quite simple - If you see the head in your peripheral vision around the sights, then he didn't go down and you have a failure to stop. If the head is there, take it. For those who don't think this can be done real-time, I'd be happy to prove it with Simmunituions, Airsoft, water pistols or anything else.

With our method, the deficiency of the pistol is taken into consideration, as well as the reality of action being faster than reaction. It solves the problem without any of the inherent drawbacks of the other proposed solutions. The fear that such methods will bring litigious attention is not as much an issue as some would have us believe. The head shot is widely accepted in law enforcement and military shooting disciplines as the standard response to the failure of previous shots, or to solve special situations. Explanations for your tactics may have to provided later by you (or your attorney), but they are certainly justified.

In summation, you shoot at least twice (although more is certainly acceptable and advised):

A) In case you miss with one, and

B) To Maximize the effects of a ballistically deficient weapon.

Having a solution to the Failure to Stop event is imperative because due to many outside influences, such as drugs, body armor, or heightened emotional states, adversaries do not always stop the fight and fall down when they are shot.

One instructor mentions that he does not teach head shot follow ups because they are either too difficult, or because you may have missed with body shots. here is my reply -

Ok, so first of all, is missing THAT likely? I don't think so. If you miss with shot #1, I can understand that ( I've missed with shot #1). Follow up with shot #2, and #3. If you've still missed, there are other problems greater than your inability to make a head shot. Perhaps a basics refresher is in order??

Hit 'em hard in the biggest target available a bunch of times and then follow up for a head shot, If the shot is still there, standard or non-standard, take it. Sounds pretty simple to me.

In the real world, you may miss with A shot, but ALSO, your enemy may be on dope or armored, or so commited to his cause that simple shooting him more in the same place won't keep him from shooting you in the second place. This is where shutting him down by blowing his brains out is better than hoping for the best with more body shots.

Is the head shot hard, a little, but not that much. In force on force, we do head shots on live adversaries on a regular basis. So can anyone who listens.

Doug in CO
11-21-2003, 09:23 PM
I stumbled across the FBI UCR site the other day (might have been a link from a post on this site?), and have read a couple of years' worth of officer fatalities. Face to face, only a few shootings to the chest seem to result in immediate effects (obviously vests change things a bit, but not all of the officers are wearing them, and there are descriptions of bad guys without vests included as well). Since head shots happen fairly regularly in these shootings, I am starting to doubt that they are as magically difficult as they are purported to be. I'd say with the input of this reading that the minumum response should be two to the chest and three to the head. Then evaluate. I'd even consider skipping the chest shots, but I'm still trying to digest what I'm reading. The point seems to be that there are a lot of cops shot with .380's to .45's, and shots are seldom definitive unless they're to the head.

If you have the time, it makes for an interesting read - even if you won't sleep well for a few nights.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

billcameron
11-21-2003, 09:30 PM
I believe failure to stop with one or two shots brings up another point to consider. The other point I had in mind is recoil recovery time. For example I believe the 40 cal is at least slight more effective than a 9mm, but the recoil recovery time from a 9mm at least in standard velocity is a lot faster for me than with a 40. So which is the better choice. Same question could be raised re +P and +P+ 9mm ammo vs standard velocity 9mm ammo.

Michael w/1911
11-22-2003, 07:40 AM
Bill’s post on recoil and recovery sparks a question. Has a study been done on the effect and “type” of recoil been done? Allow me please, same type of weapon, Sig 229, one in 9mm the other in .40, barrel length the same and weight almost identical. My recovery time is longer with the 9mm vs. the .40. The effect of recoil should be the same but it isn’t, at least in my case. The .40 “pushes” rearward and up slightly, the 9mm “snaps rearward with more travel up and right, making recovery slower. At first, like anyone else, I thought poor weapons handling skills, but after many rounds fired through both weapons, the result is the same, so I’ve ruled that out. I’d also like to add that I shoot and carry a full-sized .45 1911, so the amount of recoil doesn’t seem to effect recovery….more so, the type. Opinions?

Thanks,

Michael

John Silver
11-22-2003, 07:51 AM
That high bore axis of the Sig is making itself known.

Reducing recovery (dwell) time between shots is very important. But, like with most things, it's a balance. We each have to decide where the arbitrary "just noticable difference" lies, and use what we are comfortable with.

