Factors in Surviving Gunfights

I don't agree with your list. Most of what is needed are mental and ability to process information quickly. People have different mental and visual processing speeds and respond to stress in very different ways. Most people are better suited to fleeing danger. Bluntly a gun is a tool you don't want to use. And most people cant process stimuli under stress. That is why flight over fight is first option.
 
Muss Muggins said:
I can unequivocally declare the above statements incorrect. As a fact of the matter, I can further state that the most dangerous people I have ever encountered neither drank alcohol nor used illegal substances . . .
Click to expand...

I was about to say the same.... People do stupid things under the influence but it's the ones that will kill/rob/rape you stone cold sober are the ones I worry about...

When I was with Probation/Parole 99% of my charges had drug or alcohol problems that led to their doing the crime... But it was that 1% that did their crimes sober and didn't have a substance abuse problem that were and continued to be the danger...

Bob
 
Thanks for the great advice. This is the kinda stuff anti-gun folks need to know about us. We're not out looking for a fight. We simply want to protect ourselves and our loved ones if need be.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Practical said:
I don't agree with your list. Most of what is needed are mental and ability to process information quickly. People have different mental and visual processing speeds and respond to stress in very different ways. Most people are better suited to fleeing danger. Bluntly a gun is a tool you don't want to use. And most people cant process stimuli under stress. That is why flight over fight is first option.
Click to expand...

I don't think your points and the OP's points are mutually exclusive.
 
CB3 said:
I do not disagree with the OP, but I would add that the words, "situational awareness" are key to seeing what is about to happen and then making decisions on how to handle it.

Also, point #2 should include, "movement" as the top priority. Movement (Getting off the X) reduces the chances of the adversary landing a hit whether you shoot or not. Getting to cover is moving. Running away is moving. Moving tactically to gain an advantage in shooting, including diagonally toward one side of the shooter, is moving. When you have to press the mental "Go" button, moving is the first priority. Luckily it is often instinctive, but trained movement will usually be more effective than simple reactive movement.

Practicing on a square range does little for this critical component of prevailing in a gunfight. Shooting accurately while moving is a level of training few people practice.

Another critical component is to STAY IN THE FIGHT. Just because you are injured does not mean you will not prevail. An injury, even being shot, does not mean you are going to die. For the seconds-long duration of most gun encounters, you can continue to land effective persuasion against an aggressor. Win, at all costs, but with good mindset, training and equipment.

Finally, I have understood there were four "S's":

Stupid places
Stupid times (2 AM)
Stupid people
Stupid actions

Eliminate just one of these components and you decrease your chance of getting involved with problems (which is why "time" is important). Two of these = further reduction. Eliminate all four and if something does happen to you, you have been chosen to react appropriately. It's just your time.
Click to expand...

This brings up a very good point. Just how do you train? Does practicing at a conventional range hinder the shooter more that they help? Put another way, are the range 'safety' rules that we see on most ranges (no drawing and shooting from the holster, stay still, one shot every five seconds, etc.) hurting or helping the developing defensive shooter?

I am very fortunate in that I have my own range where I set the rules, and my range, cut out of the slope of a creek bed has a high berm on three sides. This arrangement allows me to set up targets so that I can shoot in three different directions. I also utilize movement, and while I am a bit rusty at it now, I was reasonably adept at shooting while moving.

This is an early picture of the range taken by a friend. The height of the berms was increased after a major local construction project made a bunch of free dirt available. Gravel was put on the floor, and my cousin's grandson says that he'll gravel the driveway down to the range.

DSCF0240Medium.jpg


Now that the weather seems to have stabilized around here, I intend to use it a lot more.

Anyway, back to training, does the ability to shoot small groups in what the quoted poster refers to as 'square range' shooting, mean that you are able to protect yourself on the street?
 
Muss Muggins said:
Maybe . . .
Click to expand...

'Maybe' is right. Granted, it can't hurt, but there is a lot more to being able to protect yourself than the ability to disintegrate the center of a bullseye target in ten minutes or whatever the alloted time is.

Let me ask this: who is better able to defend himself: the person who can put five rounds in a 2" circle (at whatever distance) in one minute, or the one who can put five rounds in a 6" circle in five seconds at the same distance?
 
Interesting thread. To me it has always revolved around this one question. Am I willing to take the life of another person? When I taught the LTC class my first question to my new class was...are you willing to take the life of another human?
We all practice, we try to maintain awareness....we work to find the right weapon....ammo.... style of carry. But are we willing to kill another man/woman if we are pressed? If we choose to carry a weapon then that question must be settled within each of us.
My answer to myself was...… yes.
 
DevilDog72 said:
Interesting thread. To me it has always revolved around this one question. Am I willing to take the life of another person? When I taught the LTC class my first question to my new class was...are you willing to take the life of another human?

