One-shot Stops

[Blackhawk 6]

A link to some good information from the FBI concerning one-shot stops and training.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

This is an excerpt regarding firearms training:

Well-rounded firearms training programs should include instruction and courses of fire emphasizing fundamentals of marksmanship and position shooting. However, from a survival aspect, additional training points require consideration. Examples include alternate courses of fire that possess phases unfamiliar to the officer, as well as a preset number of fired rounds, such as routinely employed in qualification courses and largely gathered for the purpose of establishing a “standard†of proficiency if needed in litigation. Alternate courses of fire (e.g., specialized combat courses), by design, should reinforce desirable behaviors and thought processes. Combat courses should necessitate officers shooting until they incapacitate the threat (target) or the threat ceases. This can help prevent, rather than encourage, psychological reinforcement and presumption that the threat will desist after firing a given number of rounds. If lethal force is warranted and appropriate under the circumstances, the officer must shoot until the threat ceases. Use of cardboard or paper targets, although economical, inherently forces personnel to perceive bullet impacts on a single plane of reference with out dimension—much different from a human simulation with dimension and placement of organs/skeletal structure of a body. An occasional mix of training on a three-dimensional target, such as clothed mannequins, preformed targets, and other devices limited only by imagination, may better demonstrate and encourage personnel to exercise critical-thinking skills for delivering optimal shot placement and effective ness. An example is a shooting scenario requiring accurate shot placement on a three-dimensional target at an adverse angle substantially different from the usual 90-degree target placement in many training scenarios due to range design, safety, and economy of training resource time.

Economical, three-dimensional reaction targets made of cardboard to resemble a torso are available. These targets, suspended by heavy string or cord to one or two inflated balloons inside the body of the device, can become lifelike by placing old clothing, such as a shirt or jacket, on the exterior. When one or both of the bal loons are struck by a bullet, the balloon pops and the target drops from its suspended position. Such an exercise emphasizes that the officer must aim at a distinct spot on the torso to achieve incapacitation, rather than merely shooting at the entire target.

New technology incorporated into training simulators portraying lifelike, real-time scenarios permits course designers to define the zones of immediate or quick incapacitation similar to the relative area on a human body. Additionally, designers can denote zones of incapacitation based on the angle and distance of the adversary from the officer, as well as scenarios

 

[B36]

Shoot until

If the use of deadly force is justified, all of the trainers I know state that you shoot until the threat is no longer a threat, or as one trainer has stated 'shoot them to the ground'. Or as another has stated, shoot until they are no longer in your sight picture, or until you run out of ammo, then draw you second gun.

Leave the game stuff on the game field. No place for it on the street. It can get you dead.

 

[Kamicosmos]

I always like the advice of 'When in doubt, empty the magazine.'

Although, in the civil suit, I'm sure they'd be all about the excessive force:
"Was it really neccessary to shoot the poor opressed victim 12 times? Wouldn't once have been enough?"


And, I just love that article. I mean....we've all heard and/or seen things like a guy shot in the butt with a .22lr dies instantly, while another with a .45 in the head drives to the hospital and is basically just fine.

Terminal Ballistics aren't quite so concrete and black and white as these type of people want everyone to think....

 

[m60a3]

thats one good reason to take a good defensive pistol course. When they ask you why you shot him twelve times you say because my instructor taught me too.

 

[SunBear]

These are old but true maxims: As you train, so will you fight. Training is everything and everything is training.
Remember the Newhall shootout where the California LEO was killed in the middle of a firefight while picking up his brass. Happened many years ago and changed the way LEOs trained. See signature.

 

[The Rabbi]

Some of the case law I have seen would suggest that "emptying the magazine", "shooting to the ground" and "shooting til you run out of ammo" will get you seriously in trouble. You shoot until you neutralize the threat, whether thats one shot or a dozen. FWIW, it seems that 1 shot to the stomach serves to neutralize fairly well.

 

[B36]

Shots fired

How many shots can you fire in one second Rabbi??

How long does it take for a human to deanimate?

People quit because they have had their channel changed, and really doubt a shot to the gut is going to slow down anyone who is determined, on drugs, goal oriented, etc.

Think we need to worry about court, if we are still alive.

Last, Blackhawk, title was 'One-Shot Drops'.

 

[The Rabbi]

really doubt a shot to the gut is going to slow down anyone who is determined, on drugs, goal oriented, etc.

I drew the conclusion from Fairbairn's book where he writes as much, a shot to the stomach almost always caused the bad guy to stop and clutch his gut. It is supposed to be a very painful wound. Given his experience I would have to give it some credibility.

