Factors in Surviving Gunfights

[BE Mike]

Muss Muggins .. Maybe . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerhard1
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?

MAYBE NOT : I've seen well trained people put under stressful situations that was life threatening turn in to hunks of shivering human flesh unable to do even basic tasks .. some had to be restrained to keep from hurting themselves !!

Some would advocate honestly looking yourself in the mirror once in a while and asking yourself if you can shoot another human being. If yes, then visualize situations. This is not my idea, but I heard this in training sessions. I believe that they said that most cops never consider using their firearm(s) in defensive situations and it makes it very difficult for them to cope with the aftermath, when it happens.

 

[LPD256]

Very rational post. I only differ slightly on a couple points, one substantive and one semantic. My default is three rounds, and all I'm trying to do is make that other fella' remember that he's got something more fun and important to do elsewhere at the moment than get shot at by me. Otherwise, Rastoff is spot on . . .

Col. Cooper's Gunsite teaches the "Mozambique Failure Drill". Three shot drill with two to the chest and one to the head if the first two didn't stop the assailant. My range has moving targets. That adds a fun degree of challenge. What I should really focus on is being a faster runner.....

 

[Rastoff]

Col. Cooper's Gunsite teaches the "Mozambique Failure Drill". Three shot drill with two to the chest and one to the head if the first two didn't stop the assailant.

Do they still call it the Mozambique drill? The reason I ask goes toward mentality. The way I learned the Mozambique was three rapid shots, two to the chest and one to the head. There was no assessment, just three shots.

I call it a "failure to stop" which I prefer. In this it's two to center mass, assess and if necessary, one to the head. The third shot is not always necessary.

What I should really focus on is being a faster runner.....

Lot of value in this. The best fight is no fight.

 

[LPD256]

Do they still call it the Mozambique drill? The reason I ask goes toward mentality. The way I learned the Mozambique was three rapid shots, two to the chest and one to the head. There was no assessment, just three shots.

I call it a "failure to stop" which I prefer. In this it's two to center mass, assess and if necessary, one to the head. The third shot is not always necessary.
Lot of value in this. The best fight is no fight.

I believe they still call it that. I was there not that long ago. If one searches "Mozambique Failure Drill" it pops up on the internet. If someone kills another, it is a homicide. It will be investigated as such. If we are the shooter, we need to clam up and get an attorney. It may be the wrong words in the excitement that causes us to be charged. Call it semantics. Words matter, as I know you are aware. Lots of small things have sent people to prison.

 

[gerhard1]

The notion that shooting to stop the threat is 'virtue signalling' is patently false.

A person who presents a credible deadly threat to me will meet an attempt to stop the threat. If I wound him, and he stops, fine; the next step for the bad guy will be the hospital and then the criminal justice system.

If I kill him that will be an unfortunate side effect, but killing him was most emphatically NOT my intent. It was to stop him. In that case the next step will be the state medical examiner.

I find the introduction of 'virtue signalling' into this conversation perplexing, to put it mildly. By stating that my intent was to stop the action that forced me to shoot, I'm not signalling my virtue; I am simply stating a fact. Nothing more.

 

[Wise_A]

The notion that shooting to stop the threat is 'virtue signalling' is patently false.

Read it again.

Being prepared to use lethal force, and understanding the goal of lethal defense (stopping threats) is fine. That's what you want.

Arguing about it on the internet is the dumb, virtue-signaling part, between the saber-rattling "prepared to kill" gang, and the packs of the self-righteous.

But hey, thanks for proving exactly my point.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I don't care what they call it, I just like getting three rounds out quickly. Mainly a throwback to when my MP5 had a three round burst notch, but we trained to throw out three while keeping the switch on the fun button . . .

I believe they still call it that. I was there not that long ago. If one searches "Mozambique Failure Drill" it pops up on the internet. If someone kills another, it is a homicide. It will be investigated as such. If we are the shooter, we need to clam up and get an attorney. It may be the wrong words in the excitement that causes us to be charged. Call it semantics. Words matter, as I know you are aware. Lots of small things have sent people to prison.

 

[gerhard1]

Read it again.

Being prepared to use lethal force, and understanding the goal of lethal defense (stopping threats) is fine. That's what you want.

Arguing about it on the internet is the dumb, virtue-signaling part, between the saber-rattling "prepared to kill" gang, and the packs of the self-righteous.

But hey, thanks for proving exactly my point.

You're reading that into it.

 

[crazyphil]

I like Wyatt Earp's strategy. When asked the best way to win a gunfight,
he reportedly said: "That's easy. Just don't show up."

 

[fredj338]

Admittedly new to all this but I'm not sure we should base our training on our opponents incompetence

Wouldn't it be better to think of our opponent as being at as least competent as we are

I go the opposite, I assume my attacker is going to be better than me. Hence why we constantly train & practice. The one time you are in a gunfight it may be against a highly skilled opponent??

