Real Estate: Location, Location, Location. Bullets: Placement & Penetration

I've heard stories like that before. You'd be surprised at what law enforcement carry on their person nowadays in terms of ammo. I keep three extended pistol mags in this riding in the front seat attached to my duty bag and seat belt:



It's great, because I un-do the velcro attachment that wraps around the long vertical part that goes around your belt so I can quickly grab it if I need to just strap it on.

As well as an AR mounted in the trunk.

That recent shooting in Ohio between the 2 officers against the guy with an AK reinforces the idea of having more firepower (In terms of ammo at the ready, loaded in mags or even better, loaded in guns) on hand.

By the way, that second article by Mr. Williams is an EXCELLENT read. Thanks for posting it Fred, I'm gonna incorporate those target zones in my next training session.

What a horrible story.

The cop fired 33 rounds and only 14 hit the target.

So his solution is to carry even more ammo.

easyg said:

What a horrible story.

The cop fired 33 rounds and only 14 hit the target.

So his solution is to carry even more ammo.

Click to expand...

As stated in the article, he was a senior weapons instructor and landed nearly a 50% hit rate, that's exceptional compared to most shooting statistics. He engaged the assailant through his windshield and later skipped rounds off the pavement in order to hit his target behind cover and still got almost half his rounds on target.

Sometimes more training isn't the answer. In fact, sometimes there isn't an answer. A perp fighting after 14 impacts of .45 JHP is pretty anomalous in the world of terminal ballistics. Confidence in your skills is only as good as your confidence in your equipment.

You may be an assassin/mercenary with metallic gonads and terminator like targeting... but I still doubt you could do any better than the officer in the story.

Thanks for the info op! Everyone that carries or has intentions of using a gun to protect them whether on the street or at home should read these articles and practice using this info.

he was a senior weapons instructor and landed nearly a 50% hit rate,

Click to expand...

A 50% hit rate and now he carries 145 rounds.
Well golly gee, that means we will only have to worry about 72.5 missed rounds zinging through our neighborhoods!

But time for Gramins, like the stack of bullets in his third magazine, was fast running out....

Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’ ”

Click to expand...

He's loading his third magazine before he thinks to slow down and aim better?!?!

And he's a senior weapons instructor?!?!

^ Looks like we got a armchair quarterback fresh off the peanut gallery. And let me guess, you've been in a shooting where you jacked 14 rounds into a threat without them going down before, huh?

No, but I have seen combat in Iraq.
And I also know that sometimes the smart thing to do is wait for backup.
And sometimes the smart thing to do is NOT stand and shoot it out.

Gramins dropped behind him. Then in a sudden, last-minute move the suspect accelerated sharply and swerved across three lanes of traffic to roar up an exit ramp. “I’ve got one running!” Gramins radioed.

The next thing he knew, bullets were flying. “That was four years ago,” Gramins said. “Yet it could be ten seconds ago.”

With Gramins following close behind, siren blaring and lights flashing, the Bonneville zigzagged through traffic and around corners into a quite pocket of single-family homes a few blocks from the exit.

Click to expand...

The perp is already shooting while driving through a neighborhood and zigzagging through traffic, and Gramins thinks it's wise to continue hot on his tail.
This endangers lots of innocent bystanders.
Gramins should have stopped pursuit right then and there.

Yes, let the bank robber go before someone got killed.

There have been way too many instances where police pursuit has endangered more innocent people than the criminal himself.
There seems to be a mentality in the law enforcement community that they will "get their man" regardless of how many innocent bystanders might get killed.


Easy

Risky said:

Confidence in your skills is only as good as your confidence in your equipment.

Click to expand...

I'm probably reading too much into this but I disagree with this outside of a very narrow context.

The Riposte target shifts the "center of mass" considerably higher, and into an area where hits are more likely to transect important structures.

Click to expand...

