Actually, I am impressed...but I thought I'd post this link to a friend's thread on another site. Note that this 185 grain bullet did not exit the torso of a modestly sized bobcat, yet the performance was terrific.

http://www.modernsportsman.com/cgi-...ns&action=display&num=1199375255

230 grain ball would have exited and probably had the same effect, but performance shouldn't be measured by whether or not a bullet exits a cavity...!

Dan

Yeah but how thick was that bobcat? About 5-6"? I agree we cannot always measure performance based on an exit hole but Im kind of shocked it did not punch through.

I had a marlin camp rifle in .45 and loaded the old 200gr speer inspector to over 1100fps and it would leave nasty holes in coyotes. I dont recall it not exiting unless it was a full length shot.

I'm not impressed. Cats tend to be pretty "soft" and actually a bit fragile to the effects of bullets. A 15 yard shot between the shoulders of a small bobcat with no exit doesn't thrill me at all. Especially for a .45 caliber bonded core bullet of 185 grains leaving the muzzle at 1,100 fps and impacting such a small light skinned and boned animal at only 15 yards. I wouldn't trust them for self defense...

My point...if there is one, is that what we come to expect from certain ammunition isn't always the case. Each case is different, as is each target, as is each shooter. To look to one shooting, one instance and brand a certain ammunition as unworthy, when other shootings suggest it is very worthy, is a foolish exercise. Don't read too much into this shooting. Yes, a bobcat isn't really a large or thick skinned animal. I once punched a .36 caliber ball from a Navy revolver completely through a good sized fox's chest at about 10 yards. The animal ran about 50 or 60 yards after the hit but died. I'm not necessarily an advocate of the .36 Navy as a defensive arm - despite what Wild Bill was able to accomplish with one - but in that one instance, it was adequate. In this instance, was the projectile not adequate? What did the shooter expect? What do we expect? This is a round that boasts maximum expansion against clothed tissue. Well, it certainly proved up to the expansion hype. So, if there was a failure, what was it? Between the shoulders from an elevated stand indicates a probable spine hit. I've only had one .45-70 projectile fail to exit a deer and it was because of a spine hit. In this instance, I don't believe there was a failure. It worked perfectly.

Dan

Dan, thank you for posting that link. The pictures of the recovered bullet pretty much tell the tale, it expanded big time, looks like it retained most of its weight. It's always nice to see a recovered bullet that hit something other than "test" media. Give an atta boy to your friend, that was a good shot. I was thinking along the lines that there should have been an exit as well, but one things for sure, it dumped all the energy into the cat. Any good estimate how far it actually penetrated?

No idea, but that cat's torso isn't all that thick...though it probably looks a bit thinner all stretched out like that.

Dan

I think that�s great performance from that bullet. Picture perfect expansion and very limited penetration. What I look for in a 185 grain .45 ACP is rapid expansion and shallow penetration, and that�s exactly what that bullet did. The idea is to minimize the risk of over-penetration on a crowded street, apartment building or home with people sleeping in adjoining rooms. Remember, hollow points respond to hydraulic pressure, which is what causes them to expand. A Bobcat may be small, but they�re very muscular, and muscle is full of water. Therefore you get excellent hydraulic resistance to the bullet, which results in perfect expansion. The lack of penetration is caused by:

1. The huge frontal diameter of the expanded bullet (I�ll hazard a guess of about .70 diameter) which offers tremendous resistence
2. Complete lack of sectional density of the 185 Gold Dot bullet.

I think much of the problem with handgun bullet expectations for defensive use, is the FBI standards. The FBI standards place a very heavy emphasis on penetration even after passing through intermediary objects such as a fence post or car windshield, and these standards make sense for LE officers on duty. But a cartridge that will still give 12� of penetration in ballistic gelatin after going through a car window might not be the best choice for those of us defending our home.

Most of the 230 grain bullets of today probably penetrate a bit much for concealed carry or home defense. Most would be better armed with a 185 or 200 grain bullet to put the breaks on penetration. If you don�t expect to have to shoot through walls, fences, car doors or car windshields, then all of that penetration power of the 230 grain loads becomes a liability, rather than an asset.

Finally, it doesn�t take 12� of penetration to incapacitate a human being. On frontal shots, you can make quite lethal wounds with just 3� of penetration. The one shot that does require some penetration is the side shot where you have to penetrate through an arm. But here�s the kicker, just keep shooting�eventually, the bad guy will turn to investigate the source of those pesky 185�s chewing up the side of his torso and arm.

Thank you Kevin. I hope you realize my thread title was tongue in cheek.

Dan

Ah but, you can't guarenty only frontal shots in a defensive encounter, and that why a bit more penetration is desired, just ask the dead FBI agents in the infamous Miami shoot out...

Wouldn't it be better to ask the living FBI agent from the infamous Miami shootout, who ended it one handed with a .38 special snubby? Penetration wasn't so much the issue as marksmanship. With the exception of the Mini-14, the bad guys and good guys were pretty much armed exactly the same! The difference was preparedness and willingness...not bullet styles.

Dan

Acctualy he ended it with a 12 guage before he walked over to the car with the 38.. The main bad guy was hit early on and was bleeding down from a hit with inadequate peneteration to reach the heart......He was hit in the right bicept in line with thwe heart, but not eniough penetration to reach the heart.. You can shot all of the shallow penetrating rounds that you wish and if you get lucky and get a shopt presntation that allows a lethal shot with minimal penetration, then you'll do just fine. A bullet should have enough penetration to reach the vitals even when the angle requires more than the chest of a Bobcat, which is not very impressive..

Actually, he fired several shots with the 12ga, but still had to finish it with his .38! Still and all, with the exception of the Mini 14, the good guys and bad guys were pretty much armed the same! The Mini 14 was the main difference in the outcome! All of which brings us back to the 185 grain Gold Dot at 1100fps. I could never understand why someone would carry a gun with a .45 caliber bore, and limit themselves to 185 grain bullets! If one wants to shoot 185 grain bullets, get a .357!

My friend's choice of ammo wouldn't be my choice of ammo, but in the other "not impressed" thread, the Gold Dot was touted as being a far better round than the one that predicated the thread. In essence, it may be no better or worse and again, my contention is that one shooting and one result is a foolish way to determine the worth of a cartridge.

Regards

Dan

When I first bought a Model 60 S&W I took it outside and fired at a squirrel sitting on a branch. He slumped but did not fall off the branch. I chuckle when I hear people discussing "knockdown power". I am not impressed with a 2" 38 special at all, except that it fits in my pocket pretty nice.

Well, I'm a Whelen nut as well. We buy certain guns for reasons. The .38 snub gun has always had good penetration, with the right round, however the right rounds for penetration seldom gave the expansion people were looking for. Same with the .45acp. Ball penetrates all to heck, but it doesn't expand. "Experts" decided that there had to be something called "energy dump" so that all the energy was expended in the body cavity. So, they come up with maximum energy dump and "experts" claim that there's not enough penetration. In the mean time, things getting shot with these bullets keep dying!

I can load a my 8mm Mauser with cast lead at a paltry 1600fps and it will without a doubt, shoot through a deer 90% of the time. So, why would I need 2500fps? I shoot a 130 grain truncated cone with my .38 snub gun that will easily reach the vitals on a car hit deer and has done so. It reaches the vitals! What more is needed?

A gun goes off and an animal dies and the bullet mushrooms just like it should, pretty as a picture. Still, people complain.

Dan

So you actually bought into the FBI's BS line of, "It was the 9mm Silvertip?"

