PDA

View Full Version : Let's discuss the North Hollywood shootout


Glockeroo
August 29, 2008, 10:05 PM
What could the police have done differently to end the situation much quicker? The gunmen were able to keep the police at bay for a long time. What do you think could have been done differently, and what have officers learned since the incident? Is there standard training included now for officers because of the North Hollywood ordeal? After rewatching the shooting unfold, I was surprised that out of all the first officers to arrive to the scene, not one was equipped with a high-powered rifle to at least give the gunmen a run for their money.

I would like to hear your opinions of the tragic day.

Erik
August 29, 2008, 10:23 PM
The most relavent lesson was to not prohibit line officers from employing slugs in their shotguns.

Other relevant lessons largely centered on providing the means for non-tactical unit personnel to effectively and efficiently meet a-typical threats head on. Lessons that might not have been learned at that time had a few slugs been on hand.

Slopemeno
August 29, 2008, 10:54 PM
...and to get them to practice with the slugs.

BillCA
August 29, 2008, 11:11 PM
Another factor, according to reports I've read, is that officers were trained to only shoot COM. None were trained to take a head shot if COM hits weren't working out. Mind you, it does take some cajones to return fire against a FA long gun when all you have is a handgun.

Not having shotgun slugs and training to use them was a huge problem.

Until that incident, police did not consider it "likely" that one or two men would have full-auto weapons, let alone any full-auto .308 weapons.

The situation didn't unfold the way most cops would expect. Usually you might expect the perps to throw a few rounds or fire a dozen shots and then flee towards his escape vehicle. These guys more or less stood their ground and seemed more intent on shooting the cops than immediately getting away.

Socrates
August 29, 2008, 11:41 PM
They had perfection: Glocks.:rolleyes:;)

Seriously. Officers are not trained for that kind of combat. Glocks are NOT accurate at that range. Most police calibers are incapable of penetrating even the most basic vest, or armour, or, the ammunition is designed to expand, rather then penetrate.

The tactics of hiding behind a car become deadly when the bad guys are using rifle rounds capable of going through most everything in your average car. Cover in this case was non-existent. None of the weapons LAPD carried were capable of long range shooting, and, or, the officers were not capable of shooting at that range. It's the classic,
"You brought a pistol to a rifle/machine gun fight."

LAPD could have had a cheap rifle, like a Mosin Nagant, and, with proper ammo, and multiple positions, have been able to put the guys down quickly...

Scattergun Bob
August 30, 2008, 12:20 AM
Bill said "The situation didn't unfold the way most cops would expect."

You win the Big Bingo pot of the night for that one, brother. One of the real lessons in this gunfight, and in other historic high profile police gunfights. Luck of the draw exists, never be happy with a minimum standard, have some plan for the unexpected.

I keep dusting off this old saying from Clint Smith, even though he is a Marine, got to give him a tip of the hat for this one.

"the fight is never what you THINK it will be. It is gonna be what it's gonna be, the only variable is what YOU are going to do."


By the way nice to read your words again.

Good Luck & Be Safe

jrothWA
August 30, 2008, 12:24 AM
as part of their usual tirade.
In it the LAPD & FBI knew of these guys for a year and had no plans developed.
It just coincidence that it happened during the BJC & her majesty's tenure!

JohnKSa
August 30, 2008, 12:29 AM
Glocks are NOT accurate at that range.Curious, what kind of practical** accuracy do you expect from a semi-auto service pistol?

**shot offhand or using a field expedient rest from behind cover.


This group was shot offhand. I purchased the Glock used from a gun shop/range that was closing down. It was one of their rental guns and was completely stock at the time this group was shot
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=40531&d=1148884434

BikerRN
August 30, 2008, 03:10 AM
"You brought a pistol to a rifle/machine gun fight."

That sums it up for me.

Biker

Superhouse 15
August 30, 2008, 06:36 AM
Weren't they still using Beretta and S&W? I don't believe the Glock was in service yet. A 10/22 and a cool head would have done more than anything.

Sarge
August 30, 2008, 07:07 AM
Let's discuss the North Hollywood shootout

What could the police have done differently to end the situation much quicker?
They could have been responsible for their own skill level (which we all ultimately are anyway) and capable of making rested head shots from behind cover, to 50-75 yards.
The gunmen were able to keep the police at bay for a long time. What do you think could have been done differently, and what have officers learned since the incident?
Hopefully, to shoot.
Is there standard training included now for officers because of the North Hollywood ordeal?
The is no 'standardized training'; individual departments set their own.
After rewatching the shooting unfold, I was surprised that out of all the first officers to arrive to the scene, not one was equipped with a high-powered rifle to at least give the gunmen a run for their money.
Sarge's Administrative Control Theory: Generally speaking, the larger the agency, the greater the restrictions on the individual member. I doubt those officers could just throw a 94 Winchester in the trunk cuz they thought they might need it that day...
Seriously. Officers are not trained for that kind of combat. Glocks are NOT accurate at that range.
THIS officer is. THIS officer has trained others for 'that kind of combat'- long before 'North Hollywood'. Not all of us have sit on our thumbs, waiting for somebody to 'issue' us skill.


I believe John answered the question on service pistol accuracy quite nicely. Good shooting, Amigo.

DesertDawg
August 30, 2008, 07:08 AM
#1: The crooks had, in fact, been arrested just a few months before this incident (don't recall what agency, but it wasn't the LAPD). They had firearms at the time of the arrest, which were confiscated, but returned to them due to "lack of evidence" of any crime.

#2: The crooks had practised their procedures, and pretty much knew what police response times were. The shooting didn't originate from an alarm call or a call to 9-1-1, but a 2-officer unit that happened to observe the crooks coming out of the bank.

#3: The crooks were hyped-up on pain pills. During the exchange of gunfire, both crooks took hits from pistols or revolvers, but they shook off the pain....or were hit in their body armor which covered most of their bodies and limbs.

#4: Several officers that were within range of attempting head shots had to back off, due to the background behind the crooks (residences, moving vehicles). The crooks could have cared less about hitting innocent people.

#5: Slugs in shotguns were forbidden by the LAPD at the time. Likewise, rifles were forbidden to be utilized by "patrol" officers at the time, due to the lack of training, liability issues AND the costs involved in training and issuing rifles to patrol officers.

The LAPD (and several other agencies) have increased their training, purchased shotguns specifically for shooting slugs, have purchased "UPR" (Urban Police Rifles) and have deployed numerous trained sharpshooters in all of the geographic divisions.

Glockeroo
August 30, 2008, 09:04 AM
Seriously. Officers are not trained for that kind of combat. Glocks are NOT accurate at that range. Most police calibers are incapable of penetrating even the most basic vest, or armour, or, the ammunition is designed to expand, rather then penetrate.
Uh, Socrates. Glocks are more than accurate at the range, and 2nd, those cops had Berettas.

Crosshair
August 30, 2008, 10:36 AM
#5: Slugs in shotguns were forbidden by the LAPD at the time. Likewise, rifles were forbidden to be utilized by "patrol" officers at the time, due to the lack of training, liability issues AND the costs involved in training and issuing rifles to patrol officers.
The lack of shotgun slugs and lack of training were probably the biggest problems. Shotguns slugs, even if they don't penetrate kevlar, cause massive blunt force trauma, they are easily capable of breaking ribs, or a persons spine if you shoot them from behind. Those types of injuries will bring someone to a stop, probably not instantly though, regardless of whether they are on pain pills or not. A head shot with a Slug, game over man.

Sarge
August 30, 2008, 09:42 PM
My oldest son, despite my admonitions to find honest work instead, recently started the police academy. About that same time he also bought the first Glock that's ever been 'in the family'. He seems to have inherited my gift for finding lemons and his factory-reconditioned G22 soon gave light-strike FTF's. Off it went to a Glock LE armorer friend who corrected a few things and this afternoon, I took it out for a test drive.

Standing unsupported at 25 yards, I fired 10 rounds of WW/USA 165 FMJ at a LEE target (http://www.reloadbench.com/pdf/files/LargeTarget.pdf)you can print off the internet. I aimed each shot but triggered them as soon as the sights settled in the black. While not as neatly centered as John's group pictured above, seven of those ten went in 2 3/4 inches and three flyers opened it to six. The gun was obviously more accurate than my ability to hold it- and more than accurate enough for rested, 50-yard noggin' shots- once zeroed with a specific load.

The revolting part is that I shot this disgusting, soulless plastic sproing-popper about as well as I would have shot my 1911... and on the second magazine I ever fired through the G22.

I may have to give these things another look.

Tuckahoe
August 30, 2008, 10:28 PM
It is my understanding that the Police officers responding were only issued #4 buckshot. Slugs would have given the officers a better chance in my opinion. I believe a pistol is made to fight your way back to a rifle which none of these officers had.

Sarge
August 30, 2008, 10:49 PM
That gets a lot of press but the fact is that a pistol is for solving whatever emergency you find yourself in, when you couldn't plan for having the long-gun along.

Besides which, if your problem is 25-50 yards away and you can't hurt it- you ain't fighting your way back to nothing.

BamaBowtie
August 31, 2008, 01:03 AM
.50 BMG! Problem solved. Armor, drugs, doesn't matter when you put a .50 cal in the chest.

BillCA
August 31, 2008, 04:01 AM
You win the Big Bingo pot of the night for that one, brother. One of the real lessons in this gunfight, and in other historic high profile police gunfights. Luck of the draw exists, never be happy with a minimum standard, have some plan for the unexpected.
:
:
"the fight is never what you THINK it will be. It is gonna be what it's gonna be, the only variable is what YOU are going to do."

When you're being fired upon, do something. Do Anything. By doing something your odds are 50-50 and if you do nothing the odds are 100% that you'll die.
--Academy instructor talking about firefights and ambushes

The most appalling part of this is that it's not the police who are to blame for the lack of proper equipment. It's lawyers and spineless politicians running the city.

Cops are not trained for the kind of incident they fell into that day in Hollywood. All it did was reveal that the training the cops did have was focused on following doctrine and not solving the problem.

(At one time in the 60's, LAPD training on shotgun involved various standing and kneeling positions. After a gunfight in a parking lot where an officer stopped the shooter by firing under several cars from prone, the officer was reprimanded for not following training doctrine by using one of the taught positions. :rolleyes:)

I think PD's are now focusing on doctrinal shooting techniques to get people qualified, but then spending some time on what's possible to solve the problem at hand.

hogdogs
August 31, 2008, 05:28 AM
Lack of official education disclaimer... *I am just a red neck utilitarian with a survival mindset...

Got the legal stuff out of the way.
IMHO Ya'll have hit the points on the head. I can only expound a bit.
Training... City guys with a career mind set and lack of training.
LAPD... A city agency with the aforementioned lawyers and politics.
Weaponry and ammo... Severely limited by above lawyers and politics.
Bad guys... Trained, armed and unhindered by rules of law or rules of engagement... And they intended to win and survive.

Lookin' at the most rural of LEA's I see both benefits and deficits.
The only deficits I see are lack of man power (not normally needed) and lack of infrastructure technology in some cases (simply too expensive for the smallest forces), Of these not the least is limited radio range and no cell phone signal for backup calls.

Benefits are NUMEROUS.
Limited manpower (yes it is a benefit too) leaves less guys to teach and train.
The smaller force often requires the officer to supply their own weapons. This means they are unfettered by dept. bean counters and since self supplied some legal responsibility is removed from the dept. The officer gets to choose weapons they are familiar and comfortable with.
Lack of infrastructure technology is a point of interest as the officer KNOWS he is alone out there much of the time thus imparting a heightened state of awareness and self reliance and accountability.
Last I can think of is these smaller forces tend to have very stable officers capable of judicial discretion and allowed to think for them self. These same officers are often avid hunters and shooters who self train all year with thousands of rounds compared to the 25 or 50 shots many big city officers fire each year.
Hope I wasn't too off base...
Brent

Double Naught Spy
August 31, 2008, 07:47 AM
There is the repeated claim that the cops were outgunned. That just was not the case. Dozens of officers fired on just two bad guys. They were outarmored. The bad guys simply came better prepared to handle what the opposition had to throw at them.

Another factor, according to reports I've read, is that officers were trained to only shoot COM. None were trained to take a head shot if COM hits weren't working out. Mind you, it does take some cajones to return fire against a FA long gun when all you have is a handgun.

Actually, the problem here goes deeper. LAPD cops didn't qualify beyond 25 yards at the time either. The cops had NO idea where their rounds would print at the distances being fired when they did aim. Mind you, only a few shots early on and at the end were close range (inside 50 yards). The distance from the cops in the intersection to the BGs was approximately 75 yards. The next layer was some 50 yards further back at 125 yards.

They didn't practice on moving targets. At those distances and at walking speed, even if the cops took a well aimed shot at the head of the suspects that would have hit a stationary target, the shot would have missed a person at walking speed. I doubt any of the cops were able to both estimate proper holdover and proper lead to make head shots at those distances.

They didn't practice firing from non-traditional positions such as from behind cover. They may have been exposed to some training in the areas, but these were not maintained skills.

