Book by Don Mann - 3 meters, 3 shots, 3 seconds

[AKPastor]

I was browsing the gun section at a local bookstore and took home The Modern Day Gunslinger by Don Mann. Several times in the book, he makes a claim that he gives no footnote or endnote for that is basically as follows:

The majority of SD encounters follow a pattern of 3
3 meters or less
3 seconds long
3 shots fired.

First, is there any proof to this claim? If not, does it have the "ring of truth"?

Second, would this affect your choices of SD weapons/tactics? Such as there are discussions about capacity and wanting more rounds. Would this make that a moot point?

Third, if true, would this affect whether you would spend more time on point shooting/other close encounter techniques?

Fourth - other that I am not thinking of

I'm also looking for opinions on the author and whether he is a good source for tactics and strategies.

 

[DT Guy]

Don't know him or the book.

Been involved in more than one SD situation that exceeded 20 yards, which makes me almost completely uninterested in books/systems/people who try to define an 'average' SD situation and then propose building one's equipment and skill sets around that average. On an 'average' day, I won't get in a car accident, wreck my motorcycle or get attacked. I continue to wear my seatbelt, a helmet and defensive tool.

It only takes one non-average event, like a car crash, or a shooting attack from a car 30 yards away, to make me realize I don't prepare for the average, but rather for the extreme margins of possibility-because that's where almost all the bad stuff lives.


Larry

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The majority of SD encounters follow a pattern of 3
3 meters or less
3 seconds long
3 shots fired.

People like to come up with catchy concepts and this is sort of one of them.

3 meters or less? Probably true, but then again, it is probably less. It is difficult to mug or rape folks at greater distances.

3 seconds long? Not exactly. Three seconds is apparently the amount of time between the first and last shot fired, but that isn't the length of the encounter. There is often a considerable amount of time leading up to the first shot and the time before the first shot is extremely significant because it is where the situation develops and decisions are made as to how it will be handled. Think about it. A mugger's demands alone may take longer than 3 seconds. The draw of your gun is going to take 1.5-3.0 seconds or so.

Three shots? I never know if this is supposed to be the total number of the shots in the fight or just the number of shots fired by the defender.

As Larry points out, these are sort of averages or trends noted, but gun fights are mutually exclusive events from one another. Your gun fight may in no way resemble my gun fight and neither of our fights will necessarily match the norm.

Ken Hackathorn suggests defensive training be 90-10. That is, 90% of your practice at 10 feet or less and 10% at distances greater than 10 feet and out to 50 yards.

 

[HorseSoldier]

His numbers sound pretty accurate. The approach attributed to Ken Hackathorn is a good way of looking at things. Another consideration is that the likelihood of getting killed rises as the range decreases -- defensive gunfights at 50 meters are not only much less likely but they're also less lethal with greater chance of being able to find cover or disengage.

 

[David E]

The "3 shots fired" stat is WRONG.

Why?

Because the "shots fired" file includes such things as: Suicides, Warning shots, Accidental Discharges, Animal put-downs, etc.

These events are nearly always ONE SHOT, thereby skewing the shots fired in an armed encounter DOWNWARD.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, warning shot would count as part of the confrontation, suicides, animal put downs, and ND shots would not...if indeed all that information is compiled into the shootting encounter data.

 

[therewolf]

Most of the scenarios I've worked out seem to be at close distance.

Time-wise,I always assume the worst. I'll have no time to prepare, when I feel endangered, I put my hand on my gun and get ready to come up loaded and cocked.

DNK what to say about three shots. One hopes they can get away safe without ever pulling the trigger. Next time I'm attacked I'll post again...

I'm not really worried, though. The TSA has assured me I'm a badass as long as I have nailclippers and toothpaste as a backup...

 

[Ryder]

My encounters have been at 3 steps. Confrontations can seem to drag on for a lifetime but once the action begins it's over quick.

