Using Your Bullets As "Cover"

[Matthew Temkin]

Fairbairn and Applegate of WW2 special operations fame were firm believers in the following...

1)Fast rate of fire.
In fact Fairbairn wrote that the more his pistol sounds like a submachine gun the better he liked it.

2)Moving into the enemy while rapidly shooting if the range is close and no cover is available..as is so often the case in a surprise handgun assult.

So..what we have is a tactic in which you charge in while yelling, screaming, cursing, and, most vital, shooting...which means that you are using your bullets as cover.
Moreover...Fairbairn also wrote that a man shot in the stomach area will usually clutch his midsection, thereby dropping his weapon..a good reason ( amongst others) to shoot "low."
Of couse, nothing would prevent you from starting "low" and zippering your way up...
Fairbairn also wrote that at the exact impact of your bullet the BG was incapable of pulling his trigger for a second of so ( not sure why, but it is what he observed with the SMP) so the faster you hit him the more time he is not likely to return fire to you.
Which gives light to another saying popular in Special Ops teams...
"Sometimes the BOLDEST action is the safest action."

 

[cdcmj]

I think this idea is more geared towards combat situations, not a home or domestic defense situation. However Im sure it does have its place in that 1 in a million scenerio.

 

[1911 guy]

I'm a believer.

Just stop and consider the military doctrine of disengagement action. Heavy fire. Why? To provide cover fire and make them keep their heads down.

 

[sacp81170a]

Your concept is correct, but its application should be reserved for free fire zones. Since I don't live in a free fire zone and don't know where there are any in my immediate vicinity, I won't be applying it anytime soon.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So..what we have is a tactic in which you charge in while yelling, screaming, cursing, and, most vital, shooting...which means that you are using your bullets as cover.

Bullets are NOT cover. Don't even begin to confuse the difference. Too many people find out the hard way that a "wall of lead" has a lot of holes in it through which the opposition can shoot you. The suggestion that bullets are cover is about as bright as confusing concealment with cover. What you are talking about is "suppression fire." It is called suppression fire and not called "cover" for a reason. Cover actually stops incoming rounds. Suppression fire is meant to keep the enemy from firing incoming rounds. It is a HUGE difference.

FYI, before you reply and tell me what great fighters and tacticians those men were and how they know battle tactics etc., the notion of charging then enemy and firing and screaming is what the Japanese called a Bonsai charge. In WWII, these were far fewer in occurrence than the charges across no-man's land of WWI from the trenches and the Germans and US did a few themselves. As a general rule, they had a high casualty rate for the chargers, sometimes total. It seems bullets did not work well as cover at all as those who were not suppressed would simply mow down the chargers.

In fact Fairbairn wrote that the more his pistol sounds like a submachine gun the better he liked it.

So when you are making your bonsai charge with your pistol, and Fairbairn was talking about 1911 pistols with 7+1 capacity, just how long is that supposed cover going to protect you when firing fast like a smg? Depending on how good you are, it will last approximately 1.5-2.5 seconds and then you will have 3-6 seconds of naked reloading as the now unsuppressed opposition shoots you repeatedly.

Fairbairn also wrote that a man shot in the stomach area will usually clutch his midsection, thereby dropping his weapon..a good reason ( amongst others) to shoot "low."

This is considered an outdated tactic that may cause the opposition to flinch briefly, but doesn't do much to incapacitate the threat quickly. The notion of shooting low goes back to at least some of the old west gunfighter doctrine.

Fairbairn also wrote that at the exact impact of your bullet the BG was incapable of pulling his trigger for a second of so ( not sure why, but it is what he observed with the SMP) so the faster you hit him the more time he is not likely to return fire to you.

A person who is shot is not incapable of pulling the trigger for a second. not unless they are shot in a manner that damaged the firing hand/arm/nerves or were totally incapacitated. Fairbairn was in error on this for pistol and smg ammo. There might be something to this for hydrostatic shot with rifle rounds that impact the nervous system, but don't count on a gut or leg wound producing said hydrostatic shock.

"Sometimes the BOLDEST action is the safest action."

Along the same lines, "Sometimes the most stupid action is the safest action" as well, but most of the time, it just gets you killed, even by little tiny trees.

 

[AndyC]

Banzai, not Bonsai (I see this angry little shrub charging a trench)

 

[JonP]

It's called suppressive fire, and it's designed to keep heads down (not shooting) while you move.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Here's the thread at TFL, great responses there also:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270323

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I must strongly disagree, with all due respect.
The ability to shoot while rapidly moving in any and all directions--but especially in--is something that can be learned withing an hour or so.
Especially when used in conjunction with point shooting.
And with 100% accuracy--and by that I mean tight center mass hits from a distance and head shots when the range rapidly shrinks.
Remember that most gunfights happen very close and, if taken by surprise, cover is rarely an option. You either shoot while planted or you move.
So..which way can you move when we are talking about very close range? And probably in very tight quarters?
I submit that into the threat--especially when facing multiples--is the most effective--and safest--option.
I was taught how to do this by quite a few combat veterans, just two of which were Col. Applegate and my dad, who was a WW2 Ranger
Ron Pincus..you are dead wrong that shooting while moving is not accurate and I am willing to prove it when you come to NYC during the winter.
My favorite story concerning this comes from a student of mine, who was with the 82nd Airborne Division in the early 1990's.
His unit was taking a very through two week handgun course, taught by a grizzled Special Forces Sgt.
After it was all over he stated to the students,
"Guys...after all of this training I will leave you with this...If it comes to handguns this is all that you will actually have time to do..."
He then proceeded to charge into the target, all the while shooting, screaming and cursing.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Banzai, not Bonsai (I see this angry little shrub charging a trench)

