The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 28, 2008, 12:27 PM   #26
Japle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,188
OK Glenn and Kentucky, break in whenever you want. I’m in the book.

Don’t forget your sense of humor………
Japle is offline  
Old October 28, 2008, 06:50 PM   #27
bestbod85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2006
Posts: 161
"Don't you guys ever get tired of fantasizing about shooting people? Either buy some video games, or stop playing the one you have.."

wow, maybe your lost... this is the tactics and training forum. this is the place where people with questions about what tactics work best for the rare chance that they may be forced to use their firearms to defend themselves . apparently you either have all the answers or you look down on those with questions or concerns about using their ccw's in a real life situation. in any case it seems you are either lost or find the idea of discussing tactics immature - in which case you would in fact be lost... look to another site you may find more your speed www.pretentiouslowbrowfolk.com :barf:
bestbod85 is offline  
Old October 28, 2008, 11:20 PM   #28
GetYerShells
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 118
If you talk to people who have been in firefights you will find some interesting information. The likelyhood of you actually hitting your target where you intend is very low. In a firefight you lose all fine motor skills, you will get tunnel vision, your adrenaline will be pumping, and if your target is on the move then you may not even hit it.

Talk to some police officers who have been in firefights and see how many shots they fired versus how many if any actually hit their targets. Some military Combat Arms Instructors put it this way. Say when you qualify with an M4 out of 40 shots, you hit 23 (which is the minimum the Army requires to qualify). If you can hit a stationary target, under optimul conditions, 23 times from the prone position then you translate that to a real world fire fight you would be lucky to actually hit your target even once.

So I say regardless of what your situation is if you can hit your target with a controlled pair in the chest and they are still able to move and you are confident to hit them in the head then go for it. However, the likelyhood of you missing and injuring an innocent bystander is much higher than you hitting them in the head where you intend.
__________________
Sig P226 .40, Mossberg 500 Persuader, Springfield 1911 GI, M91/30
GetYerShells is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 06:18 AM   #29
mpage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2006
Posts: 168
Quote:
Don't you guys ever get tired of fantasizing about shooting people? Either buy some video games, or stop playing the one you have..
True. I'm also surprised at the more irresponsible posts in this thread.
mpage is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 07:54 AM   #30
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
If you talk to people who have been in firefights you will find some interesting information. The likelyhood of you actually hitting your target where you intend is very low. In a firefight you lose all fine motor skills, you will get tunnel vision, your adrenaline will be pumping, and if your target is on the move then you may not even hit it.

Talk to some police officers who have been in firefights and see how many shots they fired versus how many if any actually hit their targets.
Of course you include all the people who never seriously thought they would be in a shooting and practiced in that category. This includes the majority of the LEOs I have known, including my own family members. Sorry but your analysis is about as valid as telling a person their chances of being bitten by a shark is infinitesimal based on a total population analysis while ignoring that the person is a regular surfer off the coast of FL.

Again, the vast majority of people never consider a lethal force encounter with any seriousness let alone a failure to stop along with practice. Just taking those items into account raises you to a completely different level than the masses of people for whom such statements as you make apply to.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 08:06 AM   #31
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Musketeer nailed it.

Unless you are not directly being fired upon, chances are your ability to actually aim and hit where you intend will be seriously degraded.

On the other hand, if the BG is focused on a 3rd party and you plant two in the X-ring to no effect, the first consideration is that he's armored up. This leaves you with the small, very mobile head as a target or the pelvis which moves less. A .45 Caliber circumcision or suppository is not the goal. The goal is to disable the BG's mobility by damaging the heavy pelvic bone, ball & socket of the leg or tearing up muscles and tendons that support the body.

Two to COM, two to the pelvis. If those are ineffectual, then the harder to execute headshot is your alternative.

Many years ago, a police instructor ran a semi realistic drill. The officer would run 100 yards as fast as possible, stop, pick up his weapon and magazine, run 5 yards to the shooting station, load and shoot at a jerkily moving target. In place of the head was a cataloupe. Instructions were two to COM and one to the head. On average it took something like 6.6 rounds to actually hit the head at 20 yards. But it only took 3 shots to hit the watermelon hidden behind the pelvic area.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 08:08 AM   #32
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
True. I'm also surprised at the more irresponsible posts in this thread.
Such as? There's been one post (since claimed to be a joke by the poster) that approached "irresponsible" and was quickly dealt with. So, what other posts in this thread have been "irresponsible"?
buzz_knox is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 08:18 AM   #33
cnutco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2008
Location: NE GA
Posts: 189
Quote:
2+1<7
lol! I love this place...


