Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns '86 miami shootout

Why not the 35? Increased sight radius, decreased recoil, higher velocities, faster recovery times, and no harder to carry.

I carry the 5" M&P Pro for the same reasons. The 5" gun simply makes a better, more shootable platform.

Sorry jwp...my post wasn't more clear...my point wasn't about weaponry.

I'm looking at what the agents did, and what they didn't do, in perspective.

They were out on patrol looking for a pair of well armed suspects, known to them to be ruthless bank robbers, armed robbers, and stone cold killers...that's what they were supposedly doing that day.

While out on patrol, they were wearing no body armor, no eye protection, and other than their personal sidearms, they had no other weapons at-the-ready, even though much more powerful offensive weapons were readily available to them locked up in the trunks of their vehicles. Also there appears to be a lack of any planning as to how to engage their targets if they did find them.

Some of these guys had SWAT training, but even those agents showed no situational awareness of an impending confrontation, as is demonstrated by their lack of preparation.

I can only conclude that either they didn't expect to run into the bad guys that day, or that if they did, their intent was to keep eyes on them and call for backup to actually take them down. They don't look to me like a team that was planning to engage or ready to do so, physically or mentally.

Now, I can't know what they were thinking at the time, but their lack of preparation is telling me that these agents did not expect to be involved in a firefight that day; yet they put themselves into a situation where the weapons they had at hand would not enable them to take the initiative and control the outcome.

They were brave enough, and as a group, the agents did manage to defend themselves with the weapons they brought, but I think it was their courage once they came under fire that won the day...if one can call the deaths of two agents and the wounding of others a victory.

They paid a high price by placing themselves into a situation they were not prepared for. The agents that walked away from this were very fortunate to have done so.

They had a little luck on their side that day, and that possibly saved their lives. The accidental pinning of the suspect vehicle slowed down the bad guy's response time, but depending on the bad guy to shoot his weapon dry before arresting him is not a workable plan.

If Platt had been wearing even light body armor, or hadn't run out of ammo, this incident would be referred to as the Miami Massacre instead of the Miami Shootout.

TC

I do. I hand load my own 124 gr XTP's for my 9mm CCW handgun. 16 rounds on board, and 30 more in the mag pouch. Things might have worked out a little differently had those guys been packing similarly.

It was a terrible incident, but as has been noted here already, many lessons learned there have saved lives since. Some very heroic action took place that day.

CT,

I like the 155�s in the .40 cal personally and I consider them better for home protection and possibly better for concealed carry on the street by civilians. The 180s offer a bit better penetration which is why they�re king for LE but I see nothing wrong with your department�s selection; I�d certainly feel adequately armed.

As to the 1076�I always liked that pistol. Always thought of it as a �shooters� 10mm, very well thought out and built Ford tough. It�s heavy as a boat anchor so most cops didn�t like that, And the newer .40�s pretty much made it obsolete within a couple of years of its inception. Still, the 1076 is a great piece.

I put a few hundred rounds through the very first one to hit my hometown, and I was impressed; very impressed. I consider the Steyr Scout a great all around rifle, exceptionally well designed, outstanding ergonomics. They way they addressed the �scout definition� was innovative to say the least. It�s an excellent hunting rifle that can do light combat duty in a pinch. But against someone who has a semi-auto with a 20 or 30 round magazine at close range, you�re at a serious disadvantage. As the range increases, your disadvantage with the Scout decreases, and of course if the other guy is less trained, that�s a huge equalizer. But all else being equal, I don�t go for the concept of pitting manual action rifles against semi-autos. Like I said, in force on force training, I�ve seen people make good use of effective suppressive fire to first suppress the other guy, then pick him off at leisure once suppressed. The man with the manual action rifle is either flanked by someone else while the man who suppressed him stands watch and keeps him pinned down. Or if it�s a one on one, just waits for him to pop his head up again.

As far as manual action rifles go though, the Steyr Scout is a decent enough fighting rifle. But I just think it�s kind of a fools errand to knowingly choose a manual action gun if you know you may be facing a defensive shooting situation. However, there may be times where manual action is the only option. In such instances, one could do a whole lot worse than the Steyr Scout. Like I said, it�s a SLICK rifle.