 

[fredj338]

Do they still call it the Mozambique drill? The reason I ask goes toward mentality. The way I learned the Mozambique was three rapid shots, two to the chest and one to the head. There was no assessment, just three shots.

I call it a "failure to stop" which I prefer. In this it's two to center mass, assess and if necessary, one to the head. The third shot is not always necessary.
Lot of value in this. The best fight is no fight.

Yes, Moz drill or FTS drill. In competition it is automatic, on the street it can be or it can have a pause for assessment. Reality, most are trained today to shoot the threat to the ground or until the threat ceases to be one. There are no hard fast rules. Why a 5shot for me, not enough. If my threat is still on his feet pressing an attack, the number of rounds I have to fire is not limited.

 

[fredj338]

It's neither a dumb nor semantic argument. It's really two sides of the same coin. You need both to survive the aftermath if you ever use a gun to defend yourself.

If you're going to carry a gun (or any deadly tool), you really do have to be mentally prepared to use it. If you're not, you'll hesitate and you'll be on the receiving side. If you are mentally prepared, you're less likely to hesitate.

The "shoot to stop" idea is also part of mental preparation. If the goal is to stop, you're more likely to stop shooting once the threat is no longer viable, even if still alive. The legal aspect of this is real. Saying, "I just wanted him dead," vs "I just wanted him to stop," makes a huge difference in any court.

Also, whether you agree with it or not, once the threat has been stopped, any further shots make you the assailant. This is why I advocate starting with a controlled pair and then assessing the situation while moving.


All any reasonable person wants is to not be attacked. Therefore, stopping said attack is the goal. If the attack is not life threatening, no need to have the gun out. If the attack is life threatening, placing rounds on target quickly is very important. Aim for the largest part of the attacker. Not because this is the "kill" zone, but because bigger targets are easier to hit and you don't have time to pick and choose.

Agree but for the controlled pair. A gunfight or violent assault is a very fluid thing. IF we always train for a controlled pair & evaluation, it may be too slow. Keep an open mind in your training & practice.
If your threat is close & over whelming, say 250 man with a machete, you may want to be firing a lot as you retreat with no eval. I don't think anyone can truly train for a violent attack. The best we can do is be as well rounded & free thinking enough under the stress to react appropriately, whatever that may be, controlled pair, FTS or mag dump.

 

[fredj338]

Because one side rages about being mentally-prepared to use lethal force, or you shouldn't carry at all!

The other side cops a "I shoot to stop, not to kill" holier-than-thou attitude.

It's a dumb semantic argument, between groups of people compelled to prove their superiority. Just the din from the kids' table.

I don't think it is semantics at all. If your mindset is I am walking around all day waiting to kill someone or I carry a gun to stop a threat, not semantics. IF my attacker dies as a result of me trying to stop his attack, not good or bad, just is. If he mends in the hospital & spends his life behind bars, fine too. As long as I am not killed or seriously injured in the attack.

 

[Mister X]

I think it's prudent to assume your attacker(s) will be younger, bigger, faster and stronger than you, but they aren't likely to be "highly skilled" in the sense of a highly trained martial artist or defensive shooter. It's important to make that distinction because I've seen some very skilled individuals with extensive training get caught off-guard and have difficulty dealing with a relatively primitive attacks because they hadn't trained for it and it was unfamiliar to them. An untrained and awkward fighters movements can actually be hard to read if all you train with is highly trained fighters. Same with guys who only spar with opponents of the same style.

A world class boxer with no grappling experience will likely have trouble keeping the fight from going to the ground against a sloppy street tackle. An advanced practitioner of FMA's may have no clue how to effectively deal with a prison style shanking. A USPSA Grand Master won't be well versed on how best to handle a contact shooting if he's limited his training and practice to his sport.

You have to train in the proper context and that would include any force-on-force training. If it's not evidence based and grounded in the realities of what you're likely to encounter, it's not going to very effective preparation. You're simply not likely to be attacked with someone that is highly trained, so limiting your training interaction to those who most would consider highly skilled and highly trained isn't the best approach since street criminals won't likely move or attack like they do.

 

[delcrossv]

I think it's prudent to assume your attacker(s) will be younger, bigger, faster and stronger than you, but they aren't likely to be "highly skilled" in the sense of a highly trained martial artist or defensive shooter. It's important to make that distinction because I've seen some very skilled individuals with extensive training get caught off-guard and have difficulty dealing with a relatively primitive attacks because they hadn't trained for it and it was unfamiliar to them. An untrained and awkward fighters movements can actually be hard to read if all you train with is highly trained fighters. Same with guys who only spar with opponents of the same style.

