Distance shooting is a necessary task to sharpen.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FireForged

I am not going to throw away conventional wisdom simply because some people want this to about precision shooting, its not...its rarely about that. I don't know if he was going for a head shot or not but lets just say for the purpose of this hypothetical, he was.

We don't have to speculate that he was going for the head shot. He stated in a live television interview that he took the head shot because that's the only shot he felt was safe to take because of people between him and the shooter.

Link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kciJclao2TM

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by FireForged

I am not going to throw away conventional wisdom simply because some people want this to about precision shooting, its not...its rarely about that. I don't know if he was going for a head shot or not but lets just say for the purpose of this hypothetical, he was. If he had missed the single shot that took him a few seconds to set up, how many more shotgun blasts would the badguy have likely gotten off before the next "precision shot". Putting myself in that position, its not what I would have done. Sure, people are at risk and they certainly would have been at risk if you do not stop the threat. I am impresses with his shooting and I respect that he was there and responded. That said, I would not have opted for a single precision shot simply because ( to me) it was more risky in the long run. It worked out for him and I am glad.

To those who suggest that such a shot is not very difficult on a moving target in such a volatile environment, I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about. Fighting is not in the same universe as anything you are doing while participating in a gun-game.

If you never practice, especially in any kind of realistic manner, how will you ever be able to do anything?

If all you practice a couple of times a year, is "static" shooting at bullseye targets, or maybe plates, or cans in the yard, etc., then shots like this may seem unrealistic.

Things are difficult simply because we choose to make them so. Not because they really are. The more you do them and learn what needs to be done, in constant practice, the easier they become.

Of course, if you never try, then they will always seem impossible.

I think a lot of people just dont have the skills, and/or arent carrying/using a realistic gun, that will allow them to make shots like this, that are fairly easily done, if theyve bothered to work at making them easier.

It appears that the boy who did make that shot, has bothered to put in the time and effort to be reasonably proficient in his skills and with his gun.

Almost sounds like it annoys some people that he did.

Gabe Suarez talks about a lot of people "being a mediocrity seeker" in the things that they do, and not striving to be their best. I think hes very much on point when it comes to a lot of people and their shooting skills.

Your skills are "good enough", and your gun is "good enough", what more do you need?

Im thinking some of us have a totally different idea and definition of what "good enough" is.

[FireForged]

We don't have to speculate

That's fine, it still doesn't change my point. I already had accepted that it probably was his intent.

[FireForged]

If you never practice, especially in any kind of realistic manner, how will you ever be able to do anything?

I never suggested otherwise. However, we may have a different idea of what "practice" actually is. Generally speaking, I do not use the word "practice". I will accept that within this discussion we are talking about training which incorporate elements of practice.

If all you practice a couple of times a year, is "static" shooting at bullseye targets, or maybe plates, or cans in the yard, etc., then shots like this may seem unrealistic.

I have no idea what you are referring to. I am not sure it has anything to do with what I said.

Things are difficult simply because we choose to make them so. Not because they really are. The more you do them and learn what needs to be done, in constant practice, the easier they become.

Hogwash.. things are commonly deemed difficult based on an accepted or recognized standard. A difficult task is still a difficult task no matter how "easy" it may be for a specific individual person to successfully perform the task. What you are stringing together is more of a motivational quip. At least in my opinion

Of course, if you never try, then they will always seem impossible.

I am not arguing for inaction, I simply support prudence with a certain circumstance.

I think a lot of people just dont have the skills, and/or arent carrying/using a realistic gun, that will allow them to make shots like this, that are fairly easily done, if theyve bothered to work at making them easier.

again, I have oblivious as to what argument you are having and with whom or what.

It appears that the boy who did make that shot, has bothered to put in the time and effort to be reasonably proficient in his skills and with his gun.

it would seem so

Almost sounds like it annoys some people that he did.

I am not sure who would be annoyed by such an effort. What is annoying is the idea that shooting skill is equivalent to protection skill, security skill, policing skill or soldiering skill. Shooting skill is a stand alone element which must be incorporated into a larger branch of knowledge, broader skill and experience if someone expects to be a competent protector, defender, warrior or whatever. Skill is ounces, knowledge and experience are poundage.

Gabe Suarez talks about a lot of people "being a mediocrity seeker" in the things that they do, and not striving to be their best. I think hes very much on point when it comes to a lot of people and their shooting skills.