Quote:
If the head is still there then SHOOT IT!
Sounds good to me!
cnutco is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 08:59 AM   #34
Smaug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2004
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 3,179
I'm in the middle road on this one. To a court, I bet two to the chest and one to the head will look more like execution than self defense. You'd better be able to prove that the guy was still a threat at the time you shot him in the head.
Smaug is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 09:05 AM   #35
Japle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,188
Two to the chest and one to the head is a standard training drill. Stage 1 of the IDPA classifier is a good example.

It's not an execution. It's just normal tactics.
Japle is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 09:08 AM   #36
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
I'm in the middle road on this one. To a court, I bet two to the chest and one to the head will look more like execution than self defense. You'd better be able to prove that the guy was still a thread at the time you shot him in the head.
There are a few quick counters to this argument. The first is that it is a standard technique taught throughout academies, the military, training schools, etc. The second is that if you've trained in the technique, you can be expected to revert back to it during the fight. The court does not expect you to excercise perfect, flawless actions, just reasonable ones. The third, and most central point, is that if you can demonstrate a reasonable and subjective fear for your life that you led you to believe that deadly force was authorized and necessary, it's not supposed to matter how you apply that force. Granted, individual situations will vary a bit depending on the prosecutor and your facts.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 10:11 AM   #37
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,792
If you go to court:

1. You need to have acted reasonably.
2. Get a lawyer who is expert on the issues, with the appropriate supporting expert witnesses. Pay attention to jury selection processes.

This is well laid out in studies of jury responses.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 12:16 PM   #38
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
this is the place where people with questions about what tactics work best for the rare chance that they may be forced to use their firearms to defend themselves
This should be a place where tactics that help you avoid shootings, and tactics that reduce your chance of ending up in court or jail should also be quite accepted. The fact that so many posts here involve shooting when there is no real need, that it is OK to be dishonest as long as you don't get caught, how can you best skirt the law, and similar threads is disturbing to some of us.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 03:36 PM   #39
mpage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2006
Posts: 168
Quote:
This should be a place where tactics that help you avoid shootings, and tactics that reduce your chance of ending up in court or jail should also be quite accepted. The fact that so many posts here involve shooting when there is no real need, that it is OK to be dishonest as long as you don't get caught, how can you best skirt the law, and similar threads is disturbing to some of us.
Indeed. It's also disturbing because people who are not firearms owners, can view this forum.
mpage is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 06:15 PM   #40
bestbod85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2006
Posts: 161
"This should be a place where tactics that help you avoid shootings, and tactics that reduce your chance of ending up in court or jail should also be quite accepted. The fact that so many posts here involve shooting when there is no real need, that it is OK to be dishonest as long as you don't get caught, how can you best skirt the law, and similar threads is disturbing to some of us."


Absolutly!!! I agree with that statement 100%, however the question on this thread was about what technique would work if there was a need, (i.e. the badguy has body armor or is on drugs of somesort). I made my comment earlier in response to someone who offered no particular insight to the question asked by the op and who mocked all who offered advice to the op. In my opinion that was disrespectful:barf:. There was a time before I was a LEO, that I knew next to nothing about what the right tactics were and what kind of training I should get. in those times I looked to TFL for advice and most often I found honest and for the most part accurate advice, from others who have been there and done it. That is what this forum should be about as well.

like I said, I agree with you 100%. This forum is about tactics and training. which should and does include situational awareness, de-escalation, security measures, legal precautions, following the law, what to do before during and after an incident and so forth. as well as shooting and general defense techniques and tactics.