LOL, there wasn't any shifting of COM, just a movement of the aim point. I know you put it in quotes, but when the aim point changes, then it really isn't center of mass anymore. The aim point is definitely better for hitting cardiopulmonary structures, no doubt.

I think that a huge part of the problem with most targets, flat or even many that are dressed up or 3-D, is the lack of understanding by the shooters that they are not actually interested in hitting particular spots on the outside of the target, but locations inside of the target.

Awerbuck spoke of instructors canting a target sideways some. I have seen this in classes. Students will still shoot for the target zone of the target (such as on Higginbotham's targets) when that is done, not realizing that the shots aren't going through vital structures intended. I even had instructors tell me that you want to practice shooting at canted targets because the target zone is smaller (perspective view angle), trying to get the students to aim at the same target zone. This is just plain wrong as they are having you aim at a place OUTSIDE of the target, not accounting for the actual location of the heart and lungs.

For a target canted away from you, say 45 degree, your front facing point of aim that would have been between the nipples shift way over to being is the area of the near nipple/pectoral and forward underarm area.

Bad guys just don't always present nice static targets. Here is a neat example. Note the video shows a fatal shooting with one cop also being injured.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/09/3389013/video-depicts-wild-shootout-that.html

Of course as noted with the OP example, rounds were apparently going through the perp's clothing, but not the perp. Why is that? The cop was sure some where hitting the perp, but he was shooting through his windshieild. No doubt some rounds were deflecting or his aim wasn't true for whatever reason.

This is a neat little description of just one of the problems of shooting through the windshield, assuming you get to shoot straight on through the glass (target directly in front) and not at an angle (target off to side).
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot1.htm

Nice discussion here...
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19547

In short, I don't care if you are a master firearms instructor or not. If you have not practiced shooting through your own windshield glass at the particular angle orientation of the perp for the particular distance, hitting the perp in the intended spot is going to be exceptionally difficult. Differences in bullet weights and cartridge loads, windshield compositions, windshield angles, firing angles, etc. will all change the amount of deflection and hence change the trajectory of the bullet.

So of those key real estate factors, location, location, location, in shooting it is just location and penetration, but also trajectory. You gotta have all 3.

As stated in the article, he was a senior weapons instructor and landed nearly a 50% hit rate, that's exceptional compared to most shooting statistics.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, 14 out of 33 isn't nearly 50%. It is nearly 43%, but rounds closer to 42%. That is still a higher hit rate than most police involved shootings, but it isn't close to 50%.

Just because that is good compared to other officer shootings doesn't make it good accuracy. There is genuine reason to be concerned as to where those rounds will go. The classic example here is the Empire State Building Shooting. The perp, Jeff Johnson was shot seven times by police who fired 16 rounds. Now that is a bit closer to 50%, certainly better than the shooting of the OP percentage wise, but was just 43.75%. So that is pretty good, right?

Wrong. NINE bystanders were hit by police gunfire, at least three were struck by direct fire and the rest by ricochet fragments (shrapnel). Fortunately, none died, but all required a trip to the hospital.

That is why there is so much concern about where those other rounds will go. So carrying more ammo does not necessarily instill confidence in the public that they are safer when cops start shooting. Percentages don't tell the whole story, even when they are inflated.

Sometimes you hit the target but not any vitals. Had a bullet hit the heart or CNS or one of the major arteries it would not have lasted long.

conw said:

I'm probably reading too much into this but I disagree with this outside of a very narrow context.

Click to expand...

Very narrow, indeed. My reference was to the particular choice of the officer to carry more rounds and not meant to be 'words of wisdom' by any means.

Regarding the Empire State Building shooting, the suspect never fired at the officers, they were just reacting to his draw and pointed weapon. Furthermore, it was a crowded New York street which is vastly different dynamic than any other place in the country perhaps as far as civilian bystanders go. So comparing these two events is really apples and oranges. Without rounds coming back in their direction and seeing a see of civilians behind the target those officers should have shown much more restraint in firing their shots than they did.