FBI agents were lost because they stood in front of a man with a Mini 14 who knew how to use it.

Even if the Silvertip in question would have made it to the heart (it was less than 1" shy IIRC), it wouldn't have changed the outcome of that fight one iota.

I still feel that only through the grace of God any of those agents survived...they started off so far behind they were not even in the race to start with.

Full expansion or not Im still suprised a 185+p would not make it through a bobcat.

I'd lay odds it first had to smash through the spine and even in a cat, bones slow things down.

Dan

I am a good bit surprised on this one. Wow....

Before anyone asks how many 'cat autopsies I've been in on, it's more than a few. Just clarifying.

I haven't shot anything with the GoldDot 185 loads, but I have with the heavier .45ACP GoldDot loads. They go through a lot of stuff (including deer shoulders, full rib cages, and at least one headshot - got hit by a car and I was only a couple back from the accident). I would have certainly expected the 185 GoldDot to go through a very lightly built, and thin body cavity like a bobcat. Even if it had to go through the spine first. By the looks of that bullet, it certainly did.

Very interesting.

I personally want more penetration than that, and will likely stick to the heavier GoldDot loads for my wife's .45.

"If you can't see the problem, there ain't much that can be done to educate you on it."

Hmmmm, where have I seen that post before? Can you see where that might set a person off?

Heavier will "always" be better. My .35 Whelen will shoot 180 grain bullets...but it's never had one in the chamber. It positively loves 250 grain bullets! My .45acps have never digested anything below 225 grains. My .45 Colts, nothing below 150 grains. It makes no sense to go up in caliber to go down in bullet weight.

On the other hand, the human heart can be reached with a 4" blade! The lungs with 3" of steel. I believe the 185 Gold Dot should be able to handle that chore, even after penetrating a rib or sternum. If you have to go in under the arm, or from the sides, all bets are off. A human spine would no doubt sever, but the bullet would probably not go much farther.

Dan

Dan, is all your information based on naked people? It's January and where I like people are wearing leather, wool, and various other outer wear, as well as their regular clothing against the skin. You pack what you want, but to suggest that perhaps there is only a need for 4" of penetration doesn't make much sense to me. I stoke my .45 ACP's with 230 grains of bullet.

My 45s are loaded with 230 gr Ball for only one reason.......I bought about fifty pounds of the darn things.
The price was just too good to pass up.

If you read anything I said, you will know I favor heavy bullets. Stay warm.

Dan

Kevin, I have shot enough game to influence my opion and Yea I believe that a bullet without enough penetration to reach the heart from any angle is not a good thing.
I have a realitve that is a Major on a Metropolitan Polic Department and he told me of an amazing story about a shooting that he investigated when he was on patrol. It seems that 2 men got into an arguement and one of them pulled a 38 and shot the other one in the forehead. When he went to the hospital to check on the one that got shot, the man was sitting up in bed talking and laughing with his visiters. My realative went to the Doctor and ask what is the deal, the doctor said the bullet pentratated the skull and the front of the bullet entered the brain just enough to say that in penetrated the brain and the doctor just removed the bullet and that the was and would be fine.
Yep, you can have all off those LOW penetrators that you want, but not me.

Jwp �

I�ll do you one better. About 1990, I treated a gentleman who was shot dead smack in the forehead with a .45 ACP, close enough that the guy couldn�t see because of powder burns to his eyes (I�m guessing 2-3 feet distance). When I arrived, the guy was conscious and alert, not in a tremendous amount of pain other than his eyes. There was an entrance wound about 1� above the right eyebrow and an exit wound above and to the rear of the right ear. On examination of the exit wound, I could see skull, but it was intact.

As it turned out, the bullet glanced off of the skull, traveled sub-cutaneously around the head and exited near the ear. At the hospital, the ER doc showed me the X-Ray which was quite cool. On the inside of the skull, there was coning (a piece of skull that was knocked off. Think of when a BB hits a window, and the cone shaped piece of glass drops out on the other side, but leaves the window intact), but no penetration. The doc said he would probably still need surgery, but otherwise he would be fine�never did find out about his eyes though.

The point being, NO handgun will reliably crack the skull�the key word here is reliably.

I'll be willing to bet that the bullet was a round nose ball and that the bullet struck on an angle. This type of thing happening with round nose bullets is well documented. A flat point is much less likely to do such, although nothing is 100%. I played ball in a mens league in the 70s that had been shot a point blank range with a 16 guage duck load as he was getting into the duck blind. The charge entered his solr plex, amazing that he survived, much less making the full recovery as he did... Iam in the penetration camp none the less 12" minimum....

JWP - I honestly don't know what the load is, but I've always suspected exactly what you do. But this isn't the first non-cranium penetration I've come across...In fact, for a few years, it was so common it became rather comical (at least to me). I've seen failures to penetrate the skull from .223, .22lr, .25ACP, .32ACP, .44 mag and .45ACP (I think that's the list-sad memory).

As you can imagine, I'm not a big fan of the head shot, but I'll take it if I have to. I didn't say handguns cant penetrate the skull, just not reliably.

Personally, I don't concern myself too much with penetration or expansion...I'm worried about shot placement. I've treated enough GSW's to know that deep penetration is rarely needed...But I'll agree that it's desirable in many circumstances.

When people seek to increase the velocities of cartridges like the 9mm and .45acp while at the same time, lowering the projectile weight, they are headed in the wrong direction. They buy into the "velocity kills" claim rather than staying with the "reach the vitals" school of thought. I don't really like hollow points. I like truncated cones. Give me a nice flat point with a solid bullet and not much will go wrong...other than perhaps over penetration.

Dan

Hey Kevin, ever see a head shot where the fellow shot wasn't out of the fight?

Now we are in agreement here, ecept the "so called over penetration". I beleive that over 70% of the shots fired by the police are misses, so the over penetrating the bad guy being undesirable is a bit missleading, IMHO....

Tracks - Yes, but it was a weak case. Home invasion and the home owner came out armed with a baseball bat. BG was hiding behind a door and shot the home owner in the head at near contact range with a .32ACP (Davis IIR). The bullet hit the skull, bounced right back and exited the same hole it came in through. The home owner proceeded to beat the living stuffing out of the BG (got a big kick out of that).

On the other side of the coin, I've seen at least two incidents where exactly the opposite occurred.

Both cases were drive by shootings where the "victim" was convinced they had been shot, dropped to the ground and were actually shocky (low BP, high pulse, looked like hell, cool, clammy skin etc.) on arrival. Physical exam showed no wound whatsoever, but the guy was convinced he was dying.

My partner and I, both times, had a significant pucker factor going. If we released a guy at the scene who was convinced he was shot, but we couldn't find a wound...and then he died...we'd be flippin burgers the rest of our lives. We went over both (one was convinced he was hit in the head, and the other in the abdomen), with a fine tooth comb and found nothing.

The guy with the phantom head wound, we actually transported and started Advanced Life Support treatment because his vital signs were so bad. He perked up about half way to the hospital.

Physchosomatic response is a powerful thing.

Dan,

Question for you...Why would you choose a non-expanding TC (awfully Jeff Cooper of you) design over a JHP? Worse case with the JHP you get TC performance...best case, you get perfect JHP performance. With 230 grain JHP's, the average penetration is near to *20" so penetration couldn't be a concern is it?

