More proof that 10 rounds is probably not enough....

[Old Dog]

All of these DGU's happened at arm length to 10 feet, if I remember right none of them fired more than 4 rounds, none involved a reload, most involved a single shot. The only two of his students killed in a gun fight did not have a gun.

And NONE of these good folks needed either a hand-held or weapon-mounted flashlight -- each case, there was enough ambient light, even at night, for sighted fire.

Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't matter what drugs etc. they are on, if the shots go where they need to go it's all over.

And sometimes it's not over. My former department, one of our guys shot a guy in his bed (officers believed was reaching for a gun on his nightstand, nope), just woke up, 16 rounds. He lived (yeah, he's AFU, but...) to sue and presumably is living quite well on the several million dollar settlement.

 

[TNThomas]

Agree and hips/crotch area moves the least when a person is moving. Center mass moves more, and head moves a LOT more. A person simply turning their head or moving their head in a split second to the side or up or down can mean the difference between a hit or a miss. I like the Clint smith drill of shooting all three areas center mass, crotch, head so one can be proficient and practiced in shooting all 3 areas until fight is stopped. Magazine capacity directly impacts ability to keep continuity of fire for that imo.

I played offensive line in college, and one core blocking/hitting technique I picked up was to always watch the dudes hips, especially if they were fast. It is indeed the only body part that truely shows where somebody is going. Arms, head, chest, legs, all that stuff is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Cerberus Group]

And sometimes it's not over. My former department, one of our guys shot a guy in his bed (officers believed was reaching for a gun on his nightstand, nope), just woke up, 16 rounds. He lived (yeah, he's AFU, but...) to sue and presumably is living quite well on the several million dollar setsettlement

You made my point...16 rounds fired to stop the threat. It's obvious the rounds went everywhere except where they needed to go.

 

[DB is Here]

the 9 vs 45 thingy rears its ugly head

Discuss

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Granted I am speaking from a combat , not a civilian self defense perspective here...
At times all I needed was one shot with one hit and it was enough.
At other times a crew served weapon and all the linked ammunition in the world did not seem like enough.

In regards to the two times I had to use a firearm to defend myself as a civilian...
I did not need to shoot at all...presenting the firearm and stating my command / intention was enough.
Not needing to shoot at all...was a excellent outcome for all involved.

My point being here is...
Enough is the amount that is used to stop the threat.

With that said :

Shot placement...

Proper ammunition used...
Not speaking here of caliber or even buying into sales / you tube hype about the latest craze in bullet design...
I am speaking of ammo that works well with your firearm of choice...
Along with ammo that is accurate with how you shoot your firearm of choice.

Being extremely familiar with your firearm of choice...
As in you can operate it and shoot it from damn near , if not actual muscle memory.

The above three will play a large role in just what is enough ammunition to stop a threat.
Andy

 

[RobMa]

Interesting to think about what if this woman had a pistol instead of a knife? What would the cops do? How would the factors of distance and time change? Would cover and or concealment come into play?

What if the woman came out with a rifle? Again what would cops do and how would the factors of distance and time change? Would the cops use cover and concealment? Just throwing out food for thought for us to think about our personal protection, not trying to be critical of cops in any way, shape, or form. This is kinda "don't bring a knife to a gun fight and as others said "suicide by cop", but it's interesting to think about other scenarios in terms of what would we do.

Video of cops reacting to perp with a long gun just for reference:

View: https://youtu.be/ckJZJoTD71U?si=T0IKZ5WlyIgumgBD

"could be prevalent in domestic violence calls"
Sounds like the media shilling for and supporting red flag laws with that obvious statement.

 

[Koda]

You made my point...16 rounds fired to stop the threat. It's obvious the rounds went everywhere except where they needed to go.

I don't think there is a practical solution to this problem, especially when even most police officers mag dump with low hit percentages. The issue I see is the window of skill to maintain a level of such proficiency under stress, is really expensive and small. And it must be maintained.

