|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 5, 2012, 12:46 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
With regard to the question about the rifle being easier to snap shoot - it depends on the sights (not to mention training).
A reflex sight, such as my EoTech, eliminates parallax. If you can see the dot, and the dot is on the target, you should be able to hit the target. Your eye doesn't have to be perfectly aligned, just close enough to aligned that you can see the dot. Additionally, the reflex sight allows the shooter to focus on the target; the dot almost appears as an afterthought. Such a system is VERY fast, if the shooter practices. Did you ever wonder why SWAT, ESU, etc use AR or SMG platforms as primary, with pistols in a backup role, even indoors? (Even when they do not plan to use full auto.) With the right sights, the long guns are faster. |
May 5, 2012, 01:37 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
You're giving away all our tactics! |
|
May 5, 2012, 03:54 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
Nope , doesn't work that way. Suppressive fire is really a military tactic and is done with machine guns. Cops [non SWAT ] don't carry enough ammo .
Just slow down a bit and AIM , you know FRONT SIGHT !
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver ! |
May 5, 2012, 05:10 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,169
|
If the two officers were ex-military, they might have defaulted to their military training....supressive fire & all....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0...... |
May 5, 2012, 10:55 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,424
|
It seems to me that the author (John Farnam) of the linked article is using a different meaning to the phrase "use enough gun" which is the title of Robert Ruark's book. On the one hand, where Ruark was focused on choosing an adequately powerful and penetrating big game rifle cartridge; on the other hand, the linked article seems to be premised upon at ranges over 20 yards a handgun is not enough gun. Not enough because pistols lack what a rifle has, a shoulder stock and a forearm which provides much greater stability; and therefore, accuracy at what Farnam calls "beyond pistol range".
Farnam states: "The fact is, this threat was out of pistol range!" [the distance was 21 meters.] Farnam lists several example of cartridges he feels would do: "223, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 6.8Spc, 300Blk, 30Carbine". I can only imagine how difficult it is to place shots on a armed adversary who is firing at me. I know how difficult it is in IPSC competition and in the Gunsite shoot-offs to quickly and accurately place major caliber hits. However, my competitive experiences are artificial stress and can't compare to a life and death shoot out. I remember one night on patrol being the first officer on the scene of a shooting where I spotted a man down on the sidewalk. I was trying to look in ten different directions for potential threats, trying to call for help, preserve the scene, and identify and corral witnesses . . . . . That was stressful, and no one was shooting at me. I can agree that having the option of a readily accessible carbine in a patrol car would be good for officer survival. Even pistol cartridges in a carbine platform would have likely have been a great advantage. It was not a lack of power or a lack of the bullets to incapacitate, but a lack of hits on the threat that was the focus of the article.
__________________
NRA Life Member - Orange Gunsite Member - NRA Certified Pistol Instructor "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." Frederic Bastiat |
May 6, 2012, 03:44 AM | #56 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
So the man, unemployed and distraught about his situation ends up with nice settlement from Lubbock for the police's willful neglect in their operation. He had been shot while hiding inside of a closet by a random bullet...as just about all were random. The sniper had shot the fellow team members and tried to cover it up. Aside from the sniper's shot, 368 rounds were fired into the house and not a single shooter had eyes on the suspect. Moments after the firing stopped, a radio call (used to be on the internet) was made to get somebody from the police range to bring more ammo to the scene as most of the entry folks had discharged most of their ammo from their primary guns. So, a shot happens and the front entry team has 2 hit and so they start their suppressive fire so they can retrieve their folks and get back to safety, only their shots fly past the entry team in the back who open up with their own suppressive fire. The suspect did have guns, but never threatened the cops with any, they never saw him with a gun, and apparently the guns were all stored/cased and unfired. So they were in the house, but he was unarmed. Lubbock PD underwent some restaffing in mgmt and on the SWAT team...all over a guy who was distraught, would not speak with the cops, and needed a ticket for the illegal disposal of garbage for burning belongings in his yard inside the city limits. And what of the sniper who killed his own team member? Quote:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...threadid=75603 http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89932
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
May 6, 2012, 08:17 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2010
Posts: 962
|
DNS
That is an unsettling story. The first I've heard of it. I can see how the suppressive fire tactic would be military more so than LE. However in an extreme situation it might be a good option.
|
May 7, 2012, 05:07 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,169
|
In a military situation, supressive fire is a great tactic.....in a police situation, it creates a hazard for bystanders and opens up departments to all sorts of liability....