as a side note- failure to stop drill is standard in any training i've received.
good luck
bestbod85 is offline  
Old October 29, 2008, 10:43 PM   #41
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Let's be realistic, when a BG is coming at you, you're just gonna shoot at general mass of his body until he discontinues his advance. Also, "two in the chest, one to the head" most definitely is considered "execution style" and therefore very hard to defend in court. Regardless of whether you are actually executing the guy or not, what you think doesn't matter, only what the jury thinks.
BuckHammer is offline  
Old October 30, 2008, 02:17 AM   #42
Striker071
Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2008
Posts: 87
Well Lets just say this... It is a good practical drill. It should also be used in conjunction with cover and concealment. Not all people involved in shooting senarios get tunnel vision. Some lose their hearing....some people freeze..others run .... wetting yourself.... deficating on yourself. All these reactions have been know to happen when under stress in a shooting situation. Training and repetition does help. One of the reasons SWAT officers put shooting evolutions in there obstacle courses is to artificially induce stress during thier shooting. Military sniper training has the spotter and sniper do physical exercises and are allowed to look at 6 objects on the ground and have to identfy a large number of them. They learn to think while under stress. Your physical fitness also helps... by putting your body into stress the mind learns to deal with that. Calling it a execution style drill is a little over the top. If you train that way and are taught that way then that is what hopefully takes over when if it happens and you can state that. It also helps in learning how to shoot a weapon with slight movement. Its called "Body Armor Drill" for us. I do agree at shooting him in the hip ..groin....big toe.... whatever will slow or stop the BG. The best training is also being aware so you never have to get in that situation in the first place. Situational awareness... survive by it.
Striker071 is offline  
Old October 30, 2008, 02:42 AM   #43
freakintoguns
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Posts: 496
the idea of shooting towards the p[elvic/legs takes me back t o kickboxng classes. general rule in Thaiboxing is if you take your oppenents legs out they cant fight. shoot someone int he hipsd or in the legs they are gonna drop. plus shooting down means missed shots are goin t hit the ground not someone standing behind the BG.
freakintoguns is offline  
Old October 30, 2008, 08:27 AM   #44
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
Let's be realistic, when a BG is coming at you, you're just gonna shoot at general mass of his body until he discontinues his advance. Also, "two in the chest, one to the head" most definitely is considered "execution style" and therefore very hard to defend in court. Regardless of whether you are actually executing the guy or not, what you think doesn't matter, only what the jury thinks.
Glad you cleared that up! I better call Ayoob, Smith, Suarez and all the other guys out there who are respected trainers for civilians and LEOs in addition to the hours of court testimony Ayoob has given as an accepted expert witness on the subject and tell them they are all wrong.

I do agree with you on one important issue. YOU will almost certainly fail to compensate for a failure to stop if you should ever encounter one since you have already made your mind up on the subject. It takes some real hubris though to declare that everyone else, especially those who have given it serious thought and put training into it, will react as poorly as yourself.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  
Old October 30, 2008, 08:39 AM   #45
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
the idea of shooting towards the p[elvic/legs takes me back t o kickboxng classes. general rule in Thaiboxing is if you take your oppenents legs out they cant fight. shoot someone int he hipsd or in the legs they are gonna drop. plus shooting down means missed shots are goin t hit the ground not someone standing behind the BG.
This was long advocated by Jim Cirillo who had been in enough gunfights and put the practice to use to be listened to seriously. Mind you he had also taken head shots when needed. This was as a part of the NYPD Stakeout Squad where he killed too many criminals to be promotable in the super liberal mayor era.

The pelvic region is critical to remaining upright. If shattered you go down no matter how dedicated you are to continuing the fight. There is also significant pain in striking that region, it is often left unprotected by body armor and is easier to hit than a head in a gunfight. The pain though may be a non-issue if the failure to stop is due to drugs or psychological state. Finally, holding your aim on that region allows one to observe the hands of the person they are confronting, a big plus for a LEO holding a suspect, compared to holding COM where the hands are obscured. Remember, hands kill.

The problem is that the bones in the pelvic region are incredibly strong and hard to bust with a pistol round. The Stakeout Squad often used shotguns and M1 Carbines, both of which would get the job done, but the handgun rounds could not be certain of doing so.

One thing is certain. If the shots on the COM are not having the needed effect then hitting the criminal in either other place, head or pelvis, is certainly better than not at all. I think both practices are worth consideration.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  
Old October 31, 2008, 01:36 PM   #46
dawg23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2001
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 401
It's interesting to observe the regional/geographic differences in opinions. And people have valid easons for the different viewpoints.

The guy from Illinois probably needs to be be very concerned about jury perceptions if he shoots a home invader too many times. Same would be likely for parts of New York and California.

Folks from more conservative jurisdictions with laws that don't inordinately restrict a homeowner's right of self defense, and certainly the ones from Louisiana, can focus on the more important task of ensuring that a home invader is rendered incapable of harming them or their loved ones.

Even down here tapdancing would be a bit over the top. As would shooting an incapacitated invader in front of the cops - unless the homeowner could articulate the reason why he felt he was still threatened.