And I apologize for my lousy math, no one every accused me of being a rocket surgeon. All nit picking aside, is your point that the officer should have only gone for a CNS shot since that was the only thing that put the suspect down in this case? Should law enforcement officers train to the point where they can make those kinds of shots with their service pistols in the fury of a gun fight? If they don't qualify to those standards should they be fired?

No, accuracy of hitting the target isn't an apples to oranges comparison. You stated that the hit rate was so great and I cited a situation where the hit rate was even better, but bystanders got hurt. Cops don't always have the luxury of no bystanders for miles in any direction.

The shooting on the street at the Empire State Building isn't particularly unique. There are lots of shootings that involve locations with LOTS of people across the country. So accuracy of shooting is a concern - always.

Don't believe I ever said accuracy wasn't a concern. Empire State wasn't a gun fight. You don't think getting shot at affects accuracy? If it is, then comparing those two is apples and oranges. Would I want cops to be able to achieve 90% or higher accuracy in a gun fight? Yeah I would, no surprise. Do I think that's a realistic measure of appropriate proficiency to serve in law enforcement? Hell no. Do you? What is to you?

Would I want cops to be able to achieve 90% or higher accuracy in a gun fight? Yeah I would, no surprise. Do I think that's a realistic measure of appropriate proficiency to serve in law enforcement? Hell no. Do you? What is to you?

Click to expand...

Even 55% accuracy would be a huge improvement!

But more to the point....we need to teach our police that it's okay to let the bad guy go if it reduces the risk to more innocent lives.

If he had broken off pursuit he would have never been in danger and nor would he have endangered other innocent lives.

Yes, the bank robber would have gotten away, but most bank robbers are eventually caught anyway (dye markers, security cameras, serialized bills, etc...), and up til the point of pursuit no one had been killed yet, and the money is insured anyway.

Chasing the criminal while shots were being fired in traffic was just stupid.

And for this cop to choose to carry more ammo is definitely not the answer.

But more to the point....we need to teach our police that it's okay to let the bad guy go if it reduces the risk to more innocent lives.

Click to expand...

Officers across the country are already taught this. Now you can stop bickering over a moot point.

What we need to do is teach Americans to understand and acknowledge the fact that they don't know the full story, because what they heard was filtered by the media, who also didn't have the full story, because they were spectators at best. Given that, you're doing everyone a disservice by making recommendations based on your assumptions.

Don't believe I ever said accuracy wasn't a concern. Empire State wasn't a gun fight. You don't think getting shot at affects accuracy? If it is, then comparing those two is apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that having somebody shoot at you improves your accuracy? If not, then thanks for helping me make my point. While a gun was pointed at the cops in NYC, they were not shot at, which is correct. They thought they were going to be shot at and took steps to stop the perp. However, nobody was shooting at them and they shot 9 bystanders!

Based on shooting qualification requirements and shooting proficiency on the street, the cops shoot much better during shooting qualifications. So real life situations, being shot at, engaging dangerous perps, etc. does NOT improve accuracy for the general police population.

Would I want cops to be able to achieve 90% or higher accuracy in a gun fight? Yeah I would, no surprise. Do I think that's a realistic measure of appropriate proficiency to serve in law enforcement? Hell no. Do you?

Click to expand...

A realistic measure of proficiency to serve in law enforcement? LOL, Are you suggesting we put people in gun fights to see how well they shoot before they are allowed on the street as officers? Actually, this could be done with simmunition training, but few departments can afford this and even less can afford to make any sort of dynamic situation actual shooting qual exam.

Shooting quals are almost exclusively done via static targets at fixed distances. This is a logistical problem. Not only can few departments afford to have limited training with simmunitions, dynamic targets, shooting on the move, shoot-no shoot simulations, etc., none actually make their qualifications based on these more realistic higher standards.

Cops are trained and cops receive a lot of verbal instruction, but static targets and a good talking-to doesn't always translate into real life applied trigger pull competence as seen in the examples noted in this thread and the result is officers shoot a lot of rounds that do not hit their intended target.

