A story all CPL holders should read & why you need plenty of ammo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding 11 shots in 2 seconds...


I'm no great gunslinger by any stretch. I recently took a Brit friend out shooting as a neat American experience, and he asked me how quickly I could shoot. So, we timed it. I took 2 16rd magazines in my XD9, and holstered the gun. It took me 14 seconds to draw, fire 16 rounds, change mags and fire another 16 rounds. Target was 10 yards away, and all rounds hit the target. I pushed myself right up to my comfort envelope.

Allowing 1 second for draw/presentation and 2 seconds for mag change and target re-acquisition, that's 11 seconds for 32 rounds. 11 rounds is about 1/3 of 32, so the claim of 2 seconds for 11 rounds with no mag change and an already-presented firearm is quite feasible. According to my math, I could probably get 11 rounds off in about 3 seconds judging by my previous experience.

I'm not very fast, but every Tuesday in Mesa I see men who ARE that fast. Very common to see folks accomplish 8-10 hits along with a draw, and target shifts, in 4-5 seconds.

But...

I agree that the point of this thread is the collateral damage concerns, and the loss of innocent life from doing the "right" thing. Ammo and caliber are completely secondary to this discussion, and we all need to evaluate "just what exactly is WORTH getting into a shooting duel here?"

The McDonalds safe, that I don't own, isn't one of those things.

That's for sure.
 
Third, I know I'm dreaming, but I do often wonder whether the police in this country wouldn't be better off to go back to the very accurate long-barreled 38 Special revolvers they carried in the the days before semi-autos and "spray and pray" became all the rage...I imagine that the cop who confronted the BG would have been armed with a Colt or S&W revolver and would have simply put one aimed 158 grain LRN through the BG's skull as soon as he saw him, and that would have been that.
Click to expand...

You mean the same way they did the single-bullet-through-the-head-of-the-criminal thing with Bonnie and Clyde, or Dillinger at Little Bohemia, etc.?

I think you may be looking at history through some rose-colored glasses.

Second, I don't see how you can characterize 10 hits out of 11 shots as "spray and pray"?
 
billca:
yeah i'll watch the parking lot incident if it doesn't involve me or my family, even when i'm armed.

if i'm in a 7-11/circle-k and the armed bad guys come to rob the place, i'll take cover in the back as best i can and attempt to show ali bubba how big the .45 holes really are, should he/she come checking to see if there are any witnesses but i'm not going to wade up to the front, gun drawn.

too many unarmed folks have gotten themselves killed by being the good samaritan in phx alone.
 
Bart Roberts, I get your point but as I recall that Little Bohemia situation was fought by the FBI with mostly full autos, and it was a SWAT type operation; but was disasterously undertaken by agents who probably had little or no training in a SWAT-type encounter. It was not something that a lone off-duty police officer or CCW citizen would ever likely encounter. (If a lone officer did run up on a Dillinger type gang today that armed to the teeth with a bunch of full autos, hopefully the officer would quickly realize that discretion in that situation would be the the better part of valor, and would just try to get help, instead of playing the role of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance" kid vs. the Bolivian Army.)

I was actually thinking more of the response of heroic Capitol Police Officer Leslie Coffelt to the Puerto Rican gunman who attempted to shoot his way into the Blair House in Washington DC in 1950 to kill President Truman. The gunman in that instance had opened that gunfight by mortally wounding the unsuspecting Coffelt outside the resience with three shots from a 9mm Luger semi-auto pistol, before turning his attention to a Secret Service officer who he also shot and wounded. Leslie Coffelt was a guy we'd have all liked; he was veteran of WWII. He was also a recreational shooter and an excellent marksman with a handgun. He was dying from his wounds when he got off a single shot at the gunman from his 38 Special Colt Official Police revolver. With that one round, he blew the gunmans brains out, and ended what might have otherwise been the site of a mass murder and/or the assassination of a President.
 
bearone2 said:
yeah i'll watch the parking lot incident if it doesn't involve me or my family, even when i'm armed.
Click to expand...
Fine. Your choice.
However, chew on this for a while. If I use your mindset and am sitting in the local McD's when your child is knifed to death right outside and video shows I watch, then get up and leave even though I'm armed, what would your reaction be? Or your Wife's? (I suspect she will have a much different opinion.)