Curious, what kind of practical** accuracy do you expect from a semi-auto service pistol?

**shot offhand or using a field expedient rest from behind cover.

This group was shot offhand. I purchased the Glock used from a gun shop/range that was closing down. It was one of their rental guns and was completely stock at the time this group was shot

JohnKSa shoots well. With no disrespect to the cops, he shoots better than most, without question. And I have put him to the test with this sort of situation in mind. He attended the ISHOT1000 match and had to shoot head size moving targets out to 75 yards. He was one of the better shooters and I don't recall anyone hitting the target more than 7 times out of 50 shots. The target was a 6" diameter circular metal 3-D target that moved in all three planes. Of course, these weren't the first rounds of the day fired. We worked back at to that distance such that the participants had opportunities to to learn as the distance increased. Shots were offhand, but not from behind cover. So John didn't just show up and was then immediately put into a high stress situation of hitting a tiny moving target at 75 yards.

Here is an example from just 1/3 that distance...
http://www.vholdr.com/video/second-range-test

There is yet another problem with shooting such small targets at that distance. For most defensive pistols, the front sight is fairly large for rapid acquisition. While maybe not really large, a 6" target at 75 yards is only about 1/2 - 1/3 the width of the front sight when viewed down the sight axis. You can have the target aligned with the front sight, but if the bore isn't exactly aligned with the sight, then you can be "on target" and miss with every shot. Remember that most guns are sighted in at 10-25 yards and will seem to print just fine at those distances, but when the distance is increased my many times, slight issues at short range that may not even be noticed will become serious issues at long range. For example for the gun I used in the match, a Springfield EMP, I found that at 75 yards that my shots were printing lower than the top edge of my front sight and on its left side.

The bottom line from this is that even if officers were there who understood holdover, lead, etc., they still probably didn't have guns sighted well enough to make the necessary shots with any sort of expected consistency.

Tuckahoe
August 31, 2008, 09:02 AM
Besides which, if your problem is 25-50 yards away and you can't hurt it- you ain't fighting your way back to nothing.

I do not believe any handgun would have mattered in this case. A handgun is made for short range quick encounters. No military force would issue handguns only. I know police are not military but the people they were fighting were going way beyond your typical street criminal.

jfrey123
August 31, 2008, 02:25 PM
Recently (6 months maybe) I saw a Discover channel type show. The patrol officers involved were interviewed and all agreed that the best thing that came from this is that they're now allowed to carry patrol rifles and also upgrade from the standard 9mm to .45ACP. The police are much happier not being limited to the 9mm.

Socrates
August 31, 2008, 03:30 PM
They didn't practice on moving targets. At those distances and at walking speed, even if the cops took a well aimed shot at the head of the suspects that would have hit a stationary target, the shot would have missed a person at walking speed. I doubt any of the cops were able to both estimate proper holdover and proper lead to make head shots at those distances.

John Linebaugh has a similar test. He puts a balloon on the end of a remote control car. The car starts at 35 yards, and the shooter, using a high powered rifle, has about enough time to get off two shots. The balloon, in this case represents what the target area is on a charging cape buffalo. Not the way people are normally taught to shoot. The bottom line is shooting at a moving target is NOT something police are taught.

The targets in this case kept moving. Head shots WERE NOT practical. Somebody mentioned a Browning .50. Overkill, but the right idea. Something that can go through a Class III vest, is needed. An old beat up Mosin Nagant 44 would have done the trick, with ball ammo.

My experience has been the combat sites on M1A's, and others, work well for hitting a moving targets, better then even scopes, and, in particular at the ranges in this shooting.

Double Naught Spy
August 31, 2008, 03:56 PM
Recently (6 months maybe) I saw a Discover channel type show. The patrol officers involved were interviewed and all agreed that the best thing that came from this is that they're now allowed to carry patrol rifles and also upgrade from the standard 9mm to .45ACP. The police are much happier not being limited to the 9mm.

.45 acp would not have made a single difference. It would not go through body armor either and has a greater drop rate (more trajectory arc) than the 9mm.

The targets in this case kept moving. Head shots WERE NOT practical. Somebody mentioned a Browning .50. Overkill, but the right idea. Something that can go through a Class III vest, is needed. An old beat up Mosin Nagant 44 would have done the trick, with ball ammo.

Post hoc information is great. Nobody at the time had a clue that the vests were Class III. All the officers knew was that the vests were bulky and stopping pistol and buckshot rounds. Level III vests will stop your standard .308 rounds, but not the AP version. Not many depts have AP ammo, certainly not on their patrol officers.

Head shots with a rifle would have been practical, especially for all that time the robbers were in one location with their backs to the bank wall, just walking back and forth in a small area. An AR15 with normal combat sighting at 25 or 50 yard zero would have required no holdover. With a velocity of 2.50-3.0 times greater than that of the 9mm would be enough to still make the head shots with little or no tracking lead.

Socrates
August 31, 2008, 04:25 PM
Post hoc information is great...What could the police have done differently to end the situation much quicker? The gunmen were able to keep the police at bay for a long time. What do you think could have been done differently, and what have officers learned since the incident?
Congratulations, Sherlock. You figured out what this thread is.:rolleyes:
I have the DVD of that, somewhere, but, haven't watched it for awhile. Thanks for the refresher. Did NOT remember the vests being Level III, but, Isn't that about the limit for practical vests?

What they can learn is that on super rare situations, shots from 50-100 yards, at very small MOVING targets may need to happen.

Second: if the target is moving, it maybe neccessary to have a rifle, or pistol, capable of piercing Level III armour, at 50-100 yards.

Or, to put it another way,
"The reason for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped in the first place."

And, don't forget,
"Never bring a pistol to a rifle/machine gun fight."

Jermtheory
August 31, 2008, 06:47 PM
Bill said "The situation didn't unfold the way most cops would expect."

You win the Big Bingo pot of the night for that one, brother. One of the real lessons in this gunfight, and in other historic high profile police gunfights. Luck of the draw exists, never be happy with a minimum standard, have some plan for the unexpected.

I keep dusting off this old saying from Clint Smith, even though he is a Marine, got to give him a tip of the hat for this one.

"the fight is never what you THINK it will be. It is gonna be what it's gonna be, the only variable is what YOU are going to do."


By the way nice to read your words again.

Good Luck & Be Safe

i think thats sig material...

Double Naught Spy
August 31, 2008, 07:52 PM
I have the DVD of that, somewhere, but, haven't watched it for awhile. Thanks for the refresher. Did NOT remember the vests being Level III, but, Isn't that about the limit for practical vests?

Dr. Watson,
Nope, Level IV which is now as light as III was then, some is lighter. Besides, you said your Mosin Nagant would do the job with ball ammo through Class III (Level III) and that isn't the case.

What they can learn is that on super rare situations, shots from 50-100 yards, at very small MOVING targets may need to happen.

Most of the officers actually shot from more than 125 yards. The issue of moving targets has always been a concern. Most of the officers wounded were wounded inside of 75 yards during the earlier stages of the fight. Hence the secondary ring of officers at about 125 yards on the far side of the intersection from the robbers.

Second: if the target is moving, it maybe neccessary to have a rifle, or pistol, capable of piercing Level III armour, at 50-100 yards.

Why stop at Level III? Do an online search for Level IV armor that will stop 30.06 AP rounds. Hence the notation above of the .50 BMG.

What pistol rounds are going to pierce Level III or IV body armor at 50, 100, or 125 yards? Inquiring minds want to know.

Or, to put it another way,
"The reason for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped in the first place."

Mindless mantra - great. How do you fight your way back to that which you didn't ever have?

And, don't forget,
"Never bring a pistol to a rifle/machine gun fight."

Great, more mindless mantra. The cops didn't really have a choice in deciding if they wanted to show up or not.

FLA2760
August 31, 2008, 10:05 PM
Here is a 2 minute 30 second clip from the LAPD police radio as it was going down. The site has a lot of cool scanner links and stuff. I think that the patrol rifle in LAPD cruisers was a result of the North Hollywood shootings.
I am not sure if only supervisors carry the rifles or not though.


http://www.police-scanner.info/audio/north_hollywood.htm

Crosshair
August 31, 2008, 10:37 PM
Why stop at Level III? Do an online search for Level IV armor that will stop 30.06 AP rounds. Hence the notation above of the .50 BMG.
That's why you hit them a couple of times or go with a gutshot where the plates don't cover. Though if you have 2+ officers shooting at a suspect with 30-06s, those plates won't past long. Plus the blunt force trauma will still hurt them to a degree.

Training in rapid follow up shots would be needed. It would be a PITA to get the 50 into position.

Socrates
September 1, 2008, 10:13 AM
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm
Dr. Watson,
Nope, Level IV which is now as light as III was then, some is lighter. Besides, you said your Mosin Nagant would do the job with ball ammo through Class III (Level III) and that isn't the case.
Thank you Mr. Holmes;-) But, it appears from the test posted above, the
.223 and 7.62 x 39 blow through IIIA. I suspect 182 grain ball, at 2600 fps would do the job. Also, a box of armour piercing would do for any body armour.

What pistol rounds are going to pierce Level III or IV body armor at 50, 100, or 125 yards? Inquiring minds want to know.
Pistol rounds likely to do the job would not be PC. .475 Linebaugh, heavy 454, using monometal bullets.http://www.handloads.com/misc/linebaugh.penetration.tests.asp
http://www.gunblast.com/images/BeltMtn_PunchBullets/Thumbs/KELYE45.jpg
http://www.gunblast.com/images/BeltMtn_PunchBullets/Thumbs/KELYE4570.jpg

Notice Keith bullets, do well. Heavy hard cast. Punch bullets
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm
are monometal, with a lead core added, since the government
classifys solid hard monometal bullets, like Barnes solids, as armour piercing, and, generally illegal.

I see no reason police aren't allowed to carry M1A's in the car, with armour piercing ammo. Milsurp should do the trick. At 300 yards, I had one go through the thick part of a manhole cover, and, stick nearly it's full length out the back of the manhole cover.

It's a lot easier to give police guns that give them a chance against Mexican gangbangers, then try and stop the gangbangers from getting the guns...

Also, the CZ 52 used a .30 caliber or so bullet, that went real fast, and, easily defeated most body armour. 7.62 Tokarev bottle-necked cartridge
http://www.makarov.com/graphics/cz52/S_762x25.jpg

Another good test of vests and bullets:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot29_3.htm

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot24.htm

Powderman
September 1, 2008, 11:40 AM
Have we prepared? My Department is.

We have two Casinos, and to address this problem, we carry AR15's for patrol rifles. I also have with me on patrol a .308 rifle (Savage 10FP-LE2A), loaded with issued 168 gr. GM Match, topped with the Burris 6-24x50 XTR.

At the Department, we also have two iron-sighted .338 Magnums. These are primarily for Fish and Game, but can be pressed into service if needed.

And, have I trained? Without going into all the details, I'll simply say yes--both LE and military.

Double Naught Spy
September 1, 2008, 12:25 PM
Thank you Mr. Holmes;-) But, it appears from the test posted above, the .223 and 7.62 x 39 blow through IIIA. I suspect 182 grain ball, at 2600 fps would do the job. Also, a box of armour piercing would do for any body armour.

Soccrates, the North Hollywood bank robbers had added steel plates to their homemade armor, capable enough to stop .223 rounds. The vests were not just IIIa, but III. You started off by noting they were III, now you are saying IIIa. You realize that IIIa is the highest level of soft armor and III is the next higher level and involves hard armor, right?

And NO, a box of armor piercing ammo will not do it for any body armor. Level IV is specifically made to defeat AP ammo, up to 30.06 AP. That means your M1A in .308, even with AP ammo isn't going through Level IV.

Your beloved Linbaugh would not penetrate III or IV, even if you actually have started loading your cases with slugs, LOL.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DYING+BANK+ROBBER'S+LAST+WORDS+TO+POLICE:+:+%60SHOOT+ME+IN+THE+HEAD'-a083864135

That's why you hit them a couple of times or go with a gutshot where the plates don't cover. Though if you have 2+ officers shooting at a suspect with 30-06s, those plates won't past long. Plus the blunt force trauma will still hurt them to a degree.

...which is why US Soldiers are being targeted with head shots as their hard armor is stopping COC shots just fine, even from close range.

Here is a great example of Level IV armor at work...

http://passtheammo.com/2005/07/soldier-medic-survives-sniper/

And the sniper was using AP rounds according to the medic in his letter to Point Blank...
http://www.pointblankarmor.com/news.asp
WATCH INCREDIBLE VIDEO OF U.S. ARMY SOLDIER (PFC. TSCHIDERER) SURVIVING A HIT FROM A SNIPER'S BULLET

The following is a letter of appreciation from PFC Stephen "Doc" Tschiderer, U.S. Army

Dear Point Blank,

First let me say thank you for saving my life!! I am forever grateful!!!! My name is PFC Stephen Tschiderer, and I am currently deployed to Bagdhad, Iraq. Yesterday, July 2, 2005, I was on patrol and while proving security around my Humvee, I was shot by a sniper. This sniper was useing a Draganov sniper rifle with AP rounds. The round struck me at an angle and did not come through the SAPI plate. Enclosed are some pics of the plate and what the round did to me, which thanks to you guys is only a small mark. My family and everyone that knows me sends our thanks and keep up the GREAT work.