I've not shot any people but I've plenty of experience hunting. Can't recall a time that anything took more than 3 shots. The way a 3 shot string typically plays out is the first shot puts a target into fight or flight, second shot takes the steam out of them, third shot finishes the job. Generally requires less, instinct directs the trigger, no problems knowing when a target is stopped, no preceonceived expectation of how many shots it might require here.

I've been shooting my whole life but only the last dozen years or so have I trained for self-defense. Previous experiences do influence my carry and training style to a great degree. I'm no gambler, when I need to stop something it is done regardless of the will of the target (fast, furious, and with overwhelming force).

Don't know the author. Won't follow any one training concept to exclusion of others myself, they all have something to offer.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Can't recall a time that anything took more than 3 shots. The way a 3 shot string typically plays out is the first shot puts a target into fight or flight, second shot takes the steam out of them, third shot finishes the job.

In many/most self defense shootings, however, the progression isn't so orderly and a high percentage of the shots fired never actually hit the intended person. Depending on the study, officer involved shootings have police officers hitting bag guys with only something like 25-40% of the shots fired. Non-cops seem to do better in general, more in the 35-70% range depending on whose study you read, the differences largely being factors of shorter distances for non-LEOs and not typically shooting at folks that are somewhat protected or hidden from view such as inside of cars or barricading in buildings.

This is a New Year's event. The perp in the trailer was killed, but look at how many shots are being fired at him. Sadly, he had ambushed a deputy and killed her, resulting in this response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxJdagNTzo8

This version shows some stills of the trailer holding the gunman. Look at the almost random spread of bullets on the siding.
http://news.yahoo.com/video#video=23690326

 

[uspJ]

Generally I feel there is a lot of wisdom to this line of thinking. How violent can a confrontation be if the attacker can't touch you? He will be close, how else can he take what he wants from you. It will be quick (it may feel like time stopped but that is not the case, you would be surprised how much one can do in just a few seconds.) The bg wants to get in and out as fast as possible and minimize any chances of injury or arrest. I also agree with the three shot rule to an extent. I've never been in a gun fight or seen one but I have seen guns get pulled on people at bars and clubs and pool halls before. I can't recall ever seeing someone stick around once they knew there was a potential for being shot.

This is just my opinion, so please no one take this as a personal attack. When I see people debunk this kind of thing (not just on this thread) I think it is because it is very unflattering and unnerving to think that even though you are armed, and aware that you could still be attacked. It does nothing for ones ego to think that even though they are armed that their weapon may never come into play in what may be the only time they ever needed it to defend themselves. People tend to have in their heads how an altercation will play out before it ever happens. They say they will know the guy is there and they'll take this measure and that. I've made more than a few mad or frustrated when I ask "What would you do/How would you handle it if you were attacked before you knew they were there or had time to take action?". They can't seem to wrap their minds around someone getting the drop on them. I've seen how alot of people who say they are aware conduct themselves, they do a great job of being aware when they remember that they need to be aware. I am just as guilty of that as are most. We can be distracted and we can be caught off guard. We probably wouldn't have ben targeted in the first place or at the least would have time to prepare if we were aware. The criminal doesn't want someone who know what is going on.

When I was younger I hung out with very bad people because I thought it was cool, I got to see alot of things, and see how people who don't care about anything think. I grew up and realized I didn't want anything to do with that life and I moved on, but held on to what I learned. It helps to put yourself in a criminals shoes from time to time and see how you would want to rob someone or steal their car. Would you want them to even know you were there until once the attack is underway? Would you hang around and risk arrest? If you knew the target was armed or looked like they could handle themselves would you pass for easier prey? Try thinking like a wolf sometime instead of a sheepdog.

 

[Mike J]

Most of the situations I have seen in the local news lately have involved 2 or more attackers (usually 3 or 4). Many here post about how handguns are underpowered and a person should keep shooting until the threat is stopped. The averages in the book might be right but averages are just that. I am sure there are situations that require much less & much more. I agree with uspJ that it is best to make ourselves as unattractive a target as possible but there is no telling what could happen.

 

[Old Fuff]

"Average" gunfights or shooting incidents are seldom average, and ranges are more often longer for law enforcement officers who are required to apprehend dangerous criminals, rather then evade them. That said, such incidents are more often closer then further for both civilians and officers.

