15 shots and nothing.

[RON in PA]

Vern: Is it possible that in Viet Nam all or most troops fired their weapons because they were issued full auto rifles as opposed to the manually operated or SA weapons of earier wars? Plus they were trained in suppression fire. Also in WW2 troops were trained on traditional rifle ranges and taught precision shooting at targets that they could see so that when they did go overseas they had to "unlearn" their training (learn to shoot in general direction of unseen enemy as opposed to holding fire until enemy was seen).

Don't know about veracity of Marshall, always thought he was a lousy writer and a wind-bag.

 

[aquapong]

What causes the huge police miss rate is the lack of practice by most officers. Not many of leos are into guns and practice any chance they get, but rather the type that sticks it in the holster and it only is drawn when the dept makes him qualify.

I have not been able to shoot much in the past 6 months and I've noticed a big drop in the quality of my handgun shooting. How do you think a leo that shoots 50 rounds once or twice a year is going to shoot when he's confronted with a threat to someone's life and his adrenaline is pumping?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
----------------------------------------
Vern: Is it possible that in Viet Nam all or most troops fired their weapons because they were issued full auto rifles as opposed to the manually operated or SA weapons of earier wars?
-----------------------------------------

When I was an adviser with an ARVN regiment, they were issued the M1 Garand, and showed no reluctance to fire.

Full auto fire does, I think, have a strange effect on troops - mainly, it discourages them from aiming, and seems to convince them that the more noise they make, the more effective they are.

I'll always remember a video clip taken in Hue, of Marines at a wall around the old Imperial Palace -- they would hold their M16s over their heads, and rattle off a full magazine.

I kept hoping for a Gunny to come down the line kicking their butts for that -- but no such luck. My second tour, my brigade was opcon to the 3rd MarDiv, and I used to use that to needle the Marines.

 

[Hardtarget]

I've never been in a shoot-out. Hope it never comes to it. I'll be happy to die having never shoot at anything more dangerous than a piece of paper.
I think I'm with most here in also hoping to survive if ever it comes ...so I practice...probably not enough.
Mark.

 

[Hardtarget]

I've never been in a shoot-out. Hope it never comes to it. I'll be happy to die having never shoot at anything more dangerous than a piece of paper.
I think I'm with most here in also hoping to survive if ever it comes ...so I practice...probably not enough.
Mark.

oops..sorry about the double post...

 

[cxm]

Reminder?

Ok... and what was it supposed to remind those who HAVE had the misfortune to have had to use a weapon in self defense?

I beleive you will find those who have used weapons "in anger" very much understand the essential need for accuracy, accuracy accuracy.

Not original, but "you can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight" (Clint Smith maybe?) but VERY true.

Police should be held to very high standards of marksmanship... and if they can't meet those standards they should consider other lines of work that don't require such skills.

Chuck

OK, let me spell it out. That comment was intended to remind all who post that unless you were in that situation, you have no idea how you would react or what the outcome would be. Every time I read a critique of a shooting from some keyboard quarter back who has never been between the proverbial "rock and a hard spot"...oh never mind.

 

[cxm]

OK Corral?

Uh Shootist.....

Lets see...75% misses out of 30 shots... or 25% hits......

So they got 7.5 hits?

V/r

Chuck

 

[Chuck Jennings]

The way I heard it, 9 guys, standing 10 FEET (not yards) away from each other discharged 30 shots in 30 secs.....and 75% of them were misses.

Very similar to the previously quoted FBI data, and they had to deal with big clouds from Black Powder!

 

[seeker_two]

When I read stories like these, I hold the administrators responsible for the lack of training & practice they provide their officers. Instead, they spend all the training money on the latest less-than-lethal gizmos,public relations ploys to satisfy politicians representing their "constituency" (many of which are in jail or prison), and the outrageous salaries and perks for the chiefs, assistant chiefs, and their cronies.

The line officers do the best that they can in that situation. The real problems lie up top...

 

[Werewolf]

Comparing a police shootout with firefights conducted by soldiers in combat is an apples and oranges type thing.

For LEO's combat is a rarity - for most LEO' it never happens in their entire carrer.

For soldiers serving in an actual combat zone firefights can be an every day thing. Your first firefight is an unnerving highly stressful experience softened by the presence of many friendly troops nearby. By your 10th firefight you're still just as afraid but you've learned to cope with the fear and concentration on the job at hand becomes second nature. One's ability to be effective increases with experience and exposure to danger (up to a point - I've read that 200 days of combat seems to be the max the average soldier can sustain before what used to be called combat fatigue begins to take it's toll).

