I got into this on another thread and wanted to see some discussion on this subject but I didn't want to hijack that guys thread so I'm starting this one . I recently went back and re-read everything I could on the famous FBI-Miami shootout in 1986. What I read about it in the year or so after it happened convinced me to change my HD gun from a 38 Special to a 45. But you know how when you re-read a book or see a movie for the second time there's always something that you notice that you didn't notice the first time around? Well, I noticed a couple of things this time I'd never noticed before in these reports. I think the overall conclusion that the FBI drew from the results of that shootout, was that they needed a better weapon and better ammo than 9mm semi's with 115 grain ammo. I think they got that right, and the result was the 10mm, and later in a redesign, the 40 cal. However, when I re-read the reports a few days ago, I noticed that only three of the eight FBI agents involved in the gunfight had used 9mm's. I noticed too, that 4 of the 5 agents who didn't use 9mm's had 357 magnum revolvers, and one had a 38 Special J frame. The thing that startled me was that none of the agents were firing 357 ammo. All who had 357's were firing 38 Special +P ammo in them, and most of the 357's had 2" barrels as did the 38 Special J frame. I don't remember this ever being brought up as an issue, but the agents who had 357's got neither the power of a 357 cartridge nor the maximum accuracy they'd have gotten by shooting their 38 Special rounds from a 38 Special gun. And the 2" barrels, what's with that? A 6' barrel gets about 25% more velocity from a 38 Special +P round than it does from a 2". Any comments about what the results of this gunfight might have been if the 357's had been loaded with 357 ammo, or if all the agents had had 38 Special guns with 6" barrels?
1986 FBI-Miami shootout
- Thread starter DG45
- Start date
Agent Mireles used a Remington 870 12 gauge to most effect in that shootout, whereas Michael Platt was using a Mini-14 resorting to Matix's 6 inch barrel S&W .357 magnum after running out of ammunition, there certainly were other combatants like Agents Dove, Agent Grogan, Agent McNeil and the other bank robber Michael Matix but the main combatants were Mireles and Platt
Para Bellum
New member
I often hear that and always think it is fundamentally wrong (no offence intended). Here is why:
- Every handgun is a very weak firearm, there is no big difference between them (from .38 spl to .44 Mag)
- handungs are used because they are small and handy.
- The main purpose of a handung IMHO is to shoot your way free to the next rifle.
- A change in handgun claliber or bullet doesn't make a big difference.
- you can't win with a handgun against a rifle.
- and if there's any chance, all that helps you is PLACEMENT.
- Placement of the FBI-Shooters was poor.
- If the FBI had had .44 Magnums with 8" barrels, it wouldn't have made any difference.y had Semi-auto .44
- If they had had AR-15s etc in their car. It would.
I think that #1 is overstated.
I believe that handgun caliber performance is pretty similar over the service pistol class but I do believe that once you get into the magnums that there does begin to be a practical performance benefit.
I also think that #5 is overstated. A man with a handgun is at a distinct disadvantage against a man with a rifle, but he CAN win. It's just not very likely.
I don't think I would categorically state that giving the FBI .44 magnums would have been a wash, but I do think that the best way to even the playing field would have been long guns.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Mirelles finally killed both men with shots from a .357 loaded with .38 Spl. +P or +P+ LSWCHP.
Miami wasn't so much a failure of firearms or ammunition, it was a failure of FBI tactics, training, planning, and most of all, execution.
Just about everything that could go wrong for the agents did go wrong because they, in large part, did the wrong things.
Miami wasn't so much a failure of firearms or ammunition, it was a failure of FBI tactics, training, planning, and most of all, execution.
Just about everything that could go wrong for the agents did go wrong because they, in large part, did the wrong things.
omnibus1967
New member
Quote
Miami wasn't so much a failure of firearms or ammunition, it was a failure of FBI tactics, training and planning.
+1 on that.
Miami wasn't so much a failure of firearms or ammunition, it was a failure of FBI tactics, training and planning.
+1 on that.
Sturmgewehre
New member
I would completely disagree with this statement.
Handguns in the civilian world are primary defensive weapons. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of CCW holders don't have a rifle back in their car that they can "fight their way back" to should something go wrong at the local Piggly Wiggly.
For that reason you need to maximize the effectiveness of your primary defensive arm. That's why I have several calibers I often carry.
