Investigating a noise:

[Brian Pfleuger]

...The tactical advantage of the ensconced adversary is just too great....

First, I'll say that I agree with the staying put and waiting idea but secondly, in this example, we have to realize that the BG was also HIGHLY trained. Trained to a degree that would be exceedingly unlikely in an actual event. I believe the underlying theory but the performance of a moderately trained GG against an untrained BG would (probably) be better than this. Not better enough for my tastes and not better enough that I would EVER recommend it but better.

 

[OldMarksman]

From Hondo11:

Who's the real expert? The guy who's had all the "training" but has no actual experience, or an old farmer/construction worker/whatever who's had no formal training, but has actually done the stuff?...

Someone else will have to help here, but I would imagine that the training at places like Blackwater, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, and the National Tactical Invitational are in fact based on real world experience, as are the Top Gun School for fighter pilots (founded by people who taught what they learned in actual combat), the Red Flag competitions, Marine sniper training, and so forth. Even engagement level simulation has proved itself in military training.

The carpenter example is really not a very good one, in my opinion. You can find many skilled carpenters, but there aren't any fighter aces still in the saddle. That certainly doesn't mean that our best trained fighter pilots aren't "real experts."

They can tell you what tactics will get you killed nine times out of ten and what is likely to work. I worked for and with some Viet Nam era fighter pilots who could tell you the same thing, but they often knew that from training before they went into combat. They aren't flying anymore but they did survive. A carpenter can learn from trial and error, but a fighter pilot cannot.

The same thing applies in SWAT team training, to choose a more relevant example. Every so often the police teams do go into actual action against adversaries. If they based their tactics solely on those few events, with all of the variables involved, they would be at a significant disadvantage.

So, to become and remain "real experts", they train in realistic conditions, varying the scenarios until they are in fact real experts under a wide range of conditions. By the way, that's what fighter pilots do, also.

I wouldn't underestimate the value of professional, realistic force on force training and simulation. I have friend who is a police officer who has been in quite a bit of it. And I certainly would not adopt a strategy that the top professionals and instructors have found to entail a virtual certainty of getting "killed."

I hope this proves constructive.

 

[pax]

Moderator Note

Who's the real expert? The guy who's had all the "training" but has no actual experience, or an old farmer/construction worker/whatever who's had no formal training, but has actually done the stuff?...

Please, please -- start a new thread!

This thread's just about done anyway, and that's a useful and intriguing question which is radically off topic in this thread.

pax

 

[Hondo11]

Old Marksman,

I don't and (didn't) discount training at all. I do think people should be selective in where they get that training and who's giving it to them. The same also applies to the opinions they choose to listen to and take to heart.

Example: There's a certain trainer out there who has quite a following. They call him an "expert". He's been an instructor for years, but his actual experience is almost ZERO. And when he was getting the experience (again...almost zero), he performed very poorly by all accounts except his own. Yet, he's a recognized "expert" because he has been "teaching this stuff for years".

That's my point. Does having a resume bullet that says "10 years instructing CQB" make you an expert if your basis for instructing is almost no actual experience conducting CQB for real? Or would you say the guy who's not a recognized expert (simply because he doesn't care to be recognized as one), but has legitimate real world experience, has a better grasp of the subject?

That was all I was getting at. And I'm not directing it at anyone in particular or trying to stir the pot. Just a point to take into consideration.

 

[Hondo11]

PAX,

Just saw your post after I sent my reply to OM. Sorry for the hijack. I know it was off topic, but I thought it sort of applied so that folks reading the thread could take it into consideration as they evaluated the opinions/advice given.

My sincere aplogies.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I believe the underlying theory but the performance of a moderately trained GG against an untrained BG...

But we don't know anything about the BG. Some criminals have gotten pretty skillful at what they do. I'm told that criminals practice some of these skills in jail. It's entirely possible that the BG you're looking for knows what he is doing.

When you don't know where the BG is and you go looking for him, he has the advantage and some control over where and how you meet.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

But we don't know anything about the BG.

