Sick of Chuck Taylor

K

Kodiac

New member
In the latest issue of "Combat Handguns" a magazine that I almost NEVER read - Mr Taylor waxes poetic about the .38 Special.
Okay, fine... nothing out of line yet. Then He gives some history, and a similar time line with the 9MM... Okay, fine. Not very interesting, but educational to the novice gunslingers.
Then he goes on for 2 paragraghs about six rounds out of a revolver should do the job and if you cant get it done with 6 then your unworthy of your gunbelt! Saying that it only goes down hill after the first six shots... and refrencing weak stats that he neglected to give.

Here Chuck, you forgot something:
May 1986, Miami Florida.

This is why most Officers carry a double mag pouch and fill them with topped off high capacity mags. Why most of us chamber a round, then reload one more into the mag! Why? Because we want all the rounds we can get. A .38 is fine... But just cause you have a mighty dirty harry wheel gun - doesnt mean you should neglect things like speed loaders... a lot of them.
I am not degrading revolvers... I like them - reminds me of all my history classes... ;)
What I dont like is Taylor's novice lectures wasting space in a magazine that could print something more usefull... And Taylor's spoiling the next generation of shooters who may think "He's Da'Bomb!"
Every Taylor artical I read has so many tactical and/or strategic errors in it... I fear for the students of his classes. I have had a couple students in my time that read his stuff, and formed bad habits - I should have charged them double for all the time it took of breaking those and building real skills.
Taylor should go away... Retire and take up fishing. Then he could write fishing articles in some other magazine... And tick off a whole other group of sportsmen.

------------------
Kodiac
Kenetic Defense Institute
"Sir Heckler"
 
Well now...tell us how you really feel and don't hold back.

Unfortunately, (Or fortunatley) I somewhat share your opinion about dried-up, has beens that hang their hat on something that they did twenty years ago.

Those who are not quick to look at new ideas and at least evaluate thier worthiness with an open mind, are doomed to failure.

Bill Jordan, one of my law enforcement heroes, also leaned to the wheel-gun. But Mr. Jordan was 169 years old when he passed on the the final round up. Times change, technologies change.

Also.....you can NEVER carry too much ammo.....
 
I agree with your opinion of Taylor. Personally, I think it all goes downhill after the first shot. Better to stay alert and avoid such things when possible.

The three great excesses of life:
There's no such thing as too much money, too much love or too much ammo! ;)

[This message has been edited by Grayfox (edited 01-23-99).]
 
Kodiac,

I too have grown somewhat jaded towards Chuck Taylor's stuff. His 165K round glock 17 articles are another example, when did you last freeze your carry gun (or any other) into a solid block of ice?

But I am not responding re: Chuck Taylor.

I am responding to the May 1986 Dade County shootout reference you made.

Kodiac, what I am about to say is not going to be too palatable, so I will say it as nicely as I can.

The problem appears to me to be a tactics/decision/training problem, not an equipment problem. The agency then bought a new gun (da 10 be da ONE!, which was probably not a bad move!) but did not address the root causes of the problem. Which are in my opinion poor training and/or poor tactics.

First, how do I come to this? These observations are made in recollection of the FBI training film that was made following this debacle. I had this film for an entire weekend and viewed it about 30 times about 1989 or 90.

The film was scripted by a professional team who interviewed every survivor, then trained forensics examiners compared the physical evidence with all the "eye witness" (particpants') reports.

The film was scripted and shot considering all of this analysis which is probably as close to being there as we will ever get.

The film ends with Agent Rivera talking about continuing to fight, to have the will to win.

The two bank robbers were "staked out" by analyzing their MO and predicting (accurately it turns out) where they were most likely to rob next. The FBI does this so well that it is uncanny. It is not rocket science, but it is nice to see behavior analysis worked so well as they do it!

But the planning of the subsequent operation in detail seems less than sterling.

What was known about these two was considerable, who they were. That both had apparently killed their own spouses. That they obtained firearms by killing people at uncontrolled ranges and taking their stuff.

That both said that they would NEVER go back to prison. That they were shooting about 1500 rounds of 5.56 a week in practice! These are two REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD GUYS (RRRBGs)!

