You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
84 rounds fired at murderer, 14 hits and he's still alive:
- Thread starter g.willikers
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
Gents, remember it comes down to...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLACEMENT!
Placement is nothing without trajectory and penetration.
Forget about use enough gun the mantra should be carry enough ammo
All the ammo in the world wont make up for poor shooting skills and lack of critical thinking..
Man, the NYPD sure use a lot of bullets:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-09-08/news/30147111_1_stray-bullet-gucci-murder-doors
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-09-08/news/30147111_1_stray-bullet-gucci-murder-doors
First I thought the NYPD average overall in shootings was around 17% which is higher than many other large city police forces.
Second,Not having those 10# NYPD triggers might have helped, 21M is on the long side of where most people train for pistol shots but 9mm is still accurate at this distance. I can't help but think that with a browning hi power or even a DAO or DA/SA USP or P226 they could have been a little more accurate. That being said... A rifle MAY have helped, but poor shot placement with a rifle won't do much more damage than poor shot placement with a pistol. I can arm chair jockey this all night long but IMO there is no "one" thing, be it larger/different caliber pistols, different pistols , different weapons or better training that will "solve" incidents like this. I can personally say that especially at long distances I will shoot better with a standard glock trigger than with a modified extra heavy glock trigger.
Second,Not having those 10# NYPD triggers might have helped, 21M is on the long side of where most people train for pistol shots but 9mm is still accurate at this distance. I can't help but think that with a browning hi power or even a DAO or DA/SA USP or P226 they could have been a little more accurate. That being said... A rifle MAY have helped, but poor shot placement with a rifle won't do much more damage than poor shot placement with a pistol. I can arm chair jockey this all night long but IMO there is no "one" thing, be it larger/different caliber pistols, different pistols , different weapons or better training that will "solve" incidents like this. I can personally say that especially at long distances I will shoot better with a standard glock trigger than with a modified extra heavy glock trigger.
BlackFeather
New member
Regardless of caliber, rounds that have contacted the suspect, and rounds missed, if he is still moving and able to shoot back why not continue to shoot? At that point in time does anyone seriously care what round they are using? Sure, I think the hit percentage should be higher, but their job isn't SOLELY to shoot bad guys.
I've read the posts and I see a lot of differing opinions. I would like to follow up on a couple if I may.
Someone mentioned .45's. but we all know that one well placed shot with a 9mm will do the job. I seriously doubt that any really well placed shots were made.
Another poster said that the 9mm was the right tool for the job. Reasoning that they would have run out of ammo sooner with .45's. These guys fired 84 rounds. And yet I say no mention that they ran out. So I can't be sure that more in this case is better. One well placed 9 or .45 would have been enough.
Then there is the point about a rifle. Now these officers were unable to take the time, or were unable to make one good head shot with two pistols. Why can I expect they would do better with a rifle? Are rifles easier to aim? Perhaps better penetration would have gone through cover.
My thinking is at some point they should have waited for back up. Swat (with rifles) if necessary. The suspect only fired one shot that we are aware of. And a hail of bullets didn't work. And it was just blind luck that others weren't injured.
Someone mentioned .45's. but we all know that one well placed shot with a 9mm will do the job. I seriously doubt that any really well placed shots were made.
Another poster said that the 9mm was the right tool for the job. Reasoning that they would have run out of ammo sooner with .45's. These guys fired 84 rounds. And yet I say no mention that they ran out. So I can't be sure that more in this case is better. One well placed 9 or .45 would have been enough.
Then there is the point about a rifle. Now these officers were unable to take the time, or were unable to make one good head shot with two pistols. Why can I expect they would do better with a rifle? Are rifles easier to aim? Perhaps better penetration would have gone through cover.
My thinking is at some point they should have waited for back up. Swat (with rifles) if necessary. The suspect only fired one shot that we are aware of. And a hail of bullets didn't work. And it was just blind luck that others weren't injured.