*In bare gelatin

Kevin, if one can get 20+ inches of penetration then there is no problem. That amount of pentration is problematic with today JHP IME. I have a 230 grain Gold Dot 45 ACP bullet that expanded as large as a quarter and as expected penetration was minimal. Not every gold Dot has over expanded this way, but it is definately a possability. With a TC flat point one gets good wound channels and always excellent penetration...

The Psychosomatic response is the exact reason that the Even Marshal results are so suspect as he gives no regard to actual wound damage only whether or not hostilities ceased. While cessation of hostilities is great, suffice it to say that psychosomatic stops are irrelevant when dealing with a determined attacker

Many years ago I had to try and keep a guy alive long enough to get to a hospital. He had been shot by an undercover cop (with damn good cause) with a snubbie .38. Bullet went thru the upper right arm and into one lung. The guy was damn near bled out when we got him, all I could do was bandage the arm and pour Oxygen into him
I figured the guy would die, but a few years later I mentioned it to someone who knew him. The three uf us went out and got drunk together in some Mexican bar in Riverside Calif. He seemed to think I'd saved his life or something.
Bad dude, he and three of his buds spotted the cop for a Narc and were going to take him out and kill him, but the cop pulled a hideout, shot the driver (my guy), killed the front seat passenger, and nailed one of the back seat guys running, back of the head at about 25 yards

Kevin:

Jeff Cooper? Elmer Keith? The question comes down to the right bullet for the right game. Dangerous game gets a heavy where expansion isn't the primary quest. Shooting people qualifies as dangerous game because they are doing something dangerous to me or to someone else.

I've hung up my badge and credentials so I no longer care about the latest "Ed Sanow" wonder projectile. The world can keep spinning without me. I know what works...er what has worked, and I like solidly constructed bullets. By the way, my TCs in .45 are lead so there may be some expansion. The other TCs I carry say expanding on the box. Evidently the cone is exposed lead that is then copper plated. Haven't shot them in anything that would demonstrate that property.

As has been pointed out, a conservative estimate of rounds fired by law enforcement involves 70% misses. After 25 years of law enforcement, I'd have to say that estimate is low. I'd put it closer to 80% or even higher now that the semi-automatic pistol is in every holster.

People, CCWs, homeowners/property owners, kill several times more felons every year than do the cops. Most of them aren't carrying the most expensive anti-personnel ammo they can buy. Most of them probably don't even know what they are carrying as far as bullet construction, velocity, bullet weight etc. They shoot and the bad guy either dies or makes his getaway dribbling blood. While we decry overpenetration, we seldom read about a case of it. In fact, I can't remember a case of it. What we do read about is cops missing a lot. Dozens of rounds fired...perp hit once or twice (on a good day and not at all most times.)

No my friend, I believe over penetration is a buzzword that has little actual value in the discussion. It represents a potential tragedy, but it falls into the category of building a bomb shelter at your home...in the mountains!

I have nothing against hollowpoints. Nothing at all. They are probably "provably" better projectiles than the ones I choose to stoke my pistols with. I want to be able to break auto glass. I want to be able to sent a bullet at an angle through my patio door (making appropriate adjustments to my aiming point of course), I want to know that if the perp takes refuge behind my couch, I can use up a magazine feeling him out and flushing him for my dog to chew on! My Uncle Sheridan killed a Kraut by slowly cutting through a big pine tree with a Browning .50 until the poor soul had no where else to go. I didn't ask if his hands were up when he stepped out from behind the tree coz it's none of my business.

Regards

Dan

Tracks

It looks like the bullet ended the fight admirably. What more could be asked?

Dan

I can only recall one incident of overpenetration leading to an innocent being killed. A local agency had a bad guy take a golddot from a .357sig (not positive on the weight but I believe 125gr) exits badguy chest, passes through a hollow core interior door and hits second subject hiding behind the door in the head which was ultimately a fatal wound.

Underpenetration had been the case more often. I took a report where an intoxicated subject shot himself in the temple with a .380 silvertip that did not punch the skull, he then tired the other side with the same results. Now really depressed at his failure he cleaned up the blood, put on a beanie and went back out the party and later passed out. The wounds were discovered by a medic when he was being treated for alcohol poisoning.

If forget who said it but "act like your carrying a .25 with ball ammo and act accordingly" is always good advice.

I've loved this discussion. Thank you all.

Dan

I just picked up 10 bx/50 of the Speer GoldDot +P HPs for $217/shipped. That seemed like a good deal so if these perform as touted, I'll be a happy camper....

Well . . . .

Kevin has treated a Lot of GSWs.

Kevein Said Short Barrel GOld Dots.

I figgered, "Kevin's probably right."

So that's what I shoot in my 44 Mag.

Sometimes, I think too much. But I get smarter as I get older, and just go with what has worked for everybody else.

BMT

Although I'll take any kind of stop I can get, I have to agree with you. Since psychosomatic response is completely unpredictable, it's completely irrelevant in our planning.

BMT -

I wasn't aware of a Short Barrel load in .44; learn something new every day.

Yes, I'm a huge fan of the Short Barrel Gold Dots and I carry them in most every defense pistol I own. Even in my full size .45ACP, I choose the 230 grain Short Barrel Gold Dot. Expansion is awesome, penetration is more than adequate.

+1

Kevin,



While I do agree that gunfight-ending wounds can be effectuated with less than 12" penetration, I think it provident to keep in mind that barriers might have to be overcome before penetration can occur. Moreover, it might be limiting to not desire a projectile to continue to inflict damage after minimum penetration is achieved. As we know, unless CNS is interrupted loss of BP is desired. And it's hastened with rapid blood loss.

To my way of thinking, 230 grain .45 ACP projectiles offer the greatest predictability of producing rapid loss of BP.


Take care,

Mando

1

Kevin,



I gotta disagree with your analyses. No single cause resulted in the catastrophe in Miami. Arguably the arrest went awry before the encounter occurred. If anything, the Bureau might have been in a more advantageous position had it coordinated its efforts with Miami PD. God only knows how many Miami cops would have immediately responded to a "999" Officer down call, not to mention allied agencies along with helicopters. Further, the agents ceded too much control to the bad guys. While the perfect arrest is fantasy, I would have been inclined to initiate a tactical retreat, get behind the suspects, and request assistance from Miami PD. Control is essential for winning a gunfight.

I do believe the weapons used by the FBI, save the 870, were far from adequate. To my way of thinking, the 9MM/.38 Special is at the bottom of suitable calibers for saving my life.

I have seen training film of the Miami incident, and in none of them did I suspect the FBI was covering up anything. If anything, it was very candid about the incident. It would have been counterproductive or worse to deny valuable officer survival knowledge that was learned from this incident.


Take care,

Mando

Dan,



It is apparent that you're well-versed in survival.

When I first started in my erstwhile line of work, success was judged by accuracy. While accuracy is still important, in the late 80's a pronounced shift in ideology occurred. Trumping all, including accuracy, in gunfights is survival. Now the crucial question is whether the officer(s) survived, and if her/his/their tactics was causal of survival. Misses are no longer considered in a negative sense if they cause the bad guy to be unable to hit the good guy. Spray-and-pray, a gun writer concept with nebulous tactical value, is gone, assuming it was ever in. Suppressive cover fire is tactically advantageous if it contributes to survival.


Take care,

Mando

Mando

Thanks for weighing in. I have to disagree about a couple things. Spray and Pray is still around, or you wouldn't read accounts of officers firing 60 shots in the course of 10 seconds - 2 or 3 of which happen to find the bad guy. In the cases where their hit ratio is higher...it's normally found afterward that the BG didn't have a gun. Ask the NYPD about that.