THANK YOU AGAIN!!!
PFC Stephen “Doc” Tschiderer
E Troop 101 CAV 256BCT
Bagdhad, Iraq

tshadow6
September 1, 2008, 04:12 PM
My agency allows any Deputy with an issued vehicle or is a member of the Tatical teams to go through the AR 15 course and carry either an AR 15 or Ruger Mini 14. I would like to see more long guns added to the list. Why shouldn't a SKS or Marlin lever action be allowed? Any rifle caliber would have penetrated the ballistic protection the bad guys wore.

Socrates
September 1, 2008, 06:43 PM
OOS:

I'm not real willing to take your word on 400-525 grain monometal bullets not being armour piercing. If the government made them pretty much illegal, or tried, they probably have a pretty good reason. This may sound a bit strange, but velocity can be the enemy of penetration...

That said, thanks for the tutorial on vests.

Just curious what level armour in the groin, and legs?

the lessons learned are first, bring a rifle:
Second shoot it well.
Third a box of AP ammo might be a good idea...

For police, perhaps we better go back to handguns with better penetration, and, non hollow point ammo, or, at least have a clip with ball ammo in it...

If you are in an area that it's likely you are going to face an armoured bank robber, consider a rifle that shoots heavier bullets, like a 9.3 X 62, 375 H&H, or 458 Lott, and, use solids...
I was just thinking if a 375 H&H wouldn't be ideal, with monometal solids...
Or, I guess my 475 Ackley might penetrate that Class IV or V armour, 600 grains at 2200 fps?

"Why does the bad guy have a giant hole in both sides, and, through 3 vests, with plating?"
"Your honor, I was on the way to the range, and, I just happened to have my .475 Ackley in the trunk."

BillCA
September 2, 2008, 12:19 AM
If you are in an area that it's likely you are going to face an armoured bank robber, consider a rifle that shoots heavier bullets, like a 9.3 X 62, 375 H&H, or 458 Lott, and, use solids...

It's unlikely any police department would ever be allowed to use a heavy African game rifle in an urban area. The liability risk for collateral damage is just too high.

Face it, while it might not be as ballsy-macho as some huge caliber African game round or voodoo-ish sniper round (e.g. 408 Cheytac), the .308 M1A NM with a good scope will do the job. A pair of magazines loaded with AP rounds for "special purpose" use would likely be enough. If body hits aren't working, you go for the head or the pelvis and/or legs. If unable to do that, target the weapon he's using.

I will note that trying to make even a 125 yard shot on a moving target hosing down the area with his own .308 makes a head shot... challenging to say the least.

And, since it's the police, they can obtain ammo that's verbotten to the masses, such as solid brass or tungsten cored ammo.

Socrates
September 2, 2008, 12:32 AM
Bill:
007 nixed the 308 M1A with armour piercing, since it's supposed to not work on Level VI, or V vests..

None of the vests are designed to handle bullets with twice the kenetic energy of the 30-06. The 9.3 isn't really an African rifle, it's a Europe/world rifle. The 286 grain bullets, monometal solids, like barnes, at 2400-2500 fps penetrate like crazy, about twice, or three times the depth of the 30-06, or other .308 about caliber AP rounds...Powderman says they have .338's laying around. That's close.

Heck, the 9.3 recoils so little even a police officer might hit his target, with open sites, at 125 yards...;)

And Bill, at least read a little of the thread...;)

Erik
September 2, 2008, 01:31 PM
Uh, you might as well be advocating phasers.

The US LEO market is a 5.56 and 7.62 market, with the 7.62 segment of that market almost exclusively contained within tactical units.

And THAT is deemed very controversial in many parts of the country. Hell, its controversial to many posters HERE.

Readily available slugs and/or M4s would have ended things nicely, much sooner.

Spade Cooley
September 2, 2008, 04:08 PM
I worked that area and retired just before the shooting happened. I knew some of the players.

The pistol on the street was either the S & W or Beretta in 9MM. A few 38 S & W revolvers were there. Some patrol officers had shotguns with OO Buck. Some Swat teams arrived late and had AR-15s.

The street cops were trained to take head shots when they thought body armor was present. The drill at the range was to double tap the center mass and put the third shot in the head. I would venture to say many took the head shot but missed. It might be hard to make the head shot with the pistol when someone is spraying you with and automatic weapon.

The next trip I took to Calif. I saw a motor officer with an AR mounted on his bike. I'm sure there are a lot more in the cars these days.

If any of you are ever in L A for a visit, go to the old Highland Park Station where the LAPD Museum is located. They display the suits the bad guys were wearing on dummies with all the holes. I think there are around 30 holes in each suit. A head shot would have taken them out.

BillCA
September 3, 2008, 02:53 AM
Bill:
007 nixed the 308 M1A with armour piercing, since it's supposed to not work on Level VI, or V vests..

I saw that before I posted, thank you. :p

And Bill, at least read a little of the thread...
Please do not presume I don't read a majority of threads I post to.

My point was that in order to provide a good standard weapon for squad car trunks, nothing more than the .308 is needed. The AR15/M4 is easier to train a wide variety of police with and even the 5.56 platform could have stopped the fight with a headshot. Using a .308 M1A and a head shot would make no significant difference over the M4 (dead is dead).

The primary advantages of the .308 are the greater energy/penetration, semi-auto fire, ammo availability and the ability to obtain AP ammo for special purpose use. And you can still train a good number of officers to shoot it.

There is no need for unusual rifles in odd or brutish chamberings that produce ~4000 ft-lbs of energy. I've fired the 9.3mm round from a Mannlicher carbine and it would not be my first choice for an anti-personnel rifle. Firing a .375 H&H was more fun.

Fortunately, armored bandits are relatively few & far between. If one suspected today would involve an upcoming encounter with such, then one would opt to let the SWAT guys show up with something like the Barrett XM109 25x59mm. Y'know, just in case they're walking around with 50mm armor plates. :p

Spade Cooley
September 3, 2008, 08:56 AM
One more reason the 308 Cal might be a good option was the shoot out of the LAPD with the SLA in South Los Angeles. I knew two of the SWAT members who were at the back of the house during the fire fight. They were trading shots with two women who where hiding behind a refridgerator that was in a back doorway. The SWAT Officers had 223 rifles and they would not penetrate the metal of the ice box. The women would shoot and then duck back behind the refridgerator. The trading of shots went on for some time until the house burned down around them. A 308 rifle would have penetrated the refridgerator and taken both of the SLA Members out in short order and the fight would have been over. I think a mix of weapons is needed but if I had just one, it would be the 308 for urban warfare.

Dihappy
September 4, 2008, 08:33 PM
Snipers

Erik
September 5, 2008, 08:37 AM
Another thing:

The trend in response to defeating armor is not centered around bigger guns chambered for bigger cartridges, but smaller ones; the available solutions from FN in particular. They are light, compact, easy shooting, and a specialty item restricted to tactical team use in most instances.

Spade Cooley
September 5, 2008, 08:43 AM
The History Channel is running a documentary on the shooting tonight, 9-5. They will also take you to the LAPD museum and show what they were wearing.

higgy1911
September 5, 2008, 02:54 PM
Okay, if it was one cop versus the two shootersand he was stuck at fifty yards, and pinned down by halfway accurate fire then a headshot might have been impracitcal.

However, there were far more cops than just one or two on the scene, and there's no way the suspects could be covering every direction that they were covered from by police officers.

It would be interesting to know how many rounds were fired by the LAPD. Because if they had the time to make and continue making usless bodyshots from cover than they likely had time to make half as many, or a third as many slower, more carefully aimed headshots.

The likelyhood that one cop, alone, with a high-cap handgun, couldn't make a single effective headshot is probably marginal or debatable. maybe, maybe not.

But with the number of officers on the scene, and the number of opprotunities for head shots available(even at very difficult distances) it seems pretty unlikely that they wouldn't eventually succeed.

At fifty yards, the background for a body shot would be almost the same as that of a heads hot. I mean,a body shot, under fire, from fifty yards is chancy. So the idea that they couldn't risk taking head shots is ridiculous, if they were sitting there firing away at body shots.

Again, it would be nice to know how many officers were on the scene, how many shots were fired, and how many of those shots were aimed at the head.

Someone mentioned a 50-75 yard moving headshot drill earlier. and hitting something like 5 headshots out of 70 tries. For the North Hollywood shootout, that would have been perfect. that's five effective headshots.

The bad guys fired hundreds and hundreds of round. Didn't kill any bystanders. The police could afford some misses, you have to take chances to stop shooters like that.

Again, How many rounds did LAPD fire. If it's more than a few, then there's your answer. The problem is the shooters, not the guns. the outgunned argument sort of goes out the window.

If I have a full auto AK, and some body armor, and I'm up against ten to twenty cops at fifty yards with Handguns, then I am the one who is outgunned. A handgun is designed for close quarters, but most are more accurate than their shooters. even good shooters. and more than capable of dealing with threats inside 100 yards.

Sure, it'd be nice to have rifles, it'd be nice to have slugs, and so on and so forth.
But that's a weak mindset. Sure the administrators are to blame for having their cops under equipped. But the cops knew they were underequipped, instead of training to complain later about being outgunned, they should have been training to win with what they had.

Double Naught Spy
September 5, 2008, 04:14 PM
LAPD fired something like 800-900 rounds. The robbers fired 1100+.

I can't find it now, but I believe (from memory) it was approximately 80 that were on scene of which about 40 actually engaged the robbers with gunfire. There were some 300+ (all totaled) that were involved in some capacity including the fight, support, roadblocks, helicopters, and/or were in response to the scene.

As seen from the video of the actual shooting, the robbers responded to incoming fire from 180 degrees as their backs were against the bank wall. When they moved out, they were fired on from 270 degrees. So for most of the fight, the robbers were outnumbered and flanked.

There are a couple of sites somewhere on the internet that catalog some of these statistics, but I don't have them bookmarked. If somebody does find them and could post a link, that would be terrific.

Spade Cooley
September 5, 2008, 04:57 PM
The Documentary on the History Channel should answer a lot of your questions. The LAPD has one of the finest marksmanship programs going. They give a bonus on every paycheck for marksmanship. The higher the score, the higher the bonus. They also require everyone to qualify once a month. If they don't qualify, they keep trying at their own expense until they do. The first shoot is at city expense.

Take a look at how many holes there are in the black suits the bad guys were wearing. It's a mitacle they were not taken out by a head shot. The constant movement and automatic weapons must have been a factor in their ability to avoid a quick death by a head shot. The number of rounds fired would only be a rough estimate.

Spade Cooley
September 5, 2008, 05:29 PM
Gentlemen,
It looks like I was wrong about the documentary on the North Hollywood shootout. I can't find it on my T V for tonight. A reliable police web site I visit said it was going to air on the west coast at 2200hrs on the History Channel tonight. Thats 10PM for you draft dodgers.

JohnKSa
September 5, 2008, 09:28 PM
Someone mentioned a 50-75 yard moving headshot drill earlier. and hitting something like 5 headshots out of 70 tries. For the North Hollywood shootout, that would have been perfect. that's five effective headshots.IIRC it was 75 yards and the best (most lucky?) shooters were making maybe 2 or 3 hits out of 50 rounds.

There was no return fire (of course) and we had been shooting all day (warming up, if you will) gradually moving to increasing distances over the course of several hours. In addition it was possible to take a relaxed shooting stance (no need for cover) and the time constraints were not stringent.

YES, it's possible to make headshots at significant distances under ideal conditions, the problem is that it's much, MUCH easier to make body hits at the same distances with a long gun. Hitting a man sized target every time at 75 yards with a rifle is pretty much a given even for a mediocre rifle shot while a good pistol shot might be able to hit a head sized target around 5% of the time at that distance with a pistol.

The Tyler courthouse shooting and the North Hollywood shootout are perfect examples of what happens when an armored man with a rifle comes up against pistol shooters. The pistol shooters either die or are pinned down until the shooter decides to leave or defenders with rifles arrive.

cschwanz
September 6, 2008, 02:23 PM
Im way to tired to read everything, so im sorry if this has been said before. there is no way in hell that gun fight should have lasted 44 minutes. all they had to do was deploy a sniper or two into the nearbay buildings, 2 shots and the gunfight is over

Double Naught Spy
September 6, 2008, 03:53 PM
The snipers didn't arrive in time.

Socrates
September 6, 2008, 03:57 PM
Another alternative might have been one of these:
http://i45.invalid-sanitized.localhost/albums/f99/Socrates28/RUGER%20510%20Max/500right.jpg

On a good day, I can hit a pie plate at 100 yards, with open sites. 525 grain cast bullet at 1350 fps, doesn't slow down much, and, hits with around rifle like energy. Energy of 2,125 foot-pounds for a 525 grain bullet at 1350 fps.