I wasnt there so its impossible for me to be totally critical here.. Still this sounds like poor markmanship and lack of stress training at its finest...
It sounds like a combination of possibilities.
Standard Glock.. not the finest trigger or sights in the world by any means....
Poor marksmanship
Poor critical thinking - spray and pray instead of thinking
Seems like they reacted and didnt have the experience to tell them to make fewer but better aimed shots. Certainly something may have well obstructed the view but seriously this is a horrible number of hits with a lot of bullets not on target...
It sounds like a combination of possibilities.
Standard Glock.. not the finest trigger or sights in the world by any means....
Poor marksmanship
Poor critical thinking - spray and pray instead of thinking
Seems like they reacted and didnt have the experience to tell them to make fewer but better aimed shots. Certainly something may have well obstructed the view but seriously this is a horrible number of hits with a lot of bullets not on target...
Last edited:
With regard to the question about the rifle being easier to snap shoot - it depends on the sights (not to mention training).
A reflex sight, such as my EoTech, eliminates parallax. If you can see the dot, and the dot is on the target, you should be able to hit the target. Your eye doesn't have to be perfectly aligned, just close enough to aligned that you can see the dot.
Additionally, the reflex sight allows the shooter to focus on the target; the dot almost appears as an afterthought.
Such a system is VERY fast, if the shooter practices.
Did you ever wonder why SWAT, ESU, etc use AR or SMG platforms as primary, with pistols in a backup role, even indoors? (Even when they do not plan to use full auto.)
With the right sights, the long guns are faster.
A reflex sight, such as my EoTech, eliminates parallax. If you can see the dot, and the dot is on the target, you should be able to hit the target. Your eye doesn't have to be perfectly aligned, just close enough to aligned that you can see the dot.
Additionally, the reflex sight allows the shooter to focus on the target; the dot almost appears as an afterthought.
Such a system is VERY fast, if the shooter practices.
Did you ever wonder why SWAT, ESU, etc use AR or SMG platforms as primary, with pistols in a backup role, even indoors? (Even when they do not plan to use full auto.)
With the right sights, the long guns are faster.
Tactics
With two officer I would think the following approact would be the ticket. Please someone educate me if I am ill informed or incorrect......
Two officers shooting from behind cover at one subject who is shooting at them (presumably also behind cover). In theory one officer could be responsible for laying suppressive cover fire and one officer could be responsible for waiting for better higher % shots.
Obviously this would have to be trained and ingrained in the folks who would be asked to do it however I could see it working.
Regards, Vermonter
SHHHH!
You're giving away all our tactics!
seeker_two
New member
If the two officers were ex-military, they might have defaulted to their military training....supressive fire & all....
It seems to me that the author (John Farnam) of the linked article is using a different meaning to the phrase "use enough gun" which is the title of Robert Ruark's book. On the one hand, where Ruark was focused on choosing an adequately powerful and penetrating big game rifle cartridge; on the other hand, the linked article seems to be premised upon at ranges over 20 yards a handgun is not enough gun. Not enough because pistols lack what a rifle has, a shoulder stock and a forearm which provides much greater stability; and therefore, accuracy at what Farnam calls "beyond pistol range".
Farnam states: "The fact is, this threat was out of pistol range!" [the distance was 21 meters.]
Farnam lists several example of cartridges he feels would do: "223, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 6.8Spc, 300Blk, 30Carbine".
I can only imagine how difficult it is to place shots on a armed adversary who is firing at me. I know how difficult it is in IPSC competition and in the Gunsite shoot-offs to quickly and accurately place major caliber hits. However, my competitive experiences are artificial stress and can't compare to a life and death shoot out.
I remember one night on patrol being the first officer on the scene of a shooting where I spotted a man down on the sidewalk. I was trying to look in ten different directions for potential threats, trying to call for help, preserve the scene, and identify and corral witnesses . . . . .
