Officer Shooting - 14 hits and attacker still fighting

The guy was using a .45 caliber service pistol. I don't think the "more powerful" pistol round argument is really practical here. Sure .357mag has a bit more muzzle energy than most non +P .45ACP, but both are considered on the upper end of service calibers for pistols.
 
The guy was using a .45 caliber service pistol. I don't think the "more powerful" pistol round argument is really practical here. Sure .357mag has a bit more muzzle energy than most non +P .45ACP, but both are considered on the upper end of service calibers for pistols.

The 357 Magnum has significantly more power than any 45 ACP load.
 
ramius, most of us aren't an officer patrolling the beat either. you're not, right? so part of your argument about how a revolver wouldn't work is as bad as your power argument(and 357 is more powerful like pointed out).

this story proves once again unless you are pointing straight center mass accuracy becomes increasingly difficult (just like most people practice at the range)
 
I don't think I can armchair quarterback this guy. The way I read the story if he had a revolver he probably would haven't survived. He hit the guy 17 times, for heaven's sake! That's pretty good shooting under that kind of stress.

There was one line in the story that really struck me: the part where the officer seriously thought it was a good idea to skip rounds off the asphalt to try and score hits. I hope I'm never in a gunfight, but if I ever am I hope I never have to seriously rely on "aimed ricochets" to survive!
 
Jeff Cooper once said at Gunsite, "You will learn to worship your front sight."

Things happen fast. When the worst happens, we fall back on our training.

Are you trained? Do you practice?
 
Jeff Cooper once said at Gunsite, "You will learn to worship your front sight."

I be it would have been a bit quicker to get on the front sight the shooting a clip full of what ever he was carrying.
 
Sometimes you run into someone who just refuses to die, even with multiple wounds that should have killed them.

I've included a link to a Vietnam War Medal of Honor winner and his ordeal. He had something like 40 different wounds when he finally arrived at a hospital 8 hours after being hit the first time. Eight were major wounds from 7.62X39 rounds including 1 that completely penetrated a lung. He had a bayonette wound, 28 different shrapnel wounds, a broken jaw from hand to hand fighting and a buttstock to his face. His 1st evac. helicopter was shot down, he survived the crash and still helped load wounded onto a 2nd helicopter.

When he arrived at a hospial his intestines were outside his body and when no pulse was found he was declared dead. His eyes were caked shut with blood and mud and he could not open them. He spit in the DR.'s face to let him know he was still alive.

If this guy survived all this, and continued fighting for hours, debating the effectiveness of 45 vs 9mm vs 357 seems a bit pointless.

http://biggeekdad.com/2010/01/tango-mike-mike/

http://www.psywarrior.com/benavidez.html
 
The fans of the 5906 talk about it with reverant awe - like it was the best nine ever.

As guns go - it was just an OK gun, and IMO it was never better than a BHP anyway.

The perp's 5906 stove piped on him and he did a NY reload - downgrading to a 380 auto.

Good for the officer...

What didn't work for the officer:

Gramins let loose with a barrage of rounds hoping that what he might lose in accuracy would be compensated for by its suppressive nature.

What did work:

He paused, took a breath and a second to consciously line his sights up on what he could see of Maddox's head as the man crouched on the downslope of the opposite side of the street. Slowing himself down, Gramins locked in his sights on the suspect's head and fired a three-round volley in rapid succession.
 
Maybe the better question is "How many rounds did he waste firing the 'barrage' instead of using the front sight in the first place?"......
 
Maybe the better question is "How many rounds did he waste firing the 'barrage' instead of using the front sight in the first place?"......

Jeff Cooper opined that in the time it takes to empty a 'crunch-ticker' (that's a DA/SA simi-auto) one could have just aimed and fired a few precise shots.

The thing is, once you let fear creep in it's easy to just panic some and start putting out as much firepower as you can.

The trick is to control your fear. And that is why Japanese Samurai considered themselves already dead. It allied their fears, reduced panic, and kept them steady in the face of danger.

Deaf
 
I wonder how many of the armchair quarterbacks have ever actually been shot at.

"He shoulda done this, coulda done that, blah, blah, yadda, yadda".

At the end of the day he was breathing and the criminal was not. Sounds like a successful outcome to me.
 
I wonder how many of the armchair quarterbacks have ever actually been shot at.

"He shoulda done this, coulda done that, blah, blah, yadda, yadda".

At the end of the day he was breathing and the criminal was not. Sounds like a successful outcome to me.

Indeed
 
Those that fail to learn from the mistakes of others will make the same ones.

'Armchair quarterbacking' is not the same thing as analyzing what happened and how it could have turned out better, especially if one day YOU are in that situation.

And that is why you analyze such incidences and see if there was a better way it could have been done.

And do note, people such as Jim Cirillo (a cop) and Lance Thomas (a jeweler), went against much greater odds and didn't end up firing all over the place.

So learn from history least you repeat it.

Deaf
 
Have you learned anything from this that you didn't already know?

there is a reason(s) why you hear stories of cops missing their target on occaision in the news and/or wherever. iT ISN'T ALWAYS TRAINING ACEDEMY, PEOPLE NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE DOING, ETC(SORRY HIT CAPS BY ACCIDENT)

and the example up above ///
stories of cops missing their target on occaision in the news and/or wherever
/// is just an example. people miss for a reason sometimes because they don't make little adjustments too. once you start missing it can snowball. this guy in the story seemed to get the job done. if you aren't accurate there is a whole lot of 'miss' that awaits you.
 
I smile when folks over-analyze and talk of it coming out better as the justification. The guy survived a gun fight. Does it get any better ?
 
remember robert redford in 'butch cassidy and the sundance kid' from the 1960's I believe? He asks his new boss if he "can move" when firing his revolver applying for his employment. That scene has a tremendous amount of truth to it.
 
I have learned there isn't anything special about the .45, though undoubtedly it would have been more effective if fired from a Colt.
 
Jo6pak said:
wonder how many of the armchair quarterbacks have ever actually been shot at.

Why is that relevant? Are those the only people who can offer any useful thoughts on this subject?

The whole point of analyzing such scenarios is not to criticize the heroism of the people involved; but to learn from their mistakes. Another useful outcome of these discussions is to think about possible decision-making problems now and develop a response in the nice, calm, comfort of the glowing computer monitor, rather than try to think up the correct response in a fraction of a second while someone shoots at you.

If we aren't going to analyze these because it is "armchair quarterbacking" then we are depriving ourselves of a very useful tool in learning.

At the end of the day he was breathing and the criminal was not. Sounds like a successful outcome to me.

Unquestionably a successful outcome; but the big question is was it successful BECAUSE of what he did or IN SPITE of it? There are no shortage of cases of people being successful in spite of their actions rather than because of them. As a living example of that case, I appreciate that the mere fact that you succeeded doesn't always indicate you had a good approach to the problem.
 
Back
Top