I get the impression that you assume the opposition will be armed with AK-47's or AR-15's and have lots of ammo to expend in the fight. And they will out number the guy armed with the Scout Rifle and the fight will occur at close range.
That's alot of assuming.
I'd say for the guy that shoots once and moves, especially if he picks the ground, the advantages of some guy armed with a semi auto are not much, if any.
From what I've noticed, even cops rarely run into guys as well trained and armed like the Miami Shootout. Over the years, I've only known of three, one of which was this one. E

I would argue the semi-auto isn't as effective as most think in the non-military role. By that I mean people massed into squads and trained to mass fires as directed by a squad leader. Someone who's been to Gunsite or attended Randy Cain's Practical Rifle Class with a Steyr really doesn't give up that much with a SScout, and what is added is a rifle capable of dumping the most determined adversary with a well-placed shot, and with that rifle,quickly placing it where it needs to go is easier than any other, IMO.

You would roll out of the car with 15rds on the Scout, 30 with an AR, nothing to sneer at, but there were only two bad guys.

You can certainly make the argument that a modern AR set up to 3-gun standards and loaded with 77gr SMK's or 70 Bergers would be nearly the fight stopper as the little 308 Steyr and be equally as handy. In 1986 though, such a setup didn't exist, it would have been an iron-sited A1. In fairness the Scout Rifle was in it's infancy at Gunsite as well.

The little Steyr is accurate enough to serve as a law enforcement counter-sniper rifle and light and handy enough to be a fight-stopping defensive carbine.

Like I said, my force on force training has taught me that the manual action guys has few opportunities where the semi-auto doesn't have the advantage. If each just pops up, snaps off a perfect shot, no advantage at all. But suppression fire while moving is damn near impossible with a manual action rifle.

....knowing Jeff's dislike for high powered magnification and his utter hatred of variable scopes, the extended eye relief scope on a Scout would be counter productive in this capacity wouldn't it? He was an SSG fan for these kind of situations IIRC.

At the SHOT show I got to handle an FNAR---the little short barreled one really felt great although just alittle too heavy to meet Scout requirements--

http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?fid=FNF049&gid=FNG022&mid=FNM0176

---it seems like it would be a great all around piece to fill the niche----for some reason a number of Jeff's "spin offs" haven't gotten on the Scout rifle bandwagon, especially Clint Smith, Chuck Taylor or Ken Hackathorn. TAK, you seem to follow Awerbuck pretty closely, what's his take on the Scout??

I think the Scout rifle is an interesting concept, but you don�t have to have a �Scout� rifle to do the same thing. The Scout Rifle is a compromise weapon in that it�s not perfect for any one job, but it does a number of jobs pretty damn well. I�ll agree with TAK that the Scout is accurate enough to be a counter sniper rifle, especially with a more conventional scope. I don�t see any actual need for the LER scope, and when I had a Scout to play with, I compared it to a conventionally mounted Leupold VX-II 2-7 on low power. If you kept both eyes open, it was just as fast and just as handy as the LER. But the LER allows the use of stripper clips with military action rifles that that�s awfully nice; almost worth moving the scope forward.

In my former home town there was a group of guys who competed in a �Scout Rifle� course they had designed at a local range, with targets from 15-400 yards out. Manual action guns were required, because light AR�s would always win otherwise. The guy who waxed everyone�s arse every time had a CZ-427 in 7.62x39 with (IIRC) a Leupold 1.5-6 scope conventionally mounted. He shot Wolf ammo, but because he shot Wolf ammo, he shot his rifle a LOT. He didn�t win because he had the best equipment, he won because he was better trained. And equipment discussions are always interesting, but match a well trained guy with the Steyr Scout against a guy with a semi-auto and I�d have to say the well trained guy with the Steyr probably has the edge. It�s almost always the Indian, not the arrow.

I don't know. A friend of mine has attended three of his classes, I've not met him. He is fairly open minded, he doesn't try to force someone into a Weaver handgun stance like the Gunsite instructors do, for instance. Raised on a 1911, he advocates "plastic-nines" now.

I have attended Randy Cain's Practical Rifle Class and I shot my Steyr, IIRC, Randy had owned and sold two of them. He found them hard to top off with single rounds and went back to a 20in Pre-64 Model 70 in 308 with a 1-4x Leupold. He is not a huge fan of a forward optic, they simply do not work for some people's vision. If there is any "mixed dominance" between the eyes, you are worse off with a forward optic.

I tell folks to try one on a Marlin 30/30 with that $50 XS scout mount, if it doesn't work for you, sell it.

Remember, Cooper started running rifle classes in the early 80's and he saw rampant scope failures, mostly variables. He liked technology that worked, and hated what didn't work.