They penetrate 5-6 feet in cape buffalo, or asian buffalo. Also goes about 4 feet, 50 inches, in wet newsprint.
For comparison, a 338 Lapua with a 250 grain bullet, at 2900 fps went 32 inches in wet newsprint, and, a 454 Casull, using a much more shootable, 315 grain monometal hard flat nose went 49" in news print. While I can't promise they would have penetrated that armour, my best guess, and gut tell me they would have blown a big, fat hole all the way through both sides, and, the target.

A 3.2 pound FA 83 in .475 Linebaugh, or, the 500 Linebaugh, or 500 JRH, are both capable of being carried in a trunk, or on a belt, and, all it would take would be one well placed shot, and, the party would have been over.

How bad are L.A. restrictions on firearms carried in the trunk of a squad car? How restricted are the LAPD in choosing their own belt guns?

Erik
September 6, 2008, 05:08 PM
A search of the net reveals that, no surprise, the LAPD restricts its patrol officers to options off of a list; that list is relatively "standard," and will never include what you're suggesting. (However, in the interest of seeing more great photos typical of your posts, please keep on dreaming.)

This article from April 08 sums it up as well as the any I've been able to find:

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/Guns+of+the+LAPD

Socrates
September 6, 2008, 05:38 PM
Great link Erik, Thank you.

If they can carry old 45 Colt wheel guns, and, they are strong enough, and well taken care of, they can be capable of extraordinary accuracy, and penetration, with heavy 45 Colt loads.

Since you like pictures:
;)
http://i45.invalid-sanitized.localhost/albums/f99/Socrates28/seville%207%202006/Sevillegripright.jpg
http://i45.invalid-sanitized.localhost/albums/f99/Socrates28/seville%207%202006/SevilleGripleft.jpg

This old girl would put 260 grain HP's, at 1450 fps, or, 350 grain LFN's, at 1550 fps, into 2-3" at 100 yards, if you could. Similar, lighter loads, in a strong 45 Colt revolver, give you more effective reach, and penetration.
A 315 Grain monometal bullet, in 45 Colt, will go 4 feet in wetnewsprint...

Double Naught Spy
September 6, 2008, 08:09 PM
Dude, those aren't going through Level III body armor. The cops weren't trained well enough to make head shots at long ranges on moving targets, from non-standard shooting positions when said targets were returning full auto fire.

2-3" at 100 yards? Really? With iron sights? A lot of cops don't shoot 2-3" groups with AR15s at 100 yards, but you think they are going to do it with an iron sighted revolver? LOL!

Of course if the cops were fighting wet news print, I guess those revolvers would be plenty effective. Body armor is a bit tougher than wet news print.

Socrates
September 6, 2008, 10:25 PM
OO&: anybody that uses the term "dude" can't be much older then my last part of underwear, so, you'll have to provide a bit more evidence then your word, "DUDE".:rolleyes:

BillCA
September 8, 2008, 03:03 AM
Now boys, let's play nice.

The point OO-Spy makes is valid. Most cops are not crack shots with standard service guns, despite what movies and television would have the public believe. Shooting at a moving object the size of a cantaloupe at anywhere from 50 to 125 yards is not an easy task. One might was well expect trainees to hit speeding clays with a handgun.

With respect to Socrates and his love of big-bore wrist-testers, the power of the cartridge is useless if you cannot make a hit. Think of the liability issues that come with using a heavy solid in urban areas. Think of city attorneys thinking about the liability. Think of the politicians thinking about the liability and political repercussions. It won't fly.

The only viable option open to the cops were head shots.

They were not equipped (with sidearms) to handle armored BG's with FA weapons.

Shotgun slugs were not available for long shots.

No rifles were available for long precision shots.

They were not trained in team-tactics to deal with highly aggressive (and armored) shooters.

Coordination between units or teams was poor and tactical advantages were not exploited.

If one arriving squad-car in five had a rifle with a reasonable rifleman, they may have been able to stop the incident much faster.

The rifle caliber probably would not matter as much as the capability to place a precision shot out to 200m. I'd think that any .223, .243, 6.5mm, .270, .308 or even a .30-30 round hitting above the shoulders would have neutralized the target.

At least one or two magazines of "special purpose" ammo should be available for their AR's or .308's. AP and AP-Tracer ammo would be suitable for this kind of incident.

Otherwise... continued discussion is just
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/BillCA/Hobby/misc/deadhorse5.gif

Socrates
September 11, 2008, 08:38 AM
One thing I do remember is some police using a car as cover, when, to a 7.62 x 39, it's concealment, not cover.

One wonders if a light burst machine gun, focused at the BG's legs or feet would have fixed the target, and, made the end a bit quicker...

Select fire on a AR-15 in the trunk might be a real good idea, sometimes.

In general, do folks think hitting a moving target, head shot, at range, is easier with burst fire, within a M-16, or selective fire?

Sarge
September 11, 2008, 08:43 AM
Aimed, deliberate fire.

snolden
September 11, 2008, 10:59 AM
the other thing that i see lacking from the above posts is covering fire. There were a few officers that were injured badly and unable to move for the entire duration of this incident. If the officers had been even briefly taught (say 1-3 days) team tactics and some field of fire stuff they could have got the injured ones out sooner. Even from 125 yards their pistols are accurate for 2 shots/second covering fire. At the very least it would have been possible to distract the perps away from a point long enough to gain access to that point.

But the simple, most cost effective way to avert this the next time is a cheap semi or bolt rifle with a few days training.

I started putting an SKS in my trunk just because of the AAR i read on this incident. (i m not a police officer, but I would not mind loaning my sks to one if they needed it)

Frontier509
September 11, 2008, 07:25 PM
Quick answer
A chopper mounted mini gun would have made short work of the assailants.
Might not be a bad investment for the LAPD given the SoCal enviroment.
Advantages many, drawbacks few.

Striker071
September 11, 2008, 10:27 PM
Her is my .02 cents. Body armor.. most Body armor you can get is level IIIA ... trauma plates give you added protection in certain areas mainly center mass. Most handgun ammo will not penetrate Level IIIA armor. In this case a 223 round or two would have ended the incident rater quickly. During training I brought my FAL in 308 to the range we set up one of our vests that was being replace up on a target holder and I put about 6 rounds through the front and the back of the vest. We did that to show the class the importance of being aware of your cover situation if we encounter a person with a rifle. That is why LAPD now has some units with a M4 rifle in the trunk. Now the issue of sabot rounds in a shot gun... would they have the energy to penetrate the body armor at the standoff distance that was presented. Also You might be able to hit a target at the range with a pistol at 75 yards or more... but things change real quick when someone is sending lead your way as well...

Double Naught Spy
September 12, 2008, 06:26 AM
Now the issue of sabot rounds in a shot gun... would they have the energy to penetrate the body armor at the standoff distance that was presented.

Maybe. While a IIIa vest will stop most slugs and some sabot rounds at close range (20 yards), effectiveness is going to be lost with distance. There is one French sabot (I will have to look up the company name) that would be a good candidate, but it still would not be going through the plating that raised the vest strength to that of being a Level III in some areas.

I know, you are supposed to shoot them through the vest where there isn't any plating. That seems to be a really tough thing to do.

BillCA
September 12, 2008, 07:41 PM
Looking at the tests done on the Box o' Truth with shotgun slugs vs. a vest, I don't think anyone will enjoy being protected by the vest when the slug shoves their ribcage halfway down on their heart and lungs. That 5" to 6" depression in the clay backing is nothing to sneeze at.

The 12ga slug is a formidible projectile. That literal ton of energy has to go somewhere (in fact a 3" Winchester 1oz slug gives over 3000 ft-lbs). If the vest stops the slug that energy is very likely to knock your opponent to the ground like standing in front of a moving Buick.

Even if it only stuns your opponent for a few moments, one can only imagine what it would be like to be repeatedly struck by sledgehammer-like blows from several directions.

JohnKSa
September 12, 2008, 10:58 PM
I don't think anyone will enjoy being protected by the vest when the slug shoves their ribcage halfway down on their heart and lungs.Soft armor vs. slug = injured target. Good quality hard armor vs slug = little to no effect. If the vest stops the slug that energy is very likely to knock your opponent to the ground like standing in front of a moving Buick.No it won't. Not even a .50BMG has the energy to "knock someone to the ground". I've seen it tested with a crash dummy of similar weight to a human and rigged to completely stop a .50BMG bullet fired at 10 feet. There was very little backward motion imparted to the dummy--certainly not enough to qualify as being "knocked to the ground".

vox rationis
September 12, 2008, 11:11 PM
No it won't. Not even a .50BMG has the energy to "knock someone to the ground". I've seen it tested with a crash dummy of similar weight to a human and rigged to completely stop a .50BMG bullet fired at 10 feet. There was very little backward motion imparted to the dummy--certainly not enough to qualify as being "knocked to the ground".

Yep, Newton taught us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the gun has enough power to shoot a bullet that will knock something/someone down, the shooter will be knocked down just as much, or hard, as the object/person being hit.

Double Naught Spy
September 13, 2008, 12:36 AM
Looking at the tests done on the Box o' Truth with shotgun slugs vs. a vest, I don't think anyone will enjoy being protected by the vest when the slug shoves their ribcage halfway down on their heart and lungs. That 5" to 6" depression in the clay backing is nothing to sneeze at.

Yes, well, that is part of the reason why the North Hollywood robbers had incorporated steel plates into their armor. A COM shot with a 12 ga wasn't going to be significantly more harmful than the pistol rounds as a result. Like I said, it is hard to aim between the plates, especially if you don't know where they are.

Also keep in mind that the two robbers were body builders, mildly medicated, and not doubt experiencing an adrenaline rush. Even without the steel plates, 12 ga impacts to the vest may not have phased them too much.

If the vest stops the slug that energy is very likely to knock your opponent to the ground like standing in front of a moving Buick.

Buicks must be small in California these days.

The bad guy might fall down as a physiological response to being impacted, but not because of kinetic energy transference, as already noted. By the same token, I have seen a 250 lb man "knocked down" by a racquetball, but the reality is he wasn't knocked down.

nemoaz
September 13, 2008, 11:49 AM
John and Son of Vlad, thanks for rebutting the old wives tales.

I find myself just shaking my head in disbelief.

Socrates
September 13, 2008, 08:37 PM
Yep, Newton taught us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the gun has enough power to shoot a bullet that will knock something/someone down, the shooter will be knocked down just as much, or hard, as the object/person being hit.
This gun hit me so hard I thought my shoulder was separated, and, that was through a big butt pad, not getting hit with a .510" caliber bullet.
http://i45.invalid-sanitized.localhost/albums/f99/Socrates28/VanHornLott450n2/GS510VANHORNWEB.jpg
http://i45.invalid-sanitized.localhost/albums/f99/Socrates28/VanHornLott450n2/lottvh50-110.jpg 600 grains, at 2150 fps gives you Energy of 6,160 foot-pounds for a 600 grain bullet at 2150 fps. Despite dummy testing, I can't help but think that you would at least be knocked back as much as I was if hit by this bullet.

By the way, I helped accuracy test the 450 grain, 1900 fps sabot, .45 caliber, from Ballistic Research INcorporated, in the early 80's. This sabot is now LEO only. It flattened deer, penetrated like crazy, and kicked like a mule. Energy wise, Energy of 3,608 foot-pounds for a 450 grain bullet at 1900 fps.

I'm not buying this won't go through steel plate, since it did when we tested it...
It was in fact, designed for just such situations...

vox rationis
September 13, 2008, 09:33 PM
600 grains, at 2150 fps gives you Energy of 6,160 foot-pounds for a 600 grain bullet at 2150 fps. Despite dummy testing, I can't help but think that you would at least be knocked back as much as I was if hit by this bullet.

Cool pictures.
I'm just amazed at the cannons you shoot..yowza
Well I'm no physics professor, but the right answer ought to be that an object that weighed as much as you do, would be hit as hard as your shoulder, and move as much, or little, as you did, if the bullet transferred all of its kinetic energy into the target (didn't overpenetrate). Nobody said that getting nailed with a big un' while wearing a vest wouldn't give you the mother of all bruising's :o

JohnKSa
September 13, 2008, 10:00 PM
The 50BMG has about twice that energy at the muzzle. I watched the original show and then watched the online video several times before it was removed (no doubt for copyright infringement.) The dummy moved backwards enough to be dislodged from the supports but then fell pretty much straight down. The bullet penetrated the armor plate installed in the chest but then stopped in the metal spine of the dummy so all of the momentum/energy of the bullet was expended in the impact.

Double Naught Spy
September 13, 2008, 10:23 PM
I'm not buying this won't go through steel plate, since it did when we tested it...
It was in fact, designed for just such situations...

What type of steel plate did you use? Did you use AR500 steel plate? If so, how thick? Or, did you just use some little piece of mild steel?

By the way, I helped accuracy test the 450 grain, 1900 fps sabot, .45 caliber, from Ballistic Research INcorporated, in the early 80's. This sabot is now LEO only.

Really, under what name is this LEO only uber round sold?

