Suppressive Fire

My Apologies

I posted the thread to be thought provoking. My wording could stand to be a little less polemic and more precise. Thank you everyone for your good responses.
 
Try as I might, I can't think of a single incident where shooting somebody in the head would not be preferale to laying down a volley of fire to make him keep his head down.
All those extra rounds downrange are just a potential civil liability lawsuit waiting to bankrupt you too. :barf:
 
Originally Posted by Neophyte:
[/But let me add that I hope that the shotgun "behind the door" or wherever is now loaded...QUOTE]

Although Gina did a pretty darn good job in writing the story, she did "skew" a few things. For example, the shotgun WAS loaded, it just didn't have a round in the chamber. So when she says I loaded it, I actually shucked a round into the chamber...
There are definitely some things I do differently now. First, I don't keep the shotgun behind the door. That seems like a good spot, but you have to shut the door to get to it, and in our case, a shut door had to be opened. Frankly, that was the hardest thing I have ever had to do!
Second, I dry fire the shotgun now so the little button under by the trigger does not have to be depressed to shuck it. The only reason I shucked it for my wife in the first place was because I questioned in my mind whether or not she'd know to push that button...

Thank you for your kind comments!

Originally Posted by Jack Malloy:
Try as I might, I can't think of a single incident where shooting somebody in the head would not be preferale to laying down a volley of fire to make him keep his head down.
All those extra rounds downrange are just a potential civil liability lawsuit waiting to bankrupt you too.
Click to expand...
Gina also did not include that by me laying down the "suppressive fire" it allowed my wife to get my daughter into the bed room and out of the line of fire... It worked, he kept his head behind the wall... There was no other alternative, except maybe to charge him, and THAT would have been stupid!...
Also, my closest neighbor is over a mile away, and all of my rounds were stopped by the wall I shot into. If they had of gone through the wall, I might of got the perp. That was my intent anyway!
Besides that, legal crap is the LEAST of things on your mind when your being attacked! The name of the game is SURVIVAL!
Click to expand...
 
Movement and manuever are two diffrent things. Movement is traveling towards the enemy. Manuever is used to gain an advantage over the enemy when contact is made. Tactical movement is done before you contact the enemy. Once the enemy contact is made you are in manuever mode.

What CPT Charlie is reffering to is called alternating bounding overwatch. the elements take turns moving forward towards the objective. One element moves while the other provides what is called an overwatch. Upon command they can provide suppressing fire to support the moving element. The bounding unit must follow two rules.

1. never move into the overwatch element's line of fire
2. dont move out of range of the overwatch element's range of fire.

METT-T is used to decide on the best way to accomplish the manuever.

Mission- on a mission to take ground or on a mission to probe enemy lines

Enemy- enemy's capabilities, equipment, probable courses of action

Terrain and Weather - use the terrain (cover and concealment) and weather to seek an advantage over the enemy

Troops Available- number and capabilities of friendly troops

Time or Timing - rapid advancement towards the enemy helps to keep him at a tactical disatvantage.
 
Jack Malloy said:
Try as I might, I can't think of a single incident where shooting somebody in the head would not be preferale to laying down a volley of fire to make him keep his head down.
Click to expand...

Well who wouldn't take the head shot if it presented itself but the guy was BEHIND the wall. So Hal just gave you one very good reason for "laying down a volley of fire".

While I agreed with everyone else that suppressive fire had no place in civilian self defense, Hal8000 has shown us that under certain circumstances suppressive fire can be a useful defensive tool.
Jack Malloy said:
All those extra rounds downrange are just a potential civil liability lawsuit waiting to bankrupt you too.
Click to expand...
Once again it's called "situational awareness". Hal was aware of his surroundings and took advantage of that. Hopefully he would not have fired seven rounds as "suppressive fire" in a public place.
Hal8000 said:
Besides that, legal crap is the LEAST of things on your mind when your being attacked! The name of the game is SURVIVAL!
Click to expand...
Especially when you're being fired upon in you're own home! I think under the circumstances Hal did exactly what he needed to do. It's just too bad he didn't kill the SOB right there on the spot!
 