That was stressful, and no one was shooting at me.
I can agree that having the option of a readily accessible carbine in a patrol car would be good for officer survival. Even pistol cartridges in a carbine platform would have likely have been a great advantage. It was not a lack of power or a lack of the bullets to incapacitate, but a lack of hits on the threat that was the focus of the article.
Farnam states: "The fact is, this threat was out of pistol range!" [the distance was 21 meters.]
Farnam lists several example of cartridges he feels would do: "223, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 6.8Spc, 300Blk, 30Carbine".
I can only imagine how difficult it is to place shots on a armed adversary who is firing at me. I know how difficult it is in IPSC competition and in the Gunsite shoot-offs to quickly and accurately place major caliber hits. However, my competitive experiences are artificial stress and can't compare to a life and death shoot out.
I remember one night on patrol being the first officer on the scene of a shooting where I spotted a man down on the sidewalk. I was trying to look in ten different directions for potential threats, trying to call for help, preserve the scene, and identify and corral witnesses . . . . .
That was stressful, and no one was shooting at me.
I can agree that having the option of a readily accessible carbine in a patrol car would be good for officer survival. Even pistol cartridges in a carbine platform would have likely have been a great advantage. It was not a lack of power or a lack of the bullets to incapacitate, but a lack of hits on the threat that was the focus of the article.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Nope , doesn't work that way. Suppressive fire is really a military tactic and is done with machine guns. Cops [non SWAT ] don't carry enough ammo .
Just slow down a bit and AIM , you know FRONT SIGHT !
See Lubbock SWAT 2001. We have some threads here and you can google it. 369 rounds fired, 3 people hit with 1 killed and 2 wounded after responding to a call about man who might be suicidal who was burning belongings from his house in the yard (apparently, most of his wife's stuff after they had fight). SWAT setup with teams in front and back and did a brake and rake for entry because the door were barricaded. A shot was fired and 2 SWAT guys went down in the stack for the front entry. One had a grazing scalp wound and the other was dead from the same bullet, IIRC. Front team opens open on the house with suppressive fire. Bullets travel through the house and out the back and so the back team opens up. In the fusilade, the suspect in wounded in the leg and surrendered within the hour, was treated very poorly by the cops for murdering one of the entry guys. Medical care was delay, threats were made to him,...and he didn't fire the shot.
So the man, unemployed and distraught about his situation ends up with nice settlement from Lubbock for the police's willful neglect in their operation. He had been shot while hiding inside of a closet by a random bullet...as just about all were random. The sniper had shot the fellow team members and tried to cover it up.
Aside from the sniper's shot, 368 rounds were fired into the house and not a single shooter had eyes on the suspect. Moments after the firing stopped, a radio call (used to be on the internet) was made to get somebody from the police range to bring more ammo to the scene as most of the entry folks had discharged most of their ammo from their primary guns.
So, a shot happens and the front entry team has 2 hit and so they start their suppressive fire so they can retrieve their folks and get back to safety, only their shots fly past the entry team in the back who open up with their own suppressive fire.
The suspect did have guns, but never threatened the cops with any, they never saw him with a gun, and apparently the guns were all stored/cased and unfired. So they were in the house, but he was unarmed. Lubbock PD underwent some restaffing in mgmt and on the SWAT team...all over a guy who was distraught, would not speak with the cops, and needed a ticket for the illegal disposal of garbage for burning belongings in his yard inside the city limits.
And what of the sniper who killed his own team member?
Police Cpl. Wade Lee was cited by interim Police Chief Claude Jones for violating departmental policy regarding firearms safety and falsifying a written report about the shooting of Sgt. Kevin Cox by a fellow officer.
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/071302/loc_0713020032.shtml
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75603
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89932
seeker_two
New member
In a military situation, supressive fire is a great tactic.....in a police situation, it creates a hazard for bystanders and opens up departments to all sorts of liability....
