Tell us about your gun battle experiences

[Oldgringo]

I don't have enough data I have confidence in to be able to give a solid answer, but here are my best guesses: ...

I have even less data than Excaliber, but I would bet that he is right.

Yepper, at least that's the way it is on TV and in other action packed, 'rockem-sockem' good vs.evil with a lot of sex thrown in between explosions/car wrecks, movies.

[jmra]

Excaliber, that's an interesting bump in numbers. To what is the increase attributed in your mind? I'm wondering if it corresponds to the issuance of "Wonder 9s" to LEOs and the phasing out of revolvers as duty weapons. Did the tendency to fire more rounds go up when pistol capacities went up?

I don't have enough data I have confidence in to be able to give a solid answer, but here are my best guesses:

1. The issuance of high capacity pistols was not always accompanied by adequate training in how to make every shot count. I had some officers in my own agency who strongly believed volume of fire compensated for inability to hit the broad side of a barn. I had to design some creative range exercises to get the point across, but I was ultimately successful.

2. BG's adoption of semiauto pistols as their dominant armament provided the same dynamics on the other side of encounters. When someone is laying down high volume fire at you, the strong temptation is to respond in kind. This is often more dangerous to nearby folks who are not involved in the gunfight than it is to the participants, and this effect becomes more pronounced as range between shooters increases.

3. The increase in gang activity and organized drug rings produces more situations where gunfights involve multiple bad guys. No matter how you slice it, more threats require more shots.

So, how do you think these numbers would/could carry over to CHLs? I would think a LEO would put in more time/training at the range than your average CHL. That would suggest that the LEO should have better shot placement and better emotional control under fire than the average CHL. but I assume that a LEO is operating in a different mode than a CHL. I, as a CHL, am not looking to catch or apprehend a bg. I am simply trying to end or escape a threat. As a CHL I also assume that my encounters with a bg are going to be close range - if I am 25 yards from a bg, assuming he is not a threat to someone closer, I'm looking for an escape instead of an encounter. I don't think this would be an option for a LEO. Are there any other variables you can think of that would vary between a LEO and a CHL and how might those varibles affect number of shots fired?

[MoJo]

I spent a lot of time in Vietnam cursing the buttons on my shirt. I don't know why they put such thick buttons on a Jungle Fatigue shirt. They held me a good 1/8" higher than necessary. I never knowingly shot anyone but I sure fired a lot of rounds from time to time. Incoming has the right of way.

[PappaGun]

i caught a trout once....

[Excaliber]

Excaliber, that's an interesting bump in numbers. To what is the increase attributed in your mind? I'm wondering if it corresponds to the issuance of "Wonder 9s" to LEOs and the phasing out of revolvers as duty weapons. Did the tendency to fire more rounds go up when pistol capacities went up?

I don't have enough data I have confidence in to be able to give a solid answer, but here are my best guesses:

1. The issuance of high capacity pistols was not always accompanied by adequate training in how to make every shot count. I had some officers in my own agency who strongly believed volume of fire compensated for inability to hit the broad side of a barn. I had to design some creative range exercises to get the point across, but I was ultimately successful.

2. BG's adoption of semiauto pistols as their dominant armament provided the same dynamics on the other side of encounters. When someone is laying down high volume fire at you, the strong temptation is to respond in kind. This is often more dangerous to nearby folks who are not involved in the gunfight than it is to the participants, and this effect becomes more pronounced as range between shooters increases.

3. The increase in gang activity and organized drug rings produces more situations where gunfights involve multiple bad guys. No matter how you slice it, more threats require more shots.

So, how do you think these numbers would/could carry over to CHLs? I would think a LEO would put in more time/training at the range than your average CHL. That would suggest that the LEO should have better shot placement and better emotional control under fire than the average CHL. but I assume that a LEO is operating in a different mode than a CHL. I, as a CHL, am not looking to catch or apprehend a bg. I am simply trying to end or escape a threat. As a CHL I also assume that my encounters with a bg are going to be close range - if I am 25 yards from a bg, assuming he is not a threat to someone closer, I'm looking for an escape instead of an encounter. I don't think this would be an option for a LEO. Are there any other variables you can think of that would vary between a LEO and a CHL and how might those varibles affect number of shots fired?

Once again, I don't have organized data to work from, but in lots of anecdotal incidents I've seen the number of shots fired by non-LEO's is usually lower than the averages I cited from the NYC statistics. The incidents also almost always occur at relatively short range (arms length to across the room distances), since, as you point out, there is questionable justification and usually a better option than exchanging fire with someone at 25 yards or more in a city or suburban setting. There are more likely to be some exceptions in rural areas.

