someone mentioned this shootout with FBI agents in another thread so I looked it up. I was too young to have even remembered it happening. apparently it lead to alot of changes at the FBI and eventually likely led to the 40 S&W. however it looks to me like the problems the FBI had was more due to poor hits on the bad guys than a problem with the cartridge being used. I could see most of the blame being put on shooting revolvers over double stack 9mm's. double stack semi autos may have closed the gap of poor hits and another shot or 2 could have found their mark.

if the first hit that stopped right before the heart would have been a 40 S&W would even that have penetrated far enough?? is the 40 a better penetrater than the 9mm?? the 9mm that was fired went through the guys arm, into the chest from the side and stopped just short of the heart, but was still a fatal shot from hitting the lung. this doesn't sound like a problem with the 9mm. It was just a tuff shot angle for the 9mm to get the job done, or perhaps any pistol round for that matter. why were all the FBI guys shooting 38 spl in their 357's. what are your conclusions about what the FBI got right or wrong about the aftermath??

They haven't had another fiasco like that, so either they learned from it and changed their training regimen or it was an anomaly to begin with.

The whole thing was due to bad tactics.

IIRC, the FBI went to the 10mm.

The other problem is that the adage from "Fistful of Dollars" turned out to be correct.

�When a man with a Mini-14 meets a man with a S&W snub nose, the man with the S&W snub nose is a dead man.�

Plus, the FBI was dealing with two very tough, fatalistic individuals who had already cold bloodedly murdered several people around the South Florida area.

I was working in Miami at the time and remember the newspaper accounts of the bank robbers and killers before the final shootout.

One way they would get their weapons was to go to some out of the way place in the boonies where someone was target shooting, usually along some canal bank in pancake flat S. Florida. They would wait for the person to empty their firearm, then rob and kill him and take his guns and his vehicle.

IIRC, the big lead that broke the case was them failing to kill one of their victims. They forced him into the canal and shot him but he survived. His subsequent description was what finally allowed the FBI to identify the two killers.

�When a man with a Mini-14 meets a man with a S&W snub nose, the man with the S&W snub nose is a dead man.�

Exactly. Give the agents AR's and things get a lot tougher for the bad guys.....

In answer to the OP question, the 9mm 116 gr Silvertip bullet that killed Platt and rendered him a "dead man walking", quite literally performed at a level exceeding the FBI's subsequent and current performance minimum.

If you get a copy of Dr. French Anderson's book on the topic, "Forensic Analysis of the 1986 FBI Miami Firefight" (available thru Paladin Press and/or Calibre Press, last I looked) you can review Xrays that show the bullet core came to rest in the right hilum (the "root" of the lungs, where the pulmonary arteries and veins come together with the bronchi and connective tissue). This is a highly vulnerable area in the chest, in many respects more vulnerable than the heart itself.

Details from the autopsy report indicate that the bullet lacerated the pulmonary artery and/or vein. This resulted in massive internal bleeding into the right side of the chest which would have resulted in the subject's death within 3 or 4 minutes even if he'd not been shot again. It's impossible to speculate as to whether a .40 S&W or .45 ACP or any other service caliber handgun round could have done a better job, but in my opinion it's doubtful.

The other posters who've logged in so far have all made valid points, so I won't amplify except to say I agree. If know you're going to be in a gunfight, bring a rifle. And bring friends with rifles.

The 1986 FBI Miami firefight was the LE equivalent of a perfect storm. So many things went so badly wrong in such a short period of time that you couldn't make the story up and have people believe it. But it really happened, and the numerous lessons learned have had enormous impact on law enforcement equipment, tactics and training, and protocols not only in America, but throughout the world.

The agents who were killed and/or disabled in that fight were all heroes, in my estimation, doing the best they could have done with the equipment, tactics, and training they had; and the lessons they paid for with their blood have saved the lives of countless officers since.

so what was up with 38 spl being used when these guys had 357 mags in their hands??

so is everyone in agreement that going to the 10mm initially and later the 40 S&W was a knee jerk reaction to a problem that probably would not have been corrected if either of those cartridges had been used in the actual fire fight??

It was pretty standard practice to use 38 Special loads in 357 Mag chambers in the FBI and other agencies at that time.

And yes, it appears most students of the debacle and its aftermath agree that demonizing the 9mm and 38/357 was not the real lesson that needed to be learned. Fortunately, a lot of people have taken the better lessons of the firefight to heart, and as a result being that LEO's are much, much better armed and trained for gunfighting today than they were 30 years ago.

It wasn't "pretty standard practice". It was what was issued. FBI agents use what they are directed to and the .38 Spec. +P LHP was the issued round of the day for the Smith and Wesson model 13, which was the standard issue weapon. There were other approved weapons, such as the 9mm that one of the other agents was carrying. As I stated earlier, the .38 was easier for female agents to handle. In all fairness, the FBI Load, as the round was termed, was about the most effective conventional .38 Spec. load of the day. How well it did out of a 3" barrel, is questionable. Lots of people think Magnums out of anything less than a 4 incher, are severely handicapped and this load was meant to get up to lower magnum velocities.

This is also what you get when you use psych tests and interviews to weed out anybody who is even sympathetic to the gun culture. My best guess is that nowadays you have tests more geared to anti-gunners who like guns themselves and are more elitist in their gun attitudes than classical anti-gunners who want to eradicate the tools themselves. So you get better trained personnel who are very willing to use that training to confiscate guns from others rather than pacifists ordered to use guns to confiscate guns from others under the guise of all guns being eradicated.

Not exactly. I can't speak for others. The FBI is very sensitive to bad publicity and this thing generated tons of it. The FBI/Military thinking, for lack of better terms, of the day was Penetration. This somewhat opposed civilian police training which espoused velocity. So there already was a body of evidence to support the Bureau's decision to go with the 10. The stupid part is that IIRC, the 10 being utilized was deemed "too hot" for some agents and the 40 was created and loaded at roughly the same speeds. It's kinda like Baby Bear's porridge being "just right" when physics dictates that Mama Bear's was more likely to have been the right temperature, given the Goldilocks criteria.

The FBI gets into a friggin CF run and gun and acts like it is the only agency in the world that gets into those. It then analyzes it in excruciatingly painful detail and blames equipment failure for a lot of other shortcomings. Then people debate it over and over for 25 years. Most police departments don't waste those kinds of resources, and they tend to learn their lessons and move on a lot quicker than that.

They learned the hard way bullet placement means more than the round you are carrying . Any fire fight with a Mini-14 against a 38 SPL short barrel handgun, the man with the pistol is going to lose the majority of the time unless he shoots straight and makes a good shot from the git go.

They learned about firepower, but also primarily that the old LE standard of taking cover and returning fire against a highly offensive, military style, mobile opponent was a good way to get dead.

the state of mind of the shooters was more intense than the FBI and they had decide they wouldn't be taken alive and this made the difference on the outcome of the battle other than the FBI was outgunned .

Sorry to get yer knickers in a knot, CY. It was "pretty standard practice" in a lot of agencies to allow officers/agents to qualify with and carry on duty either 38 Special or 357 Magnum. If I was mistaken, I'll check my sources when I get home tonight and confirm. I seem to recall fairly clearly that while 38 Special +P loads were issued to FBI agents at that time, 357 Magnum loads were issued as well. As I said, I'll confirm and report back.

Nailed it. The mental state PLUS an ability to actually shoot is what made them so dangerous.....it is very thankfully a rare combination...

"...got under your skin"? heheh You gave the impression that their issuance was arbitrary. When you've got a round termed "the FBI load" it's usually carried by the named agency a little more than "pretty standard practice".

CY likes this.

Here is the miltary background on the two shooters, Platt and Matix.


Michael Lee Platt: 6'0" - 173 lbs.
U.S. Army (#526087944) from 27 June 1972-1 May 1979
Honorable Discharge; E-6
Airborne Ranger trained at Fort Campbell: 9/73-5/75
Also served in M.P. Unit there with Matix. Service notation includes "High Combat Proficiency."
MOS: 11B10, 11B20, 11B30

William Russell Matix: 6'1" - 147 lbs.
Marine Corps (#2578943) from 7 October 1969-7 July 1972. Honorable Discharge; E-5
U.S. Army (#2578943) from 10 August 1973-9 August 1976. Honorable Discharge; E-5
MOS: Military Police, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

L.W.

They was some salty old boys, anyway you cut it, eh Leanwolf?

My take on this and the FBI in general is that they hire ivory tower college folks who haven't a clue about who they're stalking. They then try to get super-scientific with computer printouts and suchlike, when they could just hire the people they so disdain in the first place and save a lot of time. Hiring people who know the quarry they are stalking and whose proficiency with weapons is inherent rather than solely by training, would go a longer ways toward eliminating future occurrences than would gadgetry and more college boys.

The FBI knew this but just got fat and lazy and forgot the lessons the mobile heavily armed gangsters of the 1920's & 1930's taught them through hard lessons. Experienced hard nosed lawmen with gunfighting experience were called in to combat the equally hard nosed gangsters. The Federal Agents were also heavily armed with the likes of Thompsons, BAR's, Gov't Model .45's and .38 Supers, S&W 38/44 Heavy Duty revolvers and at some point the new S&W .357 Magnum. Complacency will get you killed.

Didnt they make a movie about this?

For those unfamiliar with such, MOS 11B is Light Weapons, Infantry, i.e. your basic combat rifleman.

That's why such agencies as FBI, DEA, USMS, have local LEO's assigned to criminal taskforces within the the agencies operating areas. It's because the local LEO's know the people and the area better then the Fed's.

Otherwise known as 11 Bang! Bang!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095366/

They had some impressive resumes.

Tactics were to blame and the FBI had a chance to upgrade their weapons prior to trying to apprehend these too. I believe from the reports that the 9mm a silvertip penetrated to the heart but did not cause enough damage? Its been some time since I reviewed the facts of the case but it was a cluster&*(^ from the get go!

You need to get a copy of this and read it



I totally disagree with your assertion that poor shooting was the problem and so do the involved agents, lack of penetration with the shot angles and barriers were at fault and that is clear IMHO

I thought this was a pretty good internet read on the event, I have not fact checked so don't jump down my throat if you find a mistake.

http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html

The attached photos so some tactical positioning but still the wrong weapons and tactics. It seems that the 8:2 odds may have given the Agents some sense of complacency.

http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86-pix.html

This police response was developed after this...



Or this one, it would be good on the Walking Dead TV show...

Beyond ballistics, the tactics and complacency is what did them in. Knowing they were looking for skilled, rifle armed opponents, they had hard armor but it was left in the trunk, their only long guns were shotguns with #4 buckshot (IIRC) and at least one learned the hard way that having your gun sitting on your seat in a collision is a good way to be unarmed when you need it. The best shooter was almost useless when he lost his perscription glasses.

As someone mentioned above, the FBI do not handle this kind of stuff on a regular basis, it is better to think of them as lawyers with guns. I say this after working with plenty of FBI field agents in the Bay Area. I would say they are even with most cops, about 2 in 10 are heavily interested in tactics or firearms and the rest are along for the ride. If you want to see some butt kicked by a federal agency look at the US Marshalls, its like night and day between them and the FBI.

don't hide behind car doors when being assailed by a rifle!

In my collection, I have the FBI training video for this. they give an overview, interview some of the agents that were there, and they re-enact it minute by minute, at the scene.

Basic issues were
- no standardized firearm, permit to carry 5rd snubbies.
- requirement o carry FMJ in autos for reliability
- agents were allowed to wear glasses
- only some agents carried body armor with them, none wore it
- lack of effective gunfight training for agents

Many agents at the time had had little to no real combat/gunfight training. Most were allowed to carry a variety of weapons, and at that time, the revolver was still highly favored for most police work. In the initial fight, one agent shot one of the two bad guys with a FMJ 9mm round in the lungs. this is a kill shot, but the FMJ did not expand, so he had to bleed out, and that took time. Several agents interviewed said that they were awed by the loud firing of the mini-14, and several agents heard whizzing near them, and not all even knew that it was the sound of bullets. One of the agents was hit in the hand, and was unable to reload his 5-shot snubbie after it was dry. One of the best shots that was ther had his glasses knocked off at the start, and he could not even see more than a few yards without the - he was shot & killed while trying to figure out where others were.

The agents in the 86 shoot out in Miami were only allowed to carry weapons that were issued to them and that they were qualified to carry. The ammo for the 9mm semi auto pistols was the Winchester 115 grain silver tip. The ammo for the revolvers was the 158 gran LSWHP 38 special +P. They were were not allowed to carry 357 mag ammo in their revolvers

To deny that the ammo used that day exhibited inadequate penetration is, well ridiculous

Always with the lack of penetration. Oy vey. I've never had that problem myself but I wish you luck just the same.

Did you bother reading what Doc Rocket posted about the forensic analysis? About them literally being dead men walking? Do you think that blowing through the heart with one of Fackler's 147 grainers would have done better? For crying out loud.

That sounds about right.

An ex-cop friend of mine says the same thing.

Yep.

Let's also note the "original" 38 FBI load was a flat point 200gr. loading, back in the day.
And yes, the point about sitting behind a car door taking rifle fire was true; also the agents did what they were trained to do and did the very best job they could, under the circumstances. I don't think they were a bunch of college pansies.

Yes a bullet through the heart would have ended the affair in 30 to 45 seconds according to forensic experts not 4 1/2 minutes latter as was the case with Pratt

I not only read what Doc posted but if you had payed attention you would have noticed that I have the complete forensic report that Doc referred to by Dr. Franklin

The inaccuracies of "gun rag" articles is what has given that perception

Getting shot at with automatic rifle fire, essentially hiding behind toilet paper for protection, sorts out people quickly, college or not.

Exactly

Of course you haven't, because aren't nearly as experienced are knowledgable as you seem to think

They were probably brave men. My wording was probably lacking.

In hindsight, lots of things were done wrong but the whole thing was basically off the charts anyway. How many times are you going to run into two perps with resumes like these two?

Basically you and the FBI are summarizing the thing into a lack of penetration. My contention is that the outcome was a result of poor tactics meeting up with two super-criminals.

I think that the base reason behind the fiasco was that Platt and his bud were INTENT on killing. The FEBBIES were not. One can play all the mind games ya want, but the actual act of killing a man is one of the hardest obstacles to overcome. In any battle,advantage goes to the one who is a killer. The one who has not killed has an obstacle to overcome. How many of you have actually had the man's head sitting on top of the front post and took up the slack in a trigger??? Then squeezed WITHOUT pulling the shot????

Experienced, motivated, determined...

Very true.

Do a search on the NORCO Bank Robbery.

These two dealings had more influence on present day LE training and armament than any other incidences. Today its pretty much folly going up against the police with a few dudes and a bag full of rifles, cause the cops outnumber you and have just as much firepower.

Yes, there is no doubt that a High School Freshman is not gonna kick Senior ass his first Friday night football game.

True.

I disagree. Just a few short years ago in New Jersey,one guy killed several cops. At least 2 in a street battle and and a few more when a SWAT Team made an entry. He was shooting for the kill from the git-go, the Cops had to make the mental transition. He used a shotgun. There is a LOT about mindset that people don't understand or maybe even want to. Cops in general seem to have a disbelief that someone is actually going to do their best to actually KILL them. MOST criminals don't want to kill anybody let alone a cop. The ones who do however actually have the advantage.

I learned a long time ago in a land far away that if someone is intent on killing me I NEED to kill him FIRST!

All I got to say on the matter.

Okay, I'm going to say it. BTW: I agree with you.

I have the complete Dirty Harry series. On one of the DVD is an interview with Eastwood and one of the questions asked was why the .44mag. Eastwood said he and the writers wanted to portrait Dirty Harry as a hunter and the handgun for a hunter was a S&W Model 29 in .44 mag. In all the Dirty Harry movies Harry is a hunter and a killer something a real cop in reality cannot be. Harry survives as well as he does because he is a hunter and a killer. Harry kills first and ask questions later. Again something a real cop in reality cannot do.

I've studied Doc Holiday and why he was such a successful gunfighter compared to his peers. Doc was dying by inches from tuberculosis. Doc was a dead man walking. He didn't care if he was killed in a gun fight as that was preferable to dying by inches. That fact gave Doc an advantage over his peers in a gun fight.

To sum up, a man who is a hunter, a killer, and a dead man walking has an edge over a man who is not a hunter, killer, and wants to live.

Exactly.........It is as simple as that

Exactly. I am no expert nor do I make the pretense. I do know that it takes time to transition from one mindset to another. The more experienced you are, the less time. Also, some individuals have the inherent ability to make the transition more quickly than others. Even in some street confrontation that isn't deadly, it takes some moments to realize what is happening. "You're kidding, right?" I would say that the Miami shootout is a sort of example. Even though the FBI agents knew what was coming, it still took precious moments to process what was happening. Platt and Matix just went for it, balls to the wall.

I don't know as much about the LA shootout.

You're still alive. There's the outcome.

It�s so easy to Monday morning Quarterback that one. But there�s an old saying in boxing. �Everyone has a plan until they get hit. It�s what you do after you get hit that matters.�

Everyone talks about the guns, ammunition, and the FBI�s men; few talk about their opposition. Matix and Platt were highly motivated and well trained. There are many men who have a high level of proficiency at arms, but it�s the first one, highly motivated, that is the key. Not only were Plat and Matix very competent at arms, they were willing to fight to the death and do whatever they have to do to win. That�s an exceptionally rare thing encountered on the street; exceptionally rare.

The agents were well armed, shot pretty damn well under the circumstances, and initially their tactics left much to be desired, but after the first minute of shock was over, the tactics and shooting all became fairly sound. But Platt and Matix were just as competent, possibly more competent at arms. Their tactics were decent, but the more important element was that they were in control of the engagement because they set the tone and terms of the engagement from the beginning.

For law enforcement, their JOB is to show a minimum of force to subdue their adversaries. This means in every encounter they have to rely on their opposition to set the bar, and they must react. Let me repeat that last part�.THEY MUST REACT!