Weapons training may have taken a shift, but based on what I'm seeing at public ranges frequented by law enforcement officers, there isn't enough emphasis on accuracy!

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S286741.shtml?cat=1

In the linked account do we have a classic case of "suppressive fire" of excessive fire? Thank God no innocent people were hit, but one wonders what the officers were firing at. In St. Louis in the not too distant past, a couple of officers made a car look like Bonny and Clyde's getaway vehicle after a high speed chase. In this case too, no one was hurt, though there were two children in the back seat.

Forgive me, but even when I carried a badge in both local and federal agencies, I was always just a bit contemptuous of both the weapons training and the abilities of my fellows. I recently watched a competition between two swat trained officers and a civilian doctor. He literally kicked their butts in a run and shoot course of fire! Know what? He wasn't anything special!
They were just that bad.

In case you're wondering, I'm not down on cops. Most of them don't realize how poorly trained they are. Most of them don't have the initiative to continue bettering themselves between mandated training and most of them are satisfied using the "liberal" time limits to get that "expert" ribbon and then they think because their group is smaller or they have more points, they are somehow better shooters than an officer who shoots 3 times as fast, but whose group is twice as large, yet still in the kill zones.

Guys like Cirillo didn't survive multiple gunfights and kill or wound a dozen or so BGs(by the way, with .38 special revolvers and the occasional semi-automatic, normally in 9mm)by spraying and praying, or even by tatical suppression fire. They took cover if it was available and they aimed their guns to hit the BG. In many cases, they didn't even empty their pieces!

I've worked closely with the FBI for 15 years. I'm sure they didn't cover up anything, but it was the FBIs inflated belief in their own super-hero status that lead to the problem in the first place. The FBI doesn't "need" anyone to help them make an arrest "by God" and certainly not "local law enforcement." It would be admitting failure in the first place. The FBI's reputation among local law enforcement is well deserved. In case you're wondering...I am down on the FBI

Dan

The short barrel loads shoot a 200 grainer downrange at 1000 fps. That shoult work,, eh?

and Muzzle Flash is minimal (I know, I shoot them at 4:30 PM in January--which is after sunset around here.

BMT

Dan,

As we know, use of deadly force incidents have to be assessed individually lest undeserved generalizations are made. I have no personal knowledge of a "spray and pray" use of deadly force incident, but I am aware of shootings were multiple shots were fired, and in many cases no one was hit. However, it would be fallacy to conclude the "misses" were "bad" shots.

I do not know the facts of Cirillo's shootings, but from what I understand many were the result of surveillance.

We also have to be careful about inferring to the general population that which is most accurately the exception. And legally, the fact that a suspect in a shooting was unarmed does not make it a bad shooting. The reasonable man standard is controlling. I personally know of a suspect who was shot in the back while running away and killed. The suspect was unarmed. However, under the circumstances created by the suspect, the DA, using the reasonable man standard, ruled it justifiable.

Again, the controlling question in contemporary law enforcement is not whether the bad guy was hit but whether the good guys survived. And I can't begin to write how many times I was admonished to not die with bullets in my weapon. The goal is not to kill the bad guy but to ensure the bad guy does not cause me to wind up supine on a fiberglass examination table with a nickel block of wood keeping my lifeless head from wobbling while a youthful mortician assistant uses a rotary saw to open my skull. Therefore, before we can denounce a "missed" shot as "spray" we have to first determine if the "missed" shot had demonstrable efficacy in keeping the bad guy from killing the good guy.

Dan, if accuracy was controlling in gunfights, cops would be issued K-38 Masterpieces with wadcutter ammunition. Instead, survival is controlling, which is why cops are issued tactical handguns.


Take care,

Mando

I believe that your stance and the modern doctrine is missing the point. Accuracy ensures survival much better than so called "tactical fire" how long can suppressive fire be maintained with a handgun? There is a place for such, but it is not a adequate substitute for accurate fire..

jwp475,

No, I think you're missing the point. No one is advocating indiscriminate fire. What one must assure is not getting shot. DOJ statistics have proved emphasis on precise accuracy comes at the cost of much greater risk.

Lemme ask you this simple question: While you're standing in a Weaver stance, arms locked in isosceles triangle, taking precise aim at an adversary's 10 ring, what do you think s/he will be trying to do to you?

To survive a gunfight, one cannot make one's self a target!

Dying in a gunfight is losing regardless of what happens to the bag guy!


Good luck,

Mando

Wrong assumption, no one in their right mind is going to stand in the open and not take cover.. A Weaver stance with some one firing at you is a ridiculous scenario.. In early 06 I was work in Vagas and the Police fired 600+ rounds in a gun fight with one bad guy. Quite a few don't you think. O'yea they used suppressive fire...

Getting off the line of attack and hitting the bad guy is the best supressive fire method of all.

I think that is the most accurate synopsis of FBI field work I have ever heard.

Mando � I�m not advocating the use of any bullet weight in .45 ACP, I�ll leave that up to the individual. I�m saying that the 185 might have desirable attributes for home defense. But for argument�s sake, if you have to penetrate an intermediate object, chances are the 185 would do the job just fine. Keep in mind, a hollow point doesn�t expand in non-fluid mediums, so if you have to shoot through drywall or a refrigerator before hitting a home intruder, that bullet will zip right through most intermediate targets with little interruption to terminal performance in the intended target. What I�m saying is, if that bobcat was hiding behind a wooden fence, the end performance would be much the same.

As to the Miami incident, I�m sure you and I saw the same exact training video, which was done exceptionally well. I agree that the weapons used were on the minimum side for LE work, and were a contributing factor, but that contributing factor was way down on the list. The targets didn�t go down because they were highly motivated and better trained than many (certainly not all � Grogan was very well trained) of the FBI agents.

The main failures were complete lack of use of cover by every one with the exception of Mireles. The suspects took many non-fatal hits that would have remained so even if the agents were using .45 ACP 230 grain bullets. There was a grand total of one failure to penetrate all the way to the heart from a crossing shot. So out of dozens of shots fired, the FBI says the gunfight would have ended much earlier if that one bullet reached the heart�I don�t buy it. Even if the bullet in question completely destroyed the heart (which is optimistic at best), Platt would have been conscious for at least another 30-50 seconds. The incident wouldn�t have been much different.

The lesson from that training video was that the tactics employed were very bad. Another lesson was that they needed better performance from their weapons, which spawned the greatest press for bullet technology in history.

For civilian carry or home defense, the need to shoot through barriers is almost a statistical anomaly, it�s so rare. It�s the nature of the threat, we�re not going after bad guys, we�re trying to get away from bad guys. LE is exactly the opposite, which is why their needs are very different from mine.

Deep penetration is always desirable when trying to eliminate a threat, but we have to be careful exactly how deep we penetrate. While complete penetration is desirable in the game fields, it�s a liability for a civilian carrying on the street or defending his home.

While I�m carrying my .45 ACP on the street, I generally carry a 230 grain bullet and sometimes a 200 grain bullet. Both have a good reputation for barrier penetration, but have very controlled penetration afterwards of usually a MAXIMUM of 12, not a minimum. That suits my needs. I get barrier penetration, good bullet expansion and sufficient penetration for my needs, with a minimum threat of target perforation.

The FBI�s standards are great for law enforcement, but I�m not a cop, so I have my own standards based upon my needs. I don�t have a departmental legal team or union lawyers who will fight my wrongful death suit, I�m on my own. What�s more, my conscience will not allow me to carry something I KNOW will completely perforate a human target, to me, that�s just irresponsible.