And do you have a photograph of your time machine? How did you like Australia?

http://www.ballisticsresearch.com/about.php
Ballistics Research, Inc., founded in 1999, is dedicated to the development and research of force protection and law enforcement tools, which enable projectile stopping, and the accurate and complete identification of fired handgun bullets, rifle bullets, and artillery shells. Careful scientific research, craftsmanship and investment has enabled Ballistics Research, Inc. to develop the best method of ballistic identification currently known, and the development and production of revolutionary projectile stopping units.

If they are an American company by the exact same name, they keep a very low profile. So where are they located?

BillCA
September 14, 2008, 04:13 AM
To clarify... The phsyiological reaction to a 12-gauge slug impact into soft body armor will most likely cause the recipient to go down. A heavy blow to the chest that compresses the ribs will be felt and knock the wind out of you at least.

Yes, well, that is part of the reason why the North Hollywood robbers had incorporated steel plates into their armor. A COM shot with a 12 ga wasn't going to be significantly more harmful than the pistol rounds as a result. Like I said, it is hard to aim between the plates, especially if you don't know where they are.
I'll grant you that steel plates will keep the subject from getting the full impact of the slugs. But it is unlikely that any subject would be covered with enough steel plates to absorb multiple slug hits from different directions.

Also keep in mind that the two robbers were body builders, mildly medicated, and not doubt experiencing an adrenaline rush. Even without the steel plates, 12 ga impacts to the vest may not have phased them too much.
I'll disagree here. A vest without plates will stop the slug, but the deformation of the body underneath, including compression of the ribs, can potentially stop the heart or cause bruising of the heart.

Had LAPD been able to deploy slugs with any accuracy, I think the shooters would have withdrawn faster. That said, I also think even if LAPD had slugs available, it would be a case of too few rounds available because the bean counters and policy hacks would only issue about 5 rounds per car.

Powderman
September 14, 2008, 12:20 PM
Had LAPD been able to deploy slugs with any accuracy, I think the shooters would have withdrawn faster. That said, I also think even if LAPD had slugs available, it would be a case of too few rounds available because the bean counters and policy hacks would only issue about 5 rounds per car.


I don't know about that--but I have exactly zero experience with testing vests. Now, if I had anything to do with it, I would issue these to supervisors for car and trunk carry. Politically correct enough to placate the bean counters and alarmists, pretty enough to not attract the attention of the naysayers--and plenty of power for just about any situation:

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?value=002B&cat_id=031&type_id=001

Give them some 5 or 10 round magazines, chamber it in .338, or one of the short mags and load with some match bullets--or even some JSP. Bring on the body armor!

R1145
September 14, 2008, 01:01 PM
It's easy to talk about headshots with your pistol when you don't have a guy blazing away at you with an AK. Usually, you respond to a call with very little information. The fog of war is thick and hindsight is 20/20.

I think the shootout was successfully resolved: Containment was established, the suspects didn't get away.

Massive firefights like this and, say, the Miami shootout, are so extremely rare, I'm not sure how many conclusions one can draw from them.

One positive effect is that the LAPD seems to have more rifles deployed in the field. Like it or not, I see the trend towards rifles replacing shotguns in police work, with shotguns dedicated to less-lethal munitions. I think it's a good thing.

I heard a story that the dramatic takedown of the second shooter that occurred when a car full of SWAT officers drove up to a car the shooter was behind. Apparently, it was an accident: They didn't realize he was there until they got very close.

The one who got the shooter was the car's driver, who came out of the car then skipped bullets from his MP-5 off the pavement, which took out the shooter's feet.

Socrates
September 14, 2008, 01:04 PM
B.R.I. was originally formed in Santa Cruz, CA, in about 1980-85.
The owner used a classic sabot design, around 450-500 grains, cast superhard.
http://www.vet.uga.edu/vpp/IA/SRP/vfp/images/slugs.jpg
The sabot I shot out of a scoped Remington shotgun looked like the one on the left.

Box looks like this:
http://www.thedealershowroom.com/t/ammo/bri_sabot_reload.jpg

Few folks in Alaska on this forum still have em, and hoard them for bears.

Vern also made some others:
http://www.thedealershowroom.com/i/ammo/bri_gualandi.jpg

Here are some of the sabots he offered for sale:
http://www.thedealershowroom.com/i/ammo/bri_sabot_reload.jpg
http://www.thedealershowroom.com/page/page/1275214.htm

I think the patent was sold to Winchester, but, they are now focusing on offering their new slug, similar to
the Barnes X.

Here's a link to some of em, and, they even give credit to the original company, BRI, in the name:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/s7_212291_imageset_01%3F%24thumb%24&imgrefurl=http://www.cabelas.com/link-12/product/0006523211501a.shtml&h=75&w=75&sz=3&hl=en&start=5&sig2=svtDxbej_mJcjZnbDS7fTQ&usg=__p8gKZimX4YUDZkvi_j1_DLENQ4Q=&tbnid=oVDf8esWy41fOM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=71&ei=mlLNSJKUOZWWsQOF1vyHBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DB.R.I.%2BShotgun%2Bsabot%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG
http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/s7_212291_imageset_01?$main-Medium$

This review is about the accuracy most get with the slugs:
Good Slugs for the Money, January 8, 2008
By Steve21009 from Maryland

"I have used 12 gauge BRI sabot slugs for several years, and see no reason to try any others. At 50 yards, I can shoot a 2" group all day long and could probably do better if I concentrated a little more. On a very windy day, I have seen people shoot 3-4" groups at 100 yards with these, so on a calm day I suspect that tighter groups could be achieved.
I have shot about a half dozen deer with this slug, and they have always done the job very well. I've never been able to recover a slug, so cannot comment on mushrooming or expansion. My guess is, with a slug this heavy, and with a diameter of .50", expansion is not really needed to do the job.
Another reason I have liked them is that for years they have been among the more reasonably-priced of all the sabot slugs out there.
The recoil is stout, but not unbearable. There are plenty of loads available with higher velocity, but those hot loads will punish your shoulder, with a likely negative effect on accuracy.
If you want a slug that you can almost afford, that doesn't kill your shoulder on the range, and is very accurate, I don't think you can do much better than this."

We tested the rounds at higher velocities the testing was intended to find out at what velocity the Sabot was most accurate. Benching full house shotgun sabots is NOT the most fun I've had shooting...

The full house loads were supposed to be in the 1800-1900 fps range. That would put a 440 grain, .50" caliber sabot, cast very hard, at Energy of 3,166 foot-pounds for a 440 grain bullet at 1800 fps. At 1900 fps Energy of 3,528 foot-pounds for a 440 grain bullet at 1900 fps.

It's VERY hard to slow down a slug weighing that much, and, I suspect that even if it didn't go through, you'd know you got hit with it.
Plus, the sabots were VERY accurate, suitable as a Politically Correct alternative to a high powered rifle. The Sabot could easily be tuned to penetrate armour, with no one being the wiser. Us a monometal, super hard material, turned on a lathe, and, you would have armour piercing and politically correct...

easyG
September 17, 2008, 09:47 PM
What could the police have done differently to end the situation much quicker?
They should have quickly established a single leader who could have coordinated their fire-power on a specific target at a specific time.

For example.....
"All shooters, target on the right only, head shots only, on my command....one...two....FIRE!!!"

Every single officer simultaneously unloading on one target's head would have probably put the target down.
Then they could have concentrated on the second target.

Double Naught Spy
September 18, 2008, 05:38 AM
Every single officer simultaneously unloading on one target's head would have probably put the target down.

Then they could have concentrated on the second target.

First, given the ability to aim and hit, everyone shooting at the same time, even at the suspect's head (which they were doing, BTW), would just mean that everyone missed at the same time and then managed to all unload their guns together such that you have a bunch of cops doing mag changes at the same time and nobody providing cover fire or having the ability to do so.

What do you do for the cops who are exposed and trying to shoot the suspect's head, but the suspects are raking them with full auto fire?

Also, what com system was in place that would make it possible for all officers to hear all commands sufficiently well to make such a coordinated effort? Yes, most undoubtedly had their walkie talkies, but not all of them. So you have several dozen officers spread out over a very large area and firing at suspects from 270 degree around the suspects. So are these commands going to be shouted over the roar of the fire?

easyG
September 18, 2008, 03:58 PM
First, given the ability to aim and hit, everyone shooting at the same time, even at the suspect's head (which they were doing, BTW), would just mean that everyone missed at the same time and then managed to all unload their guns together such that you have a bunch of cops doing mag changes at the same time and nobody providing cover fire or having the ability to do so.
It's all about playing the odds....
Concentrated fire definitely increases the odds of at least one good hit....much more so than non-concentrated fire, which had already proven ineffective.
And even if everyone did somehow missed and had to change magazines all at the same time, it would have only meant about five seconds of interruption, which would not have made their plight any worse off than it already was.

What do you do for the cops who are exposed and trying to shoot the suspect's head, but the suspects are raking them with full auto fire?
What alternative did they have....curl up in the fetal position and wait to die?
They were already exposed and getting shot at with full auto fire....concentrating their firepower at one target's head certainly would not have made their situation any worse.
Yes, it is scarey to return fire when you're being shot at (I know firsthand), but sometimes there's really no other viable alternative.

Also, what com system was in place that would make it possible for all officers to hear all commands sufficiently well to make such a coordinated effort? Yes, most undoubtedly had their walkie talkies, but not all of them. So you have several dozen officers spread out over a very large area and firing at suspects from 270 degree around the suspects. So are these commands going to be shouted over the roar of the fire?
Yeah, the military does it all the time....and we didn't even have "bullhorns".
You shout out to all who can hear and they pass it along.
It's certainly not a perfect system, but it's a better than what they were doing.

Double Naught Spy
September 18, 2008, 06:32 PM
The odds don't change just because the officers are shooting at the same time. Sorry, but statistically that does not matter. They can all miss at the same time or all miss separately.

What choice to the cops have how are being shot at? You are kidding right? They seek cover. It is a rather obvious choice.

As for the military and their good coms, they don't do so well when orders are shouted over long distances for the type of precision timed volley that you are describing.

easyG
September 22, 2008, 11:13 AM
Gee, Double Naught Spy, I'm glad I didn't have such pessimists in my platoon when I was in Iraq.

Slopemeno
September 22, 2008, 12:59 PM
I think you guys need to think about how worse it could have gone down.

What if: The cops had returned heavy fire and the two clowns went back into the bank and now they have a boatload of hostages?

All thinkgs considered, it wasn't pretty, but the good guys won.

Double Naught Spy
September 22, 2008, 05:27 PM
Gee, Double Naught Spy, I'm glad I didn't have such pessimists in my platoon when I was in Iraq.

It isn't an issue of optimism or pessimism. It is an issue of reality.

easyG
September 22, 2008, 08:43 PM
It isn't an issue of optimism or pessimism. It is an issue of reality.
Have ever ordered a large group of shooters to concentrate their fire on a single specific target?

I have, and it does get results.
I've never seen an incident where every shooter missed.
The law of averages prevails....the more lead directed at a single target, the greater the odds that the target will get hit.

JohnKSa
September 22, 2008, 11:58 PM
Have ever ordered a large group of shooters to concentrate their fire on a single specific target?Interesting question but not exactly applicable...

Here's the correct question.

Have you ever ordered a large group of pistol shooters (dispersed over a fairly large area and mostly employing concealment, not cover) to concentrate their fire on a moving target the size of a human head at 75+ yards while the group was taking automatic weapons fire?

Double Naught Spy
September 23, 2008, 03:40 AM
easyG, it doesn't matter if they were going to shoot one at a time or en masse because they were unable to hit what they were needing to hit. They can all miss together or all miss separately. It doesn't matter when the shooters are all have aim points that are wrong. That seems to have been the crux of the problem. The POA did not equal the POI.

The law of averages prevails....the more lead directed at a single target, the greater the odds that the target will get hit.

Good. Now the problem. If you have 50 shooters shoot individually 10 rounds each or 50 shooters shoot 10 rounds each en masse, note that the amount of lead TOWARD the target is the same amount. So the averages DO NOT CHANGE. Of course, if you can explain to me how the math behind your law of averages and so that there is a statistical difference, I would like to see it. Of course, the "law of averages" isn't an actual mathematical law in the first place. It is a layman's assumption about how things function in the world.

So, the are all going to still miss because of the numerous reasons noted above in the thread about the fact that they needed to make head shots, they had moving targets, most were shooting at distances several times what they qualified at, were firing from unfamiliar body positions, had no idea of how much drop was involved, had no idea how much to lead their targets, etc.

Brit
September 23, 2008, 04:44 AM
The chance of a lucky (unlucky for the criminal) bullet from the boat anchor pistols the Police had, dropping on to the roadway in front of them, and skipping in to an unprotected ankle, was a more realistic scenario.

The result of a frontal hit in an ankle you rely on to keep you upright would have been very traumatic, and most probably would have stopped the moving and shooting right there. A head shot would have been more of chance now, ricochets being easier to predict.