All else being equal, I find .45 easiest to control (push), then 9mm (flip), then .40 (push and flip). But, I'm transitioning from a 9mm Browning to a .40 Glock, so I think the difference is minimal. We aren't talking about a .22 vs. a .44mag.

If you want fast recovery, the HK P7M8 was the absolute best I've found, followed closely by a full sized, steel framed 1911.

I'm curious to see how ammolab's study on .38 2" snubbies turns out with that safestop ammo. In a lightweight J-frame, bumping upto +P rounds really reduces recovery time, and I'm not sure the extra velocity is worth it in that application.

Gabriel Suarez
11-22-2003, 07:54 AM
Comment: "I'd even consider skipping the chest shots, but I'm still trying to digest what I'm reading. The point seems to be that there are a lot of cops shot with .380's to .45's, and shots are seldom definitive unless they're to the head."

You know I agree. I think there are guys who eschew head shots because they don't have the marksmanship abilities to make them stick on a range in front of students. Some schools get really academic about it and push the head shot out to 25 yards. That's a really cool thing to be able to do but not as relevant as training to shoot 'em to the ground up close.

In reality, taking a head shot in the real world is not hard at all. This is particularly because we are talking about close distances.

I remember one call I went to involving gang and dope stuff. We were searching a back yard area at night. Flashlight in hand. I opened a door of a detached garage to check inside and a Pitbull dog charged out to chew on us. This dog had been trained to chew up cops as was common in L.A. some years ago.

I remember moving and bringing the pistol up to a modified Harries ( a Glock 17 with Golden Sabre 124gr JHP). I saw the dot on the tritium front sight on the dog's face and pressed. Results - one clean head shot on the move at 3 yards. They can't be that hard to pull off.

Another time more recently during a Force on Force class, we had one student who set up an almost unwinnable scenario. Nobody wanted to go in after him. After explaining the better ways to handle the problem (call 911 and go get a burger), I did a dynamic entry into the room and charged the "adversary" behind a hail of head shots. Results: He decided to cover up instead of shoot back. Lots of impacts on his Protective Mask BTW.

Finally, guys think that all you will fire is one shot. This comes from the schools that get fixated on scoring targets and they want to see if your shot was placed within the lines of the paper. In reality if you smack a man in the mouth with a 9mm round, and then a quarter second later another round smacks into his cheek, and a third into his eye, the head shots will put him down...or at least make him lose his marksmanship ability.

Guys who don't practice head shots are not getting full value from training.

michael
11-22-2003, 08:11 AM
I percieve, whether it is accurate or not, that I can shoot a .45 about as quick as anything, all else being equal. That said, I currently carry a .40 for the added round capacity for us lowly civilians:mad:. I favor the .45, but like 10 rounds in my XD40 vs. 7 in the mag of the P220 I prefer. I carryed the Glock 21 for a while, but the grip was just too big for my hand. The differences in recovery time are in the hundreths of a second, which can be a lifetime, but if I've done my part of being aware, I shouldn't be behind the OODA loop.

Excellent post, Gabe. Another good reason to "shoot them to the ground". I agree that we shouldn't take time to assess the situation. If they are still in your line of fire, keep shooting!!

Anthony
11-22-2003, 09:38 AM
This is a good thread !
I've mentioned on this Forum that certain British military HRTs ONLY practise head shots at the closer ranges.
I'm talking to WT members here, who obviously have much more dedication and interest than your average Joe. You are already spending your hard earned money, buying firearms, ammo, training etc.
As a CCW holder, who feels I have an obligation to society to NOT miss and hit some innocent passer-by ( more anti-gun propaganda at the very least,) I practise regularly with my carry gun. For along time now, I have at the closer ranges ( 2/3 metres ) practised, head shots on presentation. If you can present your weapon at these ranges and 'double tap' into the chest of your target achieving a sub-2" group, why not practise the same, - but to the head. At these ranges, you cannot afford to not stop the agressor !
I mentioned on another thread ( do you carry at home I think,) an incident that happened to me last year. A neighbour ( a drunken bully,) invaded my apt. I drew at about 2 metres and locked up centering on his face. He backed up quickly, and left my apt. I wonder if he would have done the same if I'd centered on his chest ?
A good freind ( police ) recently grappled with a BG on a bus here in Rio. Holding the BGs gun hand ( which discharged into the roof of the bus,) he fired 6 .380s into the BGs chest. ( All +Ps, at my advice he loaded HPs/FMJ alternatly.) NO EFFECT what-so-ever ! His 7th round went into the BGs face. Dropping him instantly.
Head Shots please ! ( At least at close ranges.)
Regards,
Anthony.