Any application of lethal force by US Law Enforcement by nature must be reactive. In an all out war, this is a HUGE disadvantage! In most cases this is not a problem at all because even most criminals have a certain level of civility and are initially hesitant to cross the line of shooting at a cop. For those who do shoot at a cop, typically it�s in an effort to retreat and escape.

When the FBI opened the dance that day, Platt and Matix from the get go were 100% focused on killing their adversaries. The FBI suspected that Platt and Matix �could have� been capable of that, but truly they didn�t really know what their response would be. Such opposition is a very rare exception, never the rule. Therefore it�s very difficult for an cop to understand that�s what he�s getting into, because to take such a mindset will most likely get a cop into some bad trouble.

The FBI agents that were involved in that incident did a good job that day, not a perfect job, but a good job. That incident cost the life two excellent agents, and the limbs of others; but has saved countless numbers of Law Enforcement officers worldwide in the lessons that were learned.

Those agents walked into a hornet�s nest, and have been judged every single day since.

I don't disagree about the mentality part of it at all, nor the disbelief of cops that some people WILL kill them. That's kinda the point made by the Dade County shootout; mentally ready or not, the police have still been trained and equipped better to deal with similar issues. They even get hours of "mindset" training to go along with it. (I'm sure you've had the pleasure of sitting through those classes).

the reason I started this thread was to get the final answer on 9mm vs 40 S&W, it looks to me like the handgun cartridges of choice had little effect on the the outcome and if the 40 has been used probably wouldn't have even mattered. but double stack mags in say a full size glock would have made a big difference.

it was a different time back then and reliable semi autos were just coming on the market. yeah the 1911 was reliable at that time but only with ball ammo and as a result never caught on with LE agencies. the real problem like everyone is saying is rifle fire against pistol fire.

Cumminscowboy � You should read the FBI�s take on it: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

You can debate every aspect of this shooting, and many very knowledgeable people on the subject have come to the same conclusion as you. But there have been many knowledgeable people who have come to the conclusion that it does matter. Some say the FBI used the Silvertip as the �scapegoat�. I think the FBI could have deflected some heat, but to just dismiss the fact that the FBI made a huge fundamental change in ammunition selection based on this incident, I think that would be an error in judgment. Like them or not, when the FBI does something they tend to be rather thorough.

Penetration is king, simple as that. But all must be balanced because too much penetration can be just as much of a liability as too little. You need to also consider that the FBI�s criteria is specifically for law enforcement, and some cartridges deemed sufficient for law enforcement could prove to have too much penetration for other applications such as home defense or concealed carry on the street. Since law enforcement often has to shoot through intermediate barriers, and citizens are rarely involved in a shooting that isn�t face to face, should make you think.

As to 9mm vs. .40, I�ve come to the conclusion that either cartridge will get the job done; so pick the one that blows your skirt up. Once you have made the choice, match the ammunition (mostly by weight) to the job. Let�s assume you�re limiting your choices to JHP�s made by major reputable manufacturers.

For law enforcement I would recommend bullet weights of:
9mm: 147
.40: 180
.45: 230

For concealed carry on the street:
9mm: 124-147
.40: 155-180
.45: 200-230

For home defense
9mm: 115-124
.40: 135-155
.45: 185-200

Now consider these are just rough recommendations based on �typical� scenarios. Each person needs to evaluate their threat level and the scenarios they are likely to encounter. I�m sure many would dispute my rule of thumb for bullet weight, but this is MY rule of thumb, not theirs.

Yup, don't prepare for combat with only a pistol. As COL Cooper said, if he really expected trouble, he'd have a rifle. A Steyr Scout loaded with 110gr. TAP would have ended that affair rather quickly.

Sadly, you have forgotten everything Raisuli taught us.

I consider the Steyr Scout to be a lousy combat rifle. If I'm facing someone armed with a semi-auto rifle, I want one also. With a manual action rifle you're easily suppressed, then killed. The manual action combat rifle in today's world of wide use of semi-autos is folly IMO. I just cant count how many times in force on force training I've seen the guy with a manual action rifle first suppressed through high volume fire, then take out once the initiative has been gained.

Agree on preferring an auto to the Scout....but...I'd also prefer the Scout to the revolvers used (especially as an addition to).

as to the steyr scout vs a semi auto, heck no. I remember playing a game of paintball against guys armed with semi autos vs me and others armed with pump action paint ball guns. WOW, it took all of a minute to see the advantage first hand of rate of fire. you can pin someone down with a semi auto, they can't move or even peak their head out. its a huge advantage.

KG, interested in why you pick lighter weight 9mm ammo for home defense but recommend heavier stuff for CCW, wouldn't the lighter ammo in a CCW gun make for an easier carried gun??

+1 Kevingibson

I've watched the FBI analysis of this and their views on changing weapons.

I think that the real issue was the the FBI was going up against a pair of hard men that would and could shoot. The bad guys ID'ed the FBI and had enough time to gear up mentally for the fight and took the initiative in the opening engagement. Bad luck and bad planning(lack of rifles) contributed to the FBI's losses.

Fortunately most people LE comes up against are usually not competent or willing to take it to the max like these two individuals. I'm not insulting LE but the facts are facts.

With that being said I fear what may popup in the not so distant future with terrorists, cartels, and military trained gang bangers in our country.

I don�t much have this issue in my home, but for most homes, walls are very thin. The 115 grain is all but guaranteed to stop inside your target provided the hollow point opens up. You can say the same for the 124, but my choice for the 115 is just hedging that bet a little further. In a home defense scenario, you just can�t afford to miss. Most anything you miss with will not only penetrate the wall, but is quite likely to penetrate much of the entire dwelling. If you live in a suburban area, or an apartment, this is a serious concern. For incidents where hardened barriers an issue (and there are precious few hardened barriers in a house) the 115 has sufficient penetration for anything you need to punch, yet is very unlikely to completely perforate anything but a superficial hit.

Again, just MY preference; others may differ.

I think training is Key.


The 10mm may have been too much recoil for the shooters.

but

If they trained with it (the 10mm), things may have worked out very differently.



IMO

.

For Home Defense:

12 or 20 ga. Shotgun w/ Buckshot

My rule of thumb.

YMMV

MM

"You don�t have to be fast or the most accurate, you have to be willing. I found out early in life that most men aren�t willing. They draw a breath or blink an eye. I won�t." - J. B. Books (paraphrased)

ColeYounger and jwp475, I was mistaken. I did confirm that ALL the agents at that dust-up were carrying ISSUED 158 gr +P SWCHP. I have a copy of my notes taken at a meeting at which one of the agents spoke to the effect that "some" of the agents/special agents on that task force may have "sometimes" carried unauthorized/non-issued 357 Mag ammo, but officially none of them had 357 Mag ammunition in their revolvers that day.



OK, let's eliminate the double negative: are you saying that the ammunition used that day exhibited inadequate penetration?

If so, which round(s) do speak of? SOME of the bullets fired by FBI agents didn't do a very good job, but others worked pretty well.

If we review the autopsy photos and xrays in the Anderson book, which you posted earlier, we see that Agent Dove's 115 gr Silvertip JHP penetrated at least 14 inches of flesh on its path through Platt's right upper arm and the right side of his chest. The 115 gr STHP fired by Orrantia or Risner from across the street that shattered Platt's radius and rendered his right thumb useless certainly didn't need to penetrate any deeper than it did. The 6 158 gr SWCHP's from Mireles' revolver fired as he advanced on the dying Platt didn't penetrate very well, but then, they really didn't need to.

jwp, it's refreshing to come across another person who's read Dr. Anderson's book. Considering how often people want to talk about this case, you'd think more people would have bought and read it.

I've discussed the case at length, and Dove's shot in particular, with Dr. Anderson and other trauma specialists. There is a general consensus that Platt probably wouldn't have died any quicker with any other shot in the chest.

As far as that goes, most of us don't believe he lived 4.5 minutes after sustaining that wound. The timeline of the gunfight is not by any means certain, as Dr. Anderson points out in his book. We only have estimates from the participants, and given the nature of human physiology, it's most likely that Platt died less than 3 minutes after receiving the wound that killed him, and possibly less than 2 minutes. Two minutes was more than enough time, however, for the events we know to have happened to happen.

Contrary to what many people think, the common impression that a handgun bullet shot in the heart will kill faster than a shot into the Great Vessels (the aorta, vena cava, and pulmonary artery/veins) is false. Handgun bullets, being low energy projectiles, will "pencil through" the tough, fibrous muscle of the ventricles. A ventricular heart wound doesn't bleed very fast at all. I have seen patients with ventricular gunshot wounds survive more than once. A GSW that transects the aorta or atria will cause much more rapid exsanguination, the pulmonary arteries somewhat less rapid.

We know that Platt had something in the order of 1.5 liters of blood in his right thoracic cavity on autopsy. Transection of the pulmonary artery and vein would result in that level of blood loss in less than 3 minutes easily. That, plus the large quantity of blood he lost from his other wounds (Anderson's book shows that crime scene photos, which look like somebody splashed a couple of buckets of pig's blood around a movie set, and ALL of it was Platt's) suggests a less determined and physically conditioned person, in other words an average normal person, would have ceased to offer violence in less than a minute. Not so Platt, who was superbly trained, conditioned, and utterly unafraid to die fighting.

Very true, Jim. Look at the four cops killed in Oakland 2 years ago, and the four cops killed in Phillie shortly after that. In both cases the offender knew he was going to kill cops until they killed him. It took a while for the cops to tighten up the OODA loop.

Kevin, with all due respect, the idea that you are going to get effective, experienced cops to practice "minimum force" as defined by those w/o experience, "ain't goin to happen." What will happen is you'll get cops that get killed and job either won't get done or the cost will be unacceptable. Been there and done that too many times. And it's still going on.
The FBI "learned" the hard way. Have you forgotten that their agents weren't even allowed to carry guns when it was first formed ? Have you forgotten that after the heavy criminal types were reduced significantly, the real gun fighting FBI agents were forced out of the FBI way back before WWII ?
It's much the same with alot of agencies. There are exceptions but very few.
Got any idea why the cops in the big, liberal cities have first class lawyers standing by for their members ? And very strong unions ? Same crap.
Ever wonder why the gun and CCW movement is so popular and getting even more so ? Because the people that live in many places don't feel safe. In spite of the phony crime statistics, and you wouldn't believe how bad they are, the truth comes out. Our cops aren't getting the job done. We aren't near as safe as many political types want us to believe.
All the training and the best equipment in the world won't take the place of the proper attitude. Our cops have been fed this PC nonsense for so long alot of it rubs off even here. For example, the concerns about over penetration. You want to worry about that remote possibility, fine. I want to win if I must fight. Winners who give away their advantages often loose. E

It's amazing just how much surface area a human's blood can cover from a major artery leakage.

Went into a house once upon a time where the victim had been shot on the inside of the thigh just above the knee with a shotgun blowing up the femoral artery............there was a pool of blood five feet or so in diameter & it looked like it was a 1/2" thick, just all thick on gooy - helluva a sight.

MM

I hear ya, but my observations from many years on the street is that cops have to let the other guy dictate the level of force.

Walked into a maternity call once and the entire floor of a small living room was covered in blood (placenta abruptio), woman was unconscious; I was amazed there was a pulse, but there was. Same thing, looked a �� thick and gooey. Nasty call. Oh, mom and baby both made it; that shocked me even more.

How much ammo have you put through one?

I think ANY rifle in an FBI agent's hands would have changed the history significantly. Even a Steyr Scout.

I've put a couple dozen rounds thru a Steyr Scout. I'd love to have one, but not at the price they go for.

All police use of force is reactive in nature-the violator dictates the response. The legal criteria for use of force have to be met before force can be used lawfully. Once they are met, the force must be reasonable under the circumstances, which is not the same as "minimum force" as mentioned by E.

I have noticed when I have wounded and made a poor hit on animals that I have been hunting that it seems like it takes even more subsequent rounds to put them down after a poor shot. wonder if people are the same way.

the one article someone linked to that talked about the way pistol rounds wound, it didn't say it but, it seemed to support whatever round penetrated the best as the best choice. that fn 5-7 with its speedy little round my satisfy who's ever opinion it was that wrote the article.

Yep. It's the increased blood pressure when an animal is stressed that has to be overcome. On a DRT kill, an animal's spleen will typically be soft and pliable when you gut it. On an animal that takes flight and lives a while before it expires the spleen will be firm and contracted. The body is trying to shunt every drop of blood to maintain BP.

It also led to the Hornady XTP.

Typical Law Enforcement stupidity. LEO's can be some of the most ignorant gun owners. Not all but most I know are.

how is the XTP any different than a regular hollow point pistol bullet??

A mini-14 is not an automatic.

The very lengthy report on the requirements the FBI placed on the new bullet and Hornady's response in developing the XTP at their behest is a good read. If you take the time to read it you will likely be packing XTP's in your defense gun afterwards.

That's fine if you are engaging from a position of advantage. If you have overcome someone else's initiative then I'll take an AR thank you.

Enlighten us.....or are you so anal you engrave an "S" in your 45 A.C.P. cases?

I did not read all the posts, but a few.

We can all agree that it was tradgic day.
A lot of hard lessons were learned and newer tactics and equipment spawnd from it. The FBI adobted the 10mm, then we got the 40 cal. The 40 was refured to as the "40 short and wimpy" when it first came out. I think some guys thought they throttled it back to much. Then we got a number of different bullet designs, XTP's, Black Talons, Golden Sabres.....
Before the shooting a lot of cars did not have a rifle in them, maybe a shotgun. I think the FBI should have kept the State and local Officers informed what was going on and cordinated the stop. Sometimes I think they think/thought of the FBI as supercops, just yell FBI and they lay down and cuff themselves.

Very true. Most DEA, FBI, USMS offices, have local LE resources assigned to taskforces in the Feds operating areas. This due to local LEO's know the area & people better. Plus the locals LEO's help coordinate between local LE & the Feds. Manytimes there's cases that are intertwined that local agencies & Fed agencies are both working on.

a ruger mini 14 is a semi automatic not an automatic.

thus consider yourself enlightened.

I think the information sharing has got better over the years, but is still not perfect. When I was lowly Deputy, the State boys would ask after the fact.

As for the mini 14, Gordon Kahl used one to the max.

Life was much simpler then; when everything didn't have to be spelled out for retards......

I believe one of the bad guys converted the mini-14 to full automatic. The mini-14 can be purchased as a full automatic with the right papers.

I would take the Mini for a fighting rifle.

I've run a Mini-14 through a couple of carbine classes without a failure of any kind, which I did mostly to prove a point. I've seen every brand of entry-level AR puke at these classes while my Mini carried on. It's not a particularly accurate rifle, and if you run crap magazines, it'll puke on you. But it'll run like a top if you give it good mags and lube it well.

It sure worked fine for Platt. And no, Platt's Mini-14 was not full auto.

Massad Ayoob wrote a story of this incident in one of his books. I think it was called the Ayoob Files it had multiple stories of shootings from various incidents with the one above. Very well written and detailed.

Correct.

In the teeeveee movie it was full auto, but don't believe anything you see on teeeveee or in the flicks, boys and girls. "Reel" life and "real" life are very, very rarely one and the same.

L.W.

The TV movie producers probably got a deal on a bunch of used full auto Mini-14's from "The A Team".

I fired a full-auto Mini-14 at a LE carbine class once. I almost wish I had one. They heat up really, really fast, though!

I don't think anyone would seriously recommend a Mini-14 over a quality AR for serious tactical use. But they aren't crap, despite their minute-of-bad-guy groups at 100 yards, and they will take a licking and keep on ticking.

If you want super accuracy out of a mini-14 I guess these are the guys to go to:

http://www.accuracysystemsinc.com/index.php

The main lesson to take from the Miami shootout is that mental toughness is the best weapon you can carry into any fight.

It also shows how bad things can get when mental toughness fails.

The biggest mystery of the Miami shootout, to me, is what happened to S.A. Grogan. Grogan was supposedly the best shot of all the Agents, the guy who had trained his whole career for just such a confrontation. But something went very badly wrong for S.A. Grogan at some point during the fire fight.

He had lost his glasses in the initial collision, and although profoundly near-sighted, he still managed to engage targets and actually score some hits. After the incident, investigators determined that he had fired 9 rounds from his 14+1 capacity S&W 459.

When Platt charged his position at the back of the car, Grogan still had six rounds of ammo left and his weapon was still operational. Even though he had an apparently unobstructed view of Platt, he did not engage him as Platt approached him and shot him in the chest.

The nearest survivor, S.A. Hanlon, stated that he heard Grogan exclaim "Oh, my god" just before Platt shot him. So Grogan apparently was aware of Platt's approach, but for unexplained reasons was not able to engage Platt. Why? Did Platt's assault un-nerve Grogan to the point that he was unable to react? It seems that it might be a possibility.

Supervisory Agent McNeil, who was also wounded in Platt's assault, stated that he remembered very vividly that Platt was smiling at him as he was firing on him, a very un-nerving sight for anyone. Seeing an assailant that has already taken numerous hits that should have incapacitated him approach your position, smiling at you as they take aim, could very well be enough juice to flip someone's breaker.

We will never know for sure, and I can understand the reluctance to probe the subject much out of consideration of the deceased, but something unusual happened at the back of Grogan & Dove's car. Something that ought to be probed if we want a better understanding of combat psychology.

You bring up some good points Gadfly.

I remember my drill sergeants telling us recruits that the first kill is the toughest and it gets easier after number three.

I remember my drill sergeants telling us recruits that if we survived our first fire fight our chances of surviving combat went up exponentially. The reason they gave is that new soldiers in their first fire fight tend to freeze and forget their training. My police work tended to bear this out.

All my drill sergeants were former airborne, ranger or special forces. All had a minimum of one combat tour of Vietnam, many were Korea War vets, and a few cought the tail end of WWII.

