When you guys train at the range, do you actually train for center mass or try to go for headshots or possibly where the limbs would be?
61 - 80 of 80 Posts
I'm not surprised that two of the larger police departments in the US fired that many rounds during the time period analyzed. Those rounds weren't all fired at a prep. That said, the average big city police officers aren't as proficient with their firearm as many of the members of this forum.
Inadequate firearms training in the academies and lack of range time to improve and develop their skill sets for on-the-job officers tend to create the disparities mentioned in FBI stats and some of the above comments. Other reports should be taken with a jaundiced eye.
Needless to say, most of us are not required to use force at longer distances that LEOs are often presented.
We need to train for courtroom defensible self-defense actions!
We also need to train for probabilities rather than possibilities. Oh, it's possible we may have someone shooting at us from 40 yards, but more than likely a 3-7 yard life threatening adventure would be more probable. I train for the latter!
Inadequate firearms training in the academies and lack of range time to improve and develop their skill sets for on-the-job officers tend to create the disparities mentioned in FBI stats and some of the above comments. Other reports should be taken with a jaundiced eye.
Needless to say, most of us are not required to use force at longer distances that LEOs are often presented.
We need to train for courtroom defensible self-defense actions!
We also need to train for probabilities rather than possibilities. Oh, it's possible we may have someone shooting at us from 40 yards, but more than likely a 3-7 yard life threatening adventure would be more probable. I train for the latter!
Joined
·
24 Posts
Point taken. Police incidents are a different animal and I agree statistics get skewed by irrelevant nonsense. And my understanding is that the 3/3/3 I referenced was self defense encounters. But I'm not too proud to stand corrected.
Same here, and I'm not saying that you're wrong. I may be by having my doubts.
There is also the chance that the statistics could be 100% correct, but misleading.
I'll say that today, I carried an 18rd pistol, with an extra mag.
3-3-3 cliche is dogma. Some believe it was started with comments from a NYPD lieutenant and not the FBI.
Tom Givens of Rangemaster Firearms Training kept stats on his students involved in shootings that are worth reviewing. I found this information in an article at Lucky Gunner, "The True Distance of a Typical Gunfight", which lends some support to the 3 yards part of the 3-3-3.
The report indicates out of 67 student involved shootings, 4% of those shootings took place at zero to two yards with minor physical contact occurring in a couple of those. 87% were between three and five yards. 4% were at five to seven yards, and another 4% were all the way out at 15 to 25 yards.
Just some food for thought.
Tom Givens of Rangemaster Firearms Training kept stats on his students involved in shootings that are worth reviewing. I found this information in an article at Lucky Gunner, "The True Distance of a Typical Gunfight", which lends some support to the 3 yards part of the 3-3-3.
The report indicates out of 67 student involved shootings, 4% of those shootings took place at zero to two yards with minor physical contact occurring in a couple of those. 87% were between three and five yards. 4% were at five to seven yards, and another 4% were all the way out at 15 to 25 yards.
Just some food for thought.
Joined
·
906 Posts
Sometimes it seems like the 'hail of gunfire' from police departments is designed to introduce 'reasonable doubt' as to the actions and culpability of any particular officer in a shooting.
There are certainly different standards at play and an errant round from police is not necessarily going to be judged as harshly (in terms of personal accountability) as one from a civilian.
There are certainly different standards at play and an errant round from police is not necessarily going to be judged as harshly (in terms of personal accountability) as one from a civilian.
While you are speculating about the high round counts in NYC and Chicago, consider the neighborhoods and buildings officers are policing. Multistory buildings present different problems and that in some instances might require suppressive fire to get to safety. Also, consider that all rounds fired need to be accounted for, and that includes accidental discharges.
I never walked a beat in either of these cities, but I did in a large mid west city and I can attest that it is nothing like the suburb where I grew up.
I never walked a beat in either of these cities, but I did in a large mid west city and I can attest that it is nothing like the suburb where I grew up.
I'm sure the NY1&2 triggers in their Glocks aren't helping as well.
Police shootings were just one example. I've shot better than a police officer in a shooting range before (friend of a friend), but then I've also shot better than most people who carry a pistol that they rarely practice with. I doubt the average pistol owner here could do better than the average police officer, but I don't have any concrete proof of that either.