- .380 for deep concealment or as a backup to my primary caliber. I consider this a "secondary" caliber. I carry ball ammo for maximum reliability.
- 9mm for as a primary, but used mostly for road trips or when I'm planning on being way out and about and I don't want to carry extra magazines (think G17 or XDm). If I go hiking/camping in the woods, I take a 9mm with about 20 rounds of ball depending on the pistol.
- .45 ACP is my primary around town carry. 8 rounds of ball is all I carry. I might carry two extra mags, one loaded with Gold Dots and the other will more ball. I may or may not have the LCP in my front pocket to complement the 1911.
The vast majority of gun fights last only a few seconds in the civilian world. The chances of you getting into a running gun battle where you will need to "fight your way back" to a rifle will likely never happen. So, you better pick a pistol/caliber you're comfortable fighting with because chances are it's all your going to have.
The military is different. Battles can last seconds/minutes to hours/days. I assume we're talking about civilian carry.
Sturmgewehre
New member
Never speak in absolutes. You most certainly can win against a rifle with a handgun.
At range, the rifle has a distinct advantage. Close up the handgun starts to level the playing field. I wouldn't say you "never" could win against a rifle with a handgun, but I would say you're typically better off with a rifle as a primary weapon if you had to choose between the two.
+1 JohnKSa
Para Bellum-You really need to come into the field with me sometime, I will be happy to show you how well a Magnum works. I have taken many yotes, feral hogs and deer with a .357 magnum. I have tried lesser rounds and they usually failed. (.38 spl, 9mm) On paper, (or in your mind) there may be little difference, but in real actual hunting situations I can attest to the power and usefulness of the .357 magnum. I'm just asking that you not bash every handgun round as ineffective, most of us here own handguns and trust our lifes that they will work when needed. I agree a rifle or shotgun are better choices but in the right hands a handgun can be very lethal.
Para Bellum-You really need to come into the field with me sometime, I will be happy to show you how well a Magnum works. I have taken many yotes, feral hogs and deer with a .357 magnum. I have tried lesser rounds and they usually failed. (.38 spl, 9mm) On paper, (or in your mind) there may be little difference, but in real actual hunting situations I can attest to the power and usefulness of the .357 magnum. I'm just asking that you not bash every handgun round as ineffective, most of us here own handguns and trust our lifes that they will work when needed. I agree a rifle or shotgun are better choices but in the right hands a handgun can be very lethal.
Or maybe they drew the wrong conclusion and instead might better consider the advantage gotten from hitting their targets?
From: http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm
ActivShootr
New member
Sturmgewehre
New member
Thanks CDH.
I've something many of us have been saying here for years. You can have the biggest handgun in the world but if you don't hit'em where it counts, you're not going to take them out of the fight.
There is one caveat though, penetration. For a bullet to work, it must penetrate. That's why I carry ball rounds loaded hot. I don't care about temporary wound cavities, a few fractions of an inch expansion or any of that other trendy crapola. I want to be able to make a deep of hole as possible using a handgun I can shoot quickly and accurately - without having to think about it.
This is one of the things that got the FBI agents into trouble. The poor performing Silver Tips out of their 9mm's stopped too quickly. They had beautiful expansion, but they failed to make it through the torso and to hit the heart. I haven't read the report in many years, but if I recall correctly at least one shot was properly placed but failed to dig in deep enough. This would have been a fatal shot, if there were more penetration.
I've something many of us have been saying here for years. You can have the biggest handgun in the world but if you don't hit'em where it counts, you're not going to take them out of the fight.
There is one caveat though, penetration. For a bullet to work, it must penetrate. That's why I carry ball rounds loaded hot. I don't care about temporary wound cavities, a few fractions of an inch expansion or any of that other trendy crapola. I want to be able to make a deep of hole as possible using a handgun I can shoot quickly and accurately - without having to think about it.
This is one of the things that got the FBI agents into trouble. The poor performing Silver Tips out of their 9mm's stopped too quickly. They had beautiful expansion, but they failed to make it through the torso and to hit the heart. I haven't read the report in many years, but if I recall correctly at least one shot was properly placed but failed to dig in deep enough. This would have been a fatal shot, if there were more penetration.