The FBI offer some statistics they collect, and the NRA, in its American Rifleman magazine have a column named The Armed Citizen, that contains press reports of various shootings on a monthly basis. I believe that some of these have also been compiled into a book.

When it gets to the bottom line you’ll realize how important situational awareness is in keeping one out of trouble, and better prepared if trouble can’t be avoided. It also becomes clear that one needs different skills and techniques for different distances, and had better perfect both. Distances can be roughly divided between where you point vs. where you aim. I know of course that some say you’re suppose to use your sights at any distance, but several well experienced gentlemen I knew, including Bill Jordan, Charles Askins and Rex Applegate told me that at eyeball-to-eyeball distances this sort of thing can get you killed. The trouble with most of today’s training is it puts too much emphasis on aimed fire at longer distances, which may (or may not) make sense for law enforcement and/or the military, but less so for an armed civilian.

The Old Fuff will now retire to put on his bullet proof/flame resistant underwear.

 

[J.Boyette]

The bottom line is this.

YOU do not pick the time, location or target distance. The bad guy does.

So what is the average? Who cares!!!

The better question is, can you fight and walk away from the bad guy picking the situation and not you?

John

 

[William Lee]

My carry gun would not change based on the "average" distance of a gunfight. A 4" revolver will be effective at any reasonable self defense range, from 3 yards to 25. At close distances, I can draw from my shoulder holster and fire 2 in a little under a second, and the motion of starting the draw looks similar to reaching for my wallet in my inside jacket pocket. There's also a fixed blade knife in my inside pocket, which I can draw with either hand, left handed simultaneously to the garment swipe. For a face to face encounter, the knife might be a better bet than the gun.

 

[xXxplosive]

JB.....your right on......"YOU do not pick the time, location or target distance. The bad guy does".

It's called the "Interview".

5 Stages Of An Assault......Intent, Interview, Positioning, Attack, Reaction.

My last confrontation was at less than 8 feet years ago. Thankfully he decided it wasn't a good idea and left on his own....NSF.

Just imagine someone unexpectingly walking up to you close enough to speak softly and demanding your money......that's why I practice the strike with my left hand while backpeddling and drawing with my right.
Most encounters are up close and personal.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by AKPastor:I was browsing the gun section at a local bookstore and took home The Modern Day Gunslinger by Don Mann. Several times in the book, he makes a claim that he gives no footnote or endnote for that is basically as follows:

The majority of SD encounters follow a pattern of 3
3 meters or less
3 seconds long
3 shots fired.

First, is there any proof to this claim?

Apparently not, if he does not provide it. I doubt that anyone has taken the effort to interview shooters or witnesses in a sufficient number of SD situations to substantiate such an analysis.

If not, does it have the "ring of truth"?

Distance, yes, due to AOJ and justifiability factors. Time interval? When do you start the clock? Number of shots? Well, you didn't say (that he said) "average", you said "majority"; what does he mean? I don't know; doesn't mean much to me.

Second, would this affect your choices of SD weapons/tactics? Such as there are discussions about capacity and wanting more rounds. Would this make that a moot point?

No. If there is nearly as much chance of being attacked by multiple assailants as by one, and that seems to be true, and if one shot stops are unlikely, I'll choose to carry a gun with more rounds than my five shot revolver holds.

Third, if true, would this affect whether you would spend more time on point shooting/other close encounter techniques?

I have trained in fast shooting at multiple targets at seven yards. This does not change my ideas on that.

I'm also looking for opinions on the author and whether he is a good source for tactics and strategies.

The few reviews posted on Amazon say he is, but if you look for other reviews by the same reviewers, they haven't posted anything to which to compare. I do not see an impressive bio, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good book.

I suggest someone better known, and professional training.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Just imagine someone unexpectingly walking up to you close enough to speak softly and demanding your money......that's why I practice the strike with my left hand while backpeddling and drawing with my right.
Most encounters are up close and personal.

