Suppressive Fire - Page 2

threegun · April 17, 2006, 09:57 AM

One thing should be well understood.......in a gunfight you just never know what you might have to do. If you have to fire to put someone behind cover to save your wife and child as Hal did, then suppressive fire does have a place in self defense. Of course if you can fire to hit them even better. The times it is needed might be rare and the danger posed to others must be taken into consideration. Make no mistake if I am being chased by a gunman and my wifes handgun fire from 70 yards forces him to take cover thus allowing me to escape, it was a useful tool to say the least. Despite the bad guy not being hit in Hals case it was still a successful defensive use of the gun.

pickpocket · April 17, 2006, 11:12 AM

Just as a point of contention - my responses were focused on SD outside the home. Once inside your own home, all bets are off and if you've got the capabilities to detonate the claymores on your perimeter and use the malaysian whip covering your front hallway then more power too you. There's no such thing as inappropriate when defending your own home.

Way to go, Hal!

Threegun - you're right. That's why I made a specific attempt to delineate between "suppresive fire" and "spray & pray" in an earlier post. Too many people confuse the two.

Trip20 · April 17, 2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

There's no such thing as inappropriate when defending your own home.

Many have living arrangements in apartments, condos, duplexes, and single-family homes build very close together. It is a valid concern to think about where each and every bullet may go once it leaves your barrel, even if firing from with in your home.

Being in your own home does not mean you should dismiss one of the four rules -- Know your target and beyond.

I'm unsure how important this will seem when someone is attacking you in your own home (i.e., in the heat of the moment defending the lives of yourself and loved ones), so I've tried incorporate this ahead of time when planning the areas of my home to which I'd retreat, if necessary, giving me the best cover, and best/safest line of fire. I've considered this issue as I live in a duplex. It did not take much time to sort out the best options.

Also consider that all members of your family may not be in the same room as yourself, when it comes time to defend your castle...

By no means am I advocating letting your wife and child perish because you are unsure if your neighbor is making a pot of coffee in his kitchen at 3am -- directly in your line of fire... I'm simply suggesting that the significance of knowing what's beyond your target does not diminish when you are with in your own home.

Hal8000 · April 17, 2006, 01:56 PM

As I was taught, I so teach... Never fire a round without having a nearly positive idea of where that bullet will wind up... It's part of shooting! A BIG part! You are responsible for your bullet(s)... I agree completely.

Quote:

I'm simply suggesting that the significance of knowing what's beyond your target does not diminish when you are with in your own home.

In my case, I was counting on more penetration than what I got from my bullets and had no doubt what was in front of and behind my target...

Two further comments: The Sheriff's Department were impressed with my "group". It looks as though all of my years of practice, practice, practice paid off. Even though it was pure instinctive shooting, my bullet placement was perfect with nary a single flyer...
With that said, I say; I should have had a good group, it was like only 10 feet away! Well within the FBI's argument that most shootings occur within 7 yards.

Trip20 · April 17, 2006, 02:05 PM

Hal - I certainly wasn't addressing your situation. In my opinion you are a hero, you are courageous, and I hope I have your fortitude to come out ahead if faced with a similar situation.

While reading your story, I was hoping for more penetration as well. I was damning the solid brick wall.

BamaMac54 · April 17, 2006, 02:07 PM

"In combat only, suppressive fire had it's purpose of keeping the enemy's head down by the 1st squad so the 2nd squad could advance, so on and so forth. Maybe it's not done like that anymore in the new modern Army."

Yeah, in today's army soldiers are more likely to thrown down suppressive email.

Hal8000 · April 17, 2006, 02:13 PM

BTW... Thanks to all of you for the chance to share our experience, and I appreciate everyones civility, it can be a rather touchy subject.

For what it's worth, I think there are very few situations that "suppressive fire" is called for in civilian situations. But I have to admit, there are some, even if we can't think of one. They do exist.
One must be able to adapt with covariant solutions to survive.

threegun · April 18, 2006, 06:03 AM

Hal,

Quote:

One must be able to adapt with covariant solutions to survive.