Let my questions lead you to your own conclusions:

1. Where would your vest and shotgun be if you were likely to have to attempt to arrest these two RRRRBGs?

2. When you pull out to tail these two how far back do you follow? (in the movie the following distance looks like about 1 car length, at legal speed. After the analysis of the forensics teams on this they ceertainly had to ask how far back were you?)

3. Would you, while driving a "plain brown wrapper" in broad daylight one car length behind the RRRBGs, be surprised to be "made"?

4. While in contact with the dispatcher and learning that the Dade County SWAT team had just returned to the station from firearms training (very near I think they said TWO minutes away), would you choose not to ask their assistance? (I will not here conjecture as to why, but I think we all know....)

5. When one RRRBG visibly loads a 5.56 mm rifle and they begin to flee who has chosen the stop location?

6. When you are engaging these two RRRBGs across the hood of your car, who do you shoot first and where?

7. Where were detailed stop plans for each stakeout location? Did they identify locations that the stops should be attempted at?

8. Did each stakeout location have a primary and alternate stop plan which would place the FBI in such a tactically superior position that the BGs would have no choice but to surrender or die immediately?

8. Did they think that they could utter the famous Zimbalist line "This is the FBI come out with you hands up" and these two were going to "give it up"?

My conclusions are:

The center of mass every time training is the primary culprit here IMO. Whenever you can see the assailant's pupils and he is bringing lethal force to bear you NEED a OSS, and we all know that takes a CNS hit. So I would recommend that training say clearly:

Shoot the most dangerous suspect first
(not the closest one, the most deadly one, but the one with the machingun, rifle, shotgun)

If you can see his pupils shoot him in the head, in the brain stem, and keep shooting until he stops

Leave your gun in your holster until your car has stopped

If you wear glasses ALWAYS wear a strap!

If staked out for RRRRBG have your long gun in the passenger compartment with you and wear your vests!

Request backup always when dealing with RRRRBGs and try to delay until it arrives

When beginning to effect a stop have plan as to where it will occur and force them to play it your way

Don't blame your equipment for the failures of your training to address the situation resolution

All this said, let me emphasize that I feel the agents were brave and true, but that their training in the conduct these stops is inadequate!

There appears to me to be a lack of analysis beyond the first few moments of these encounters.

Algorithms, a set of steps for successful resolution of situations need to be developed.

(The FBI seemingly has a history of failing to plan to fight fire in the buildings in which the suspects are, from the Barker and Floyd days thru Gordon Call, Randy Weaver, and the WACO tragedy.)

Once again:
All this said, let me emphasize that I feel the agents were brave and true, but that their training in the conduct these stops is inadequate!
------------------
Ni ellegimit carborundum esse!

Yours In Marksmanship
http://www.1bigred.com/distinguished

michael



[This message has been edited by Michael Carlin (edited 01-24-99).]
 
It is a tragic shame indeed that sometimes heroic men must die for others to take note.

I hate to be in the position for second guessing what men did when I was in fact not present at the scene. Who knows how I would have reacted under tha same circumstances.

However, I can say one thing about the entire debacle; The handgun is, by design , a poor fight stopper. Period. The handgun is a weapon of convienence that is intended to protect you against that which is unexpected. You should NEVER knowingly take a handgun to a gunfight.

If you KNOW that gunplay is likely, I have always advocated yanking out a shoulder weapon. More firepower (usually in capacity and energy) and greater hit potential. A M-4, 870, or Benelli will always make me feel a little more comfortable if I know that lead slinging is imminent.

I know that the agents on scene had access to 870's, bu tonly one was employed.

I also heard that there were two other Bureau cars lurking about that were equiped with MP-5's, but they were not able to make the party in time.

As far as not calling for back-up...They're the FBI for God's sake. They were not about to let some puny, two-bit department like Dade County in on their spotlight.....Why they might have really messed things up. (My apologies to those at Dade County....This is sarcasm...)

Oh well, live and learn. The problem is, two agents didn't.

[This message has been edited by Benton Quest (edited 01-24-99).]
 
Benton,

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
(through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault)

The very first rule should have been:

ALWAYS INITIATE A GUNFIGHT WITH A LONG GUN!!!!!

You are quite correct, they should have engaged these two RRRRBGs with a long gun, preferably several long guns the instance they came to a stop!

I am pleased to hear you deduce the real reason that they did not ask the local boys to assist them. (Pride goeth before a fall!)

I agree that it is easier to armchair this than to actually experience that. However failure to have been there should not prevent us from learning from the apparent mistakes made!

