Three Shots or Less for Self-Defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the responses so far, I gather that no one knows the origin of this statistic. Jeff22 stated that this figure may be anecdotal, and, unless someone can provide more detailed information, I will accept his conclusion. Thanks for the information.

I began this thread to discover if the "3 shot rule" had a basis in fact or was anecdotal. My purpose was not to imply that three rounds were sufficient for a self-defense situation. I hope no one draws that conclusion from my postings. Perhaps someone will provide a more definitive answer to my original post. In the meantime, thanks for the thoughtful responses.


Timthinker
 
There is no origination of the statistic. That's because there is no central database of civilian shootings. What happens is people toss about the FBI UCR stats and either don't know or don't mention that the stats don't include civilian shootings. In order to find out the stats for civilian shootings, one would have to contact every jurisdiction individually. A monumental task to say the least. Kleck's data comes from surveys and interviews of a few thousand people. Even so, it is clear that the vast majority of the time no shots are fired.
 
Lurper, you are the first person to mention Gary Kleck, a noted criminologist at Florida State University. For those unfamiliar with him, Professor Kleck's fame stems from detailed research he performed on the subject of gun control and crime. Needless to say, his conclusions did not support the convictions of those who favor greater gun control measures. I thought I would provide a brief description of Professor Kleck since some of our members may be unfamiliar with him. No doubt many here could explain his research findings in far better detail than my abilities permit.

Luper, I wonder what Kleck would say about this topic? I have not thought about his research in a long time. Thanks for mentioning him.


Timthinker
 
NYPD After Action Reports

I can't recall the exact name of the reports but the 2.x or 3 rounds in 3 seconds in three yards came from an annual compilation of New York City PD after action reports. The reports were tallied, and still may be, each year in every officer involved incident. And when I recall learning of this I believe the issue weapon was the S&W Mdl 10.

Key word is, if I recall correctly, is incident. Fire a shot or two at a fleeing felon, two shots. SWAT shoots a BG with a shotgun or sniper rifle, 1 shot. Numbers were pre-semi-auto issue weapon and pre-some serious crazy BG.

Edit: Did a Google search the report is SOP- 9 The information may be dated YMMV. See quote below:

"NYPD SOP 9 - ANALYSIS OF POLICE COMBAT

In 1969, the Firearms and Tactics Section of the New York City Police Department instituted a procedure for the in-depth documentation and study of police combat situations. It was designated Department Order SOP 9 (s. 69).

Data gathering began in January 1970, and over 6000 cases were studied during the 1970s. The study results and findings were released in 1981. The following sets out many of those that focus on shooting situations and shooting techniques.

Since the results became available, pistols have replaced revolvers in most agencies, and the results are dated. However, based what one reads in the literature, and sees in police videos, the elements and conditions of shooting situations have changed little over time. As such, the results can be expected to prevail today. At a minimum, they form a solid and scientific basis for self defense training and action until new study results and findings come along.

Also, it is likely that the results are applicable most anywhere, as New York City, in addition to tall buildings, has numerous suburban communities, beaches, large parks, remote areas, highways, rivers, ocean fronts, etc.

All of the results and findings applicable to police combat situations, are not provided here. Hopefully, the snippets below, will serve as a spur to those in need of that information, to get, study, and act on it.

Shooting Distances

From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34%
3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%
6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Contact to 10 feet ... 51%
10 feet to 20 feet .... 24%

Lighting Conditions

The majority of incidents occurred in poor lighting conditions. None occurred in what could be called total darkness. It was noted that flashlights were not used as a marksmanship aid. Also, dim light firing involves another element which is different from full light firing, muzzle flash.

Weapons

Firearms accounted for only 60% of the attacks on police. However, in the 254 cases of officers killed in an armed encounter, firearms were used in 90% (230) of them, and knives in 5% (11).

The service revolver was used in 60% of the cases. The authorized smaller frame civilian clothes revolver was used in 35% of them.

In all cases reviewed, an unauthorized or gimmick holster (ankle, shoulder, skeleton, fast draw, clip-on etc.) was involved when the revolver was lost, accidentally discharged, or the officer was disarmed.