....pick the right tool for the job....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0...... |
May 7, 2012, 06:18 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
Hey Fella's
Wow... some interesting posts. First off I'd like to comment on the NY Trigger. I currently have one in my Glock 19. Left over from my days with the department. There is nothing wrong with the NY Trigger IMO. I actually prefer it. IMO It allows the user to be a bit more aware of each pull. After training with the NY Trigger it's no different than a lighter trigger. In my experience... shootings happen where they happen, when they happen, at the distance it happens. The police rarely get to choose any of these equasions. The only common thread in shootings is they happen very very fast. Officers, and armed civilians (I know the police are civilians too) are almost always are behind the curve reacting to the threat. This shooting happened at an unusually long distance for an urban gunfight. This in my opinion is the major reason for high miss rate. Of course a practiced bull's eye shooter probably would have made the shot... but he may also have been killed by the perp. I didnt see anything in any artical about colateral damage to property or people. I choose to attribute this to the officers keeping their shots on target rather than using a cover by fire tactic. I'd love to know what the object the perp used for cover looked like. The NYPD does not have a dedicated patrol rifle, but there are units within 15 minutes response time with rifles, shotguns, tear gas, and a bunch of other neat stuff. But even if the officers did have a rifle in the radio car they were in the fight with their hand guns. Like I say these things happen very very fast. They wouldnt have had the luxury of going back to the golf bag and choosing the .223 iron for this shot. You fight with what you have. |
May 7, 2012, 09:03 AM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
That the police should not use suppressive fire assumes that all police situations take place in a context where there are bystanders such as inside of a densely occupied city, that the liability to the police is greater than the risk, and that suppressive fire is necessarily a high volume spray and pray sort of shooting. None of these assumptions are necessarily true or necessarily negate the use of the tactic. http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the...sic_view/27319 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fami...s-and-justice/ http://vanessawest.tripod.com/columbine-4.html http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/a...aspx?ID=208297 Some may wish to debate the use of terminology between suppressive fire, directed fire, or cover fire, but the intent of use is the same - to keep the opposition from being able to fire for a period of time by putting rounds on his location. http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270353 http://www.policeone.com/officer-sho...cer-to-safety/
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
May 7, 2012, 05:57 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 17, 2010
Posts: 579
|
Quote:
Until an officer is tested in the heat of fire there is no true understanding of how they will react.
__________________
Here's my credo: There are no good guns, There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people. Charlton Heston |
|
May 7, 2012, 06:18 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,169
|
DNS: While there may be few times when supressive fire is useful for police, the vast majority of law enforcement situations are not those times. In fact, supressive fire may injure the very public that the police are supposedly protecting. And every bullet has a lawyer attached....and an out-of-court settlement paid with taxpayer funds....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0...... |
May 7, 2012, 07:39 PM | #63 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Maybe they should have called in artillery fire, the guy they were firing at was using this:
. |
May 7, 2012, 08:16 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,169
|
Cheap gun can kill you just as dead as an expensive one....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0...... |
May 7, 2012, 08:27 PM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
I have never been in a gunfight with small arms. Havng said that let me say that as fighter pilot in Vietnam I learned early on that when divebombing, it is much wiser to take an extra few seconds to aim carefully on the first pass despite the fire coming against you. Because if you don't hit the gun/gunner the first time you have to try it again. Mathematically that means that you are exposed to enemy fire for at least as long as the carefully aimed attack as you will be to go into the dive bomb attack again, and possibly again.
And extra second or two improves your odds significantly. Remember that time compresses in the heat of battle
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
May 7, 2012, 09:43 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2008
Posts: 216
|
All about shot placement. 14 hits with a rifle would not have changed the outcome if those hits where not properly placed. Just like a properly placed .22 could have ended the confrontation with 1 bullet.
|
May 7, 2012, 10:22 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Shot placement is typically easier to achieve with a rifle...
|
May 7, 2012, 11:19 PM | #68 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
^ yep. It's not about caliber, it's about the greater ease of placing accurate shots with a long gun.
|
May 8, 2012, 05:23 PM | #69 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
As you note, the vast majority of the time, this tactic would not be useful for the cops. I agree completely. That leaves the small amount of time when it is. From what is seen from various cop battles, it is used only in very limited number of situations....but is used. Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
May 8, 2012, 08:53 PM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 2,169
|
Quote:
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0...... |
|
May 8, 2012, 09:05 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
I don’t believe for one minute that it was a suppressive fire.. It was mad shooting much like the vietnam mad minute...
Poor shooting skills with a weapon that has less than stellar out of the box trigger and sights and lack of training and lack of critical thinking... Sounds like classical inexperience with an at best average gun thrown in the mix...
__________________
Molon Labe |
May 16, 2012, 09:06 PM | #72 |
Member
Join Date: November 22, 2004
Posts: 23
|
This is actually a fairly funny scenario. I can actually picture myself in this firefight...and after I hit the suspect I don't know...4-5 times and he's still standing and shooting back, I think after that point I would probably go a little bullet crazy to trying to take this guy down.
|
May 20, 2012, 09:21 AM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 23, 2005
Posts: 955
|
1st is another case of a 9mm just not getting it done. 2nd if he would have been hit in the boiler room with a .40 or .45 with good hollow points it would have been game over. I bet the hits were NOT in the boiler room. If some were then that points to #1. A shotgun would have put an end to it in short order with slugs or buckshot.
__________________
Colt King Cobra .357 Colt Anaconda .44mag Springfield Armory .45 Double stack Loaded XD40 service XD45 Taurus 617 .357mag Smith M&P 40 |
May 20, 2012, 08:34 PM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
Going with .40 or .45 over the 9mm would not have made any difference except that the cops likely would have either had less ammo (but same number of mags) or would have to have made more reloads, but still shot just as crappy.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
May 20, 2012, 11:33 PM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 436
|
Hmm... 84 rounds fired at one suspect. That's as many rounds as the ENTIRE German police force fired last year.
I think a shotgun with OO-buck would have been far more effective. At 21 meters through an 18-inch cylinder barrel the spread would have been about human torso size. Last edited by Axelwik; May 20, 2012 at 11:41 PM. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|