Investigating a noise:

[bobn]

i sure hope you guys are right. i guess i dont see bad guys carrying single shots. lol. bobn

[Creature]

I can tell you from first hand experience that a .40S&W (180 gr Federal Hydrashok) fired from a Glock 22 (4.5 inch barrel) will penetrate the following layers of construction material:

Penetrated a layer of sheet rock first, then a concrete construction breeze block, through a 2x4 framing timber, through another layer of sheet rock, and finally through a layer of bathroom tile. The bullet had lost enough steam by then to be stopped by a plastic shower curtain. Still...I was impressed.

Thats a lot of building material which that 180 grainer was capable of truckin' through.

[BuckHammer]

Maybe this has been stated before, but just because you are investigating a noise that you KNOW is nothing to worry about, while noting that most people would not carry a weapon to investigate the noise, I don't see a problem in choosing to bring a weapon. If you just HAVE to investigate, if you have a pistol and it's nothing, then you're fine, and the pistol wasn't a problem. But if Jack Nicholson's character from The Shining jumps out with an axe (), then you're adequately prepared to defend yourself. However, if he jumps out when you don't have a weapon, you're worse off. What I'm trying to say is that there is no problem in carrying a weapon where you don't need one.

Whether you ARE clearing your house or NOT, being armed is a benefit. Unless the BG somehow wrestles it from you, I guess, but if that is a possibility for you, then you probably have no business clearing your house (I admittedly fall into this category).

Also, I'm guessing this intruder has a reason for being in your house. Most likely, he's there to steal something. His objective is theft, and your objective is clearing your house. You only have to be quiet enough so that the BG (who is either grabbing stuff or searching for stuff to grab) cannot hear you. If you are quiet enough, he won't know where you are, and he will be preoccupied with his theft. This gives you the familiarity with your surroundings and the element of surprise. The rest of this paragraph is meaningless, however, if he is there to harm you, in which case, you'll probably know before you get out of your bedroom if he's a professional.

As a disclaimer, this post was made without the benefit of professional training or personal experience. Please correct any fallacies, as this entire post was my imaginings of theoretical scenarios.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BuckHammer

...As a disclaimer, this post was made without the benefit of professional training or personal experience. Please correct any fallacies, as this entire post was my imaginings of theoretical scenarios....

One thing I find particularly interesting, in this and a similar thread (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=314788). It seems that most of the folks around here who have had some training in house clearing and who have done some solo house clearing exercises in that training (sometime force-on-force using simunitions) seem generally to want to avoid doing it themselves in real life. Could that be a clue that solo house clearing is not a good thing to do?

While I'm at it, I have to correct an error I made in an earlier post.

In post #25, I wrote:

Originally Posted by fiddletown

Massad Ayoob tells a story about the National Tactical Invitational, an annual competition in which some 130 of the top shooters and firearm trainers participate by invitation only. One of the events is a force-on-force exercise using simunitions in which the competitor must clear a house against a single "BG." According to Mas, during the first seven of these annual events, not a single competitor "survived" the exercise. The tactical advantage of the ensconced adversary is just too great. And remember, these competitors were highly skilled, highly trained fighters.

I just received a PM from Mas clarifying that during the first six years of the NTI, one, and only one, competitor got through one of those six NTIs without being judged killed, and he was head of NASA security firearms training at the time. And one, and only one, made it through the seventh year.

However, I don't think that changes anything. Solo house clear still seems to be a demonstrably bad idea.

[BikerRN]

I'm not going to read through five pages of post in regards to the original question and the thread drifts. Instead, I'll just give my answer to the original question.

I do not actively go looking for a gunfight. The surest way to win a gunfight is to not be in one.

If I am certain that the noise is felonious in nature I am staying hunkered down in the home and preparing to repel boarders and calling 911. If after careful observation, listening and using my three dogs to ascertain what the noise was and I am certain it's not a human caused noise I will let the dogs out to investigate, and lock the door behind them. I also will have turned on all the outside lights while keeping the inside lights off.