That's true as far as it goes, but it's important to point out the following:
First of all, the bullet went through Platt's upper arm BEFORE hitting his torso. Had it not hit his arm it would certainly have reached his heart. The bullet performed as designed, it's just that it had to penetrate several inches of muscle, exit the off-side skin of the arm, then penetrate a second time while already expanded. Is that a bullet failure? Only in the very broadest sense. The bottom line is that in a firefight where there were something like 70 shots expended by the FBI, it's a mistake to blame the performance of a single bullet for the outcome.
Second, the shot was lethal. Experts say that Platt could not have survived had the fight ended there and medical help been summoned immediately. His survival time at that point was measured in seconds, minutes at most. Barring a CNS hit that's about the best you can expect from a solid torso hit. Again, that's not a failure except in the broadest sense. Again, why don't we talk about the other 60+ FBI bullets fired in the encounter, choosing to focus on this one nearly exclusively?
Catastrophes do not occur because of a single, isolated incident. It takes a chain of circumstances to result in something like this. Pretending that the whole incident boils down to the performance of a single bullet may be comforting since it's easy to grasp, but it ignores a host of other things that also went wrong. There were numerous contributing factors, any one of which, if altered, could have had a huge positive effect on the outcome.
Jim Watson
New member
Been a while since I read an account, but as I remember:
If they had had AR-15s etc in their car. It would.
They did have etc. Uzis and vests in their trunks. They did not think they had time to gear up and figured they could handle the crooks with pistols anyhow.
Some of the agents did not trust their draw stroke, laid their pistols on car seats, and surprise, surprise, when they came to a screeching halt, the guns slid off the seats into the floor. One man never did find his and had only his backup snubby.
I don't know what to say about the guy who lost his glasses. Reckoned a good shot under favorable conditions, he was largely out of the fight without his glasses. If he had stopped to get his vest and SMG, would he have had some strap on eyewear too?
If they had had AR-15s etc in their car. It would.
They did have etc. Uzis and vests in their trunks. They did not think they had time to gear up and figured they could handle the crooks with pistols anyhow.
Some of the agents did not trust their draw stroke, laid their pistols on car seats, and surprise, surprise, when they came to a screeching halt, the guns slid off the seats into the floor. One man never did find his and had only his backup snubby.
I don't know what to say about the guy who lost his glasses. Reckoned a good shot under favorable conditions, he was largely out of the fight without his glasses. If he had stopped to get his vest and SMG, would he have had some strap on eyewear too?
I think this comprehensively and accurately sums up what happened in Miami. If you take one lesson alone from this event, remember that the FBI initiated it. They determined the where, the when, and the how, and still fudged it up terribly.
Exactly the wrong lesson to learn from this tragedy is that it was a failure in terminal ballistics.
I don't know how to say this without casting aspersions, but...I have never believed the "lost eyeglasses" story. I believe that this story came about as a result of having to explain the agent's perfectly rational behavior when placed in great fear for his life, but I do believe it to be an entirely fictitious story.
Sturmgewehre
New member
I never blamed everything on a single bullet. What I did say is if that bullet had penetrated just another 1" it *could* or likely would have ended the fight much sooner. That's a fact. A ball round would have given the bullet in question that extra 1". Does that mean a different bullet design would have ultimately changed the outcome? Who knows, I don't have a crystal ball. But I suspect it would have helped.
Can you bank on that in every situation? Absolutely not. As a general rule is more penetration a good thing? Absolutely.
As noted, it was a calamity of events that got those agents killed. Platt and Matix were professional soldiers and they did what they were trained to do which bewildered the FBI agents. That coupled with bad decisions at multiple points by several agents stacked the odds in favor of the bad guys.
The one take away point that's most critical from the whole debacle isn't the story of a single bullet, as you imply is my notion, but is the fact these agents were improperly trained and equipped for the situation. That's why this incident has become a standard training example for so many agencies across the nation.
Edited to add, the Silver Tip 9mm went through several design improvements post shooting. Most believe the original Silver Tip expanded too quickly. And, ironically, the FBI did attribute the failed stop on bullet failure - hence their knee-jerk reaction and the adoption of the 10mm. I think this was overkill personally and was not warranted.
Last edited:
Sturmgewehre
New member
It's "exactly wrong" to assume ballistics played no role in the shooting. That's kind of like saying air plays no role in a plane flying.