A world class boxer with no grappling experience will likely have trouble keeping the fight from going to the ground against a sloppy street tackle. An advanced practitioner of FMA's may have no clue how to effectively deal with a prison style shanking. A USPSA Grand Master won't be well versed on how best to handle a contact shooting if he's limited his training and practice to his sport.

You have to train in the proper context and that would include any force-on-force training. If it's not evidence based and grounded in the realities of what you're likely to encounter, it's not going to very effective preparation. You're simply not likely to be attacked with someone that is highly trained, so limiting your training interaction to those who most would consider highly skilled and highly trained isn't the best approach since street criminals won't likely move or attack like they do.

That's pretty much the main point of "Meditations on Violence". I highly recommend reading it.

 

[Prohunter]

Another good one. On Killing- Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Helped me sort out a few things.

 

[fredj338]

I think it's prudent to assume your attacker(s) will be younger, bigger, faster and stronger than you, but they aren't likely to be "highly skilled" in the sense of a highly trained martial artist or defensive shooter. It's important to make that distinction because I've seen some very skilled individuals with extensive training get caught off-guard and have difficulty dealing with a relatively primitive attacks because they hadn't trained for it and it was unfamiliar to them. An untrained and awkward fighters movements can actually be hard to read if all you train with is highly trained fighters. Same with guys who only spar with opponents of the same style.

You have to train in the proper context and that would include any force-on-force training. If it's not evidence based and grounded in the realities of what you're likely to encounter, it's not going to very effective preparation. You're simply not likely to be attacked with someone that is highly trained, so limiting your training interaction to those who most would consider highly skilled and highly trained isn't the best approach since street criminals won't likely move or attack like they do.

Not likely but possible. So under estimating the opponent is a sure bet you are well behind the curve. I have seen it in many officer involved shooting vids. Their mindset, as it should be, is "I am better" but their skill set proved inadequate. Never under estimate your attacker, never. BTW, how does one limit their training to a highly skilled attacker? Train for the worst & hope for the best seems prudent??

 

[Mister X]

Not likely but possible. So under estimating the opponent is a sure bet you are well behind the curve. I have seen it in many officer involved shooting vids. Their mindset, as it should be, is "I am better" but their skill set proved inadequate. Never under estimate your attacker, never. BTW, how does one limit their training to a highly skilled attacker? Train for the worst & hope for the best seems prudent??

I don't think anyone should underestimated.

What being highly skilled means will differ between individuals. Maybe you're a successful IDPA and USPSA competitor who also has high ranking blackbelts in Shotokan and Kyokushin karate and have won a few full contact bouts. You compete as well as participate in FoF sessions with your buddies who have similar backgrounds. Most people would probably consider you pretty highly skilled/highly trained, but those supposedly advanced skills may not help you much in a street-fight or mugging since there may be very little commonality in environmental factors and the methods your assailant(s) is likely to use and how your buddies move and attack in your training drills. I've actually witnessed it firsthand on a few occasions.

Force-on-force training can be a fantastic tool or it can be next to worthless depending on how its conducted. I've seen very realistic scenarios and very effective drills and I've seen sessions that had no more value than a paintball free-for-all. Bad guys intent on doing you harm aren't generally looking for fair fights and tend to try and stack the deck in their favor from the get go, so learning effective reactive close-quarter counter-ambush methods is essential.

Is a lifetime criminal with absolutely no training, but has been involved in countless violent encounters where he has come out on top considered "highly skilled"? Even though he has no training, I'd say yes, although he's differently skilled from what likely comes to mind when the majority of people of gun forums use the term highly skilled. Regardless, you have to train and understand his specific methodology and environment if you want to be able to effectively deal with it.

 

[Ziggy2525]

...
Is a lifetime criminal with absolutely no training, but has been involved in countless violent encounters where he has come out on top considered "highly skilled"? Even though he has no training, I'd say yes, although he's differently skilled from what likely comes to mind when the majority of people of gun forums use the term highly skilled. Regardless, you have to train and understand his specific methodology and environment if you want to be able to effectively deal with it.

Not disagreeing with your overall point, but pretty sure if a BG has lived long enough to be considered a lifetime criminal, they've had plenty of training. Training in prison. Training within their gang. Lots of mentored OJT. That's how they become highly skilled. Their version of training just doesn't fit into the square box we call training.

 

[fredj338]

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.

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?

No, shooting tiny groups taking all day means you are mechanically accurate but not combat accurate by a mile. Yes indoor range rules of 1 rd per sec max, no holster work, no movement, all detrimental to developing your skill set for combat. Things change a lot when you are moving & have to deliver accurate shots in under 1.5sec.
Take a couple training classes that employ thinking & shooting, then a force on force class to learn how not to get shot. Then find a practice venue that allows you to put it all together at least once a month. For me that is generally IDPA competition. Not required but for those that do not have a range that allows them movement, holster work & 1/4 split times, its a very valuable practice choice.