Derby Dude, you just earned a cigar. Bullseye. Experience makes a huge difference.
For one, you need to survive the mistakes you made in first one(s). Then you know.
Take the post above. How come the FBI agent, who was very near sighted and lost his glasses, didn't fight better ? He lost his glasses and that threw him off. When he was charged, he wasn't prepared for that. Ever had to fight back after taking a solid blow that barely left you able to stand ? It can get that bad very quickly.
Proper, realistic training, and alot of it still isn't from what I've seen, does make a difference. But the ability to react fast enough, coupled with situation awareness, is also crucial. The ability to remain cool and adapt to changing conditions is also important. Training can help all of this. But experience is the best teacher of all.
The real benefit of these types of incidents and many others like them is their value as a training aide. LAPD did just that with their gunfights. And earned the title of having the best survival rate of any big police force, anywhere in the world.
Do you guys remember Stacey Koon of the Rodney King incident ? He went up against a guy armed with an AK-47 and survived. He was armed with a 6 inch, .38 Special revolver with RN ammo BTW. E

Thanks. I've never been in a fire fight but I have taken a blow so hard that I was dazed and couldn't re-act. I just wanted to lay down and rest. In a fire fight or any kind of a fight that's not a good move.

Remember Waco and the ATF after they made initial contact with Koresh and company? The AFT never expected to be attacked and take casualties. They panic and retreated and lost the initiative.

In case anyone reads Ayoobs rendition understand he was not privied to all of the detailed information and his version takes into account a significant amount of "educated guesses and editorial license".

DD, you bring up a very important fact: experience in actual fighting is highly correlative with winning the fight, which happens to correlate well with survival.

Ken Murray, in his seminal book Training at the Speed of Life, used the examples of fighter pilots as proof that highly realistic combat simulations can get a warrior past his first 3 dogfights (the ones in which he is most likely to be killed) without actually risking death. If the warrior has enough realistic simulated fights under his belt before he ever goes into real combat, his chances of winning his first combat are exponentially higher than they would have been if he had gone into combat "cold".

This is the principle behind the highly realistic training we do in law enforcement now with SIMUNITION, Airsoft, and computer simulators. Cops who have been intensively trained in the art and science of gunfighting by these modalities not only have a higher success rate when/if they get into a real gunfight, they have better discriminatory skills that prevent them getting into a "bad shoot".

I've been using these training modalities as an increasingly important component of my LE classes, to the point where I won't do a class any more without having a computer simulator at least, and preferably with computer plus airsoft and/or SIMS. The speed at which people learn gunfighting thru these modalities continually astonishes me.

Ok, so here's the question I have never seen asked in all of the tons of analysis and coverage of this event.

The situation is that you have 15 car loads of agents scouring the mean streets of Miami, specifically looking for heavily armed and known to be hostile bank robbery, kidnapping and murder suspects...some real bad-guy desperadoes we're dealing with here.

These are senior FBI Agents and some of the Agents are supposedly SWAT certified, dressed in suits and ties, and not wearing body armor.

And these Agents are out on this patrol with their main weapons locked-up in the trunk.

Was this FBI procedure out of the manual at the time?

Did they ever give any thought as to what they were going to do if they actually ran into the guys they were looking for?

What did they expect to do, stun 'em by flashing their badges and meet up for coffee later?

How they were armed leads me to think that they didn't really expect to find them.

I think the whole caliber debate afterward was a cover-up...but that's just me.

TC

About the only positive thing you can say for them is, at least they didn't run from the scene.

I don't think a lack of courage was a problem.

I think if you are in the FBI, you do things the FBI's way or you turn in your badge.

I think they acted with great courage, to attempt to face down guys with an assault rifles armed with 5 shot Detective Specials as their main weapons.

I personally wouldn't expect to walk away from that scenario...

Life has taught me not to be so arrogant...unless, maybe, I was feeling really lucky that day...but no, not even then.

TC

Grogan and Dove had high capacity S&W 9mm, others had M-19 S&W revolvers as well as shotguns, etc no detective Spl that I am aware of

Take_a_Knee is clueless pure and simple

Do I remember correctly that McNeil the supervisor...he called for the take down, and he had a 5 shot S&W 38 and he was the first to open fire?

TC

If memory serves Pratt opened fire first, I don't have my reference with me to check at the moment. Mireless also had a 5 shot S&W back up revolver but I do not remember any Detective Specials

Considering the level of carnage...I can understand his point of view.

Most of the discussion at the time, and even now, seems to be centered around the quest for finding the FBI a 'new and more effective law enforcement caliber', as if that were the real problem.

As you previously suggested, a heavier bullet from a heavier caliber weapon could have made a big difference in the outcome.

I agree, of course, but the FBI would have first had to approve of their agents fielding such a weapon, and someone still needed to have the mind-set to deliver it.

The FBI was looking for these guys for what...like 6 months...as a minimum, some kind of mental preparation and planning ahead of time would have helped them out a bunch.

I don't think it's unfair at all to refer to the Miami Shootout as a CF of the first magnitude.

TC

The FBI had a rolling stakeout in motion since they had no idea where these guys would strike next. The Agents knew how dangerous Prat and Matrix were and had talked about how they shot people for no aparrent reason. Thingsset in motion and timing of events that day worked against the agents. They believed that the suspects had ID'd they and were in flight and if they were going to take them it had to be now or not at all

That's how I got the picture.

They were rolling out in force trying to locate and take down some real nasty customers, before they slaughtered more innocent lives...full well knowing how ruthless this pair was...

...with their weapons in the trunk...no body armor...and no coherent plan.

They were armed like off duty cops...and I can't help but assume that was a reflection of their mind-set on that day...that's what I have never been able to wrap my mind around.

TC

They were carring the weapons that they were allowed to carry. What eles were they supposed to do?

Putting aside the obvious tactical mistakes and the debate over weaponry, the reason that Platt performed as well as he did, after taking serious hits, as compared to the FBI agents, was better training.

Despite a lot of hype about it being a Butch & Sundance type go out with a bang / suicide by cop deal, Platt and Matix's main objective was to escape, and all their actions during the firefight support this.

Platt's military training was to focus on his objective and to eliminate any threats that interfered with that objective. He did this in the way he was trained, by aggressively engaging those threats, even after he had been seriously injured.

Platt's charge, where he kill Grogan & Dove, and wounded Hanlon and McNeil occurred after after his fatal wounding, and after the wound that disabled his right hand. Still, he improvised a way to continue firing his weapon and achieved his objective, which was eliminating the return fire that was preventing his escape. Matix, though receiving a devastating head wound and a potentially fatal neck/chest wound still had enough situational awareness to realize that Platt had taken Grogans vehicle and join him there.

On the other side though, we have Grogan, Dove, & Hanlon who failed to take any type of action to stop Platt after he gained a tactical advantage. What happed to Grogan, as I mentioned earlier, is the big mystery to me, but we also have Hanlon, who was wounded in the hand and had an empty weapon, but otherwise mobile, and Dove, who was unwounded but had a disabled firearm, both of whom basically let Platt walk up and shoot them execution style.

This is where the FBI had a major training failure. The agents all performed pretty well in the firefight as far as their training went, but when the situation escalated outside the parameters of their training (after they had received wounds/been disarmed), with the exception of Mireles, they failed to perform at all. No attempt to escape, no attempt to physically over power the partially disabled Platt, they just passively allowed themselves to be shot. That's the training problem that the FBI needed to address after the Miami shootout.

I have no idea if they ever did or not.

Can't speak for the Quantico crowd but Bill Rodgers certainly addressed these issues.

Your statement "they just passively allowed themselves to be shot". is pure and simply incorrect

I have never been in that situation but regardless of training its tuff to imagine anyone just sitting there giving up and waiting to get shot. especially FBI agents. I surely can't see myself just sitting there. maybe they thought they were done regardless of their actions and maybe just maybe the bad buy would let them be if they stopped showing hostile action. maybe they felt at that moment that was their ONLY chance at living. thats the only thing I can think of.

some ask why the body armor and heavy weapons were not used. its apparent to me that the FBI felt a great sense of urgency to take these guys out. waiting and organizing themselves could have potentially let the bad guys escape. to me the real lesson to be learned is how to organize a force thats prepared to deal with the situation in a way that doesn't let the bad guys escape but still allows a greater degree of preparedness.

I don't really see 9mm vs 40 or really worrying about specific cartridges being much of a factor. just give the agents glocks and access to short barreled M4's as far as weaponry. add in some body armor and these agents would have been fine, with the possible exception of how they chose to take the guys down and pinning the vehicle.

Show me something that supports your position. Grogan died with a functioning weapon that still had six rounds of ammo, yet he failed to engage Platt before Platt fatally shot him. That he was aware of Platt's presence and his intent is suggested by Hanlon's testimony about Grogan's exclaimation immediately before he was shot.

Hanlon's testimony about his own encounter with Platt states that he watched as Platt aimed the gun at his head, and then changed his mind and shot him in the groin. No mention of any offensive or defensive acts, just passively taking a round to the groin.

Dove is less clear of a case, but the fact that he took two closely place shots to the head from from a man who had a disabled right hand and who was having to improvise trigger manipulation suggests that Dove was not an active target at the time he was engaged.

I'd certainly like to see any evidence that suggests otherwise.

Your contention is that is one gets killed before he is able to fire all of his ammo, then he isn't trying. Is that your position?



Have you read this?

Tactical Brief


Firearms Tactical Institute
Web Site Index and Navigation Center

Tactical Briefs #7, July 1998

Updated 6-25-99: Link to Dr. Anderson's web site, in which selected pages from his book are published, has been added to the end of the literature report below.

Literature Report

Anderson, W. French, M.D.: Forensic Analysis of the April 11, 1986, FBI Firefight. W. French Anderson, M.D., 1996 (127 pages, paperback)

This publication (softcover book) was researched, written and published entirely by Dr. Anderson, who is a professor of Biochemistry and Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine. Dr. Anderson�s report is the most thoroughly researched and documented account of the FBI-Miami shoot-out that has ever been made public.

Note: Ordering instructions appear at the end of this article.

For the benefit of those of you who are unfamiliar with the circumstances leading up to this shoot-out, the following is a summary of the incident (this is not part of Dr. Anderson�s book):

Two FBI agents were killed and five wounded in Miami during a confrontation with robbery suspects at approximately 9:45 a.m. on April 11. Prior to the shootings, the Agents, along with officers of the Metro-Dade Police Department, were conducting a mobile surveillance, attempting to locate two males believed to have committed a number of violent bank and armored car robberies. Observing a vehicle matching the description of one that had been stolen and used in previous robberies, an attempt was made to stop the car. When the Agents in three FBI vehicles subsequently forced the suspects� vehicle to a halt, two males, aged 32 and 34, emerged firing weapons. They used a 12-gauge shotgun with a modified pistol grip stock equipped to fire eight rounds; a .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle with 30 round magazine; and two .357-caliber handguns. The resultant gun battle left the two assailants and two Agents dead, as well as five Agents wounded. The victim Agents, both killed by rifle fire, were 53 and 30 years of age with 24 and 3 years of service, respectively. Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 1986. United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Washington, D.C., 1986, p. 27.

Dr. Anderson�s publication neither addresses nor examines the tactical aspects of the confrontation and ensuing gunfight. Instead, according to Dr. Anderson the purpose of his work is, "to establish the facts concerning what is known about the injuries incurred by Michael Platt and William Matix," and "to present a reasonable hypothesis, based on those facts, of what actually happened from a forensic medicine perspective to these two individuals".

We�re publishing this literature report as our comprehensive interpretation of Dr. Anderson�s findings. Whereas many of the general facts about the shoot-out are well known as they have been publicly reported in several magazine articles, news reports, a made for television movie, etc., Dr. Anderson�s book closely examines the wounds inflicted on Matix and Platt and attempts to correlate the time, location and exact body positions of both Matix and Platt when they were struck by FBI gunfire, and also attempts to identify which FBI agent fired the shot that caused the particular wound. Our intent is not to infringe upon Dr. Anderson�s work or copyright, but to report about his findings. In order to accomplish this, we have to report his findings in more detail than a typical "literature review" would provide. Also, we attempt to "paint pictures with words" in describing each of the graphic illustrations and photographs.

Introduction

Dr. Anderson�s book begins by reviewing the background information about the gun battle, and includes information about the participants, the weapons used, the injuries incurred by the suspects and FBI agents, and the location and positioning of the suspect and FBI vehicles:

FBI Agents:

Richard Manauzzi Injured (unspecified injuries).
Gordon McNeill Seriously injured by .223 gunshot wounds to the right hand and neck
Edmundo Mireles Seriously injured by a .223 gunshot wound to the left forearm.
Gilbert Orrantia Injured by shrapnel and debris produced by a .223 bullet near miss.
John Hanlon Seriously injured by .223 gunshot wounds to the right hand and groin.
Benjamin Grogan, 53 Killed by a .223 gunshot wound to the chest.
Gerald Dove, 30 Killed by two .223 gunshot wounds to the head.
Ron Risner Uninjured.

Suspects:

William Matix, 34 Killed by multiple gunshot wounds.
Michael Platt, 32 Killed by multiple gunshot wounds.

Weapons involved in the gunfight:

Suspects:

Matix: S&W M3000 12 gauge shotgun (1 round #6 shot fired).
Platt: Ruger Mini-14 .223 Remington carbine (at least 42 rounds fired),
S&W M586 .357 Magnum revolver (3 rounds fired),

Dan Wesson .357 Magnum revolver (3 rounds fired).


FBI:

McNeill: S&W M19-3 .357 Magnum revolver, 2-inch barrel (6 rounds .38 Special +P fired).
Mireles: Remington M870 12 gauge shotgun (5 rounds 2 3/4 inch 00 buckshot fired),
.357 Magnum revolver (make & model unknown), (6 rounds .38 Special +P fired).

Grogan: S&W M459 9mm automatic pistol (9 rounds fired).
Dove: S&W M459 9mm automatic pistol (20 rounds fired).
Risner: S&W M459 9mm automatic pistol (13-14 rounds fired?),
S&W (model unknown) .38 Special revolver (1 round .38 Special +P fired).

Orrantia: S&W (model unknown) .357 Magnum revolver, 4 inch barrel (12 rounds .38 Special +P fired).
Hanlon: S&W (model unknown) .38 Special revolver, 2-inch barrel (5 rounds .38 Special +P fired).
Manauzzi: Apparently lost possession of his handgun during the vehicle collision and was unable to locate and recover it during the gunfight (0 rounds fired).

From the time in which Grogan and Dove first spotted the Monte Carlo occupied by Platt and Matix to the time in which the last gunshot was fired by Mireles, approximately nine and a half minutes elapsed. The gun battle itself lasted over four minutes.

In the Introduction section, there are three color illustrations depicting the crime scene and five color photographs of the actual crime scene. The following is a description of these illustrations and photographs:

Plate A (prepared by Metro-Dade Police Department) is an overhead view illustration that shows major geographical features of the crime scene (structures, roads, trees, etc.) as well as the location and positioning of Matix/Platt�s Monte Carlo, the FBI agents� cars, and two uninvolved civilian vehicles (a Cutlass and a Trans Am) parked at the crime scene during the shoot-out.

In an effort to help you follow the events of the shoot-out, we�ve prepared and published a simple illustration that is based on Plate A. Our illustration is published below. Please keep in mind that our illustration is not to scale and is intended to provide you a coarse representation of the crime scene.

Plate B (prepared by Metro-Dade Police Department) is an overhead view illustration of the crime scene that depicts the locations and positioning of the vehicles and the bodies of the deceased, and provides color coded graphic symbols to identify the location of spent firearms cartridge cases found at the scene, the locations of weapons found on the scene, the locations and calibers of projectiles recovered at the crime scene and in the bodies of the deceased.

Plate C (prepared by Metro-Dade Police Department) is an overhead view illustration of the crime scene that depicts the locations of blood found on the grounds, vehicles, and weapons. The illustration provides color coded graphics that identify the person from whom the blood originated.

Plate D is an overhead view crime scene photograph (color) that was taken from a position almost directly behind McNeill�s car. It shows the locations and positioning of the Monte Carlo, Manauzzi�s car, McNeill�s car, Cutlass, and Grogan/Dove�s car. Grogan/Dove�s car is seen displaced from it�s location during the gunfight; it�s front bumper is in contact with the rear bumper of Manauzzi�s car.

(According to Dr. Anderson, Grogan/Dove�s car had rolled forward in the moments immediately after the gun battle. We asked Dr. Anderson about this and he queried Orrantia, McNeil and Mireles. All three Agents agreed that the likely scenario was that the transmission was in neutral, and when the driver's and passenger's doors were violently flung open by Risner and Agent Bob Ross to remove the bodies of Platt and Matix, the momentum of the doors being opened caused the car to roll forward until it contacted the rear bumper of Manauzzi's car. When the car came to a halt, Ross removed Platt's body and Risner removed the Matix's body.)

The contrast between bright sunlight and deep shade under the trees is clearly visible. A white sheet and a yellow sheet are visible in the shade covering Dove�s and Grogan�s bodies. The deep shade obscures the view of Platt�s body laying on the ground (face side up) outside the driver�s side door of Grogan/Dove�s car. In the bright sunlight out in the street, Mireles� shotgun is partially visible behind the passenger side corner of the rear bumper of McNeill�s car. A large pool of blood is also visible to the right of the shotgun.

Plate E is a crime scene photograph (color) view taken from the approximate perspective of where Hanlon/Mireles� car is located. McNeill�s car in the foreground almost totally obscures the view of Manauzzi�s car in the background. The rear passenger compartment of the Monte Carlo is visible above the hood of McNeill�s car. The rear passenger compartment of the Cutlass is visible behind the Monte Carlo�s trunk. Grogan/Dove�s car is touching Manauzzi�s car. Platt�s body is barely visible in the deep shade laying on the ground outside the driver�s side door of Grogan/Dove�s car. A white sheet covering Dove�s body and a yellow sheet covering Grogan�s body are visible in the deep shade behind their car.

