Socrates3000
New member
Is suppressive fire ever a viable option for a civilian self defense situation, and if so, when? Is the idea of one shot, one kill outdated and overrated?
Suppressive Fire
- Thread starter Socrates3000
- Start date
pickpocket
New member
You are talking about two completely different concepts, neither of which should ever apply to a self-defense situation.
Suppressive Fire has been discussed extensively. Here's one thread:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195168
One shot, one kill isn't a term that should be applied to self-defense situations, either. It's a phrase that has been thrown around the sniper community for YEARS before it gained popularity with the rest of the world. The entire concept of "one shot, one kill" doesn't even apply to self-defense, CCW, or PISTOLS even in the most extreme cases.
It's applicable to the shooters that have the training and skill to take a single well aimed shot from considerable distances and kill someone.
Suppressive Fire has been discussed extensively. Here's one thread:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195168
One shot, one kill isn't a term that should be applied to self-defense situations, either. It's a phrase that has been thrown around the sniper community for YEARS before it gained popularity with the rest of the world. The entire concept of "one shot, one kill" doesn't even apply to self-defense, CCW, or PISTOLS even in the most extreme cases.
It's applicable to the shooters that have the training and skill to take a single well aimed shot from considerable distances and kill someone.
I have to agree in that 99.9999999% of cases suppressive fire is just the wrong idea for a civilian and even for pretty much any civilian or even LEO work. Maybe if you somehow got caught up in a "North Hollywood Shootout" scenario but even then I would question it. Of course we can come up with scenarios worthy of "24" all day but they get ridiculous quickly and are not the purpose of this board.
-David
-David
chemist308
New member
and even then it only works if you hold your pistol sideways and shoot rifles from the hip...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea of civilian self defense was to shoot to stop, or shoot and move (retreat/flee).
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Agreed. Suppressive fire has no place in civilian self defense, and very limited use in law enforcement, especially in an urban environment.
Remember that it involves a massive and more or less uncontrolled flow of lead. It's designed to keep the enemy's head down while sharpshooters, leapfrog advance, or a flanking maneuver do the real work.
In a military situation, collateral damage is acceptable. It isn't in law enforcement, and even less for non-LE, and it's never to be used unless you have multiple allies engaging hostiles with you.
What's that all about?
I certainly can envision scenarios where one is surprised and has to shoot a couple of quick shots to break contact and make an escape. You might not have time to make a perfectly aimed shot, and, like Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackmen) said in 'Unforgiven', getting shot at 'plum rattles some folks'.
It might give you the time you need. And, yes, you are responsible for where those slugs end up.
I would imagine it would depend on what you consider to be suppressive fire. If you consider it to consist of unloading your weapon as fast as you can and saturating the area with bullets, than I'd say that it has no application in legitimate self-defense.
However it is possible that you could be in situation where causing the bad guy to get his head down could be desirable, such as a situation with a crazed gunman where you might be able to buy time for loved ones or bystanders to get to cover. In such a case, though, I think that the suppressive effect is best achieved through aimed, controlled fire. You are accountable for every shot you fire, so you might as well do your best to put every one into the bad guy.
However it is possible that you could be in situation where causing the bad guy to get his head down could be desirable, such as a situation with a crazed gunman where you might be able to buy time for loved ones or bystanders to get to cover. In such a case, though, I think that the suppressive effect is best achieved through aimed, controlled fire. You are accountable for every shot you fire, so you might as well do your best to put every one into the bad guy.
riverrat66
New member
In combat only, suppressive fire had it's purpose of keeping the enemy's head down by the 1st squad so the 2nd squad could advance, so on and so forth. Maybe it's not done like that anymore in the new modern Army.Capt Charlie said:
pickpocket
New member
I'll explain this one more time:
By definition, suppressive fire is any fires directed at an enemy in order to prevent him from leveraging effective fires against a maneuver element.
This was one of the most common points of contention between myself and many inexperienced senior officers throughout my career in the Marine Corps. Often people believe that you must send rounds down range in a steady stream in order to prevent someone from sticking their head up or out. However, even in a military situation this simply encourages poor fire discipline and general lack of accountability for where one's rounds are going.
I've heard all of the "collateral damage" arguments, so before anyone says that almost any amount of collateral damage is worth the life of one of our Marines (or soldiers) let me tell you that there's a difference between the real philosophy of suppressive fire and what many other people think suppressive fire is.
I taught for years that in order for suppressive fire to be effective it has to do two things:
If you cannot see your target, you do not shoot.
One does NOT simply hold their weapon over the top of a barrier, point it int he general direction of the enemy, and send rounds at him hoping to convince him that he shouldn't shoot at you. There are two logical problems with this: first you can't see what you're shooting, and secondly you can't see what he's doing. If you can't see him, you can't really expect to supress his ability to leverage effective fire against either you or your "maneuver" element (probably your wife, kids, etc.).
If you do not have a target, you do not shoot.