Many Vets including myself being one decided that the day which ever branch of service we elected to join .. we were taught to kill either directly or through support of those who did .. One of my jobs in the service was scheduling sorties .. You drop a bomb in a conflict and people are killed .. I didn't pull the trigger .. but I did have an effect on those killed ..

Veterans have a better grasp I think on what it takes to pull that trigger then most of the general population ..
Click to expand...
 
"Anyway, back to training, does the ability to shoot small groups in what the quoted poster refers to as 'square range' shooting, mean that you are able to protect yourself on the street?"

Most training, even at the big money academies, too often times has nothing to do with reality... Go over to YouTube and LiveLeak and watch the videos on gunfights and robberies. Active Self Protection on YouTube has a LOT of these and most of his annalists is very good.

You have a beautiful range...just what is needed.... If you could find a small group of like minded people you can put on small scenario shoots the object would be to beat the scenario not each other. Who does it best is not object but who survives is... I've been running shoots like this monthly since 1991. Get a table and chairs to simulate a restaurant. An old car to shoot out of like in a car jacking... Do role playing...have to converse with the targets.

Bob
 
Concerning the decision and will to kill, hunting.

All of us who eat animals indirectly kill them. Cutting out the invisible middlemen who do this job for you and killing them yourself enhances your appreciation for life and steels you for doing it.

I'm not saying that a father's or mother's instinct to protect a child isn't enough motivation to kill when necessary. There are many factors that go into the decision, and hunting could be helpful.

Just buying, possessing or carrying a gun implies the will to kill, but in truth it is far from the legal, moral and spiritual commitment necessary to do so.

Apologies to the "shoot to stoppers" who think they won't have to kill someone.
 
Muss Muggins said:
This has been around for a while. It's entitled USMC Rules for Gunfighting, but it certainly applies to civilian confrontations with a little modification. First time I've seen the rules for other branches of service added . . .



Here's the place I stole it from . . .

USMC Rules for Gunfighting (COMPLETE LIST) - Uncle Sam's Misguided Children
Click to expand...
Having recently returned from a 50 year Army reunion, I can say that the statement about the Army is just typical USMC braggadocio. Not funny, when I reflect upon the lives and blood lost on a hill in Southeast Asia.
 
Regarding training for an "unavoidable emergency," for that's what this subforum is about, wouldn't it be imprudent to regularly train with handgun mechanism #1 yet EDC mechanism #2? The best - worst- example is myself.

1. My EDC is an SP101 three-inch barrel. I've had the hammer altered to force double action only. For longer range shooting, were the target far enough away to allow more deliberate shooting, sharp edge of off-hand side of hammer has been beveled to allow me to revert to a single action mode - only by starting hammer via trigger, following it up by completing cocking hammer with off-hand of two-handed grip. Holster is high, canted cross-draw.

2. My four-inch SP101 is altered to be the same. Holster is high cross-draw Bianchi CD-127. While a nice combination, discomfort in the woods high.

3. Hiking, woods walking, and anytime I'm in one of the state or national forests that surround my home, I carry a Freedom Arms Model 97. Holster is cross-draw with safety strap secured to holster body with stud.
***
I have a problem. In the woods I am comfortable with the small powerfully loaded 45 Colt single action that is slow to get shot #1 fired. EDC I am comfortable with SP101 while being extremely uncomfortable carrying it in the woods. The four-inch SP101 is my attempt to overcome the anxiety of a small cartridge while maintaining EDC's mode of operation.

Having typed that, I strongly prefer my Model 97s compared to double action revolvers because they are much easier to cock and shoot, despite extreme difference in what happens when hammers are dropped, especially when MCTD triggers arthritis.

So in that "unavoidable emrgency," what will my anxiety cause me to do - double action draw-and-fire or fire via single action mode? And which revolver am I carrying? Since I've never had such an experience, I continue to carry and use mutually incompatible [revolver] mechanisms. I am certain I gotta get out of this situation because . . . . this incompatibility could get me - and any other person who carries with such a basic incompatibility - injured or worse.
 
gerhard1 said:
Let me ask this: who is better able to defend himself: the person who can put five rounds in a 2" circle (at whatever distance) in one minute, or the one who can put five rounds in a 6" circle in five seconds at the same distance?
Click to expand...

Wait...five in five is fast?

gerhard1 said:
Anyway, back to training, does the ability to shoot small groups in what the quoted poster refers to as 'square range' shooting, mean that you are able to protect yourself on the street?
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

For one thing, anyone deluding themselves into thinking they're "prepared" is seriously mistaken.

For another, the ability to deliver deliberate, accurate fire is a test of fundamentals. If you can't execute the fundamentals of pistol shooting with precision at the leisurely pace of NRA Rapid Fire, you're going to find it damned hard to execute them decently at speed. Lots of serious and successful action pistol shooters cross-train NRA Bullseye. You don't see Bullseye HMs cross-training IDPA.

Pro-tip: you will not be attacked by an IPSC silhouette. People do not have A- and B-zones. A hit somewhere in the box is not "just as good" as a hit directly to the Very Important Things.