I don't know that I could watch something like that and not take some action, even if it was merely yelling at the guy (if unarmed).

DG45 said:
Third, I know I'm dreaming, but I do often wonder whether the police in this country wouldn't be better off to go back to the very accurate long-barreled 38 Special revolvers they carried in the the days before semi-autos and "spray and pray" became all the rage...
Click to expand...
Yes... and no...
Let's not forget that many police officers died as a result of using a revolver because they were slow to reload. Some of that was a training issue, but in the 20 post-war years many cops did die trying to engage mulitiple hostiles with a wheelgun.¹

With a wheelgun, well trained officers will fire a controlled pair and evaluate their effectiveness. The idea is to fire accurate and controlled shots to conserve your ability to engage. Unfortunately, sometimes officers would unload 4-5 shots rapidly and when needing to re-engage, fire one round and then *click*. :eek: Towards the late 70's and early 80's, speedloaders were the rage. But it wasn't unusual to see an officer's belt with a pair of speed loaders up front and a pair of Speed-Strip™ equipped dump pouches behind the holster, giving him double the firepower.

As much as I value a good revolver and appreciate its qualities, I think the days of the wheelgun for police have waned. Unless you're in a small rural town away from big cities or your rookies have to tuck a year under their belts carrying a wheelgun.


¹ See the CHP Newhall Incident in 1970
 
As much as I value a good revolver and appreciate its qualities, I think the days of the wheelgun for police have waned. Unless you're in a small rural town away from big cities or your rookies have to tuck a year under their belts carrying a wheelgun.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly enough, I mostly agree. The reason I think a wheelgun makes sense for ME is that I can control very edgy high-end 357Mag loads with state-of-the-art ammo. And I can deliver them accurately, if I can keep my head. Which I *think* I can. Not sure though, my next gunfight will be my first :).
 
The great application of the modern revolver is:

a. The pocket snubby for certain dress scenarios or BUGs.
b. The big monster animal killing hunting magnum
c. The SW Model 10 recommended for the gun newbie or nonafficiando who wants a late night vistor gun that is relatively foolproof.
c. Making money for Taurus with the Judge - OY Vey!

Dat's the way, I sees it!
 
BillCA,

I read the story, and it was very interesting. I had hoped it was the story I was taught of during my training. The incident took place in CA (I think), but I am sorry I don't have enough specifics at the moment.

During the follow-up forensics and/or investigations where the multiple patrol officers were killed in gun battle, it was noted that Every single deceased LEO had their spent shell casings in their pockets. During training these LEO's were taught to save their shell casings this way, so the habit transferred to real life scenarios(and possible assisted in their demise). Obviously, this training stopped after said incident. I just thought it was interesting - not sure if you guys have ever heard of the story
 
The great application of the modern revolver is:

a. The pocket snubby for certain dress scenarios or BUGs.
b. The big monster animal killing hunting magnum
c. The SW Model 10 recommended for the gun newbie or nonafficiando who wants a late night vistor gun that is relatively foolproof.
c. Making money for Taurus with the Judge - OY Vey!

Dat's the way, I sees it!
Click to expand...
The modern revolver is an excellent choice for most civilian encounters. It's easier for the non-enthusiast to learn (fewer levers and do-dads), accurate and usually powerful enough to deter criminals and/or take care of small to medium sized varmints. Most civilians are not likely to run into the kind of engagement a police officer will. He usually has a choice to "not go there" that police do not.

I'd be preaching to the Choir, Glenn, if I described the difference in roles between civilian CCW and police. We both know the differences. The biggest difference is that civilians aren't obligated to pursue and try to capture BG's.
 
therealdeal said:
During the follow-up forensics and/or investigations where the multiple patrol officers were killed in gun battle, it was noted that Every single deceased LEO had their spent shell casings in their pockets. During training these LEO's were taught to save their shell casings this way, so the habit transferred to real life scenarios(and possible assisted in their demise). Obviously, this training stopped after said incident. I just thought it was interesting - not sure if you guys have ever heard of the story
Click to expand...

My original firearms instructor was with the FBI when that happened and was part of the FBI liasion. At the CHP academy in the 60's, officers were staged on lanes, each of which had a large coffee can into which you were told to drop your empty cases. This was to keep the range clean. During practice, recruits would fire six, unload into their hand and drop the cases into the "bucket", then reload.

