Why more rounds and shot placement matter

Its an old article but worthy of a read for anyone that missed it the first time.

When people ask you why you carry a spare magazine or two point them to this story. A suspect attacking an officer took 14 rounds of 45 and still pressed the attack and it took three final shots to the head, for a total of 17, to end the encounter.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2012/02/shots-fired-skokie-illinois-08-25-2008.aspx

 

It's always easy to play Monday morning quarterback.

 

What?

I was using this story as an example of why you should carry a spare magazine or two. I wasn't judging the cop. He did very well (better than I could) considering the guy just jumped out and started firing at him.

 

Is that what it shows? or does it show that maybe there should be less emphasis on extra mags and more on actually targeting the head in certian scenarios. One of these days folks will figure out that Mr BG can keep shooting to slide lock without his heart pumping.

 

^ Well, why do you think the observations about accuracy and capacity somehow need to exist in contention with head shots–why can't both be valid? And, what's up with calling out MMQBing for observations you disagree with before floating your own? "Monday morning quarter backing is bad, unless I do it."

On the point of headshots itself, this seems like an opportune time to mention that these too are another tool in the box, but not a panacea. Plenty of people have been headshot with handguns and survived, even continued to function.

 

Who said it was bad? I said it was easy.

 

More uncivil urination contests on THR. Been seeing more and more of these lately. Its disheartening.

 

Exactly. I've argued this before. In a civilian defense scenario, we're accosted, we deploy, and the bad guy is either driven off, captured (surrenders), or is neutralized beyond any further threat. If he flees, we don't "pursue and re-engage" the way an LEO is obligated to. In fact, we usually run the other way as well (it's more okay for one of us to flee than it is for the LEO.)

When a LEO pursues, the suspect knows he'll go to jail if he's caught, something he doesn't particularly want to do. That's why he's more likely to shoot at an LEO who's pursuing him than a private civilian he's simply left behind.

There are certainly reasons to have some fire capacity, and an extra magazine or two. But the possibility of a drawn-out running gun battle isn't going to be it for most of us.

 

Be very glad the perp didn't start with the SKS.

Still, thats a lot of rounds. Some assailants just won't stop until the CNS dictates that choice away from them.

Carry a spare mag.

 

More rounds, bigger rounds, more powerful rounds, better shot placement.

Find your balance of the most powerful handgun you can handle and shoot well while still having a reasonable number of shots available.

And keep in mind that spray-n-pray rarely works.

Deaf

 

The Police should have 2 officers in a patrol car.

 

That's an entirely different topic, one that every LEO has pretty much heard all sides of.

Besides, the OP was trying to equate the LEO's experience to one one of us might face. As much a poor comparison as it is, I don't think he was suggesting we all travel only in pairs.

 

We actually had a pretty lengthy thread on this incident a few months back after a member posted the link to Mas Ayoob's story on the Gramins incident from American Handgunner.

For the officer, his experience led him to start carrying a 9mm pistol with more rounds on tap ... And numerous posters (none of whom, presumably who have ever been in a deadly force encounter) turned the thread into a critique about the officer's marksmanship.

Is this thread going to turn into another thread about bigger bullets vs. more bullets?

 

Even if a civilian isn't likely to get in a running gun battle, the first moments of this gunfight are still instructive.

A car-jacking could (and have) easily started out the same. Exchanging gunfire through the windshield with only a snub or .380 or single stack 9 and no extra ammo would be a bad proposition. You'd go dry in that initial exchange and have to hope they run away or be able to run/drive away yourself.

Also instructive that "placement" isn't what people think it means, perfect torso placement is the heart, but that won't stop them immediately. Head shots are tough to pull off under the stress of a gunfight. The armchair commandos who shoot pretty groups on the sunny range and criticize every shooting for "poor placement" wouldn't do any better (I don't mean anyone in this thread, just speaking generally).

 

I've yet to hear of a random carjacker continuing with his mission after being fired on by his would-be victim..

 

Let's make it a home invasion then, armed homeowner was shot to death about a month or so ago. They don't always run...

 

Some aren't random. They actually select the victim.

And assuming they will run at the presentation of a gun or gunfire itself is unwise.

Deaf

 

Do you have a link to that one? I couldn't dig it up.

 

I, too, would appreciate the link. Hopefully it will have information on how many bullets the invader soaked up from the homeowner's gun before the homeowner was killed.

 

Sorry, don't have the link. It was on this, or another gun forum. Elderly man gets in gunfight with home invaders and is killed, but his wife survived. Point is, they don't always run. Doesn't make sense to me to always bring up how they usually do run...so what's the point of preparing at all then?

Train and prepare for the criminals who will fight, the ones who run will take care of themselves.

 

In teaching Security and Police for 20 plus years, I can tell you IMHO that was fantastic marksmanship, and tactics. I also heard of the Officers change to a Glock 17 9mm pistol.

Two of my Students (Toronto Canada) were in gun fights (only one of the criminals had a Gun) One worked for Brinks, one for Universal ATM.

One stood facing an advancing male with a broken pint glass in his fist (traffic altercation) his 38Spl 158g SWC lead bullet went clean through the torso/heart
found on the gurney, effect, stopped his advance paused, hands dropped collapsed straight down. Distance, 6ft.

The Brinks Armored Vehicle Officer, chasing after the robber who had snatched his bag of cash (and squirted Oven cleaner in his face) went prone when faced with the robber, who had taken cover behind a telegraph pole, 10/15m away.

And was firing at him with a Colt 45 (he was a member of a gun club) a lead SWC round, hitting the ground, broke into pieces, a part wounding him in the leg.

As he aimed his S&W Mod 65? Stainless revolver at the portion of the man shooting at him, he heard my Liverpool accented voice as clear as if I was standing next to him, say "Front sight, squeeze the trigger" and he fired twice, which was taught with revolver armed personnel. .38 Spl 158g SMC lead HP?

He saw the assailant fall backwards, and stopped shooting.
Police were on the scene real quick. Hit in the stomach, the BG survived.

The other round is still going!

I carry a Glock 19, and a spare Glock 17 magazine.

 

The answer. Nothing more.

The OP was comparing an incident in which a BG deliberately remained on scene to shoot it out with his adversary, and soaked up at least 14 rounds from his adversary's gun before finally being felled.

I was curious how the home-invasion incident to which was later being referred compared; whether or not it as a drawn-out gun battle for which the intruder deliberately stuck around, or simply a barrage of shots being fired almost simultaneously by both parties involved.

 

It always seems to me in these threads that so many people make these huge leaps of logic and fact, often citing rare and/or far-fetched scenarios, in order to justify walking around everyday packing ridiculous amounts of ammo. Sure, i get the
"better to have it and not need it", thing, but the odds of me ever needing more than i currently tote are remote, and I already drag enough stuff around in my pockets everyday, to add nearly an extra box of ammo.