I recall a time I managed to "kill" an FBI agent in a training scenario! I've never seen a more angry and whiny training officer! It was nearly pathetic. My dislike of the bureau stems more from their "I'll take over from here" attitude, than it does from anything else. Actually, the FBIs modern reputation is built stone by stone on their labs and evidence analysis. Investigatively, they are no better than the best city and county detectives.

Still and all, while I certainly appreciate Mando's writing and opinion, I'll have to disagree with suppressive fire, unless the purpose is to cover a tactical advance or retreat. There are simply too many dash-cam videos of officers "machine-gunning" the country side while the bad guy makes his escape. Yes, he may actually be hit, but that has to be mainly "chance" based on the evidence.

One exception to this, would be a good shoot in Cedar Rapids some years ago, in which an officer emptied a Glock .40 into a perp. I am trying to recall, but approximately 14 rounds connected...before the perp dropped his weapon and some of that shooting was through the officer's vehicle's windshield glass!!! That's decent shooting!

Much of Cirillo's work was surveillance, but in one particular case, written about ages ago (forgive me, I'm giving credit to Cirillo and it may be I'm mistaken)involved a stand-up gunfight between the officer and "THREE" armed perpetrators, all of whom took hits! One died. One was permanently disabled and one lightly wounded but apprehended. That is a hit ratio that comes from practice above and beyond that which most officers are willing to participate in. Hence, the reason for the current attitudes concerning volume of fire over weapons expertise! Expertise should never be confused with "proficiency." Cops are generally proficient, which to my mind is an almost negligent professional attitude!

Regards

Dan

Can't, don't buy the irresponsible.... Complete penetration of a human body can't be irresponsible, if it is then misses are gross neglegence.

Sounds like you've spent some quality time with John and Vicki Farnam.

Something else that John says..."You can never miss fast enough to catch up," I've always liked that one.

Mando does have a point though. While it�s never cool to fire indiscriminately, the circumstances of the fight dictate the tactics, and rarely are the circumstances the same. I happen to believe there is a time for suppressive fire with a handgun and I�ve seen it work in simulated gunfights. Since a real gunfight involves real bullets that kill, I tend to believe that suppressive fire has the potential to work even better in a real gunfight, but I�m in no hurry to test that theory.

Back to Mando�s point though, which is good. To win, you have to be where the bullets aren�t, simple as that.

Some mental notes taken from my years as a paramedic. With one exception, the LEAST number of times I�ve seen a BG shot by cops is 8 shots. In the early days of the 147 grain 9mm, almost every person shot had been completely perforated. I consider it blind luck that an unintended victim was never hit. In later days, they switched to .40 and perforation decreased dramatically.

In my former hometown I have shot with a whole lot of cops. At the range, they couldn�t hit the broad side of a barn if they were standing inside the barn; always scared the hell out of me. I�ve been present at SWAT qualification shoots where they were heavily coaching the applicant to hit an �A� zone at 7 yards. After a while, I couldn�t take it any longer and I easily ran their qualification course from the 50 yard line. They were all amazed�I was amazed that everyone couldn�t do it.

But in actual shootings, those same cops were just plain deadly. When it came down to the real thing, they hit everything they were aiming at, and did very little missing. While I could shoot circles around any cop in my home town, I sure wouldn�t want to trade bullets with them in a gunfight because they�re in the fight and they�re in it to win. So although I was appalled by their performance on paper, I was astounded at their performance against the real thing.

I�m not crazy about their training techniques, but I can�t argue with the results

That's your call, hope it works out well.

Oh, and misses (in a gunfight) are negligent, but not grossly negligent.

Another example of how minimal someone being hit by a pass thru..


You still have not addressed the dangerous misses, those projectiles are still going full speed and have not been slowed by the body of the bad guy..

How do you defend that misses are neglegent when very rarely are all shots hits? It seems to mean that misses in a gun fight are the norm, not the exception and that the neglegence falls on the shoulders of the BG as without him there would be no gunfight in the first place.

Kevin

I did the exact same thing on a bet; running a normal qual course at 50 yards while the others watched! Why is it, average cops are surprised that marksmanship isn't difficult, but the process to reach that kind of expertise requires additional effort? When I went through the Wisconsin police school back in 76, there was a dedicated 50 yard course of fire!!!

About five years ago, I attended an NRA handgun/shotgun instructor's course. The two ajunct instructors were from my favorite federal agency. I later wrote an article about that class in Handguns Magazine. I didn't write the following annecdote for the article, but would like to now.

Because the two instructors didn't know me other than I was a free lance writer (my professional history was not germane to my attendance,) one of them seemed to dislike me, if for no other reason than I asked difficult questions. So, on the last night of the course, we were enjoying a slide projection shooting exercise where the students were engaging pre-recorded shoot/don't shoot scenarios using live fire as opposed to FATS style guns with laser/computer generated impacts.

I was "selected" to do the last scenario (I hadn't raised my hand) so I started to suspect I was being set up for what would have been a "no-win" scenario. The engagement involved a BG holding a gun to a woman's head. I had a hunch that if I waited too long, it would be too late, so the first chance I had, I placed one shot over the right eye of the BG at a simulated 25 yards (based on the size of the figure's head/torso). I had only given him one command to surrender before firing. In the end, I had been right. An instant later and my shot opportunity would have been lost and I would have been under fire. The problem was, though I had fired from a legally sufficient standpoint, I had fired sooner than what might be considered a professionally ethical point in the engagement. It had been a "lesson" the instructor's were trying to teach at my expense, but in the end, the class erupted in applause and hoots, and the only thing the instructor could say was: "This exercise is terminated."

During the entire series of exercises, only one student other than myself, had "technically" cleaned the scenario. Of course, these scenarios are intended to shock the students into realizing their own mistakes, but I couldn't help but watch in amazement at the number of shots fired that didn't hit, many of which were fired at the moment one might realize was actually too late to effect a favorable outcome! Many a non-combatant was hit that night, to the good-natured hilarity those types of exercises bring out. No harm, no foul.

While we're at it, another problem I see gradually creeping into the psyche of our nation's law enforcement is the "survive" at all costs attitude. I don't want to die any more than the next guy, but in truth, there was a time when officers came to the rescue, not merely to the aftermath; were expected to "save" lives, even if it meant taking life threatening risks. I'm actually referring to the Columbine shooting spree. I can't for the life of me, imagine an officer standing by outside while gun shots are heard inside a school! Professional training be damned, that behavior is somehow unsavory!

Dan

"Grossly" negligent would be loosing a barrage of shots "not intended" to hit. Suppression fire kind of fits that description.

Dan

I totaly agree...... You were a good officer IMHO, no make that great..

Oh, I didn�t know it was me who had to address this issue.

Personally, I�m a big believer in the never miss principle�there�s too much at stake to be missing, especially in a home defense scenario. For cops on the street, the engagements are just too unpredictable. Misses happen because the target isn�t standing there like a B29 waiting to be shot. Even the best marksman can miss in a gunfight. So while misses are regrettable, and everything should be done to minimize them, I don�t consider them inexcusable.

As for suppression fire, I have actually seen one example (after the fact), where it was appropriate and effective�In fact, it could be the poster child for when it was appropriate. BG armed with semi-auto rifle. Two cops on scene. One opens up with suppression fire, well aimed at the vehicle the BG was hiding behind while the other one took careful aim and waited for the BG to stand. The second officer then opened up and hit the guy 8 times in the upper torso�some really good shooting.