I am not debating Gabe Suarez

In response to the point you may be trying to make here:

The best shooter is not necessarily an equally competent warrior(fighter). The best shooter does not necessarily win the battle. The best equipped does not necessarily win and neither does the strongest or the side with the largest numbers. Many things can easily overcome a specific skill. I do not think that anyone wants to become a worse shooter but for some.. shooting skill in a bubble is all they have. If I am a proponent of anything, it is for any would-be defender to be competent in (fighting/combat/protective) methodology, not just target shooting.

Your skills are "good enough", and your gun is "good enough", what more do you need?

personal grit, mental fortitude, good judgement, experience, knowledge, a working knowledge on how to work through innate stress responses.

Im thinking some of us have a totally different idea and definition of what "good enough" is.

I agree 100%

[pete2]

Folks, a head shot with a small gun(642 revolver) at 25 feet is doable. A shot like this under stress is another story. Shoot an action pistol match sometime, just shooting against the clock changes things. Add someone who can shoot back at you, and good guys around that you do not want to shoot. I can't make head shots while moving at 10 to 15 yards, even with a full size gun. While a head shot may shut down the problem instantly, it's also the easiest shot to miss. If you are really close or it's the only shot you have, go for it, otherwise center mass, double tap.

[TunnelRat]

I haven't read anything in this thread that states, to me, that shooting skill alone is what determines the winner in a conflict. My guess is many here understand the value of experience, an ability to work through stress, knowledge of tactics and techniques, and don't consider these factors mutually exclusive. Shooting skill was an element to this story and I think it is worth discussing. It doesn't mean parallel parts of this story or conflicts and security in general can't also be discussed.

I've seen people in force on force that were supremely confident in their shooting skills that fell apart for a number of reasons. This included an overdependence on the firearm, an inability to deal with an unforeseen stresser, and in some cases a lack of what I'd term a martial spirit. I've also seen the other end where people have those but lack the shooting skills to stop an engagement earlier. Typically the latter group does better (in my experience), but ideally it would be good to have all of it (or at least some of all categories).

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Tactical Jackalope]

First post here, but this thread came up first. I totally agree with the OP. The 70 year old man who made a first-shot/head-shot on the bad guy trained regularly and your post could not have any better proof required to sustain your point. He was a trainer himself and mindset had a lot to do with this situation as well. Train, train and train more and get your head right about things like this.

I must say that, in spite of all that, the shot he made under that kind of stress was and is remarkable. I can't help but think he himself had been involved in real-world shooting before so that he was not totally freaked out by the noise, the screaming and the stress.

He did his job and did it very well and God bless him for it. I am sure he saved other lives that day. Not sure how well prepared the perp was to reload his shotgun but he could have gotten off maybe two more shots before he was tackled or shot by somebody else.

Welcome to the forum, Happy New Year, and heck of a first post! lol, not biased or anything. I swear.

[FireForged]

I must say that, in spite of all that, the shot he made under that kind of stress was and is remarkable. I can't help but think he himself had been involved in real-world shooting before so that he was not totally freaked out by the noise, the screaming and the stress.

perhaps no so much that but rather an adequate level of personal "grit". Some people have it, others develop it and some cant construct it no matter what they do. Once he got going, he did admirably and I agree that a precision shot at 50 feet in those conditions is impressive. I wont say that it was the smartest shot to attempt in these circumstances but it worked and I will leave it at that.

My main criticism has always been in regards to detecting the potential danger early and properly responding to concerning conditions. I have no real criticism after the bang but rather before the bang. I say that from a purely protective methodology point of view. His shooting was fine.

and yes... welcome to the firing line.

[603Country]

With that recent shooting in mind, I dragged out some pistols, ammo, and splatter targets. I shoot a good bit and am a decent shot, but the question in my mind was if I could make a shot similar to what Mr Wilson did. Of course my shooting is stress free, but am I accurate enough? And the wife was questioning that too, so there is a tiny bit of stress, due to that. The guns involved: a 686+ that has been tuned up; a Beretta PX4 9mm; a 380 EZ; and a Bodyguard 380.

So...could I make the shot? Again, discounting stress, since I have to, I feel confident that at 15 yards I can do it with the 686 and the 380 EZ. I did well with the Bodyguard 380, which has mediocre sights (new ones on order) and did less well with the PX4. If I could carry on my hip, the 686 would be my choice for the shot. If I carried concealed, that 380 EZ is remarkably easy to shoot accurately and faster to get into action. But I do carry with the Bodyguard 380, so I need new sights and more practice.

