Caliber based training?

[Nathan]

Do you train different based on caliber like:
45 Auto - 1 per assailant, assess, repeat as required
40 - 2 to each, assess, repeat as required
9 - 2 -3 to each, assess, repeat as required (depends on mag capacity)
380 - engage most immediate threat and shoot until stopped...

Seems like make capacity and a rounds likelihood of stopping should be considered....

[45Gunner]

I have attended both Government and Private Sector handgun training using both the .40 and the .45. Both training has been nearly identical with the exception being the .45 takes a little more thinking in that one must keep track of how many rounds remain in the magazine. The issued .40 held 13 +1 while the .45 held 8 +1. Interesting to note that the Government Course only allowed for one spare mag. (Not many I knew held to that once in the field.) Private sector required minimum two spare mags. I carried two double mag holders giving me a grand total of 41 rounds.

On point, all training was basically the same. Two rounds center mass. Failure to stop? One well placed head shot.

Multiple assailants: Take out the one that is most lethal to you and then one center mass round for the others. Keep shooting the threat (s) is neutralized.

[OldMarksman]

I do not like the idea of "assessing and repeating as required" at all. If repetition is needed, the time spent in assessing could lead to one's demise.

[T. O'Heir]

Calibre is irrelevant. With just those 4 you're using 4 different firearms that you must be totally competent at using.
"...the time spent in assessing could lead to one's demise..." Yep. Practice head shots only with all of 'em, but especially the .380 pop gun.
"...rounds remain in the magazine..." Second last is a tracer assuming that's possible.

[9x18_Walther]

Calibre is irrelevant. With just those 4 you're using 4 different firearms that you must be totally competent at using.

Exactly. The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan is probably the best example of how shot placement can make a difference. James Brady, Timothy McCarthy, Thomas Delahanty, Ronald Reagan were all hit with .22 LR, but the outcome was vastly different for each.

I'm sick of reading about how 9mm is inadequate, 45 ACP won't penetrate a perpetrator winter jacket, 10mm will go through five city blocks, .357 SIG is the only thing that will go through a car door, etc.

If a major LE organization uses the caliber you wish to carry, it's more than sufficient.

[g.willikers]

Lots of opportunity for this today.
Please repeat after me, and as often as needed:
"The gun (and caliber) is the least of it."

[fastbolt]

Caliber based training?
Do you train different based on caliber like:
45 Auto - 1 per assailant, assess, repeat as required
40 - 2 to each, assess, repeat as required
9 - 2 -3 to each, assess, repeat as required (depends on mag capacity)
380 - engage most immediate threat and shoot until stopped...

Seems like make capacity and a rounds likelihood of stopping should be considered....

NO.

If you have this sort of question, it might benefit you to seek out some professional firearms training class, somewhere, that incorporates a discussion involving the legal aspects of the use of deadly force, especially in your locale.

You might really benefit from learning about the legal aspects of using deadly force, and other legal aspects related to lawfully carrying and/or using a firearm in lawful defense of self and/or innocent third persons.

[44 AMP]

Do I train differently with different calibers? Sort of. When I shoot a .44 Mag, or bigger, I don't bother with "tactical" drills and sh..stuff.

[smee78]

Nope, I train to stop the closest threat first and go from there. It does not matter what caliber I use or have on me.

[Arizona Fusilier]

I think the defensive use of the pistol has to as close to a reflex as possible. One immediate action drill for all. Caliber-specific training sounds like a dangerous road to go down.

My only exception to that is with my little Beretta .22. I empty it at the head one-handed. Can't get two hands on it anyway.

[Nathan]

Fastbolt:
Can you explain how this discussion has anything to do with "legal aspects of the use of deadly force?"


Smee78:
So you shoot until target #1 drops? What if target #2 is also slinging lead at you? ....and #3?



Also, there are many acting like one needs to be trained for many caliber so, but ideally a person would carry one gun. I carry ~2.

[Mobuck]

BS
Shoot until the threat is reduced regardless of whether the caliber is 22lr, 9mm, or 45acp. When you condition yourself to fire X number of rounds, you will continue to do so even if more(or less) are needed.