Brass Balls
11-22-2003, 01:51 PM
To date I've taken tactical pistol classes from Gabe and Chuck Taylor. Both classes were valuable but among the several tactics that were different between these two trainers none was more apparent than their approaches to the "failure to stop drill".

Chuck's approach was two to the body, lower to ready and assess. Having learned differently in the class I had taken previously with Gabe, I asked for clarification for this tactic. Specifically I wanted to know the rational for dropping to low ready rather than looking for the head shot immediately. The reason I was given is that if your hands and gun are raised up for the head shot they will block your view of the assailant.

Getting different instructions from different respected instructors forces one to internalize the conflicting messages and determine what is the best approach for them. For me, the choice is clear to look for the headshot. The reasons Gabe has given above support this tactic well in my mind and personally, as much as I respect Chuck Taylor, I didn't find his answer about not being able to see your opponent to hold true for me. If my hands and gun are raised for a head shot and I can still quite clearly see enough around them to determine if the BG is still up or if he is down.

As far as the subsequent legal ramifications of adhering to this tactic, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it and I'll be thankful that I'm alive to cross it. I've prepared myself for legal defense just in case the need should arive. I feel that it is a wise thing to do for anyone who carries a gun but it doesn't change my primary goal and that is to return home safely.

Great post Gabe!

Doug in CO
11-23-2003, 06:01 AM
Maybe it ought to go something like this. Assuming you are shooting under 10 yards (accounting for the vast majority of shootings, and even a higher percentage of officer murder shootings), point shoot (or C.A.R. retention shoot, whatever) the first two rounds to the center of mass, and then transition immediately to a cluster of head shots, insuring at least one of the head shots will connect. If the target crumples, reevalute. If he's still standing, keep pounding in the face. As was mentioned earlier, this is the way a lot of people grew up fist fighting, why should you try to reprogram yourself just because you are using a tool?

Though Grossman has taken some heat from the RKBA crowd, I think his theory on head shots comes into play here. The idea is that it is very uncommon for someone to shoot someone in the face if given time to deliberate. Even for the criminals who are cold bloodedly murdering people it is a bit too disturbing, even if they don't realize it. Because of this, it is far more common for execution shots to be to the back of the head. The is shown almost without exception in the UCR officer murder narratives.

Luckily, just about anything can be overcome through training. I'd suggest that realistic faces, if nothing else, are printed onto practice targets. Light shadows or lines for scoring zones are fine as long as they don't take away from the realism of the face.

Gabriel Suarez
11-23-2003, 07:20 AM
Luckily, just about anything can be overcome through training. I'd suggest that realistic faces, if nothing else, are printed onto practice targets. Light shadows or lines for scoring zones are fine as long as they don't take away from the realism of the face.

I concur with the face targets. Good idea.

Brass Balls
11-23-2003, 08:01 AM
I concur with the face targets. Good idea.The best source and selection I've found is from Law Enforcement Targets. Here's a few examples. They are .57 cents each when buying an assortment that totals 100 targets and .55 cents each when buying an assorted total of 250.



clic pics
http://www.letargets.com/html/Images/Image42.jpghttp://www.letargets.com/html/Images/Image38.jpghttp://www.letargets.com/grafx/1rt_thumb.jpg (http://www.letargets.com/html/split_second.html)

These targets can also be used as quick decision shoot/no shoot targets by using these overlays.

http://www.letargets.com/html/Images/Image30.jpg (http://www.letargets.com/html/split_second.html)

Brass Balls
11-23-2003, 10:00 AM
It's so encouraging to read of actions taken by intended victims that refuse to have their lives smashed to pieces by some scumbag criminal.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Metro+East/C03B8C24F0DE678E86256DE4005CE793?OpenDocument&%20Headline=Man+kills+intruder+holding+shears+to+h is+<br%20/>wife

This particular example also illustrates the lack of "stopping power" of a handgun. Although he had taken lethal hits: "The robber grabbed the wife again and pulled her through the front door with him, but then let her go and ran. He collapsed across the street, where he was pronounced dead."

