Are we better shots?


December 13, 2005, 01:11 AM
Question, if we had a head to head match, THR/TFL'ers against local LEO and you military GI Joes, are we, better shots than they are?

If so, by how big of a margain?

I'm fairly curious for two reasons:

First, all my Leo friends can't outshoot me, and my military friends don't even know how to properly handle a gun safely IMHO. So I'm wondering if that's me (and the type of friends I keep) i.e. the norm or the exception.

was wondering if there was a civil war, reading from another thread, if we had similiar weapons and the air force wasn't dropping bombs, if it was Mono E Mono and skill vs. skill,if we'd stand a chance..

(No offense meant to the LEO's and Joes who are on "our" side on the guns issue)

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we better shots?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
December 13, 2005, 01:26 AM
I doubt it. The membership here encompasses a wide range of shooting skills. I suspect that a large percentage of the membership has relatively poor shooting abilities, a good number probably doesn't shoot at all and a few members don't even own guns. The average member of the military/police may not have exemplary marksmanship, but they have all received at least a minimum of professional training and have all been qualified to some level--even if the standards are not stringent.

I'd guess that on average, the cops/military will outshoot the membership of a large general gun forum like THR.

Leaving the marksmanship contest behind and answering your question about combat brings up the question of what happens when you pit someone with excellent shooting skills and little to no military style training against someone with mediocre to poor shooting skills and combat experience. IMO, the guy with combat experience is going to have a pretty significant edge.

December 13, 2005, 01:28 AM
Mono E Mono

Err... "Mono" is an abbreviation for a particularly nasty disease round here. I think you meant "Mano a Mano"... :D

December 13, 2005, 01:31 AM
Boy, I'm sure glad I didn't start this one!

Not being an LEO, but being a former "Joe" - I think the difference isn't so much the marksmanship as it is the mind set to stick you head over a berm or around a tree when you have someone else capping at you with the intent to kill, and you intend to do it to them first.

Before any of you want to jump in - please wait until you've been "barked" before you trot out all you shooting experiences and tell me it's marksmanship that counts most. Wiping the dirt out of your eyes or spitting dirt out of your mouth from a near miss is a real "eye opener".

The military training I got before Nam was to teach you to be able to function with dirt in the eyes/mouth. Being the best shot in the unit didn't mean squat if you couldn't shoot back. The "couldn't shoot back" is NOT cowardice - it's survival! Everyone HAS to overcome it!

If it's close quaters and an M-16 will do the job - HELL, a frag will do it even BETTER! AND you run less risk of getting your ticket punched!

Yes, I LOVE it when I can touch bullet holes with my 45-110 at 200 yards, but in the combat world, I'd be doing a lot of "duckin and a weavin" between rounds.

Gentle winds,

December 13, 2005, 01:32 AM

"Mono E Mono" <-- Referring to 2008 elections :neener:


Thanks for the correction, shouldn't type on 2 hours of sleep..

HI express
December 13, 2005, 01:39 AM
I have to add one element. Having served in 'Nam and attending (as observer)in competitions and having practiced with leo candidates in simunition scenarios, there is one big variable.. when someone is shooting at you, it changes a lot of your strategy. Of course, in competition there are some who can translate their practical experiences into real self-defense situations. Some do not.

In soldier type combat, you have a learning curve. If you learn and have some luck, you survive. If you make mistakes, you can pay the ultimate price.

All I am saying is that when someone or a bunch of someones are shooting back, your technique is different and so is your accuracy. So is your sense of self-preservation.

If you are speaking about pure competition, I believe a lot of the folks in THR/TFL. etc/. are quite good. I don't feel that a lot of the line doggies are that good in competition. My nephew is in his second tour with the 101st Airborne. He was a SAW operator on his first tour, and now he is a designated marksman carrying a M-14 and a M-4, and also a Remington 870 pump for CQB. He is not confident with a lot of guys that deployed with him to the big sandbox. They are untested and they barely qualified in training. If they survive, they develop into better and more accurate shooters.. at least the ones that choose to shoot back.

Remember, just my opinion.

December 13, 2005, 01:46 AM
Err... "Mono" is an abbreviation for a particularly nasty disease round here. I think you meant "Mano a Mano"... :D

Actually, your both wrong. It's a spanish saying... 'mano y mano' meaning 'hand and hand', translating further to 'one on one'. :D

Mono E Mono means cute and cute....

Mano a Mano means hand by hand.... I suppose this could be right also... :banghead:

I don't know anymore!


Phantom Warrior
December 13, 2005, 02:32 AM
was wondering if there was a civil war, reading from another thread, if we had similiar weapons and the air force wasn't dropping bombs, if it was Mono E Mono and skill vs. skill,if we'd stand a chance..