You mentioned Bill Rogers earlier. It would be interesting to hear his take on it.

Can you comment, and/or is it published on the web somewhere?

TC

I can't believe some here are suggesting in a close quarters situation they would pick a bolt action rifle, ANY bolt action rifle over a short barrel ar-15, your crazy if you think the bolt gun isn't outgunned. go play paintball with a pump action gun against guys with semi autos and get back to me. in that situation give me an AR or AK, SKS anything that fires semi auto, with a semi auto you can keep a guys head down while you move to better positions. try doing that with a bolt gun.

I don't want to keep their heads down, I want to take em off!

I'll take my chances with a quality AR in 6.8. Now I have good terminal performance high magazine capacity coupled with excellent accuracy

What more could one want?

Two points come to mind, after reading most of this thread. One, tactics come to mind, more than weapons.

I don't think it would have mattered if all the FBI guys had rifles or shotguns, if they hit the suspects car, and get knocked silly by the collision - which was a problem with at least Grogan (lost his glasses and couldn't see well after the collision).

In the frequent hellicopter videos of highway chases, you often see one car, driven by the HP or local police, who rams/pits the fleeing vehicle to disable it. Immediately support vehicles rush in with whatever force is appropriate, and finish the job, knowing that the lead guy has just been in a collision, and needs help. Presumably, this is how these cops are trained to stop chases.

The FBI would have done well to anticipate, "...if a car chase occurs, whoever rams/disables the suspect vehicle will retreat as soon as possible, and the support guys will act (start shooting) until the threat is stopped...". The FBI, of course, doesn't do highway chases, and probably hadn't even thought about these issues since the days of Dillinger, so the brave agents found themselves in a bad place, but they did stop two killers, and taught many others important lessons.

Two, it's darned unlikely I will ever have to stop known armed killers in a car, but the earlier point about staying in the fight makes sense for anyone who has determined to defend themselves. At some point, you have to be prepared to fight! There was another video circulating a couple of years ago, of a lone deputy who pulled over a speeder, who started pulling a gun out of a toolbox. After a lot of shouting and unheeded commands, the deputy finally starts shooting, but only wounds the gunman, who kills the lawman and drives off. The victim was probably a nice guy, who wasn't ready to fight effectively when he desperately needed to do so.

All I know is give me an M-1 carbine and I'm good to go.

You are assuming the fight will be at close range and that you'll have lots of ammo. Worst of all, you assume you can move to different cover and shoot well enough at the same time to keep his head down. All he has to do is wait until you empty your rifle and try to reload. Then you are dead. Or he can shoot and move, letting you waste your ammo where he was.
The trouble with these set piece scenaros is that they assume the fight will be in a selected location, at a range they assume and go like they think.
They are often different than what we assume.
The Scout rifle is just an all around rifle with some special features. Jeff Cooper also wrote that a guy armed with a basic sporter and a basic hunting scope, like a 4X, will also do very well. The Scout Rifle was basically a test bed for ideas to make the basic rifle more user friendly.
BTW, he learned that variable scopes were quite vulnerable to breakdowns from experience. Something others who shoot alot have also found. E

The Scout rifle was intended for the man who wasn�t supposed to get engaged in combat.

For combat against human targets out to 300 yards, I can do anything a Scout rifle can do with a semi-auto and have the advantage of a semi-auto with a high magazine capacity.

The Scout Rifle is a great all arounder, and really has a romantic appeal. And true it can pinch hit as a defensive rifle if it has to. But to actually choose it as a fighting arm over purpose built semi-autos, is fool hearted romanticism; nothing more. The scenarios where the Scout rifle would have the advantage would be on the ragged edge of the exceptions to the rule. Even with rifles, most combat takes place around 35 yards on average. As the distance increases, the chances of engagement goes down exponentially. As distances increase, some of the advantage of a semi-auto begins to decrease as well; but you have to get into the realms of the �exceptions� where the semi-auto no longer has the advantage.

Now, with that said. If I were hunting somewhere in the world where safety could potentially be an iffy thing, a Scout rifle would be awfully hard to beat. As a general light weight rifle for hunting or wilderness survival with only a small to moderate human vs. human threat level; again, the Scout would be idea. But you don�t exactly see many people toting a Scout rifle into a combat zone; there�s a reason for that, and it�s the same reason soldiers, for the most part, haven�t carried bolt guns since WWII.