LOL! Apparently, you have never been attacked at full charge by a dozen tiny trees!
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew is right that shooting while moving can be accurate. As you close the range, it gets easier and easier to hit the target. As you close the range, you find your cover of lead works less and less and you are shredding by the opposition's guns.

Yes, non-military gun fights often happen at close range and without a lot of cover. Also, proximity negates the need for skill. As you close the distance on the bad guy, the bad guy who hasn't read Applegate and all those others is likely to be scoring hits on you as well. As you close and become more dangerous to the opposition, the opposition becomes more dangerous to you. Closing on the target increases the chances of mutual destruction.

 

[george29]

In a civillian application, I could see wiring the inside of your house to some Laser-Show tied to a remote control. Home invaders would be so freaked out, they wouldn't know what was real and where the real threat was coming from. Would this be what you had in mind? If so, it sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[Rob Pincus]

We all hear anecdotes about shooting and moving and see it done in competition and on the range.... but I have never seen the student who could maintain speed & accuracy levels while moving.... as stated in the other thread, that doesn't mean you can't get hits while moving, it just means that it might take you .5 seconds longer to stop the threat and that might be when he fires the bullet that stops you.

Anyone arguing that you can shoot as well while moving as you can while stationary should really think about the physics/bio-mechanics of the situations. Those arguing that you can shoot "well enough" while moving are probably right, but I'd rather not bet on "probably".

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I have been teaching point shooting for over 17 years--police-SWAT-Military--security and armed citizen--and most end up shooting better with one handed point shooting while in motion than even with two handed aimed fire while planted.
Not to mention the added benefits of speed, surprise,and taking the fight to the bad guy--that shooting while moving in provides.
Those who say that it can't be done well have not had the proper training.
I learned this from several sources--including Rex Applegate himself--and I am amazed at how quickly nearly anyone can pick this up.
To answer George's question..shooting the bad guy to the ground while moving in may just mess up his accuracy.
I suggest to move in quick, shoot him hard, fast and often and then use the empty gun ( along with empty hand/foot blows) to finish the fight.
So George, in the words of extensive combat veteran Phil Singleton, tell me where I am wrong and please provide some alternatives.
Remember--we are talking very short range where cover is not an option.

 

[7677]

Wow, I thought the debate about moving and shooting had been laid to rest in 2002. For the record Matt and I have proven in our classes from coast to coast over the last five years that a person can move and shoot accurately one handed and two.

The wall of bullets theory is valid and is one of the techniques we teach and like all techniques it has its place in the fight continuum. This technique is a pre-emptive strike technique or when you gain the initiative and decide to begin the attack and the enemy is reacting to you. The wall of bullets you send down range is not spray-n-prey but accurate fire that is hitting your opponent and hopefully keeping him from drawing his weapon and returning fire. Like everything else in life in moving straight in does not mean that in the event that your bullets do not have an effect and your opponent does get his weapon out you can simple change the direction of your forward movement by taking a half step to the right or left and/or begin parallel tracking toward your opponent while continuing to put rounds on your opponent. However, the amount of time it takes to cover seven yards and the speed that I can accurately hit a target at that distance means that I would have shot all sixteen rounds before I covered the distance to the target with the majority of them zippered up center mass and the rest in the head.

I teach this drill both moving straight in and with parallel tracking to decrease the likelihood of my opponent getting a lucky shot in. Both ways work and I have used both with good effect and the circumstances surrounding the event dictated which one I used. This is just one techniques among many that Matt and I and others teach and anyone that doesn’t think that moving and shooting is possible sent me a plane ticket and I’ll be glad to school you on just how wrong you are!

 

[Rob Pincus]

If you guys can PM me with the physics that underlie shooting better while moving, I'd love to understand them.

Again "accurately" can mean various things...

I really am not up for a debate/discussion of this topic again, though. I respect you guys and have no doubt that you believe in what you are teaching... but it goes dramatically against what I've seen AND, I believe, creates really bad habits when people get into real environments and off the open square range world.

I'm out of this one.....

-RJP

 

[Don Gwinn]

Could you tell Ron we're waiting to hear from him?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I am confused, Matthew, you have been teaching shooting for more than 17 years and didn't know the difference between cover and suppression fire?

 

[strambo]

At distances measured in feet...I can't find fault with moving in at an oblique angle while zipperin' and screaming....then finishing with H2H blows if they are still on their feet 1.5-2 seconds later when you reach them. Violence of action, it's a fight.

