4 ms·
I’m guessing there aren’t many studies on this, but as a young, fast runner I’d zigzag every time if they’re shooting _at_ me. At least run in a straight line t
by p51-remorse 2y ago
I’m guessing there aren’t many studies on this, but as a young, fast runner I’d zigzag every time if they’re shooting _at_ me. At least run in a straight line that isn’t collinear with the shooter’s position. Obviously, if you can find cover, put it between you and them and cover distance.
It’s so, so hard for any amateur to hit a target that is moving radially in a polar coordinate system centered on them, at all. I’d bet your average shooter who makes the news can’t put 7/10 shots in a stationary silhouette at 10yd. It’s harder than you’d think.
- justin66 2y ago> I’m guessing there aren’t many studies on this Yeah. Researchers would have liked to interview them, but all the people who zig-zagged in favor of running as fast as they could are dead.
- el_benhameen 2y agoA classic scene on the subject: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=szcviFDt9xM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=szcviFDt9xM Fictional, but based on a real event.
- reducesuffering 2y agoI was thinking more Always Sunny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCZ9sIrjXpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCZ9sIrjXpM
- jstanley 2y ago> It’s so, so hard for any amateur to hit a target that is moving radially in a polar coordinate system centered on them, at all. Isn't that the easiest possible way because they remain on a constant bearing?
- p51-remorse 2y agoRadially might be the wrong word; I thought for a while about it. You’re correct, your goal is to present a target that is moving from the perspective of the shooter. Ideally not moving at a constant angular velocity.