That's a blast from the past, maybe he's back.
How Many Rounds to Carry
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
That's a blast from the past, maybe he's back.
No, but those who are most likely did not come by their expertise from participation in gunfights.
Same thing applies to fighter pilots.
Too many variables to provide a meaningful basis for learning.
ChanceMcCall
Member
Nothing happens in a vacuum these days. There has to be media reports on these gunfights. They are probably wrong but they would be reported. There will also be court documents from the cases that evolved from these police actions.
entropy
Member
Not necessarily. I trained with some fellows who hadn't been in combat yet, (they got some shortly after, in a place called Panama) and they were definitely expert.
Officers'Wife
Member
What's the old saying?
The fool never learns from a mistake
The smart person learns from their mistakes
The wise person learns from other's mistakes.
That said, I've been given advice from men that have been in combat. The only thing they all agree on is you don't know how you are going to react, your weapon will function or the enemy will react until the fight is over.
Three agreed with the following;
Don't err- if you must err, err on the side of violence.
The fool never learns from a mistake
The smart person learns from their mistakes
The wise person learns from other's mistakes.
That said, I've been given advice from men that have been in combat. The only thing they all agree on is you don't know how you are going to react, your weapon will function or the enemy will react until the fight is over.
Three agreed with the following;
Don't err- if you must err, err on the side of violence.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
I'm a numbers guy myself, and don't mind looking at graphs and data from prior engagements... we do that at my agency regarding the gun fights we've had (and we've had a... ummm... fair number). Anyway, the issue with graphs is that they don't always tell you enough about the underlying circumstances. When we speak of the hit ratio at the range vs hit ratio on the street, who are we looking at? Are we looking at a combat veteran or street hardened big city police officer who might perform well under life and death pressure, or are we looking at a recreational shooter who never really got their mind around the idea that they might have to fight with their gun? When we examine the hit ratio of the range shooter, what are we considering of their experience on the range? Is a "100%" range shooter someone who shoots bullseye competitions and slow fires from a fixed position? Or, is the 100% shooter on the range a person who has performed well in IPSC/IDPA or other practical shooting disciplines? Maybe we're only talking of the recreational shooter who stands at the 7-yard line and shoots a full-sized silhouette target from a fixed position, never drawing from a holster or concealment.
Even when I look at my agency's statistics I feel like we're missing a big part of the story. Some of our guys are competitive on a national level with pistol shooting, while others barely manage to pass a relatively easy qualification course with their pistols each quarter. These are all 'trained professionals', but their real skills and abilities cover a spectrum from extremely talented to marginally safe.
Still, the real world reality I've seen in our statistics suggests the following:
1) Your fight will most likely occur somewhere between contact distance and 5 yards.
2) Your fight will most likely NOT require more than one magazine from any typical carry gun.
3) You will likely place somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of your rounds on target.
But, this of course is just an issue of history. You can't predict the stock market's future based solely on its past, nor can you predict what tomorrow's gun fight will look like based on yesterday's. And, as history has already shown us nationally, sometimes the gun fights that we encounter in this world don't fit neatly into the mold of "normal".
So, what's the answer? I think we all need to decide for ourselves. Here's what I carry:
At work:
52 rounds of pistol ammo on my person. Before I promoted I also carried a backup gun, and that added another 11 rounds to the mix, for 63 total pistol rounds.
200 rounds of 5.56 ammo in 7 magazines for the rifle. While the likelihood of me ever going through one rifle mag at work is slim, the reality is that should I encounter that situation, it's a real bad situation where a LOT of ammo could be needed. That's why I keep a lot of rifle ammo on hand.
So, when I was still a street cop I was carrying 263 rounds of ammo on me at all times.
CCW life:
I carry a Glock 26 with one magazine in it and one in the pipe (11 rounds), or I carry a Glock 17 with one magazine in it and one in the pipe (for 18 rounds).
My truck usually has a rifle in it with 1-3 magazines.
Even when I look at my agency's statistics I feel like we're missing a big part of the story. Some of our guys are competitive on a national level with pistol shooting, while others barely manage to pass a relatively easy qualification course with their pistols each quarter. These are all 'trained professionals', but their real skills and abilities cover a spectrum from extremely talented to marginally safe.
Still, the real world reality I've seen in our statistics suggests the following:
1) Your fight will most likely occur somewhere between contact distance and 5 yards.
2) Your fight will most likely NOT require more than one magazine from any typical carry gun.
3) You will likely place somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of your rounds on target.