One reason LEO's can be expected to fire more rounds on average is that the LEO's are dispatched to the most dangerous situations in the most dangerous places with the mission to resolve them. This includes finding oneself as the first responding unit on calls with multiple armed offenders. The rational CHL holder does his dead level best to avoid or evade these situations, and only fires a gun as a last resort. This usually comes as a substantial surprise to the BG.

Bad guys know that LEO's will pursue and arrest them and many know they will spend the rest of their lives in prison if they are taken. They also know that non LEO's just want to be separated from the BG threat as much as the BG wants to be separated from the threat presented by the CHL holder. These situations usually come about as the result of a target selection error on the bad guy's part when what looked like a sheep turned out to be a cougar. Few bad guys will engage in a running gun battle with a non-LEO unless there's a deeply personal reason involved.

As a very general rule, I would expect most LEO's to perform better under fire than the average non-LEO because they have been exposed to advanced tactics and many real life situations that they thought hard about afterward. This "stress inoculation" can help keep one's heart rate from going out of control during an incident and can help an officer make better choices as situations change because the circumstances have been practiced in training. This is not universally true, however. Non LEO's who have taken advantage of some of the excellent training programs out there can gain many of these same skills and reflexive responses. The tricky part is that it's really difficult to pick up the real life incident experience that can make a huge difference in a fast breaking event outside of LEO employment or military urban combat experience.

As far as training and practice goes, LEO's are people too. As such, they are very much like CHL's in that some read, practice, and train frequently and with determination, while others devote as little effort as their departments will allow. As you would expect, those who work hard at preparedness generally fare better in deadly encounters than those who don't. I would expect the average LEO in an active municipal or county agency to generally be significantly better prepared for a deadly force encounter than the average citizen, largely because he sees enough surprises, mistakes, and close calls that could have gone really bad on a fairly regular basis, and that tends to keep the wheels between the ears turning with "what ifs" and resolutions on how best to handle them next time.

[Oldgringo]

MoJo wrote:

Incoming has the right of way.

Hooah, ATW!

[Purplehood]

I spent a lot of time in Vietnam cursing the buttons on my shirt. I don't know why they put such thick buttons on a Jungle Fatigue shirt. They held me a good 1/8" higher than necessary. I never knowingly shot anyone but I sure fired a lot of rounds from time to time. Incoming has the right of way.

Reminds me of that movie "The Boys in Company C". Classic.

[CompVest]

Thank you, Excaliber for trying to keep this thread on topic!

All, please, try to keep to the OP's question thank you.

[old farmer]

Harris county battle experiences for 2009 are "60 civilians being shot — 27 of whom were killed". For complete store http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 20513.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; My question is what are the weopons used in each shootings?

[dewayneward]

I put a single .357 round (Winchester Silvertip from a Ruger Speed Six, FWIW) into a mugger's chest walking home one night, that was all it took; I did empty my 1911 once and had to immediately reload, but that was during a riot.

Had to swap rifle mags a few times in Iraq during a few punch-ups, but nothing overly dramatic.

Nowadays I feel ok with just the 9 rounds in my 1911 - but I'd feel better with a spare.

AndyC, do you mind going into more detail about the mugging incident as I am curios and this actually pertains to the OP. Also, this is more likely a scenario that we may encounter.

I have been thinking about the logistics about using my weapon. I carry at 7-8 o clock(lefty) IWB. I can draw VERY quick, but dont know about OUTdrawing some bad guy. I am assuming that if I am in awareness mode, I should see the BG coming at me or something like that. I'd like to know how everything went down during the mugging because I just cant imagine planting a bullet in a guy who already has a gun on you, etc. I am trying to work on my preparededness without being overly paranoid.

[Epiphany.]

Do I really need to carry 2 guns, extra mags, and a knife? Your experiences will answer my question. Please actual experiences only - no what ifs or could happens.

I'm not going to discuss the details in a public forum. However, I will caution you against making life-and-death decisions based on consensus experience. While it's likely true that one firearm may be sufficient in many cases, I wager there are many more cases where no firearm was needed. Like every situation today for most, if not all, forum members.

[marksiwel]

The background is that I had to take 2 trains in Cape Town, South Africa to get home and one night managed to just miss the second when I got to the connecting station. It was the last scheduled train for that night but since it was only about 3 or 4 clicks from home, it wasn't a big deal to walk.