The vast majority of the time, when a bunch of Fed cars surround you and they are all yelling "FBI (Police, US Marshals etc), get out of the car!" People cooperate. Most bad guys play by this unwritten rule, most cops know the rules.
If you believe everyone is going to play by the rules, things continue on normally. If, however, the bad guys choose not to play by the rules, there is a lag time. No matter what.
You are all psyched up and ready to shoot the next hoodie wearing street thug that walks up to you with a box cutter and demands your wallet. If, however, your best friend, unknown to you, off his medication walks up to you with a box cutter and starts slashing you, there will be a very long delay before you shoot him. It takes awhile to process the new information.
Now, lets be realistic, a 2" snub sucks as a defensive gun across the distance of a few cars. Its designed as a point and click interface, stick it in bad guys tummy, pull trigger.
A man with a rifle does not necessarily beat a man with a handgun. If you told me I would have to get into a gunfight with an average gang banger armed with an AK and I had to have a pistol, I would want the fight to occur at 100 yards and I want one of my S&W Model 27's with a 6 inch barrel. I will win that gunfight. If I can't have that range, I want to be nose to nose with him, grappling, armed with the Chiefs special again. I'll bet I win that fight too. So, its really not about the gun either. I can make a situation up where the handgun has an advantage, or the rifle. Distance is my friend, or my enemy. The long barrel is a hindrance, or a Godesend.
A whole lot of things went to crap for the FBI. They met determined adversaries that were not going to submit to the real authority of the FBI. The FBI was a little hurried and did not take advantage of the weapons and tactics they had available to them. The FBI believed the bad guys would submit, and, were a little careless. Like all encounters, things went to crap. Cars collided into eatch other, guns, people got scattered and there was general chaos.
For all the high tech weapons on the bad guys side, the fight was ended by an Agent who was a little more determined than the bad guys, armed with the most basic of weapons, a S&W model 10 and a pump shotgun.
Lessons learned:
Criminals do not always play by the rules and will take advantage of any opportunity.
Bullets are not magic. The best bullet for one situation may be the worst for the next.
Guns are not magic. The best gun for one situation may be the worst for the next.
Being really determined to win works for both good guys and bad guys.
It did change the way I approach alot of situations. Sadly, several good and decent men paid a hefty price to write the lesson plan.
If you believe everyone is going to play by the rules, things continue on normally. If, however, the bad guys choose not to play by the rules, there is a lag time. No matter what.
You are all psyched up and ready to shoot the next hoodie wearing street thug that walks up to you with a box cutter and demands your wallet. If, however, your best friend, unknown to you, off his medication walks up to you with a box cutter and starts slashing you, there will be a very long delay before you shoot him. It takes awhile to process the new information.
Now, lets be realistic, a 2" snub sucks as a defensive gun across the distance of a few cars. Its designed as a point and click interface, stick it in bad guys tummy, pull trigger.
A man with a rifle does not necessarily beat a man with a handgun. If you told me I would have to get into a gunfight with an average gang banger armed with an AK and I had to have a pistol, I would want the fight to occur at 100 yards and I want one of my S&W Model 27's with a 6 inch barrel. I will win that gunfight. If I can't have that range, I want to be nose to nose with him, grappling, armed with the Chiefs special again. I'll bet I win that fight too. So, its really not about the gun either. I can make a situation up where the handgun has an advantage, or the rifle. Distance is my friend, or my enemy. The long barrel is a hindrance, or a Godesend.
A whole lot of things went to crap for the FBI. They met determined adversaries that were not going to submit to the real authority of the FBI. The FBI was a little hurried and did not take advantage of the weapons and tactics they had available to them. The FBI believed the bad guys would submit, and, were a little careless. Like all encounters, things went to crap. Cars collided into eatch other, guns, people got scattered and there was general chaos.
For all the high tech weapons on the bad guys side, the fight was ended by an Agent who was a little more determined than the bad guys, armed with the most basic of weapons, a S&W model 10 and a pump shotgun.
Lessons learned:
Criminals do not always play by the rules and will take advantage of any opportunity.
Bullets are not magic. The best bullet for one situation may be the worst for the next.
Guns are not magic. The best gun for one situation may be the worst for the next.
Being really determined to win works for both good guys and bad guys.
It did change the way I approach alot of situations. Sadly, several good and decent men paid a hefty price to write the lesson plan.