I absolutely agree. I would never clear a house unless it was my only option for some reason. My only point was that the success (or failure) of the men in the example was likely skewed by the EXTREME skill level of the "BG". It is unlikely that a real BG would have anything like that skill level. The odds are strongly in favor of the BG in these situations, just not IMO to the degree indicated by that example.


and that's my 1000th post. I'm officially an expert in all things firearms related.

 

[OldMarksman]

The odds are strongly in favor of the BG in these situations, just not IMO to the degree indicated by that example.

I would agree if you had added the word "necessarily" or "probably," and I'm sure you would go along with that.

I have been thinking of a perp who has had battle experience in buidings in Basrah or Baghdad or some such... Not to impugn any of our fighting men, but those guys gave been through a lot.

Your thoughts, peetzakilla?

Not that we disagree at all on what to do....

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Your thoughts, peetzakilla?

Not that we disagree at all on what to do....

I agree. I hate to think that the reputations of the finest men and women in the world would be marred by such scum but it unquestionably happens. Not to mention the myriad of slime balls that make a living doing these things and get to keep gaining experience thanks to our system that lets them out over and over.

In my house I have a HUGE advantage to staying put. All the bedrooms are together on one floor. The area is on the second floor and virtually inaccessible from the lower level thanks to a unique door that is actually a couple stairs up a flight and opens out (toward the bottom of the stairs), making it nearly impossible to kick down. The only other entrance is the main outside door to the second floor which would be very loud to get through and we are on the opposite end of the building meaning the only way to get to me is down a hallway with no doors until my bedroom, a decidedly bad place to be when being shot at. Before anybody got to us I'd have the kids in our room behind the bed with the door shut and blocked, fully loaded 12 ga (soon to be supplemented with a Glock 33) and cops on the phone.

 

[BuckHammer]

Where are all these highly trained/tactical BGs who can beat the best, but who also make enough noise for you to hear? Also, it seems that we keep talking about someone who KNOWS that you are clearing your house. That may not be the case. That being said, when I hear a suspicious noise, I make sure a deadly weapon is close and then wait intently, I'm just arguing devil's advocate. Also, anybody with kids in a separate bedroom (not me), will have to clear at least some of their house (the part between their kids and them).

 

[heyduke]

Where are all these highly trained/tactical BGs who can beat the best

I think it's a question of what kind of odds you put into your favor.

Needless to say, each house has a different layout. That said, if you don't know where the threat is, and the threat is armed, there is a chance that the threat will know where you are at before you know where the threat is. This kind of siutation can increase the odds that some lead will go flying.

However, same scenerio and you lock yourself into the bedroom, call police and inform anyone in the house that you have a firearm and will shoot anyone who tries to take your posistion, I think you increase the chances that lead won't go flying. Chances are that the threat will just leave the situation.

For myself, personal property is not worth taking the chance that I or my wife could possibly lose our life over. Besides that, anything worth any money is secured in a decent safe.

That said, since I haven't walked a mile in some others shoes, perhaps if I got broken into numerous times, I'd finally get fed up and go after the threat.

 

[David Armstrong]

Where are all these highly trained/tactical BGs who can beat the best, but who also make enough noise for you to hear?

Two quick points---First, you don't have to be highly trained to beat the best, because few of us are the best. It takes very little for the defender to beat the person coming to them. Second, tactical training does not negate noise, particularly in an unfamiliar environment.

Also, it seems that we keep talking about someone who KNOWS that you are clearing your house.

You start going through your house trying to clear it, with the lights flashing on, doors being opened and closed, etc. it won't take them long to figure it out.

 

[JAYBIRD78]

Last post for me on this one.

My point is, if I hear a noise, I go and investigate. I may or may not have a firearm depending on the time of day, or if I can distinguish the sound/noise.

I'm not calling the police for every kid, vehicle, strange noise I hear, and locking myself in the bedroom.

Perhaps I am generalizing the word "noise" and others hear are saying a "noise" is "intruder/super ex felon"

Hypothetical example:

If someone knocks on my door at 2:00 AM in the middle of the night, I'm going to get up, grab my pistol and check by use of a window and outside lights who is there. I am NOT going to bunker down, call 911 and wait for the police.