The BG was hiding behind a vehicle, parked in front of his garage. There was no one behind or even around him. While it�s true that there�s still a threat of bullets going through the house, but in the end, no one else was hurt except for the BG.

Dan

While I agree that suppression fire should be a rare occurrence, I don't totally agree with your statement, but probably agree with the sprit in which it was intended.

The use of suppression fire is a very dangerous thing to begin with, which is why it should be a very rare thing (but unfortunately isn�t). To be effective, suppression fire has to be accurate enough to pose an imminent threat to the BG. That requires aimed fire, not spray and pray.

To do this, the shooter (or officer) in question, should know exactly what he�s shooting at. In the scenario I provided, the officer hit the car, very near to where the BG was with almost every shot. Any misses went into the garage.

Certainly not the best thing in the world, but they quite handily neutralized someone who was much better armed than they were, and both officers returned home with the same number of holes they left with.

But I agree with your point, spray and pray has no place on our streets, period!

Dan,

I agree with that one. I picked up the mess after a SWAT incident didn�t go as it should have. All because the SWAT team was unwilling to take on the BG�s head on, and opted to try to sneak in behind them...it didn�t work.

I asked you to address the misses, because of your statement that a bullet that passes thru a BGs body was "irresponsible"

No one has even committed on the 600+ round fired by the Police in Las Vegas in early 2006. Yes 600+ rounds against one BG and Of course MOST were misses and no collateral damage. In self defense shoots collateral damage is rare indeed.

Kev,

thanks for responding.

Dan

Jwp

Thanks for your compliment.

Dan

Dan, you are more than welcome. Your attitude is exactly what it should be in Law enforcement.

Yes, that's my OPINION, not necessarily a statement of fact. If I KNOW that my ammunition will exit my target, yet I still carry that ammunition, I consider that irresponsible and negligent IMO.

True the chances of hitting another person are slim, but that changes with the scenery. If you engage a BG at a mall, I sure wouldn't want to have over-penetrative ammunition. If it was in front of my house, hey, bring it on; at worst I'll kill a cow.

There are cases of people being shot with bullets that perforated the intended target, but I can't read the list to you. I remember one in Southern CA (Either LAPD or Orange County Sheriff), where an officer shot his partner, through the BG with a 147 9mm.

This I can address as inexcusable; on that, we will agree.

Each shooting secnario certainly changes requirement and IMHO one must prepare for worst case secnarioo, A bullet that exits a 140 pound BG may not even be lif threatening to a 350 pound BG with a shot through the right bicept and into the chewst unless enough penetration is achieved. Handguns by nature are penetration challenged and deliberately shooting a penetration challenged bullet is neglegent IMHO. The 600+ rounds fired was mostly because of supressive fire to extract 3 officers behind a stair well the Bg was was hit 21 times with a least 2 rounds from 308 Police Sniper rifles accoeding to the inquiry.
Again anyone one being hit by any projectile after penetrating a BG is rare indeed.
I agree with most of your posts, but take extreme exception the "irresponsible" statement of a bullet exiting a BG

You make your case very well. With that description and forethought, I would agree that my use of the term "irresponsible" may have been a bit harsh; my apologies.

Kevin apparently you are a true gentleman.... but you don't owe me an apology

Thanks to you Gentlemen, as a result of this thread, the 230 gr Ball rounds that were in my carry pistols have been replaced with 230 gr HPs
The ball rounds will remain in my field pistols, both 45 Colt and 45ACP

That's a step in the right direction...good move.

jwp475



I am not assuming a thing. But since you're on the right right track with running for cover, how are you going to effectuate your theory of accuracy being dominant?

Reference LVMPD, no one can conclude whether 600 plus rounds was warranted, including you! But since you brought it up, how many officers were killed or wounded?


Thanks,

Mando

Kevin,



Excellent analysis, and written by one with obvious in-depth knowledge of survival tactics.

Too many neophytes, for lack of better term, get too caught up in killing bad guys as though they were shooting at paper targets. What all too many of these same people gravely forget is a gunfight occurs because a bad guy wants to KILL a good guy. To take time for precise aiming is suicide, which is why survivors are taught to point shoot!


Take care,

Mando

jwp475,




In my nigh on twenty year law enforcement career I have talked to a zillion cops who have been in shoot outs some pretty darn extensive, I have never, ever heard of a bystander getting hit. While I know it can occur, we have to be careful about defining a rule by the exception. People are pretty darn smart about getting out of the way of gunfights!

If in a shootout a bystander is hit, it is not the officer(s) fault. The blame lies with the bad guy. Moreover, should a bystander be killed, the bad guy would be charged with his/her murder regardless of who fired the fatal round!

I hope this helps.

Take care,

Mando

Dan,



Obviously this is merely your opinion! Thanks God, CA POST does not agree with you!

BTW, how are you able to determine ALL of your potential shots at a bad guy are going to hit your target?


Thanks,

Mando

I can't fault you too much here, and late in my career I was exposed to training that emphasized the necessity of taking risks. But risks that cops do take must be calculated. Remember that a cop or anyone is no use to anyone if s/he allows her/himself to be killed! You gotta live to be able to help!


Take care,


Mando

I understand that, and my question was in reference to Kevins statement that any one that carried ammo that would exit a BG was irresponsible..

Mando;

Sorry I didn't get back sooner, but I'll be glad to answer the following question:

"how are you able to determine ALL of your potential shots at a bad guy are going to hit your target?"

You can't. I can't. What I can do, is take my expertise to a level where I know in my heart I'll be better than 99% of any crook I might encounter. That requires a lot of time at the range, on my own, and at my own expense.

I sometimes look at kids who spend countless hours (wasted hours as far as I'm concerned) trying to master a silly skateboard maneuver. But I know, I'll never try to challenge one of them to a scateboard competition. It's not my thing. But if that kid decided to kick in my door to accost my daughter, I wouldn't be holding a skateboard.

When I used to shoot qualification, I made it a point to be the one policing up my 26 rounds of brass while the other cops were still shooting the second magazine of a particular exercise. All my rounds were inside the 9 ring. Some of the other guys shots were all inside the 10 ring. To their way of thinking, that made them better shots. I could only smile. When it came time to prove otherwise, I did so quietly, but left no doubt.

One small personal anecdote: Once, years ago I was with some German GS-G9 counterparts in Wiesbaden Germany. They are counter-terrorist types who sing songs with their H&Ks. I was using a compact .45 about the size of an Officer's Model. I had to engage a couple of strings of targets and make some rapid reloads. When I was done, I looked behind me and there was a crowd of counter-terrs watching. One of them stepped forward and commented: "You are very fast!" Mando, that was the finest compliment I've ever received from anyone. It has more value to me than all the awards and medals and ribbons I have stuffed in boxes in the basement.

Why to I ramble so? Anyway, while I can't be certain that all my shots will hit their target, years and years and hours and hours of rapid fire drills and mastering sight alignment and trigger control will prove itself as long as I remain physically viable. Just to clarify, I already know how I react in life threatening situations involving guns, so I don't believe target panic will be my problem. I also know that I was able to hold fire in the face of each instance, while keeping my sights aligned. We thank our stars that we didn't have to kill on those nights, but death was immanent.

Shooting to keep a bad guy's head down has merit. Shooting a magazine in hopes you hit the bad guy may have merit if the situation is just right, but I find the thought unprofessional.