As far as needing more than 2 shots with a .45 CP, we had a very instructive incident here a couple of years ago. There's a link below, but basically:

1. A local cop shot a suspect in the abdomen with his issued .40 Glock (after suspect attacked the officer rather than submit to arrest). After being shot, the suspect continued beating the cop and commenced trying to disarm the cop.

2. Local "Good Samaritan" (GS) responded to cop's pleas for help. When the suspect failed to heed the GS's command to stop, the GS shot suspect (who was on top of cop, still attempting the disarm) in the torso (some reports said in the chest while some said in the back) with his .45 ACP (230 grain Federal Hydra Shok).

3. When the first shot by the GS proved ineffective in stopping the attack, and after the suspect ignored another verbal warning, GS again shot suspect in the torso (GS shot #2).

4. Same result (suspect still trying to kill cop), another warning by GS and another shot by GS. (GS shot #3)

5. Same result (suspect still trying to kill cop), another ignored warning and so yet another hit from GS's .45. (GS shot #4)

5. GS fired his 5th shot into the suspect's head, ending the fight.

** Coroner's report showed all but one of the shots (one in abdomen, four in torso, and one in brain) would have proved fatal. In this case only the brain shot put an immediate end to the threat on the officer's life. Toxicology reports, surprisingly, showed no drugs in the suspect's system.

Yes, sometimes more than two shots from a .45 ACP will be needed. In this case it took one from a .40 plus five from a .45 to end the threat.
Here's one of the articles from the Baton Rouge newspaper:

Investigation Details of Temple Shooting Released

By KIMBERLY VETTER AND MARK F. BONNER
Advocate staff writers
Published: Dec 23, 2006

After Perry Stephens shot George Temple II five times in a parking lot in February, he put his hands in the air and turned to the Baton Rouge police officer Temple had been fighting.

“Did I do the right thing?” Stephens asked.

The officer, Brian Harrison, didn’t answer. Instead, he removed the clip from Stephens’ .45-caliber pistol and put the ammunition and gun on the trunk of a nearby vehicle. Harrison then sent a message out on his radio that shots had been fired and paramedics were needed.

Temple, the man who had just been shot, looked at Stephens before taking his last breath.

Those are some of the details in an investigative file released this week by the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office, which probed the Feb. 17 shooting.

Stephens fired the shots as Temple fought with Harrison after a traffic stop in the parking lot of the AutoZone at 9007 Greenwell Springs Road.

Stephens, 56, shot Temple once in the head and four times in the back. Harrison also shot Temple, once in the stomach.

The purpose of the now-closed investigation was to determine whether Harrison or Stephens should be arrested. The Sheriff’s Office found no probable cause for an arrest, and an East Baton Rouge Parish grand jury declined to indict anyone.

The Baton Rouge Police Department has completed its own internal probes into the shooting, concluding 32-year-old Harrison did not violate any policies, spokesman Sgt. Don Kelly said.

Witness accounts
In investigating the killing, the Sheriff’s Office interviewed Harrison, Stephens and several witnesses. While all painted Temple as the aggressor, not everyone agreed upon what sparked the fight.

One witness said it started after Temple refused to let Harrison search his car. Another said Temple began throwing punches from inside his car after Harrison tried to get him to leave the funeral procession. Others variously said the fight began after Temple refused to put his hands behind his back, stop talking on his cell phone or get out of his car.

Sheriff Greg Phares said Wednesday it’s not unusual for witnesses to differ. He noted that in the Temple case, most of the witnesses were unsure of how the fight started because they didn’t pay attention until the struggle began or the shots were fired.

Harrison told investigators that after he pulled over Temple — who was driving a Mercedes — for breaking into a funeral procession, the man would not comply with his demands.

“I don’t know why you are doing this,” Harrison quoted Temple as saying. “This is not going anywhere. This is just a waste of time. Call your boss. Look what kind of car I’m driving, man. This will all be taken care of.”

Harrison said that after he wrote the ticket, Temple tried to bribe him.

Temple “pulled a big wad of money out of his pocket and asked him how much it would cost to have Harrison tear up the ticket,” the sheriff’s investigators reported.

According to the report, Temple had $3,531.61 in the pockets of his jeans. He also had a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol in the center console of his Mercedes. The gun was loaded with five bullets, one of which was in the chamber.

Harrison said that after the bribery attempt, he asked Temple to step out of his car. Temple got out but grabbed his cell phone to try to make a call and wouldn’t put his hands behind his back, Harrison said.

Harrison said he grabbed Temple’s left wrist and put it behind his back. That’s when “all hell broke loose,” the report says.

