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.

A classic scene on the subject: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=szcviFDt9xM

Fictional, but based on a real event.

I was thinking more Always Sunny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCZ9sIrjXpM

> 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.

> 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?

Radially 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.