During the Newhall firefight, officers were found with cases still clutched in their hands and, in at least one officer's case, in his pocket. They'd been trained to unload to their hand, then dump to a bucket. In the firefight... no bucket. One of the better changes coming out of that incident was more realistic range training.

We should not necessarily fault the CHP academy rangemasters for this. During the 60's, many police ranges had similar rules to keep the range neat. Not many ranges practiced dumping to the ground and reloading.
 
The modern revolver is an excellent choice for most civilian encounters. It's easier for the non-enthusiast to learn (fewer levers and do-dads),
Click to expand...

Yes. And in the off chance you are unable to get to your gun but a non gun friendly is, they will be able to operate it Vs. a auto that has too many levers to figure out in a split second.
 
Here's something I thought. two seconds can seem like an eternity but isn't all that long. we have no idea if it took ten hits to put this guy down, because unless the brain or spine is hit it could very easily take anyone 2 seconds or more to react to being hit even once. Saw a video of a cop shooting a guy 14 times, guy turned out to have a cell phone. But the guy was pretty much staggering backwards and falling after the first shot, and the cop got in the next 13 before he hit the ground.

For all we know the very first shot could have been the fatal one and it just took 2 seconds for the guy to go down. Understanding peoples reaction to being shot is not really very scientific especially without medical reports to explain exactly whats going on in their body.

Now that said, I don't think shooting until they drop is bad, you have to, you can't just shoot twice and then assess for a second because they might still be in the fight for 2 more seconds or 10 more. But I still suspect that a lot of these entire magazine shootings that occur are largely irrelevant. It seems silly to me to think its always or even most often the last round of the fight that is the fight stopper.

Here in Louisville we had a detective shoot a guy 11 times, he shot him 6 times with a glock .40 and then stopped and told the guy to stop, but the guy advanced on him further with an edged weaon and so he shot him another five. But who knows which round actually stoppd the guy. Reasonably one from the second string, but its very very likely that it would take a suspect as long to react to one lethal hit as it takes the cop to deliver five shots.

People get shot so much by cops today because cops have high capacity guns. If suspects in the 50's werent shot six times I would say it is simply because cops were more conservrative with their ammo since reloading took signifigantly more time, really took you out of the fight.

As for the cop in question, I think he did the right thing. Sucks a kid got shot, but you can't just wait for the guy to start shooting, cause then somebody dying is even more likely if the bad guy starts the ball. Guy has a gun out and is threatening, the best way to save lives is take his fast and hard. Doesn't mean it will turn out pretty but the odds are better than waitin to see if he is going to use that gun
 
While interesting, this story really doesn't tell me much about why my revolver is inadequate. Here's what I got from the story:

11 rounds in 2 seconds (average of 0.18 seconds between shots) with 10 out of 11 shots hitting the BG (91%) from 20 yards away with a subcompact gun is exceptional shooting when one considers that this was not at a range or a USPSA match but rather a moving target that's shooting back at you. I will not say that such a feat is impossible because it is not, but I will say that I think the average Joe CCW would be very hard pressed to replicate such performance.

2 seconds is not much time at all, so it is doubtful that the LEO in question stopped shooting to verify that whether or not the BG had stopped. It sounds as though the LEO simply shot to slide-lock and then noticed than the BG was down after the dust cleared. Was it the first shot that actually stopped the BG? The sixth? The tenth? Would a .357 Magnum stopped him sooner? We simply don't know.

It seems as though the OP's main point is capacity. He highlights that point with this statement from the LEO:

If you are going to carry a firearm off-duty, you should carry extra ammo. Security camera video of this incident revealed that I fired all 11 rounds from my Glock 26 in about 2 seconds. My extra mag held 17 rounds. Words cannot describe the emotion I felt when I slammed that mag into my weapon and was able to still be in the fight.
Click to expand...

So, he thinks that everyone needs extra ammo because having it at the end of a gunfight, even though he didn't need it, made him feel better. That's fine and dandy, I'd feel better going into a gunfight armed with my .44 Magnum than I would with a smaller caliber, but that doesn't mean that the .44 will always be necessary nor that it will be practical for me to carry that gun all the time. If lots of ammo or a big gun is comforting to you, by all means carry what you're comfortable with, but what is comforting to you doesn't prove anything to me.