We are kind of far afield from Kodiac's post my apologies to Kodiac!



------------------
Ni ellegimit carborundum esse!

Yours In Marksmanship
http://www.1bigred.com/distinguished

michael
 
Hey Sarge, that's a nice analysis of the Miama shootout. I've mentioned Rule 2 of gunfigthing several times in other postings: Bring a Bigger Gun.

I suppose it's time to give all three gunfighting rules to put Rule 2 in proper perspective:

1) Bring a Gun. You're going to a gunfight, not an ice cream social.

2) Bring a Bigger Gun. Since the bad guys are bringing a gun, you're to bring a bigger gun. That is, if they bring a handgun, you bring at least a shotgun. If they bring a shotgun, you bring a rifle. Benton is right in that a handgun is a poor fight stopper. A shotgun or in the Miami incident, a rifle, is a much wiser selection.

3) Bring all your friend who have guns. That's right. If you know there's going to be a gunfight, you not only bring a bigger and better gun to outgun them, you bring all your buddies as backup and be sure they're all equipped with bigger and better guns than the badguys.

Benton's comments about not asking for Dade to show up is on the mark. There is a perception of arrogance about the FBI towards local LEOs (though I've never experienced it). It may be the Agent in Charge not wanting to share credit with local agencies. For a gunfight, the more trained and skilled folks on your side the better.

While this thread has strayed from Kodiac Moses Browning's original posting, and although I'm thoroughly enjoing it, maybe the topic should be moved to Harry's Humphries' forum.

[This message has been edited by 4V50 Gary (edited 01-24-99).]
 
I have to say the common "thread" that does seem to wind its way through Kodiac's original issue AND one of the prominent issues raised in the Miami debacle is the issue of pride and arrogance. It is the most unsightly aspect that sometimes rears its ugly head in gunshops and at gun ranges; and that turns many newcomers and visitors off to our sport (and sometimes gets people killed as noted so well above). Face it. The guy who we've all heard arrogantly say "If you can't do (fill in the blank)in "X" number of shots...or with "X" caliber of weapon...or in "X" number of seconds...why your not worth your salt." I'm sorry, but that is such horse hockey. I know I can use a handgun better than 75% of the general population (probably better than 90%). That's not arrogance fellows, anyone of us who is invested enough in shooting to read a chat board regularly about guns is that good compared to the predominantly non-gunning population. BUT, who would minimize his survival options by ONLY taking 6 bullets to a gunfight. That's just plain stupid. I agree with above sentiments that if I had a practical way of packing a 105 howitzer with 17 speedloaders in my IWB holster I'd do it. Pride be damned. I'll prove my manhood by my integrity and strength of character...not by "sounding tough."
 
Taylor is one of the greats along with Jeff Cooper and Bill Jordan. They stand by their words. There's more than one way to skin a cat. (hopefully there's no animal rights flunkie's here) But to be a Prophet you must stick to your guns no matter what others may say...
 
kodiak and Michael, AMEN!

I'm glad to see these responses. I thought I was alone on this one. Nothing wrong with revolvers, my largish hands are just better suited to semi's.

When I carried a 10 mm, I always had the high cap +2 magazines for 17 +1 capacity. Depending on situation, when I carry a Glock 19C in my fanny pack, I actually have room for a 33 round magazine, and I'm not ashamed of it. I will always choose to risk not being stylish by having too much ammo left over after a gunfight, rather than doing everything right, and still running dry DURING the gunfight!

If given a choice, I would bring an H&K 91-A3
to a pistol fight. Reach out, reach out and TOUCH someone..... ONCE! HA!

A student of Thunder Ranch once told me that Clint Smith said you use a pistol to get to your rifle, if feasable. I used to feel that this was a little macho, but now, if given a choice, do I want a semi .308, or a revolver in a gunfight?
Hmmmmm.......

.308 BE DA ONE! (with apologies for plagarizing Michael)
 
I refuse to go into the Miami Massacre...
But there are lessons to be learned there.

The thread was to voice my distaste for C.T.
Who needs to give up that old type writer - it seems to only print garbage.

------------------
Kodiac
Kenetic Defense Institute
"Sir Heckler"
 
Michael, good comments on Miami. I, too, have the video. About three months after Miami, Ayoob briefed the LFI I class I was attending. His information all came from Dade, who allowed him full access.