The big question remains. Would I, in a terrible situation, be able to take effective action.

The actual shooting is with the gun down by the right leg, raise it, find sights and fire. 3 or 4 seconds. More of that to follow.

[Brit]

Ten yards, about. I can hit a two-inch dot, first time, all the time. A 6" round head, yes. Glock 19 4.5 lb trigger, TruGlo night sights, some of the best 9mm ammunition made, 6 months old. 147g HST Federal Premium.
I would definitely have taken the shot.

[FireForged]

In a situation where the target is moving, bouncing at a trot, wearing a hood and surrounded by people moving around in complete chaos?

There is an assessment related decision tree that deals with weaker odds but potentially superior result vs greater odds but lesser result. There is continually changing risk matrix(second by second) which involves considering the odds vs risk vs consequences vs gain.

I think a lot of people are simple looking at this from a "skills in a bubble" kind of mindset which in my opinion, may be lacking in prudence as well as forethought.

Using myself as an example, I have performed plenty of tasks in a casual training environment that I would never attempt when real consequences hang in the balance. Its not always about "can I do it".. but rather should I attempt it ( all things considered). Like anyone else, I like to stretch the limits of my skills, thereby maintaining a certain mental guard rail in regards to what I am actually capable of doing. That said, overall judgement is a huge part of tactical prudence.

Others can think what they want. I am not trying to change anyones mind. I will simply stand with conventional wisdom in this regard.

[Tactical Jackalope]

I'd say the bottom line is that he practiced that shot at his training school so much that he was confident in taking said shot. That's remarkable.

If he wasn't there this could have been another mass casualty situation.

We should all incorporate some distance shooting in our practice.

[shurshot]

"I think a lot of people are simple looking at this from a "skills in a bubble" kind of mindset which in my opinion, may be lacking in prudence as well as forethought." (Fireforged)

Well stated!

[Purple Bikerr]

Originally Posted by Brit

Ten yards, about. I can hit a two-inch dot, first time, all the time. A 6" round head, yes. Glock 19 4.5 lb trigger, TruGlo night sights, some of the best 9mm ammunition made, 6 months old. 147g HST Federal Premium.
I would definitely have taken the shot.

You have 2 seconds, from concealment....go

[JohnKSa]

The security guard, as nearly as I can tell didn't draw from concealment. He appears to have been carrying openly.

Furthermore, although he did draw and fire in 2 seconds, his hand was already on his gun at the start of that 2 seconds.

[Brit]

Originally Posted by Purple Bikerr

You have 2 seconds, from concealment....go

The main time span recorded seems to be, 6 seconds. People were in front of the shooter (Ex FBI) he had no shot, pistol in hand, but no visual. The proof of the pudding? Is in the baking.
Bang. No miss, impact in the head. Sig .357. Game over. Clearly seen.

I personally took a mandated course, at the Glock facility in Smyrna GA, taught by a gentleman named Peter Tarly. I was involved in a sale of 6000 Glock various models of Glock .40 calibre pistols to the Toronto PD. And had to take this mandated course.

Each student had a personal 4X6 card, with his time of draw and fire, from concealment.
Monday to Thursday. As I was sharing a ride with Peter to our Hotel, we ended up discussing the program, and times taken, on our return drive he point-blank asked me did I shoot absolutely as fast as I could? My cover garment was a sleeveless canvas vest. Used for gun games.

I think my fastest time recorded was 1.6 seconds, on a Pact timer. My Glock 17 was my own pistol. Messing with him (I am from Liverpool UK when all is said and done!) jokers one and all. Said no! We stayed back when the rest of the class had left on that Thursday evening. Good Instructor, nice guy as well.
Close quarter target. 5 yards? Good light, Air Conditioned.

The light in the Church seemed good, looked like the shooter took a classic shooting stance like he was standing on a range. When you have done that self-same action a few thousand times, it was really not that difficult a shot.
Lady luck was on his side. Headshot taken, headshot accomplished.
What can't speak, can't lie.

[Nanuk]

The "rule" of 3s in terms of 3 shots at 3 yards and in 3 seconds is meant to give a general impression of defensive usage of a firearm (which are often at contact distances). This is often in the context of personal crime, such as individual robberies or assaults.

No, that stupid rule came from the FBI statistics (UCR's) of officers killed in the line of duty. It is literally training for the losing fight.