Joe here. I know your situation is hypothetical. However, working in an arms room full of select fire M-16s and heavy machine guns and full-auto grenade launchers (Mk 19) a quarter mile away from a motor pool full of Bradleys, I can say that the odds of facing the military on equal terms is...slim.

If the government just decided to send in the NG w/ rifles only for political reason, maybe. If they got serious and pulled out all the stops, no way.

December 13, 2005, 06:05 AM
I'll wade in since I know nothing about it.

1) It seems to me that overall the people on this forum have enough interest in guns to waste their time and energy reading and typing. I'm willing some of that interest spills over into practice. Based on that unsupported assumption I'm willing to say that it is possible to likely that the ratio of good shots is higher than in an organization whose main component is some kind of support and not shooting (I think this applies to all armed forces and some LEO organizations... the largest number of people support those few whose jot it is to shoot).

2) I imagine (since it applies to me) that a large percentage here have never been shot at. I assume the same is true for most of the military.

3) However, what the military does have IMO is a higher percentage that have been taught tactics (this too may be false since I assume a significant percentage of THRs are exmilitary/LEO). I think that would win the day.

BTW... how would current LEO or Military who are also THR count? THR? :)

December 13, 2005, 06:24 AM
crashresidue gave the answer.

Also the thread on Audey Murphey and the 'real deal'. Murphy had the midset to crawl close enough to chunck in a grenade or spot for artilery. Close counts with grenades and artilery.

W. Hickock wasn't fast, he was determined. He had the mindset to stand there and make his first shot the only one he had to fire. While the other guy was shooting fast enough to miss.

As I remember, Hickock's three rules were: Determination, Accuracy, Speed.

December 13, 2005, 07:08 AM
On average the shooters I've seen at the three (four if you include a commercial range) shooting clubs I belong to, shoot much better then the LEOs of the three or four PDs I've seen shoot.

I wouldn't venture to guess how a protracted confrontation between sport shooters and LEOs would work out as there are just too many unknowns.



December 13, 2005, 08:37 AM
Currently, I can outshoot my father who has been a LEO for almost 30 years. His eyes aren't what they used to be (he uses bi-focals now) and his joints are getting stiff. (He's also not a fan of autos and despises .40 S&W, his current issue is a Glock 27.)

I'm certain though, that in his prime he could outshoot me. He has probably a dozen trophies boxed up in a closet that he is too modest to display from when he would shoot in police competition. This was when everyone carried revolvers and his carry and competition revolver was a Colt Python. I've had the opportunity to shoot it, and I have accused him of cheating by using that gun. :)

December 13, 2005, 09:30 AM
My LEO friend has a glock and a S&W .40 (not sure of the model). When's he's rocking the Glock, I can outshoot him with my CZ 75. But he's dead on with that Smith, he'll beat me almost everytime. It's like an extension of his hand (and it should be, the thing weighs a TON!!).

December 13, 2005, 09:56 AM
35 years combined combat and police experience here, along with 53 years as an avid shooter and hunter. The "above-average" non-military/LEO shooter MIGHT be able to cope with targets that shoot back, but only if they have the proper mind set.

Most shooters practise on inanimate objects, such as paper targets, reactive targets and non-moving "targets of opportunity". They practise their skills from "fixed" shooting points, for safety reasons. They rarely DROP their expensive magazines on the ground, for that would damage them. Probably only a few non-military/LEO shooters even have a CLUE as to what a "combat reload" is.

Add to that, most non-military/LEO shooters don't know what the difference is between "cover" and "concealment".

You might be able to closely simulate a combat situation (where the targets DO shoot back) by shooting paint ball matches....but it's not quite the same. In REAL combat, the firearms are LOUD and you don't have the luxury of using hearing protection. In REAL combat, you're not worrying about getting painful "welts" from paint balls... you're worried about being KILLED! Paint ball game "wounded" players usually don't cry out for their mama's! They don't poop or pee their pants! They only get spattered with paint, not blood and body parts! They don't smell death!

Practise, knowing your firearm, self confidence and mind set. They're all necessary, but don't discount the experience of actual combat. I saw a LOT of "FNG's" that froze up in their first firefight....but that first experience was enough to get them through the next firefight!

December 13, 2005, 10:08 AM
Speaking just for fun

I think that in a contest for accuracy and speed I could hold my own with LEO or most military folk.

I do cowboy action shooting and am a decent shot. I also like to "play" in the action pistol group too.

But there is a huge difference in that and real life where the targets are shooting back at you.