What this story really shows me is the difference between myself and a LEO. The LEO in this story had a duty, be it legal or moral, to go forth and confront evil whenever and wherever he found it. I am not going to second-guess his actions, but I will say that as a private citizen I would have done things differently. As a private citizen, my duty is first and foremost to myself and my loved ones. Given the opportunity, I would have gotten my family and myself out of there as quickly as possible.

As far as I can tell, no ones life had been directly threatened at the time the LEO learned of the robbery. By engaging the shooter, the LEO increased the risk to himself and bystanders still in the restaraunt. As I said already, I'm not going to second-guess the LEO as he may have known something that I do not, but were I in the situation as described, I would percieve the risk of engaging the shooter to myself, my family, and innocent bystanders as greater than that of simply allowing him to escape with whatever he'd stolen. It is not my responsibility to enforce the law or prevent crime and, unless it is obvious that someone is about to be murdered, raped, or otherwise suffer severe bodily harm, I feel no duty to intervene. If I felt such a duty, I would pursue a career in law enforcement.

Finally, the LEO was in a different boat, tactically, than I am. Notice the following:

I immediately noted the large semi-automatic pistol in his hand. The distance was about 15 to 20 yards. I drew my weapon, announced myself and took a kneeling position behind the counter.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added

Due likely to department protocol, the LEO announced his presence to the BG prior to shooting. Such an action serves two purposes that I can see: it gives the BG a chance to surrender before recieving the dire concequences of his actions and it draws fire towards the LEO and away from innocent bystanders. This is feasable for the LEO for two reasons: he has a duty to the public as great or greater than his duty to himself and he is legally justified in drawing his weapon in situations that I am not. Were I in that situation, my weapon would not be drawn unless I thought that someone was about to be shot. If the situation were dire enough to warrant drawing my gun, it would have already digressed beyond the point of surrender. In that case, there will be no warning before I shoot as the BG has, at that point, forced my hand.
 
Last edited:
Skipping out of the first few posts, I agree that the little girl's death is in no way the fault of the officer.

I've never been involved in a shooting but from everything I've read about people who ARE involved in such a tragedy, they nearly always second guess their responsibility for such a death. The pattern is typical and very evident in the story. He suggests many ways in which he could have acted differently to prevent the death of the little girl.

What he hasn't considered is the very distinct possibility that had he not killed the robber, that guy might have been emboldened by the success of his venture and lived only kill someone else or even several someone else's.

As I said, I haven't ever been involved in something like this, even by accident so I can't begin to face the reality of how I'd feel. I sympathize greatly with the officer and the family of the little girl. Even the other people in the restaurant who were traumatized by the gunfight. That would really mess people up mentally.

Just thinking out loud here.

--Wag--
 
"Who locked the door?", "Rambo cop", could'a should'a, would'a"

"Lightning-shots in under 2 seconds!" Wow, are all wheelie shooters such trolls?? And, ".... no ones life had been directly threatened at the time the LEO learned of the robbery." Hmmm," there stands the BG with a large semi-auto pistol at the manager's head." Sounds rather life-threatening to me. A guy running past me with a sack of cash gets a bye from me; a guy running at me with a large semi-auto gets Mozambique first, questions later. This thread is a textbook case for "Civilian/Bad-Guy Confrontation Behavior." I hope it stays up a long time.
 
Last edited:
".... no ones life had been directly threatened at the time the LEO learned of the robbery." Hmmm," there stands the BG with a large gun at the manager's head." Sounds rather life-threatening to me.
Click to expand...

Neither the suspect nor the managers was within the LEO's sight when he learned that there was a robbery in progress. Also, nowhere was it stated that the suspect made any indication that he intended to kill anyone unless provoked. Finally, it was never stated that the manager was with the suspect when he emerged and began running towards the LEO. From what we have heard of the story, the suspect made no indication that he intended to shoot anyone until he was confronted by the LEO. While everyone in the restaraunt was certainly in danger, nothing in the account suggests that confronting the suspect posed any less danger to anyone than simply allowing him to escape.

