Ammunition Consumption as a function of OODA loop

[Double Naught Spy]

I have been impressed by the numbers of shooters that I have seen screw of simple shooting sequences and who do so mainly when the situation becomes atypical, suffer a distraction, or the like. As such, I would be inclined to believe that many who train to shoot two and only two shots and then reassess will likely find that they have shot numbers other than 2.

I would think shooting till empty could be a bad thing.

Back when I started attending Thunder Ranch in 2002 or 2003, there were students in the class who had attended other schools where it was being taught that letting your gun run out of ammo was a bad thing. It meant that you had not managed your ammo-on-board properly and left you defenseless until you reloaded which was then dictacted by your ammo level (0) and hence was not a conscious decision on your part which meant you might be changing mags while vulnerable. This came up with Clint Smith and he went into one of his ranting monologues about the stupidity of never running out of ammo-on-board which included such considerations as...
- people can't count shots under stress (giving several examples of those who claimed to have fired 1 or 2 shots and who fired several times as many or until the gun was empty
- you shoot ammo at your aggressor to save life, not to save ammo.
- there is no logic in not firing the last round if the threat still exists just because some guy at a gun school said it was a bad thing. A bad thing is a threat that hurts you because you didn't shoot it enough.

Shooting a lot of rounds is a bad stragity. Dangerous and looks bad in court, and not necessary.

So you only put a couple of rounds in your gun?

Shooting is supposed to be dangerous. That is what makes shooting useful for self defense. The notion of not shooting enough rounds because you are afraid it will look bad in court reflects an improper ranking of priorities. The first priority is to survive the battle, not how it will look it court. How it looks in court doesn't matter if you are all screwed up or dead as a result.

While not specific to the number of rounds shot, here is a great example of a guy worrying about the legalities of his actions during an active shooter situation. The guy, Brandon (Danny) McKowan, was heralded as something of a hero of Tacoma Mall because he did intervene. He had his CCW with him, drew it, reholstered it because he wasn't sure if he could legally have his gun out, then stood from behind cover and verbally challenged the shooter who imediately shot him multiple times. Why wasn't his gun drawn? By his own admission, part of the reason is that he was afraid he would get in trouble for brandishing (see post#20 in the following link as the original news link is dead http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188599&highlight=tacoma+mall). McKowan suffers permanent disabilities as a result of his injuries. http://www.danmckown.com/

Note that McKowan's shooter shot him once and as McKowan started to collapse, the shooter followed him down with shots. In short, the shooter neutralized the threat. Unfortunately, the threat was one of the good guys.

So I am wondering how different TFL members approach this problem? If you carry a 5-shot revolver or 1911 do you train to shoot and assess to conserve your limited ammo load?

I carry a 1911 and 1 spare mag consistently, sometimes two spares. My idea of conservation of ammo is removing my self from the situation. Proximity to the threat, whether vertical or horizontal, is not a good thing. If I can get to safety before I am out of ammo, then I have conserved ammo.

When it comes to self defense, solve the problem at hand first. You can worry about ammo issues if and when they become an issue.

 

[Eagle0711]

Yes Nnobby 45; I know that. These thigs never go the way that er would like and no two are the same. I know about moving to the left, and getting behid cover, and reloading if necessary. It's a dynamic flowing situation.

I was talking about a basic plan. I'd do it if possible, but who knows for sure what will happen. The 642 could also be fired from the pocket while some enemy has approached you at close range.

First have a gun, better yet have two plus a reload,and always be aware of who is around and watch thier body language. I ain't quite stupid enough to know things are simple and will go my way. If I could control the situation, my origihal statement is what I'd hope to accomplish. I fell off of the turnip wagon a long way back.

 

[Nnobby45]

I was talking about a basic plan. I'd do it if possible, but who knows for sure what will happen. The 642 could also be fired from the pocket while some enemy has approached you at close range.

Well, no offense, Eagle---just that there are those who think the training range and stuff they creatre in their head is like it is for real. MIght have temporarily mistook you for one of those. Plans can (and probably will) turn to crap, but that doesn't mean good tactics always have to.

I like my 642 in my left pants, or inside vest pocket--depending on what I'm wearing. And I really like it in my coat pocket in cold weather when I need to button up, and have restricted access to my main weapon. I always have quick access to a reload, and am never without a flashlight. Parking garages and stairwells can be dark during the day.cool:

 

[markj]

there is no logic in not firing the last round if the threat still exists just because some guy at a gun school said it was a bad thing. A bad thing is a threat that hurts you because you didn't shoot it enough.

Well if you run till empty without hitting anything and the bad guy is still able to shoot = bad thing way I see it.

