Police say defective bullets?

So what's the point of a violent felon like Michael Platt soaking up 10-20 (12 actually) hits from .38, 9mm, and .357? You think it would have made any difference if the shooters were license holders rather than FBI Special Agents????
Click to expand...

You forgot the shotgun blast that injured both feet as well. Also as with most other such folks who "absorb" a lot of shots, most of the impacts are minor, doing little serious damage.

I do also wonder about some police gun tactics now days, sending out rds, dropping clips and sending out more rounds. I know they get free ammo but after reading about many law enforcement "exchanges" it really makes me wonder.
Click to expand...

Other than no typical patrol officer handguns, rifles, or shotguns not using "clips," I think it is fair to say that the number of rounds fired by cops during shootouts is not determined by the cost of the ammo, whether they paid for it themselves or whether it is covered by the department.
 
deepcreek said:
I do also wonder about some police gun tactics now days, sending out rds, dropping clips and sending out more rounds. I know they get free ammo but after reading about many law enforcement "exchanges" it really makes me wonder.
Click to expand...

You ever tried shooting at someone who's trying to kill you? It ain't like you're taking a solid weaver-stance and poking holes in a piece of paper that's 7 feet away and not moving.
 
When police officers carried revolvers, dump pouches for ammo, and New York reloads, the awareness of shot placement's importance received greater attention and more training. But at that time a great many LEO's had military experience and/or had grown up with firearms.

No, I'm not saying they should go back to revolvers (though at my age it's tempting to say so). But what I keep reading in posts from police officers is that training has been reduced, opportunities for practice have diminished, and the number of cops with previous weapons experience is way down. Sounds to me like a recipe for unrealistic expectations and spray-and-pray shootings of the kind we've heard about where officers fire forty rounds and hit their target seven times.

I'm not, repeat, NOT blaming the LEO's. I admire tremendously the job they do in damn near impossible situations. But it sounds as if too often they're handicapped by a system that doesn't support them adequately.
 
Last edited:
“You can fire a handgun at a rate of four to five rounds per second. If someone — after being shot right through the heart — has 15 seconds, they can easily fire 50 to 60 shots in that time.”
Click to expand...

This has me questioning things a little.

I think it would be very hard to fire a handgun at this rate of fire and do anything other then keep it pointed in the basic direction of the target.

But even with a pair of 30 round mags 50 to 60 rounds in 15 seconds sounds stupidly unrealistic to me because situations do not remain unchanging like this for 15 seconds.

If all the guy is going to do is hang the gun around the corner and jerk the mags dry as fast as possible then sure, but that isn't really anything more dangerous then a risk of hearing loss.

I just don't think unrealistic statements provide much much for an argument.

As for the guys being drug free, sure, completely drug free of all but one of the most powerful drugs known to man, adrenaline.
 
You ever tried shooting at someone who's trying to kill you? It ain't like you're taking a solid weaver-stance and poking holes in a piece of paper that's 7 feet away and not moving.
Click to expand...

Have you? Have the majority of firearms trainers? Not many of us have and not many are alive that have. Also many of the stories I have heard were greatly exaggerated about the threats they faced.

I just keep hearing about cars, homes, buildings, that have 50+ bullet holes in them and less then 5 in the target. Were talking about 1 in 10 or less shots making it to the target.

Like you said t easy to hit paper especially at 15yds, even while rapid fire, dropping mags and reloading.

Would it be better to take a breath? idono? but it would be interesting to see some stats on shots vs hits from a couple of decades ago before semi autos and rapid fire were so popular.
 
How good?

There is a very small window (so to speak) on the human body that will give a one shot kill.
A short T, eyes down the nose to the upper lip, that's if the target is facing you, the target alters as the body rotates. Then you have a vertical target at two inches wide (spinal column ) and this can be easy or hard to hit depending on how much penetration is needed to reach the target, is it facing you, angled to you or are you shooting from the rear ( the nasty back shot).
These are extreamly small targets to hit at the best of times and they get smaller as the pressure goes up.
Military experience is just what it sounds like, but that does not equate to combat experience. Shooting under pressure and hitting the target is what counts.
 