Plate F is a crime scene photograph (color) close-up view taken from a similar angle as the Plate E photo and shows essentially the same details.

Plate G is a crime scene photograph (color) view taken from behind Grogan/Dove�s car. The trunk of a large tree is visible, located immediately behind the passenger side rear fender of Grogan/Dove�s car. Large blood smears and blood splatters are visible on the rear of Grogan/Dove�s car. Grogan�s body is visible on the ground, partially covered by a yellow sheet. Dove�s body is visible on the ground, partially covered by a yellow sheet and a white sheet. Platt�s body is uncovered and partially visible; his bare upper torso can be seen (paramedics apparently tore off his shirt) and an endotracheal tube is visible sticking out of his mouth. The contrast between bright sunlight and deep shade is very evident.

Plate H is a crime scene photograph (color) taken from a location in the parking lot behind the Trans Am. Grogan/Dove�s car is visible on the left of the photo, the driver�s side corner of the front bumper is touching the driver�s side rear bumper of Manauzzi�s car; the front hood and windshield of McNeill�s car is visible behind Manauzzi�s and Grogan/Dove�s cars; Manauzzi�s car is visible to the immediate left of the Monte Carlo. The Monte Carlo�s entire passenger side is visibly wedged hard against the Cutlass; the rear passenger side of the Monte Carlo is sagging. The rear window of the Monte Carlo has been almost completely shot out. Shattered glass fragments can be seen covering the trunk of the Monte Carlo.

The Injuries of Michael Platt and William Matix

The gunshot wounds present on Matix�s body (six wounds, A-F) and Platt�s body (12 wounds, A-L) are identified and detailed in alphabetical sequence in the autopsy reports prepared by Dade County Medical Examiner Jay Barnhart, M.D. These reports have been reproduced in Dr. Anderson�s book. Dr. Anderson refers to each wound using the same identification letter and terminology as documented in the autopsy reports.

Dr. Anderson�s book follows the chronology of the gunfight and addresses each of Matix�s and Platt�s wounds in the chronological order in which each was inflicted. He has broken the gunfight down into four distinct phases as follows:

I. The first encounter: Platt and Matix inside the Monte Carlo
(estimated duration: approximately 1 minute)
II. The initial hits on Platt: Platt exiting the Monte Carlo
(estimated duration: several seconds)
III. Platt�s devastating attack: Platt outside the Monte Carlo
(estimated duration: approximately 1� minutes)
IV. The final fusillade: Platt and Matix in Grogan/Dove�s car
(estimated duration of approximately 1� - 2 minutes).




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Tactical Briefs #7, Figure 1. FBI-Miami Shootout Crime Scene

I. The First Encounter: Platt and Matix Inside the Monte Carlo

Matix�s 1st gunshot wound (right forearm wound E) - Grogan
Matix�s 2nd gunshot wound (right head wound F) - McNeill
Matix�s 3rd gunshot wound (right neck/chest wound B) - McNeill

Immediately after Matix/Platt�s Monte Carlo was forced off the road by three FBI vehicles (occupied by Special Agents Grogan/Dove, Manauzzi, and Hanlon/Mireles), it sideswiped a Cutlass sedan and collided head-on into a tree. Platt (sitting in the passenger seat) then fired 13 rounds from his Mini-14 through the closed driver�s side window of the Monte Carlo at Manauzzi in the car directly beside them, then at Supervisory Special Agent McNeill�s approaching car, then at McNeill (hitting his shooting hand), and then at Mireles (who fell to the ground after being hit in his left forearm). Dr. Anderson conjectures that Platt might have felt he�d sufficiently suppressed the threats emanating from the left front of the Monte Carlo, and he pulled back from the window. This would have given Matix the opportunity to fire towards the left rear at Grogan and Dove with his 12 gauge shotgun.

Because the driver�s side door had been damaged during the collision with Manauzzi�s car (as well as the proximity of Manauzzi�s car immediately beside the Monte Carlo), Matix could only partially open his door. He leaned out from his sitting position and fired one round of #6 shot towards Grogan and Dove, which hit the grill of Grogan�s car. Dr. Anderson feels this is most likely when Matix received his first wound, right forearm wound E, which entered his right forearm just above the wrist. Dr. Anderson believes Grogan fired this shot, which hit Matix from a distance of approximately 25 feet. Grogan�s bullet entered Matix�s forearm on the little finger side, traveled just beneath the ulnar and radius bones, cut the ulnar artery, and exited the forearm on the thumb side.

Dr. Anderson speculates that Matix probably withdrew back inside the Monte Carlo to examine the wound. At this point, McNeill (who�d already fired four shots across the hood of Manauzzi�s car and into the cab of the Monte Carlo when he was hit in his gun hand by one of Platt�s .223 bullets) apparently saw Matix�s movement and fired the last two rounds out of his revolver at Matix. The bullet from McNeill�s shot number 5 is believed to have caused Matix�s 2nd wound, head wound F.

As Matix pulled back inside after firing at Grogan and Dove, who were positioned behind the Monte Carlo, Matix�s head and upper torso were still rotated to the left when McNeill�s bullet hit him, producing head wound F. The bullet hit Matix just forward of his right ear, below the temple, shattered the cheek bone, hit and fractured the base of the cranium, and entered the right sinus cavity under the eye. This hit bruised the brain (but did not penetrate the cranium or brain) and Dr. Anderson believes it most probably knocked Matix instantly unconscious.

McNeill�s sixth shot hit Matix, causing the third wound, right neck/chest wound B. The bullet entered the right side of his neck after he slumped unconscious momentarily forward against the driver�s side door. It penetrated his neck at a downward angle and severed the blood vessels behind the collar bone, ricocheted off the first rib near the spine and came to rest in the chest cavity. It bruised but did not penetrate the right lung. This wound interrupted the blood supply to his right arm and might have also disrupted the brachial plexus to cause dysfunction of the nerves that supply the arm. Dr. Anderson speculates that Matix�s right arm was probably paralyzed by this injury, either immediately by disruption of the nerves or eventually by total loss of blood circulation to the arm. Dr. Anderson feels this wound would have ultimately been fatal, due to the severed blood vessels. Bleeding from this injury during the next 2-3 minutes caused almost a liter of blood to accumulate in the chest cavity. However, for the next minute, it is believed that Matix slumped over onto his back and lay unconscious on the front seat of the Monte Carlo.

Dr. Anderson observes that although Platt fired 13 rounds of .223 directly in front of Matix�s face, autopsy results suggest the muzzle blasts did not appear to damage Matix�s eyes or ears. His corneas were intact and there was no blood in his ear canals to indicate that his eardrums had been ruptured.

Platt�s blood was not found anywhere inside the Monte Carlo, and because of this Dr. Anderson believes Platt did not receive any bullet wounds while he occupied the passenger compartment.

The following is a description of photographs and illustrations published in Chapter I:

Figure I-1 (Matix forearm wound E) is an overhead illustration that depicts the location and positioning of the Monte Carlo, Manauzzi�s car, McNeill�s car, Grogan/Dove�s car and an uninvolved civilian car (Cutlass). Grogan is depicted firing his gun at Matix from behind his open car door and shows the path of the bullet from the muzzle of Grogan�s gun, across the hood of Grogan�s car, across the trunk of Manauzzi�s car and hitting Matix�s forearm.

Figure I-2 (Matix forearm wound E) is a close-up, overhead illustration that shows the path of Grogan�s bullet through Matix�s forearm while Matix is leaning out of the partially opened driver�s door of the Monte Carlo. Matix is depicted holding the shotgun in a firing position with his whole upper torso rotated to the left at the waist. The pistol grip held in his right hand. His left hand is supporting the shotgun's receiver.

Figure I-3 (Matix forearm wound E) contains three separate illustrations. The first is a medical illustration that depicts a cross section of Matix�s forearm to show major anatomical structures and the wound path of Grogan�s bullet. The second illustration depicts Grogan�s bullet having passed through Matix�s forearm and how it cut the ulnar artery. The third illustration is a left side view that shows Matix twisted around to his left facing backwards in the driver�s seat of the Monte Carlo, firing his shotgun while Grogan�s bullet enters his forearm on the little finger side, passes through the forearm, and exits the thumb side.

Figure I-4 (Matix head and neck/chest wounds F and B) is an overhead illustration that depicts the location and positioning of the Monte Carlo, Manauzzi�s car, McNeill�s car, Grogan/Dove�s car and an uninvolved civilian car (Cutlass). McNeill is depicted kneeling beside the left front fender of Manauzzi�s car firing shots 5 and 6 across the hood at Matix, who�s sitting in the driver�s seat of the Monte Carlo.

Figure I-5 (Matix head wound F) is a close-up, overhead view that shows the path of McNeill�s bullet from shot number 5, as it impacts the right side of Matix�s head while he�s turned around facing backwards.

Figure I-6 (Matix head wound F) is a side view illustration of Matix�s bust (head and shoulders) that shows the bullet from McNeill�s shot number 5 striking his head just forward of his right ear and the wound path of the bullet into the sinus.

Figure I-6 (sic) (Matix head wound F) is a medical illustration that depicts a profile of Matix�s head as viewed from the right front quadrant. The skull and brain are detailed to show the anatomical structures disrupted by the bullet from McNeill�s shot number 5.

Figure I-7 (Matix head wound F) is a photograph (black & white) of a bullet fragment recovered from the right side of Matix�s face.

Figure I-8 (Matix head wound F) is a photograph (black & white) of a bullet fragment recovered from Matix�s right maxillary sinus.

Figure I-9 (Matix neck/chest wound B) is a close-up overhead illustration view that shows the path of McNeill�s bullet from shot number 6 as it impacts the right side of Matix�s neck while he�s slumped against the driver�s door facing McNeill.

Figure I-10 (Matix neck/chest wound B) is a side view illustration of Matix�s bust that shows the bullet from McNeill�s shot number 6 striking his neck and the wound path of the bullet into the chest.

Figure I-11 (Matix neck/chest wound B) is a medical illustration that depicts the major anatomical structures disrupted by the bullet from McNeill�s shot number 6.

Figure I-12 (Matix neck/chest wound B) is a photograph (black & white) of a bullet fragment recovered from the front right side of the neck.

Plate I-A is a crime scene photograph (color) view of the damaged Monte Carlo�s driver�s side door taken from the right rear fender of Manauzzi�s car. It shows the Monte Carlo from the approximate perspective of Grogan and Dove.

Plate I-B is a crime scene photograph (color) close-up view of the limited ability of the Monte Carlo�s driver�s side door to open.

Plate I-C (Matix right forearm wound E) is an autopsy photograph (color) of the entry wound to the right forearm produced by Grogan�s bullet.

Map of Plate I-C (Matix right forearm wound E) is an illustration of right forearm entry wound photograph Plate I-C.

Plate I-D (Matix right forearm wound E) is an autopsy photograph (color) of the exit wound to the right forearm produced by Grogan�s bullet.

Map of Plate I-D (Matix right forearm wound E) is an illustration of right forearm exit wound photograph Plate I-D.

Plate I-E is a crime scene photograph (color) of the view of the Monte Carlo driver�s window from across the engine compartment hood of Manauzzi�s car.

Plate I-F is a crime scene photograph (color) of the hood of Manauzzi�s car that shows the muzzle blast soot deposits of McNeill�s six shots.

Plate I-G is an autopsy photograph (color) of the right side of Matix�s face showing gunshot wounds A, B, C and F.

Plate 1-H is an autopsy photograph (color) of the right front quadrant of Matix�s bust showing gunshot wounds A, B, C, D and F. A wire probe has been inserted into neck/chest wound B.

Plate I-I is a crime photograph (color) showing Matix�s body laying on the ground (face side up) as viewed from the right side after Risner removed him from Grogan/Dove�s car.

Map of Plate I-I is an illustration of the blood patterns present on Matix�s head and upper torso as seen in crime scene photograph I-I.

II. The Initial Hits on Platt: Platt Exiting the Monte Carlo

Platt�s 1st gunshot wound (right upper arm/chest wound B) - Dove
Platt�s 2nd gunshot wound (right thigh wound L) - Dove?
Platt�s 3rd gunshot wound (left foot wound I) - Dove?
Platt�s 4th gunshot wound (back wound K) - Orrantia?

Dr. Anderson theorizes that when Platt saw Matix slump over after being hit by McNeill�s bullets he might have decided that his chances of getting away were better if he exited the Monte Carlo.

As Platt crawled through the passenger side window, one of Dove�s 9mm bullets hit his right upper arm, just above the inside crook of the elbow. According to Dr. Anderson, the bullet passed under the bone, through the deltoid, triceps and teres major muscles, and severed the brachial arteries and veins. The bullet exited the inner side of his upper arm near the armpit, penetrated his chest between the fifth and sixth ribs, and passed almost completely through the right lung before stopping. The bullet came to a rest about an inch short of penetrating the wall of the heart.

(However, the accompanying autopsy report states that the bullet passed through the biceps muscle, and the autopsy photograph seems to support the medical examiner�s observation. The autopsy photograph shows an entry wound of the upper right arm, just above the inside bend of the elbow, in the location where the biceps muscle begins to show definition. The photograph suggests that the bullet passed through the biceps muscle of the upper arm in front of the bone. We discussed our observation with Dr. Anderson and he agreed with us. He stated that he would correct this error in a future revision to his report.)

At autopsy, Platt�s right lung was completely collapsed and his chest cavity contained 1300 ml of blood, suggesting damage to the main blood vessels of the right lung. Dr. Anderson believes that Platt�s first wound (right upper arm/chest wound B) was unsurvivable, and was the primary injury responsible for Platt�s death.

The Monte Carlo came to a stop with it�s passenger side wedged against an uninvolved vehicle (Cutlass) that was parked in the driveway of a duplex home where the incident took place. After Platt crawled out the window and was rolling off the front hood of the Cutlass, Dr. Anderson believes he has hit twice more, most probably by Dove, in the right rear thigh and left foot, (right rear thigh wound L and left foot wound I, respectively).

The bullet that produced the thigh wound entered the inside back surface of the right thigh and exited the outside surface of the leg, and involved only muscle tissue.

The bullet that hit Platt�s left foot entered behind the little toe and passed laterally through the foot from left to right, exiting above the big toe.

Dr. Anderson feels Platt�s fourth gunshot wound (back wound K) might have incurred shortly after he exited the Monte Carlo. The wound is a left to right grazing wound to the back, and may have been inflicted by Orrantia, who was in a position across the street and in front of the Monte Carlo. Orrantia�s bullet might have hit Platt after he got back onto his feet in front of the Cutlass and was turning to his left. The bullet abraded the skin just to the right of the spine in the location of the upper shoulder blade.

The following is a description of photographs and illustrations published in Chapter II:

Figure II-1 (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) is an overhead illustration that depicts the location and positioning of the Monte Carlo, McNeill�s car, Manauzzi�s car, Grogan/Dove�s car, and an uninvolved civilian car (Cutlass). Dove is depicted firing his gun at Platt from behind his open passenger side door and shows the path of the bullet leaving the muzzle of Dove�s gun, across the trunk of the Monte Carlo, through the rear passenger compartment window of the Monte Carlo, through a passenger side window of the Monte Carlo and hitting Platt�s right upper arm as he�s crawling out the passenger side window of the Monte Carlo.

Figure II-2 (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) is a close-up side view illustration of Platt crawling out the passenger side window of the Monte Carlo, holding the Mini-14 rifle in his right hand. The trajectory of Dove�s bullet is shown passing through the right upper arm and into the right side of the chest.

Figure II-3 (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) contains two separate illustrations. The upper drawing is a medical illustration that depicts the major body structures (major nerves and blood vessels of the of the right upper arm, rib cage, right lung, etc.) disrupted by Dove�s bullet as it passed through Platt�s right upper arm and into his chest. The second drawing is a medical illustration that depicts a cross section of Platt�s right upper arm to show major anatomical structures and the wound path of Dove�s bullet through the arm.

Figure II-4 (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) is an autopsy x-ray of Platt�s chest showing a mushroomed bullet in the hilum of Platt�s right lung. Also visible is another bullet (Platt right forearm/chest wound C) that was inflicted at a later point in the gunfight.

Figure II-5 (Platt right rear thigh wound L and left foot wound I) is an overhead illustration that depicts the location and positioning of the Monte Carlo, McNeill�s car, Manauzzi�s car, Grogan/Dove�s car and uninvolved civilian vehicle (Cutlass). Dove is depicted behind his open car door firing his gun at Platt. The trajectory of the two bullets that hit Platt are shown exiting the muzzle of Dove�s gun, across the trunk of the Monte Carlo, through the rear passenger compartment window of the Monte Carlo, and hitting Platt after he�s exited the Monte Carlo and he�s rolling off the front hood of the Cutlass with Mini-14 in hand.

Figure II-6 (Platt right rear thigh wound L and left foot wound I) is a close-up, overhead illustration that shows the paths of Dove�s two bullets through Platt�s right thigh and left foot while Platt is rolling off the front hood of the Monte Carlo with Mini-14 (fitted with collapsing/folding stock) in hand.

Figure II-7 (Platt right rear thigh wound L) is a medical illustration that shows Dove�s bullet passing from left to right through the musculature of the back of Platt�s right thigh.

Figure II-8 (Platt back wound K) is an illustration showing Orrantia�s bullet grazing Platt�s back from left to right, abrading and bruising the skin.

Plate II-A (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) is an autopsy photograph (color) of Platt�s outstretched right upper arm. A metal probe is seen inserted through the entry and exit wounds, following the wound path produced by Dove�s bullet.

Map of Plate II-A (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) is an illustration of Platt�s right upper arm as seen in photograph Plate II-A.