Best is to maintain mind control, dont panic, aim well and hit the target. Is what I was taught by a shooter that had exp shooting people.

Was taught that the draw and time to get on target was more important than pulling and run till dry. This is what I practise, the draw (c ant shoot if it is in the holster) time to get on target and shoot. Try it and test the speed.

Most SD situations you already have the threat with a weapon on you. No matter how fast you are if he already is on you, well best comply till you can do otherwise.

In other words use your head.

These things were taught to me by a Deputy Sheriff, a former marine with combat exp and a few others back in the day.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well if you run till empty without hitting anything and the bad guy is still able to shoot = bad thing way I see it.

Okay, that is a completely different problem. Not hitting anything is not the same as running out of ammo. Not everyone responds to being shot in a manner that is immediately obvious to the shooter, especially with handgun ammo. You may hit him several times and not know for sure. So do you just stop shooting because you don't think you are hitting? To stop shooting at the bad guy when you know he is still a threat is not a winning strategy.

Was taught that the draw and time to get on target was more important than pulling and run till dry.

Nobody here has suggested it is more important to keep firing randomly without the gun being on target. We aren't about draw speed either. This discussion pertains to that which happens after you have been shooting and whether or not you should conserve ammo.

These things were taught to me by a Deputy Sheriff, a former marine with combat exp and a few others back in the day.

And I am sure he would think you a ninny if you stopped trying to put rounds on target if the bad guy was still a threat to you.

 

[markj]

So do you just stop shooting because you don't think you are hitting?

No, read this carefully, you slow down and get ahold of your senses and take a better aim. Goal is to hit the target not try to scare it off with a load of gunfire, this isnt a marine outing.

Geez is that too hard to understand? Shooting till empty is foolish IMHO.

An empty gun is a rock.

And I am sure he would think you a ninny if you stopped trying to put rounds on target if the bad guy was still a threat to you.

Not a chance. If he was alive I am sure he would have a lot to say about the folks on this here forum. He did survive many shootings, I will always take his advise over anothers. I listen to my friends that served in Nam, we get together and play our games, but it is that. Just games, but they do help in getting the gun out of the holster and on target as soon as possible.

I explained my method of training that was taught to me. Please dont try to make this a foolish thing as other threads have gone. I have faced a man with a gun, I am alive. And you sir?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Best is to maintain mind control, dont panic, aim well and hit the target. Is what I was taught by a shooter that had exp shooting people.

No, read this carefully, you slow down and get ahold of your senses and take a better aim.

You seem to be missing the point. In the real-life shooting that inspired this discussion, the officer involved fired 11 shots in under 2 seconds. 10 of those 11 shots hit the target.

The point I was trying to emphasize is that a skilled shooter can put rounds on target accuirately faster than his brain can recognize whether those rounds have been effective. The result is that while maybe 1 or 2 rounds were all that was necessary to stop the threat, the shooter might easily fire 5 or more rounds before he recognizes that the threat has been stopped.

To the degree you are addressing this issue, I am interested in what you have to say; but I don't understand how your observations in this thread so far relate to that.

To the degree you are discussing some tangential issue raised by another post in this thread, I would appreciate it if you would start a new thread or PM to discuss that.

 

[markj]

I was going off this:then what I posted was taken as, well I just dont know what.

This leads to two schools of thought:

1. Shoot X number of rounds and assess
2. Shoot until the threat goes away

I would go with number 1. Simple and to the point.

 

[Mannlicher]

sometimes we get way too involved with minutia. Analyzing things to death in advance...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

sometimes we get way too involved with minutia. Analyzing things to death in advance...

True; people tend to want to control all the variables they can control in a high-risk situation.

This struck me as a good discussion because it makes me rethink how I evaluate my ammo needs. If I evaluate my ammo needs based on how many rounds are necessary to stop the threat, I will probably come up with a smaller number than if I evaluate my ammo needs based on how many rounds I am likely to shoot before I realize the threat has been stopped.

It also suggests that some common tactics like "shoot until the threat goes away" need to be modified if you are going to carry a pistol with limited onboard ammo and no reload.

 

[booker_t]

I feel as though the shooting and assessing happens simultaneously.

I'll make a sports analogy. Coming down the court, during the play, a basketball player is in soft, broad focus. Aware of where the ball is, where the basket is, where they are, and what their defender is doing. Once they get the ball and make their move, that focus becomes hard-fixed on the center of the rim when they pull up and release the shot. Similarly, during the gunfight, being hard focused on the front sight or soft focused on the field all the time won't work, you have to shift quickly in order to be fully aware and able to act/react.