I recall a situation where a military police officer was faced with a BG at approximatly 75 yards. The BG had already killed his wife and her lawyer and had begun his "death run." The officer encountered the BG and took cover behind a dumpster. Under fire, the officer delivered a single shot with his Beretta 92 at the stated yardage, and felled the BG. Forgive me, but I know the vast majority of police officers whould not have been able to make that shot. Could one in a 1000? In 10,000? Could you? Could I? Do you believe anyone you know would have been able to fire a single round under those circumstances and not half a magazine or more?

I've never killed a man. I know a couple of guys who have. In one case it was a single shot against an armed opponent and in the other case it was a single shot against an armed opponent who was firing. Both BGs (one was a bad girl who was firing suppression fire for her escaping boyfriend) died at the scene. Another officer friend of mine in St. Louis has twice fired his weapon against armed opponents in close encounters. Both BGs survived wounded and the number of shots fired by the officer was in the neighborhood of...two or three.

That old aphorism, "you can't fire fast enough to catch up" is as true today as it was when police carried .38 special revolvers...or even .45 Colt revolvers. The mindset is as valid today as it was then. You should make up your mind that you are going to deliver "accurate" fire first and foremost, or you should take you gun home and join the boy scouts!

Police work is not a military endeavor! Ninja suits and machine guns against a crazed husband are not necessary and are more an affectation of arrogance than a professional badge of honor! If you shoot as if you only have one chance, you will shoot better. It's a proven fact, not a theory!

Dilligentia, vis, Celleritas is not theory either.

Best wishes.

Dan

Dan,

Very good. I just can�t understand why we still have people out there teaching point shooting when it has been proven time and time again that you can deliver an accurate aimed shot just as fast as if you point shoot. So if you�re going to choose between say a 40% chance of a hit or a 95% chance of a hit, which one will you choose? Yet, we still have LE shooting instructors who opt for the known lower hit percentage.



Mando � If that�s the way you want to train, so be it. But to insinuate that�s the only way an officer is going to survive is either self delusional or misleading. You said you�ve never heard of a bystander being hit or killed in a gunfight; wow, that really amazes me. I can name a couple incidents where I was on scene and exactly that happened. So when you�re researching shooting incidents, you�re either not paying attention or ignoring such things.

I don�t really follow such things, but a quick Google produced a few stories:
http://www.topix.com/city/san-mateo-ca/2007/09/da-says-bystander-was-shot-by-police-officer �A bystander who was wounded in a shootout following a July armed robbery was hit by a police officer, not by the robbery suspect, authorities said Friday.�
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/GPG0101/708170587/1978 �Sonnenberg, 25, was shot 11 times and killed during a traffic stop on April 21 outside of Studio 720, 720 Bodart St. Police accidentally shot Grijalva-Ortiz, 31, who was inside the club.�
http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/police/hughes-update.html �Officer Wojcik was wounded by "friendly fire" and a bystander was shot in the leg.�
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=78120 �police killed Ramirez and shot an innocent bystander�
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8CF92B35-1C1D-4D2B-AD8E-88621106A0BA.htm �The guard's gunfire also apparently hit bystanders�
http://www.nicaso.com/pages/doc_page208.html �- a sharp contrast to the Boxing Day shooting, when no intended victims were hit and seven bystanders were shot.�
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/breaking-news-reporting/works/gunfire.html �Three civilians were also hit by gunfire�

Bystanders get hit in gunfights all the time. Some by the BG�s and some by cops, it�s the nature of gunfights. With LE some of these are covered up, this I know because one incident I was on scene at, the LE agency refused to release ballistic information, and to my knowledge never did.

Teaching point shooting when we know that aimed fire can happen just as fast and be significantly more effective is foolish.

If you spent a weekend at Gunsight, it will forever change your views. They keep track of how things work with point shooting and how things turn out with their graduates who use a flash confirmation sight picture. The last I checked, no graduate of gunsight has ever been killed in a shooting, and all shots have been accounted for. (my data is probably a decade old though)

Good shooting trumps "just shooting"

Good post Kevin..

I think you skill set should have to find a balance between a conventional sight picture and point shooting. I referred to it as a progressive sight picture when I was teaching but I believe someone has labeled it as something else. Basically at contact ranges the mere silhouette of the gun forms your "sight picture", ie a visual reference than allows proper site placement. As the range increases an individual will have to go to a finer and finer sight picture from the classic "flash" front sight ending with the full use of the front and rear sights to place your shots as necessary.

I always get a little laugh when I see classes where they tape over your sights and declare your "point shooting". In reality you are still obtaining a visual sight picture by placing the pistol on the target as a visual reference. In my opinion just because you are not using a conventional notch and post sight alignment does not mean you are point shooting.

Does anyone have a link where CA POST (peace officer standards and training) offers any opinion on gross negligence and suppressive fire? Without going into detail I agree it has its place in a very narrow scope of tactics but have never seen an official opinion given and I was not aware POST has ever offered a legal opinion.

Dear Kevin,




what do you mean by writing, "...if that's how I was trained."? No one, to my knowledge, is trained to hit bystanders. Do you know of where one could find such training?

Now that you're amazed, please tell me of the incidents in which bystanders were wounded by police officer fire and of which you have direct knowledge. In what city where you a paramedic to have had such extensive exposure to such extensive shootout experience???

What was covered up by LE? Are your intimating a conspiracy? Just what was covered up? To even remotely insinuate such nonsense betrays your extensive experience. And why would the investigating officers, who would have been conducting a criminal investigation, share sensitive confidential information with a paramedic? There is not a damn thing in law enforcement that is not subjected to subpoena, save an ongoing criminal investigation, even personnel files, which are far easier to get in federal court than in sate court. So if you know of some purported reckless indifference to society where a bystander was wounded, why wasn't a lawsuit filed??? Don't forget, Kevin, that it is a felony to knowingly introduce lies as evidence in any court, criminal or civil. It is also a felony to introduce in court a report that is knowingly false!

When I read these fantasies of cabals, conspiracies, cover-ups, I immediately become extremely suspicious. While, Kevin, you might have incorrectly interpreted an event at the scene of one of the numerous shootings you've investigated, it is wholly sententious, pretentious, and arrogant to assume that, based upon your interpretation, cops would place themselves in jeopardy of prison by engaging in a cover-up. God forbid you worked where I did and even remotely tried to tamper with evidence or submitted a knowingly false report.

BTW, were you able to find more links than the ones you have posted? Did you peruse peruse each article? Were these articles credible? Were any conclusions stated in these articles supported by facts? Assuming for a second that these articles do represent actual factual incidents where citizens were wounded as a result of gunfire in a shootout in which a law enforcement office participated, of what percentage of shootouts would they constitute? Maybe far <.01%? That would make such incidents extremely rare, wouldn't you agree???

Kevin, how many bystanders were wounded in the the North Hollywood bank robbery??? The SLA shootout??? The Norco bannk robbery shootout??? Probably a zillion rounds combined in just these three, m'man! And all occurred during daylight hours!!!




Take care,

Mando

In other words, Kevin, you provided only seven links, but Mando's talked to a zillion cops. Do the math!


And Mando, buddy, you ask way too [bleep] many questions for a guy who adamantly refuses to back up his claims.

Varmint

I don't recall the name either, but still, attaining a usable sight picture is easily accomplished in very short order.

I was never a die-hard IPSC shooter, but one day when I managed to turn in a pretty good score, I cleared 6 falling metal plates on separate pedestals that were placed at various intervals from 5 to 15 yards at varying heights. From the draw, the last plate broke the electronic contact point in a little under 4 seconds.