But, this of course is just an issue of history. You can't predict the stock market's future based solely on its past, nor can you predict what tomorrow's gun fight will look like based on yesterday's. And, as history has already shown us nationally, sometimes the gun fights that we encounter in this world don't fit neatly into the mold of "normal".
So, what's the answer? I think we all need to decide for ourselves. Here's what I carry:
At work:
52 rounds of pistol ammo on my person. Before I promoted I also carried a backup gun, and that added another 11 rounds to the mix, for 63 total pistol rounds.
200 rounds of 5.56 ammo in 7 magazines for the rifle. While the likelihood of me ever going through one rifle mag at work is slim, the reality is that should I encounter that situation, it's a real bad situation where a LOT of ammo could be needed. That's why I keep a lot of rifle ammo on hand.
So, when I was still a street cop I was carrying 263 rounds of ammo on me at all times.
CCW life:
I carry a Glock 26 with one magazine in it and one in the pipe (11 rounds), or I carry a Glock 17 with one magazine in it and one in the pipe (for 18 rounds).
My truck usually has a rifle in it with 1-3 magazines.
I can't speak for all graphs, but these graphs don't tell anything about the underlying circumstances, nor are they intended to.
Pick whatever hit ratio you like and see how it affects the numbers. The graphs don't imply anything about what hit ratios are realistic, they simply provide some basic insight about how hit rate changes the likely outcome.
Neither. The graphs are results of some probability calculations. There's nothing in the graphs that says anything at all about a shooter or the type of shooter.
The graphs aren't about "examining hit rates" nor do they provide any data from prior engagements, they are about helping to provide a picture of the probabilities given some assumptions.
Last edited:
Elkins45
Member
Would you consider Massad Ayoob an expert? He’s never been in a gunfight, but I recognize him as an expert in the field due to his extensive research. Certainly moreso than taking advice from some random guy who scored a lucky shot in a 7-11 parking lot somewhere.
Vern Humphrey
Member
You've got it backward. Being in a gunfight doesn't make someone an expert. But never being in a gunfight means there is an upper limit to the expertise a man can claim, no matter how much study he has put into the subject.
I'm not at all sure about that.
Take someone who has participated in numerous different, realistic FoF simulations and put him in a gunfight. I seriously doubt that the experience gained in that real encounter will add to his level of expertise.
It is not a matter of how much expertise someone can "claim".
Realize that none of the combat pilots in our armed services today have ever been in actual air to air combat. Yet there are some real experts among the men and women who fly today.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Once again, that's backwards.
And you're operating on the assumption that realistic FoF simulations ARE realistic. From personal experience, I will tell you that you cannot simulate a life-or-death, kill-or-be-killed situation. I've been in combat, been wounded, and have worked with simulations many years.
And when they've been blooded and have a few kills to their credit, they'll be even better.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
The realism of the simulation may not be perfect. But numerous varied simulations have to be far more effective than a few real encounters.
The reason is simple: there are far too many variables for a very limited experience data sample to address, but many, many different simulations can be run to address as many variables and combinations thereof as can be contmplated.
Same as in air to air combat, and in air emergency management. No full lifetime of airline experience will equip a pilot for two-engine-out, hydraulic failure, severe wind sheer, loss of a control surface, and rapid inversion roll on approach in the mountains incidence, But the pilot mist be able to handle any of them. They gain that ability via extensive simulation.
Perhaps in terms of self confidence, but unless they just happened to come upon somehting not addressed in simulation, not in terms of skillset or ability.
Vern Humphrey
Member
No one has ever been able to prove that statistically. I know -- I'm one of the guys who tried it.
You are correct that the great advantage to simulation is the ability to do things in the simulator that you can't do safely in real life (a classic example is autorotation in a helicopter.)
But there is always the issue of "transferability" as we call it -- Do skills gained in the simulator transfer into real life, and if so, how much? Conversely, do recognized masters do better in the simulator than less skilled people? It's a statistical nightmare.
There you have it -- in life-or-death situations in the real world, you ALWAYS come upon something not addressed in simulation -- because you don't die in the simulator.
Unless things go poorly, one does not die in a real world situation.
Many things encountered in the real world are addressed by what has been practiced in simulation, whether in use of force situations, air combat, flight emergency management, or power plant emergency management, or any of several other things. But few of them can be learned in the limited experience of the real world.
entropy
Member
The Gulf of Sidra vets and the few Gulf War I vets that actually encountered aircraft probably still are on active duty, there have been numerous US air combat incidents since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ibyan_Gulf_of_Sidra_territorial_water_dispute
Old Dog
Member
Eh. I know, and have known, plenty of guys who've never been in gunfights that I'd rather have with me in a gunfight, than many guys I've known who've been in gunfights who I want nothing to do with.