“Temple got real tense and pushed himself into the door (of his Mercedes),” Harrison said. “He wasn’t complying.”

Harrison said he then squirted pepper spray twice into Temple’s face, but it did not “have the desired effect.”

Christy Comager was standing in the AutoZone parking lot when the officer pulled Temple over. She told investigators Harrison sprayed Temple two to three times in the face with pepper spray. Comager didn’t say what effect the spray had on Temple.

Harrison said that after he used the pepper spray and called for backup on his radio, Temple punched him in the jaw. All of about a dozen witnesses interviewed in the report said Temple was getting the best of Harrison in the fight and that they heard the officer yelling for help.

Marie McWright told investigators she was in her truck at the intersection of Greenwell Springs and Joor roads when she saw Temple punching Harrison in the face. McWright said Harrison fell and Temple landed on top of him. Shortly afterward, she heard gunshots.

Harrison told investigators that before he fell, he felt he “needed to do something to get Temple off of him or he would be hurt really bad or killed.”

As he was falling, Harrison drew his .40-caliber service weapon and fired one shot, according to the report. Harrison said that when Temple started to grab for his weapon, he fired two more shots along the ground in an attempt to unload his gun so Temple couldn’t use it on him.

Stephens told investigators he was about to leave the AutoZone parking lot in his pickup when he saw Harrison and Temple fighting. Harrison yelled for help.

Stephens said he grabbed his gun, got out of the truck and heard two gunshots ring out from beneath the pair, who were on the ground. Harrison again called out for help. Stephens said he fired his weapon at Temple from about 7 or 8 feet away.

The Advocate’s attempts to reach Stephens for comment were unsuccessful.

Temple family responds
In an interview Wednesday with The Advocate, Temple’s mother said that over the open cell phone line, she heard the shots that killed her son. She said Temple did not speak to her.

“It was the worst phone call I have ever gotten,” Sharalean Temple said.

Temple’s parents said they heard from the lead detective only once — an hour before the Sheriff’s Office announced the investigation was complete.

“We were shocked,” said Temple’s father, 54-year-old George Temple. “And no one was arrested. That man, Mr. Stephens, saw two people tussling. He didn’t know who was right and who was wrong. He could have hit George across the head, but instead he unloaded his gun.”

The Temples said they fear the truth may never come out.

“If George was such a bad guy, why did he call home?” George Temple asked. “And secondly, if he was so bad, why didn’t he reach for the gun he had in his car? The bottom line is this: There are still a lot of holes in this story.”

The U.S. Justice Department is looking into the shooting to see if Temple’s civil rights were violated. And Temple’s parents could still file a lawsuit over their son’s death.

“We are not ready to make a comment on that right now,” Sharalean Temple said.
__________________
.
www.PersonalDefenseTraining.net
dawg23 is offline  
Old November 1, 2008, 12:43 PM   #47
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
I just want to clarify my post and my statements. Musketeer, you are indeed correct in saying that it was unfair for me to suggest that everyone would react to a situation in the same way I would. Those with at least some training could pull off a "two in the chest, one in the head" exercise when it comes down to it. However, I do not have the means to afford this kind of training (ammo costs, simulation of stress, and other elements), and I imagine that the general populous shares my inability. Therefore, I believe it is unwise to make statements that some without the ability to follow through might take as instruction. The head is a very small target that is typically higher in altitude (which allows for more bullet travel in the case of a miss) than center mass (like a chest shot). Since center mass is a much larger target, I believe that for the common man without training for a "two in the chest, one in the head" maneuver (such as myself), continuously shooting a BG in the chest (while aiming of course) may be more wise. That being said, I believe that "two in the chest, one in the head" is a much more effective method of stopping a threat than only chest shots for those trained in the use of that method.

Also, when I said that "two in the chest, one in the head" was considered "execution style", I was not referring to those who are educated on that subject. I was referring to people such as police, prosecutors, and others who are not necessarily educated on the subject and who tend to think the worst of someone who has just killed another person. For example, with a lack of witnesses, a dead body with "two in the chest, one in the head" tends to look "professional". However, I know that all of the good people here will call the police if anything horrible like that would ever happen to them, and there would undoubtedly be witnesses. However, if worse came to worst and the victim who defended himself were prosecuted, the prosecutor would undoubtedly use the term "execution style" when referring to the shooting. To be fair, I should have made that distinction when I posted my remarks.
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!
BuckHammer is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14735 seconds with 9 queries