For example, it's one thing to say "get behind cover." Well, once you're confronted with the prospect of being in a gunfight, where is your cover? You have to switch from hard focus on the threat (where you may or may not already have your gun out, may or may not have already expended ammo), to soft focus to scan and find the best available cover option. While at the same time trying to pick up additional threats that may present. Throw in a reloading cycle, and you're somewhere in the middle (depending on how well you've trained your reload technique).

Doesn't even consider any injuries you have any suffered along the way, from being punched, kicked, thrown, bludgeoned, stabbed, shot, tripping/falling, and your own weapon's muzzle blast, that could affect your focus and your judgement.

Good argument for the New York reload, IMO.

 

[markj]

It also suggests that some common tactics like "shoot until the threat goes away" need to be modified if you are going to carry a pistol with limited onboard ammo and no reload.

Thats what I am saying.

One size just dont fit all.

 

[bds32]

I think the point about shooting faster than your ability to process what is happening is a valid point. It takes no time at all to shoot 5 or more rounds. You might be able to fire faster than the time it takes the suspect to react to being hit, if being hit in the torso. In other words, the suspect might be hit good and out of the fight but still standing straight up while the rapid fire on your part continues. I think firing until the suspect is no longer perceived as a threat will be the default action for most of us. In other words, we won't have any say in the matter. Our automatic responses will kick in and we will fire until the threat goes down or until we run out of ammo and have to take whatever steps needed to fix this problem. For some who have trained routinely to fire a certain amount of rounds and assess, this might occurr also but maybe at their own peril. I come out on the side of firing until you no longer perceive the threat and that is why I think you change up the number of rounds you fire at a target during training, whether its two rounds or eight rounds, or whatever. You never know what that number will be for real so why not switch it up all the time. Yes, available ammo is a concern but that is a known problem and there are ways to deal with it before hand, most obvious is to have a reload (a New York reload if you prefer) and be trained up on getting the gun recharged quickly.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You know markj, Mark Wilson conserved his ammo and stopped firing, ostensibly to assess his shooting. It was a great opportunity for the gunman to turn and take a bead on Wilson and promptly shot Wilson. Wilson died having conserved most of the ammo in his gun. He stopped shooting a viable threat and it cost him his life.

...but the important thing is that he didn't run out of ammo because running out of ammo is bad and may look bad in court....only he doesn't have to worry about looking bad or going to court because the bad guy killed him.

 

[MLeake]

One can worry about conserving ammo...

... or one can carry more, in the form of spare magazines, a second gun, etc.

Assuming one doesn't live in a state which limits CCW to a single handgun, in which case we're back to spare mags, speed strips, or speedloaders.

Personally, I prefer to have more ammo, and just not worry about it so much.

 

[markj]

You know markj, Mark Wilson conserved his ammo and stopped firing

And others have died reloading..... I was taught one way and I guess I will stay with what I know.

This can be debated for eternity. Do what makes you feel good.

I hunt, shooting a living thing to kill it isnt a hard thing for me, I dont ever want to be in a situation where I have to train a weapon on a human tho. But If I ever have to I am sure of my abilities, confidant. Now why would someone wish to upset that?

 

[Nnobby45]

Geez is that too hard to understand? Shooting till empty is foolish IMHO

I also understand that it's foolish to quit shooting until the threat is neutralized.

And I understand that, if what you're doing isn't working, slowing down and controlling your aim is a good thing --if one has the composier to do that under stress.

There's more to the Mark Wilson incident than him just stopping his shooting. His shots were on target. Bad guy was wearing a vest.

 

[doc540]

I wonder if Col. Boyd carried a concealed handgun?

Would've been great to hear his take on this discussion.

 

[Rifleman 173]

If you do a Mozambique shooting format of 2 to the chest and 1 to the head you generally do not have to fire more than 3 rounds into most bad guys. Of course you could do a modified/emergency Mozambique where you put 1 round in the chest and 1 round into the bad guy's head. But unless you're using a rifle, then that means that the bad guys have to be pretty darn close to you if you're using a pistol for the accurate head shot to stop them. The key thing is shooting to stop the bad guys and keep yourself safe from harm. And that boils down to accuracy which involves a good amount of practice at the range.

 

[Greg]

When I hear of things like Mozambique drills I think of stationary paper targets being faced by shooters that are waiting for the beep or the shoot command of an instructor.

I was taught that in real life, targets move up/down/sideways, and drills are of limited benefit.

Not that drills are of no benefit, I would imagine they are, but it's amazing how large of a target that one can miss under stress. A moving paper plate is a pretty small target when under stress, with a pistol, at 7 yards.