Being in a gunfight does not magically bestow credibility upon a man nor make him an "expert" in the subject of gunfighting. If one has survived a gunfight, he's not necessarily an "expert gunfighter," he's simply a gunfight survivor. I know a number of gunfight survivors who are experts at nothing, who were just lucky once or perhaps a few times. Pretty sure some of us here have attended memorial services or funerals for some we did consider experts.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Those things are all true. The value of simulation is you can do things in simulation you cannot do in the real world. But it is a mistake to think simulation is real -- and sometimes it is radically different from reality.
Vern Humphrey
Member
But how is that relevant to the question?
What I WANT may be totally wrong, after all!
That's one thing. The other is that one can experience all kinds of different scenarios, as many times as one desires. A lifetime of real experience does not do that.
Well, nearly half a year ago Kleanbore presented some chart from JohnK Sa that would let someone deterministically know how many rounds they needed to carry for the kind of firefight they were anticipating based on some additional parameters.
The charts are simply a graph of an outcome based on certain probabilities and unless they were entered into the computer wrong (which does not appear to be the case) they are what they are.
The problem with the charts, however, is that they are subject to misuse by people who mistakenly think their hit probability against a stationary piece of paper at a known distance at a range is any way representative of how they will perform under stress against a target that is moving and shooting back from an unknown distance. And rather than having resolved that issue, here we are nearly six months still arguing over whether or not we need to first be in combat to have a basis for entering the charts.
How about this? Take your best "hit rate" (however you want to define it - we'll know after your next firefight if your definition was any good or not) and multiply it by 65% (i.e. 0.65) and then enter the chart for your particular scenario. Carry that many rounds. If the number is too great to realistically carry, then make sure you don't get into a gunfight.
ChanceMcCall
Member
I may have been partially responsible for the disagreement this thread has moved toward. When I made some rather strong but incomplete statements, people immediately responded with questions of credulity. I believe I cleared that up with a moderator because it turned out we knew people in common. I also am not, nor interested in, being anyone's guru or instructor. With all of that stated, here goes:
I think I am in agreement with Mr. Humphrey on the validity of instructors having real gun fight experience, although I believe his reasons are based on military experience and mine were based on both military and law enforcement experience. Here is what I think he knows: Most of the people that go through whatever the military considers sufficient training to be an infantryman, when in actual combat, rarely fire their weapons at an individual enemy combatant, and even fewer actually kill an enemy combatant deliberately. Part of the reason for that, but not the whole of reasons, is uncontrollable fear. It is one thing to shoot at paper, it is another to deliberately shoot at a live human being with the intent to kill. Most people's ethics and religious beliefs create an impediment to doing so. Now add to that problem the other level of fear of being killed oneself created by guns, explosions, etc also happening at the same time.
Many who have been in actual combat, have seen other soldiers discharging their weapons almost randomly in the direction of the enemy, just as many of the enemy often does the same. Those same people have seen soldiers who never even fire their weapon at anything. There are several books on attempts to gather numbers and quantify this effect. I have no idea how accurate those numbers are, because I understand many of the potential variables that could affect those numbers. Still even if those numbers were cut to 25% of what was presented, they are still staggering. What those studies do for me is to reinforce that what I have personally seen on a small scale has validity on a larger scale.
The truth, in relation to military engagements, is that for whatever reason, the vast majority of supposedly trained soldiers actually fail in their mission to kill as many of the enemy as possible. My personal experiences lead me to believe that the training itself, while covering the basics, fails to go far enough. Here is an example of what I am trying to get at:
When my son was six years old, I enrolled him in the leading Karate dojo. He learned his katas, did his exercises, won matches, and moved up through the belts. Yet the first time he got into a serious fight (against older and multiple boys) six years later, he ended up in trouble. Why? Because he actually got hit full force and ended up with a broken nose and a couple of cracked ribs during the fight so he quit fighting and surrendered. (Not that that did him any good as most of the injuries occurred while he lay on the ground.) When he was able, I took him out of the dojo where they had sparred for years with headgear and other padding, and enrolled him in Brazilian jui-jitsu. In that facility they trained for pain and in that facility he learned what he needed to learn about real world fighting. The last fight he was in, real injuries did not stop him from controlling his circumstances.
