|
|
Post by LowKey on Jul 28, 2015 4:24:33 GMT
Ah, here's that adage, "If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly" .
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Jul 28, 2015 4:56:56 GMT
I'm not saying I think one handed shooting is inherently more accurate than shooting with a two handed stance. What I am suggesting is that all other things being equal, which includes the amount of practice with both techniques, which one is likelier to result in a successful outcome for the good guy in a defensive shoot.
Unless you're wearing body armor suffcient to stop the assailants weapon, the standard squared up to the target two hand grip may give you a better sight picture and more stable shooting platform but you're also presenting the attacker with a nice big stationary target. So if you take the wiser course to haul ass towards cover (assuming it's available), you can either shoot while moving or wait until you've achived cover (at which point see my commentvabout shooting from cover earlier in this thread), or just concentrate on running (keep in mind you don't have buddies laying down suppressive fire for you).
Put another way, if you use the two handed grip and stance, how easy is it for YOU to hit a man sized silhouette moving at a realistic running pace?
My guess is that you're going to put a goodly number of holes in that target. Well, so is he and that target is you.
In a perfect world there would be a facility, say an old shopping mall, still fully furnished and stocked, filled with actors/trainers, where you could go and spend the whole day (or week) walking around shopping, eating at the food court, ect until the actor(s) assigned to the task ambushed you with simunitions. The environment would have to be just as busy, just as cluttered, as a real mall. Actors would also have to do the stupid human tricks routinely sceen in those venues(arguments, shoving, ect) until you were just as desensitized as you are in real life. Then the attack.
THAT would give a realistic assesment of-
How quickly you react.
Which combo of movement and shooting techniques were most effective at stopping the attacker.
How many of your rounds went astray and hit bystanders.
Sadly that facility doesn't exist, and would cost a fortune to operate if it did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Jul 28, 2015 10:38:24 GMT
Shooting on the move is possible but takes very good technqiue and loads of practice. At best it's a moderate pace but running, forget that.
Another point on one handed shooting is you have to slow down and focus on trigger pull, if not, lead will go ever'ere.
A note on doing the training but never deploying. I'm sick of hearing, oh, you were never in combat, you're totally invalid but my crap skills trump yours because I spent X amount of time in a crappy place.
I saw whoopie! Training and skills count. I've seen some 82nd Airbourne who couldn't shoot for crap. Actually, I've seen a lot of death dealing steely eyed killers who generally suck bad a shooting with piss poor gun handling. Civilian training is light years ahead of anything I ever did in the military. Granted, loads more people would have died if we actually used what we were taught but that doesn't equate to skillz. It equates to a shit load of fire power. I mean how much skill does it take to light off a bunch of C4 and belt feds?
Sorry, a bit on the rant side there but I'm tired of the brow beating by folks who can't hit a target at 7 yds with a pistol tell me I suck because I've never killed anyone. Sorry, that wasn't my job, the opportunity never arouse and I'm not into that anyway.
So a big thank you to everyone that showed up to play ball, all of your jobs matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by red on Jul 28, 2015 22:29:14 GMT
Well i will say i shoot like crap when doing a lot on moving. Now lets say i'm exchanging fire with intruders. Taking a step moving out from behind my cover while i shoot one round into an intruder, is different then doing sprints while firing.
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Aug 5, 2015 14:13:47 GMT
I've been doing a bit of research and reading, just to immerse myself in the heresy and insure I'll be burned at the stake by the gun culture's Inquisition.
Came across a lovely treatise on the subject by a couple of gents who's names might ring a bell, Messrs Fairbain and Sykes. The book is, "Shooting to Live"; only 100 pages or so, easy to read, and straight to the point.
I think they have it nailed down.
Within 15 yards or so, sights aren't all they're cracked up to be. Odds are you're not going to use them, you're not going to have or take the time to get into a "proper" stance, and speed is more important than pinpoint accuracy (side note: gut shots seem to have the tendency of preventing your opponent from returning fire even if he's still conscious...who'd a thunk it!).
Beyond those ranges they imply their form of point shooting will still work, but that transitioning to using sights is advised at those ranges to improve accuracy if you have the luxury of time (you have cover, barricaded subjects, ect).
I highly recommend reading it and the subsequent training materials based off of it created by SMEs such as Col. Rex Applegate.
One of the conclusions I drew after reading this is that I strongly suspect sight based pistol shooting being taught by LE and .mil has more to do with begin able to quantify scores (expert/sharpshooter/marksman) vs simple pass/fail, and cheaper/simpler training (imagine the costs to run every GI through a "House of Horrors" shoot house). Far easier to teach him to line up the sights on a stationary range and punch paper.
|
|