 

[Old NFO]

One Shot Stops

Ah Rabbi, that was before the widespread drug use- What about Moro tribesmen in the Phillipines? They caused the entire US military to change the type of pistol issued! .38 rounds didn't stop them because they were high on drugs- Same today, add in PCP in some locations and you won't get a one shot stop. I saw a naked guy with a .357 outside a mall take 3 or 4- .45 rounds center of mass from a LEO in Florida in the late 70's and keep on coming. Thsi was after we had soaked him and rolled him across the parking lot with a fire hose. After he had been cuffed to the gurney, he still managed to break the leather straps and twist the bars loose to try to get away. Also "most" instructors say neutralize the threat- No specific number of rounds mentioned...

 

[Super Trucker]

Good info, I saw it on another forum but still good info.

 

[B36]

Farnam

Know John, also know what he recommends, and one shot to the gut is not it. It is a good place to start and zipper up.

Remember the objective..this is from a friend who is a well know trainer:"Distract his focus, Disrupt his plan, Disable his ability, Destroy his will to fight".

Is it possible that one to the gut might do the above? Sure, a hit anywhere might, but are you willing to take that chance...chance that the time to watch might be the recovery time you opponent needs to continue his attack?

All of my practice involves multiple shots...to multiple targets, shot while moving to cover, or at least moving. I will observe when I am in a covered position, with a gun at ready.

 

[DMF]

I drew the conclusion from Fairbairn's book where he writes as much, a shot to the stomach almost always caused the bad guy to stop and clutch his gut. It is supposed to be a very painful wound. Given his experience I would have to give it some credibility.

I guess Mr. FairBairn hasn't seen the cruiser cam video of the thug attacking a cop with a knife, who continues to fight hard for several minutes after the cop gut shot him with a .45. Not only did the guy not stop, but he fought the cop for several minutes, and the cop needed help to finally subdue to BG. BG lived BTW.

The only guaranteed one shot stops are direct hits to the CNS. If anything results in a stop it is the result of MANY factors, but the only way to guarantee to stop the threat immediately is to hit the CNS.

 

[nhhillbilly]

Any handgun is a poor stopper. I train my people to shoot until the threat stops. Get a long gun if possible before anything starts.

 

[The Rabbi]

I guess Mr. FairBairn hasn't seen the cruiser cam video of the thug attacking a cop with a knife, who continues to fight hard for several minutes after the cop gut shot him with a .45.

Not sure whether you're being funny or really dont know about Capt. W.E. Fairbairn. I'd suggest checking it out if the latter.

Any handgun is a poor stopper. I train my people to shoot until the threat stops. Get a long gun if possible before anything starts.

Hard to imagine people still post stuff like this.

 

[DMF]

I've heard of him, but he is not handing down the gospel of tactics. Incidents like that cruiser cam video show that you can't count on things like a gut shot stopping a threat.

Again, the only guaranteed show stopper is a CNS hit.

 

[The Rabbi]

 

[nhhillbilly]

I have handles gun shot victims and perps over the years.

A handgun is definitely a much poorer firearm to use to stop a threat that is very willing to do harm. Especially if they are hyped up on PCP or alcoholic beverages. They do call it feeling no pain for a reason.

I had just received an email and photograph of an American soldier coming back from Irac that was shot in the face with a 9mm. The soldier survived and captured the person that shot him. Most would say a 9mm is a reasonable defensive round especially if shot in the head.

Jim Crillo writes about an incident where some one is shot with 38 special several times in the head. The person gets up complaining about his sinus. A rifle would have put these people down for the count.

 

[Tamara]

The Rabbi,

Again, people are trying to give you good advice, which you are attempting to deflect with snide commentary.

I have endless respect for Capt. Fairbairn. I have endless respect for Col. Cooper.

However, I no more believe that a wound to the gut will "stop 'em in their tracks" than I do a " single .45 hardball round will drop a man 19 times out of 20."

You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want, it being a (somewhat) free country, and all...



As for the actual topic of the meat of the thread, the pithiest advice I ever heard came from a deputy who had survived more than one gunfight:

Lady in CCW class: "How many times should we shoot them?"
Veteran Deputy: "Well, ma'am, I reckon you should keep shooting at them until they stop doing whatever it was that made you start shooting at them in the first place."

As he pointed out to me over coffee once, "At" was the key word of that line. If you shoot at them once and miss, but they stop, then you're done shooting. If you shoot at them 57 times and hit them each and every time, but they're still doing whatever it was that made you start shooting, then reload and keep shooting until they stop.

 

[The Rabbi]

Tam,
People are giving advice which could land them in a world of trouble. If there are witnesses to the effect that you shot someone after they ceased being a threat then there will likely be major trouble. "Shooting to the ground" and "emptying the magazine" are two such strategies.
The business with the gut shots was not to advocate that as a preferred method of stopping--I dont and Fairbairn didnt either. It was an observation that it frequently does that. The head is a difficult shot to make under the best of circumstances. The stomach represents the larger target and is more likely to get hit anyway.
As for actual cases, there was a case where a SC trooper fired his.357 magnum at an obese guy and hit him all six times at close range. the BG pulled a .22 and hit the trooper once. The trooper died and the BG lived. What does this prove? That a .357 is a weak round? That six rounds wasnt enough? That a .22 has more stopping power than a .357? Or that in a gunfight there are so many variables that it is impossible to train and prepare for all of them and that the best course is to look at what is most likely to happen and act accordingly? I'd advocate the last.