Unintentional discharges averaged about 40 per year. This number is relatively small given: the size of the force (28,000), that all officers are required to be armed at all times when they are in the city, and that 4,000 non-police firearms are processed each year.

Sight Alignment

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

As the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.

The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.

Quick Draw

65% of the officers who had knowledge of impending danger, had their revolvers drawn and ready.

This is proper tactically for several reasons, the first being that holsters which are designed with the proper element of security in mind, do not lend themselves to quick draw. The old bromide, "Don't draw your gun and point it at anyone unless you intend to shoot" is a tactical blunder.

Situations in which rapid escalation occurred, were most often activities considered routine, such as car stops, guarding, transporting or fingerprinting prisoners or handling people with mental problems.

Family disputes did not prove to be high on the police danger list. Sniper and ambush incidents represented less than 1% of the cases reported.

Reports on incidents involving police death revealed that the officer was alone more often than not and that he was confronted by at least two people.

Cover

The element reported as the single most important factor in the officer's survival during an armed confrontation was cover.

In a stress situation an officer is likely to react as he was trained to react. There is almost always some type of cover available, but it may not be recognized as such without training.

Positions

In 84% of the cases reviewed, the officer was in a standing or crouch position (supported and unsupported) when he fired.

(The training doctrine developed for use in an exposed condition involves use of the crouch/point shoulder stance. The feet are spread for balance and the arms locked at shoulder, elbow and wrist. The body becomes the gun platform, swiveling at the knees. Multiple targets can be fired on with speed and accuracy through an arc of 140 degrees without moving the feet.)

Strong Hand or Weak Hand

Officers, with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand. That was the case even when it appeared advantageous to use the weak hand. The value of placing heavy emphasis on weak hand shooting during training and qualification is subject to question.

Single and Double Action

The double action technique was used in 90% of the situations and used almost without exceptions in close range, surprise, or immediate danger situations.

Warning Shots

A warning shot may set off chain reaction firing.

Accurate fire from handheld weapons from a fast-moving vehicle is almost impossible, even by a highly trained officer.

Firing while running changes the situation from one where skill has a bearing into one in which the outcome depends on pure chance. It endangers the officer unnecessarily by depleting his ammunition supply, and increases the chance of shooting innocent persons who may be present.

Rapid Reloading

The average number of shots fired by individual officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.

The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases examined.

In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary to continue the action.

In 6% of the total cases the officer reported reloading. These involved cases of pursuit, barricaded persons, and other incidents where the action was prolonged and the distance exceeded the 25 foot death zone.

Bullet Efficiency

During the period 1970 through 1979, the police inflicted 10 casualties for every one suffered at the hands of their assailants.

In all of the cases investigated, one factor stood out as a proper measure of bullet efficiency. It was not the size, shape, configuration, composition, caliber, or velocity of the bullet.

Bullet placement was the cause of death or an injury that was serious enough to end the confrontation.

Hit Potential In Gun Fights

The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

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

The Disconnect Between Range Marksmanship & Combat Hitsmanship

It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the reports.

An attempt was made to relate an officer's ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached. To this writer's mind, the study result establishes that there is indeed a disconnect between the two.

If there was a connection between range marksmanship and combat hitsmanship, one would expect the combat hit potential percentages, to be well above the dismal ones reported. That is because the shooting distance was less than 20 feet in 75 percent of the 4000 encounters studied.

The US Army recognizes that there is a disconnect. Its training manual, FM 23-35 Combat Training With Pistols & Revolvers (1988), calls for the use of Point Shooting for combat at less than 15 feet, and when firing at night. It does not call for using standard and traditional range marksmanship techniques.

"The weapon should be held in a two-hand grip and brought up close to the body until it reaches chin level. It is then thrust forward until both arms are straight. As the weapon is thrust forward, the trigger is smoothly squeezed to the rear. The arms and body form a triangle which can be aimed as a unit." For shooting at 5 to 10 yards, a modified version of the technique is used.

Various Point Shooting techniques are available for use. They are simple, direct, easy and quick to learn, and effective. With appropriate emphasis and training time allotted to them, one can expect a better future than the past.