Had the BG's weapon been a gun he obviously would have still been able to return fire for a considerable amount of time.

Randy Harris
11-24-2003, 02:20 PM
I am seriously considering the head shot as plan A. I've got just as good a chance at hitting with the first shot as I do the third it would seem, so if it works on the third shot, why wait?[/QUOTE]


There ya go Ron, It worked for John Wesley Hardin !!!(He shot ALOT of guys in the head after experiencing a failure to stop with several body shots early in his gunfighting career).It seem the more things change, the more they stay the same! SEE YA!!! CRUEL HAND LUKE

Tangle
11-24-2003, 02:38 PM
Hey CRUEL HAND LUKE,
When you wanta go shootin? We'll test those claims I posted above!

Randy Harris
11-24-2003, 03:33 PM
Hey CRUEL HAND LUKE,
When you wanta go shootin? We'll test those claims I posted above!

Unfortunately Tues night is not good for me this week. What other time is good for you? CRUEL HAND LUKE

Doug in CO
11-24-2003, 06:36 PM
I understand that the brain stem is fairly small, but I don't think you have to hit it to at least stun, or hopefully, disable a bad guy more effectively than a good chest shot. In looking at the police shootings I have been mentioning, a large number of the victims have been hit in the front of the head and put out of the fight, only to die hours our days later. This implies that with a shot to the head from the front, any part of it that is part of the skull (as opposed to the jaw) has a good chance of putting someone out of the fight. If I'm right about this (and i too am disturbed how much this sounds like something from our friend Gunkid), the head target area isn't significantly smaller than the "A" zone in the chest.

For the advocates of chest shots, other than a lucky vascular hit in the abdomen, the heart and lungs are an equivilent, or even smaller, target. In the cases where we're concerned (the bad guy didn't stop due to some psychological reaction), even hitting the intended structures is not likely to result in a stop in less than a minute or two.

I understand that chest shots are easier to train and accomplish, but I'm no longer convinced they can reliably get the job done with handguns.

Vig Creed
11-25-2003, 11:20 AM
I haven't met Marshall either and I'm not a fan of him by any means. But, in objective fairness, I believe he is one of the most misconstrued "authorities" of all. I have read two of his publications and many of his posts on his board and I have never read, nor even gotten the impression that he has ever advocated firing one shot. In contrast, he believes, and has stated so in many posts that he believes in shooting to slide lock unless there is a reason to stop prior to that.


Tangle,

I agree that M&S have for some unknown reason incurred lots of unfair criticism. I read their work and didn't find anything wrong with it. It was highly enlightening, in fact.

creed

Tangle
11-25-2003, 01:02 PM
Tangle,

I agree that M&S have for some unknown reason incurred lots of unfair criticism. I read their work and didn't find anything wrong with it. It was highly enlightening, in fact.

creed

Vig,

It is my understanding that at least one issue with M&S is that they won't share their raw data or sources. Typically, researchers publish data etc. so that others can "massage" the data and confirm findings. Adversaries claim that the compiled data published by M&S will not hold up under statistical analysis and that the data was later changed via "updates" in ways that are impossible statistically.

Who knows?

Gabriel Suarez
01-06-2004, 09:50 AM
"Definitely Shoot 'Em To The Ground."

How is this applied when dealing with more than one armed threat?

Multiple adversaries is a whole different deal. The concept of shooting them to the ground is still valid.

Again remember the points of the CRG curiculum is that moving is essential. Its not wise to stand and engages multiple attackers. Doing this increases you chances of getting hit by them. You must move.

If you have distance between you and them and can get behind something as cover, that's fine. Additionally, if you are right by or next to the exit, you can simply...exit. But generally speaking such a fight can actually be evaded. More often we stumble into these situations unexpectedly and trying to look for cover instead of attacking is not advised.

So its as much a tactical issue as one of shooting.