What is to you?

Click to expand...

What is it to me? What an amazingly naïve question. I am a citizen purportedly being protected by cops who often don't shoot well in gun fights, who do appear to employ spray and pray, despite being trained professionals.

I read the various responses, only rolled my eyes once or twice.... then thought about my own experiences on the street (in 22 years I only fired one shot that wasn't in training...).

Nothing we train for can prepare you for what actually happens in real life -when you least expect it... Yes, you can train and equip properly but the human element makes every real life encounter a crap shoot at best and for most that I've known there's a great reluctance to ever "pull that trigger" and as a result the officer or citizen is often the second one to get into the fight (if fight is really necessary).

Working in south Florida during my era (1973 to 1995) it became increasingly apparent that there was a growing possiblity of multiple opponents and being on the wrong end of military grade small arms fire on the the street.... Things have settled down a bit locally since I retired out -but there still have been several prominent officer killings in recent years where the officer was badly outgunned at the time. As a superisor then finally watch commander I decided that there were two choices if one of your officers was under fire. You could wait until the party was over before approaching (I just couldn't accept that - but it's a valid defensive choice on the street) or you could respond and try to bring some countering force to bear while it could make a difference. In that era only special tactics units carried military grade weaponry.. an ordinary officer had a sidearm and a shotgun period. I chose to set up a bandolier (cloth pouch bandolier with rounds completely covered and protected) holding forty addtional shotgun rounds and carried it to every potential shooting situation. it was never needed (thank heavens) but always with my shotgun and ready to go.

I can understand any one that decides to "bring enough ammo" but in modern policing I can also understand that the public will only tolerate it if it's kept to the absolute minimum. That's a tough balancing act and most cops will go years between incidents where weapons will not only be needed but actually used.

Glad I'm out of that line of work.

Reading comprehension, Double Naught, it's your friend...

My point regarding accuracy is that it's worse when rounds are being fired back at you. Not better. This was in response to you finding a 'gun fight' in which the police had as high a hit rate as the original article. I was stating that it wasn't a gun fight, after all and that their percentage would have been much lower had the guy been shooting back.

No, I'm not insinuating that we train officers in gun fights. My point was that if the officer in the story was too bad of a shot to be cop, then what level of performance is it 'good enough'?

Lastly, I did not say 'What is it to you?'... I said, 'What is to you?' as in what is an appropriate level of proficiency to serve in law enforcement?

I guess when you've got a chip on your shoulder you read into things how you want to...

Easyg
I wouldn't equivolate your experience in Iraq to this. If I recall, it takes 250,000 rounds to kill one Iraqi insurgent. I'll take the police hit ratio over the army any day of the week.

If I recall, it takes 250,000 rounds to kill one Iraqi insurgent. I'll take the police hit ratio over the army any day of the week.

Click to expand...

Post your source.

My squad didn't have 250,000 rounds at any given time yet we killed more than a few jihadist.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/


cops don't have airstrikes or artillery either. how many guys in your squad had your back? ever do a patrol solo?

cassandrasdaddy said:

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/


cops don't have airstrikes or artillery either. how many guys in your squad had your back? ever do a patrol solo?

Click to expand...

Those numbers include all forces performing all duties, including training. In my heaviest training year, I probably fired about 5000 rounds in training. I didn't fire a single shot in theater. Despite the misleading headline, it even points this out in the article:

“The Department of Defense’s increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements, dictated by the army’s transformation to a more self-sustaining and lethal force – which was accelerated after the attacks of 11 September, 2001 – and by the deployment of forces to conduct recent US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Click to expand...

So, that number is just plain wrong. However, I can state from my time studying insurgent attacks and the responses of US forces (I was an intel geek) that the number of rounds fired in combat relative to the number of enemy killed or wounded is very high. No where near 250k to 1, but if I had to take a SWAG at it, I would say its around 500 to 1.