Let's discuss the North Hollywood shootout

One more reason the 308 Cal might be a good option was the shoot out of the LAPD with the SLA in South Los Angeles. I knew two of the SWAT members who were at the back of the house during the fire fight. They were trading shots with two women who where hiding behind a refridgerator that was in a back doorway. The SWAT Officers had 223 rifles and they would not penetrate the metal of the ice box. The women would shoot and then duck back behind the refridgerator. The trading of shots went on for some time until the house burned down around them. A 308 rifle would have penetrated the refridgerator and taken both of the SLA Members out in short order and the fight would have been over. I think a mix of weapons is needed but if I had just one, it would be the 308 for urban warfare.
 
Another thing:

The trend in response to defeating armor is not centered around bigger guns chambered for bigger cartridges, but smaller ones; the available solutions from FN in particular. They are light, compact, easy shooting, and a specialty item restricted to tactical team use in most instances.
 
The History Channel is running a documentary on the shooting tonight, 9-5. They will also take you to the LAPD museum and show what they were wearing.
 
Head Shots

Okay, if it was one cop versus the two shootersand he was stuck at fifty yards, and pinned down by halfway accurate fire then a headshot might have been impracitcal.

However, there were far more cops than just one or two on the scene, and there's no way the suspects could be covering every direction that they were covered from by police officers.

It would be interesting to know how many rounds were fired by the LAPD. Because if they had the time to make and continue making usless bodyshots from cover than they likely had time to make half as many, or a third as many slower, more carefully aimed headshots.

The likelyhood that one cop, alone, with a high-cap handgun, couldn't make a single effective headshot is probably marginal or debatable. maybe, maybe not.

But with the number of officers on the scene, and the number of opprotunities for head shots available(even at very difficult distances) it seems pretty unlikely that they wouldn't eventually succeed.

At fifty yards, the background for a body shot would be almost the same as that of a heads hot. I mean,a body shot, under fire, from fifty yards is chancy. So the idea that they couldn't risk taking head shots is ridiculous, if they were sitting there firing away at body shots.

Again, it would be nice to know how many officers were on the scene, how many shots were fired, and how many of those shots were aimed at the head.

Someone mentioned a 50-75 yard moving headshot drill earlier. and hitting something like 5 headshots out of 70 tries. For the North Hollywood shootout, that would have been perfect. that's five effective headshots.

The bad guys fired hundreds and hundreds of round. Didn't kill any bystanders. The police could afford some misses, you have to take chances to stop shooters like that.

Again, How many rounds did LAPD fire. If it's more than a few, then there's your answer. The problem is the shooters, not the guns. the outgunned argument sort of goes out the window.

If I have a full auto AK, and some body armor, and I'm up against ten to twenty cops at fifty yards with Handguns, then I am the one who is outgunned. A handgun is designed for close quarters, but most are more accurate than their shooters. even good shooters. and more than capable of dealing with threats inside 100 yards.

Sure, it'd be nice to have rifles, it'd be nice to have slugs, and so on and so forth.
But that's a weak mindset. Sure the administrators are to blame for having their cops under equipped. But the cops knew they were underequipped, instead of training to complain later about being outgunned, they should have been training to win with what they had.
 
LAPD fired something like 800-900 rounds. The robbers fired 1100+.

I can't find it now, but I believe (from memory) it was approximately 80 that were on scene of which about 40 actually engaged the robbers with gunfire. There were some 300+ (all totaled) that were involved in some capacity including the fight, support, roadblocks, helicopters, and/or were in response to the scene.

As seen from the video of the actual shooting, the robbers responded to incoming fire from 180 degrees as their backs were against the bank wall. When they moved out, they were fired on from 270 degrees. So for most of the fight, the robbers were outnumbered and flanked.

There are a couple of sites somewhere on the internet that catalog some of these statistics, but I don't have them bookmarked. If somebody does find them and could post a link, that would be terrific.
 
The Documentary on the History Channel should answer a lot of your questions. The LAPD has one of the finest marksmanship programs going. They give a bonus on every paycheck for marksmanship. The higher the score, the higher the bonus. They also require everyone to qualify once a month. If they don't qualify, they keep trying at their own expense until they do. The first shoot is at city expense.

Take a look at how many holes there are in the black suits the bad guys were wearing. It's a mitacle they were not taken out by a head shot. The constant movement and automatic weapons must have been a factor in their ability to avoid a quick death by a head shot. The number of rounds fired would only be a rough estimate.
 
Gentlemen,
It looks like I was wrong about the documentary on the North Hollywood shootout. I can't find it on my T V for tonight. A reliable police web site I visit said it was going to air on the west coast at 2200hrs on the History Channel tonight. Thats 10PM for you draft dodgers.
 
Someone mentioned a 50-75 yard moving headshot drill earlier. and hitting something like 5 headshots out of 70 tries. For the North Hollywood shootout, that would have been perfect. that's five effective headshots.
Click to expand...
IIRC it was 75 yards and the best (most lucky?) shooters were making maybe 2 or 3 hits out of 50 rounds.

There was no return fire (of course) and we had been shooting all day (warming up, if you will) gradually moving to increasing distances over the course of several hours. In addition it was possible to take a relaxed shooting stance (no need for cover) and the time constraints were not stringent.

YES, it's possible to make headshots at significant distances under ideal conditions, the problem is that it's much, MUCH easier to make body hits at the same distances with a long gun. Hitting a man sized target every time at 75 yards with a rifle is pretty much a given even for a mediocre rifle shot while a good pistol shot might be able to hit a head sized target around 5% of the time at that distance with a pistol.

