F.B.I.--Up Close and Personal

[Averageman]

I'm wondering how much money this "study" cost tax payers?
We've seen this from our own sources for years, why did it take the FBI this long to connect the dots.
I read this article and handed it off to another combat vet. and military marksmansip instructor, he laughed and threw it away.
I think the most accurate summary of that article was his, "Woke up to the smell of coffee, Huh?"

 

[Jenrick]

Matthew Temkin: I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Being able to hit a target at close range is a simple marksmanship task.

At close range, with a reasonable sized target (8" COM circle or similar) the marksmanship ability required to strike the target is not high. Disagree? I'm not referring to all the other factors that go into CQB gunfighting, just the actual act of putting rounds on a paper target at close range on a flat range. I'm assuming we're in agreement on that statement with that clarification.

Nope--not when someone is shooting back at you at very close range. ( 0-10 feet)
That is when the principles of long range marksmanship--stance, sight picture/alignment, breath control, trigger squeeze and follow thru--fly out the window.

Regardless of what else is going on in your environment, we have to hold the gun, aim the gun, action the gun, and be prepared to repeat the action, correct? What "fundamentals" do you propose are needed for CQB gun-fighting then?

-Jenrick

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Upon further reflection I must admit that you may be correct in this matter.

 

[TRX]

> A Justice Department analysis of 63 killings of local
> police in 2011 found that 73% were ambush or
> execution-style assaults.

At a quick glance, fbi.gov seems to support this.

Looking at the 2010 figures, 56 police officers were killed in 2010. 55 were killed with firearms. 7 of those were killed with their own guns.

Back 30 years ago we were told that half of all police killed on duty were killed with their own guns. General commentary elsewhere suggests some PDs are training on "weapon retention", which seems like a good idea of the 50% figure was anything close to true.

Interestingly, fbi.gov's breakdown shows that off the 55 officers who died by shooting, 38 of them were wearing body armor. Of the 38, 32 were shot in the head, neck, or "upper torso."

The page only says which shots killed them, not how many times they were shot altogether.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/officers-feloniously-killed

2011's breakdown is more detailed. Only 3 of 72 were killed with their own weapon. 21 were killed within 5 feet of their attackers. 46 were wearing armor. 44 were shot in the head, neck, or "upper torso."

Most of those killed were on vehicle patrol, which is reasonable, since they're the ones who respond first to trouble situations. I was surprised at how many non-patrol officers were killed.

 

[possum]

I am glad to see that they are evolving even if it is a little late in the game. Glad to see that they are not staying too dogmatic in their doctrine. I do the "old" FBI qualification every once in a while to maintain my "distance" shooting. Though shooting 10-25 and especially 15-25 in a civilian context is not necessarily aligned with the majority of defensive counters that take place, it is good to test you marksmanship. The "old" qualification tests marksmanship under time constraints (which are very easy to meet) However it does call for shooting from prone and behind cover at distance etc. Anyone that shoots any at all should be able to get an "instructor" level passing score. I personally use the qualification as a template but reduce the acceptable target size area and the amount of time to do each stage of the drill to make it more challenging.