Double Naught Spy
September 23, 2008, 06:26 AM
If you can't aim well enough to hit a head on a person, then how the heck are you going to be able to aim well enough to get a ricochet to go where you want in order to be able to hit a much much smaller object at the same fairly extreme distances we are talking about?

In the Miami-FBI shootout, Platt was hit with a shotgun blast to his feet including hitting his left ankle, but he certainly didn't go down from the impacts.

.22lr
September 23, 2008, 09:06 AM
People have talked about communication systems ("comms"). what they have not addressed is the fact that in this case, and I would expect many others, the responding officers had little to no real idea of what was going on as they responded.

I remember an interview with the dispatcher. She said that she was receiving many officers reporting the same officer down. It wasn't until time had passed that she realized that many officers were reporting many DIFFERENT officers down. The situation was confused. Confusion cost time. Confusion probably delayed the proper response (SWAT with rifles).

Ideally, there would be a UAV overhead giving a video feed to officers in some sort of command area. All officers would be equipped with a version of Blue Force Tracker. The communication system would be improved. Oh, and the bad guys would be nice enough to notify the police that they are going to commit a crime so all this stuff can be set up, and taxpayers don't mind footing the massive bill.

Heroic officers raced into an unknown situation mainly with the knowledge that fellow officers were hurt. WOW.

As for the weapon side, different hardware may or may not have helped. I disagree with heavy calibers for urban patrol. Too much going on for the officer to have the additional worry of "how many brick walls/homes will this thing penetrate", not to mention recoil. It is my OPINION, that a carbine type platform (for ease of deployment from a vehicle) would increase the effective range of the officers. As to caliber, something akin to .223 rem / 5.56x45mm would seem to be a good choice. But all this costs money.

I view the post-shooting switch to .40S&W as a "feel good" measure at best, but the increase of rifles in patrol cars will probably be beneficial in the long run.

Very Respectfully,

Matt

Th0r
October 4, 2008, 03:48 PM
One thing I do remember is some police using a car as cover, when, to a 7.62 x 39, it's concealment, not cover

The LAPD Officers that used cars for cover in the shootout hid behind the wheels as it was evident that the first officers on scene had been shot at through a car.

Source: A credible documentary on YouTube about the shootout.

Glenn E. Meyer
October 4, 2008, 06:12 PM
Ideally, there would be a UAV overhead giving a video feed to officers in some sort of command area.

Ideally, there would have been a A-10 or a B-2. :rolleyes: Having a rifle in the car is reasonable. Suggesting that cars start carrying those portablle UAVs is getting a little extreme.

Too much second guessing of obscure strategies beyond having rifles, IMHO.

pfch1977
October 5, 2008, 10:32 AM
The officers could , but it is sometimes the best solution at avoiding the loss of life. after allowing them to escape.

Tommy Vercetti
October 5, 2008, 10:37 AM
LAPD was armed with Berettas in any video you can find on the shootout

not Glocks :rolleyes:

FRANK1669
October 5, 2008, 12:32 PM
The original post asked what LAPD had learned- they now have ar-15s enough said on that.

the police did the best they could with what they had. And my hats off to all of them. All of the marksmen in favor of head shots at 50+ yards with standard service sidearms should have no problem getting sponsorship as factory shooters.

Try this drill sprint 100 yards neal down behind you cover and try to hit a silhouette target at 50 yard in under 10 seconds – then try it with one of your friends cracking of rounds out of his AR while you are trying to fire. It’s a real eye opener..

Trying to place a precise shot when your heart is pounding, your adrenaline is flowing, breathing heavily. Is hard at best.

Socrates
October 5, 2008, 01:02 PM
Well that explains it.
If they would have had Glocks, the guys would have been down with the first shots....

guntotin_fool
October 5, 2008, 03:01 PM
well thats a helpful comment,


What it all shows is that had someone had a .22 rifle, they might have been able to stop it much faster. Not that a .22 is a man stopper, but a rifle of any caliber increases your hit probability 10 fold over a hand gun in a fighting situation. instead of giving every cop a M4, give seargants a 3030 carbine or a .243 bolt and the situation is over. M4s are marginal man stoppers now, and no where the in the house stopper that a 12 gauge is.

Even if they had used slugs, or had them available, the impact from a 12 gauge slug even thru body armor, is going to HURT, and its going to slow you down fast.

But a model 94, with a peep sight, is going to make that 50 yard head shot all day long, and that will end the fight.

Socrates
October 5, 2008, 05:56 PM
It's VERY hard to slow down a slug weighing that much, and, I suspect that even if it didn't go through, you'd know you got hit with it.
Plus, the sabots were VERY accurate, suitable as a Politically Correct alternative to a high powered rifle. The Sabot could easily be tuned to penetrate armour, with no one being the wiser. Us a monometal, super hard material, turned on a lathe, and, you would have armour piercing and politically correct...

I'm glad you agree with me, Fool...It probably wouldn't hurt to actually read a post in the thread, before you post your stuff in it...

pfch1977
October 5, 2008, 11:46 PM
Anyone whom I have knows they are not so accurate. If have been quickly put to an end on tactics.

BillCA
October 6, 2008, 04:41 AM
The officers could have retreated from the situation, allowed the attackers to escape and then follow them in the helicopter.

The solution of the officers was to escalate the situation by bringing more officers on to the scene. However, this only increased the amount of casualties.

How come I do not hear or see the solution of retreat to be the answer in these situations? I know it may not seem American to retreat in the face of danger, but it is sometimes the best solution at avoiding the loss of life.


The goal of LE is to contain the situation to reduce the risk of civilian casualties. You'll see this in most incidents involving firearms. A domestic violence where the spouse says the other has a firearm, results in police containing the offender in the house and evacuating surrounding homes whilst they surround and contain the person.

Letting perps armed with FA weapons flee and pursuing with helicopters is problematic. One does not know their motivation or psychological bent. They could easily drive to a local school and open fire along the fence-line at kids outdoors. Or they could stay far enough ahead of ground units to enter a parking structure, switch cars and escape altogether (now you have FA-armed crazies loose). Once they spot the heilo, they could start shooting random cars they pass to create massive traffic jams to block trailing ground units. That'll look swell with "film at eleven".

In normal situations, police have found that the more officers present, the less likely suspects are to shoot it out with police. That's because they know they are likely to die by gunfire. Unfortunately, that dynamic changes if your perps are heavily body-armored and don't fear being shot at.

Glenn E. Meyer
October 6, 2008, 09:49 AM
Again, we have a lot of after the fact 'expert and wise' advice. UAVs, retreat, heliocopters, homemade slugs, 22LRs, firing like a line of 18th Red Coats, if only Chuck Conners - the Rifleman was there with his lever action - blah, blah.

The officers acted bravely in a situation that they haven't faced before. It didn't go as well as if the Internet League of Heroes was there. It was a teachable moment, so to speak, and the lesson is not to have the LAPD equipped with a space station but for officers to have rifles in cars. Many departments have done this. Some, because of political correctness, haven't done this yet.

That's about all there is to the incident.

.22lr
October 6, 2008, 09:57 AM
please, the UAV thing was the IDEAL in a IDEAL world. I also siad that, in this ideal world, the public wouldn't mind the extra taxes and the bad guys would phone their attentions in ahead of time. Think utopian, happy bunny, ideally.

My Main thrust was that the cops didn't have vital information but they raced to the scene anyways. Their heroics are astounding.

My second thrust was that I thought that the availability of rifles is probably a good thing, but they should be in a intermediate cartridge, not the biggest most punishing revolver or bolt action available.

The cops did great against cruddy odds. They all deserve medals.

As for the advanced communications and better awareness of what was going on, we just aren't there yet.

Erik
October 6, 2008, 12:57 PM
That was great, Glenn. :D

What Glenn said! Well, that and slugs.

JohnH1963
January 16, 2009, 12:47 AM
What about grenades or 40 mm grenade launchers? Why dont big city agencies have something explosive just for these types of situations? The six pack with 6 40mm grenade launchers would be perfect.

Hondo11
January 16, 2009, 02:26 AM
What about grenades or 40 mm grenade launchers? Why dont big city agencies have something explosive just for these types of situations? The six pack with 6 40mm grenade launchers would be perfect.

And 64's for those times when that crazy guy steals a tank from the military and starts rampaging through town....:rolleyes:

JohnH1963
January 18, 2009, 01:29 AM
I think many law enforcement agencies have resisted taking on larger sized weapons out of fear of looking like the military. It makes sense to me for every officer to have something extra on-hand to even the odds such as an automatic rifle or sub-machine gun. I think such large city departments should have something even a little heavier like a 40 mm launcher or even a helicopter armed with a light machine gun.

mnhntr
January 18, 2009, 02:35 AM
the biggest problem is the fact that the officers were poor shots and trained to resist the urge to put one between the eyes. they had weapons deigned for close range. IMO every patrol car should have a shotgun and an AR15 with an officer capable of using them efficiently. 1 head shot each would have taken both perps down with an immediate end to the threat.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 20, 2009, 11:19 AM
Grenade launchers? How would that have helped in the North Hollywood shootout? Heliocopters - same question?

There were people in the bank in back of the two shooters - want to send a grenade their way?

The vast majority of extreme incidents that generated the uproar can be handled by rifles which are now becoming standard issue for many departments.

Shadow1198
January 21, 2009, 03:14 AM
Haha, the internet is hilarious. Some suggestions here suggest there are many 1337 D3ltA 0p3r@t0r'S present in this thread. :rolleyes: Lets take thing back to reality just a bit.

You're an average beat cop, you get called to a scene, and shortly after arriving you are confronted by two heavily armed men with machineguns, AP rounds, and a scary cool, calm demeanor to use them. Come on now. The average officer has likely never been in a situation like that. Can you imagine the fear, disorientation, and shock? Come on people, give me a break. I'm sure to all the officers involved, those 44 minutes (or however long it really was) weren't 44 minutes of bank robbery but 44 minutes of WAR. Most people (the average person) have a tough time hitting the target at 50-100yds with a handgun, let alone making a headshot. Couple that with your target being heavily armored and firing back hundreds of AP rounds, thoroughly disintegrating everything you could possibly take cover behind. It is a miracle no one died except the robbers themselves.

Big bore revolvers, grenade launchers (I'm sure that was a joke though, right?), and UAV's. lol You all make me laugh. ;)

BillCA
January 21, 2009, 04:49 AM
What about grenades or 40 mm grenade launchers? Why dont big city agencies have something explosive just for these types of situations? The six pack with 6 40mm grenade launchers would be perfect.

Police have tried using explosives in other situations before and it hasn't turned out so well. Read this article (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm) about the 1985 MOVE standoff for one example of stupidity in Government.

The N.Hollywood shootout was an incident that exploited a weakness in American law enforcement. Almost no agency drills for encountering multiple suspects armed with Class-III ordnance. The outcome could have been far worse has these two been part of a 5-6 man group of professionals with a good plan.

JohnKSa
January 21, 2009, 06:00 AM
The N.Hollywood shootout was an incident that exploited a weakness in American law enforcement. Almost no agency drills for encountering multiple suspects armed with Class-III ordnance. The outcome could have been far worse has these two been part of a 5-6 man group of professionals with a good plan.I'd say that the biggest issue wasn't the weapons that the robbers had nor the fact that there were more than one robber. The biggest problem for the police was the fact that they were wearing heavy body armor.

Even though there were two of them armed with Class IIIs, they were still hit multiple times. Had they not been armored up things would have ended very differently and much more rapidly.

I do agree that the robbers had a miserable plan. I think that once the shooting started they were having too much fun shooting to think about a long term solution.

mskdgunman
January 21, 2009, 06:53 AM
I agree with Erik. If the officers were not issued rifle caliber carbines, they should have been authorized to carry slugs for their shotguns. In my mind, buckshot (at least to law enforcement) is next to useless. While slugs may not have penetrated the BG's body armor, blunt trauma is a b@*ch and multiple slug hits may have put them down where they could have been finished off.

I'm lucky in that our agency has authorized slugs for years but few people carry them. Most cops look at the shotgun as an inconvienence and the state of shotgun training at most agencies seems to be "fire your five or ten rounds a year and forget it" I carry a couple rounds of buckshot in my extra ammo but the ready rounds and the majority of my spare ammo is slugs.

We recently authorized patrol rifles but my shotgun still has slugs in it. I figure if it's bad enough for it to come into play, I want a round with some authority

Also, most cops underestimate the penetration power of rifle caliber rounds since most have little to no experience with anything outside handguns and shotguns. Granted, you use what you have for cover/concealment but don't confuse the two and always be looking for something better. Better education for cops is necessary so they understand the capabilities of the rifles they may be facing

I also think personal trauma kits (small ones for individual use) should be considered. Tacpack (I think thats the company's name) makes small sealed trauma packs designed to deal with gunshot wounds. Provide them to officers and TRAIN them with them.

Double Naught Spy
January 21, 2009, 07:20 AM
I agree with Erik. If the officers were not issued rifle caliber carbines, they should have been authorized to carry slugs for their shotguns.

Well, and this sort of incident is the type where these matters of policy change. When was the last time where LAPD officers truly needed slugs or carbine because they were in a longer range heavy fire engagment?