A rifle would have put these people down for the count.

If that were the case then you wouldnt see any survivors of rifle wounds that were more than superficial. And yet there are many people walking around who survived serious rifle wounds. There are pistol rounds that duplicate many rifle bullet ballistics yt hardly anyone carries them for self-defense.

 

[Arc-Lite]

if you first form an opinion...and then search for supporting evidence to support this assumption... then ANYTHING becomes a point to defend. are there one shot, stops ? yes...and no.. does it work all the time? no or not usually.. are there absolutes...that cover all scenarios...no of course not. If your goal is to stop an attack.... then you must do that... with what ever it takes...be it no shots...or the full mag and the kitchen sink !!! Arc-Lite

 

[The Rabbi]

Well Said!

No rule can cover 100% of eventualities.

 

[Firethorn]

There are pistol rounds that duplicate many rifle bullet ballistics yt hardly anyone carries them for self-defense.

Hmm... I know that there are pistols chambered for rifle rounds, and there are rifles chambered for pistol rounds, but I'm not aware of any handguns that duplicate rifle ballistics out of the barrel. Even a .22lr looses alot of power when shot from a handgun vs. a rifle.

The reason that 'hardy anyone' carries a rifle equivalent handgun is because it would be so large, difficult to shoot, and expensive that you might as well carry the rifle.

Also, while it is commonly said that rifle wounds are an order of magnitude more deadly than handgun wounds, that doesn't rule out survivers. Just that out of 100 people with a COM pistol hit, 80 might survive with prompt medical treatment, while out of 100 people hit COM with a centerfire rifle round, only 8 might survive, again, with prompt medical treatment. Or it might be forty.

 

[B36]

Oops

Rabbi, I read Farnam when you wrote Fairbairn. My oops :banghead: .

Fairbairn, in fact does make the statement concerning shot to the stomach.

Now lets remember when 'Shooting To Live' was written. Not talking about the reprint. Where was the contex of the book?

A great book and much good information. It is necessary to remember one thing--compare the 22 year old today with the 22 year old in the 30s. Size, weight, etc. Consider the drug problem. Many things are different today.

 

[The Rabbi]

B36, it happens. Sometimes I forget my own name.

The book was written in about 1942. It represents over 20 years' experience in Shanghai, where Fairbairn was head of the police force. The force during that time was involved in something like 200 shootings. Shanghai was an international city with people of all races and nationalities. Yes, I am sure some of the incidents involved drugs although he doesnt comment on that. He does mention failure to stop, a criminal running with a policeman chasing and shooting after him. Six rounds of .455 Webley didnt put him down. I would love to read more about his experiences there. Ballistics and bullets have changed radically since then as well. Revolvers were chiefly the Webley in 455 or 38 and autos (which Fairbairn prefers dramatically) were usually the Colt 1911 (or at least his book presents that as the ideal). All ammo was ball. Bullets and calibre choices have changed radically, always for the more effective.
Shooting To Live is mostly about technique (i.e. how to hold, aim, and fire the pistol) and how to train people to do that. It is not a situations book. If he covers that elsewhere I dont know.
I agree with you that guys on crack, meth, and PCP are something to watch out for and be aware that encounters with them wont always end like they are supposed to. I do not know how prevalent those encounters are for the average citizen. I would think more common is the simple attempted mugging, and those seldom happen under PCP just because people are too whacked out to think straight enough to carry it off.

Hmm... I know that there are pistols chambered for rifle rounds, and there are rifles chambered for pistol rounds, but I'm not aware of any handguns that duplicate rifle ballistics out of the barrel

Well, just for quick comparison: the .454 Casul out of 7 in barrel develops 1625 fps and 1759 ft/lb of energy. The energy is well in excess of a .223 but very short of say a .308. Yet not one carries a .454 Casul for self defense. My point, I guess, is that rifles have a place: namely to deliver high terminal velocity over long distances. Pistols have a place: to do that over shorter distances. Shooting someone with a .308 at 7 yards would almost certainly cause over-penetration and create a dangerous situation.

 

[Ryder]

Reliable instant stops aren't done by putting a bullet into the center of mass.

People who hunt by aiming at the whole animal get lots of tracking practice if they are lucky enough to get a hit. Heart shots, lung shots, gut shots, and severed limbs all accomplish the same thing in the end. There's just more or less tracking involved.

It's not luck that makes the instant stop reliable. It's pre-determination to place a bullet. Doing this can be learned but I'll hold reservations on the efficacy of painted cardboard to instill this instinct.