Plate II-B (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) is an autopsy photograph (color) of Platt�s right armpit. A metal probe is seen inserted through the path of Dove�s bullet from the exit wound of the right upper inside arm and into the entry wound of the right side chest. The exit wound of the arm is jagged. Bruising and abrasions caused by the temporary cavity formed in the upper arm by the 115 grain Winchester Silvertip bullet are visible on the skin of the inside arm and armpit side of the chest.

Map of Plate II-B (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) is an illustration of Platt�s armpit as seen in photograph Plate II-B.

Plate II-C (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) is a crime scene photograph (color) of the rear passenger side of Grogan/Dove�s car. A large quantity of Platt�s blood is seen splattered on the passenger side rear door and rear fender. According to Dr. Anderson�s caption: "Platt only leaned against this car for a few seconds. His right brachial artery had to have been actively spurting blood at the time to have left these blood patterns."

Plate II-D (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) is a crime scene photograph (color) close-up of the rear passenger side door, fender and trunk hood of Grogan/Dove�s car. In addition to the spurting blood patterns described above, there are also large smears of blood on the fender and trunk hood deposited by Platt when he leaned against the car to fire at Grogan.

Plate II-E (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B) is a crime scene photograph (color) of the rear of Grogan/Dove�s car. Large splatters of Platt�s blood are visible on the trunk hood, tail lights and rear bumper. Platt�s body is partially visible laying on the ground, face-up, outside the partially open driver�s door.

Plate II-F (Platt right rear thigh wound L) is an autopsy photograph of Platt�s left and right rear thighs. A metal probe has been inserted through the wound track of the right rear thigh, from exit wound to entry wound respectively.

Plate II-G (Platt left foot wound I) is an autopsy photograph (color) of the top of Platt�s left foot. A metal probe has been inserted through the wound track, and a toe tag that has been tied around the big toe is visible.

Map of Plate II-G (Platt left foot wound I) is an illustration of Platt�s left foot as seen in photograph Plate II-G.

Plate II-H (Platt left foot wound I) is an autopsy photograph (color) of the entrance wound side of Platt�s left foot. A metal probe is seen protruding out the entrance wound.

Map of Plate II-H (Platt left foot wound I) is an illustration of Platt�s left foot as seen in photograph Plate II-H.

Plate II-I (Platt back wound K) is an autopsy photograph (color) of the superficial bullet wound to the back.

III. Platt�s Devastating Attack: Platt Outside the Monte Carlo

Platt�s 5th wound (right forearm wound D) - Risner?/Orrantia?
Platt�s 6th wound (right upper arm/chest wound C) - Risner
Platt�s 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th wounds (right foot wounds E, F; and left foot wounds G and H) - Mireles

After Platt crawled out of the Monte Carlo and rolled off the front hood of the Cutlass, he took a position at the passenger side front fender of the Cutlass. He fired a .357 Magnum revolver at Risner and Orrantia, who were both across the street shooting at him. Dr. Anderson believes that the revolver would have been easier for Platt to manipulate due to the injury incurred to his right upper arm by Dove�s bullet (Platt right upper arm/chest wound B).

Dr. Anderson feels Platt received his fifth wound (Platt right forearm wound D) when, after shooting at Risner and Orrantia, he turned to fire at Grogan, Dove and Hanlon (who�d by now joined up with Grogan and Dove after running across the street with Mireles). The bullet, fired by either Risner or Orrantia, hit the outside of Platt�s right forearm (midway between the wrist and the elbow) fractured the radius bone (the bone in the forearm on the thumb side), and exited the forearm.

The bullet also affected the muscles that control the thumb�s ability to grip causing Platt to drop his .357 Magnum revolver. The revolver was found at the passenger side front fender of the Cutlass after the shoot-out.

Dr. Anderson believes that shortly thereafter, Platt incurred his sixth wound (Platt right upper arm/chest wound C), which was inflicted by Risner. The bullet entered the back of Platt�s right upper arm (mid arm), passed through the triceps muscle and exited below the armpit. It then entered the muscles in the side of his chest and came to a rest in the soft tissues of the right side back, below the shoulder blade. The bullet did not penetrate the rib cage and the resultant wound was not serious.

Platt then apparently positioned the Mini-14 against his shoulder using his uninjured left hand and manipulated the trigger with a barely functioning finger on his right hand, and fired three shots. One shot was directed at Orrantia and Risner�s location, which hit the steering wheel of their car. Orrantia was injured by flying debris from this bullet. Two shots were fired at McNeill. The first bullet missed McNeill, but the second hit his neck. The second bullet stunned McNeill�s spinal cord causing him to collapse, and he was temporarily paralyzed for several hours afterwards. McNeill recounts that Platt was smiling at him as he was shot.

Platt left his position at the passenger side front fender of the Cutlass, moving between the Cutlass and Trans Am, and began rapidly closing distance with Grogan, Dove and Hanlon who were behind Grogan/Dove�s car. (A Mini-14 magazine was recovered adjacent to the passenger side front fender of the Cutlass suggesting that Platt reloaded before he began his charge.)

At this point in the gunfight, Dove had relocated from behind the passenger side door of his car, around the back of the car and had taken a position near the driver's side door. (Dove�s gun, a S&W model 459 9mm automatic, had been hit by one of Platt�s bullets. Whether or not this occurred before or after he moved to the opposite side of the car is unknown.) Grogan had moved to occupy a position near the driver's side rear fender. Hanlon had fired his gun dry after shooting at Platt from around the passenger side rear fender/bumper and was hit by one of Platt�s bullets in his gun hand while reloading. Hanlon then rolled over onto his back behind the car. Within moments he saw Platt�s feet standing at the passenger side rear of the vehicle. Dr. Anderson states that it was at this time when Platt left large smears of blood as well as arterial blood spurt patterns on the rear of the vehicle. As Hanlon attempted to push himself under the left rear trunk to maximize his cover against Platt, he heard Grogan cry out, "Oh my God!" Platt killed Grogan with a single shot to the chest. Platt then rounded the rear fender, saw Hanlon, and fired one shot into Hanlon�s groin area. Hanlon rolled over onto right side into a fetal position expecting to be shot again and killed. However, Platt immediately shifted his attention to Dove, firing twice directly into Dove�s head. Dove instantly collapsed; his head coming to rest just inches away from Hanlon�s face. According to Dr. Anderson, Hanlon recalls that Platt fired several more rounds, apparently at Risner and Orrantia. The spent cases from Platt�s Mini-14 fell onto Hanlon�s body.

After firing at Risner and Orrantia, Platt opened the driver�s side door of Grogan/Dove�s Buick. Just as he was stepping to enter the car, Mireles fired the first of five rounds of 00 buckshot from the Remington 870 shotgun he was carrying when he was hit in the forearm at the beginning of the gunfight by one of Platt�s bullets. Dr. Anderson feels this first shot by Mireles caused Platt right foot wounds E and F, and left foot wounds G and H. These wounds did not knock Platt off his feet.

Sometime during the gunfight, Matix regained consciousness and apparently crawled, unseen by the FBI agents, out the same window Platt had used to exit the Monte Carlo. Orrantia reported that Matix remained near the passenger side front fender of the Monte Carlo for awhile without ever firing a shot. When Platt entered the driver�s side of Grogan/Dove�s car, Matix joined him by entering the passenger side door. According to Dr. Anderson, forensic evidence indicates that Matix never fired a weapon after he received his initial injuries while occupying the driver�s seat of the Monte Carlo.

The following is a description of photographs and illustrations published in Chapter III:

Figure III-1 (Platt right forearm wound D and right upper arm/chest wound C) is an overhead view illustration that shows the location and positioning of the Monte Carlo, Manauzzi�s car, McNeill�s car, Grogan/Dove�s car, Orrantia�s/Risner�s car, the Cutlass and the Trans Am. Risner is depicted positioned on the passenger side of his car firing over the front hood at Platt, who�s across the street near the passenger side front fender of the Cutlass. The trajectory of two bullets is shown leaving Risner�s gun and hitting Platt in the right forearm and right upper arm. Platt is depicted pointing his .357 Magnum revolver at Grogan/Dove/Hanlon . Also shown are the positions of Orrantia (occupying a position on the driver�s side of the Orrantia/Risner car), Hanlon (who�s behind Grogan/Dove�s car), Grogan (near the driver�s side rear fender of his car), and Dove (near the driver�s side door of his car). Dr. Anderson notes that the drawing is based on speculation that Risner fired the bullet that hit Platt�s forearm. The bullet passed completely through his arm and was never recovered. Therefore, there�s no ballistic evidence to prove that Risner inflicted this wound on Platt.

Figure III-2 (right forearm wound D) is a close-up overhead view illustration showing Platt firing, using only his right hand, at Grogan/Dove/Hanlon. The trajectory of Risner�s or Orrantia�s bullet is shown passing through his right forearm.

Figure III-3 (Platt right upper arm/chest wound C) is a close-up overhead view illustration showing Platt standing in the same position as when he was hit in the forearm, however his shooting arm is hanging limp against his body. The trajectory of Risner�s bullet is shown hitting and penetrating Platt�s right side.

Figure III-4 (Platt right forearm wound D) is a medical illustration that depicts two views of the anatomical structures damaged by the bullet that perforated his right forearm. The upper illustration is an overhead view of Platt�s forearm showing the bullet�s wound path through the ulnar bone and damaging the muscle that controls the thumb. The lower illustration is a side view perspective that presents the same information.

Figure III-5 (Platt forearm wound D and right upper arm/chest wound C) is an autopsy x-ray that shows the huge wound channel blasted through the ulnar bone by the impacting bullet, which shattered the bone. Bone fragments can be seen scattered in the soft tissues on the exit wound side of the bone (inside surface of the forearm). Also visible is Risner�s bullet that produced right upper arm/chest wound C.

Figure III-6 (Platt right upper arm/chest wound C) is a medical illustration that depicts the wound path of Risner�s bullet through the musculature of the back of Platt�s right upper forearm and into the subcutaneous tissues of the middle/rear upper torso under the shoulder blade.

Figure III-7 (Platt right upper arm/chest wound C) is an autopsy x-ray showing the bullet lodged in the tissues of Platt�s back, external to the rib cage.

Figure III-8 (Platt right foot wounds E, F, and left foot wounds G, H) is an overhead view illustration that shows the location and positioning of Manauzzi�s car, McNeill�s car and Grogan/Dove�s car. Mireles is depicted laying on his right side behind McNeill�s car firing a 12 gauge shotgun at Platt when he�s stepping with his right foot to enter the driver�s side door of Grogan/Dove�s car.

Figure III-9 (Platt right foot wounds E, F, and left foot wounds G, H) is a side view perspective illustration showing four 00 buckshot pellets passing through Platt�s feet (two pellets through each foot) when Platt is stepping into Grogan/Dove�s car with his right foot.

Figure III-10 (Platt right foot wounds E, F, and left foot wounds G, H) is an autopsy x-ray of Platt�s right and left feet showing pellet fragments and several broken bones.

Figure III-11(Platt right foot wounds E and F) is a medical illustration that depicts two views of the anatomical structures damaged by the 00 shotgun pellets fired by Mireles. The top illustration depicts the right foot from a left side perspective that shows the wound path of a shotgun pellet entering the top of the foot at the second joint of the big toe, passing through the joint, and exiting the bottom of the foot (right foot wound F). The lower illustration depicts the right foot from an overhead view perspective that shows the wound paths of two shotgun pellets: one pellet passing through the second joint of the big toe (right foot wound F); the second pellet is depicted entering the center of the top of the foot and exiting the right outer surface below the ankle (right foot wound E).

Figure III-12 (Platt left foot wounds G, H and I) is a medical illustration that depicts two views of the anatomical structures damaged by the 00 shotgun pellets fired by Mireles and the 9mm bullet fired by Dove. The top illustration shows the left foot from a back side perspective that shows the wound path of a shotgun pellet entering the right inner surface below the ankle and exiting at the point where the Achilles tendon attaches to the heel bone (left foot wound H). The lower illustration depicts the left foot from a right side perspective that shows left foot exit wound I (inflicted earlier by Dove) and the wound paths of two shotgun pellets: one pellet entering the inside of the foot below the ankle and behind the arch and exiting the heel (left foot wound H); the second pellet is shown entering the top inside above the big toe and exiting just below the ankle and above the arch, almost directly above left foot entry wound H (left foot wound G).

Figure III-12 (Platt left foot wounds G, H and I) is a medical illustration that depicts the anatomical structures damaged by the 00 shotgun pellets fired by Mireles and the 9mm bullet fired by Dove. The left foot is shown from an overhead view perspective.

Plate III-A (Platt right forearm wound D) is an autopsy photograph (color) of Platt�s right forearm. A metal probe is seen inserted through the entry and exit wounds, following the path of the bullet through the forearm. Also, Platt right upper arm/chest wound B entry site is visible at the base of the biceps muscle.

Map of Plate III-A (Platt right forearm wound D) is an illustration of the forensic details of Platt�s right forearm as seen in photograph Plate III-A.

Plate III-B (Platt right upper arm/chest wound C) is an autopsy photograph (color) of Platt�s right upper arm. Visible on the upper arm are the entry wounds of right upper arm/chest wound C and right upper arm/chest wound B. Dr. Anderson points out that the upper arm is very swollen and the swelling was caused by internal bleeding from the ruptured brachial vessels.

Map of Plate III-B (Platt right upper arm/chest wound C) is an illustration of the forensic details of Platt�s right forearm as seen in photograph Plate III-B.

Plate III-C (Platt right foot wounds E, F and left foot wounds G, H and I) is an autopsy photograph (color) showing Platt�s feet and legs from mid-thigh down. All five wounds to the feet are visible.

Plate III-D (Platt right foot wound E) is an autopsy photograph (color) close-up of Platt�s right foot. A metal probe has been inserted through entrance wound D, through the wound track, and out exit wound D.

Plate III-E (Platt right foot wound F) is an autopsy photograph (color) close-up of Platt�s right foot from an overhead view perspective. A metal probe is inserted through entrance wound F at the base of the big toe.

Plate III-F (Platt right foot wound F) is an autopsy photograph (color) close-up of the bottom of Platt�s right foot. A metal probe is seen protruding out the exit wound of the center of the foot pad immediately behind the big toe.

Plate III-G (Platt left foot wound G) is an autopsy photograph (color) close-up of Platt�s left foot from a right side view perspective. A metal probe is inserted through entrance wound G, through the wound track, and out exit wound G.

Plate III-H (Platt left foot wound H) is an autopsy photograph (color) close-up of Platt�s left foot from a right side view perspective. A metal probe is inserted through exit wound H, through the wound track, and out entrance wound H.

Map of Plates III-C through III-H (Platt right foot wounds E, F and left foot wounds G, H and I) is several illustrations of the forensic details of Platt�s feet injuries seen in the autopsy photographs.

IV. The Final Fusillade: Platt and Matix in Grogan/Dove�s Car

Platt�s 11th wound, scalp wound A - Mireles
Matix�s 4th wound, face wound D - Mireles
Matix�s 5th wound, face/spine wound C - Mireles
Matix�s 6th wound, face/neck wound A - Mireles
Platt�s 12th wound, chest/spine wound J - Mireles

Mireles fired a total of five rounds from his Remington 870 shotgun from a range of about 25 feet. With his first shot it appears he struck Platt in both feet when Platt was about to enter the driver�s seat of Grogan/Dove�s car. Mireles fired the remaining four shots at the windshield and driver�s window, but according to Dr. Anderson there�s no compelling forensic evidence to indicate that any of the pellets from Mireles� shots 2-5 hit Platt or Matix. Dr. Anderson speculates that Platt might have ducked below the window openings, possibly in Matix�s lap, to have avoided being hit by the buckshot.

At about this moment in the gunfight, Metro-Dade police patrol officers Martin Heckman and Leonard Figueroa arrived on the scene. Shortly thereafter, Heckman covered McNeill with his own body to protect McNeill from being hit again. The actions of Figueroa are not documented by Dr. Anderson.

Platt�s specific actions at this stage of the gunfight have been subject to controversy. Civilian witness Sidney Martin described Platt as leaving Grogan/Dove�s car and walking more than 20 feet to Mireles� position and firing three shots from a revolver at almost point blank range at Mireles and then returning to Grogan/Dove�s car. Mireles does not recall this happening. McNeill recalls seeing what appeared to be bullets striking the pavement. Heckman does not remember Platt being outside the car, but he does recall Platt pointing a gun out the driver�s window at him and their eyes meeting. Risner and Orrantia, who were both across the street, state that they never saw Platt approach Mireles and fire at him.

In Cautionary Note #2 (four paragraphs that are published in the Introduction section), Dr. Anderson postulates that Platt exited the driver�s side door of Grogan/Dove�s car, staggered out a few steps, fired three shots from Matix�s .357 Magnum revolver (using his left hand) towards the general direction of Mireles and/or McNeill without hitting anyone, and then immediately got back into the driver�s seat of Grogan/Dove�s car. Dr. Anderson feels that the bones broken in Platt�s feet by Mireles� first shotgun blast (as well as the large amount lost blood) would have prevented him from walking very far. He goes on to explain that the effects of deep shade, position and angles of the participants/witnesses, obstructed views, etc., probably influenced individual perceptions of Platt�s actions.

After Platt got back into Grogan/Dove�s car he attempted to start the engine. Dr. Anderson observes that the injuries to Platt�s right arm probably prevented him from being able to use his right hand to turn the ignition key. This forced Platt to lean away from the driver�s side window to use left hand to turn the key on the steering column. Matix was apparently attempting to help Platt start the car.

Mireles then drew his .357 Magnum revolver, got to his feet, moved laterally about 15 feet parallel with the street, clear of McNeill�s car, and then began walking directly towards Platt and Matix, who were sitting in Grogan/Dove�s car. Mireles fired six rounds of .38 Special +P from his revolver. Mireles revolver shots 1 and 2 were fired at Platt, shots 3, 4 and 5 at Matix, and shot 6 at Platt. Five of the six bullets hit Platt or Matix.