And on the flip side, your absolutely right, 100% on multiple levels... not just stopping the threat with the least subjective amount of lethal force, but the liability of where those missed rounds end up, especially for civilian DGUs.

In the context of armed civilians, what is the solution, is there a minimum level of training?

 

[dangerranger60]

I don't think there is a practical solution to this problem, especially when even most police officers mag dump with low hit percentages. The issue I see is the window of skill to maintain a level of such proficiency under stress, is really expensive and small. And it must be maintained.

And on the flip side, your absolutely right, 100% on multiple levels... not just stopping the threat with the least subjective amount of lethal force, but the liability of where those missed rounds end up, especially for civilian DGUs.

In the context of armed civilians, what is the solution, is there a minimum level of training?

Several of my friends got their Post training in the year the cops were going from revolvers to 15 round S&W semi autos. The New training was that the winner would be the first to get shots on target. They were teaching the new officers to start firing as soon as the gun leveled at the perp. None of the trainers were very happy with the new training. And within just a few short years they returned to getting sights on target before shooting.
I practice getting a good scoring shot on target in under 2 seconds. that is not blazing fast, but enough time to place a bullet where needed. DR

 

[JeremyK]

Methed-out swamp donkey with a carving knife. Terrifying sight to behold.

 

[Catfishmoon]

What or how to carry is totally up to each individual, but I would not feel "under - gunned" concealed carrying a large caliber revolver or a 1911, which both hold a limited number of rounds. I agree with the earler comment that a focus on penetration and accuracy has given way to prioritizing a speed draw and capacity in the gun community.
Kind of goes along with the thinking that a handgun has to have a light, a dot sight, a ported barrel, a specific type of grips, can not have a manual safety and has to be carried appendix for it to be effective.

 

[Cerberus Group]

I don't think there is a practical solution to this problem, especially when even most police officers mag dump with low hit percentages. The issue I see is the window of skill to maintain a level of such proficiency under stress, is really expensive and small. And it must be maintained.

And on the flip side, your absolutely right, 100% on multiple levels... not just stopping the threat with the least subjective amount of lethal force, but the liability of where those missed rounds end up, especially for civilian DGUs.

In the context of armed civilians, what is the solution, is there a minimum level of training?

Agencies run 2-4 qualifications a year, and I would dare say that most LE don't firearm train in between.

With the line/patrol people being first responders to all calls, they will be in more armed confrontations, yet receive less tactical and firearms training than SWAT type teams.

With that being said, now comes the standards.. what are they vs what should they be?

First, all line/patrol should receive SWAT type tactical and firearm level training. Not hostage rescue and the like, but basic CQB, vehicle and open area tactics.

This may ruffle some feathers, but there needs to be a physical fitness standard that is not sex specific. The job is the job, and must be executed no matter size, age or sex, and people in the job must hold to those standards throughout their career...no exceptions.
If you don't have the physical capability to save yourself and others, go find something else to do.

In the military SF world, if the person can not meet the phys standards, or there's an injury that leaves the person unable to continue at the set level, they are excused.

In the LE world, the physical standards have been lessened, and there's a difference in the standards because of sex and sometimes age. Those types tend to be a burden, as now others will need to lookout more for them. We've all seen pics of the 300+ lb cop...'nuff said.

Firearm standards...that can be highly debatable. I subscribe to the Aim small, miss small thing.

Steel is fun to shoot, but is generally to large, thus we go for the ping sound as a good hit, vs accuracy. To better measure accuracy with large IPSC/USPSA type steel targets, paint the target, then with a contrasting color, paint NO HIT zones to make the actual hit zone smaller. Also the A zone should extend all the way North into the head box. Whomever thought that the shooter should be penalized for a hit just above the A box in the C zone, ought to be beat...that's a solid hit area, a confluence of trachea, arteries, and bone...that will in fact drop a drug induced person if hit.