Target Focused shooting is taught to the CHP. It is similar to the shooting methods of Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate, in that the sights are not used in close quarters aiming."
 
sop 9 is LE shootings, not civilian. There have been other studies that come to conclusions different than NYPD's. But for the purpose of the op, the point is moot.
 
I agree

Lurper, we see eye to eye on this. The first post doesn't mention civilian or LE. But I bet you the SOP 9 or LA numbers were in the person's mind who mentioned this. I'm civilian and got told the same.

It's interesting to note that if you look at SOP 9 for 2000 the average shots was 16.8 per incident with 6.9 MOS (switch to autos?).

I think the application to the civilian world isn't the number of rounds, but the hit ratio under stress. I wanted to present this info because God forbid you have to shoot, you don't need some rabid DA claiming you shoot x times more than some average that's not really applicable.

For the record I carry a minimum of two reloads. I agree with Kleck's number and if ever surveyed my reponse would be one weapon presented and no shots fired. God forbid I have a next time, but betting on average opens the door to 50% of bad.
 
"One simply cannot be "prepared for all possible variations", "

Well, we should strive to be as well prepared as we can be. Duh!
 
I always laughed my butt off when ever someone comes out with, "how many times you planning on missing", whenever I would talk about hi-capacity pistols. That is the most stupidest saying I've ever heard.

No one knows how many shots we will have to fire in a SD situation. If I psychically knew how many shots I would have to fire in SD then I would know enough to avoid the situation in the first place.
 
So far as I know there is no nationwide system for collecting and tabulating date on the number of shots fired in self defense shootings. I could be wrong.

Such a system would have to account for all shots fired by everyone involved. In situations where one person fires on another and the other person returns fire, it would be necessary to identify and tabulate who fired how many. The "three shots fired" doesn't seem to say whether it is the total number of shots or only those fired by the successful participant.

I wonder, too, if all self defense shootings are reported to the police. My guess is that at least some gang members would be reluctant to report that they were attacked and defended themselves. I suspect that some honest people in troubled areas who successfully defend themselves might not report the incident either. In cities such as Washington, DC, Chicago, and New York City I'd bet that there are self defense shootings that go unreported because the successful citizen doesn't want to be arrested for carrying one of Adrian Fenty's, Richard Daley's, or Michael Bloomberg's "illegal guns" and are happy just to be alive and out of there.

Absent a reliable source for the "three shots fired" statistic I'd consider it a myth. How any source could be reliable for such a statistic is beyond me.
 
I always laughed my butt off when ever someone comes out with, "how many times you planning on missing", whenever I would talk about hi-capacity pistols. That is the most stupidest saying I've ever heard.

When police used revolvers, it took many less shots to hit the intended target. A six shot revolver was more than enough most of the time. With today's high capacity autoloaders, they need many more shots to hit the intended target. It's not likely the firearm, since they shot the revolvers double action. I believe it's the mentality "I have a lot of rounds so I don't have to worry as much about shot placement". Unfortunately, that mentality poses a high risk to innocent bystanders.

IIRC, the NYPD statistics for the typical shootout were something like 4-5 shots fired with revolvers, and nowadays it's more like 13 shots.

Ken
 
"NYPD SOP 9 - ANALYSIS OF POLICE COMBAT
Keep in mind, this is one author's (an advocate of point shooting) analysis of the data, not the actual data or NYPD's analysis. Some of what is printed in the article is pure opinion, supposition and speculation.
 
Having thought this one through, I think I'm gonna keep my 15 rd magazines. I have no intention of using my pistol as a VERY inefficient club, so, I'll bring plenty of "stupid pills" to the party(they might not CURE stupidity, but they can sure prevent the spread of the disease).:D
 
I wonder if any more of our contributors will share data from studies such as those mentioned by Lurper and msb45. Such studies serve as "food for thought" if nothing else about this fascinating subject. I really expected more people to lecture me about Gary Kleck's groundbreaking research on firearms and self-defense than has yet occured. It could still happen. Thanks for the opinions so far.


Timthinker
 
I don't know the source of the data, but I live in a small town and a rural county and there are very few shootings, all of which are major news which we discuss for weeks. None of them in the last 40 years has involved reloading, either by police or non LEOs. However, I still carry my 10 + 1 Glock 26 and a spare mag.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top