If the dogs alert to something I will let them deal with the situation while I am still ready to repel boarders. I can let the dogs back in during daylight if I need to. If I hear human noises at this point 911 is being called. If it's another animal, like I said, the dogs can handle it. When they are done dealing with whatever it is, neighbor's cat, dog or future felon offspring I will let them back in. If 911 is called I will inform them that my dogs are in the yards and will call them off after the officers arrive. I intend to keep the lines of communication open with the 911 Operator to relay necessary information.

If it is the noise of an intruder, well that means they have gotten past the security door, the dogs and some other things. This is a "hunker down" situation for me. I'm not going to go searching for the badguy, even in my own home. There is too much at stake and there is no guarantee of having a sucessful outcome, just look at the guy that lost his arm.

Last time I heard a noise at night the dogs, in the house, alerted to it. I then heard voices. As soon as I tripped the lights I heard them running away. I then let the dogs out. About an hour later I let them back in. The next day, in the sunlight, I went out to investigate and found where my wall had been painted with graffiti.

What if I had gone outside to investigate and "startled" one of them and he turned towards me in a rapid manner with a can of spraypaint in his or her hand? Would I have seen it was paint, or would I have thought it was a weapon? I'm glad I don't have to answer that question, even if it was a "furtive movement". There are no guarantees in court and I would've most likely been crucified in the local press. What if it had been a gun and I thought it was a can of spraypaint?

I've cleared a few rooms and buildings, and I HATE it. I will only do it if I have no other choice. I'm not going to go looking for trouble, as trouble has a habit of finding you even when you aren't looking for it.

Biker

[JAYBIRD78]

oldmarksman,

You are evidently not aware that the predominant opinion among personal defense experts is that clearing one's home is a very bad idea that would put you and your family in extreme danger and may result in death or injury to an innocent party.

Here you are guessing at what I know and don't know. Thanks for putting your opinion where it was not needed.

None the less, be safe.

[OldMarksman]

From Jaybird 78:

Here you are guessing at what I know and don't know.

Guilty.

I thought it a reasonable guess that most people who would say "I would have no problem clearing my own home" were most likely ignorant of the fact that in force on force exercises, even the best firearms trainers and shooters have virtually no chance of not being "killed" in that mission.

My objective was not to impugn but to inform.

Now, if did in fact already know that.....

[OldMarksman]

From Biker RN:

I do not actively go looking for a gunfight. The surest way to win a gunfight is to not be in one.

My thought exactly!

If I am certain that the noise is felonious in nature I am staying hunkered down in the home and preparing to repel boarders and calling 911. If after careful observation, listening and using my three dogs to ascertain what the noise was and I am certain it's not a human caused noise I will let the dogs out to investigate, and lock the door behind them. I also will have turned on all the outside lights while keeping the inside lights off.

If the dogs alert to something I will let them deal with the situation while I am still ready to repel boarders. I can let the dogs back in during daylight if I need to. If I hear human noises at this point 911 is being called. If it's another animal, like I said, the dogs can handle it. When they are done dealing with whatever it is, neighbor's cat, dog or future felon offspring I will let them back in. If 911 is called I will inform them that my dogs are in the yards and will call them off after the officers arrive. I intend to keep the lines of communication open with the 911 Operator to relay necessary information.

If it is the noise of an intruder, well that means they have gotten past the security door, the dogs and some other things. This is a "hunker down" situation for me. I'm not going to go searching for the badguy, even in my own home. There is too much at stake and there is no guarantee of having a sucessful outcome, just look at the guy that lost his arm.

That makes sense to me.

Have you considered a remote camera system?

What if I had gone outside to investigate and "startled" one of them and he turned towards me in a rapid manner with a can of spraypaint in his or her hand? Would I have seen it was paint, or would I have thought it was a weapon? I'm glad I don't have to answer that question, even if it was a "furtive movement". There are no guarantees in court and I would've most likely been crucified in the local press. What if it had been a gun and I thought it was a can of spraypaint?

That's powerful food for thought.