If not steel, then something the size of a B8 repair. The black is about 5 1/4" and out to the 8 ring is about 8"

Think of High and Tight. If the rounds don't go in the snot locker, they need to go into the High and Tight area...that being anything above nipple height, and narrow as nipple width. The nipple width on an average human is about 9" All the of the major stuff is located within this area.

But that's frontal, now turn much of any amount right or left and that 9" width drops in half real quick.

So the standard...able to hit the high and tight area consistently no matter what...no matter the weather, lighting, terrain, or angle. That also means working around obstacles, people and barriers.

Will we throw shots now and then? Yep, we're not perfect...but I find those that train to a high accuracy standard, do better in actual shootings.

So when you're out shooting and you miss some shots...don't excuse them. Learn why you threw them and do better.

Also train for success. Start shooting a drill at 3-5 yards. If all hits are high and tight, increase speed. When everything is 100% hits, then move back a yard or more and do it again. Keep to this standard and you'll find yourself increasing accuracy and confidence in yourself...and more consistent accuracy at longer distance.

As the old saying goes...I've upped my standards, now up yours.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

My 2 cents. If the call was dangerous enough for three officers to approach with pistols drawn, then one of them should have had a long gun out. With occupied apartments and cars in the background I would prefer a shotgun to an AR. One shot of FliteControl to a knee could have quickly ended her advance.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Mag capacity has nothing to do with accuracy. If you have more rounds it doesn't mean you automatically shoot more. It allows you to stay in the fight longer and maintain continuity of fire.

 

[Koda]

Agencies run 2-4 qualifications a year, and I would dare say that most LE don't firearm train in between.

My guess is most average armed citizens only practice maybe once a year and from a static position. It makes sense most feel better with larger capacity guns.

First, all line/patrol should receive SWAT type tactical and firearm level training. Not hostage rescue and the like, but basic CQB, vehicle and open area tactics.

Makes sense, Ive always wondered about what I think is called the "string of fire" training I see in most police shootings where they basically mag dump on the suspect even as they are going down. This has resulted in a hot issue politically of course.
Is this still a thing with patrol training and is it really necessary? Just something I'm curious about, not stating an opinion against it other than I can see why it results in a lot of political discourse.

 

[Provincial]

In pistol shooting, I discovered that I am not real good at hitting a point consistently. I also discovered that if I sweep the target vertically, I can keep all my shots within a narrow vertical string. Now I use the vertical sweep and can easily keep all hits between the forehead and the crotch, with almost all landing between the eyebrows and the belly button. If I limit the target area to the torso, hits fall between the shoulders and the belly button.

This allows me to focus on hitting the narrowest part of my target and not worry as much about the less critical part.

I am accurate enough with rifles that I can aim for a point and have good results. With pistols, not so much.

 

[Cerberus Group]

My 2 cents. If the call was dangerous enough for three officers to approach with pistols drawn, then one of them should have had a long gun out. With occupied apartments and cars in the background I would prefer a shotgun to an AR. One shot of FliteControl to a knee could have quickly ended her advance.

Anytime the call is for a threat with any kind of weapon, yes, a rifle should be on site

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Wow we were just talking about how the slightest movement of the head of the target can make the difference of a hit or miss. Had Trump been looking forward towards the podium at the time of the shot it would have hit and went through his skull and certainly would have been deadly. But he turned looking towards the shooter and bullet hit his ear only. WOW.

 

[Lazyfaire]

Looks like another drug zombie as I call them. It is scary how often people like this seem to soak up rounds. Imagine she had a gun instead of a knife. She got up and picked up that knife again. If it was a gun she could have been firing.

FAFO

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Article on how a split second turn of the head made the difference between a graze and death:

How Trump’s split-second head turn may have saved his life from assassin’s bullet

If Trump’s head had been straight when Crooks fired, “it would have been lights out,” Israeli Special Operations veteran Aaron Cohen said.

nypost.com

Here's a photo of the bullet, or one of the bullets, just missing him:

 

[Cerberus Group]