informative read concerning CQB shooting stats/data

Status
Not open for further replies.
Same here...when you think about it, chances are extremely good that a defensive firearm is going to be used in a close range, 2-3 shot scenario like those discussed, where there will be no careful aligning of sights....makes me realise all the bullseye-style careful aiming at paper from 7 yards I've been doing is not in any way preparing me for that scenario. And make me wonder if night sights, while cool, are really much more than gimmicky in the vast majority of circumstances.
 
A night sight lets you index the location and position of the gun if it's unholstered on a table or if you drop it in low light. Even if you don't consciously use the sights defensively, it seems like it can't hurt to have one.
 
In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers
reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

1992 hit percentages
Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

I'm not really seeing the resounding support for point shooting in this data.
 
If I am not mistaken, that covers the "old" SOP-9 study with data through the early '90s. I believe the newer 1990-2000 data may be found here:

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

There is a lot of good info in there. The average number of rounds fired by police per confrontation (not per officer) was 10.3. Some summaries of SOP-9 sometimes present a lower number by lumping in negligent discharges and suicides (usually single-shot incidents, which bring the average down) or considering only the number of rounds fired per officer rather than the total required to stop the threat. However, total rounds to stop is probably the more relevant statistic for CCW holders and homeowners, in my opinion, because the latter will generally be on their own.
 
"So does this study hint to an advantage of a laser sight?"

That is a very interesting question, with muchos dollars (manufacturer's and retailers), pride (instructors either pro or con) and interest all wrapped together.

There is a great deal of conjecture on both sides (pro/con) on this issue and extremely limited to nonexistant hard data, at least that I have been able to find.

As someone who does not have the best eyes and knowing that my eyes are going to get worse I have a great deal of interest in the subject.

Anyone who has any real world data please speak up.

NukemJim
 
Intereting data on hit rate even at close distances/caliber/not using sights

With no disrespect to the officers, whether or not the officers remembered using their sights likely isn't good data on whether or not they actually used their sights or indexed off of the frame or barrel versus actual point shooting.

Whether or not you recall using your sights during the goings-on of a high stress event such as this can be difficult to accurately recall, especially for such a subtle behavior. Year's ago, Ken Hackathorn was speaking on the North Hollywood bank robbery where the SWAT officers rolled up on one of the robbers, bailed out, and took positions behind their squad car to fire. One of the officers rolls out behind the car to fire, can't rolls back and cleared a malfunction and rolled out again to rejoin the fight. He had no recollection of the malfunction.

This officer doesn't remember falling down (warning, NSFW) (watch video and see page 3 for comment that he doesn't recall falling)
http://www.news-leader.com/article/...7/Greene-County-sheriff-deputy-fatal-shooting

There is so much stress-induced information exclusion going on that NOT recalling some event isn't a surprise.

Also see...
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/stressreactions.pdf
 
wow

10 more feet of distance, and their hits (not just good hits, any hits) went down by over half? When you know that most hits are poor hits, that 11% looks really bad, man.
 
Having 22 years in the Army Reserves, I got my share of after action reviews within minutes of a tactical exercise.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks don't want to discuss a simple failing and will not "recollect" it, even when there are ample witnesses. As much as possible the reviews were conducted in an atmosphere to reveal issues that we could correct and reduce casualties. Nonetheless, all too often some engaged in monkey dancing to preserve their status and reputation in the group - they felt it was more important to do that than discover tactical errors and weaknesses.

I would speculate that is the #1 issue most trainers have in classes. The student refuses to come into the situation with an open mind knowing that there will be things to unlearn or change.

Therefore, when reading stats collected about encounters gathered after the event and relying on human memory for data, you can get a trend, but you won't get honest answers. The human male is all too conditioned in his teen years to push his ego ahead of common sense and preserve his social standing first.
 
The great majority of "men" believe that without the "mirror" of other people's reflecting back at them, they will cease to exist. This is because they not only have no sense of self, but deep down, they know that they have no ability to survive on their own, and that, because they have defaulted on the necessary thinking, they don't deserve to live. Take away their social support, they will die.
 
The older & newer SOP reports can make for interesting reading (probably especially to non-LE folks who haven't come across much similar info), as can the FBI's annual reports on LE feloniously killed.

Then, there's the info collated and presented in the FBI sponsored LEOKA class (Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted), but that's LE-Only for attendance.

There are always going to be disclaimers and warnings against taking the statistics too literally, of course, or out of context, and rightfully so.

While it's harder to find, working LE (and retired-but-active members of some training organizations) can also find seminars & conferences where cops who have been involved in shootings are presented as guest speakers. Interestingly enough, in the last conference I attended where some cops were speakers, all of them included how important it had been for them to either start out using aimed fire, or switch to making aimed fire, in order to stop their attackers during their encounters. All of them had been themselves seriously injured during the shootings, too.

Lasers? Still more of a private gun owner market, it seems. You can find large agencies prohibit lasers for even off-duty weapons.

On the other hand, however, you can also find (where permitted) aging/retired guys who have discovered the merits of lasers for aging eyes that can't see diminutive sights with tri-focals as distance increases from close range threat targets.

Having spent some years watching occasional shooters bring laser-equipped handguns through various ranges, it's not uncommon to see the significant number of laser users take longer to shoot their identified threat targets ... but that's probably a training issue for many folks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top