That area isn't a pleasant place even in the daytime, but I had my .357 in a horizontal shoulder rig under my jacket (my CZ 75 was being upgraded at the local gunsmith to night-sights at the time, coincidentally) so I felt pretty ok about walking home. I'd just stepped outside the station and this little mean-looking guy popped up from out of nowhere and at about 6ft from me waved a kitchen knife (with a taped handle - I'll always remember that) in the direction of my throat, saying "Hey, larney - what you got for me?" ("larney" being SA slang for a wealthier type of person). Having a gun doesn't mean squat without awareness, which hadn't really sunk in before then. I think awareness cuts both ways, though - I'm convinced my "larney" manner of dress had lulled him into thinking I was obviously easy meat.

I took about 2 steps backpedalling to get some space but hit the station wall so I drew the revolver, brought it up to to my chest-level (2-handed, both arms bent) and double-actioned a Silvertip into his chest as he closed with me, both his arms held wide. I remember being totally focused on him but still saw the front-sight superimposed on his torso, so I was in no doubt that I was about to hit exactly what I was looking at. I heard the shot as a pop and saw a slight flash but I was neither deafened nor blinded in the slightest; I even saw the little tug on his shirt where the bullet hit.

He dropped right there - lights out - and I took off to the main road to flag down a cop; I wasn't going to hang around there trying to perform first aid on a corpse if and when his buddies showed up at the sound of a gunshot in their turf.

To cut the rest of a potentially long story short, it was considered self-defense by the local prosecutor.

So did he die?

[WildBill]

So did he die?

I think that is what "lights out" means.
I also infer that he was dead from his statement: "I wasn't going to hang around there trying to perform first aid on a corpse."

[srothstein]

I have never been involved in a gunfight in an off-duty status. I have been involved in one gunfight on duty. In it, a total of three rounds were fired by my partner and I, with none fired by the BG. we were carrying S&W Model 65's with 125 grain hollow points at the time. The BG had a Colt .380 (1911 style - Mustang? or Pony? or something similar). After a lot of paperwork, my partner and I went home for a couple days. This was ruled a good shooting by the DA, SAPD, and the media (which is amazing in their influence on some of this).

Speaking of the media and how they relate things, when I saw the story on that nights news, I would not have thought we were talking about the same shooting. beware of that type of distortion.

On the other hand, by training and choice, I have been involved in lots of defensive gun uses that did not result in a shooting, both on and off duty. Most are not as interesting as what has already been posted in the forum by others, but are of the same type. Pointing a weapon to make someone stop and surrender to me is the general drift, with a few making the BG aware I had a weapon to make them leave (off-duty).

While I would caution against making a decision based on statistics, most of us do this all the time. Statistically, the odds of being a victim of a crime are not that great on a given day. The odds of being able to defend yourself (crime against person and not property) are even smaller. Still smaller are the odds of the BG wanting to fight back. But they do happen. So we try to balance the odds of what we need for the average plus some realistic expectations of worse case scenarios. But we do not prepare ourselves for the very worst case scenario possible. In management, this is similar to staffing needs for a business. Do you staff for the slow times, the average times, the rush times, or the very busiest times? When you staff for less than a busy time, you get some upset customers and possibly lose some sales. How many depends on what level you staffed at. If you staff for the very busiest times, you have lots of times when you have employees sitting around unnecessarily and costing you money.

A better comparison to having a gun might be how much you depend on a seat belt or airbags in a car. The odds of having an accident on any particular drive are small. The odds of having an accident where you might be injured are even smaller. The odds of having an accident where the seat belt or airbags would make a significant difference are smaller still. And there is a very minute but distinct possibility that you get involved in an accident where the seat belt makes you worse off. So, do you where your seat belt or not? Did you where it when you were just moving the cars around in the driveway to work on a different one? Do you refuse to wear it because of the minute possibility that you could be involved in an accident where the car goes under water and the seat belt jams? To be honest, I wear my seatbelt for most trips and did before the law required it, but I do not where it every tiem, like when I knwo I am just moving the cars around.

I do not normally carry a back-up gun. I recommend it for cops, but do not see it as necessary for other citizens. I do recommend extra ammo, especially for a semi-auto. The magazine is the most likely problem on pistols so the spare magazine is more insurance that the pistol will work. I also recommend a gun you know is dependable. These seem like common sense to me. I don't argue against people carrying BUG's until they get carried away. I know of one cop who carried four guns on his person on duty plus more in his car. That seemed more like paranoia than preparedness to me.