I've cleared a few rooms and buildings, and I HATE it. I will only do it if I have no other choice. I'm not going to go looking for trouble, as trouble has a habit of finding you even when you aren't looking for it.

I don't have the experience that you have, and everything I've done along these lines in years past has been far more reckless. Fortunately I've been lucky.

Excellent post!

[BillCA]

Let's all realize that PAX was right in her summation. I think those who advocate not going outside must live in single family homes or in areas where visibility to their driveways or the street are unfettered.

But this is not always so.

Consider those who live in townhomes and condos. They often can't see their own driveways or see out to the street area. The photo below shows a local townhome complex from overhead. Garage entrances are non-visible from inside the house. In most cases, only 2 units in a group have a "street view".


In these cases, someone living "behind" the street-facing units, may have to venture outside to determine what the sound might be. Late night/early morning noises might be someone committing a crime - or someone coming home from a late night carousing.

Before calling the cops, stepping out the front door often gives a clue as to the noises. One can tell if there are hostile sounding voices or not. Sometimes one can identify the noise enough to dismiss it. In those other cases, a cautious peek may be needed.

Here's what I'm faced with if I need to walk outside to determine the source of a noise.


It's approximately 40 ft to the curb (cone). The postal worker is another 25 ft, along the far curb. At night, one can easily stay hidden from street view until within about 10 ft of the curb.

Sure, we could hunker down and just call the police. But an "unknown odd noise" call is very low priority and unlikely to get any response. But that call gets higher priority if you can tell them it looks like 1-2 people tampering with cars or something similar.

Yeah, stay indoors if you live where you can see the street and your driveway. But if you can't see activities around your house very well, always use caution when checking them out.

[OldMarksman]

From BillCA:

Let's all realize that PAX was right in her summation. I think those who advocate not going outside must live in single family homes or in areas where visibility to their driveways or the street are unfettered. But this is not always so.

True, that's what I have in mind.

Consider those who live in townhomes and condos. They often can't see their own driveways or see out to the street area. The photo below shows a local townhome complex from overhead. Garage entrances are non-visible from inside the house. In most cases, only 2 units in a group have a "street view". In these cases, someone living "behind" the street-facing units, may have to venture outside to determine what the sound might be. ... Before calling the cops, stepping out the front door often gives a clue as to the noises. One can tell if there are hostile sounding voices or not. Sometimes one can identify the noise enough to dismiss it. In those other cases, a cautious peek may be needed.

Bill, I don't have your experience, but based on what I see in the pictures and on what I have inferred from those who have participated in FOF training and simulation, that sounds pretty risky to me in those circumstances. Perhaps one of them will comment. I would prefer a remote camera system, if that could be put in.

The situation that I mentioned before PAX made her comment involved a farm or ranch with out buildings and some area to take into account, and probably in a remote area like your friend's property in Missouri.

When I was young, I visited relatives on two rural farms. None of them ever carried a gun

Things have changed, with the development of the meth "industry"and its addicts. Farms now have extremely bright lights that blot out the stars for anyone out in th country. Carrying a gun would seem wise, to me.

And, of course, the idea of remote cameras.

Your thoughts?

[Frank Ettin]

Bill, I've lived places like that. It looks like a great place for a GG to be ambushed by the BG. In any case, suit yourself.

[JAYBIRD78]

I'm wondering if all those published self defense articles that get published in the papers and then the NRA reprints are false. Seems like defending one's own home works. Does it work all the time, NO. You win some and you lose some. Lets just hope NOBODY ever breaks into our homes. I guess I will just take my chances when something goes bump in the night and try my hardest to bump back.

If you were up against multiple intruders....say......ninjas, zombies, jackbooted thugs I would say going on the "offensive" may lead to your demise.

If you were up against a lone intruder....say.....crack head, drunk, punk kid then I PERSONALLY feel confident. Of course I'm a firm believer in putting lead downrange.

Of course you won't know unless you go LOOK or can HEAR something/someone.