[Nathan]

So, what do you do about the 2nd person shooting at you also??

[2ndsojourn]

^^^ Do a Bob Munden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkmKJ-deFAY

[fastbolt]

Fastbolt:
Can you explain how this discussion has anything to do with "legal aspects of the use of deadly force?"

How can you discuss using deadly force, particularly in the form of a firearm, against a human attacker threat without also considering the legal implications regarding how you make the decision to lawfully and appropriately use it?

If each and every round fired may be considered a use of deadly force, does your "caliber-based training" mean you expect each and every shot of your "default training" response to always be automatically justified? Claim that 2-3 shots had to be fired because of some inherent caliber-effectiveness standard? Even if the specific circumstances didn't support firing that "minimum number" of rounds?

Proper training may help give someone some insight regarding developing the knowledge and experience to learn how to make appropriate and better decisions for the circumstances, especially under stress.

Another poster stated:

When you condition yourself to fire X number of rounds, you will continue to do so even if more(or less) are needed.

This was a problem identified within LE firearms training many years ago. The previously ubiquitous "double tap", which wasn't an uncommon shooting response in older training practices, was eventually re-examined and its universal practicality was reasonably questioned.

Training practices had to evolve to address the potential problems of not only failing to intentionally fire enough rounds, but also potentially too many rounds, for any particular set of circumstances.

Nobody wants their cops killed (or retired out disabled) because they stopped shooting too soon for the particular circumstances, nor does the public want to see cops rapidly "spraying" rounds which go errant of the intended threat and endanger the safety of the general public.

Now, getting some properly organized and structured training can probably help you develop potential answers to questions like:

So you shoot until target #1 drops? What if target #2 is also slinging lead at you? ....and #3?

...

So, what do you do about the 2nd person shooting at you also??

It might be beneficial to acquire a knowledge base that includes consideration of both the "tactics & techniques", as well as the "legal" aspects, and how to best determine the appropriate "answers" that will hopefully satisfy both in anticipated situations.

Using a firearm as a dedicated defensive weapon, in the lawful use of deadly force? Not just about "technique & tactics", or gun & caliber.

[subhuman]

2 to the chest 1 to the head....justification had better be good when you clear leather but after that point just do your best to survive because in a defensive shooting you are already behind the survival curve when you have to react and draw your weapon.
If they are still coming keep shooting. ..

[OldMarksman]

Posted by subhuman:

2 to the chest 1 to the head....justification had better be good when you clear leather but after that point just do your best to survive because in a defensive shooting you are already behind the survival curve when you have to react and draw your weapon.

The head of a fast moving attacker is an extremely difficult target. I won't waste ammunition on it if I have a choice.

I think fastbolt cover this, but do not assume that the need for justification goes away after you clear leather.

[Nathan]

I have a bit of a hard time following your lack of detail fastbolt, but I'm reading what you write.

Sounds like you advise a shoot once and assess mentality. I fear I would waste too much time in these precious few seconds.

[serf 'rett]

I would not train with a method which uses a set number of rounds as this could ingrain the mental and muscle memory which comes with proper training. Vary round count, vary target areas, vary shooting with both, strong and support hands, moving, using cover, etc.

Good training and legal understanding combined will help one understand when TO shoot and when to STOP shooting. Shoot too early, shoot to long or shoot bystander and you are Fouled Up Beyond All Repair

[johnwilliamson062]

MOVE.
One in most immediate threat to life as soon as the front sight is on the target.
Continue until there are no current threats to life.
Doesn't matter what caliber.

Double taps...
Use a shot timer and set-up 4-5 targets spaced a few feet apart. Time how long it takes to get to the last target with a double tap and then with single shots. If the delay is not significant go ahead and shoot your double taps or whatever. I prefer to get one round in each as fast as possible.
There is a problem taking training from door kickers when you aren't one. Most door kickers expect to have numerical superiority, body armor, med-evac, etc. If you have 3+ armored guys busting through a door and splitting a room even close to correctly, there will be double taps for all in short order. If a slight delay ends up with a friendly getting hit, someone can drag him out to the ambulance. SOmeone will be climbing over him and engaging anyone in his section.