If you are simply impacting rounds around the general area where you think BG is hiding, what are you really accomplishing? Are you preventing him from peeking? Are you preventing him from shooting at you? Are you preventing him from doing anything except standing up and announcing his whereabouts?
Possibly - but it is far more likely you are simply wasting rounds that you might need later. I have yet to see a gunfight that comes complete with an "end-of-the-round timer" that allows you to go back to your corner and re-up.
For "suppressive fire" is not aphorism for "cyclic rate of fire". True, it must be sustained, but isn't 6 rounds per minute "sustained"? If you have time to aim your shots and dump a mag or two at BG, don't you also have time to simply place well-aimed shots at opportune moments (like when you see his little head pop up) rather than just "spray and pray"??? Wouldn't one well-aimed shot whenever BG showed his head be considered "sustained"?
If the intent is to truly keep BG from shooting at you, shouldn't that be done in the most effective manner? To do otherwise is simply irresponsible.
By definition, suppressive fire is any fires directed at an enemy in order to prevent him from leveraging effective fires against a maneuver element.
This was one of the most common points of contention between myself and many inexperienced senior officers throughout my career in the Marine Corps. Often people believe that you must send rounds down range in a steady stream in order to prevent someone from sticking their head up or out. However, even in a military situation this simply encourages poor fire discipline and general lack of accountability for where one's rounds are going.
I've heard all of the "collateral damage" arguments, so before anyone says that almost any amount of collateral damage is worth the life of one of our Marines (or soldiers) let me tell you that there's a difference between the real philosophy of suppressive fire and what many other people think suppressive fire is.
I taught for years that in order for suppressive fire to be effective it has to do two things:
- Prevent the enemy from effectively engaging you with direct-fire weapons
- Facilitate movement of some sort
If you cannot see your target, you do not shoot.
One does NOT simply hold their weapon over the top of a barrier, point it int he general direction of the enemy, and send rounds at him hoping to convince him that he shouldn't shoot at you. There are two logical problems with this: first you can't see what you're shooting, and secondly you can't see what he's doing. If you can't see him, you can't really expect to supress his ability to leverage effective fire against either you or your "maneuver" element (probably your wife, kids, etc.).
If you do not have a target, you do not shoot.
If you are simply impacting rounds around the general area where you think BG is hiding, what are you really accomplishing? Are you preventing him from peeking? Are you preventing him from shooting at you? Are you preventing him from doing anything except standing up and announcing his whereabouts?
Possibly - but it is far more likely you are simply wasting rounds that you might need later. I have yet to see a gunfight that comes complete with an "end-of-the-round timer" that allows you to go back to your corner and re-up.
For "suppressive fire" is not aphorism for "cyclic rate of fire". True, it must be sustained, but isn't 6 rounds per minute "sustained"? If you have time to aim your shots and dump a mag or two at BG, don't you also have time to simply place well-aimed shots at opportune moments (like when you see his little head pop up) rather than just "spray and pray"??? Wouldn't one well-aimed shot whenever BG showed his head be considered "sustained"?
If the intent is to truly keep BG from shooting at you, shouldn't that be done in the most effective manner? To do otherwise is simply irresponsible.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Nope. Still the same. That's exactly what I was referring to when I said "leapfrogging".
In college in the 60's, I pledged Pershing Rifles, and we went on maneuvers down in Wayne Natl Forest. One of the exercises was a leapfrogging frontal assault on a bunker. I was the squad leader on this one, and me being the independent cuss that I am, decided to have the fire teams fake the assault with little real advance while I took one guy with me to flank the bunker, come in from behind, and lob a couple of smoke grenades in. I didn't tell the Lt., so he couldn't tell me that they had planted artillery simulators on the right flank, and I got knocked on my toush and said "what?" a whole lot over the next few days
.And they wondered why I decided to go Navy after that
.riverrat66
New member
I agree but there was ALOT of that done in Vietnam and probably the only benefit of that was it made Lady Bird Johnson rich as she owned a munitions factory at the time.
Well actually yes you are accomplishing both but I would have said where you know the enemy is shooting from because you are preventing him from "peeking" and shooting at you at least until you can move to another position.
You may not agree but there are times when "spray & pray" is appropriate, maybe not for a grunt but certainly for the door gunner of a Huey or the gunner on a river patrol boat and many other instances also.
But I don't profess to be an expert or student of infantry maneuvers but I know what we did 40 years ago and I'm alive today because of it.
pickpocket
New member
You're right - but you have to admit that running a 60 from the skid of a Huey gunship isn't exactly "accurate" fire
Get's the job done, though.
Stay safe, watch your 6!
Get's the job done, though.
Stay safe, watch your 6!
riverrat66
New member
Ah, for the good old days! 
Rightwinger
New member
Playing a team match in paintball or airsoft... Yes, suppresive fire is effective and usefull.
In the real civilian world? No, it's unsafe and foolish.
In the real civilian world? No, it's unsafe and foolish.