Finally on a side note, please don't take every experts OPINION to heart, OPINIONS differ on many more subjects than this one. Do what YOU think is right for YOUR situation. Did you like how I inserted zombies in this?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JAYBIRD78

...please don't take every experts OPINION to heart, OPINIONS differ on many more subjects than this one. Do what YOU think is right for YOUR situation....

Not all opinions are equal. The opinion of someone with applicable training and experience is worth more than the opinion of someone with none. The opinion of my doctor regarding my health is more worthy of attention than that of my mechanic; just as the opinion of my mechanic about my car deserves more attention than that of my doctor. If that weren't the case, I'd need a new doctor and mechanic.

Originally Posted by JAYBIRD78

...Seems like defending one's own home works. Does it work all the time, NO....

It sure didn't work for the poor fellow whose story started this thread. Of course nothing always works, just as nothing always fails. It becomes a question of what gives you the very best chance to prevail.

...If you were up against multiple intruders....say......ninjas, zombies, jackbooted thugs I would say going on the "offensive" may lead to your demise.

If you were up against a lone intruder....say.....crack head, drunk, punk kid then I PERSONALLY feel confident. Of course I'm a firm believer in putting lead downrange....

And if you go looking, you won't know what you've got until it may be too late. And don't forget the possibility that you may be up against the experienced, violent criminal who knows what he's doing and how to shut you down if you give him the chance.

...I guess I will just take my chances when something goes bump in the night and try my hardest to bump back....

Suit yourself. Personally, I'll let him come to me, and then I'll give him some "bumping" lessons.

[David Armstrong]

If you were up against multiple intruders....say......ninjas, zombies, jackbooted thugs I would say going on the "offensive" may lead to your demise.

You seem to have missed the main thrust of this thread, which is that going to the BGs simply increases your danger, thus those with experience and training tend to recommend not doing so, particularly if you have to leave the safety of your home to do so. It doesn't matter if it is multiple BGs, single BGs, ninjas, thugs, whatever---leaving safety and security is a poor decision, particularly when there are alternatives available to you.

You win some and you lose some.

And there are some things that improve your chances to win, and there are some things that increase your chances to lose.

Finally on a side note, please don't take every experts OPINION to heart, OPINIONS differ on many more subjects than this one.

True. However, when virtually EVERY expert in a field gives the same advice, they are probably doing so because it is pretty good advice.

[alloy]

around here, the problem is black bears. they pushed in a screen window across the breezeway hall and were discovered when the owners came back from the bar, ran thru the room and jetted over the balcony. they tear into trash bags in the back of my pickup truck and the dumpsters have locks on them to keep them from throwing trash all over the parking lot. i hear them bangin around 1-2 in the am. i dont know their range, but in particular over the last year its a large female and 3 cubs. when my dog barks thru the front sliding door about 15/20 feet from the sidewalk, she stands there and munches the azaleas.

so i dont investigate noises outside, i dont clear the exterior of the condo, sometimes i look thru the window when the dog starts up. when i take her out to pee and she goes ballistic at the top of the stairs, we go back inside.

no comment on all the skunks around here and a 25 ft leash. you guys go ahead and clear.

[JAYBIRD78]

It sure didn't work for the poor fellow whose story started this thread. Of course nothing always works, just as nothing always fails. It becomes a question of what gives you the very best chance to prevail.

That poor guy went OUTSIDE his home. In my OPINION he should have stayed inside and LOOK outside with the use of a window.

Not all opinions are equal. The opinion of someone with applicable training and experience is worth more than the opinion of someone with none. The opinion of my doctor regarding my health is more worthy of attention than that of my mechanic; just as the opinion of my mechanic about my car deserves more attention than that of my doctor. If that weren't the case, I'd need a new doctor and mechanic.

Don't forget doctors kill plenty of folks every year and car mechanics bugger up plenty of vehicles every day. A piece of paper doesn't make you a expert, hence why there are SECOND OPINIONS.

I do realize the basic concept that a BG is danger. I'm saying I don't bunker down every time I hear a noise. Where do you guys live? If I hear a noise I go and investigate. I would love to get a count of the number of times other posters here have called the police because of a noise. Come on and fess up? Lets just say within the last year.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JAYBIRD78

That poor guy went OUTSIDE his home. In my OPINION he should have stayed inside and LOOK outside with the use of a window.