On your own, unarmored, and likely unable to summon help if disabled, it is a whole different game.
3 rounds with 9mm... In many single stacks commonly carried that is only two full targets with a little left over.

[fastbolt]

...Sounds like you advise a shoot once and assess mentality. I fear I would waste too much time in these precious few seconds.

Not at all. Do you think someone can (or should) stop assessing during (between) trigger pulls? If the skilled and experienced driver of a motor vehicle can be trained to continually react to evolving circumstances in an emergency situation, isn't that better than a minimally skilled and experienced driver just slamming on the brakes or the accelerator, or twisting the wheel, and hoping that's the right decision as the emergency unfolds?

It sort of sounds like you're looking for a 1-size-fits-all "technique" & skillset answer to a question that involves knowledge, multi-tasking and the ability to think fast and make good decisions on the part of a hypothetical victim/shooter.

As the particular dynamics of a situation may change, moment by moment, the "answer" to what's lawful and reasonable may change along with them ... along with what's tactically sound and has the best chance of being "effective" for the circumstances.

The changing dynamics of a situation may well change the appropriateness of the tactics needed to deal with it, too. How much do you want to risk limiting your ability to correctly and effectively respond?

Trying to create rigid and limited training responses to dynamic situations can become problematic, and risky. Skill-based training objectives are all well and good, but those skills must be used within the constraints of both law and what's reasonable for the particular circumstances (and within policy, for LE). Multi-tasking under stress, meaning being able to successfully make fast, accurate and sound decisions in the midst of unexpected activity is more than just relying upon a simple set of physical skills of the "If this happens, do that" variety.

Learning how to identify and prioritize skills to provide an effective (and lawful) response to an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death being offered by more than 1 attacker? Situational context. The tactics will probably have to be determined by the specific circumstances, and those circumstances may be unique to the situation. You don't want zig when it turned out to be better to have zagged ... legally, technically or tactically.

In other words, the time you waste trying to fire a pre-set number of rounds at each attacker may cause you to run out of time before effectively dealing with the "next" attacker (and which may be before you run out of rounds in whatever favorite flavor-of-the-moment hi-cap pistol is chosen). Ditto starting out by not effectively prioritizing which attacker to deal with 'first'.

No, it's not an easy set of answers like teaching someone the steps of a dance. It's not the Cha Cha (1, 2, 3, etc).

An ordinary citizen can find him/herself a victim one moment, but then become a suspect when the wrong decision is made at the wrong moment a couple of heartbeats later. Hoping to be "lucky" in trying to make the right decision isn't exactly a sound tactic. Probably best to develop some knowledge and try to learn what may be involved.

There's a fair amount of reading material that can be found online which might lead to new and better questions. You might find some interesting articles at Force Science Institute. http://www.forcescience.org/

If this was an easy question to answer, we wouldn't have to use so much classroom and range time, discussing the laws (including legal updates, and policies for LE training) and devising training/qual scenarios which include assessing different threat conditions, as well as "No-Shoot" situations. Testing and assessing not only a skillset, but the ability to think, multitask and recognize how, why and when to apply aspects of that skillset in varying situations.

Yes, it's dismaying when someone shoots a No-Shoot "target" in some fast-paced course-of-fire, either because they didn't actually see (recognize & process) what was in front of them, or they simply expected to keep "servicing targets" since it's a shooting course of fire. Easy (but potentially costly) mistake of judgment for someone to rush to make, to keep pressing a trigger when they think they see a threat, than to take the moment needed to recognize what's actually in front of them at the moment, and/or what might have changed. On the range we can re-mediate and discuss incorrect reactions and decisions. Off the range? People can lose jobs, careers, their freedom and their financial futures (and that of their families), etc.

[OldMarksman]

....contains a rather complete explanation of why the idea of "caliber-based training" as described in the OP is a bad one.