The Tyler courthouse shooting and the North Hollywood shootout are perfect examples of what happens when an armored man with a rifle comes up against pistol shooters. The pistol shooters either die or are pinned down until the shooter decides to leave or defenders with rifles arrive.
 
Im way to tired to read everything, so im sorry if this has been said before. there is no way in hell that gun fight should have lasted 44 minutes. all they had to do was deploy a sniper or two into the nearbay buildings, 2 shots and the gunfight is over
 
Another alternative might have been one of these:
500right.jpg


On a good day, I can hit a pie plate at 100 yards, with open sites. 525 grain cast bullet at 1350 fps, doesn't slow down much, and, hits with around rifle like energy. Energy of 2,125 foot-pounds for a 525 grain bullet at 1350 fps.

They penetrate 5-6 feet in cape buffalo, or asian buffalo. Also goes about 4 feet, 50 inches, in wet newsprint.
For comparison, a 338 Lapua with a 250 grain bullet, at 2900 fps went 32 inches in wet newsprint, and, a 454 Casull, using a much more shootable, 315 grain monometal hard flat nose went 49" in news print. While I can't promise they would have penetrated that armour, my best guess, and gut tell me they would have blown a big, fat hole all the way through both sides, and, the target.

A 3.2 pound FA 83 in .475 Linebaugh, or, the 500 Linebaugh, or 500 JRH, are both capable of being carried in a trunk, or on a belt, and, all it would take would be one well placed shot, and, the party would have been over.

How bad are L.A. restrictions on firearms carried in the trunk of a squad car? How restricted are the LAPD in choosing their own belt guns?
 
Great link Erik, Thank you.

If they can carry old 45 Colt wheel guns, and, they are strong enough, and well taken care of, they can be capable of extraordinary accuracy, and penetration, with heavy 45 Colt loads.

Since you like pictures:
;)
Sevillegripright.jpg

SevilleGripleft.jpg


This old girl would put 260 grain HP's, at 1450 fps, or, 350 grain LFN's, at 1550 fps, into 2-3" at 100 yards, if you could. Similar, lighter loads, in a strong 45 Colt revolver, give you more effective reach, and penetration.
A 315 Grain monometal bullet, in 45 Colt, will go 4 feet in wetnewsprint...
 
Dude, those aren't going through Level III body armor. The cops weren't trained well enough to make head shots at long ranges on moving targets, from non-standard shooting positions when said targets were returning full auto fire.

2-3" at 100 yards? Really? With iron sights? A lot of cops don't shoot 2-3" groups with AR15s at 100 yards, but you think they are going to do it with an iron sighted revolver? LOL!

Of course if the cops were fighting wet news print, I guess those revolvers would be plenty effective. Body armor is a bit tougher than wet news print.
 
OO&: anybody that uses the term "dude" can't be much older then my last part of underwear, so, you'll have to provide a bit more evidence then your word, "DUDE".:rolleyes:
 
Now boys, let's play nice.

The point OO-Spy makes is valid. Most cops are not crack shots with standard service guns, despite what movies and television would have the public believe. Shooting at a moving object the size of a cantaloupe at anywhere from 50 to 125 yards is not an easy task. One might was well expect trainees to hit speeding clays with a handgun.

With respect to Socrates and his love of big-bore wrist-testers, the power of the cartridge is useless if you cannot make a hit. Think of the liability issues that come with using a heavy solid in urban areas. Think of city attorneys thinking about the liability. Think of the politicians thinking about the liability and political repercussions. It won't fly.

The only viable option open to the cops were head shots.

They were not equipped (with sidearms) to handle armored BG's with FA weapons.

Shotgun slugs were not available for long shots.

No rifles were available for long precision shots.

They were not trained in team-tactics to deal with highly aggressive (and armored) shooters.

Coordination between units or teams was poor and tactical advantages were not exploited.

If one arriving squad-car in five had a rifle with a reasonable rifleman, they may have been able to stop the incident much faster.

The rifle caliber probably would not matter as much as the capability to place a precision shot out to 200m. I'd think that any .223, .243, 6.5mm, .270, .308 or even a .30-30 round hitting above the shoulders would have neutralized the target.

At least one or two magazines of "special purpose" ammo should be available for their AR's or .308's. AP and AP-Tracer ammo would be suitable for this kind of incident.

Otherwise... continued discussion is just
deadhorse5.gif
 
One thing I do remember is some police using a car as cover, when, to a 7.62 x 39, it's concealment, not cover.

One wonders if a light burst machine gun, focused at the BG's legs or feet would have fixed the target, and, made the end a bit quicker...

Select fire on a AR-15 in the trunk might be a real good idea, sometimes.

In general, do folks think hitting a moving target, head shot, at range, is easier with burst fire, within a M-16, or selective fire?
 
the other thing that i see lacking from the above posts is covering fire. There were a few officers that were injured badly and unable to move for the entire duration of this incident. If the officers had been even briefly taught (say 1-3 days) team tactics and some field of fire stuff they could have got the injured ones out sooner. Even from 125 yards their pistols are accurate for 2 shots/second covering fire. At the very least it would have been possible to distract the perps away from a point long enough to gain access to that point.

But the simple, most cost effective way to avert this the next time is a cheap semi or bolt rifle with a few days training.

I started putting an SKS in my trunk just because of the AAR i read on this incident. (i m not a police officer, but I would not mind loaning my sks to one if they needed it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top