Mireles first shot at Platt hit the back of the front seat behind Platt�s left shoulder. Dr. Anderson theorizes that the sound of the gunshot would have caused Platt to turn his head to the left to look for the source of the gunfire. Mireles second shot then hit Platt above the outer edge of the right eyebrow (Platt scalp wound A). The weight of the projectile that was recovered from Platt�s scalp was about 19 grains, suggesting that the bullet hit the driver�s side window post and fragmented. After the fragment penetrated the skin it ricocheted off the curvature of the right side of Platt�s forehead, and traveled between the skin and the exterior surface of the skull for a distance of about 2 inches before it stopped above the right temple. The fragment did not penetrate the cranium.

Dr. Anderson postulates that Platt then laid back on the front bench seat of Grogan/Dove�s car, placing his head and shoulders (face side up) in Matix�s lap on the passenger side, in attempt to use the driver�s side door as cover against Mireles� gunfire. Platt�s movement and positioning trapped Matix upright on the seat with his back against the passenger side door. Mireles third shot hit Matix�s face just below the left cheekbone and adjacent to the left nostril (Matix face wound D). The projectile fragmented in two; the largest embedded in the bone beside the nose, a smaller fragment penetrating the left sinus cavity. According to Dr. Anderson, this wound was not significant, and probably was inflicted as Matix was looking at the approaching Mireles. The size and weight of the two fragments suggests the bullet probably hit the driver�s side window frame before it hit Matix.

Matix then apparently tried to make himself as small a target as possible. He tucked his chin into his chest and pressed his back against the passenger side door to slide his buttocks on the bench seat in attempt to get as low as he could. Dr. Anderson claims this would have accounted for the wound path caused by Mireles� fourth bullet (Matix face/spine wound C). The bullet hit Matix�s face just outside the lower right edge of the right eye socket, at about seven o-clock. The bullet traveled downward through the facial bones, through the right side of the lower jaw, into the neck, and entered the spinal column between cervical vertebra number 7 (C7) and thoracic vertebra number 1 (T1) where it severed the spinal cord at the base of T1.

Matix�s body would have immediately relaxed, according to Dr. Anderson, causing his head to tilt backwards. His face would have risen upwards by the time Mireles� fifth bullet hit him in the face (Matix face wound A). The bullet hit Matix�s chin just below the right corner of the mouth, penetrated the jaw bone and into the neck where it came to rest beside the right side of the spinal column at C7. The bullet did not damage the spinal cord.

By this time Mireles had reached the driver�s side door of Grogan/Dove�s car when he fired his sixth and final shot. Mireles extended his gun through the driver�s side window and fired at Platt (Platt chest/spine wound J). The bullet penetrated Platt�s chest just below the left collar bone, traveled through the musculature of the shoulder and neck and stopped in the fifth cervical vertebra (C5), where it bruised the spinal cord. Dr. Anderson observes that the wound path of this bullet through Platt�s body could only have occurred if Platt were lying on his back on the front seat.

Mireles� sixth and final shot ended the gunfight. Platt and Matix both lay on the front seat of Grogan/Dove�s car. If Matix was not already dead, he would be shortly. Arriving paramedics came to the aid of the FBI agents first and then shifted their attention to Platt and Matix. According to Dr. Anderson, paramedics found no signs of life in Grogan, Dove or Matix and no first aid was attempted. Whereas, Platt appears to have still had a heartbeat because paramedics inserted an airway tube and began administering intravenous fluids. Platt died at the scene without regaining consciousness.

The following is a description of photographs and illustrations published in Chapter IV:

Figure IV-1 (Platt scalp wound A) is an overhead illustration that depicts the positioning of Manauzzi�s car, McNeill�s car and Grogan/Dove�s car. Mireles is shown coming out from behind McNeill�s car firing his gun at Platt and Matix, who are in the front seat of Grogan/Dove�s car. With his right arm so badly damaged, Platt is shown attempting to turn the ignition key using his left hand; Matix is shown assisting him.

Figure IV-2 (Platt scalp wound A) is a close-up overhead view perspective illustration showing Platt sitting in the driver�s seat of Grogan/Dove�s car attempting to start the car with his left hand. Matix is depicted sitting directly next to him on the passenger side leaning forward attempting to turn the key in the ignition. The trajectory of Mireles first two shots that he fired from his handgun are shown. Bullet one enters the passenger compartment through the driver�s side window and hits the back of the front seat near Platt�s left shoulder. The second bullet is shown entering the passenger compartment though the driver�s window and hitting Platt in the right forehead . Platt is depicted looking at Mireles while he�s bent forward trying to turn the ignition key. The bullet is shown hitting the right side of Platt�s head, ricocheting off the curved external surface of the skull but being trapped between the skull and scalp, stopping just above the right temple.

Figure IV-3 (Platt scalp wound A) is a medical illustration that portrays Platt from a left side view looking over his left shoulder while he�s sitting in a slightly hunched over position. Mireles shot number 2 is shown striking the forehead above the right eye (about 11 o�clock position in reference to the eye socket). The bullet fragment is depicted penetrating the skin, glancing off the outer surface of the curvature of the right side of the forehead and traveling between the skin and the outer surface of the skull for about 2 inches where it lodged under the scalp over the right temple. An overhead view of just the skull is also presented which shows the same information from a different perspective.

Figure IV-4 (Platt scalp wound A and chest/spine wound J) is an autopsy x-ray of Platt�s bust. The bullet fragment that caused scalp wound A is visible and the bullet that caused chest/spine wound J can be seen embedded in the spinal column at C5.

Figure IV-5 is an overhead illustration that portrays Platt moving from an upright sitting position on the front seat of Grogan/Dove�s car to take a position where he�s laying with his back on the seat and his head and shoulders resting in Matix�s lap. The illustration depicts the action Platt took to avoid Mireles� gunfire after shots 1 and 2, as theorized by Dr. Anderson.

Figure IV-6 (Matix face wound D) is an overhead crime scene illustration that depicts the location and positioning of Manauzzi�s car, McNeill�s car and Grogan/Dove�s car. Mireles is shown walking out from behind McNeill�s car, traveling a path that is parallel to the street for about 15 feet to a point where he is almost directly even with the driver�s side door of Grogan/Dove�s car. Mireles is shown firing shot 3 using his right hand only from a distance of about 15 feet away. Matix is depicted sitting upright on the passenger side of the front seat of Grogan/Dove�s car with has back against the closed passenger side door looking directly at Mireles. Platt is depicted laying on his back on the front seat with his head and upper torso in Matix�s lap, trapping Matix. The trajectory of Mireles� bullet is shown exiting the gun, entering the passenger compartment through the driver�s side window and hitting Matix in the left side of his face.

Figure IV-7 (Matix face wound D) is an overhead close-up perspective illustration that details the body positions of Matix and Platt on the front seat of Grogan/Dove�s car at the moment when Mireles fired the third shot from his revolver. The trajectory of the bullet is shown entering the driver�s side window and hitting Matix in the left side of his face.

Figure IV-8 (Matix face wound D) is an illustration that depicts a perspective of Matix and Platt as they would be seen by someone sitting in the back seat of Grogan/Dove�s car. Matix is seen sitting on the front bench seat sideways, with his back against the inside surface of the closed passenger side door. Only his shoulders and head are exposed above the top edge of the front seat. Platt�s upper face is barely visible as he�s shown laying face up in Matix�s lap with the top of his head pressing against Matix�s chest. The trajectory of Mireles shot number 3 is shown entering through the driver�s side window and hitting Matix in the left cheek.

Figure IV-9 (Matix face wound D) is a medical illustration that depicts a profile of the left side of Matix�s head with a detailed view of the skull. The wound path of Mireles bullet from shot number 3 is shown hitting and perforating the facial bone of Matix�s left cheek right next to the left nostril and below the cheekbone. Bullet fragments are depicted embedded in the left sinus cavity.

Figure IV-10 (Matix face wound D) is a photograph (black & white) of a bullet fragment recovered from Matix�s left facial area.

Figure IV-11 (Matix face wound D) is a photograph (black & white) of a bullet fragment recovered from Matix�s left sinus cavity.

Figure IV-12 (Matix face/spine wound C) is similar to Figure IV-6, except Mireles is has now turned to his left and has taken a couple steps as he directly approaches the driver�s side door of Grogan/Dove�s car. Matix and Platt are shown in the same positions on the front seat, however Matix is shown with his head tilted forward tucking his chin into his chest. The trajectory of the bullet from Mireles shot number 4 is shown leaving the muzzle of the revolver, passing through the driver�s side window and striking Matix in the right side of his head.

Figure IV-13 (Matix face/spine wound C) is an overhead close-up perspective illustration that details the body positions of Matix and Platt on the front seat of Grogan/Dove�s car at the moment when Mireles fired the fourth shot from his revolver. The trajectory of the bullet is shown entering the driver�s side window, hitting Matix in the right side of his head, and the wound path of the bullet from the entry point to where it stopped embedded in the spinal column at the base of T1.

Figure IV-14 (Matix face/spine wound C) is an illustration that depicts a perspective of Matix and Platt as they would be seen by someone viewing them through the windshield of Grogan/Dove�s car. Matix is seen sitting on the front bench seat sideways, with his back against the inside surface of the closed passenger side door. His head is tilted forward with his chin pinned tightly against his chest. Platt is laying face up in Matix�s lap with the top of his head pressing against Matix�s chest. The trajectory of Mireles shot number 4 is shown entering through the driver�s side window, hitting Matix below the right eye, passing through his face and neck and stopping in the spinal column.

Figure IV-15 (Matix face/spine wound C) is a medical illustration that shows three different details. The upper illustration depicts a profile of the right side of Matix�s head and neck, with a detailed view of the skull and spinal column, as it would appear if he had his head tilted forward as postulated by Dr. Anderson. The wound path of Mireles bullet from shot number 4 is shown hitting and perforating the facial bone just below Matix�s right eye socket, passing though the maxillofacial structures of the skull, hitting the lower jaw bone, passing through the soft tissues of the neck, penetrating the spinal column between C7 and T1, and stopping between T1 and T2. The second illustration details the spinal column, from C4 to T3, as viewed from behind. The wound path of Mireles� bullet is shown chipping a small piece of bone off the right upper side of C7, entering the spinal column between C7 and T1, and penetrating T1 until it came to a stop at the base of T1. The third illustration details the right side of Matix�s skull showing Mireles� bullet hitting Matix�s face at the bottom right corner of the right eye socket, at a position of about 7 o�clock.

Figure IV-16 (Matix face/spine wound C) is a photograph (black & white) of two bullet fragments recovered from Matix�s spinal cord at T2.

Figure IV-17 is an autopsy x-ray of Matix�s head and neck showing bullet fragments in the sinus cavity (Matix face wound D), a bullet embedded in the left half of the spine (Matix face/spine wound C), a mushroomed bullet lodged in the neck just to the immediate right side of the spinal column (Matix face/neck wound A), and a small bullet fragment just below the mushroomed bullet (Matix right neck/chest wound B).

Figure IV-18 (Matix face/neck wound A) is similar to Figure IV-12, except Mireles has advanced a few more feet as he directly approaches the driver�s side door of Grogan/Dove�s car. Matix and Platt are shown in the same positions on the front seat. The trajectory of the bullet from Mireles shot number 5 is shown leaving the muzzle of the revolver, passing through the driver�s side window and striking Matix in the right side of his head.

Figure IV-19 (Matix face/neck wound A) is an overhead close-up perspective illustration that details the body positions of Matix and Platt on the front seat of Grogan/Dove�s car at the moment when Mireles fired the fifth shot fro

Haven't read the Dr. Anderson's book, but according to the author, he doesn't investigate tactics, just the physiology of the wounds.

I have read, many times, the original FBI report, the coronors reports and several professional papers (not gun magazine articles).

I started in law enforcement in 1988 when all of the official reports were first being released so it was a topic of pretty intense study at academy at the time as well as all the LEO professional publications, so yes, I am as familiar with the incident as second-hand information will allow.

My contention is that Hanlon & Dove were unarmed, and untrained in how to continue combat after being disarmed. That makes their failure to react more understandable. Grogan is the puzzler, be cause he had the means to defend himself, and I contend, the opportunity (he had time to exclaim "oh, my god" before he was shot) but for some reason, was unable to. That is a "why" worth looking into further.

Kevin,
My agency, the Kentucky State Police, has had very good results out of the Speer Gold Dot 155 grain .40 S&W out of Glock 35's. I wasn't part of the selection process on that particular pistol, but as I understand it, there was a staunch member or two of the selection committee who wanted to stay as close to the velocities we used to get out of our Smith and Wesson 1076's and 180 grain Gold Dots. Without a doubt, we ended up with the 1076 because of it's selection by the FBI. At any rate, we kept them far longer than the FBI did, and we shot lots of stuff with them. These days, I think most are better armed with the G35 and the 155 grain GoldDots. For my own use, I sorta miss my 10mm. Although I'd probably ask for 165 grain Gold Dots over the 180's we used to shoot.

A cut and paste from your very long cut and paste:

At this point in the gunfight, Dove had relocated from behind the passenger side door of his car, around the back of the car and had taken a position near the driver's side door. (Dove�s gun, a S&W model 459 9mm automatic, had been hit by one of Platt�s bullets. Whether or not this occurred before or after he moved to the opposite side of the car is unknown.) Grogan had moved to occupy a position near the driver's side rear fender. Hanlon had fired his gun dry after shooting at Platt from around the passenger side rear fender/bumper and was hit by one of Platt�s bullets in his gun hand while reloading. Hanlon then rolled over onto his back behind the car. Within moments he saw Platt�s feet standing at the passenger side rear of the vehicle. Dr. Anderson states that it was at this time when Platt left large smears of blood as well as arterial blood spurt patterns on the rear of the vehicle. As Hanlon attempted to push himself under the left rear trunk to maximize his cover against Platt, he heard Grogan cry out, "Oh my God!" Platt killed Grogan with a single shot to the chest. Platt then rounded the rear fender, saw Hanlon, and fired one shot into Hanlon�s groin area. Hanlon rolled over onto right side into a fetal position expecting to be shot again and killed. However, Platt immediately shifted his attention to Dove, firing twice directly into Dove�s head. Dove instantly collapsed; his head coming to rest just inches away from Hanlon�s face. According to Dr. Anderson, Hanlon recalls that Platt fired several more rounds, apparently at Risner and Orrantia. The spent cases from Platt�s Mini-14 fell onto Hanlon�s body.

You need to read want I posted it tells when and where each person was shot ( the timing in the gun fight of each wound}. A person can scream "oh my god" at the same time attempting to employ ones weapon. IMHO Grogan was shot while attempting to engage and not cowering as you suggest.

Your point assuming you have one?

I think that that narrative (from your source)pretty well explains it.

Grogan, Dove, and Hanlon (by Hanlon's own testimony) had psychologically become non-combatants while combat still continued and a threat was still present, and they paid for it.

Hanlon was out of ammo in his weapon, Dove fired 20 some odd rounds, and IMHO Grogan was killed attempting to engage.

Dove performed exceptionally well up until the point his gun was disabled. Hanlon was actively engaged until he was wounded and unable to reload. Once they lost the use of their firearms, they were no longer physically or psychologically combatants. I contend that had they been trained similarly to Platt, they would have remained psychologically engaged and would have attempted some type of improvised offensive action against Platt. Hell, even throwing you useless gun at your attacker and rushing him his better than what happened to Hanlon & Dove.

You obliously are a "gun guy" and are heavilly invested in the idea of a firearm being your primary weapon. But are you prepared face life or death combat without a firearm. You had better be, because Miami, and numerous other LE shootings show that disabled shooting hands and disabled or lost firearms are not an uncommon occurrance. You better be psyhcologically prepared to fight with whatever you have left, be it only teeth and fingernails, if you want to survive.

I contend that they did not have a chance to do those things when Pratt advance on them. I am not sure that they would have known until it was too late.

I have defended my self with nothing more than my wits and my hands

You should not jump to conclusions and not judge these brave men so harshly unless you have been in the same type scenario as they were faced with

I've been in a scrape or two, and I reacted how I was trained to react. I shook like a dog schitting a peach seed after it was all over.

I am not denigrating the Agents or questioning their personal courage,their actions before becoming disarmed speak to their firearms skill and bravery under fire, but I am saying that the FBI failed to provide them with realistic combat training that could have helped them cope better with a highly dynamic combat situation after they lost the use of their firearms.

The combat training at the time was for less than today, that is a given.

why the glock 35, isn't that more of a competition gun, or range gun?? why not a glock 22 or 23??

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.

Oh and on the subject of Jeff's preference for fixed power scopes. To this day, I still prefer the simple fixed power scope. They're lighter, brighter, and tougher than the variables. Get to know your simople fixed scope well and you're not giving up much by choosing it over the variable (even though variables are excellent scopes these days).

Fine defensive weapon, straight up. I tend to trust my M1 Carbine over anything else, because I've put oodles of rounds through it, and I know how utterly reliable it is. And when you stuff it with something other than FMJ, it packs a mean punch; especially with that new Corbon/Barnes load.

I wonder what the outcome would have been if the FBI actually had 357mag ammunition instead of the 38+ ... something to think about.

If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his azz when he hopped!

While not true to the definition, a M4 with an aimpoint is a scout rifle.

Rapid expanding, lightweight, 9mm ammo had something to do with it too. All they needed to do was to switch to a better 9mm loading.

The silvertip performed very well in the situation penetrating a forearm and entering the chest if I recall right. It happened that luck was on the bad guys side that day. The FBI made several mistakes tactically and overall just underestimated their adversary which cost them dearly. It is a great case study and a lot can be learned from this shootout among others.

