How to engage someone in body armor?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simple, shoot them and keep shooting them until you are out of ammo and/or they are no longer a threat.

Humans are not robots, these sorts of people are assuming that lead is going to only be flying one way. Even among professionals, when ranges go two way marksmanship goes to crap. Kevlar only keeps the round from penetrating, it doesn't do anything about Newtons laws of motion. What effect that will have on a crazy person is anyone's guess, but I can't think of anything that would make things worse, they might panic and run away, their careful aiming might give way to spraying.

As the 86 Miami shootout showed, you also have a good chance of hitting them in the arm while aiming center mass, rarely does anyone have armor there, injure their arms and they are going to have a much harder time aiming and reloading.
 
Best of my training has taught me to shoot for the foot/feet. No Kevlar shoes that I know of. If so-Armpit while he's taking aim or walking or running in stride. Also a rear shot to the buttox. If the threat has to be dealt with then those are my requisites.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
 
Is it illegal to wear/own the kind of protection the man had? If not, maybe we should sell a few guns and buy some body armor of our own.
Click to expand...

It's not illegal to own any of the gear he had except for the explosives.

you can buy quality body armor online. There's nothing illegal about it. They just don't sell the current military issue plates. Price is the only thing that would deter anyone from owning armor.


Also Shooting the ankles is ludicrous. Yes it would work. It would work well. You're never going to realistically stress-fire a shot into a moving person's ankle (intentionally) with any handgun that you'd be carrying.
 
I'd like to say I'd have handled this shooter had i been there, but in reality without being in that situation its impossible to tell how it would have played out. Personally, I believe i would have made the attempt. Maybe it would have affected the outcome, maybe not. I daresay that the proposed situation would be far too chaotic, and the target far too armored to put betting odds on any particular intervention attempt, other than that the distraction created by return fire may have lessened the damage.

-Ex-army and familiar with tear gas and movement under fire.

-Madball

Oh, normally carry a PX-4 .40 S&W 11+10+10
 
I think most people would shoot all they had in the gun before realizing it was ineffective, and that includes cops. I think that moment when your gun goes dry and you have to go for a reload is the moment you would realize your shots were ineffective.

Most of us shoot on a target like this:
B27.gif


Perhaps one like this and learning to dis-articulate the limbs would be better, at least for very advanced training.

20061212033414_Photo1.jpg


The thing is that the typical CCW holder really doesn't practice ( And cops only practice when they have to usually). He goes through the course enough to get his CCW and that's it. That entry level course does not include any movement, no cover, no concealment, no body action at all. And what happens? They go to the training they do have, which is to be flat footed and stupid. That and they have never fired under stress of any kind.
 
Humans are not robots, these sorts of people are assuming that lead is going to only be flying one way. Even among professionals, when ranges go two way marksmanship goes to crap. Kevlar only keeps the round from penetrating, it doesn't do anything about Newtons laws of motion. What effect that will have on a crazy person is anyone's guess, but I can't think of anything that would make things worse, they might panic and run away, their careful aiming might give way to spraying.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not like he had an hour long shoot out with police in the style of the North Hollywood robbers before he was taken. When confronted by police, he gave up. He might have been injured or given up if confronted by an armed movie goer.

An armed movie goer would have to make a quick decision to shoot, hunker down and shoot later or try to escape based upon what they could tell about the attack. Some people have already pointed out that a defender might not know about the body armor until they started shooting back. There are no good answers in a situation this so maybe a defender has to trust luck and any training to be in their favor.

I don't know if there were any concealed carry permit holders in the audience that had left their firearms behind as the theater's policy required but I would imagine that an armed off duty police officer might have made a difference for some of the victims.
 
5.7 was mentioned as shooting through vests. The round was developed to shoot through body armor in the Nato environment. The pistol and rifle fired an armored piercing round. Military and police can use that. Civilians can't own it in the USA.

As far as shooting for feet, etc. - all reasonable - that's why training is good for failure to stop drills. I'm just down on those who think this is going to be an easy thing to just take him out. Yeah, the cops in North Hollywood and the FBI in Miami were not as skilled as the Internet League of Lead Slinging Justice Dude. They had a hard time. We cannot assume that we wouldn't and we should be tactically smart and be prepared to die - if you choose to fight (assume you had discretion to leave or fight).

If we start seeing many rampage armored folks - you all better get to the range and take stress based training exercises. In the movie with a J frame - that's one for Wyatt Earp merged with Annie Oakley.

Friend of mine was shooting a P238 as a bug. Nice gun - he is national level and he shot as as well or better than the average competitior. But, we had a stage with a steel popper - hit it to activate a swinger. 9s, 40s, 38s, 45s - all activated it. The 380 just pinged off the steel - 5 good shots and it didn't move. So there you are with armored target and your LCP, Keltec, etc. I got a 380 too. Nice pocket gun, not for guys who think they are mecha.
 
Exactly. It's not like he had an hour long shoot out with police in the style of the North Hollywood robbers before he was taken. When confronted by police, he gave up. He might have been injured or given up if confronted by an armed movie goer.
Click to expand...

The armed police officers simply brought the coward out of him.

With all the flavorful adjective's I could use for the Hollywood shooters, coward would not be one.
 
We don't know - psych. hat on. Some of these guys want to go out in a suicide by cop. They regard it as a 'warrior's death. Before the incident, they engage in vicarious reinforcement of fantasizing the pain they cause. They saw the parents and friends weep at Columbine or VT.

But, some want to actually see the pain. They made their point. They will talk at trial about why. Seeing the victims and relatives at trial will juice them up.

Thus, saying the cops got him because he was a coward or this or that, is our projection.

