This article deserves thought:
In a gunfight, to minimize the probability of being hit, should one stand (and return fire), move (a moving target is harder to hit) or seek cover (obvious defense). The author did not find a definitive answer in the literature, so he conducted his own experiment, with the use of marking cartridges. The results:
“A total of nineteen students participated in the experiment. One hundred fourteen rounds were fired, with thirty-eight rounds fired per phase. I tracked and compared hit percentages during all three phases, differentiating between hits on the torso and the more peripheral hits on the arms and legs. The data are as follows:
PHASE HIT RATE TORSO HITS
#1-STANDING 85% 51%
#2- MOVING 47% 11%
#3- USING COVER 26% 6%”
The experiment was done by shooters who were experienced in all three modes of shooting. What is significant is the poor torso hits from using cover, compared to moving, and certainly standing. Overall standing one’s ground and returning accurate fire, may not be such a bad idea after all.
Fight it out, wild, wild west, style!
Trumpapocalypse Now: The Advent of an American Usurper at the fall of Western Civilization
Own the collected works of John Saxon, Professor X, Eirik Blood Axe, William Rapier and other counter culture critics, on Kindle, via the link below. Amazon:
Very interesting article. It seems to me, the layman, that the emphasis given to target shooting with the Weaver stance is bad training for close-up attacks. In the clip below the officer adopts the traditional two-handed aim and kills the knife-wielder, but not before getting stabbed. Were he shooting from the hip, he *might* be able to slow the charge as he fired at point-blank.
youtube.com/watch?v=vOMNaJXparE