If memory serves Pratt was 6"-0 or so 180 pounds and the bullet failed to reach the heart. Here we have a man that is not large and the penetration was inadequate. IMHO and experience that is a failure of not enough penetration pure and simple

No, not even close. By definition, it must be adequate for game up to 400 kilos. I attended Randy Cain's Practical Rifle Class with a gal who'd been there about five times IIRC. She had a lightened 700 with a KDF'd 16in #1 barrel in a Lone Wolf stock, wearing a 1.5x5 Leupy. She was hell on wheels with that thing. She could go prone and dump a man at 200yd before you could say don't. Her husband took her to Africa with her little 308. She dumped five head of plains game with one round of 308 light magnum per critter.

Here's the deal. If you want rifle that hits like Thor's hammer, and handles like a 20gauge quail gun, it can't be gas gun.

only one problem with your thinking. nothing is shooting at you in anything you describe. if bad guys are shooting at you. you WILL want a semi auto, why do you think the military quit using bolt guns during WW2?? if they were so great at handling bad guys why isn't the 1903 still king. remember most bad guys are not standing there in the open and ready to be shot. they are firing at you. you peak out fire one round and have to move the gun totally away from around the corner to work the bolt. a semi just keeps pouring fire and if the bad guy shows himself he has a round in him. the problem with bolt guns is you have to totally move off target to work the bolt.

in a short range battle inside 20 yards, I think I would choose a glock with a couple of full mags over ANY bolt gun.

What part of "not true to the definition" was not clear?

The Wiki definition
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_rifle

Well, if it's 20yd and your adversary has been to Gunsite 270 you'll die quickly.

Some guys can't bring themselves to unass an airplane, especially at night. A lot of the same guys can jump for years and they can't hang out of the door to jumpmaster for fear of falling(?!!!). That suppressive fire schit doesn't work on everybody, some will stand toe to toe with you. You have to straight up kill some folks.

If suppressive didn't work then I'd be able to put multiple rounds on target quickly with a semi auto

An accurate semi auto trumps a bolt gun on all fronts in a tactile situation. That is why they are the weapon of choice

I guess he who writes the rules wins. What has that got to do with gunfighting? What relevance does that have to people living in the U.S.?

My old Chief Deputy (2 tour 'nam vet) used to tell us before we went on a search warrant "know the difference between cover and concealment.

If they weren't suppressed then they are getting shot......straight up killed folk they would be...

another example of, its is the person behind the weapon who wins more than the weapon you choice to use.

Isn't this a discussion about the Miami shootout where a dedicated individual used a Mini 14 for suppressive and lethal fire against a larger force? It probably took three agents to total 400 Kilos in weight though. Attending a Gunsite class does not guarantee success in a gunfight, only helps those with the right mindset.

An unloaded weight, with accessories, of 3 kg (6.6 lbs); with 3.5 kilograms (7.7 lbs)M4 check the maximum acceptable.

An overall length of 1 meter (39.4 in.) or less.M4 check

A forward-mounted telescopic sight of low magnification, typically 2-3 diameters. This preserves the shooter's peripheral vision, keeps the ejection port open to allow the use of stripper clips to reload the rifle, and eliminates any chance of the scope striking one's brow during recoil. Cooper has stated that a telescopic sight is not mandatory.M4 Check

Ghost ring auxiliary iron sights: a rear sight consisting of a receiver-mounted large-aperture thin ring, and typically a square post front sight.M4 check

A "Ching" or "CW" sling. Against common practice, Cooper advocated the use of a sling as a shooting aid. The Ching sling offers the convenience of a carrying strap and the steadiness of a target shooter's sling with the speed of a biathlete's sling. (The CW sling is a simpler version of a Ching sling, consisting of a single strap.)M4 check

A standard chambering of .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO or 7mm-08 Remington for locales that forbid civilian ownership of cartridges in chamberings adopted by military forces or for its "slightly better ballistics."[2] As Cooper wrote, "A true Scout comes in .308 or 7mm-08."[3] The .243 Winchester is an alternative for young, small-framed, or recoil-shy people, but needs a 22" barrel. Cooper also commissioned "Lion Scout," chambered for the .350 Remington Magnum cartridge.M4 lacking

Accuracy: Should be capable of shooting into 2 minutes of angle or less (4") at 200 yards/meters (3 shot groups).M4 check

These features dictated short, thin barrels, synthetic stocks, and bolt actions. Other optional features included a retractable bipod, detachable magazines, a butt magazine, and an accessory rail for lights and other attachments. The addition of some of these features often render the rifle technically not a scout as originally defined, but this has come to be accepted by many as still conforming to the spirit if not the letter of the concept.M4 check

You fellas might want to consider moving your scout-rifle debate the Tactical and AR Forum. More folks who have an opinion on such toopics are likely to see it there and weigh in.

Just a suggestion.

Oh, sure. Which combat style semi auto ? It has a scope, a nice trigger and weighs about 7 lbs. ?
Jeff Cooper took his Scout Rifle to the US Marine Rapid Reaction Course in So. Kalifornia and left with his fellow marines armed with M-16's in second place. Would that be a little different scenario than your force on force exercises ?
Again, you guys are assuming you need to supress the bad guys with lots of ammo. What ever happend to single hits ? I suspect that a .308 will stop quite well with just one hit.
BTW, Cooper's shooting school taught shooting quickly under stress and making single hits. Mind Set was an attitude he tried to instill.
Which is very useful. It means being situation aware or what I refer to as seeing it coming.
Last of all, I don't keep a combat rifle and a stack of extra magazines around waiting for a gunfight. But I do have several hunting rifles which I do shoot regularly. If I need to use a rifle for gun fighting, I suspect a rifle I know and shoot well is the way to go. E

Doc, we are talking about the Miami shoot out. In Cooper's words Platt's "poodle shooter" was able to function pretty well in close quarters. I am just extending that line of thought with this discussion. I see pretty much all of the LEO's using the M4 these days, so if all the modern technique has evolved from this incident, then the M4 in LEO's hands has certainly come from that as well. A light easily controllable, forward optic rifle is what Cooper advocated. I know he did not like the .223.

If every LEO must be an equal to Jeff Cooper, well then we have some pretty well trained officers out there.

It matters because Jeff Cooper coined AND DEFINED the term, and that is part of the definition. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but you can't argue what the definition is 'cause you didn't originate it.

Hey, I'm not saying y'all can't discuss it here... I just thought/think it's an interesting question and I'd like to hear what other folks might have to say.

Cooper didn't like the 223 in no small part because the 55 gr FMJ ammo at the time he was writing about scout rifles wasn't a particularly good round compared to what we have today. Of course, he was steeped in the tradition and lore of WWII and the Korean War, and as such was totally convinced of the superiority of the .30-06/.308 battle rifle round over the proven-anemic M1 Carbine; the .223 was a "carbine round" in his writing, IIRC, and as such equivalent to the .30 Carbine FMJ. It didn't help any that the M16A1 was/is a bigger and less CQB-friendly rifle than the M4 used today.

In the past 10 years, our guys in The Sandbox have been using the M4 in situations from CQB to 300 meters. The ammunition our guys have today is orders of magnitude better than 55 gr ball. I think that, whatever Cooper's view of the .223 was, it is being used as a de facto "scout rifle" today, both overseas and in LE situations in the CONUS.

A properly built Ar-15/M-16 is capable of 1/2 MOA accuracy, so 1 shot kills are easily obtain with faster repeat shots for quicker target acquisition and a large magazine capacity. Also faster to reload when the need arises

I doubt Cooper meant eye socket shots, or a .22 lr would qualify too.

The 6.8 and the 6.5 Grendal in the AR platform was my thinking. I have one in 6.8 and LIKE IT VERY MUCH. Way better than a 223

A little dogmatic, don�t you think? I don�t know if Jeff Cooper had a trademark on the name �Scout Rifle,� but I can make up my own definition of �scout rifle� anytime I want to. From a dictionary standpoint, �scout rifle� means a �rifle� a �scout� can use. That would seem to vary with the �rifle� the particular �scout� would need to use. A scout in Miami doesn�t need the same thing a scout in the middle of nowhere in Africa would need.

I'm not aware of the term "Scout Rifle" being in common usage, anywhere, by anyone, until the COL both coined and defined the term, it is what it is, and what you think means nothing. Dogmatic? Ya think? You obviously didn't read much of what Cooper wrote, I suggest you do so in order to appear somewhat less silly in the future.

Ah, no, he "meant" 308 Winchester/7.62mm x 51mm NATO. He said exactly that about 20 million times. He opined that the 7/08 was a good substitute only in countries where it was illegal to own a 308.

I prefer to revel in my ignorance than get bogged down in semantics.

I will join you...

A wise old fella I once knew said "when you hear hoofbeats, don't look for Zebras."

Makes no difference the caliber that someone else stated, a 6.8 or 6.5 Grendel in a AR platform is a much better choice for use against hostiles than any bolt action in whatever caliber

Sure. In those calibers, you're getting there.

Nope, he liked the .30-30, too, in the Winchester Model 94, with a forward scope.

How this morphed from a discussion on the Miami incident to a debate on Scout rifles, I will never know. What is even more amazing, however, is that ANYONE actually thinks a Scout rifle belongs anywhere near an LE situation such as the Miami incident.

Agreed on the latter, but as to the former, discussions morph from one topic to another around a campfire all the time. Isn't this supposed to be like an e-campfire?

Let me ask a question here. If just one of those agents had been armed with a Scout Rifle and was positioned say 75-100 yds. away, do you think he could have stopped any of the bad guys ?
You guys spend too much time thinking inside of little boxes and arguing the hair splitting details. E

Our enemy's have been using Scout Rifles for a long time the AK-47

[quote=Eremicus] Let me ask a question here. If just one of those agents had been armed with a Scout Rifle and was positioned say 75-100 yds. away, do you think he could have stopped any of the bad guys ?

Sure, as would have an AR. Given that the fire fight occured after a car chase. Posting a sniper 100 yds away wasn't an option. At about 15 feet ( the real world distance of this fight) which would you prefer a bolt action deer rifle or an AR? The problem with the scout is that you have to dream up perfect situations to justify it! How many real world gun fights are going to happen at 100 yds in a suburban setting? Even if it does that's still well within an AR's range. A bolt action 308 deer rifle makes no sence until out past 300 yds and at that distance a true sniper rifle may or may not be a better option. Mr. Cooper was a great American but imo time had past him by. As was already mentioned the idea of a bolt action rifle in a non sniping situation being ideal is romantic but not realistic.

True but he opined that that chambering was quite marginal for his self-imposed 400K critter rule. The levergun's downside is the same as a shotgun's, it is painfully slow to top off.

I'm glad you brought this up though, a trapper levergun in 44mag would also have ended this shootout post-haste. It doesn't have the Scout Rifle's range but has decent mag capacity and one well-placed round will do. Cooper called this the "Brooklyn Special".

Any rifle in the FBI'S hands would have been better than the short barrel 357 loaded with 38 spl Ammo. In their situation i would have taken the AR over any bolt gun available even tho the Ruger New Scout 308 with open sights may have worked.. Even the 30 MI Carbine would have been a better option than any pistol against a Mini-14 . I truely believe the FBI would have still been the losers regardless of the weapons they should have been armed with because they didn't have the mind set the bad guys had and this made the difference.

I'm glad you brought this up though, a trapper levergun in 44mag would also have ended this shootout post-haste. It doesn't have the Scout Rifle's range but has decent mag capacity and one well-placed round will do. Cooper called this the "Brooklyn Special". [/quote]

Or... an AR! I don't understand some posters desire to arm leo's with late 19th cowboy guns or modern deer rifles? Why not go into a shootout with a modern day combat rifle?? Mr. Cooper a good guy but he was NOT god! Time had long sinced past him by. The Miami shootout was not the OK Correl! Good greaf.

BLASPHEMY!!!

So YOU claim!

So YOU say!

Well, TAK... it appears that in your estimation no one can discuss the term "scout rifle" unless they accept the Colonel's definition as the final definition, with no further debate as to what the term might mean in a world where guns and ammunition (not to mention tactics!) are continually evolving.

Well, that dog won't hunt. Jeff Cooper may have put forward the concept of a "scout rifle" 20+ years ago, and he may have been the chief proponent of the Modern Technique of the Pistol, but other people with good ideas and good skills have come along since and modified these things. For example: Jeff Cooper loved the Weaver stance. But none of the guys currently winning IPSC, IDPA, or 3-Gun matches are Weaver stance guys. Another example: Jeff founded Gunsite. But I know personally and have taken instruction from at least 3 guys who were Gunsite instructors at one time or another, and have moved on to found their own schools of instruction.

Just because Cooper coined the term "scout rifle" doesn't mean the generally accepted definition of that concept can't be debated or changed as current practitioners of the combat arts see fit. If you want to keep it pristine in honor of the Colonel's memory, you go right ahead. But don't expect the rest of the shooting world to march in lockstep with you.

Jeff Cooper also said a zillion times that the 1911 in 45 ACP is the finest fighting pistol in the world.
take_a_knee you don't seem to agree with that statement, since you are a "Glock" man

The AR platform is a suppirior fighting rifle to any bolt action type when chambered in 6.8 or 6.5

I wouldn't quibble if you gave it to me in 5.56. Neither would Pat Rogers or Tim Lau, both former Gunsite instructors.

Id rather have the gun in 5.56, personally. The round is very effective, especially in its 62 and newer 77gr iterations. The standby 55gr loadings however, when coupled with modern bullet technology, are completely adequate.

+1
Chances are you wont see this again. SWAT team are used for these take downs. When you know there is a high potential for a shootout, bring enough people, enough firepower and training / people who train together and a plan.

This is nothing new the NYPD STAKE OUT UNIT delt with this kind of activity on a daily basis. They trained hard brought the best equipment they had and went into it with the mindset the [bleep] was going to hit the fan. They were trained for the worst and ready for it on every op.

If this link doesn't come through it is worth searching, about half way in it talks about deadly force encounters.

◦Pro Arms Podcast 10 � Bill Allard Interview

True, using today's gear, but todays' gear didn't exist in 86, or was scarce as hen's teeth. A Daniel Defense/LMT with an Aimpoint and 77gr SMK's is a fight stopper, because you can quickly get effective, fatal hits at those engagement ranges. An iron sited A1 loaded 55gr would not have been my choice but it certainly would have evened the odds. I still have to wonder if anything short of a 308 TAP would have taken the fight out of Platt, that's why the Scout stays on my list.

JWP, Cooper begrudgingly accepted the Glock as a proper fighting pistol, he saw it as having no "soul" in comparison to the 1911, the gun he carried in two wars. He never accepted the 9mm as a proper defensive round, to my knowledge. But lots of his former instructors did and carry 9mm Glocks every day. I'm certain you realize that the 9mm ammo in Coopers' heyday doesn't compare to what we have today.

Pro Arms Podcast - Bill Allard Interview

Cooper also considered the 230 grain truncated cone flat point the prefered load in .45 ACP. He wasn't always right.

Cooper's experience is Cooper's experience; my experience is my experience. I'm not speaking for Jeff Cooper, I'm speaking for Kevin Gibson. MY observations in force on force training with semi-auto weapons is that suppressive fire is used quite often to get the upper hand; even if that wasn't the intention of the rifleman in question. Look there's a reason every military organization in the world uses semi-auto rifles. I'm all for dropping one round where needed, but if you miss with that one round (a high liklihood if someone's shooting a high volume of fire your way), then while you're working your bolt, the other guy just cranked off 3 rounds, some or all could have found their mark. I don't care what Jeff Cooper or any other instructor says, I'll take a semi-auto against a manual action rifle every time if I know there's a fight coming.

...it's been decades since I was in an infantry unit and later doing police weapons training, so at my "sloppy civilian" stage of life, "if I know there's a fight coming," I'll be somewhere else when it arrives. :-) FWIW, if Jeff Cooper knew a fight was coming, he wouldn't have chosen a Scout Rifle to defend himself with either.

Regarding the term "scout rifle"--it's not like the term "match barrel" with handguns or "pigeon grade" with shotguns which mean whatever the manufacturer wants it to. Cooper went to extraordinary length to define exactly what it was (or more appropriately what it was NOT). To say that a certain rifle doesn't meet the definition but is still a Scout rifle is like saying that a gorilla isn't a man, but he's still a human being. It's like being a little bit pregnant--it is or it isn't. Unfortunately the term "Scout Rifle" has become to many like the term "series 70" has been bastardized to mean any 1911 without a firing pin safety (which it isn't).

Colt is to blame for that common confusion.

In the 70's/80's that was probably the best 45acp load in existence. He had too many students who'd shot people with hydrashocks that didn't work as designed.

Thanks Doc for articulating what I have tried to these past several pages. Platt was quickly the only combatant in this melee and it clearly shows what the Scout rifle is capable of. I am not being derogatory to Jeff Cooper when I point this out, as he was right about his concept all along. The mention of the M4 as a scout rifle honors Jeff Cooper, not demeans him!

....I don't know if it honors or demeans him, but I know for certain that it would piss him off!

BTW, do you know Paul at the Wet Grocer in Gunnison? Great guy, big time fly fisherman and aspiring rifleman and wine sommelier extraordinare!

If people refered to the isosceles triangle as "Weaver Plus" or to Thunder Ranch as "Gunsite the Second" you'd have a valid point---otherwise, not so much. "Weaver," "Gunsite" and "Scout Rifle" are what they are--not what they aren't, regardless of people's opinion of how to define them, refine them or improve them---situational semantics is no more credible than situational morality. Of course, I could be wrong, YMMV.

Notice I deleted your reference to the COL's advocacy of Bill Weavers' aberration, so as not to sully his memory.

Are you a proponent of a "Living" U.S. Constitution?

C.S. Lewis wrote about men who referred to other men as "gentlemen", in the british sense of being genteel, when the word really means a man of property, land, and title. A century ago a man could be, at once, a gentleman and a scoundrel of the highest order. This was the common understanding of that day. Now, the word essentially means nothing thanks to well-meaning folks like your self. Lewis referred to this phenomenon as "verbicide", or the murder of a word. I choose not to engage in this ghastly endeavour and, if you are wise , you will refrain from it.