This is only one example, and how I would deal with it.

Done.....Let's talk about the 9mm vs. .45ACP again

 

[David Armstrong]

If someone knocks on my door at 2:00 AM in the middle of the night, I'm going to get up, grab my pistol and check by use of a window and outside lights who is there.

Which, IMO, is what most here have suggested. But that is far different from going outside like you think there is a danger, or clearing your house, and some of these other ideas that have been tossed around here.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...My point is, if I hear a noise, I go and investigate. I may or may not have a firearm depending on the time of day, or if I can distinguish the sound/noise.

I'm not calling the police for every kid, vehicle, strange noise I hear, and locking myself in the bedroom.

Perhaps I am generalizing the word "noise" and others hear are saying a "noise" is "intruder/super ex felon"....

I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for from the rest of us. Endorsement? In any case, it's your home, your family, your life and your call.

 

[BuckHammer]

You start going through your house trying to clear it, with the lights flashing on, doors being opened and closed, etc. it won't take them long to figure it out.

You're right, I didn't realize that is how a house is cleared. In that case, no one has any business clearing a house. Ever. If I was clearing my house when I was reasonably sure there was a BG in the house (because I am clearing my house, after all), then I wouldn't flash lights or noisily open and close doors. I guess that puts me in the minority. Then again, I wouldn't clear my house.

 

[Frank Ettin]

... If I was clearing my house when I was reasonably sure there was a BG in the house (because I am clearing my house, after all), then I wouldn't flash lights or noisily open and close doors....

If one chose to clear his house, he could try it without turning on lights or using a flashlight. That may make it harder for the BG to spot you going through the house looking for him, but of course, it also gives the BG more shadows and dark corners to hide in, making it harder for you to see him as well.

And while you may be trying to be as quiet as you can, you will still be making some noise. You will be moving. You will be opening doors. It's a very rare house that doesn't have some place where the floor creaks or some door that doesn't make some noise while being opened, or some door knob that doesn't make some sound while being turned.

 

[OldMarksman]

From Fiddletown:

That [not using or turning on a light] may make it harder for the BG to spot you going through the house looking for him, but of course, it also gives the BG more shadows and dark corners to hide in, making it harder for you to see him as well.

Very true. Was the idea that one might fire at something he cannot see? (That's a serious hypothetical question and is not directed at anyone here).

That brings up another thought that I don't think has been discussed here. If the intruder is armed, I think we can reasonably presume him to either flee or shoot without any hesitation upon encountering someone in the house. The resident, on the other hand, has the obligation to first make sure that the person he or she is looking for is not in fact a family member who had gone out and returned, a friend of one of the family whose planned arrival had not been discussed, an inebriated neighbor in the wrong house, someone who found the door ajar and came in to ensure that everyone was OK, or a fireman who had responded to a call.

Identification would require light. Perhaps more importantly, it would seem to me that the difference in the time that each party would need to take before firing would put the resident at an extreme disadvantage when the two meet.

Thoughts?

 

[David Armstrong]

...then I wouldn't flash lights or noisily open and close doors.

If you (generic, not specific "you) are not using the lights how do you ID your target? If there is enough ambient light for you to see, there is enough ambient light for him to see, and you are on the wrong end of the curve as the attacker. And you don't have to niosily open and close doors. Gently opening and closing them in a quiet house at night is generall all it takes.

Then again, I wouldn't clear my house.

Good idea.

 

[pax]

And you don't have to niosily open and close doors. Gently opening and closing them in a quiet house at night is generall all it takes.

Squeaky floors.

Squeaky hinges.

An odd cold draft from the wrong direction.

A change in the smell of the air.

A minor shift in the lighting, or a change in the angle of the shadows.

Fast breathing from someone under stress.

The sound of a man tripping over one of the kids' Legos. (Anyone who's ever walked barefoot through a boy's room late at night hates Legos.)

Lots of possibilities to give you away. Holing up is much much smarter, whenever feasible.

But we've been circling into "is not!" "is TOO!" territory for awhile now. Probably getting close to time to close the thread.

Thoughts?

pax