Accuracy goes bye bye when you are trying to stay alive.

Kid Couteau

December 13, 2005, 10:23 AM
I'd say that our membership here at THR embraces quite a number of shooters who are either current or former military and current or former LEOs. We also have a number of members who are neither but are armed civilians who take skill-at-arms seriously and want to improve their skills.

The common myth is that 'cops can't shoot so good' because it is widely believed that most only draw their weapons when it's time for the regularly-scheduled qualification days. I know that a number of news stories have disclosed the high number of shots fired in ratio to the number of hits, and this is the basis for the myth.

I would hazard a guestimate that if someone cares enough about quality firearms and quality training, skill improvement etc. to be a member of the THR then it is more likely than not that the THR member also regularly practices with the weapon(s) at the range and wishes they had time to do it even more often than that.

December 13, 2005, 10:39 AM
LEOs seem to come in two flavors when it comes to shooting ability - very bad or very good, there is very little middle ground. (Forget about those few LEOs who are in the national spotlight at places like Camp Perry or the Bianchi Cup - they're so few in number as to be statistically insignificant.)

The vast majority are in the first (very bad) category.

I've found that in IDPA and other competitions, it's easy to shoot rings around the "average" LEO . . . things only get competitive if a shooting instructor shows up, or one of those rare LEOs who's a "gunny." Most rank-and-file LEOs would only rate "Novice."

As for the military, the big thing there isn't necessarily marksmanship ability (I wouldn't be eager to go against a school-trained sniper), it's teamwork. Take a squad-sized group of THR-ers, and even if they're individually better than any member of a squad of GIs, if those GIs happen to be vets of, say, the urban fighting in Fallujah, things could get dicey even if the THR-ers have seriously trained together as a team.

December 13, 2005, 10:57 AM
I shoot to stop, i dont shoot IPSC. Big dif. I train my men on entire situations, not the 10 ring. I am very impressed with some competition shooters but they are not cops or war heros. Good calm judgement and hit ratios are what counts for us. Most people on here could probably outshoot me. I don't get points when I win, I go home.:cool:

Kramer Krazy
December 13, 2005, 11:12 AM
Hmmmm....interesting question. I'd think that if it was an "us and them" and shooting at each other, I'd probably give the edge to the police and military. For IDPA style shooting, it may be a whole lot closer, but the edge would be given to the police and military, also, as most people here have probably never shot in that kind of competition (I haven't). Bench shooters probably wouldn't help us too much in these two scenerios. We just wouldn't have enough time to let them set up, but for bullseye shooting, I'd like to say that THR members would win, depending on the rules. I believe a lot of THR members would really be hurting for targets at more than 100 yards with iron sights due to all of the threads on scopes that I tend to see here.......Hmmmmm......yes, definitely an interesting question.

Old Dog
December 13, 2005, 12:56 PM
Eh, I know civilians with no military or law enforcement experience who are great shooters, both in terms of accuracy and in action shooting disciplines.

I've known many in the military who are useless around firearms, and whom I would not allow to carry firearms ...

I shoot a lot down at Fort Lewis, at a few commercial ranges and a couple gun clubs in the Puget Sound area. I've also worked with civilian law enforcement officers. Maybe it's the departments I was around, but I've known a number of cops who were very, very proficient with their handguns and several who were dedicated IPSC and IDPA shooters as well. As far as the Army goes ... I've not been overly impressed with handgun ability of some of the soldiers I've shot with, but then, the Army has an awesome marksman unit ... Several soldiers have impressed me with advanced skills on the M16/AR15 platform. As far as military, I give the nod to some of the USMC riflemen I've know, who were incredible shots with iron sights at incredible distances ... I learned my handgunning from the Marines, and there's a bunch of them I'm simply not competitive with ...

I just tire of the generalizations: cops are not normally good with firearms ... many civilians are better with guns than military or cops ... one branch of the military has better shooters than another (ever been to interservice competitions? The Navy and Air Force guys would surprise you.) ... it's simply all a matter of individual training, discipline, practice time, and yes, even equipment ... doesn't matter whether you're on your PD's SWAT unit, a Navy SEAL or a clerk down at the 7-11 ...

So I'm wondering if that's me (and the type of friends I keep) i.e. the norm or the exception. Obviously, just the people you know ...
was wondering if there was a civil war, reading from another thread, if we had similiar weapons and the air force wasn't dropping bombs, if it was Mono E Mono and skill vs. skill,if we'd stand a chance..
No, you wouldn't.