Now, perhaps there is more to the story than has been told to us. It is entirely possible that there are details which have been omitted. However, without those details, all we have to go on is what we've been told and we've been given no indication that the suspect wanted anything more that to rob the McDonalds. Perhaps you should read a bit more carefully before resorting to calling people trolls.
 
Poor decision, bad outcome

I've read these posts and there are some points both ways unless you read, understand and stick to just what the original poster said.

He should not be judged as a civilian, but as a trained officer of the law. Did he do anything according to procedure?

He acted like the stereotype that many of us have of LEO's. Not like a well trained professional.

If a person is a civilian and has a gun in his house panic might be understood in an intruder situation. But even a civilian if he/she wants to carry a gun on his person has a obligation to remain a little calmer and act with a little more restraint that that officer did. To just draw and blast away is not very responsible and you likely should not be carrying in the first place. Almost all accounts of shootings by civilians protecting themselves or their family or property are repeated over and over in the media and in magazines. I don't recall any of these where the civilian panicked and just blasted away emptying their gun.

I hear those of you that say, " they would wet or soil their pants" in that situation. I don't buy that. Virtually all the accounts I've read the civilian was well in control of the situation. And that includes some very young and very old civilians. I'll guarantee you I would not try to bluff a 75 year old women with a gun in her sewing kit.

No sir. I think if I heard or saw someone breaking into my house I would react well...afterwards is another thing. If I panic I may get killed. If I have to go to the second magazine for one bad guy, they I likely will get shot.



And that officer was out of control and very lucky.

ljg
 
And that officer was out of control and very lucky.
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of discussion, could you elaborate on your training and experience that drives this statement--that this officer was "out of control"?
 
Some interesting points made...as well as a good bit of chaff.

Revo vs Semi-Auto? Immaterial
WRT the OP's comment on revo vs semi-auto, I see bupkis. I carry an auto by preference and I don't see where it would have made a difference if the officer carried a revo. The officer's gunnery was of high quality and I doubt that five or six rounds of .357mag or .38spl would have left the suspect any more or less dead.


LEO Consequences vs Non-LEO Consequences
You can bet your bippy that a non-LEO performing the same actions would not write a regretful article that included him going back to his work a sadder, wiser man. The non-LEO would pay with his hide for that little girl's death and be in prison, or at least have his life ruined as he would be too juicy a target for 90% of the DAs and any tort lawyer that sidles up to the dead child's family.

Non-LEO citizens get no sovereign immunity and have no CCL union to back us up. We will take any consequences squarely in the face.


Lead on Target, FAST: Possibly A Liability
This has been raised and applies directly to me. One reason I prefer to carry a 1911 is that I shoot it well and can dump the mag fast into a target. Some training may be called for that ups the adrenaline and requires me to exercise discipline and limit round expenditure.


Responsibility
Morally, the robber bears ALL the responsibility for everything that happened after he started to rob the company.

The off-duty LEO's actions did result in more/greater injury than one expects from most fatburger robberies. Just because one course of action is do-able, it might not be the preferred COA.


Benefit of the Doubt
Well, I give the officer the benefit fo the doubt. Meaning that quite possibly one dead child is the "best case scenario." We don;t know how many folks were still in the restaurant besides the child & his family. Maybe the LEO prevented something even worse.

Even though I would not get it from gov't, I would give the gov't agent the benefit of the doubt.


How I Would Have Played It
What Jim March wrote, were I alone.

If my family was with me, they get taken to relative safety while I play a good witness and use the pen I always carry to good use, unless the suspect forces a confrontation with me & mine.
 
I understand constructive critisicsm, and learning from the encounter.

But I find it offensive to imply that

1. The Officer was responsible for the girls death

2. The officer Should have done anything different

Yes, the officer Could have done things differently.
And they MAY have led to a better outcome.
But the officer did not react irresponsibly or poorly. And he was not
responsible for that girls death. Things just didn't pan out. Unless you can
see the future, your never going to be ready for anything anytime.


The fatal mistake may have been announcing that he was an officer
and drawing his sidearm. But he was a seasoned police officer. Im sure
when he saw the perp running toward him gun in hand, he reacted
instinctivley. As he said in his post, he switched into cop mode
right off the bat. I would not be surprised if at that moment, he was
not even aware of the fact that he was not in uniform. He was multitasking
the the extreme.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top