LEO's never get the opportunity for combat to become 2nd nature which is why IMO there is a very high rate of misses by LEO's.

If there was a way to train LEO's in a way that truly simulated the high stress levels of combat I believe that their hit rate would improve.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
-----------------------------------------
For soldiers serving in an actual combat zone firefights can be an every day thing. Your first firefight is an unnerving highly stressful experience softened by the presence of many friendly troops nearby.
------------------------------------------

Behavior in combat is a complex thing. My specialty is collective training (training units to function as units) and there is a distinct difference in combat between well-trained UNITS and poorly-trained UNITS (even if each individual solider may be well-trained as an INDIVIDUAL.)

For one thing, units disintegrate at first contact -- it is the re-building of the unit, re-establishing contact between men, and re-forming the chain of command, and using all available assets that distinguishes the well-trained unit from the poorly-trained unit.

That said, there are simulations that allow both police and military units to train under stresses and conditions very similar to combat. (Remember, ALL training is simulation -- from a shooting range to a force-on-force exercise.)

 

[Werewolf]

Vern,
I think I did a poor job of making my point vis a vie combat effectiveness (in this case meaning hit rate per shot fired) of the individual. Some folks tried to compare the efficiency of the individual combat soldier to the efficiency of an individual LEO. I don't believe that is a fair comparison (and I'm talking individual effectiveness not unit - do LEO's even fight as units in most actions where a shot is actually fired?).

The individual combat soldier does not become terribly effective until after a number of fights no matter how well he is trained. One's first combat experience is unnerving (and that is an understatement IMO). Some handle it better than others but the first fire fight one finds one's self in is a knock down drag out bitch at best. When the bullets start flying the stress is immense. In the civil war it was called seeing the elephant. Today the experience is often referred to as the blooding of the troops. One learns to deal with the stress of combat and that usually ends with an effective combat soldier.

I do not denigrate nor do I believe that the training you provide is unnecessary but training is still training. No one is supposed to die and those undergoing training know that. Training under the most stressful situations possible is critical to preparing LEO's and soldiers for combat. But no matter how real the simulation, no matter how much stress is applied it will never equal that of being thrown into a situation where one knows that there is a very, very real possibility of being killed. It is the possiblilty of being killed that creates tunnel vision, that shuts down all body systems not necessary to assure survival and IMO causes the high miss rate for first timers.

Learning to deal with the stresses of combat only comes with being in combat. LEO's usually never have to learn to deal with the stresses of being thrown into a life threatening situation (read being shot at). Not learning that is in my opinion what results in the high miss rate of LEO's when they are thrown into a real life and death situation (read being shot at). For that reason I think a high miss rate is just a fact of life for LEO's and all the guys carrying CCW out there that have never been shot at. That doesn't make them less skilled, less brave or any other less someone might imagine - it just makes 'em human. A high miss rate is to be expected.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
------------------------------------
Learning to deal with the stresses of combat only comes with being in combat. LEO's usually never have to learn to deal with the stresses of being thrown into a life threatening situation (read being shot at).
------------------------------------

I'm not so sure -- there are plenty of instances of well-trained units performing superbly the first time in combat, and veteran units failing.

It IS possible to negatively train people and units -- that is, train then in techniques that lead to failure, and this can come about even through combat experiences. I found it very hard to get combat veterans to use aimed fire, for example, when I took over a company -- even after exercises that showed how well systematic aimed fire worked.

Even a firefight or two wasn't enough to convince some people.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that tactically-sound training can dramatically increase combat effectiveness.

Having said that, let me point out that the US Army has some of the most sophisticated training ever seen -- the elaborate systems at the National Traninng Center (Fort Irwin, CA) and other places have to be seen to be believed.

On the other hand, I have seen and participated in police training exercises that actually trained the troops to BE stressed, rather that DEAL WITH stress -- so that graduates had a tendency to be VERY high strung when they thought something was about to pop.

 

[clange]

As an aside, how many of us train to hit a moving, running, dodging target with a pistol?

Only thing i've done like that is shooting empty 20oz soda bottles. Things fly all over the place. Trying to shoot right when they land is pretty good. May not be much but its gotta be better than shooting at a black cirlce that never moves.

 

[munk]

I used to shoot jackrabbits, but they were always unarmed.




munk