Now, that doesn't even come close to anything Leatham or Miculeck can do. They are friggin wizards!!!! But, I'd guarantee that 98% or better of our nation's law enforcement officers will never see the day when they could do that!

I should point out I was beaten soundly that day by a 50 something, pot-bellied, tobacco-chewing, slow-talking Texas farmer who used a WWII 1911A1 with stock mil-spec sights and a crack in the frame where the slide stop entered. He was FAST! You can't shoot that kind of event without using the sights and he proved sights can be used in a hurry!

Dan

Don't be too hard on Mando, Since He has shown up there has been some good debates. Since I'm more of a lurker than poster I have enjoyed some of the debate's and be;ing of middle age have seen this kind of dialog descuss;ed many time's before. I enjoyed some of the more experienced view's that are the same as mine. Coop

I may have given you the wrong impression. I wasn�t saying anyone was training to miss, I�m talking about the practice of point shooting training�it�s a poor practice for all but the most skilled.

You seem to have missed all that I posted as evidence (something I seem to be providing copious amounts of and you provide none of), and have focused like a laser beam on this one thing. Since you DEMAND to know everything.

I was a Paramedic for 16 years in Sacramento, CA. I was employed with the now defunct Metropolitan Ambulance

The incident in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Sacramento_hostage_crisis (there are some inaccuracies in the story, but for the most part is pretty good)
Video can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Sacramento_hostage_crisis

Three years after the incident, the ballistic evidence had not been released. I recently was interviewed by a film maker who is wanting to make a movie about the incident and he informed me that he, after all these years, is still unable to get ballistic evidence from the shooting. I�m not saying any investigators are engaged in a cover up, but at the highest levels, they were unwilling to release ballistic evidence, so you call it what you want, but I say something doesn�t smell right.

There was a whole lot that wasn�t right about this incident, and none of it ever came to light. Maybe not a cover up, but certainly a convenient lack of the truth coming out.

Since we're coming clean about our resume's, how 'bout you share? Where are you a cop, what department, what's your title and experience?

I like your presence on the board, but you throw your weight around as an authority until you get into a tight spot, and then you seem to come up short. My last post should have been very clear, yet you insist on the distraction of the Good Guys incident.

If you�re such an authority, then stick to the subject at hand. If you disagree with me, go after what you disagree about, don�t go after me. You want to have it out on my credibility or bash around the subject of the Good Guys incident, fine�start another thread and let�s see where it goes.

But back to this thread, can we get back to the subject? I�m saying the training doctrine you promote is a potential public hazard and I�ve given evidence to back that up�what say you??

This is your best case yet�

True, just as you said, civilians are smart enough to get out of the way in the majority of shooting incindents, but as you can see by my links, such is not always the case. Would you agree that if you could fight the same fight, with a much higher hit percentage, you should be doing that?

Dan,
Im a fan of the big dot express sites for that reason, it perfect to catch a quick confirmation on everything past arms length. Playing with FOF extensively has repeatedly taught me that unless your firing from a protected CQB position at contact ranges some type of sight picture can be achieved and hits go way up.

Mando,
Since you know everything why dont you call the San Jose Police department and ask them about the officer they lost to friendly fire when rounds missed the target. In this case it was an officer trying to use 00buck at extended range, the deceased officer took a pellet in the thigh at 70 yards and bled out.

http://www.sjpd.org/fallenofficers/silva.cfm

This is from the department website and is a cleaner version but the incident was debriefed a couple of times at different seminars, including the Calibre Press.

The one thing for sure for me, when I pointed a pistol at a man in a real life or death situation I wasn't thinking about the ammuntion or what kind pistolcraft I was using at the time.
Coop

But I do remember it was kind of like tunnel vision and my front sight was pointed at center mass but I'm not a well trained man but condider mydelf a survivor type
coop

Being a diehard pistol type and after shooting many thousands of rounds, strong supporter of the 1911 for the experienced, a person will react under stress as he trains. But I don't claim to be any kind of expert and I belive shot placement is the answer to survival. Sorry for the rant, a combination of too much JIM BEAM, BURSITUS AND CORTISONE SHOTS, gezzerhood is not fun, cary on with the discussion, It's kind of fun to watch.
Coop

You actually made me LOL...

I'm under the influence of 3 Rolling Rocks and Celebrex, which is the treatment for my geezerhood. I'll be having a total knee replacement next month. Hopefully, once all is healed, I can make a part time return to executive protection work...we'll see.

You appear trained well enough!

Dan

Kevin, I enjoy and look forward to you're posts, But actual experience and truth is hard for many people to comprehend, keep posting you;re experiences I do enjoy
Coop

Dan thank's for the compliment, You are the professional, I trained myself during a time of my life when I had to deal with some bad situation's. What I learned about pointing a gun at, a man is you better damn well be ready to drop the hammer,because if you;re not the bad guy can read this, so, I believe this is the most important thing to survive a life or death situation having made this mental decision when to take another's persons life.
coop

By the way, since im on my stump, I don't believe that the normal cop, Im not degineraterating police officers, is a lousy shot compared to people like my self who has studied gunfighting and has practiced to perfect ones skill. I have made shot's with a two inch revolver that would make me a liar in many peoples eyes' I know how Elmer Keith must have felt when He told of His six hundred yARD mule deer kill. But to back up this Claim A friend is a Sheriff's firearm;s trainer,
Coop

Handguns and long shooting are a great combination. I love to smack the 200 yard targets with a .44 Mag...but finding the hold-over may take a couple of ranging shots. One of my favorite long range pistols is the Colt Gold Cup. I love sending 800fps punkins out to heck and gone.

Dan

Longrange revolver used to be one of my favorite hobbies, I used to shoot ram,s at 100 meters with mod 36 just to debunk snubnose lousy accuracy. I tried to hit a 500 yard plate in Co, get together and could'nt see my bullets strike , which Elmer said was the only way you could correct holder at such range
Coop

ps the 500 yd shots were with a 44 mag. I believe it can be done with a little practice. I was really surprised wheh I hunted SALMON ID THE PEOPLE THERE HAD LITTLE GOOD TO SAY ABOUT Elmer, mostly jealousy in my opinion. Just visited Elmers museum at boise cabela's enjoyed sorry about typing
coop

Believe it or not, my favorite long range handgun was my custom 9mm Hi Power, excellent trajectory. Almost no holdover out to 150 yards and just a tad for 200 yards. Great trajectory and very little recoil...Not that a 9mm would actually do anything once it got all the way out there, but hey, it was fun.

For real challenge, I turn to my K-22 and shoot at 100-200 yards. 100 isn't all that hard, but 200 requires some real finesse.

I onced played around shooting at playing cards edgewise 10 feet or so started big then found success with mod 63 22 cut them like a knife no purpose just did it when was challenged to try
coop

Speaking about snubnose accuracy, back when I used to spend a lot of time in a squad car in Northern Wisconsin, we would take every opportunity to varmint hunt with our handguns. I spotted a nice fat wood chuck sunning himself one afternoon and used my secondary weapon - a Model 19 2.5" to pot him. Paced off at 75 long steps (okay...74 and a short one).

One time while walking with my father in-law around a new piece of property he'd bought, his dog started off after a skunk at about 50 yards. I managed to pot the skunk before the dog reached him with a bone stock Remington Rand .45 1911A1 and my father in law liked to drop his dentures!

Both shots were lucky.

Dan

But practice creates much better luck for those who do it.

Yep. Seems I remember a fella 'round here used to put it as: "A man makes his own luck", or something similar.

He was right. Still is.