[Nanuk]

Ten yards, about. I can hit a two-inch dot, first time, all the time. A 6" round head, yes. Glock 19 4.5 lb trigger, TruGlo night sights, some of the best 9mm ammunition made, 6 months old. 147g HST Federal Premium.
I would definitely have taken the shot.

[J.G. Terry]

When did three to five yards get carved in stone. What do you have to loose shooting for practice at twenty-five yards. Put up a silhouette at twenty-five yards to see what happens. You may see the need for a handgun with a longer sight radius.

Gang shooting are more common that church shootings. I may be minding my own business when all hell breaks loose. Sorry, no crystal ball. Put that B-27 and twenty-five yards and have at it.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

When did three to five yards get carved in stone. What do you have to loose shooting for practice at twenty-five yards. Put up a silhouette at twenty-five yards to see what happens. You may see the need for a handgun with a longer sight radius.

Gang shooting are more common that church shootings. I may be minding my own business when all hell breaks loose. Sorry, no crystal ball. Put that B-27 and twenty-five yards and have at it.

I don't think it did but along with '3 rounds', a result of studied gun use statistics. "Where most defensive HG use is"..7 yards and 2-3 rounds? Or something like that. AND, like statistics, it's a bell curve with info at either end of the spectrum.

You lose nothing..I'll bet most do that, shoot a HG and longer ranges.

[J.G. Terry]

To me, it's evening up the odds. We had a gang shooting here with one killed and two with life threatening wounds. It was written off in the media as a "shooting" I went by in traffic while the police were marking fired cases. That was a gun fight as brass was all over that parking lot. What happened if I had stopped in there to get my Payday candy bar and some gas. Standing at the pump all hell breaks loose. Would it be helpful to have done some shooting at twenty-five yards? I know to take cover and call the cops....if that's an option under the circumstances. What are the odds of terrorists flying an airplane into the Pentagon?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A couple of updates after listening to some more interviews. The good guy Jack Wilson was NOT ex-FBI. He was a reserve deputy sheriff from 1980-86. IMHO calling him ex-LEO is a stretch. Also, I think he was a LOT closer than the video shows. He mentioned in one interview that he was 6 feet away from the first guy who was shot. I think he is a firearms (CHL, NRA) trainer but I think it's important to not up play his former status as the antis will say "See, only highly trained LEOs can do this". Undoubtedly, his skill set was good but he was not SWAT. Finally, the bad guy was squirrely from the get go so they were watching him and maybe a lesson here is when someone squirrely is being watched have your hand on your gun and be out of sight of the BG? Watching that poor guy try to draw against an already drawn shotgun and doing so very slowly made me cringe. A brave fellow who gave his life for his friends so I am not criticizing him but I am learning.

EDIT: as to motive I have read that the BG had come to the church for help and was unhappy they would not give him money. I think they gave him money and other items but no money.

[FireForged]

No, that stupid rule came from the FBI statistics (UCR's) of officers killed in the line of duty. It is literally training for the losing fight.

when did statistical information become rules?

when did statistical information become some sort of boundary which excludes all other possibilities?

being aware of 3-3-3 is simply one way of fostering the idea that you probably need to have a plan as well as skills which can effectively mitigate a fast moving attack at close range ( which is a common construct ). 3-3-3 is simply a reminder that it exists and it has become part of the training mindset because it is such a common construct. It doesn't mean that you don't or shouldn't train for other things. Its not a suggestion that every gunfight is going to fall within those parameters. The fact of the matter is that it would be irresponsible to ignore evidence which suggests that a large number of SD shootings fall within those ( 3-3-3) parameters. They do.. so make it part of your training module. If you are one of these guys who can shoot a jelly bean off a golf tee at 30 yards... great. Just know that its not what usually wins a gunfight.

[FireForged]

I think it's important to not up play his former status as the antis will say "See, only highly trained LEOs can do this"

There always seems to be an effort to affix some sort of label.. highly trained this or ex-space shuttle door gunner. It seems to be rather hard for the news to simply recognize that regular people are often armed and capable of defending themselves as well as others.

I read an article the other day that kept referring to an offender as an ex-federal worker. It turns out that he was a holiday-temp (2-3 month) casual hire at the post office more than 30 years ago. Although accurate, why call him an ex-federal worker some 30 years later.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

EDIT: as to motive I have read that the BG had come to the church for help and was unhappy they would not give him money. I think they gave him money and other items but no money.

They gave (or offered) him food but not money. The senior pastor of the church mentioned that in more than one interview.