I'm lucky in that our agency has authorized slugs for years but few people carry them.

So had your department responded, assuming it is comparable to LAPD, it would likely not have been much better off because the officer themselves likely would not be able to respond with slugs either because they made the conscious choice not to carry them. Wonderful.

I also think personal trauma kits (small ones for individual use) should be considered. Tacpack (I think thats the company's name) makes small sealed trauma packs designed to deal with gunshot wounds. Provide them to officers and TRAIN them with them.

While I like the idea, a buddy of mine on Dallas PD brought up a good point. He said they were going to have to start hiring recruits that weighed at least 400 lbs. Anybody smaller doesn't have a waist large enough on which to carry all the gear they are expected to carry on their physical person. You can only put so much on the belt and then only so much on the suspenders/braces (which tend to not be as good as the belt for mounting gear).

Let's see, pistol, spare mags, cuffs (maybe 2 pair) gloves, light, baton, pepper spray, keys, radio, taser (for some), knife, spare shotgun or spare carbine ammo, phone, and now a medical kit.

New gear? So for a department the size of LAPD, how much is it going to cost to issue med kits to each officer? How much will training cost? Note that training costs include not just the cost of training, but the cost of covering all the shifts of those officers who should be on duty but are in training.

Of course, you can't even get officers in your own department to be serious about training with shotguns and carrying slugs. From what you have said, the med kits will likely be seen as just another inconvenience - more unnecessary training your fellow officers will just go through the motions completing because they have to, not because they believe in the effectiveness of the product.

Of course, since so few officers are shot, shouldn't they carry more generalized medical kits to treat more common injuries as well? Such kits will be even larger.

Erik
January 21, 2009, 02:00 PM
There are several gear solutions aimed at first responders to help alleviate the real-estate issue:

Throw-over plate carriers, chest rigs, tactical vests, detachable sub-loads, patrol bandoleers, a variety of throw-and-go bags. What with most everything being modular these days,there is something for nearly everyone. The patrol bandoleers, detachable sub-loads, and bags are low profile, quick to don, and don't require a trip to the trunk like the larger options may in a two officer car.

Socrates
January 21, 2009, 04:48 PM
Truth is, LA had the solution, and they didn't get there quick enough. SWAT. .308 would have done the job, or .223 properly placed.

Deployment was, and is the main problem with police: they just don't get there fast enough...

Hondo11
January 21, 2009, 06:23 PM
Truth is, LA had the solution, and they didn't get there quick enough. SWAT. .308 would have done the job, or .223 properly placed.

Deployment was, and is the main problem with police: they just don't get there fast enough...

Pretty sure SWAT got there in time to end it. But that doesn't make them the "solution."

This was a bank robbery that went bad because the badguys were well armed, under the influence of narcotics, and had their minds made up that they would not be taken.

SWAT teams don't generally respond to bank robberies...and they certainly aren't quick-reaction units. Even if you could break free the manpower, they have to drive to the scene (in traffic, etc), etc, etc, etc. Or you could have a SWAT team on standby in every district...not feasible or likely.

Guess who IS on scene though? Patrol officers. That's why THEY are the solution and the resources should be given to them to handle it. (No, not 40mm HE or helicopters with door-gunners...) ".223 properly placed" can come from them.

Rifleman 173
January 21, 2009, 09:37 PM
The main problem with ANY police department always is and always has been the ignorant scumbags who are appointed by the politicians to lead the departments. The higher command people are generally anti-gun, anti-police and anti-intelligent. Cops who have worked the field for many years are completely ignored by higher-ups. For years L.A.P.D. officers have repeatedly asked to be allowed to have scoped rifles available to use in case of emergencies like the North Hollywood Shootout. Time and again the higher command people kept saying, "NO!!" to the field officers. Once again the veteran field officers were proven right and the higher command people have egg on their faces, down their shirts and dripping off of their laps. Right after the North Hollywood Shootout rifles were issued to a number of patrol officers "to use in case of emergencies." Pistol types and calibers were also changed to the advantage of the field officers.

BillCA
January 22, 2009, 04:58 PM
Well, and this sort of incident is the type where these matters of policy change. When was the last time where LAPD officers truly needed slugs or carbine because they were in a longer range heavy fire engagment?

There have been multiple times when LAPD has needed and/or used slugs in their shotguns. Just as one example, remember the infamous SLA shootout?

Socrates
January 22, 2009, 06:40 PM
To be honest, the Rodney King riots had both police and fire pulling out, and giving up. They left a large part of LA to fend for themselves, setting up containment boundaries.

Part of the reason for this might well have been the real fact they are out gunned by the mobs, and out manned.

Double Naught Spy
January 22, 2009, 09:05 PM
There have been multiple times when LAPD has needed and/or used slugs in their shotguns. Just as one example, remember the infamous SLA shootout?

Yes I do. That was 1974, more than two decades before the North Hollywood incident. I appreciate you taking the bait and replying because it helps make the point. That is, LAPD higher-ups have trouble seeing the need for such policy decisions when such incidents are interspersed with large gaps in time and are incidents that truly draw attention to LAPD that reflect a real need for change...which is sort of what Rifleman 173 touches upon in his comment three posts up.

Many departments really need to be jump-started into action. Nevermind SLA, Waco, North Hollywood, etc., here in North Texas, it took our own full auto bank robbery incident and shootout with cops to get the OK for carbines in Dallas and some other north Texas departments.

PaddyWhacked
January 24, 2009, 11:41 AM
What pistol rounds are going to pierce Level III or IV body armor at 50, 100, or 125 yards? Inquiring minds want to know.

Deagle?

mskdgunman
January 24, 2009, 12:24 PM
Going back to the comment on SWAT teams, my personal experience has been that unless an agency has a full time SWAT team (and only one agency in my County does), it will take upwards of 30 minutes to an hour to get the guys together, gearded up, briefed and to the scene. Sure, when they get there, they TKOB but in the meantime people are getting killed. Most teams are part time and the officers assigned to them have other duties. So, when called out they have to respond from where ever they are.

The "active shooter" concept that started after Columbine recognized the fact that waiting for SWAT to arrive in active shooter situations gets people killed. Give the line officers the means to end a bad situation quickly if the situation arises.

Most of us agree that the solution is providing rifle caliber carbines and proper training to street officers. Some administrators on the other hand, are slow to act on this. It took me close to 8 years to get the administration of my agency to authorize them. They (the PD) still will not provide them but does authorize officers to carry personally owned rifles which is better then nothing.

In my 18+ years as an LEO, I've learned that most agency adminstrators are reactive in their outlook no matter how much they may profess to otherwise. I've seen how fast an administration can draft and approve a general order or policy if they see fit and the chief believes it is important (these usually involve something you Will NOT do). It's a different matter when attempting to get gear for the guys and girls and the street.

Someone usually has to get hurt to make a change. It took one of our officers getting killed to begin correcting serious radio problems our patrol officers had been compaining about for years and to get our K-9 unit fully manned.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 24, 2009, 03:50 PM
The police here in our small town had a shootout with a bank robber about six years ago. He had an AR-15, the cops had Glocks. The citizens pitched in and bought M&Ps for every patrol car. Every officer now has one with EOTech 550 sights. Every cop in the USA should have one IMO.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 24, 2009, 05:48 PM
MPs - do you mean TNG? M&Ps are the new SW handgun. And MPs are HK SMGs and in pistol calibers wouldn't be that useful against the dreaded body armor boys?

So, is that it? I love asking gun geek questions.

JohnH1963
January 24, 2009, 06:46 PM
Its fairly easy to see why the North Hollywood and Miami shootout went as it did. The officers or agents simply were not as trained or motivated as their attackers. It wasnt about equipment or pistol caliber, but motivation and training.

There have been many incidents where one or two motivated individuals were able to take down huge groups of men. You can easily look them up by typing the words "Medal of Honor" into google. There have been several well documented stories where a few men with little equipment have taken down over 100 well organized and equipped soldiers.

What is truly needed is not SWAT teams, but better trained and motivated officers. The reason why police pulled out during the Rodney King riots was because they were not trained or motivated to deal with the situation. Why would you risk your life for the city of Los Angeles?

This is the greatest case for civilians carrying concealed weapons. To a certain extent, you can trust the police. However, how do you know the officers patrolling your neighborhood are not really disgruntled employees who hate their managers and not willing to risk their lives to get to you?

Double Naught Spy
January 24, 2009, 07:05 PM
Its fairly easy to see why the North Hollywood and Miami shootout went as it did. The officers or agents simply were not as trained or motivated as their attackers. It wasnt about equipment or pistol caliber, but motivation and training.

You are kidding, right? Two guys with rifle-rated body armor and full auto rifles with AP ammo against cops with predominately handguns in a fight that took place mostly at distances beyond 75 yards and you think it was due to motivation and training?

Have you seen the video? Just what sorts of great training do you think the bad guys had?

This is the greatest case for civilians carrying concealed weapons.

This surely isn't right if the reasoning is that civilians are to be considered so well trained or better so than the cops. Few gun owners have much in the way of defensive training and very few actually practice it.

SPUSCG
January 24, 2009, 07:12 PM
they brought a armored truck to retrieve wounded, i wouldve used it to plow down those d bags instead lets see how a ak/g3/ar does against taht

JohnH1963
January 24, 2009, 08:27 PM
Thats right, training. The first part of training is to train under actual conditions. There is a scene in the film "Glory" where one of the soldiers was firing great at the range. Then this same individual was firing while a pistol was going off in the background and he couldnt seem to hit his mark.

All it would have taken was one cool headed officer to lay down one bullet to the head. However, on that day, no one had a cool head. Everyone was running around and huddling in packs behind cars.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 24, 2009, 10:46 PM
M&P AR-15s - well done, TNG!

I was thinking about handguns as a bunch of folks I shoot with were buying the SW handguns and it was my first association. :)

I also remember that after the shootout, some high level officers were talking about getting 45 ACP handguns as if that was the problem.

Socrates
January 24, 2009, 11:22 PM
Let's see. You are a police officer in a super liberal area.
In L.A., in the movie business, if you are anything other then super liberal, anti-gun, you don't work, unless you make it so big, you can finance your own pictures.

So, while Hollyweird makes themselves incredibly rich using firearms in their movies, they are scared to death the little, poor people will come out of the wood work, and take all their property, money, and lives. These people control L.A. politically, and financially. They pick who gets elected to office, and, D.A.s and police chiefs are elected officials, so, they mirror their constituent money backers, and, they also are anti-gun. At the least hint of some sort of absurd thing like a .50 caliber ban, they go with it, at the expense of their employees, the people, and the government. Likewise they would have pink water pistols for police officers if they followed their backers to the T.

So, first, if you are that elected official, and, some sort of horror story comes out, like an officer guns down a 7 year old gang member who was shooting at him with an Uzi, your first reaction is to support the anti-gun folks, and, take the whatever caliber gun that was used, demonize it, and remove it from service.

If you take the support your officer position, you no longer have a position, come next election, as the movie folks have found another puppet to run, and put in your place.

Hondo11
January 25, 2009, 04:29 AM
Its fairly easy to see why the North Hollywood and Miami shootout went as it did. The officers or agents simply were not as trained or motivated as their attackers. It wasnt about equipment or pistol caliber, but motivation and training.

You always post with such authority, yet you demonstrate every day just how little you actually know about anything. Unmotivated? I'm sure they were only 50% in favor of staying alive...

There is a scene in the film "Glory" where one of the soldiers was firing great at the range. Then this same individual was firing while a pistol was going off in the background and he couldnt seem to hit his mark.

All it would have taken was one cool headed officer to lay down one bullet to the head. However, on that day, no one had a cool head. Everyone was running around and huddling in packs behind cars.

Stop watching movies and using them as your basis for knowledge. You obviously have never had bullets zipping past you or you wouldn't make assertions like that. "Huddling in packs behind cars"--- Cars are cover (sort of) and you generally use cover when you're being shot at by a long gun (or a pistol, for that matter).

BikerRN
January 25, 2009, 10:27 AM
Thank you Hondo.

You stated my point far better than I could've. It's not easy to lay down one accurate head shot when bullets are coming towards you, and one just might have your name on it. :)

Me, if given a choice of "cover" or being a so called "cool headed officer" I'll take the cover every time. Why you ask? Because you never know when the other guy just might get lucky.

Biker

Hkmp5sd
January 25, 2009, 01:01 PM
I've always wondered why the LEOs did just take the one of the armored cars they took to round up the wounded and just run over the bad guys.

JohnKSa
January 25, 2009, 01:37 PM
All it would have taken was one cool headed officer to lay down one bullet to the head.One cool-headed officer who was a VERY good shot.

Ever tried to hit a moving target the size of a human head at 75 yards? I've tried. I've even managed it. But only 1 or 2 times out of 50 rounds and that under no significant pressure--certainly nothing equivalent to being shot at by two guys with full auto rifles. To get an idea of my skill level, I can consistently shoot 3" five shot groups @ 25 yards with a handgun if time is not an issue.