Also, this is not a defensive "wait for them to point guns at you and begin shooting before you draw" scenario. Truly, if you do not take the initiative and start the fight (defensively speaking of course) you will get shot unless your adversaries are a bunch of fools. I'll bet you can take three average shooters and pit them against any of the internationally recognized gun masters in a multiple adversary, close range gunfight and unless the gun master cheats and starts the fight, he's going to get shot.

As soon as you realize ITS A FIGHT, and I CAN'T AVOID IT, you attack them with as much violence and suitable accuracy as you can. Again, remember if you can't get away, ATTACK. This may run contrary to what some "police survival guys" teach, but what else are you going to do? Where else are you going to go?

You begin shooting at the man most focused on you regardless of weapons or proximity (go with immediate impressions) as you begin to move. Fire once on each as you keep moving and keep shooting until -

They are down
They've turned and are running away wounded
You've run over them

As you close, I suggest taking head shots as it is just as easy to shoot a head at 2 yards as it is to shoot a chest.

Any CRG students care to add anything??

Anthony
01-06-2004, 10:19 AM
Add anything Gabe ?
You've summed it up perfectly.
All I'll say is that the violence & agression that we must use when we find ourselves in a fight ( any fight, - not just a gun-fight ) must be 100%. No half-measures. RUTHLESSNESS is the order.
Your life depends on it.

Respectfully,
Anthony.

Steve Camp
01-06-2004, 10:56 AM
Fire once on each as you keep moving and keep shooting until -

<snip>

As you close, I suggest taking head shots as it is just as easy to shoot a head at 2 yards as it is to shoot a chest.


Question for ya Gabe:

if anything worth shooting once, is worth shooting twice, and because you are apparently pretty close (within 5 yards?)... why not double tap each target?

When I'm shooting IDPA competition, and the tangoes are within 3-5 yards, I seem to be able to shoot double tap splits on the order of .21 - .3 seconds with my 1911. Of course, that extra .2-.3 seconds could be used in acquring the next target which seems to take between .5 and 1 second... so that could be a factor. Plus the limited magazine capacity of my 1911 (8 rd mags) could be a factor depending on how many tangoes there are...

But still... why not double tap the targets? Yes, I could see at two yards the head shot should not be any harder than a chest shot... but still... why not double tap the head? Or is this question one more of tactics and moving (in a multiple tango scenario) rather than shooting?

Boy... the local IDPA guys will be besides themselves if I move and shoot all the targets in the open BEFORE I get to cover! ;-)

Gabriel Suarez
01-06-2004, 12:01 PM
Steve,

This is a whole new topic so I'm getting on a new thread.

Its titled

Multiple Adversaries And How To Deal With Them

billcameron
01-06-2004, 12:23 PM
1. I mentioned earlier that for me recoil recovery was faster with 9mm than 40 cal. One person said for him it was reverse. I should have been more specific. Guns in question were glock 26 and glock 27 - both mini glocks and pretty hard to find guns any more similar than these two. Rounds for glock 26 were federal eagle fmj 115 grain and federal classic 115 gr JHP. Rounds for glock 27 were federal eagle 155 gr fmj and 155 gr federal classic JHP. No +P or above loads involved in either caliber.

2. On head shot vs pelvis. I thought Jim Cirillo was big advocate of pelvis shot. Does anyone remember?- I will have to reread his book. Agree that shoot to head is more definitive, but is head moving more than pelvis and thus harder shot? Also a shot one inch to side of ear is a miss, but a similar shot at pelvis at least hits something. But agree transition easier to head shot in that recoil is up, not down.

3. I have never seen point of bringing gun down. Since I sometimes have problems not shifting my focus to target, esp with bowling pins and I don't lower gun when I do this, I don't know why you have to lower gun to see target. I suspect in gun fight you will be shifting your focus back and forth between sights and target in any case. Anyone have insight on this?

4. I like ashley big dot sights for a number of reasons. I initially purchased them because of problems with blurring sight picture using standard configuration sights under some light conditions. But I also believe they have advanage in that they do not hide a lot of target. I think the Brits had something with the wide V for hunting dangerous game. So any thoughts on best sights for transition from body to head shot and ascertaining if target still standing.

5. I still think best to try for at least one shot in body before moving to head or pelvis shot. I sometimes find my second not first shot is most accurate- seem to have better grip and sight picture, more steady, etc. Anyone else find this to be true?