People often make the mistake of thinking that training has to somehow simulate a defensive shooting encounter. That sort of mentality is small-minded and foolish. What you should be doing is developing a skill set, and that means doing many different things--some of which aren't even shooting.
 
Last edited:
Wise_A said:
Wait...five in five is fast?



Yes and no.

For one thing, anyone deluding themselves into thinking they're "prepared" is seriously mistaken.

For another, the ability to deliver deliberate, accurate fire is a test of fundamentals. If you can't execute the fundamentals of pistol shooting with precision at the leisurely pace of NRA Rapid Fire, you're going to find it damned hard to execute them decently at speed. Lots of serious and successful action pistol shooters cross-train NRA Bullseye. You don't see Bullseye HMs cross-training IDPA.

Pro-tip: you will not be attacked by an IPSC silhouette. People do not have A- and B-zones. A hit somewhere in the box is not "just as good" as a hit directly to the Very Important Things.

People often make the mistake of thinking that training has to somehow simulate a defensive shooting encounter. That sort of mentality is small-minded and foolish. What you should be doing is developing a skill set, and that means doing many different things--some of which aren't even shooting.
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is that many, if not most, police officers aren't serious about firearms training and are not trained to the point of being proficient enough to hit an intended target at close distances. Many, if not most, civilians who carry are even less proficient, because they don't train at all. Most of the people in these two groups never learn the basics of marksmanship.
 
BE Mike said:
The fact of the matter is that many, if not most, police officers aren't serious about firearms training and are not trained to the point of being proficient enough to hit an intended target at close distances. Many, if not most, civilians who carry are even less proficient, because they don't train at all. Most of the people in these two groups never learn the basics of marksmanship.
Click to expand...

Statistically less than 1% of those that have a CCW license ever take another formal training class after they pass the required course. According to Massad Ayoob. I'm guessing that less than 1% of CCW holders ever have a gunfight. I'm also guessing that a small percentage of CCW holders actually carry religiously. Which is probably a positive if they never practice, train, or carry......
 
gerhard1 said:
Let me ask this: who is better able to defend himself: the person who can put five rounds in a 2" circle (at whatever distance) in one minute, or the one who can put five rounds in a 6" circle in five seconds at the same distance?
Click to expand...
As Col. Cooper once put it: ' 6" at 50 yards is adequate for pedestrians.
 
LPD256 said:
Statistically less than 1% of those that have a CCW license ever take another formal training class after they pass the required course. According to Massad Ayoob. I'm guessing that less than 1% of CCW holders ever have a gunfight. I'm also guessing that a small percentage of CCW holders actually carry religiously. Which is probably a positive if they never practice, train, or carry......
Click to expand...

In my state, I'd say most people that got their CHP never intended to carry when they got it. Different cities and towns within the state have different, sometime conflicting ordinances related to registering, purchasing, possessing, transporting and selling handguns. Having a CHP puts you under a single set of state statutes that preempts all the different (sometimes ridiculous) city laws. Makes ownership much easier.
 
As usual, much of the discussion seems focused on protracted ranged gunfighting. Does that ever actually happen in civilian self-defense? I've come across maybe a couple of incidents that kind of fit that description, but otherwise it's always close, fast and resolved quickly. If anyone has complied a long list(or even more than a handful) of civilian "shoot-outs", I'd love to see it.
 
Mister X said:
As usual, much of the discussion seems focused on protracted ranged gunfighting. Does that ever actually happen in civilian self-defense? I've come across maybe a couple of incidents that kind of fit that description, but otherwise it's always close, fast and resolved quickly. If anyone has complied a long list(or even more than a handful) of civilian "shoot-outs", I'd love to see it.
Click to expand...
Far too many people use this mindset as an excuse to not do the hard thing and learn the fundamentals of marksmanship. Jerking the trigger, even at close range will either get you a miss (perhaps endangering others) or a hit that won't stop the threat. I doubt that there is a place that documents and scrutinizes shootouts of civilians; certainly nowhere like police incidents.
 
Let's be real, in the civilian world, unless one is involved in criminal activity, there's not going to be a running gunfight. That's fantasy.

The reality is, that any altercation will be very close, physical, over in seconds and in two or three shots.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chief38
EDC comfort is often overlooked, made fun of and poo - poo'd. Sometimes people try in intimidate EDC-er's.
2 3
Replies
81
Views
4K
Phenix
P
G
check your tax liability
Replies
14
Views
672
greenwellg
G
R
  • Locked
Guns and Protests
2 3 4
Replies
102
Views
6K
s&wchad
s&wchad
chief38
Color matters! When it comes to EDC / CCW leather belts, holsters and pouches - learned my lessons!
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
snubbyfan
snubbyfan
Grayfox
  • Locked
Bring Back Mental Institutions
Replies
6
Views
341
hsguy
H

Latest posts

Back
Top