At 10 yards...probably not so much.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Here is Applegate's take on the subject..
"Every possible means must be used to develop an aggressive spirit in the hand gun user. in the fire fight the shooter should always be going in toward the enemy. if he remains stationary, he is a better target. If he fires and keeps advancing, he is harder to hit, and the psychological effect on the enemy is great, even if he misses. Tell him right off the bat that he can get shot just as easily backing away from an enemy as walking towards him" ( Kill or get Killed,pg 125)
Obviously Rob feel differently and I am sure that he believes in what he says, but too many men with extensive combat experience have taught me otherwise.
Rob..no PM necessary.
You will be in NYC in February and rather than talk this to death I can show.
Live fire, Airsoft, Sims, whatever.
If you have the time then I have the range, guns, ammo, etc, etc.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

George..don't be cute with semantics.
I am very well aware of the difference..but that is not the point.
Tell us why Applegate was wrong and what YOU would do if taken by surprise at 4-10 feet.
Also tell us of your combat experience so we can evaluate the validity of your opinions.
Or at least tell us from whom your opinions come from.
Strambo..I could not agree more.

 

[Geronimo45]

As you close the distance on the bad guy, the bad guy who hasn't read Applegate and all those others is likely to be scoring hits on you as well.

Most BGs aren't trained to stand still under fire. As a matter of fact, it's practically the opposite of the normal reaction. An aggressor is expecting that he is the one and only aggressor. He's got the script in his mind. He comes at you hard and fast - you stand stock-still or run away. When something happens that he doesn't expect, it's a problem he may not know how to handle - but standing in the face of incoming fire is not a natural thing, from what I've heard and read.

Anybody remember the incident of the British bayonet charge in Iraq? No/minimal losses to their side, and they got around fifty BGs. This isn't because the bayonet is a superior weapon by any means whatsoever - after all, bayonet charges have been obsolete for about a hundred years, if not more. It's that the bayonet charge seems to be a more intensely psychological thing... your opportunity for retreat is going away with every step nearer. You're the agressor! What are they doing? This ain't the way it's supposed to work! The bayonetters are invading their space/security zone, cutting off their line of retreat. The BGs would seem to have broke and ran for it, and were wiped out while retreating - at least, from my reading of it.

Bonzai charges don't really compare, unless you've got folks with SMGs and belt-fed machine guns against you. They were trained troops fighting other trained troops who were pretty well equipped, by and large.

Also see:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=308139&highlight=charles+whitman

Some of those who were shot had heard the "Stay away!" on their radios at home, and drove over to the campus to watch. I guess I spent over a half an hour, screaming at idiots.

The Kappa Sig house (no longer there) faced the Tower, in the Tee of MLK and 19th. Three of them walked outside to sit down in a line behind a little four-inch oak tree. Just as I yelled that it wasn't a wise idea, I saw a clump of turf pop up by one of their feet. About 550 yards. Think "Levitation" and "Disappearance". Instanter.

It's just a spectator sport - then a bullet nearly hits them, and they run. Fast. Away. When bullets come in, people like to seek cover and/or distance.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Matthew, a gentle suggestion:
I think you've gotten about all the mileage out of deliberately misusing Rob's name that you're likely to get. He doesn't seem to be taking the bait. I would appreciate it if you would address fellow members with respect.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I did not deliberately misuse Rob's name.
It was a simple typing error
The important thing is that a vital, life saving technique is being dismissed by those who have no clue as to how simple and accurate it truly is.
I am offering Rob a free training session here in NYC to prove this to him.
I call that an offer of education--not bait.
As to respect--I always have been.
But opinions should be backed up with facts.

 

[sacp81170a]

strambo

At distances measured in feet...I can't find fault with moving in at an oblique angle while zipperin' and screaming....then finishing with H2H blows if they are still on their feet 1.5-2 seconds later when you reach them. Violence of action, it's a fight.

At 10 yards...probably not so much.

Amen. At 10 yards or farther, I'd be following Clint Smith's example and giving them the s***storm o' lead while going for cover. That's what suppressive fire is for and it's the only time I'd use it. Extend, evade, don't be there if you don't have to.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Every possible means must be used to develop an aggressive spirit in the hand gun user. in the fire fight the shooter should always be going in toward the enemy. if he remains stationary, he is a better target. If he fires and keeps advancing, he is harder to hit, and the psychological effect on the enemy is great, even if he misses. Tell him right off the bat that he can get shot just as easily backing away from an enemy as walking towards him" ( Kill or get Killed,pg 125)

Yes, anyone can get shot anywhere, but at noted...

And with 100% accuracy--and by that I mean tight center mass hits from a distance and head shots when the range rapidly shrinks.

Why aren't you making those head shots from distance? Because they are harder to make at distance. So the closer you are to the opposition, the easier the shots. That also means the shots get easier for the opposition as well. You increase your danger with proximity to the threat.

Most BGs aren't trained to stand still under fire.

I love to read lethal mistake assumptions. Most aren't trained to stand still under fire, but when they are, bad things happen to good guys.
Miami FBI
North Hollywood
Mark Wilson in Tyler

How do you get to choose to fight the unskilled and untrained bad guys and not those that are trained or prepared?