Don’t Run in a Straight Line? Says Who?

By Woody published on in Safety and Training

Many experts describing how to flee from an armed actively shooting attacker advise, “Don’t run in a straight line.” But the idea that running in a zig-zag or crouch is better than running in a straight line is pure conjecture, says Greg Ellifritz, a full-time firearms and defensive tactics training officer for a central Ohio police department and the president of Active Response Training. “There really isn’t any documented evidence to suggest that any one technique is better than any other. The ‘experts’ are just guessing,” he says.

Greg Ellifritz, a full-time firearms and defensive tactics training officer for a central Ohio police department and the president of Active Response Training, conducted tests with runners fleeing a simulated active shooter using a Simunitions paintball gun (shown). Number-one takeaway: Run fast. Photo courtesy of Greg Ellifritz.

Greg Ellifritz, a full-time firearms and defensive tactics training officer for a central Ohio police department and the president of Active Response Training, conducted tests with runners fleeing a simulated active shooter using a Simunitions paintball gun (shown). Number-one takeaway: Run fast. Photo courtesy of Greg Ellifritz.

Running in a crouched position is advocated by universities, self-defense instructors, and survival experts, Ellifritz said. “It is rare that you will find anyone who recommends running in a straight line away from the shooter.”

Because of the paucity of data about the subject, Ellifritz decided to test to see if mock active shooters using Simunitions weapons (Glock 17 pistols that fire a type of paintball) hit fleeing targets more often when they were running in a straight line, running in a zig-zag pattern, or running in a crouched position.

Ellifritz said, “I wanted the designated ‘shooter’ to find his target and attempt to shoot it. The target, or runner, was randomly selected to either run in a straight line, run a zig-zag pattern, or run in a crouch in order to get to cover. The runner had to traverse a distance of 30 feet and get behind cover before he was ‘safe.’”

Ellifritz pointed out that in a real active-shooter event, the shooter won’t know exactly where his victims will be. Nor will he know the direction they will be fleeing. To simulate this, Ellifritz started the shooter with his back to the runner with 20 feet separating the two. The runner could position himself anywhere along a designated line (20 feet away from the shooter) and run to either of the two pieces of cover Ellifritz had set up. That way, when the shooter turned to fire, he wouldn’t automatically know where the runner was located.

Ellifritz said, “For the sake of consistency across all of the experiments, I limited the shooter to only firing two rounds. That proved adequate for the exercise. In most runs, the shooter was firing the second shot just as the runner reached cover. Most shooters would have been unable to fire any more shots.”

He ran 34 separate tests, evenly split between each of the running options (straight line, crouch, zig-zag). The “crouch” option had two fewer test runs than the other options because students in this Active Response Training class had back injuries and could not attain a crouched position. Participants were mostly male and ranged in age between early 20s and early 70s. The “average” participant was a male in his 40s.

Here are the results:

Straight Line:

# Trials                                                                           12

# Shots Fired                                                                  21

% Hits                                                                             52%

% Center Mass or Head Hits (out of total shots fired)    47%

Crouch:

# Trials                                                                           10

# Shots Fired                                                                  20

% Hits                                                                             55%

% Center Mass or head hits (out of total shots fired)     50%

Zig-Zag:

# Trials                                                                           12

# Shots Fired                                                                  24

% Hits                                                                             54%

% Center Mass or head hits (out of total shots fired)     36%

Ellifritz said, “This was a small study with some very specific parameters. I will provide my advice based on what I saw, but please realize that my observations may not be applicable in a different context. All of the shooters in this study were highly skilled, the ranges were short, and the rounds were limited. Everyone was running on grass. The results may not be the same if any of those variables change.”

Ellifritz takeaways were:

— Speed is important. The faster that the victim can get to cover or out of the shooter’s range, the safer he or she is likely to be.

— There is not enough evidence that zig-zagging should be the default recommendation.

— Zig-zagging does tend to make hits less serious.

— Zig-zag running should not be recommended for people who have knee problems or who are wearing body armor. Reason: People with knee issues tend to fall down on zig-zag runs — the worst possible outcome.

— The crouched running position should not be used while running in the open. It may be useful to crouch if that crouch keeps the runner behind cover.

— For those people who can’t run fast, zig-zagging may be the best option.

To see Ellifritz’s conclusions, click here

Greg Ellifritz is the full-time firearms and defensive-tactics training officer for a central Ohio police department and is the president of Active Response Training. He holds instructor or master instructor certifications in more than 75 different weapon systems, defensive tactics programs and police specialty areas. Ellifritz has a master’s degree in Public Policy and Management and has been an instructor for both the Ohio Peace Officer’s Training Academy and the Tactical Defense Institute.

For an example of what one of the test runs looked like, check out the video link below:

Tags: , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (7)

  • evilhippo

    |

    “Rush a gun, run from a knife.”

    I would say the rule of thumb there is rush a gun if you can be hands on within 2 seconds *tops* if they can see you… otherwise run like hell the other way.

    Reply

  • Dean Kennedy

    |

    David’s comment about rushing to the outside of the arm holding the gun is interesting. I would like to see a test of that, compared also with the result of having a gun and firing back.

    Reply

  • LeeC

    |

    #2… Videophile! Wait ’til I tell your In-Laws!! }:o)

    Reply

  • Keith

    |

    Obviously, it’s all Bush’s fault….wait, what were we talking about again?

    Reply

  • David

    |

    In my opinion instantly closing the distance and getting on the outside of the strong arm is probably the best defense, and the best position to strip the gun from. Rush a gun, run from a knife.

    Reply

  • shooter

    |

    “Serpentine, Shel! Serpentine!”

    Reply

  • G-Man

    |

    Given the increase in active shooter situations this type of study is quite important. So important, that I recommend the next trial include live rounds and death row inmates. Test settings should include both indoor and outdoor scenarios.

    All kidding aside, my 32 years of military and law enforcement experience teaches me that a person is not going to think about the pattern in which they flee a madman firing a gun. They will react (or not react) based on their body and brain’s ability at that given moment.

    Only the well-trained military, police, or practicing civilian will implement movements which may assist in evading a threat; and they will do so without even thinking about. They will just react. The reason is because their training and muscle-memory will automatically kick in for them. This is assuming they train and practice repeatedly over long intervals like professionals usually do.

    It is only after an incident is over that an individual thinks back and replays their actions in their head. The untrained survivors will chalk it up to luck (which it probably was), but the trained individual will usually realize and identify it was training and muscle-memory that controlled what appeared to be their natural responses.

    It is a fact, when military and law enforcement experience this after affect, even during their continued training scenarios, they are very aware that it was previous practice and repetition that honed their skills and sharpened their muscle-memory which leads them to successful outcomes more times than not.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.


3 − three =