I am a believer in the living Constitution! I believe it still lives as written by men much wiser than me.

Ray Chapman, had an interesting take on the Weaver stance and why he altered it.


...beautifully stated!

Now, that statement truly puzzles me.

A quick review of history shows that Jack Weaver (not "Bill Weaver") was the first man in the group of competition shooters with whom Col. Cooper slapped leather on a regular basis to use a two-handed stance. The technique was refined somewhat by others, including the estimable Ray Chapman (who I had the great good fortune to take instruction from years later), and Jeff Cooper by his own admission then promulgated the two-handed hold as part of his Modern Technique of the Pistol. How is this an aberration, or a blot on the Colonel's memory?




Well, as much as I admire the history of the development of the English language, I do not regard it as I do Latin or Classical Greek, which are immutable now being dead languages spoken only by scholars. Languages that are spoken in the vernacular, such as modern English, are constantly evolving in both grammar and vocabulary. These evolutionary changes are inevitable and in and of themselves are not necessarily bad.

I have to laugh a bit at your evocation of Mr. Lewis, a fine writer but hardly a philologist (his great friend, Ronald Tolkien, was a philologist and had a very different view of the fluid nature of living languages, by the way). Lewis would have been the first to admit, if his comment on "verbicide" had been challenged (which I am certain it was, and should have been) that his native English is and was a dog's breakfast of words and grammar, an amalgamation of Latin, Gaulish, Germanic, Norse, and French, with a deep underlay of Celtic languages; and that each of these had deep underlayment of other languages themselves.

The word "gentleman", which you evoke as an example, is more than a victim of "verbicide". A gentleman, as generally understood in the England in the 19th century, connotes the word "playboy" in the modern world: a man who doesn't work for a living, but possesses inherited wealth, a sense of style, one who is likely to be seen in the pages of Town & Country, or perhaps Esquire or Vanity Fair magazines. In the modern world, the word "gentleman" is taken by most people to refer to a man who exhibits principle and good manners in his speech and behavior. I think most people would regard this as an appropriate evolution of the word to reflect a meaning that most English-speakers would approve of. Which denotation of the word "gentleman" would you guess those who know you would apply to you, Mr. TAK, if either?

So, let us return to the concept of a "Scout Rifle" in this same manner. Jeff Cooper wrote about the concept 30-some years ago. I have no illusions about the Colonel's imagination or inventiveness, so am fairly safe, I think, in the assumption that his concept did not arise in a vacuum. In other words, he talked about it with his colleagues, and the concept most probably took shape over time. In other words, it evolved. And given the kinds of rifles and actions and ammunition available at the time that Col. Cooper formed his concept of the Scout Rifle, the form it took was shaped by knowledge of those factors. So, on whatever day Jeff Cooper decided to dub his concept "THE Scout Rifle", that's what it was. But that's not what it is today.

Cooper defined his concept of Scout Rifle in the context of the weapons with which he was intimately familiar, and available to him in 1982 or so: as such, he specified a bolt-action rifle of 7.62 caliber with combat-worthy iron sights, a forward-mounted scope, and a Ching sling. But if we review how Cooper intended the Scout Rifle to be used, codified its "job description", and then look at the weapons and ammunition available today and see how they are being used in combat, I think we'll find that the spirit of the Scout Rifle is there.

So, to quote the Colonel, a Scout Rifle should be: "... a general-purpose rifle is a conveniently portable, individually operated firearm, capable of striking a single decisive blow, on a live target of up to 200 kilos in weight, at any distance at which the operator can shoot with the precision necessary to place a shot in a vital area of the target."

Now, look at the rifles being used in combat today, and even those being developed for modern combat. It's pretty hard to argue that the M4 carbine, which is in general use by our forces in the Sandbox today, does not meet Colonel Cooper's operational criteria. I think many of us would prefer to see it chambered to use a more robust cartridge such as the 6.8 SPC (which was rejected by the Pentagon despite its strong recommendation by both active service and consultant ballisticians for reasons that were more politically motivated rather than motivated by a desire to arm our combatants with the best possible battle rifle, but that's another story...), but even in the 5.56 NATO chambering with appropriate ammunition it is a formidable weapon more than capable of striking a single decisive blow on a live target up to 200 kg live weight at ranges of 2 to 300 meters, ranges well within the proficiency of an appropriately trained U.S. armed services combat rifleman.

It's not that Col. Cooper's definition was wrong. Like the word "gentleman", which has evolved in the English language to mean something most English-speaking people would consider an admirable term (and, incidentally, something Col. Coooper would certainly consider himself to be) rather than the definition of a toffee-nosed wastrel (which he would not), the concept of the Scout Rifle has been adopted by the tactical community and has been de fact deployed in combat daily for the past 10 years or more in the form of the M4 carbine. Whether one chooses to adhere to Col. Cooper's definition as the final word on what a Scout Rifle is, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that men of action, recognizing the wisdom of the "job description" that Jeff Cooper codified, and recognizing its applicability to the theater of operations in which our warriors were and are fighting, made the necessary adjustments to the weapons platform at hand and produced what is for all intents and purposes a fully functional "scout rifle" for them to use.

Thank you for bringing up the word "gentleman" as a wonderful example of how a word can evolve to a better and happier meaning that everyone can enjoy the use of. I consider the happy parallel between the evolution of the concept of what constitutes a "gentlemen" and the concept of what constitutes a "scout rifle" to be an amusing and apt lesson.

In the future I will leave all of my guttural responses on the keyboard and summon you Doc to answer for me.

Doc, I admire and respect your opinion---I get the feeling that you're speaking from a position of having "earned the right"--having said that, you're alittle off on your understanding of the etymology of the "scout" and certainly of the timeline.

Cooper addressed the issue directly:
"I do not own the dictionary, and I certainly cannot tell people how to use it, but it is annoying to introduce a term and then see people pick it up and run the wrong way with it. As I have often pointed out, I do not own the term "scout," but I did introduce it to the sport shooting community a good many years ago to describe a rifle of certain definite attributes. I do, therefore, try to define the "scout rifle" correctly and to resist its imprecise use. For example, one of the qualities of the scout rifle should be its adaptability to readily obtainable ammunition. Therefore the scout, as I see it, is a 308. Certainly there is plenty of 223, 30 Russian-short and 30-06 ammunition obtainable worldwide, but the carbine cartridges are underpowered and the 30-06 calls for a long action, which while not exclusionary adds a bit to both bulk and weight in a proper combination.

When we set up the criteria for the Scout at the factory in Austria, we agreed upon just two calibers, 308 and 7-08, the latter for use in those situations where the 308 is forbidden or restricted as a "military cartridge." But immediately the factory people pushed through a rifle in 223, simply to take advantage of the immense stores of this ammunition available throughout the world. The fact remains, however, that no rifle in caliber 223 should be called a Scout."
....this wasn't written 30+ years ago prior to the acsension of the M-4, this was written by Cooper in January of 2005. So, call the M-4 "a Scout" if you wish--call it a "Dreadnought" or "The Hammer of Thor" however realize that it's bastardizing the term as it was intended by the one originating the concept and the terminology.

Reflecting on this---arguing over the splitting of vernacular hairs is probably not time well spent---especially with ones of kindred spirit.

Quite a display of wordsmanship, Doc.

With all due respect I'll take a 16" barreled AR in 6.8, thank you very much

Great post Doc, points taken, but we'll have to agree to disagree. This has been a great thread.

FWIW, I agree with TAK and Gmoats - Jeff Cooper 'owns' the term "Scout Rifle", so different ideas need simply need to come up with a different name. IIRC, Jeff Cooper called a .223 version of the Steyr a "poodle scout".

Comparing the M4 to the Scout Rifle is fair on a shootout-themed thread, but it only tells a fraction of the story. Cooper used terms such as general-purpose and utility to describe his concept. Cooper's concept was a rifle that a man could hunt the earth with, and also useful should a fight happen to break out. To be a better mousetrap, the M4 would have to do everything better than the Scout Rifle. On those terms, I'd probably pick his Scout Rifle.

Fair enough, TAK. And I quite agree, this has been a great thread. Lots of discussion, relatively little flaming. That's what this forum should be and most often is.

I suspect a man could do quite well with a M-4 in 6.8 or 6.5 Grendal as far as hunting the world over and a much better "shootout" gun isn't available yet

Maybe, assuming a guy has easy access to 6.8 or 6.5 Grendel in the remote places in the world.

My remote places will be in the U.S.

Well, bastardized or not, the term "scout rifle" has come to mean a lot more than Jeff Cooper originally intended it to mean, and it was partly his fault.

I underlined the Colonel's words in your above quote to point out something that has been implied but perhaps needs to be made explicit in this discussion: that while the Scout Rifle term or concept was never copyrighted or patented in a generic sense, the Steyr Scout Rifle was a trademarked rifle which I presume Col. Cooper had some stake in the production of, and presumably some share in the profits as well. As such I think latter-day accolytes may in fact be right in stating that he "owns" the term, at least in some limited sense.

But I also think there's been a bit of blurring of the line between an intellectual concept and intellectual property here. Intellectual property is something that the originator can point to as being his/her unique and original idea or system of thought, and is in fact so unique as to be eligible for copyright. I do have some acquaintance with the process of obtaining copyright and trademarking for my intellectual property, enough to know that it's a tricky business at the best of times, and requires occasional application of money in the form of lawyers' fees to defend. If Cooper had applied for and been granted a copyright or trade name for the term "Scout Rifle" at any time, then we could say he actually "owns" the term "Scout Rifle". But since he did not apply for such legal protection (and as such we can't say with any certainty that the term would have been granted copyright or trade name protection) then no one can truly say that Cooper "owns" the term or concept.

In an academic sense, Cooper can be (and IMHO should be) given all credit for originating the term, but as any academic who has come up with a term or concept that has fallen into general use will tell you, that credit holds no real water. People will use the concept or term as they will, and it will necessarily evolve as more people apply their own connotations to the term over time. Some people will hold to a more rigid standard, recalling the context of the term/concept's origins, and others will hold a more loose standard that reflects its general usage in the scientific or technical discipline it inhabits in the present day.

Thus it is with the Scout Rifle. Cognescenti immediately hearken back to Col. Cooper's original definition, whereas others use it in a more mutable manner to reflect the evolution of firearms and ammunition and the tactical arts.

So it really doesn't matter if Jeff Cooper defended his definition in 2005. He didn't need to, we all know who coined the term! And he really didn't have any right to be offended that people picked up his term and ran with it, since he didn't copyright or trademark the term. Is this splitting hairs? I don't know, but it sure seems to get a lot of people exercised tapping away at their keyboards!

And finally, I submit, he really was off-base to block introduction of a 5.56 NATO or 7.62x39mm version of the Scout Rifle while endorsing the 7mm-08. We can argue that one all week long (and probably will!) though.

That ain't a real "Scout Rifle", ya little SOB! Col. Cooper says to give it back!

Well, in that case, I'll take an AR10 or equivalent carbine chambered in .308 over a Steyr Scout Rifle.

Mind you, I'm not saying I'd be willing to go up against Randy Cain with his Scout Rifle (or, worse, his short version .308 Win Model 70 all-purpose rifle which he modelled on Cooper's Scout Rifle concept) using my AR10. There is such a thing as knowing one's limitations.

Well said Doc. Again. Nice to have you post here.
I enjoyed the history lesson as I've been a fan of Jeff Cooper's before he ever started work on the Scout Rifle. And, yes, I remember him working with Jack Weaver way back then. Those guys taught me alot of really useful things. My hunting rifles, which are just basic scope sighted bolt guns, are equipped with the three point sling systems developed with the Scout Rifle. E

BTDT. It is a heck of a good rifle.



I haven't shot it with its new FF handguard and flash hider, but with a brake, if you miss the bad guy, the muzzle blast will ruin his aim

...somewhere in the one of the Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip books, Jeff addresses that he had no equity position in any Scout Rifle endeavor, received no royalty, finders fee or override on any of them. His concept may have evolved over years starting with his Remington 600 (or 660), however the actual definition, refinement and manifestation was calculated---he held a few "conferences" where shooters he respected attended and they outlined a canonicity per se of what was not a Scout. It was a case of Intelligent Design not evolution. The species may have transmuted, but it hasn't and won't evolve without the suspension of core doctine.

Again, splitting vernacular hairs--quite honestly, I'd opt for the AR10 too.

It's a heavy rifle.

Yes, and points like a black and decker drill. Gas gun? FNFAL Para. The COL liked the FAL as well.

Did I say that I like the AR in 6.8 or 6.5?

I THINK SO! Time will tell if they stay together, I'm guessing yes. They don't pass the "Walmart" test yet, so I'll stick with 5.56 and 7.62. You could always just have a second upper of course. The Blackout is also another option.

I have 2 extra uppers in 5.56, but I like the 6.8 better. you are correct they are not at Wal Mart

Same here. I've got a Colt HBAR upper and a Bushmaster M-4 upper in 5.56. Wouldn't mind getting one in 6.5 mm.

One like mine, less scope, 8.61 lbs according to Armalite. DSA doesn't list weight of the folders, but the closest one on their site is 8.35 lbs. Of course, the AR is optics ready right now, and the FAL needs a sizable thingy for a scope mount, extra.

Now drop a 10T upper on a AR10, and yes it's heavy

Jay-zus, are you guys for real?

I mean as in, do you actually shoot the rifles you post about? As in, do you shoot the rifles you post about, with a full load-out? The Steyr Scout is a 7-pound rifle. The DPMS LR308L is a 7.9 pound rifle, and it ain't nearly the lightest 308 caliber AR rifle on the planet. Talk to Paul at BCMS or Mark at LaRue Tactical to talk about truly lightweight 308 AR's.

I've maneuvered both the Steyr Scout and a Brand X lightweight AR rifle on a tactical course, and I'll take the AR rifle 8 days a week. You tell me you can tell the difference between a 7-lb and an 8-lb rifle over the course of 8 hours of fire and maneuver when you're carrying 40+ pounds of gear, and I'll make you eat your boonie hat.

Ne'mind. It's only tha innanet, as our dear departed Bristoe pointed out time and again.

Anyone with a shred of brains would take the AR a supirior weapon


What happened to "Bristoe"

He left us for good, I'm afraid.

Just weighed my Scout. 7# 6oz all up with cleaning gear inside the stock, 2.5X Leupy (with heavy steel Leupy rings), both mags and a leopard light mount sans light. You show me any 0.473 bolt face AR that comes close and I'll kiss your a$$ in Macy's front window at high noon and give you all morning to draw a crowd.

The DPMS you listed doesn't make weight, they also don't shoot for schit. Also, no AR will every point like an English double gun, as does the Scout.

Added thought on the DPMS 308 guns, the only one that is in the same class accuracy-wise is the SASS, try shooting some offhand drills with that pig. Even the 5.56 SASS's are too heavy for a gen-purpose rifle.

Remington has the perfect round for the AR Scout , the 30 AR. I'm waiting for Stag to offer a left hand bolt for the 30 AR

Now, Doc, why do we need to be burdend with 40 lbs. of gear ? It wouldn't be all of those loaded magazines you guys insist on for your spray and pray tactics would it ?
Yeah, I know. No army in the world uses Scout Rifles. So whose talking about equiping an army ? Or rifle squad ? What ever happend to the lone rifleman on his own a long way from home ? What ever happend to idea of single hits, firing once, and moving ?
How about making the other guy fight under circumstances where you, with, say a Scout Rifle, have the advantage ?
I find it fascinating that the US Marine Corps teaches their sniper scouts how to use and when to use their heavy sniper rifles in close quarter combat. Seems that they can be useful, but not ideal. Of course, when it comes to engaging targets way out there, the heavy sniper rifle has no peer.
My point is that the Scout Rifle is not an ideal close quarter weapon for rifle squads. Neither is it a dedicated long range sniper rifle for that work. But it does pretty well in either situation. E

I would like to point out in this shoot out Platt shot 42 times which would average about 5 shots per agent. Not trying to tax my brain too much on counting hits on agents, but his hit rate was at least 20% after a lethal hit. I don't count that as spray and pray!

Interesting on "lightweight LaRue's" next time they have a range day I'll have to swing up to see them.

That would be very cool. Any idea when they're next having a range day? I have pretty much decided my next AR is gonna be a LaRue lightweight. Haven't decided on caliber yet, though.

Just got the latest issue of Dillon's Blue Press. They have an article on the Ruger M77 Scout Rifle. Pretty nice little gun. Anybody have one yet?

Got to handle one yesterday.
Frankly, it's not something I want. I do not like the extended 10 rd. box magazine. And the barrel is too short.
I do like the iron sights, the two scope setups and the adjustable stock. Maybe ruger will make a version with 19 inch barrel and a conventional magazine ? I can see alot of usefulness with such a rifle. E

1. 20 inch barrel
2. make low round mag that sits flush with stock and still give the ability to use the extended high cap by switching
3. stainless (ruger's target grey stainless would be great)
4. quality lightweight/synthetic stock

The changes I'd make...but I don't make the rules at Ruger.

The 16in with a flash-hider has pluses, you can thread a can on it and shoot subsonics. But for a gen-purpose rifle that will also be a primary hunting rifle I'd have to go 20in. Ruger already has out zytel mags in 3rd (flush) 5rd, and 10rd. The target gray would be my preference as well.
I'm hoping someone will market a lightweight stock for that rifle as well.

I didn't know they had a flush mag available. That's a big plus. Thanks!

The last one was November 11 & 12, according to their website. I think they have them at least 2-3 times a year.

I have a couple (ummm...actually more than a couple) of handloading projects, but I will be tinkering with .300 Blackout loads next weekend. If I can get it to shoot accurately, it will probably become the house rifle. If not, I think I'll try a 7.62x40 barrel

Nice having no moderators around, we can talk AR's in the Handgun forum, without a moderator having kittens

Or Scout Rifles.
Thanks for the info on the 3 rd. flush magazines, TAK. E