December 13, 2005, 01:14 PM
In my experience the average (C Class) IPSC Shooter, or Sharpshooter Class IDPA Shooter, can outshoot about 90% of police officers. The other 10% consists of SWAT guys and Instructors, who in most cases have to maintain 90% firearm qualification scores to stay an instructor or stay on the SWAT Team, and as mentioned, those few officers that are competition shooters or gun enthusiasts.

I saw one police officer show up at an IPSC match, giving off the air that he was all that and a bucket of chicken, and he came in dead last out of 20 shooters. Hopefully he spends more time at the range now.

Just my .02,

December 13, 2005, 01:28 PM
I think the comment about Teamwork is the key when talking about combat. That kind of training is what separates professionals from amateurs. Same concept in air to air dogfighting or even in football and other sports. A group of individuals will rarely beat a good team.

Personally, I think you are overestimating who is on THR. There are a lot of good shooters, but there are also a lot of amaturs like me who just like to talk about guns and talk with other people who also like guns. Think of the average civilian in general.

December 13, 2005, 02:01 PM
I guess I look at this in a different way. It seems in a Civ. SD shooting min number of rounds fired and problem solved BG on ground or runs away to seek medical treatment. Looks to me in officer involved shootings large number of rounds fired either by 1 or more officers resuling in BG killed or put down. Both have done the job just seems Police need a lot more shots to do it.

I belive shootings were Police fire 100's of rounds in to a car to kill a BG are not good shootingd. That one in PA earlier this year fired somewhere around 350 rounds Killed driver Passenger got a way in this hail of fire.

They only used a little over 100 rounds to take out Bonnie and Clyde . Today that would have been a 1000 rounds given the spray and pray thinking that has come about since police started to carry these hi-cap pistols.

M2 Carbine
December 13, 2005, 02:03 PM
Question, if we had a head to head match, THR/TFL'ers against local LEO and you military GI Joes, are we, better shots than they are?

In just a shooting match?

I've been in the USMC, Army and an LEO.

The average Marine would probably out shoot many or most (non military) THR/TFL'ers with a rifle, especially long distance. Every Marine, no matter what his job is, is first a trained rifleman.

The average soldier I'd guess would be a toss up. In the Army and THR/TFL'ers, the people range from very poor in weapon's use and knowledge to very good.

It was many years ago, but I only knew a couple LEO that could hit a barn wall from the inside.

Bartholomew Roberts
December 13, 2005, 02:11 PM
In a competition, THR members might do well (assuming they got to keep those members who were military/LEO on their side). I would have given them the edge in general; but I think that if you include ALL members then the level of experience probably goes down quite a bit.

In a conflict, I think there are a lot of important skills that are as necessary or more necessary than shooting well. The ability to work as a team is certainly one of those. There is also a lot of basic day-to-day knowledge in running a squad or platoon that many THR members would lack. Just being able to read terrain and position people correctly can be quite a trick to master and its something that I doubt many of us get to practice.

Oleg Volk
December 13, 2005, 02:15 PM
Lack of teamwork, combat experience, concealment practice would be bigger handicaps for us than relative lack of accuracy for them...and I don't think they are all that bad, either.

Twoblink, how many rounds did it take us to hit that coin at 25 yards when you were in TN? That was from support with a match M1A... I don't think we are very good with guns.

December 13, 2005, 02:32 PM
Usually these type discussions involve someone saying "Well, I saw this cop (or former military) at the range and I could shoot rings around him." Hardly a representative sample. I've seen non-LEOs/non-military at ranges who were putting rds in the bench, hitting the dirt 5 yds in front of the line, trying to load .38 ammo in a .380 mag. Those are hardly representative samples either. But using the thought process of some those non-LEOs who put the rds in the bench mean that all non-LEOs can't shoot.
I also question whether most on this list or any firearms list are more accomplished. Being on any list just means they have a computer. How much training do they really have? Just emptying a couple of boxes of ammo at a piece of paper on a Saturday is not training.
How many shoot 3000-5000 rds a month, every month, for several years? Not many. Use to tho when the USAF was supplying all my ammo for the rifle and pistol teams.
How many actually train, not just rapid fire a couple of mags and think that's training. How many have every shot on the move? Not just once in a while, everytime, at various distances in various environments. Or immediatley after running 2 miles with gear? Or practiced immediate action drills until they become second nature? Or as others have mentioned, with dirt in your eyes, laying in the mud, cold, wet, dark? Or ever fired while being fired upon?
As those on here who have BTDT will tell you it ain't nothing like the range when you're taking incoming rds.