In a lot of folks' opinion, especially those with training, he should have stayed inside. But remember, the reasons he should have stayed inside are the same reasons that the folks with the training suggest not going looking even inside your home. By going looking for someone, whether outside or inside, you give up a large tactical advantage. For that poor guy, being inside or being outside wouldn't have made a difference.

Originally Posted by JAYBIRD78

...If I hear a noise I go and investigate....

I actually can't remember hearing a noise that I couldn't reasonably well identify as unimportant by simply staying in place, listening and thinking (and maybe checking a nearby window). I've never had a need to go around looking.

Don't forget doctors kill plenty of folks every year and car mechanics bugger up plenty of vehicles every day....

Maybe, but auto mechanics would kill a great many more people than doctors do if we let mechanics do surgery or prescribe drugs. Seriously, training, experience and expertise mean something. If you want a medical opinion about a serous health problem, you go to a doctor and not to the guy who takes your money at the auto parts store. And if you want tax advice, I hope you go to an accountant rather than the checker at the supermarket.

[OldMarksman]

From Jaybird 78:

I'm wondering if all those published self defense articles that get published in the papers and then the NRA reprints are false. Seems like defending one's own home works. Does it work all the time, NO. You win some and you lose some. Lets just hope NOBODY ever breaks into our homes. I guess I will just take my chances when something goes bump in the night and try my hardest to bump back.

Jaybird, "You win some and you lose some" sounds OK to me for poker or betting on the horses, but when losing involves death or serious injury, I am personally too risk averse to "just take my chances." Now, Fiddletown has related something that should indicate just how good my chances would be:

From Fiddletown:

Massad Ayoob tells a story about the National Tactical Invitational, an annual competition in which some 130 of the top shooters and firearm trainers participate by invitation only. One of the events is a force-on-force exercise using simunitions in which the competitor must clear a house against a single "BG." According to Mas...[ during the first six years of the NTI, one, and only one, competitor got through one of those six NTIs without being judged killed, and he was head of NASA security firearms training at the time. And one, and only one, made it through the seventh year] The tactical advantage of the ensconced adversary is just too great. And remember, these competitors were highly skilled, highly trained fighters.

I infer from this that as a person who is neither highly trained nor highly skilled, my chances would be non-existent, and that I would not find that "defending one's own home works" if I were to try to defend it by clearing it rather than by putting the intruder at a disadvantage by having him come to me.

Perhaps I am missing your point.

[Hondo11]

If you want a medical opinion about a serous health problem, you go to a doctor and not to the guy who takes your money at the auto parts store. And if you want tax advice, I hope you go to an accountant rather than the checker at the supermarket.

Not all opinions are equal. The opinion of someone with applicable training and experience is worth more than the opinion of someone with none. The opinion of my doctor regarding my health is more worthy of attention than that of my mechanic; just as the opinion of my mechanic about my car deserves more attention than that of my doctor. If that weren't the case, I'd need a new doctor and mechanic.

You bring up a good point and I'd like to take it a bit further. How valuable is the opinion of someone who's actually done nothing (has zero personal experience), but received training from someone who actually had the experience?

If I went to a doctor and he told me all about pancreatic cancer, am I now qualified to go start diagnosing people?

Do you really know anything if all you know is what someone else told you (who may not have actually done it himself...and in fact, may have been told it by someone else, just like he is telling you)?

I've seen quite a few "trainers" and "experts" who can regurgitate information, but have ZERO actual experience doing what they are teaching. Do they really know anything? Would you really know anything since your training came from someone who doesn't really know what they're teaching?

Who's the real expert? The guy who's had all the "training" but has no actual experience, or an old farmer/construction worker/whatever who's had no formal training, but has actually done the stuff?

***The "you" in this post isn't YOU. Just the generalized "you", as in we.***

[Frank Ettin]

...Who's the real expert? The guy who's had all the "training" but has no actual experience, or an old farmer/construction worker/whatever who's had no formal training, but has actually done the stuff?...