One thing should be well understood.......in a gunfight you just never know what you might have to do. If you have to fire to put someone behind cover to save your wife and child as Hal did, then suppressive fire does have a place in self defense. Of course if you can fire to hit them even better. The times it is needed might be rare and the danger posed to others must be taken into consideration. Make no mistake if I am being chased by a gunman and my wifes handgun fire from 70 yards forces him to take cover thus allowing me to escape, it was a useful tool to say the least. Despite the bad guy not being hit in Hals case it was still a successful defensive use of the gun.
 
Just as a point of contention - my responses were focused on SD outside the home. Once inside your own home, all bets are off and if you've got the capabilities to detonate the claymores on your perimeter and use the malaysian whip covering your front hallway then more power too you. There's no such thing as inappropriate when defending your own home. :)

Way to go, Hal!

Threegun - you're right. That's why I made a specific attempt to delineate between "suppresive fire" and "spray & pray" in an earlier post. Too many people confuse the two.
 
Just a point to consider...

There's no such thing as inappropriate when defending your own home.
Click to expand...

Many have living arrangements in apartments, condos, duplexes, and single-family homes build very close together. It is a valid concern to think about where each and every bullet may go once it leaves your barrel, even if firing from with in your home.

Being in your own home does not mean you should dismiss one of the four rules -- Know your target and beyond.

I'm unsure how important this will seem when someone is attacking you in your own home (i.e., in the heat of the moment defending the lives of yourself and loved ones), so I've tried incorporate this ahead of time when planning the areas of my home to which I'd retreat, if necessary, giving me the best cover, and best/safest line of fire. I've considered this issue as I live in a duplex. It did not take much time to sort out the best options.

Also consider that all members of your family may not be in the same room as yourself, when it comes time to defend your castle...

By no means am I advocating letting your wife and child perish because you are unsure if your neighbor is making a pot of coffee in his kitchen at 3am -- directly in your line of fire... I'm simply suggesting that the significance of knowing what's beyond your target does not diminish when you are with in your own home.
 
As I was taught, I so teach... Never fire a round without having a nearly positive idea of where that bullet will wind up... It's part of shooting! A BIG part! You are responsible for your bullet(s)... I agree completely.

I'm simply suggesting that the significance of knowing what's beyond your target does not diminish when you are with in your own home.
Click to expand...
In my case, I was counting on more penetration than what I got from my bullets and had no doubt what was in front of and behind my target...

Two further comments: The Sheriff's Department were impressed with my "group". It looks as though all of my years of practice, practice, practice paid off. Even though it was pure instinctive shooting, my bullet placement was perfect with nary a single flyer...
With that said, I say; I should have had a good group, it was like only 10 feet away! Well within the FBI's argument that most shootings occur within 7 yards.
 
Hal - I certainly wasn't addressing your situation. In my opinion you are a hero, you are courageous, and I hope I have your fortitude to come out ahead if faced with a similar situation.

While reading your story, I was hoping for more penetration as well. I was damning the solid brick wall. ;)
 
"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."

Yeah, in today's army soldiers are more likely to thrown down suppressive email.
 
BTW... Thanks to all of you for the chance to share our experience, and I appreciate everyones civility, it can be a rather touchy subject.

For what it's worth, I think there are very few situations that "suppressive fire" is called for in civilian situations. But I have to admit, there are some, even if we can't think of one. They do exist.
One must be able to adapt with covariant solutions to survive.
 
The only example I can think of where civilians have ever had to provide suppressive fire is during the Texas Tower incident.

Police got a number of civilians armed with hunting rifles to fire on the tower where Charles Whitman was holed up, which allowed them to get inside the building and end the incident.
 
Ditto what Glenn said. I have seen several shows on the event and can't recall the police organizing with civilians either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top