December 13, 2005, 02:37 PM
Overall who knows ?
If you took the best of THR and the best of military GI Joes
Im afraid we would have less members.
my opinion would be with training the military has would make the difference

December 13, 2005, 02:44 PM
You're a better shot than me and my joes, twoblink? And you lump ALL service members in with your "...military friends don't even know how to properly handle a gun safely IMHO."

I would like to see how your accuracy would suffer when shooting the way I have to. With a 1Kg (2.2lbs) helmet and 10-15Kg (22-27lbs) of body armor, and 5-6Kg (11-13lbs) of magazines all worn on your body for hours at a time. But wait - let's throw in 51 degree C (roughly 125 degrees F) heat while we're at it. And the unknown, we can't forget the unknown - "Show us what's behind door number 2! Congratulations! You've just won 3 people that want to blow your head off and a year's supply of Castor Oil GTX!!"

Shooting positions. There are no benchrests in a firefight. No classic Weaver stance or Chapman stance. No time to take that measured shot utilizing the fundamentals of marksmanship. Some of the distances are as close as 2 meters. Zero time to think. Barely enough time to act. Here, he who shoots first lives.

And fear. Let's talk about fear for a moment. There have been times in the last year I've been scared ***tless. Anybody that's ever been shot at before that tells you he/she wasn't scared is a liar or a fool. 9 times out of 10 a grunt defaults to his training, discipline, and trust - the fear is still there, but we have "X" mission to accomplish and we accomplish this mission using "Y" method, and SGT "Z" will make the right decisions. Do you kow how hard it is to have one of your comrades injured and still continue on? I hope you never do.

The bottom line is this: If you're such a great shot, why don't you join up?


December 13, 2005, 02:57 PM
For accuracy on paper, bet on this fat guy with a beard... Now, if it involves running around, ducking, and walking like a duck, well...

And I'm a vet...

I've shot next to cops, local and fed, soldiers, etc., and I think that they're trained to an extent. I also think that very many of them think they their training covers it _all_. Wrong. I've had 'em get mad when I've called 'em on a safety violation, when I've pointed out that I didn't need 9mm rounds on my target, where the .45 rounds were going, or offered to help 'em zero a scope that they'd already wasted a box and a half of ammo on...

I've also never lost a one-on-one money match with one.

beaucoup ammo
December 13, 2005, 02:59 PM
..I've no doubt the "Joes" would out shine the LEO's and most of the THR virtue of their sheer numbers and volumes of experience.

For myself, I'd stand up against most anyone @ 7 to 10 yards using my S&W 65 with the 1.5 - 2lb trigger pull (a friend..combat arms instructor at Lackland.. tweeked it for me some years back).

I still have a long way to go with my semi-auto KAHR and it's 4 - 6lb pull. But going to the range or ranch for practice is slowly paying off. Truely, getting there(proficency) is half the fun!

Take Care

Jim Watson
December 13, 2005, 02:59 PM
I think that LEOs and citizens run pretty much across the same spectrum of shooting ability, and even mindset. Problem is, the cop who considers the pistol a heavy part of the uniform, barely qualifies, and worries about being investigated if he does get in a shooting scrape, STILL has to go looking for criminals. John Q. Public can modify his behavior to reduce his risk if he doesn't want to fight.

December 13, 2005, 03:09 PM
"can outshoot about 90% of police officers"

Gee. There's only 800,000 police officers in the US. So how many have you seen shoot? :rolleyes:
90%? Statistics show that 60% of the statistics are lies and the other 40% are made up.:barf:

"Both have done the job just seems Police need a lot more shots to do it."

A completely bogus comparison. Here's why. When a police officer fires his weapon it's nearly always in a return fire situation. He's been fired on, has to draw, and return under fire usually while seeking cover.

"I belive shootings were Police fire 100's of rounds in to a car to kill a BG are not good shootingd"

How many of those situations occur? How many of those type situations would a non-LEO be involved in?
How about the cop that put a 12 ga slug dead center COM while advancing from 50 yds? 1 shot fired. BG DRT. Or the cop who fired 8 rds from his Glock 21 nearly as fast as he could pull the trigger in near total darkness with just a bit of light and at 15 yds put all 8 rds between the belt buckle and nipple line? Or the cop who, after being hit in the gut just below the belt and laying on the ground took dead aim and put one in the back of the BG's head thru a back window of a pickup. Never hear about those.
Lebben-B is exactly right on. These couch potato commandos think it's all easy. Afterall, they shoot at paper, which as far as I've ever seen has never shot back, or they fire up their XBoxes and are super SWAT operators. That's why these discussions are so BS. They're always started by someone who has never even heard a shot fired in anger let alone had to really fight for their lives. :banghead:
Be careful Lebben.

