Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns ...now NYPD is down to 1.19%

So, what's your solution here? More range time? Rodman's Neck in the Bronx (NYPD outdoor range) is going 24/7, 365. No cops or citizens hurt; bad guy in custody. Sounds like a win to me. What's "too many"? If only 50 rounds were fired and the suspect was killed, would that be OK? How about 20 rounds, no hits, and the suspect surrenders? Inquiring minds want to know your solution to a nonexistent problem.

Were "too many" rounds fired at the North Hollywood gunfight? Somewhere over 2,000 total were launched there. Same outcome...bad guys lost, good guys OK, no citizens hurt. Yes, training was updated as lessons were learned, but cops at the scene did the best they could under tough, unusual conditions. You respond and react to the situation you're given, not the scenario you want at the range.

The shooting will be critiqued up and down the chain of command and torn apart by the dept tactics and firearms guys. Findings will be disseminated and training will be updated and modified. And that's pretty good for a 35,000 man dept. Travis has actually been easy on you. But you only know what you know.
Bob

I think it is axiomatic that, as the number of variables and the fluctuations within variable categories increase, hit potential goes down. The square range on the perfect sunny day and with no movement is as good as it gets. It goes downhill from there. Yet, I know people who were atrocious on the square range who could buck up and get hits under life threatening stress.

I have a hard time drawing any conclusions on what works and what doesn’t across all people and variables. Actual gunfights are low frequency events and most people don’t get to be in a lot of them. Training can be geared to simulating actual conditions, but it still isn’t the same. (Also, SIMS don’t really work as well as distances increase.)

The only thing I know for sure is that you have a 100% chance of not hitting the target if you don’t shoot at it. So, if the person needs shooting, somebody probably needs to get cranking. When it comes to both opponents moving and especially as distances increase, the actions of coordinating the sights, estimating lead and executing appropriate trapping or tracking techniques and keeping all that together for the shot and follow through becomes darn hard and even daunting for the super pro operators. (Look at people shooting something as simple as an IDPA qualifier with minor forward movement toward a stationary target at relatively close distance.) As long as lives are not endangered, extra holes in trees and such are not a real downside any more than holes in the berm on the range. Of course, decision-making changes once no-shoot targets get in the picture.

Am I supporting the use of volume fire in lieu of proper technique? Of course not. But, sometimes it takes a lot of rounds to end the conflict. (North Hollywood is an example.)

So are you saying that 84 rounds and one hit is okay? Sure it all turned out just fine in this incident, but what about next time?

There's a bit of a disturbing pattern with NYPD and their lack of marksmanship.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/n...york-city-police-investigation.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/n...-square-police-wound-two-bystanders.html


And Travis isn't engaging in any sort of debate; just just slinging mud. He actually started to debate for the first time I've ever seen in years at the Campfire, but then he just couldn't help himself. I kept it civilized until he decided to sling mud. I'd be happy to gentlemanly debate the issue with him, but he's not capable of that. You said in one post 10x more than Travis has said on the subject. I think it's because you have the critical thinking skills to intelligently debate the subject, and he doesn't.

With Travis there is no disagreement, if you don't see things his way, then you must be some blithering idiot; childish.

You and I are on different sides of this one, but you didn't resort to being childish at all, you presented VERY good points that I find difficult to counter. You were able to make your case in a gentlemanly fashion. I both agree and disagree with your position, but I appreciate you being a gentleman about it.

84 rounds with 1 hit is certainly nothing to aspire to. The mounted officer in Austin who took the one handed 312 foot shot from atop a horse should be the goal. But, run and gun deals get crazy, and it is hard to make generalizations or to suggest that more firearms training would have resulted in a hit earlier in the process. How many (stationary) people repeatedly fire shotguns at moving birds and fail to connect with a single pellet. How could they miss? Well, it happens.

I don’t see much benefit in debating incidents as they appear in brief news articles. They don’t provide much probative value as to whether the police should have been able to hit the bad guys under the particular circumstances (or whether they should have fired at all).

If y'all don't behave I'm gonna walk out back and shoot an old water heater tank at 200 yards with my 1860 Army

Please take note that it isn't running.



Travis

JFC Gibson. How much further can you cram RGK's cock down your throat?

Wouldn't it be easier to just STFU and admit you don't know WTF you're talking about?





Travis

Killjoy.

I'm thinking I may find a way to attach IPSC targets to my son's Traxxas R/C truck. Just for fun.



Travis

No doubt Gibson will morph into an R/C guru next time he logs on and give me all sorts of advice on that schit too.




Travis

I find it amusing that some think they know what the hit ratio should be in a gunfight, despite having never been involved in one.

Wow, where to start…..

First, I don’t hate you. I hope you sleep better tonight knowing that. But not while actually thinking about me. Don’t think about me when you sleep, just sleep more peacefully because of me.

Secondly, no, I will not travel to NW Nevada. Although I figure you’re an alright guy, a sleepover is mosdef out of the question. You’ll never put your gravy on my biscuits.

Thirdly, feel free to hit the 400 yard target. I don’t think you can. But if you wanna prove me wrong, please do. You can post about it and I’ll say, “Wow Kevin. Great shooting. That’s awesome. I probably couldn’t make that shot, even with 85 shots.”


There’s no need to wait on me to drive all the way across the country to make the shot. If you need 84 bullets I’ll put some in a shoebox and mail it to you. Just let me know.

And thanks to Dave for having my back today while I was busy at the range.

Well that makes 4 regulars of the Campfire who disagree with me, and 3 who were capable of being gentlemen about it (Beavis is still a juvenile). We'll just have to disagree. I don't think you have to have been in a gunfight to know that one hit out of 84 rounds is not a good thing. But you guys (and Beavis) disagree and find it acceptable. Okay then.

Nice job Beavis, what a burn!!! You're so clever.

Did somebody mention juvenile?



Travis

No prob, Mav.

All I had to do yesterday was punch Meg Ryan and make fun of Debbie Gibson here.



Dave

Any fugkin' day now, Gibson.

Set us straight.



Clever Beavis

I have no idea of the conditions and or obstacles involved in this particular gunfight and neither do you. Therefor I have no idea if the hit ratio is justified or not. Slinging lead at the bad guy can keep the bad guy from sling lead back at you. The good guys in the case won, no harm no foul.

I love this place. More intertaininig then any TV. Lol.