Of course, the most expert of all is someone who has both had training and done the stuff.

Let's consider the subject at hand. Folks who actually do house clearing from time to time for a living, do a whole lot of training to do it. They probably do more training simulations than actual house clearing. They seem to think that the training helps. And most of the training is provided by people who also train a lot and probably do it on occasion. And they train people the way they've been trained and themselves train.

How many folks do you know who have actually done any meaningful amount of house clearing and who have had no training doing it?

[Brian Pfleuger]

...The tactical advantage of the ensconced adversary is just too great....

First, I'll say that I agree with the staying put and waiting idea but secondly, in this example, we have to realize that the BG was also HIGHLY trained. Trained to a degree that would be exceedingly unlikely in an actual event. I believe the underlying theory but the performance of a moderately trained GG against an untrained BG would (probably) be better than this. Not better enough for my tastes and not better enough that I would EVER recommend it but better.

[OldMarksman]

From Hondo11:

Who's the real expert? The guy who's had all the "training" but has no actual experience, or an old farmer/construction worker/whatever who's had no formal training, but has actually done the stuff?...

Someone else will have to help here, but I would imagine that the training at places like Blackwater, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, and the National Tactical Invitational are in fact based on real world experience, as are the Top Gun School for fighter pilots (founded by people who taught what they learned in actual combat), the Red Flag competitions, Marine sniper training, and so forth. Even engagement level simulation has proved itself in military training.

The carpenter example is really not a very good one, in my opinion. You can find many skilled carpenters, but there aren't any fighter aces still in the saddle. That certainly doesn't mean that our best trained fighter pilots aren't "real experts."

They can tell you what tactics will get you killed nine times out of ten and what is likely to work. I worked for and with some Viet Nam era fighter pilots who could tell you the same thing, but they often knew that from training before they went into combat. They aren't flying anymore but they did survive. A carpenter can learn from trial and error, but a fighter pilot cannot.

The same thing applies in SWAT team training, to choose a more relevant example. Every so often the police teams do go into actual action against adversaries. If they based their tactics solely on those few events, with all of the variables involved, they would be at a significant disadvantage.

So, to become and remain "real experts", they train in realistic conditions, varying the scenarios until they are in fact real experts under a wide range of conditions. By the way, that's what fighter pilots do, also.

I wouldn't underestimate the value of professional, realistic force on force training and simulation. I have friend who is a police officer who has been in quite a bit of it. And I certainly would not adopt a strategy that the top professionals and instructors have found to entail a virtual certainty of getting "killed."

I hope this proves constructive.

[pax]

Who's the real expert? The guy who's had all the "training" but has no actual experience, or an old farmer/construction worker/whatever who's had no formal training, but has actually done the stuff?...

Please, please -- start a new thread!

This thread's just about done anyway, and that's a useful and intriguing question which is radically off topic in this thread.

pax

[Hondo11]

Old Marksman,

I don't and (didn't) discount training at all. I do think people should be selective in where they get that training and who's giving it to them. The same also applies to the opinions they choose to listen to and take to heart.

Example: There's a certain trainer out there who has quite a following. They call him an "expert". He's been an instructor for years, but his actual experience is almost ZERO. And when he was getting the experience (again...almost zero), he performed very poorly by all accounts except his own. Yet, he's a recognized "expert" because he has been "teaching this stuff for years".

That's my point. Does having a resume bullet that says "10 years instructing CQB" make you an expert if your basis for instructing is almost no actual experience conducting CQB for real? Or would you say the guy who's not a recognized expert (simply because he doesn't care to be recognized as one), but has legitimate real world experience, has a better grasp of the subject?

That was all I was getting at. And I'm not directing it at anyone in particular or trying to stir the pot. Just a point to take into consideration.

[Hondo11]

PAX,

Just saw your post after I sent my reply to OM. Sorry for the hijack. I know it was off topic, but I thought it sort of applied so that folks reading the thread could take it into consideration as they evaluated the opinions/advice given.

My sincere aplogies.