December 13, 2005, 03:12 PM
Can we get rid of our old creaky bones and fat bellies before we take on a squad of young marine?

It's a nice fantasy. It's like those SciFi books that always postulate that:

Humans are the toughest fighters in the galaxy. Like we really know.

Danus ex
December 13, 2005, 03:21 PM
Like you guys are saying, in a paper match at the range, with all guns, THR has an excellent chance.

In an 'us vs. them' infantry battle, our chances are much slimmer. It's their job to study and survive combat, and the U.S. infantryman is probably the best on the planet.

That doesn't mean victory is impossible, though. We'd have to get creative with everything: modes of communication, tactics (psych warfare, ambushes, feigned withdrawls, all of which require extreme teamwork), and non-firearms weapons especially. IEDs, chemical weapons, and mines/booby traps would probably be the way to go. The last thing you want is an exchange of fire.

December 13, 2005, 03:22 PM
A coupla other things I've noticed...

Cops (local and fed) who _can_ shoot generally don't make all that big a deal out of either being cops or shooters.

The ones who _do_ make a big deal out of either are generally good for at least enough $$$ for a case of beer.

There are a LOT of big mouths and attitude out there, and a lot of folks seem to think that they're issued skill along with the badges... Remember our DEA friend, Ossifer Glock Forty?

VMI 1991
December 13, 2005, 03:22 PM
I have not been on the range with any members of law enforcement, but regarding the military...

In the Navy, particularly the surface Navy, firearms training, is at best, minimal. I would hazard to guess, and it would be a guess, that we are pretty low on the spectrum of firearms profficiency in the Armed Forces. I was at the Army Command and General Staff College on my last tour, and can say with some degree of certainty that the combat arms branches of the US Army shoot very well. Also, the USMC prides itself on marksmanship. I think that if you are comparing those people against those who frequent this website, the Army and USMC would come out on top.

But, if you taka a random sample of the Armed Forces, to include all branches, then those people who take it upon themselves to learn how to shoot (ie THR members), then the results may very well be different.

December 13, 2005, 03:24 PM
I shoot qualifying with LEO's, due to my job. I can shoot better than many of them when it's time to stand on the line and pull the trigger. I can hold my own during some of the basic "shoot on the move" drills. However, I get just plain smoked every time I try and take on one of the dynamic or stress shooting courses. These are "shoot on the move", use of cover, judgment, interaction with the targets, multiple weapons, etc. Basically, whatever nastiness the instructor can think up.

Why? They do it for a living, and I do it for fun, meaning that they have to "think" that way every day, and I do it only occassionally. What do I mean? Take slicing the pie, cornering. They do it almost daily. I don't. Working in pairs/groups. They do it every day. Force on force drills? I can pass. Reaction times are better when you know what to look for, because you look for it every day.

And this is without considering the volume of fire that a joint LEO/military operation could mount. We'd be smoked in short order.

December 13, 2005, 03:40 PM
Can we get rid of our old creaky bones and fat bellies before we take on a squad of young marine?

thats a good one

December 13, 2005, 03:47 PM
THR isn't an organized group. In a fight, any organized group would slaughter a disorganized mass. Even if the disorganized mass has higher numbers.

December 13, 2005, 04:06 PM
I've been involved with shooting competitions for over 35 years. I have received much formal training from 'the masters.'

That said,

The US Army snipers and the US Air Force para-rescue jumpers are the most outstanding shooters I have ever seen.

December 13, 2005, 04:26 PM
Airboss, a Vietnam Vet, may he rest in peace, had more or less this to say on the topic:

"Given about 5-10 minutes warning, and any 2 or 3 of my neighbors, no law enforcement group within 100 miles would stand a chance."

He then went on to say that it'd be a push against the National Guard, with him ultimately on the losing side courtesy of the reality of logistics, and that he'd consider that he'd do well to last all of 10 or 15 minutes against "the real military", even without air support or artillery.

The difference, he stressed, wasn't the equipment or the marksmanship, but the simple fact that the real military drills on the effective use of this equipment in the context of coordinated team strategies. That, and the fact that he was an old man.

December 13, 2005, 04:37 PM
Sorry twoblink, this is just stupid.

There is no way to compare this at all. There are cops and military that can't shoot worth a damn, just as there are posters here who absolutely suck with a gun.

No offense, but I've shot with many TFLers and THR people. And I shoot better than 99% of those that I've shot with. So by your criteria I can say that THR shooters must suck. That said there are some that would whoop me senseless on my best day. Most gunnies on the internet talk a lot more about shooting than they actually shoot.