We don't know yet and it will take professionals to figure it. Someone who says this or that about his thought processes or motivations really are just spouting hot air. Psych. folks on the tube saying this is true or whatever, has compared to general findings are close to being unethical.

However, we are wandering from armor. I did need to correct.

Since I seen to be mod point on this - back to armor tactics or we close.

We are still deciding about how to discuss the issue and control the BS.

Glenn
 
Not sure what training this crazy person had previous to his rampage. I am wondering how he would have reacted if shots came his way? It may have provided a moment of pause creating an opportunity but that is hard to say.
 
This awful stuff in Colorado got me thinking. What can a normal defense caliber do against someone like that?

Say 5 rounds of 38spl, or 7 rounds of 45acp, or 10 rounds of 9/40...

Attempt a head shot? Dump the mag into the body?
Click to expand...

As for the rounds you mentioned, nothing at all. Especially when it's worn by someone psychotic. I have to think a smart guy like this would have to know he needed plate, did he have it, I don't know.


Odds of victory small, death likely.
 
They only way to effectively engage someone in body armor is with a rifle. Big bore handguns will be stopped by soft armor but they will deliver a bunch of backface deformation and still probably take them out of the fight.
 
I have done a drill at the range where you try to stay on target while getting nudged by someone standing behind you (left, right, forward and back- at random) and accuracy goes very far south very fast. It would be way worse getting bumped into, stepped on and run in front of by a crowd of panicked people. Add to that the gas, lighting, and fear and I believe it would be virtually useless for most of us (except for the best trained ones with REAL combat experience) to engage this target unless it was a last ditch effort at very close range. Not trying to be negative or confrontational, just realistic.
 
What would be the merits, if any, of banging away at the weapon of the shooter?

Not trying to put a bullet down the barrel or anything, but focusing on the shooter's muzzle flash and sending return fire down that axis.

The way I see this possible tactic is that the hands and forearms are usually still vulnerable in armor, and by sending shots towards the long gun itself, you may screw up its functioning, severely distract the shooter, and/or if luck intervenes, strike the target in the face.
 
As I see it the biggest obstacle to accurate return fire initially would be the panicked crowd. Once the crowd is hunkered down, then the only problem is the absence of light and the smoke. Night sights would be a plus if you remember to use them. A semi auto of sufficient power and capacity fire bursts of 3 or 4 and shoot him to the ground. I would say point shooting training would be a big plus. It certainly is no place for a 5 shot snubby and no reload. Like has been said it may take 4 HITS to realize he is not going down.

It still hurts to get hit with a vest on, the military kevlar helmets will not stop a 223, 7.62X39 or a 40 S&W that I know of. In the helmets I shot all went in the front and out the back. I was really surprised, those are the only rounds I used as they were pretty shot up.
 
At close contact range, it might be better to physically take him down, and if he's still fighting, shoot him in the face.

Gas masks, last I checked, don't stop most bullets.

This would require a rear or flank attack, initially.

Might sound cold, but if he was armored over torso, legs, neck, and head, it would be (IMO) very reasonable.

(Edit: Common tactic against armored knights in earlier days: knock them off their feet, then cut their throats, or stab them in the armpits or groins with daggers. Same concept applies.)
 
Last edited:
Shoot at the crotch and face. A hit in either of those places will rearrange priorities.
Click to expand...
Assuming a hit can be made. Shooting in a dark place, full of teargas and crowded with panicking people, at a person who is shooting back isn't tremendously conducive to pinpoint accuracy with any gun at all, let alone a typical carry pistol. The bad guy was using long guns, shooting unarmed persons, including children; he was prepared and in spite of that, his kill ratio was only 17%. Doesn't sound like even he was making good hits.

I don't think it's realistic to assume that the average CCW'er is going to be able to, under the stress of the moment, assimilate the fact that the attacker is wearing body armor, compensate for that fact effectively, and then make the hits required before the gun runs dry.

The Tyler Courthouse Shooting gives us insight into what happens when a guy with a handgun (in this case, probably a better than average shot using a full-size .45ACP pistol) confronts a guy in body armor wielding a rifle. The guy with a handgun died. Wilson made at least one good hit on Arroyo, but it had no effect due to the body armor. Arroyo shot back and killed Wilson. Arroyo wasn't nearly as "armored up" as Holmes was. No limb protection and no helmet.

I think that if a person feels he must intervene in a situation like this using a typical CCW handgun, he should figure that realistically he's going to be a momentary distraction and hope that some people will be able to escape while the bad guy is killing him.

Probably the best case realistic scenario is that he is enough of a distraction to cause the guy to change his tactics in a positive way for the potential victims or that it allows or inspires someone else to intervene more decisively while the bad guy is killing the CCW'er. For example, after killing Wilson, Arroyo left the area--possibly as a result of the encounter. At least some witnesses think so. On the other hand, given that he had already shot his wife, he may have left because he figured his mission was accomplished. It's hard to know.
 
How to engage someone in body armor?
Click to expand...

I want to say on bended knee with a ring in hand.... :)

A crossbow would probably do a better job than any handgun. That, or a bayonet charge.

A mass onslaught by an unarmed crowd would have taken him down quickly. That's just not the crowd mentality when shots are being fired.
 
Ballistic helmets - all that helpful?

My understanding was that the brain buckets the military uses are not proof vs. bullets. That might have been only rifle bullets, not sure.

Based on the knowledgeable people who have already commented, I suspect I'm misinformed. Always a first time! :D

Shooting in the face seems like the only way, and I can't imagine being able to do it from more than point blank range. The Unitarians in Knoxville that took down the right wing psycho trying to massacre them took the right approach: gang tackle. Hard to pull off, but there's not much else to try.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top