GADZOOKS!
Folks are missing the point, and so did the author of the article....
the lost lesson of this incident seems to be the importance of aimed fire. At the end, from a solid prone position where Tim had his hardest “front sight focus” of the fight, was when three rapid shots to the head all struck the intended target, the last one “shutting off the computer” and bringing the death battle to a decisive close on the side of The Good Guy.
So, would 150 rounds of poorly aimed shots from a 9mm =
better than fewer poorly aimed shots from a .45? A miss is a miss folks.
The gunfight ended when one of the two involved men engaged with aimed fire, and scored an incapacitating hit on the other. So, had the officer had his present gun,
the results would have been the same. And if he engaged in another running gunfight, judging from what the article gives as information, he is simply going to miss more, until he applies his sights....OR perhaps there is another reason, barely touched upon in the article???
The officer didn't go to the different handgun because his ammunition choice might be under performing on impact ....
The officer didn't go to the different handgun because of a malfunction possibility...
The officer didn't go to the different handgun because it's much more accurate than the one he used.....
The officer didn't go to the different handgun because the other one is too heavy ....
The officer didn't go to the different handgun because he thinks he'd like less magazines but have the same amount of ammo giving him less mag changes using double stacked mags....
The officer didn't go to the different handgun because he had multiple attackers which he hit and stopped, but started to run low as he finished the final attacker...
He went to the different handgun to increase his ammo capacity....WHY? Because he didn't hit much with the amount of ammunition that he had, and thinks more = better for him..., yet the answer was to actually aim to end the fight....but consider WHEN he was able to apply his sights !
Now AFTER the fight was over, it was
supposed that the officer actually created suppressing fire that prevented the suspect from grabbing the rifle. Applying suppressive fire wasn't really a conscious decision on the part of the officer, but a happy circumstance. Well the suspect's brain is mush so we can't actually
know that was the reason the suspect didn't use the rifle. Just as we can't
know if the officer had applied aimed fire earlier, the fight might have ended sooner with the same, favorable outcome.
So perhaps that's the real lesson
in this particular case? The desire by the officer for enough ammo to give him the ability to apply suppressing fire, allowing him to get to a good cover location, and THEN apply the sights..., if this happens in the future. Remember he may have his choice of
approved on duty weapons, but not the choice of any of the quality handguns/calibers/ammunition out there on the market.... and that IS a big difference that does not bear on a civilian.
Otherwise, why not simply go to a Para Ordinance?
I have had to use my Glock duty weapon twice to defend myself as an LEO, once it was a 9mm, and the other was in .40 S&W, and after both, I lamented that I would've preferred something in .45 ACP, even if it was as antiquated as a plain 1911A1 with multiple magazines.
LD