Sounds good, unless the person walk up to you close enough to speak softly isn't standing there in front of you.

 

[xXxplosive]

That's the idea behind the palm strike and backpeddle while drawing and firing.....he's standing in front of me.

 

[KodiakBeer]

If you want to know what an average gun fight looks like, peruse YouTube for CCTV clips of gun fights. One thing you'll notice is almost none of them consist of somebody standing in a practiced stance delivering shots at 7 yards, as most of are trained.
People are hiding behind counters, being dragged out of cars, trying to hold doors closed and shooting one handed, etc.

I'm certainly no expert, but I suspect the more you "play" with your guns the better your odds of survival in a deadly encounter. By "play" I mean go out in the woods and shoot at various sized targets, at various ranges and angles, two handed, one handed, weak handed - do things you can't do at a range. Challenge yourself.

I often tell newbies not to shoot at a range, but to go some place where you can have fun. That's how you get good with a handgun.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I think a couple of days spent in a basic pistol class with someone like Kyle Lamb, Pat Rogers, Louis Awerbuck, John Farnam, Tom Givens, Marty Hayes, Larry Vickers or any one of dozens more would do a lot more good than years spent playing in the woods with a gun. Followed up by regular practice to groove what has been learned into muscle memory...

IMO training and practice is how a person gets good. Of course, I expect some opinions will differ...

lpl

 

[KodiakBeer]

I don't think standing at seven yards and throwing lead at a silhouette is going to help you as much as you think when the real deal comes down. I'm all for training, but most of it flows from the premise that your opponent will stand still at seven yards and allow you a clear field of fire to shoot from a practiced stance.
Familiarity with your weapon means shooting in lots of ways that aren't allowed on a range and aren't taught in training classes.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by KodiakBeer: I'm all for training, but most of it flows from the premise that your opponent will stand still at seven yards and allow you a clear field of fire to shoot from a practiced stance.

That's "Pistol Shooting 101", and it is practiced for the development of basic skills--grip, sight picture, trigger pull and release, fast shooting, shifting from one target to another, and the draw. There is no assumption that your attacker will stand still.

Even when stationary targets are used, very rapid shooing at multiple targets helps hone the skills needed or shooting at a moving target.

One then moves to acquiring the target and shooting after or while running forward, sideways and backward; dropping to the ground; and weak hand shooting from cover or concealment. I haven't done this yet.

And then, of course, there's FoF....

As Lee Lapin points out, one will gain far more from doing all of this with the best instructors than by banging away by oneself with no one to critique one's technique.

 

[KodiakBeer]

One then moves to acquiring the target and shooting after or while running forward, sideways and backward; dropping to the ground; and weak hand shooting from cover or concealment. I haven't done this yet.

Nor will you, unless you move your shooting to a place where you are allowed you to do these things, which was my point. Training is great, but as they say; you'll do as you train. A few hours with an instructor isn't going to overcome years of follow-up, shooting down a lane at paper silhouettes.
I don't have a large property to set up my own range, hence the "woods" reference. I have an area on public property where I can free shoot at various gongs and impromptu targets at any distance and any angle I choose. I'm a much better shooter for it.

 

[Fred Fuller]

A few hours with an instructor isn't going to overcome years of follow-up, shooting down a lane at paper silhouettes.

Have you ever tried it?

I have, and every time I've worked with a different instructor I have learned valuable things I never discovered in years of flat range "practice" on my own or with friends who had no more exposure to professional training than I did at the time.

lpl

 

[KodiakBeer]

Have you ever tried it?

Yup, I've had plenty of training and I too learned something every time. But, I credit my shooting skills (such as they are) to actual shooting, not to the instruction. If you can't or don't shoot at moving objects or from different positions, ranges, etc, you aren't going to be very effective in the real world.

You can't employ what you've learned by repetitively punching paper at seven yards down a shooting lane. You've got to get out where you can draw, move and shoot in various directions at a variety of targets. And I'll add that it's a heck of a lot more fun to do that, which leads to a heck of a lot more shooting.