TexasCHLforum.com

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:IIRC, a personal defense gun battle boils down to "3-3-3".

That's 3 shots fired, at 3 yards, in 3 seconds.

Has anyone else heard this?

SIA

Not that exact variation, but something like it. I believe that statistically, most gun battles consist of 2-3 shots fired by either party. I know that others will disagree, but this is generally why I don't bother to carry a second gun. In fact, when I have done so, the second wasn't really a backup gun. I was just transporting it, and it was loaded. The guns that I do carry have proven to my satisfaction to be very reliable, and I generally don't carry more that one backup magazine, although rarely I will carry two. The extra mags aren't so much for the extra ammo, as they are for the rare possibility of a magazine failure...

...and for executing tactical reloads while somersaulting.

Ooh-rah TAM!

Off-topic: Have you seen the previews for the remake of "The A-Team"? If I recall correctly that is a movie based on the true-life adventures of TAM. I look forward to watching it.


I could be wrong, but I rarely let that deter me.

I haven't been in a gun battle as a civilian gun owner.

If I had, I don't see myself posting anything about it in a public forum due to the possibility of unpleasant legal consequences.

Now, my late father was in gun battles too numerous to count during WWII, and once as a civilian, shortly after WWII. (This was years before he'd even met my mother, hence long before my time, so I only have my memory of what he told me when I was very young. I would guess it happened in the late 1940s.)

He and some friends - also WWII veterans - were deer hunting and making their way across a field in a sort of skirmish line, when shots from someone else came out of the woods in their direction. When shouting didn't deter the shooter, they responded with a fusillade of their own. They heard some commotion, a car started up, and roared off. They made their way through the woods and found a campsite near a dirt road, where someone had apparently been sighting in a rifle, to judge by the empty shell casings. The person took off when he received return fire . . . but judging from some broken glass, one of the incoming bullets had apparently broken a window in his car. No evidence of blood, so the original shooter apparently received only a good scare.

They never heard a word about this from any other source (one of the guys knew the local police) so the original guy - probably an simple idiot rather than a genuine bad guy - probably never reported it.

From what I understand, later on the guys had a good laugh over it . . . but it didn't seem funny at the time.

Incoming rounds always suck. I have been known to dive under my desk at work almost 3 years after returning from Afnastystan if the right noises occur.

Purplehood wrote:Ooh-rah TAM!

Off-topic: Have you seen the previews for the remake of "The A-Team"? If I recall correctly that is a movie based on the true-life adventures of TAM. I look forward to watching it.


I could be wrong, but I rarely let that deter me.

Yeah, but that was back before I gained all that weight, wearing lots of Bling was still original and eccentric, and "Big Pimpin'" was actually glamorous. The "A" in "A-Team" was for "Annoyed."

HankB wrote:I haven't been in a gun battle as a civilian gun owner.

If I had, I don't see myself posting anything about it in a public forum due to the possibility of unpleasant legal consequences.

Not asking anyone to incriminate themselves. No need to say when or where. You can even say it was a bil's friend's mother's experience for all I care. I am simply looking for information that might be beneficial to people on the forum in determining what they need or might need while carrying. What better tool to use than real life experiences.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:IIRC, a personal defense gun battle boils down to "3-3-3".

That's 3 shots fired, at 3 yards, in 3 seconds.

Has anyone else heard this?

SIA

Not that exact variation, but something like it. I believe that statistically, most gun battles consist of 2-3 shots fired by either party. I know that others will disagree, but this is generally why I don't bother to carry a second gun. In fact, when I have done so, the second wasn't really a backup gun. I was just transporting it, and it was loaded. The guns that I do carry have proven to my satisfaction to be very reliable, and I generally don't carry more that one backup magazine, although rarely I will carry two. The extra mags aren't so much for the extra ammo, as they are for the rare possibility of a magazine failure...

...and for executing tactical reloads while somersaulting.

The 2-3 shot count per officer is a very old statistic - from the 1980's.

This article contains a table from NYPD's SOP 9 report that shows an average of about double that in the decade of 1990 - 2000. The column on hits vs. shots fired is instructive as well. It's also worthwhile to remember that many of NYPD's encounters involved multiple officers who fired their guns. Some fired a lot, some fired a little - and from that data averages are derived.

Relying on the old 2 - 3 shot statistic and figuring that you'll have rounds left over in your J frame after a violent encounter is a lot like not carrying a gun because on average on any given day your chances of becoming the victim of a violent crime are close to zero, although that rises considerably when wider time frames are considered. Even if both statistics were taken at face value, averages don't mean that's the way things usually go. They are calculated from a whole bunch of incidents that departed both from above and below what emerges as the average.

Keep in mind also that shots fired do not equal hits. The 2006 SOP9 report (the latest one I have) shows a 43% officer hit rate at distances of zero to two yards, and a 23% hit rate at from 3 - 7 yards. Things go south quickly from there.

The 2006 average of shots fired per officer in gunfights was 7.6, with a 30% hit rate. This was compiled from 13 incidents and 19 involved officers. These numbers will vary from agency to agency and from year to year, but note that 7 out of every 10 rounds fired in NYPD gun fights that year hit something other than the intended target.

Does your ammo load account for misses, which happen a lot, even to highly trained people in the chaos of a gunfight?

Purplehood wrote:Incoming rounds always suck. I have been known to dive under my desk at work almost 3 years after returning from Afnastystan if the right noises occur.

As an incident unfolds, dithering over whether it really is what it sounds like leads to death.

When I teach violent incident preparedness, one of the points I emphasize is that gunfire can present as many different types of sounds depending on the type of weapon, distance from the discharge, weather, and intervening materials. The rule of thumb I use for myself is: if it sounds like it could possibly be gunfire, it is gunfire and should be responded to that way unless and until proven otherwise. This greatly shortens the amount of time wasted in denial ("That can't really be gunfire.....") and gives folks not immediately under fire the opportunity to act to protect themselves before they actually come under attack.

As I've already stated, I don't carry a second gun. But I do eat a can of this http://cmmginc.secure-mall.com/shop/?ca ... 20&cat=172&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; every morning so if I run out of ammo for my main gun, I can just drop a stink bomb to conceal my escape.

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?

Excaliber wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Incoming rounds always suck. I have been known to dive under my desk at work almost 3 years after returning from Afnastystan if the right noises occur.

As an incident unfolds, dithering over whether it really is what it sounds like leads to death.

When I teach violent incident preparedness, one of the points I emphasize is that gunfire can present as many different types of sounds depending on the type of weapon, distance from the discharge, weather, and intervening materials. The rule of thumb I use for myself is: if it sounds like it could possibly be gunfire, it is gunfire and should be responded to that way unless and until proven otherwise. This greatly shortens the amount of time wasted in denial ("That can't really be gunfire.....") and gives folks not immediately under fire the opportunity to act to protect themselves before they actually come under attack.

Back in the early 80's, I was in the company lunch room with a bunch of colleagues when a disgruntled worker came in the front door and immediately started shooting a 45 at his boss. All of us thought it sounded like somebody had dropped a book in the front lobby. It was only after a couple more shots that a friend of mine went to the door and shouted "that's a gun". The BG brought 2 guns - a 45 and a 22. He used the 45 on his boss and then ate the 22. This was before CHL, so it was a pretty one sided fight. If the boss had headed to the cafeteria instead of into the library, a lot of innocents could have been involved.

-davidtx

The Annoyed Man wrote: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.

Excaliber wrote: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.

My Gun Battle? I saw a Snake, went upstairs to get my 38 loaded with Snake Shot, came outside, Animal Control was bagging it up and driving away.
It was a close one