I'm not saying that the 3/3/3 statistic is wrong. I'm saying that I have my doubts that it is right until I see how people came up with those statistics. I've heard enough people disagree with how people came up with that statistic, that I want to see proof before believing it.
I have many questions. How did they come up with that statistic? What was included and what was excluded? How do you get a consensus of what an average is in a gunfight? Did they include suicides? Did they include police shootings? Did they include cases where only one side had a pistol and the other didn't? Did they include the times that one side pulled out a pistol and the other immediately ran away? Did they only include when the other side actually had a pistol and shot back? Is the average the same between rural and urban environments? How long ago was the study taken? Are people more willing to shoot now compared to decades ago?
3-3-3 appears to be a shooting drill rather than a true set of facts. Google 3-3-3 and read a few of the offerings.
Statistics can be bent to accomplish the writer's intent, and they should be judged with skepticism until our own research proves them correct.
We need to train for what is probable. Today, more bad guys are wearing ballistic vests, so... whatcha gonna do?
Statistics can be bent to accomplish the writer's intent, and they should be judged with skepticism until our own research proves them correct.
We need to train for what is probable. Today, more bad guys are wearing ballistic vests, so... whatcha gonna do?
Joined
·
24 Posts
Tom Givens (you can google his credentials) kept a database of all civian/ felon encounters personally experienced by his students. One was at belly to belly contact and one was at 22 yards. The rest followed the pattern of the 3/3/3. That's where Tom Givens came up with the 3/3/3.
Drills? Makes sense seeing he owns a range.
Drills? Makes sense seeing he owns a range.
Joined
·
522 Posts
Just wondering tho lots of average patrol offices of whom many probably still had revolvers back then are not going to beat your average patrol officer of today with an sbr AR with a red dot and modern self-defense rounds. Most of the shootings I've seen have been pretty good as far as hit rate, granted most of those guys are pulling up on things already happening they usually aren't already going into the situation with their AR out already so I can see where the nervousness comes from but that's also cultural thing. I'm not a de-fund the police person although I do think their training is woefully inadequate for modern 1st world countries. Remember back maybe 7-8 years ago when all those Chiefs and political officials went to Israel and basically adopted the system they've used with Palestinians since the war? EVERY SINGLE PERSON YOU SEE WANTS TO KILL YOU is kinda the basis of it which probably isn't the best take in a society that privatized then eliminated public mental institutions, released everyone when they failed, and started calling them "transient mentally ill", or the word most people use, "homeless". The Los Angeles County jail is LITERALLY the largest mental institution in the World.
Joined
·
522 Posts
I've heard this a few times before and in a self-defense situation there's ever been ONE person actually prosecuted or charged with a crime for hitting a bystander with overpenetration. I'm not saying it doesn't matter because why not prevent that if you can, you know? But if for some weird reason you ONLY had regular range bullets and you were say outside and defending yourself, there's nothing that says an errant bullet hitting someone from a result of you saving your life results in a charge. Again obviously it's silly to not prevent it if you can, I used to carry regular rant bullets but ended up buying self-defense rounds for everything I keep outside it's case, including my AR.
Maybe not, but it may also depend on who you are and where you live. They will certainly throw you under the bus in a liberal anti-gun town, siting - "see what happens when citizens have guns".
A civil lawsuit is also a possibility, and will ruin your day as well. Not to mention how you would feel if you actually killed an innocent bystander.
Best to hit only what you are aiming at, and use the best defense rounds available.
Under extreme stress, with a moving target, and with someone possibly shooting back at you - that will be a lot more difficult. A center-mass shot doesn't require the same level of accuracy and can be fired faster.
Whoever gets the first solid hit usually wins. The center-mass area is a lot bigger and easier to hit. If 2 hits in center-mass don't do it, a headshot may be required.
Probably 90% center mass - with 2 - 4/5 fast follow up shots (from 3 to 10 yrds mostly). Other 10% would be an added head shot - but after at least 2 center mass. CM presents a bigger target when under extreme stress and fine motor skills are gone (plus tunnel vision etc). As has been mentioned, you can legally keep shooting as long as the threat still exists. But once it diminishes, you have to stop (at least in my state). An errant shot hitting innocent bystander could be criminally prosecuted, and could certainly be open to a civil suit (again, in my state - this per an attorney that teaches our club's legal section of firearm courses).
61 - 80 of 80 Posts