Amen. Just do what it takes to survive

**Mike Irwin** · April 19, 2006, 09:30 AM

The only example I can think of where civilians have ever had to provide suppressive fire is during the Texas Tower incident.

Police got a number of civilians armed with hunting rifles to fire on the tower where Charles Whitman was holed up, which allowed them to get inside the building and end the incident.

Glenn E. Meyer · April 19, 2006, 10:19 AM

Mike, from what I read, the Tower fire from civilians was unorganized and not requested by the police in any formal sense.

threegun · April 19, 2006, 10:57 AM

Ditto what Glenn said. I have seen several shows on the event and can't recall the police organizing with civilians either.

SBrocker8 · April 19, 2006, 11:28 AM

Maybe they SHOULD HAVE gotten civilian help, then...

Could have helped in Los Angeles in 1997 as well.

April 17, 2006, 11:12 AM	#27
pickpocket Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 570	Just as a point of contention - my responses were focused on SD outside the home. Once inside your own home, all bets are off and if you've got the capabilities to detonate the claymores on your perimeter and use the malaysian whip covering your front hallway then more power too you. There's no such thing as inappropriate when defending your own home. Way to go, Hal! Threegun - you're right. That's why I made a specific attempt to delineate between "suppresive fire" and "spray & pray" in an earlier post. Too many people confuse the two. __________________ Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān"

April 17, 2006, 02:13 PM	#32
Hal8000 Member Join Date: April 15, 2006 Location: Royal Gorge Bridge area, Colorado Posts: 27	BTW... Thanks to all of you for the chance to share our experience, and I appreciate everyones civility, it can be a rather touchy subject. For what it's worth, I think there are very few situations that "suppressive fire" is called for in civilian situations. But I have to admit, there are some, even if we can't think of one. They do exist. One must be able to adapt with covariant solutions to survive. __________________ That which does not kill us, strengthens us!

April 19, 2006, 09:30 AM	#34
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,383	The only example I can think of where civilians have ever had to provide suppressive fire is during the Texas Tower incident. Police got a number of civilians armed with hunting rifles to fire on the tower where Charles Whitman was holed up, which allowed them to get inside the building and end the incident. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

April 19, 2006, 10:19 AM	#35
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Mike, from what I read, the Tower fire from civilians was unorganized and not requested by the police in any formal sense. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

April 17, 2006, 09:57 AM	#26
threegun Junior member Join Date: March 1, 2006 Location: Tampa,Fl Posts: 4,000	One thing should be well understood.......in a gunfight you just never know what you might have to do. If you have to fire to put someone behind cover to save your wife and child as Hal did, then suppressive fire does have a place in self defense. Of course if you can fire to hit them even better. The times it is needed might be rare and the danger posed to others must be taken into consideration. Make no mistake if I am being chased by a gunman and my wifes handgun fire from 70 yards forces him to take cover thus allowing me to escape, it was a useful tool to say the least. Despite the bad guy not being hit in Hals case it was still a successful defensive use of the gun.

April 17, 2006, 02:05 PM	#30
Trip20 Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2005 Posts: 2,181	Hal - I certainly wasn't addressing your situation. In my opinion you are a hero, you are courageous, and I hope I have your fortitude to come out ahead if faced with a similar situation. While reading your story, I was hoping for more penetration as well. I was damning the solid brick wall.

April 17, 2006, 02:07 PM	#31
BamaMac54 Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2005 Location: Middle Tennessee Posts: 273	"In combat only, suppressive fire had it's purpose of keeping the enemy's head down by the 1st squad so the 2nd squad could advance, so on and so forth. Maybe it's not done like that anymore in the new modern Army." Yeah, in today's army soldiers are more likely to thrown down suppressive email.

April 19, 2006, 10:57 AM	#36
threegun Junior member Join Date: March 1, 2006 Location: Tampa,Fl Posts: 4,000	Ditto what Glenn said. I have seen several shows on the event and can't recall the police organizing with civilians either.

April 19, 2006, 11:28 AM	#37
SBrocker8 Senior Member Join Date: May 2, 2005 Posts: 111	Maybe they SHOULD HAVE gotten civilian help, then... Could have helped in Los Angeles in 1997 as well.