....pick the right tool for the job....
....pick the right tool for the job....
Hey Fella's
Wow... some interesting posts.
First off I'd like to comment on the NY Trigger. I currently have one in my Glock 19. Left over from my days with the department. There is nothing wrong with the NY Trigger IMO. I actually prefer it. IMO It allows the user to be a bit more aware of each pull. After training with the NY Trigger it's no different than a lighter trigger.
In my experience... shootings happen where they happen, when they happen, at the distance it happens. The police rarely get to choose any of these equasions. The only common thread in shootings is they happen very very fast. Officers, and armed civilians (I know the police are civilians too) are almost always are behind the curve reacting to the threat.
This shooting happened at an unusually long distance for an urban gunfight. This in my opinion is the major reason for high miss rate. Of course a practiced bull's eye shooter probably would have made the shot... but he may also have been killed by the perp. I didnt see anything in any artical about colateral damage to property or people. I choose to attribute this to the officers keeping their shots on target rather than using a cover by fire tactic. I'd love to know what the object the perp used for cover looked like.
The NYPD does not have a dedicated patrol rifle, but there are units within 15 minutes response time with rifles, shotguns, tear gas, and a bunch of other neat stuff. But even if the officers did have a rifle in the radio car they were in the fight with their hand guns. Like I say these things happen very very fast. They wouldnt have had the luxury of going back to the golf bag and choosing the .223 iron for this shot. You fight with what you have.
Wow... some interesting posts.
First off I'd like to comment on the NY Trigger. I currently have one in my Glock 19. Left over from my days with the department. There is nothing wrong with the NY Trigger IMO. I actually prefer it. IMO It allows the user to be a bit more aware of each pull. After training with the NY Trigger it's no different than a lighter trigger.
In my experience... shootings happen where they happen, when they happen, at the distance it happens. The police rarely get to choose any of these equasions. The only common thread in shootings is they happen very very fast. Officers, and armed civilians (I know the police are civilians too) are almost always are behind the curve reacting to the threat.
This shooting happened at an unusually long distance for an urban gunfight. This in my opinion is the major reason for high miss rate. Of course a practiced bull's eye shooter probably would have made the shot... but he may also have been killed by the perp. I didnt see anything in any artical about colateral damage to property or people. I choose to attribute this to the officers keeping their shots on target rather than using a cover by fire tactic. I'd love to know what the object the perp used for cover looked like.
The NYPD does not have a dedicated patrol rifle, but there are units within 15 minutes response time with rifles, shotguns, tear gas, and a bunch of other neat stuff. But even if the officers did have a rifle in the radio car they were in the fight with their hand guns. Like I say these things happen very very fast. They wouldnt have had the luxury of going back to the golf bag and choosing the .223 iron for this shot. You fight with what you have.
Double Naught Spy
New member
In a military situation, supressive fire is a great tactic.....in a police situation, it creates a hazard for bystanders and opens up departments to all sorts of liability....
....pick the right tool for the job....
I am not sure of the repeated comments that because suppressive is a tactic that can be used by the military that it can't be used or has not place being used by the police. If you are talking about the right tool for the job, it most certainly can and has been used by the police.
That the police should not use suppressive fire assumes that all police situations take place in a context where there are bystanders such as inside of a densely occupied city, that the liability to the police is greater than the risk, and that suppressive fire is necessarily a high volume spray and pray sort of shooting. None of these assumptions are necessarily true or necessarily negate the use of the tactic.
http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/27319
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fam...-team-still-searches-for-answers-and-justice/
http://vanessawest.tripod.com/columbine-4.html
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=208297
Some may wish to debate the use of terminology between suppressive fire, directed fire, or cover fire, but the intent of use is the same - to keep the opposition from being able to fire for a period of time by putting rounds on his location.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270353
http://www.policeone.com/officer-sh...er-down-Getting-an-injured-officer-to-safety/