Post 17, license holders vs armed/sworn LE officers...

Post 17 took a few of my remarks out of context.
Armed citizens/license holders are not "better" than FBI special agents. :rolleyes:
I didn't say that.
My point is that any license holder or armed professional should carry a sidearm or firearm able to deal with the threat.
Will Holden or Haden on Discovery's Sons of Guns had a good line; "A handgun should get you to your next gun." ;)
I say; "In a real critical incident you may not have the gun you want, but you must use the gun you have."
Sworn LE officers(unlike armed citizens or license holders) have a sworn duty to uphold the law & pursuit dangerous criminals. They can carry or request firearms, SMGs, shotguns, rifles, K9, air-support/UAVs, SWAT-SRT, etc.
John or Mary Citizen can't always do that.
A few years ago, the NRA awarded the LE Officer of the Year award to a brave Las Vegas Metro PD officer who was seriously wounded in a botched armed robbery. The off duty LV officer was hit several times & returned fire with a compact .380acp. The bad guys were caught & convicted. The hero cop later returned to full police duty & started carrying his full size sidearm(with 2 full size magazines) off duty too.

ClydeFrog
 
I srsly just don't even.:(

Having carried for reason and recreation as well as working the business side of the counter of a gun shop... This sort of stuff really makes my head hurt.

From "9mm never stopped anyone" (Yeah, tell that to the folks the Germans shot during WW2) to 1911 is outdated and now "Is .40 enough gun". This is the same noise that had folks running about in search of the latest "Mother Monkey Magnum" shoulder buster and wallet drainer because somehow, 30-06 stopped killing Bambi all of a sudden. Sheesh.

Tends to be, if you manage to have the talent to hit something the baddie needs, right this moment for his continued existence, he falls down or, at the very least stops being an active baddie. I know this is hard in a full-blown panic of a firefight or confrontation but, the facts remain stubborn on the subject. Sure, if I know I am going to a fight, give me a 12 Ga. and some 00 Buck but, that looks funny under my jacket at the mall. As it is, any sidearm I carry serves 2 functions for me.

1. Makes me feel I have some chance if things go very wrong.

2. Forces the baddie to be sure that harming me or those I love is worth some serious harm to him.



Just my 2 cents.:cool:
 
Hmmm. So either the ammo is bad or the guns are inaccurate?

I don't know the range involved, and I understand the stress involved, but it seems to me that hits in "the chest, hip, leg, wrist and possibly in the finger" do not indicate a high firearms skill level on the part of the officer.

Jim
 
I think there are a lot of stories that are out there that some people just dont go down. I like this one. It was linked here by another member a few days ago I think. I read this and was blown away.

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-iss...ne-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

here are some snips from the article (the police officer was using a .45 glock).

"In this free-for-all, the assailant had, in fact, been struck 14 times. Any one of six of these wounds — in the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney — could have produced fatal consequences…“in time,” Gramins emphasizes."

" Gramins recalls. “I tried a couple of ricochet rounds that didn’t connect. Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’ ”
When the suspect bent down to peer under the car, Gramins carefully established a sight picture, and squeezed off three controlled bursts in rapid succession. Each round slammed into the suspect’s head — one through each side of his mouth and one through the top of his skull into his brain. At long last the would-be cop killer crumpled to the pavement.

Remarkably, the gunman was still showing vital signs when EMS arrived. Sheer determination, it seemed, kept him going, for no evidence of drugs or alcohol was found in his system.
 
What I don't understand is that is seems to be a surprise to many.

In Fairbrian and Sykes book, Shooting To Live they mention being involved in over 400 shooting while fighting the gangs in Shanghai during the early 40s.

They talk of several incidents of a 1911 45 ACP being emptied into the chest of bandits which afterwards had to be subdued by pistol whipping them after the gun was empty.

Guns aren't magic. How many times have we see deer and other critters absorb a good hit in the vitals yet run a 100 yards of so before they go down. It's more common then not. And that is with a high powered rifle.

Sure their dead, but that doesn't stop them from running away.