So on the one hand you've got cops who have to make headshots with handguns at 75 yards to be effective vs bandits who only have to make body hits with long guns at the same distance. Winning under those odds takes more than a cool head, it takes a considerable amount of skill.

It's completely unrealistic to expect someone to make head shots at those distances using a handgun against multiple opponents armed with full-auto long guns.

SPUSCG
January 25, 2009, 09:19 PM
armored truck+plow over or some rifles eithe rone

MarineCorpsAT
January 26, 2009, 06:45 PM
It is very easy to armchair quarterback this incident. But looking at it I think that it actually turned out quite well. 2 dead bad guys and wounded officers that will heal.

Having lived in tha area and been at that location many times itwas a recepie for disaster. There are thousands pf people in that area at any given time and things could have gotten bad fast.

Rather than try to reinvent the wheel here how about looking at it for what it was.. A situation that was very dangerous that no civilians got hurt in. To me that was a huge success.

Our second guessing how it could have gone better is pointless because the outcome was a success. LE learned from it and moved on so should we.

emcon5
February 4, 2011, 01:06 PM
I realize this is an old thread, but it seems like the appropriate place for this:

LAPD Training video from the North Hollywood shootout:


Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKKf8DlZMgk

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo0E3PlHny8

FM12
February 5, 2011, 10:24 PM
It ain't over, and we havent seen the last of fools like these.

Crosshair
February 5, 2011, 10:44 PM
It ain't over, and we havent seen the last of fools like these.
They weren't fools. To think otherwise is a serious mistake. Both of those men were extremely competent as evidenced by their previous successful operations. They simply got unlucky that time.

XD Gunner
February 5, 2011, 11:13 PM
An old beat up Mosin Nagant 44 would have done the trick, with ball ammo.

I didn't read every single post, but it seems that any .30-06/.308 class rifle round would have been enough to end the shootout much sooner. Even if it couldn't penetrate, a couple-thousand lbs of impact force would break ribs and possible disrupt internal organs. Surely that would be enough to put down the assailants in a minute or so.

As has been noted, it seems that slugs would have made a night and day difference as well. Slam something hard enough, and no matter what it's wrapped in, it will break.

Catfishman
February 6, 2011, 02:36 AM
They weren't fools. To think otherwise is a serious mistake. Both of those men were extremely competent as evidenced by their previous successful operations. They simply got unlucky that time.


No they were fools. They robbed a bank very slowly and loudly. When discovered by police instead of surrendering or making a quick get away they chose to stand and fight against a police department. It would have taken very good luck for them to have come out on top.

As for their previous "operations", they successfully robbed banks. Robbing banks isn't that difficult, but it is much easier without body armor, pills and machine guns.


The cops did the best they could, considering they were involved in a pistol versus fully automatic rifle shoot-out. Sure one of them could have shot the bad guys in the head but that would have required a combination of courage, skill and luck.

I expect that I would be a terrible shot if someone was firing a machine gun at me.

Crosshair
February 6, 2011, 11:25 AM
No they were fools. They robbed a bank very slowly and loudly.
Um, no. They were known for the speed at which they were in and out of the bank and away before police could arrive. They were spotted and reported going into the bank and by luck police got there far quicker than in the past.

Robbing banks isn't that difficult, but it is much easier without body armor, pills and machine guns.
Robbing banks and GETTING AWAY WITH IT is actually quite difficult. They successfully did this many times.

Their quick entry with gunshots into the ceiling was very effective at gaining quick compliance from everyone in the bank. A robber with a revolver or just a note to the teller can't get that sort of quick compliance, though they will frequently get a dye bomb.

When discovered by police instead of surrendering or making a quick get away they chose to stand and fight against a police department.
How exactly would they have made a quick getaway in that situation? A space rocket? Seriously, I wanna know. The cops have cars too and helicopters seem to have no problem following cars either. Their plan relied on getting away before police arrived and melting into traffic. Staying and shooting it out was no more stupid that trying to drive away because no matter what they were screwed at that point.

Double Naught Spy
February 6, 2011, 12:32 PM
Um, no. They were known for the speed at which they were in and out of the bank and away before police could arrive.

Right.

They were spotted and reported going into the bank and by luck police got there far quicker than in the past.

It isn't that the police got there far quicker than in the past, the robbers were spotted by a normal random patrol as they went into the bank and they radio'd a "possible 211 in progress."

Crosshair
February 6, 2011, 07:36 PM
It isn't that the police got there far quicker than in the past, the robbers were spotted by a normal random patrol as they went into the bank and they radio'd a "possible 211 in progress."
My bad, you were right. I was going by memory and thought someone flagged down a passing cop car.

Double Naught Spy
February 6, 2011, 11:43 PM
Yeah, it was a very fortuitous event where the cops were on scene like they were. That just doesn't happen often.

Either way, you are right in that the robbers were not slow in their actions and were in and out fairly quick. They would have been out sooner had they not searched for money that wasn't in the bank and had not tried getting into the ATMs, but they didn't overstay their schedule. They played the averages and ended up on the short end of the statistical response time curve.

droidw
February 7, 2011, 06:07 AM
Respected all,

Would have been of any use to maybe flank the suspects (say from Agnes and Archwood and/or Agnes and Kittrich) up to the corners of the bank building, to position some shooters in effective pistol range?

I'm fully aware that it requires a lot of valor to make that kind of approach. On one hand, the approaching officers may or may not know if there are more BG's around, with the subsequent risk, and on the other hand, it may be "kind" of dangerous to approach the target area of many other officers (Murphy laws apply.- a person MAY NOT hit the head of a BG at 75 yards, but a stray bullet WILL hit the approaching officer...).

Kind regards.

Catfishman
February 7, 2011, 10:22 PM
Um, no. They were known for the speed at which they were in and out of the bank and away before police could arrive. They were spotted and reported going into the bank and by luck police got there far quicker than in the past.



These guys planned on being in the bank for 8 minutes. Can you imagine firing a machine-gun in a public place and hanging out for 8 minutes. They immediately fired a machine gun burst into the ceiling upon entering. I'd say that's a very bad plan. They wound up staying in the bank a lot more than 8 minutes but that's not the point.

The point is that strapping on 40 pounds of body-armor, marching accross a parking lot with large machine-guns and firing the guns into the ceiling at the beginning of their robbery was a very good way to draw attention and get into a gun battle. That's probably what they wanted anyway.

I don't know the statistics but I would venture to say that most bank robberies are successful. Some bank robbers have committed dozens of robberies spanning decades and not been caught. That's amazing when you consider that most criminals are idiots with poor impulse control.


Back to the OP. I feel the police handled themselves pretty well in this extreme situation.

Double Naught Spy
February 7, 2011, 11:00 PM
These guys planned on being in the bank for 8 minutes. Can you imagine firing a machine-gun in a public place and hanging out for 8 minutes. They immediately fired a machine gun burst into the ceiling upon entering. I'd say that's a very bad plan. They wound up staying in the bank a lot more than 8 minutes but that's not the point.

The point is that strapping on 40 pounds of body-armor, marching accross a parking lot with large machine-guns and firing the guns into the ceiling at the beginning of their robbery was a very good way to draw attention and get into a gun battle.

They went in at 9:30 and exited at 9:38 for the first time, so they were definitely on schedule, but retreated back into the bank when confronted by the police. So they did hold to their original timeline.

Firing a machinegun into the ceiling is a bad plan? Depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Displays of power are common in takeover robberies such as this and tend to be successful in quelling the occupants of the bank. Does firing draw attention? Maybe so, but if it usually takes the cops quite a while to arrive, what does it matter?

Takeover bank robberies are some of the most dangerous for the occupants of banks, and the bank community knows this.
http://www.bankersonline.com/articles/bhv12n12/bhv12n12a3.html

Walking around in body armor and firing machineguns in the parking lot drew attention? By that time, it was a moot point. They had the attention of the police at the time they entered the building.

LockedBreech
February 8, 2011, 01:00 AM
This incident, like only a handful of others, chills my blood, having family holding the thin blue line. The kind of mentality to stand against the police with full and open intent to murder as many as possible makes me feel cold.

The one good result of this is that it is one of the incidents that made the Patrol Rifle - and training on it - a staple. Police today are more ready for such incidents, and even on brother's rural department they carry in the cabin and are trained on Colt M4s.

Here's hoping nothing like this every happens again, and if it does it is put down judiciously.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 14, 2011, 10:00 AM
Folks are starting to rant a bit away from the tactics and to political issues in CA. Not relevant to this thread.

Keep on target, so to speak. Yeah, if you were there with a Civil War Sharps, you could have made the head shot - but you weren't.

MisterPX
February 14, 2011, 08:33 PM
Everybody's an expert marksman......
until the targets are moving and shooting at them.
I don't think Rob Leatham could have gotten off a good shot during the incident.

Perhaps teh LAPD has integrated a force on force component into their training.

therewolf
February 14, 2011, 11:09 PM
It's like Shadow1198 said,

the only reason we're even talking about these guys is because what

they did to prepare for a confrontation was so incredibly unusual.

They get a special chapter all their own in many SWAT books.

IMO, in the 1 in 100,000 case where people do something like this,

there is just NO WAY the LEOs could have been prepared.

Given the narrow likelihood of a re-occurrence, it would be

almost wasteful for cops to over-prepare for it.

We are talking about THE North Hollywood shootout, the one they

made the movie HEAT about, remember?

Look at it like this:

There may be a good possibility the earth may flood before somebody like

these guys shows up on the scene again.

Should LEOs carry an inflatable ARK around in their trunk too?

Cops equipment is designed to deal with a high percentage of emergencies.

There is no way they can second-guess EVERY call and proper response.

everragenepa
February 14, 2011, 11:22 PM
A lack of ANY long rifles.

Glenn E. Meyer
February 15, 2011, 11:45 AM
You know why don't we discuss two incidents with armored vehicles. In one a guy commandeered a tank and went for a ride. In another a guy built his own tank. Why weren't the police prepared with AT weapons in their cars or the police should have had Apaches or A-10s on patrol?

I supposed on TLF in Metropolis, people are critiquing the MPD for not having kryptonite bullets for when General Zod appeared?

:D

Double Naught Spy
February 15, 2011, 12:08 PM
there is just NO WAY the LEOs could have been prepared.

Actually, this isn't quite right. Had LAPD allowed officers to have slugs for their shotguns and not just buckshot, the fight might have been over much sooner. I forget when officer it was, but he had a shotgun early in the fight was something like 50 yards distant from the shooters. He hit them with buckshot, but no real harm done.

At 50 yards, he certainly could have taken head shots. At 100, he could has well, even with a smple bead sight. It does tend to be easier to hit targets at longer ranges when the weapon you are using has a longer sight radius.

So basically, one small equipment change could have made a real difference, but LAPD didn't want their patrol officers shooting slugs and so they weren't armed with any.

Dabull
February 15, 2011, 12:12 PM
We are talking about THE North Hollywood shootout, the one they

made the movie HEAT about, remember?



Heat came out in 1995; the shootout was in 97. A documentary on the shootout claimed the two shooters were inspired by the movie.

therewolf
February 15, 2011, 06:42 PM
OK, ah, OOPS?:o

Still don't think it's reasonable to expect LEOs to be prepared for 100%

of all calls they take. Somebody's always going to think of something new,

and while our hind sight has 20/20 vision(even though my memory,

admittedly, sucks) none of us here had the foresight to warn the LAPD

in advance of this carnage ridden incident.

Ignition Override
February 16, 2011, 08:33 PM
That show was on again last night. I know nothing about LEO/military infantry tng. or tactical procedures.
One or two officers in West Memphis were killed several months ago during a minor (they assumed) traffic stop.

The father and son attackers jumped out and blasted away with at least one semi-auto AK clone, and the officers by their car right behind the attackers, totally unprepared, had no idea that the aggressors were out to 'zap' any LEOs, for the slightest reason. They were extreme anti-govt. types who had been under surveillance in Indiana or Ohio.

Their license plate seemed to have raised an alert as it was checked, but whether the officers were aware before they stepped from their patrol car and had no more safe cover, I have no idea.

The LEOs seem to have only returned fire with handguns, and the bag guys left and were finally stopped by the Walmart after an LEO in another car rammed into them, and the firefight killed the anarchists.

A coworker's husband is a detective in another eastern AR town, and one of the other patrol officers has his personal Mini 14 (.223) with a fancy sight.
Wouldn't you prefer a rifle which uses larger rounds, i.e. an AR-10 or PTR 91 ('G-3') in .308 etc, as larger rds. seem to punch better through windshields and car doors at shallow angles?

brickeyee
February 16, 2011, 09:10 PM
There are a number of time LEO is seen 'hiding' behind the vehicles and clearly visibkle through the windows.

I saw the video from LAPD at Gunsite before it was available.

One of the instrucitrs wanted us to see it as an example if why you should have at least some experience with long range handgun shooting.

There were numerous opportunities fir a 50-60 yard head shot against a nearly stationary target.
The perps would stand and fire without moving.

The problem is without some training and practice such shots are VERY hard to make.
(The instructor's words, and he is a LEO instructor/trainer).