There are maybe about a dozen cops in this state who could outshoot me on any given day. Now in a knock down drag out fight, they would probably kill me, because they are tougher and have the mindset. I work with many SF vets. Guess what? I can outshoot many of them too, but in a fight, they would probably kill me. Why? Because they have the experience, and the heart neccesary.

In a big fight? Us vs. them? (which is just plain asinine, because they are us, and we are them). The internet crowd would be slaughtered like sheep.

December 13, 2005, 05:41 PM
Infiltrate and Assimilate.

Jon Coppenbarger
December 13, 2005, 05:44 PM
Most folks that are any good will never tell you they are good at what they do. They just go out and do it. As far as shooting skills go I get beat in most matches. It happens very, very often. I do not ever care who beats me and if it is a police officer or military that does it they earned it and it was not given to them. I always get a feeling who is it going to be this weekend as most of the time somebody has a career day. It is pretty even around here and any one of like 5 folks have a shot on any given day in this state at least. And yes a couple of them are military also. How does the police stack up? If a few of them put in the time I think they would be there also.
about us versus them in a real world fight. The military stopped taking folks my age about 16 years ago for me at least so how the heck could I tell you I would win? I think I would not last long but then again I do not plan on letting them know that I am the enemy untill it is to late for them as there are not enough of me to trade one for one or even one for ten.
I would lose and I know it.

December 13, 2005, 06:25 PM
A couple of months ago US forces out of Guam were in town to help train
Philippine soldiers. Part of the training was open to the media observation,
and this included time with pistols against cardboard silhouettes, in a skill-
assessment exercise.

Not sure of the range to targets, maybe 15-20 yards, but Americans and Filipinos
were shooting alongside one another, and with M1911A1's. The hits were
all over the targets, not much grouping, but one observer pointed out that:

1. There were virtually no outright misses
2. many of the soldiers were used to Beretta 9mm's
3. The soldiers were shooting from a predetermined variety of stances,

from Weaver to Iso to onehand, kneeling, etc, all within maybe three mags.

Sure, they weren't getting A-zones all the time, but they were hitting,
despite frequent changes in stance and hold, and having full gear on,
with unfamiliar pistols: old (some, very old) US EDA M1911A1's.

All the trainees were veterans of real jungle combat and urban house-to-house.
Shooting cardboard is a whole lot different from shooting people,
and so I think I'd rather face the world's top 20 IPSC shooters in a pistol deathmatch,
than any two of those 'trainees'.

There's the rub, really: When you talk about 'outshooting' someone,
do you mean 'in the context of a game', or in the real world?


PS: it's mano a mano (hand-to-hand) :)

December 13, 2005, 06:26 PM
Organized, trained, motivated groups of people will always beat those who are not.

That said, About all I could seriously hope to do in this kind of situation is make someone pay more for me than they expected to. :)

Brian Dale
December 13, 2005, 08:58 PM
In match shooting, I'd expect the overall THR membership to beat the OVERALL law enforcement community—in match shooting.

In match shooting, I'd lean toward the THR membership showing better average scores than the AVERAGE scores of ALL soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. If EVERYone in both groups shoots for score.

In a fight, however, Airboss said it (thanks, Geek).

Think of a rose bush fighting a bulldozer.

December 13, 2005, 09:07 PM
The common myth is that 'cops can't shoot so good' because it is widely believed that most only draw their weapons when it's time for the regularly-scheduled qualification days. I know that a number of news stories have disclosed the high number of shots fired in ratio to the number of hits, and this is the basis for the myth.

It's not a myth, and denial is not a river in Egypt.

Brian Dale
December 13, 2005, 09:21 PM
and this is the basis for the myth.I thought that the basis for that belief was that old, experienced gunfighters in law enforcement, like Bill Jordan and Jim Cirillo, said so.

December 13, 2005, 09:28 PM
9 good years of service in the army the only good shots where people like me , gun owners who went shooting on there own time.they have a good program but u must keep up your skills.shooting a rifle once a year doesnt cut it.

December 13, 2005, 09:44 PM
"Better shot"? As in who's the most accurate? I've had several professions over the years and I don't recall that causing my accuracy to fluctuate.

Do you really need perfection if good enough gets the job done? Say like you are aiming for a guy's nose but hit him between the eyes... Oh well, good enough :)

December 13, 2005, 10:25 PM
Bogie has some good points. I think alot of you girls are doing your best shooting and fighting right here at the key board. My money is with the LEO and Military.:evil:

December 13, 2005, 10:48 PM
12 yrs. in the USMC I learned the basics of marksmanship first. Every year we had to qualify with our rifle plus our T/O weapon. It was a long drawn out 2 wk. affair with the 1st wk. of practicing "snapping in", then on Fri. of that week getting our Battle Sight Zero (BZO).