The thing is its fear that puts people down more then the shot. They are surprised they're shot, afraid their hurt and stop doing what they were doing.

That's why "drugged up" bandits are harder to put down, not because they are tougher then others, its they don't have the mental capacity to realize they are hit or hurt and may die.
 
Many people here have made the point that many hits don't mean fast kill. More power and larger calibers are only able to increase the chance that a hit will stop the threat.

The main thing we all need to take away from this is that Many hits or few hits, unless in the head (and that's still depending on the where) or Spinal cord (same thing as to where)will stop someone immediately.

In addition, even a shot to the heart doesn't mean immediate death.
An experienced hunter provide proof of that. Not to mention the many stories of people taking several rounds without going down or even dying.


This guy was shot 23 times and lived http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/12/man-shot-23-times-released-from-icu/

He was still conscious and holding a firearm he wrestled away from another man as the story seems to tell.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...earm-cops-charge-felony-case-article-1.202470
 
From that cop shootout in Post 32:

squeezed off three controlled bursts in rapid succession
Click to expand...

That officer must have been trained in the use of single shot bursts......:D

Or the writer needs to understand guns more.

Bart Noir
 
This reminds me of a snippet that Jeff Cooper wrote about one. He described an incident, and then the two questions that seemed to be all important (to some people). I'll paraphrase...

Basically, a female officer meets bad guy at a range of mere feet. Fires entire hicap mag (at least once - or there may have been two female officers, I no longer remember), anyway the jist was that a large number of rounds were fired, and the suspect was hit, once, in the kneecap, which turned out to be enough to keep him from escaping...

Now, the interesting thing, to me, anyway, was the two questions that arose and got the most public attention...and they were...

Is the 9mm suitable for police use?
Are women suitable for police duty?

This was where the focus went. NOT to the (to me) obvious question about how well trained to shoot the officers were. Are we not seeing something similar with the claim that the .40 "isn't good enough?"

Now, I know that shooting under extreme stress is more difficult than any other shooting. And it seems that, on average, well trained shooters (including some, but by no means all police) get around 30% hits, at the best, and of those hits, only a smaller percentage are in the vital zones.

And any individual shooting may be far below (rarely above) that average. Back when the cops carried revolvers, a pair of officers could blaze off a dozen rounds before having to reload. With today's use of hi cap semi autos, that firepower has virtually tripled, apparently without a corresponding rise in overall accuracy.

It is certainly true that guns are not magic swords, and bullets are not the light of decency that causes all evil to isntantly shrivel up and die...

But if your expectations are formed by our entertainment industry, you likely won't know that. What you will "know" is that guns only have to be pointed in the general direction of the bad guy, dispatching them with a single shot or single burst, often at truely implausible distances, and while on the move.

You will know that gunshots fling people across large distances, and can be fired indoors, without any hearing protection, with no consequences.

You will know that while badguys can kill minor characters, they can only (at best) wound the hero. And that same wounded hero can run, climb ladders, and all other manner of physical things without being impaired, even up to the final hand to hand combat that, finally, bests the villian.

And we are all the heroes of our own stories, now aren't we?

No police agency is going to come out and say, "our officers were under trained, paniced, or poor shots". It (no matter what "it" is) cannot be the fault of our brave, heroic officers, who put their lives on the line for you daily...

So, the blame something else. The FBI's final blame of the 9mm being at fault for not stopping the Miami Shootout led eventually to the .40 S&W.

Now, the .40 S&W is being blamed for a failure. Personally, I don't think the round is the thing most at fault.
 
Now, the .40 S&W is being blamed for a failure. Personally, I don't think the round is the thing most at fault.
Click to expand...
Can't agree more and for fear of spinning off course to the 'Great Caliber Debate" I'll just say that IMO the 40S&W is as adequate as any service caliber.
 
OK so speaking from expereince.

1) IME 90% of people shot with any kind of a handgun will stop, lay down or run away.

2) Most people shot with a handgun will not die.

3) Some people will die right away.

4) Some people will die sometime later.


There will always be exceptions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top