Several bits of information were given that I have not seen elsewhere. Grogan had a personal Thompson in his trunk. Another agent had a personal Uzi ( semi ) in his trunk. All had access to hard corp body armor, and M16s. All were issued SBA. No one had raid jackets.

Concerning the FBI felony stop procedure, Grogan had been told by a Dade instructor that " this procedure will get some people killed ".

Good men lost their lives, and many blamed the firearms, and some still will not admit the real problems.

To quote Brian McKenna, in Officer Down from Police Marksman, " As distasteful as it is to second-guess the actions of a fellow lawman, especially one whose mistakes have cost him so much, it is even more distasteful to see an officers's blood shed in vain - to deny others the lessons to be learned from his tragic misfortune ". GLV
 
GLV,

George, I appreciate your pointing out something that I should have emphasized perhaps once again.

I am not automatically supportive of all LEO all the time. But there is no pall about these guys, these agents were stand up brave men. Perhaps a little over confident or under prepared but brave and true as men can be.

It would be a travesty to allow their sacrifice to pass without learning from their experience. Yes, there is a brotherhood in the military too, to a lesser extent, that if you weren't there you shouldn't be too critical. But we also have a lessons learned file from each. And there are some for all of us.



------------------
Ni ellegimit carborundum esse!

Yours In Marksmanship
http://www.1bigred.com/distinguished

michael
 
I've read with great intrest the various comments here regarding bring a bigger gun, have lots of ammo, tactical mistakes and so on. For the LEO members of this forum this is good. After all you may well be required to go where you know there will be a gunfight. However, I think it should be pointed out to our civilian members that if you know that you are headed into a gunfight the proper and smartest response is to turn around and go the other way.
 
To some extent I can agree with chuck T. When I wear my 638 Smith I dont feel any less well armed than when I carry my G27, or G29 or G30 or Gxx (with or without hi-caps). I'm the one who is deadly (if I do my part right) with what ever I'm carrying. He is reflecting an older point of view of those of us who carried wheel guns while "fighting crime" and were confident in our abilities (still am) and really don't understand or agree with the "volume fire theory". Even with a 38 you have to HIT your target, something the guys in Miami didn't do well. Some poor bullet performance didn't help any either. I don't get paid any more to engage in prolonged shootouts and seiges so if I cant get out of harms way with 5 rounds of 38 H/S I probably needed air support with CBU60s and napalm anyway. keep smil'n :) ;)

------------------
Vinny
 
This thread was originally aimed at Chuck Taylor here is my take. I don't think he has written anything new in a decade, look through your back issues the same articles appear in multiple magazines. Also, take heed when any idiot names themself, "The professionals professional" or Nuke1, etc.

Did anyone notice that in the new Glock annual it is a work of senior citizens and their families? Mr & Mrs Walt Rauch; Mr & Mrs Chuck Karwin, et al., send the manuscripts to AARP.....
 
Ah... so if someone is advanced in years, then what they have to say is not worth anything? It warrants your pinheaded insults? All of you Chuck Taylor haters are invited to write your own outstanding and brilliant columns - since you are obviously such experts and gifted writers. Put up or shut up. We'll be watching the gun magazines for YOUR columns, okay? And I've noticed that those who are "tired" of the Taylor 160K+ Glock 17 are H&K or SIG fans. Since their overpriced guns can't touch the Glocks' reliability, durability, etc, then OF COURSE they don't want to hear about the Glock! Okay, blahblah, flame me, etc. Just lay off the older folks (after all, handguns are especially valuable to them in self-defense), outwrite Taylor (if you can), and face it: Glock really is Semiautomatic Perfection!
 
nothing wrong with the older folks .... im half way to dead any way, the problem we have is with the glock it is the most over rated piece of sh#$%. how many leo's have shot themselves trying to draw thier own weapon? ever see a glock at a target match win anything? any way, i know ill po a lot of people but the glock as good as it is does nothing very well, it can be a lot of things but not great at anything IMHO pat
 
Herr Glockner/Pat - I obviously misstated my position in my post. There is nothing wrong with age; it happens. My point with Taylor is that he writes nothing new, only rehashes of previous articles. Regarding Rauch and Karwan, since when did writing become the family business? Nothing wrong with talent but it seldom comes as a result of being married to a successful person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top