Civilian body position in gun fight [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Civilian body position in gun fight


polishnightmare
03-02-2011, 09:10
Mas:

Love your articles and TV spots.


If involved in a gun fight would it be better to square up to the threat or blade the threat from a tactics standpoint, assume no cover, concealment, and farther than point blank range. Thought is if you square up and are hit then potentially less vital organs could be damaged per hit, but larger target and potentially higher chance of getting hit. If bladed to the threat you are a smaller target, potentially less chance of getting hit, but if hit larger chance of hitting more vital organs per hit?

What are your thoughts on this?

Mas Ayoob
03-02-2011, 09:27
My thoughts are:

1. It's the classic Duellist's Debate that's been going on since the 18th Century...

2. If one is fortunate enough to be wearing body armor, it's a great reason to face the threat squarely...

3. And my old mentor, the late Bill Jordan, was right when he said "If you drop him before he can shoot at you at all, you won't have to worry about it."

Best,
Mas

polishnightmare
03-02-2011, 12:15
Mas:

Yes it is the age old question, thus my question on your thoughts to get another perspective data point to ponder, and Bill Jordon's wisdom is as sound as ever. I'd take that outcome any day, if I had to. However which one in your opinion would you think would be better when unfortunately body armor isn't an option, since most civilians won't have body armor? Is it better to risk high hit probability and less damage potential (squared) vs. lower hit probability and more damage potential (bladed)?

Mas Ayoob
03-02-2011, 15:17
If neither cover nor armor were on my side, I'd want the position that gave me the best chance of getting a fast center hit that shut off the "incoming." For me personally, that would be a squared-up aggressive Isosceles. YMMV,
Mas