Buddhism and the middle path I am battling with understanding the concept of the middle path. Having read the many articles available, the concept escapes me especially with a view of self and no-self. 

My understanding is that in Buddhism neither is where you want to be as it is an extreme. There must be balance. 

If i work with an example, it leaves me nowhere. I do not see the middle path. If i have a weapon pointed to my head, i only see 2 outcomes. Death or survival. If i take the view of self, i would fear the outcome. If i take the view of no-self, i realize all is impermanent and have no fear. 

Where is the middle path in this?

Secondly, what roles do intent and motivation play? For example, given the same example, if i am motivated to survive, is that not a play on self? If i have no intention of survival, is that not a play on no-self?

Again, where is the middle path in this?
The middle path is not that which is in between two paths, rather it is usually a different path that does not take extreme viewpoints.

One definition of the middle path comes in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of practice. Here, one takes neither the path of enjoying sensual pleasures in a nihilistic and hedonistic way, nor self-mortification through extreme asceticism. Instead, comes the Noble Eightfold Path, which really isn't about allowing or prohibiting sensual pleasures but covers much more.

Another definition of the middle path comes in the Acela Sutta  where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of philosophy. Here, one neither takes viewpoints of eternalism (there is an eternal self) nor annihilationism (there is no self at all and no existence), but rather takes a very different viewpoint, which is of dependent origination.

This idea is also similar to what is described as false dilemma in western philosophy, where you think that the solution must either be black or white, and nothing else. In reality, there could be more solutions than simply two extreme viewpoints. Wikipedia has the example of "either you are for, or against us". In reality, you could take other stands.

For e.g. in your example, you think you have two choices - either not defend yourself and take the bullet, or defend yourself and maybe even kill the attacker. But there could be a different solution, e.g. you could try to negotiate with the attacker and try to convince him that he could do better than to commit murder. In this way, you could actually help your attacker by providing him with the means to reform and improve himself.

And by the way, the Buddha doesn't teach that there is no self. A self definitely exists. It is just that the self is not permanent or absolute, and arises due to the inter-working of the senses, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Anatta means "not self" (not "no self") as in "all phenomena is not self". This again lies in the middle path (of dependent origination), rather than taking the extreme views (there is an eternal self vs. there is absolutely no self and no existence). I discuss this also in another answer.

The mistaken view is that because there is no self, it is ok to allow the attacker to kill you without any other alternatives. This is based on the extreme view of annihilationism, which is mentioned above.