The 2d week was spent on the range fring from the 200 back to the 500 and Fri. was the qualification day-where the rubber meets the road so to speak.

The .45 we only spent 1 wk. firing at shiloets (sp) with Fri. as qualification day.

For the majority of Marines this was it for firing. Us grunts did more firing on what we use to call "John Wayne" Courses which were pop up targets.

We practiced live fire exercises with our platoon manuvering to an objective which usually was a pill box of some kind.

We could, on our own time, draw our rifle or a .45 and go to the range on weekends to hone our skills.

I never did because I was a liberty hound along with the rest of our unit.

Now that I am retired I joined a Gun Club at the National Guard base for active duty and retired military personnel. Guess what, no active duty participate.

We also share our range with the police dept., sheriff dept. and corrections. I have on many occassions stayed and watched them fire. PITIFULL to say the least.

It seems that after we retired from the military we honed our marksmanship skills. :banghead:

December 13, 2005, 11:26 PM
I'll admit that I too have observed some pitiful performances from groups of LE. But don't forget the 80 -20 rule. Which states that 20 percent of the population carries the 80 percent. It is that 20 percent that I am talking about. The departments and SO's I was involved with were top notch shooters(the 20 % group) most from a military background and damn serious about their work. These people were trained in a team environment and were quite capable of taking on many more than there numbers would leave you to believe. Practice was a givin. Let me say this about you bullseye shooters. Shoot extrodinary groups at enraged individuals is not necesarily the best thing to do. In another forum I described a friend who shot a man 5 times through the heart only to receive two rounds in return and the assailant ran about 2 hundred yards only to die while trying to climb a fence. You could have covered those 5 shots with a silver dollar. It does no good to shoot through damaged material. Experience and team work, and determination is what wins encounters not speculation of what you think you can do. We all have reacted poorly to situations on occasion. Living through them is what gives you the experience. A good discussion but don't think for a minute that an unorganized group will overcome a well discipline group. Mission and objectives is what you need to follow. That requires team work and planning.

December 14, 2005, 12:30 AM
The best shooting I've ever seen came from a LEO at my local range. I found out he placed every year in the police shooting competitions, and so I don't mean to say that all LEO's are bad shots..

But I have to agree with one of the posters who said that LEO's seem to come in the "Good or Bad" shots, not much in between.

I had a chat with a LEO, and I asked if they shoot 9mm's or 40's and he had to think for about 10 seconds before he answered.. That's scary to me!!!

The average Marine would probably out shoot many or most (non military) THR/TFL'ers with a rifle, especially long distance. Every Marine, no matter what his job is, is first a trained rifleman.

I've seen Marines shoot when a chick in a mini-skirt is in the next booth.. and their scores are pathetic :neener:

Oleg, I was on the 14th bullet, quite pathetic..

That said, About all I could seriously hope to do in this kind of situation is make someone pay more for me than they expected to.

Exactly what I was thinking..

I think they have the advantage of drilled scenerios.. I have always performed well under pressure, but I have noticed that most fall apart.. I expect my shooting skills to really drop when someone is shooting back (good thing thus far, the metal silhouettes have never fired back!).

The replies have been interesting, the mental viewpoint of THR is most interesting.

And I shoot better than 99% of those that I've shot with. So by your criteria I can say that THR shooters must suck.


A lot of my friends on THR and other gun boards, are happy to touch paper.

But to me, it seems that more importantly than shooting skills, the mentality to take a life is just not there for most of THR'ers. This might be the only troubling part to me.

December 14, 2005, 01:23 AM
I suspect like the membership here, a single PD or SO vaires greatly as well. There will always be the couple of people that "just" qualify and see the gun as a tool. Then there will be the gung-ho shooters that spend their spare time at the range. I shoot with a gung-ho-er and a couple regulars.

The gung-ho-er can hit a clay target setting stationary at 100 yards with his Glock 3 out of 4 times.....I cant do that, not even on my best day. He has former Marine sniper training as well, I suspect hes an exception to the rule.

The regulars shoot far better than me but then Im not THAT good of a shot.

December 14, 2005, 04:26 AM
I know most of the LEOs who have come to bowling pin matches I've been at have been easily outshot by most of the civilians. The exceptions have been a couple of air marshalls who have shown up a few times. Now, those guys can shoot!

Now, as others have said, going to war with either the police or the military is an entirely different situation. Squad manuever tactics would give the LEOs and soldiers a significant advantage over a group of "average Joes," no matter how good their marksmanship.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we better shots?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!