Years ago when I trained a specialized group of law enforcement personnel, we made people run full tilt to their engagement areas, with strings of firecrackers going off all around them. Without warning and while they were firing, they would get shot in the back with BB guns and hit with baseballs. I realize many instructors would be appalled by these techniques, but it taught and ingrained habits and thinking more Germain to real world gunfights. I did not invent this, because I went through the same thing when I went through advanced firearms training.
This, I believe is Mr. Humphrey's, and my, point. Instructors who have been through these situations have experience that cannot be duplicated or felt easily in any other way. Speaking for myself, that does not mean that simulators should not be used, or that range training is of no value. Far from it. I love simulators and would recommend them to anyone trying to get better with guns. However, simulators are not any better than the people who program them or set them up.
Here is an example: The State of Illinois Dept. of Conservation has a deer hunting simulator they make available to the public on a regular basis. Points are awarded both on time and accuracy of the laser "shotguns" used. Here is the problem: The programming does not take into account spine shots because most shooters are not skilled enough to accomplish them on a regular basis. Yet, a properly placed spine shot is the perfect shot. The animal goes down instantly and no meat is wasted. Thus the prejudices, or lack of knowledge, of whoever is programing this simulator is advancing incorrect training by ignoring what some shooters might be able to accomplish.
Shooting at something that isn't shooting back isn't the same thing as a gun fight, so the deer simulator problem isn't as important as a gun fight simulator. But, the shooting simulations are obviously more important, just as their earlier counterparts also needed to be laid out correctly. Believe me, I learned considerable going through Hogan's Alley because it was laid out by people that had been in actual gunfights. However, I learned even more about close quarters gunfights from guys that had to correct technics and techniques I learned earlier. It is important to note that without the earlier training, it would have taken much longer to absorb what this more specialized training involved.
This is not about using individuals as trainers on a pedestal because they have been in one gunfight at a 7-11 and lived to talk about it. This is not about insisting that all trainers have to have been bloodied on multiple occasions to be qualified as instructors. It is about understanding that people who have been multiple gun fights and lived through them better understand what it takes to survive and win.
Someone asked if, using that criteria, Massad Ayoob should not be considered as an instructor. That question was ridiculous. First of all, he had the advantage of actually knowing and associating with people who had been in numerous serious social situations. I remember that when he was "new" he was a sponge when it came to picking up information which is a very good thing. He is one of the best firearms trainers around today. I also know that he has added his own brand of knowledge regarding court room tactics after a shooting. He has helped many, many people win their court room battles that, in a perfect world, should never have happened. I can think of no one I would rather have as part of a shooting defense team than him.
The reality is that very few people outside of specialized federal agents and their clandestine cousins will actually have the advantage of being trained by real life gunfighters outside of SOG in the military. And, the military training is based on multiple good guys facing multiple bad guys with some very specialized weapons, which makes it of lesser value to those civilians who just want to survive an armed encounter.
As far as I know, this forum is mostly for civilians who own and like guns and some of whom may choose to carry a firearm for self protection. It seems to me, in my opinion, that advice offered here on the subject of concealed carry and self defense should keep that in mind. FBI agents normally travel in groups of two or more, and the US Marshals even more. While the DEA does have some agents who work undercover and need specialized training similar to what is idea for an armed civilian, again most of their agents work in larger groups. Local, country, and state LEOs may often be by themselves, but they are normally in a uniform with full radio contact to assistance.
Range training, simulators, etc all are valuable, but they are not the whole answer, especially if those in charge of them do not have the real world experience to guide that training, or, haven't at least learned from people who have. (At least one of the Moderators here had the good fortune to train with someone who had this real world experience.) This is what I was originally intending to say, and I suspect what Mr. Humphrey believes, but I will let him speak for himself from here on in.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Thank you for that.
But I might point out much of what we "know" about behavior in combat is based on SLA Marshall's writing. And we now know Marshall made the whole thing up.
For example, right after WWII he claimed to have interviewed in depth 400 infantry companies right after they were in heavy combat. When his book was published, he claimed 600 companies. Where'd the extra 200 come from?
Another point is that in combat you almost never see the enemy -- so even for highly trained troops, a lot of shooting is done at where you THINK the enemy is.
But I might point out much of what we "know" about behavior in combat is based on SLA Marshall's writing. And we now know Marshall made the whole thing up.
For example, right after WWII he claimed to have interviewed in depth 400 infantry companies right after they were in heavy combat. When his book was published, he claimed 600 companies. Where'd the extra 200 come from?
Another point is that in combat you almost never see the enemy -- so even for highly trained troops, a lot of shooting is done at where you THINK the enemy is.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked