Handgunning 101

[Martial Warrior]

I put this post on another forum a few years back and it was well received. Thought I would share it here.

I've been in one uniform or another since 1985. Currently 20 years in my S.O. green. I've earned two firearm instructor ratings, one through the state and the other Israeli. I've been able to teach firearms to Police, military, corrections and E.P agents. So take my comments for whatever you think they're worth YMMV

As I see it, there are only a few considerations to self defense and handguns. In their order of importance, they are;

1. Weapon reliability
2. Shot placement
3. Penetration
4. Caliber/velocity/bullet weight/bullet design

I'd like to break these down.

Weapon reliability: Self explanatory really. If the gun doesn't go bang at the right time...every other point is moot. Run a few boxes of the type ammo you intend to use for defense through the gun to make sure it functions well [particularly if your using a semi].

Shot placement: Here is the crux of the matter. The round needs to hit something vital to produce as quick of an incapacitation as possible. This is where realistic training comes into the equation.

Now, for those unfamiliar with the world of handguns, there are some things you very much need to know about. Even with pinpoint shot placement, immediate incapacitation may not happen! In fact, don't expect it. Continue to fire for effect till the threat has stopped. Don't forget sound tactics, cover etc.

Point in fact; Sgt. Carlos Hathcock USMC. Many automatically know who I'm referring to here. SSGT Hathcock was a Marine sniper in 'Nam'. Let me go a step farther, Sgt. Hathcock was one of the best snipers EVER! Period. Remember Tom Barringer in the movie sniper shooting another sniper through the scope of his own rifle? Hathcock really did that, that's where they got it from. He was that good. He had a head shot with a .50 at 2500 yards.

Anyway, in the book Marine Sniper, one of his kills is discussed. The reader's digest version is that it took seven 'kill' shots from his Winchester 70 to put down a small framed VC. The first COM 'kill' shot not only didn't take the VC out, the VC pulled out a machete and charged Hathcock's position. Five more COM shots didn't even slow him down and the final shot was a head shot that finally did the job. So here is the picture to consider; one of the best snipers in the world, using a high powered rifle needed 7 'kill' shots to put down a small framed man.

Then there is the female LAPD officer shot through the heart with a .357 magnum who not only survived but returned fire with her 9mm killing her attacker.

Then there is the recent court house shooting in my agency. BJ did a wonderful job putting three shots (two heart and one liver) on the BG. But the BG was still able to complete his draw and fire one round that hit BJ in the shoulder mike.

Then there is the guy shot with one 22LR in the chest who collapses and dies on the spot.

Point is, shot placement is key....but there are some people that just don't have the good taste to go down immediately. Something to think about.

Penetration: Here is the topic of many hot threads. I'll put it out straight to you; the bullet needs to go deep enough to hit something important. It really is that simple. Rounds OFTEN need to go through something before hitting COM. Barriers could be a door or wall of course, but more often it is limbs. Think about it for a moment; a BG probably has his arms out in front of his/her body with some threatening object such as a gun, knife, club or fist. This obstructs him/her COM. A round would have to go through the arm first before hitting COM.

I have watched numerous BG's in the hospital after police action shootings. There was a common thread in many of them; the bullet(s) did not penetrate the arm or legs and hit something more vital. I once guarded a man shot 12 times, 6 arm and 6 leg on the same side. None of the rounds penetrated the limb. Only reason he was stopped is because the femur bone was shattered and he could no longer support his own weight.

Btw, we need to know about sectional density. All things being equal, a 115 9mm will penetrate as deep as a 185 .45. That is sectional density.

Now we get to the 'spirited' topics.

Caliber: I could get quite lengthy on this one, but I'll try not to. Cutting to the point, your caliber sucks. If you use a .38...it sucks. If you use a .45...it sucks. Sorry to burst any bubbles. I've had all the service calibers over the years, from .38 to .45. I started my career carrying a S&W M64 .38 Special. We carried 6 rounds and no speed loaders...that was it! That shows my age a bit.

I've talked with BG's that have been shot with just about everything including a 12g shotgun at short range. They each have tremendous successes and each have dismal failures. Each caliber has failures in direct proportion to the amount of people shot with it.

Having said that your caliber sucks, you need to still have confidence in it. That is a proper winning mindset. Confidence...not stupidity or cockiness. I love the .45. Not because it's any better...just because I like the round. So I like the .45, but can't abide by the idiot that spouts off about what an incredible 'man stopper' it is...because it isn't. I've guarded or talked to to many people shot with it that it didn't stop. No a .45 bash...again I like the caliber. But I also like 9mm. Seen them both do great and seen them both fail.

Velocity: Another great topic to argue about. Here's the deal; a bullet needs enough velocity to exit the barrel, move to the target and have the bullet do what it was designed to do. That's it. Any excess is only adding to your recoil and affecting to a degree follow up shots which are more important. The BG isn't going to notice the difference between 100 fps. It isn't going to knock him down. It isn’t' going to damage his organs in handgun ranges.

Bullets and guns: Rounds are the same as they've always been...in some regards. We still have a bullet, case, powder and a primer. In some other ways however, bullets have come 'a long way baby'!

20 years ago I would have told you a 147 9mm sucks. These days, I would have no problem using them in my off duty. They've come a long way. There was a time that you didn't dare use a HP in a pistol for fear of it jamming. Now it isn't really a concern.

Well I've rambled on long enough I suppose. These are just some things I've been thinking about based on my professional experience that I wanted to share with whomever cared to read it. Hopefully I didn't piss to many people off and maybe...just maybe someone can carry something useful away from my post.

Biggest point...stay safe.

 

[Martial Warrior]

Often times an inexperienced shooter (or simply someone new to shooting) will buy a gun, get some ammo, shoot it at the range once and then think they've got it down pretty good. Well, I'm going to throw a few things out for consideration. I'm not saying they are the 'only' way or the 'best' way, but I throw them out to get the mind working...

1. Do you ever practice with your reactionary hand? I don't say 'weak' hand as that is negative training. It is important to train with both hands individually because a situation may occur where your strong hand is unable to hold/fire the weapon. That hand may become injured or disabled. You may be busy holding/pushing/pulling a loved one to safety. You may be pinned into a location or laying on the strong side where the strong hand can't be utilized properly. Train with each hand.

2. If you carry a semi-auto, do you know the proper way to clear a jam? A stove pipe? A dud round?

3. If the gun becomes inoperative for any reason, do you know how to use it in close quarters combat? After all, it is a heavy piece of metal, perhaps with sharp edges...

4. Do you know how to rack a round one-handed should the reactionary hand be unable to assist? Have you ever racked it off your pants/belt/heel/stationary object?

5. Do you know how to load your gun with only one hand? Tip: find a method that doesn't use a piece of equipment like a holster that you may not be wearing at the wrong time, or is damaged and unusable or can't be utilized due to body position.

6. Do you know the firing angles in your own home should God forbid you have to use it against a violent attack? Have you every done some dry runs and/or drills with family members should it happen. Tip: not just with an attack, but in case of fire, tornado etc.

7. If you're injured (i.e. shot), do you have any type of first responder training to aid yourself (or loved one)? Tip: many drivers licenses (or similar sized object) make a great covering to a bleeding wound (particuarly a sucking chest wound) as it helps seal the wound and doesn't absorb blood. If your outside your home it is fairly likely you'll be carrying it with you or can gain access to something similiar.

8. Do you know the difference between cover and concealment? Tip: cover is something that will stop a bullet from hitting you. Preferably something that will not limit your visual of the threat.

9. Do you practice reloading drills with you gun so that it is a natural, fluid motion...even in a dim light environment?

10. Do you train in a dim light environment occassionally? Or any other 'uncomfortable' environment i.e. outside/rain/snow/heat/cold/dark/slippery/windy etc?

11. If you become injured are you going to curl up in a ball and give up or have you determined ahead of time that 'BY GOD I'M GOING TO SURVIVE AND WIN THIS SITUATION, PERIOD END OF STORY!

12. And lastly (for this post anyway), can you take another persons life if God forbid it was absolutely necessary to defend yourself or a loved one from great bodily harm or death? And do you know the laws in your state should you have to do so?

There are many great courses, books, sites and videos out there that cover the above and more. If you're new or inexperienced...great way to overcome that.

Stay safe.

 

[keith44spl]

SURVIVE AND WIN

Good Post!

Thanks.

Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[MSgt G]

Great post with some excellent points. Thanks for sharing.

 

[jeepjeepwhat]

Great post. This has to be my favorite quote from all of the material.


"Cutting to the point, your caliber sucks."

 

[MTKTM]

Thanks, Martial Warrior.

 

[Martial Warrior]

Thank you everyone. Here is a link that I found while doing a bit of net research for another thread here on the board. Thought it worth sharing here as well.

NYPD Article

Some things that jumped out at me;

From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an
armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than
15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34%
3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%
6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same
during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going
back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in
75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Contact to 10 feet ... 51%
10 feet to 20 feet .... 24%

Rapid Reloading

The average number of shots fired by individual officers in an armed
confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per
incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also
substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6
rounds per encounter were discharged.

The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not
a factor in any of the cases examined.

In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary
to continue the action.

In 6% of the total cases the officer reported reloading. These involved
cases of pursuit, barricaded persons, and other incidents where the action
was prolonged and the distance exceeded the 25 foot death zone.

Bullet Efficiency

During the period 1970 through 1979, the police inflicted 10 casualties for
every one suffered at the hands of their assailants.

In all of the cases investigated, one factor stood out as a proper measure of
bullet efficiency. It was not the size, shape, configuration, composition,
caliber, or velocity of the bullet.

Bullet placement was the cause of death or an injury that was serious enough
to end the confrontation.

 

[Frailer]

2. If you carry a semi-auto, do you know the proper way to clear a jam?...

This, more than anything else, stops me from carrying a semi-auto.

I do know how to conduct remedial action, but I don't know--and hope I never know--if I'd do it correctly under extreme stress. I've never had a malfunction under fire, and while I've never gone into "mental vapor lock" under stress, I've seen it first-hand. I don't *know* that I could clear a stovepipe, etc *instinctively*.

I'm fairly certain that if my gun didn't go bang my first response would be to pull the trigger again. As such, I stick to revolvers.

I'll add my voice to the "great post" chorus, BTW.

 

[Martial Warrior]

Thank you.

One of the things I always teach in my martial arts classes, as well as when I taught Academy/In-service firearms and D.T. classes is this;

We do not rise to the occassion, we sink to the level of our training.

That is of major importance. One of the examples was two officers responding to a 'stop-n-rob' store with a bad guy hidding in one of the isles. They split up and the one officer was surprised by the bad guy at the end of one of the isles. The officer disarmed the bad guy in text book fashion. He was smooth, fluid and would have made his D.T. instructor proud.

And then he handed the gun back to the bad guy!

Fortunately the partner arrived in time to shoot the bad guy before the shock wore off. Now was the officer an idiot? No, he was doing exactly what he was trained to do in that situation and under duress he reverted to his training. What was his training? Disarming a fellow officer who was playing the role of the bad guy and then handing the rubber gun back to him so he could do it again by rote. So, under duress he disarmed the bad guy just like he was taught and then handed the gun back.

We train our recruits a bit differently now.

Then there were the CHiPs that were killed in a shoot out in California back in the revolver days. Why did they die? It wasn't that they ran out of ammo. It wasn't that they couldn't speed load fast enough. It was becuase instead of speed loading when they ran the revolvers dry...they were picking up their spent brass in a tidy fashion and putting them in there pockects. Why? Because they had an anal retentive range instructor who insisted on a tidy range. So in training they shot their six, dumped the brass, picked up the brass and put it in there pockets and then reloaded.

We don't train that way any more. Tough lesson, but well learned.

Back in the day, if you were on the firing line and had a malfunction you raised your non-shooting hand for an instructor to clear the problem. Then we found out that in real life, under duress when a malfunction occurred the officer stopped and raised their hand...in a real shoot out. We don't do that anymore. We now train the officer (Deputy) to clear the problem themselves RIGHT NOW and get back into the fight. But I still see occassionally one of my fellow old-timers still raise a hand...

Under duress we revert to exactly how we train.

In our own training, we no longer double tap. Sometimes we shoot two rounds and cover. Sometimes three rounds and cover. Sometimes six rounds or more and cover. And sometimes we just cover. Were never in a hurry to reholster till the threat(s) have all been nuetralized and the scene is secure.

So unless you routinely train to clear malfunctions, under stress, in a non-hesitation and fluid manner you may find yourself behind the 8-ball.

There is just so much more to prudent self-defense than shooting at a range in pleasant conditions where you don't have to be in any particular hurry.

Here is a good drill:

Get several different types of firearms. Set them up with some type of malfunction using plastic safety rounds i.e. one has a stove pipe, another a dud round, another a double feed etc. Now without knowing which has what problem do a bunch of exercises so you're out of breath and then run to each at a full run. Then clear the jams of each while your buddies are screaming in your ear. This puts you under a bit of physical exersion and stress. See how you do and then try to improve it by training. That's just one simple and easy way to promote a bit of realism.

Using plastic saftey ammo, reload with the weak hand. Reload in the dark. Reload lying down or some odd position. Chamber without using your other hand i.e. use your belt, pants or other solid object to rack the slide.

In the Israeli Instructors Course, I had to pick up my partner in a fireman's carry, run backwards while drawing and chambering my Glock 17 off my belt and engaging multiple targets with live fire. Um...maybe hold off on that one

Just some tidbits.

 

[The Big D]

Spot on, Martial Warrior, even though I am not wholly in agreement with some of your points.

Noting you are relatively new to the Forum, please be aware that some who post herein don't believe in any kind of training/qualifications prior to carrying a gun. They are likely (hopefully) few in number but rather insistent that there is no need for training/quals of any sort.

Personally, I have carried a gun for more than half my life...30.5 years as a LEO and now almost 5 years pursuant to LEOSA. And my ongoing LEOSA quals involve many of the proper training criteria you cited.

Keep posting, MW; your input is well-presented and very useful.

Be safe.

 

[cp1969]

One of the reasons marksmanship is so poor is because few people know how to hit moving targets.

Most of the range training I see involves shooting at a cardboard cutout who is gracious enough just to stand there and let you shoot at him.

I saw a classic example of this in a pistol shoot at a club in which there was a 9" plate attached to a swinging pendulum. Although many did quite well with the stationary targets, very few could hit the swinging plate. If I remember right, the distance was 7 yards.

I learned far more about hitting things with a handgun from hunting rabbits with beagles, shooting at aerial targets, and rocks sliding along a frozen pond than I ever did in a range shooting at targets. I realize this is not practical for a lot of people to "train" in this fashion, but that is unfortunate because until you can hit moving targets, you are at a definite disadvantage.

About the only bright side is that your opponent probably can't hit a moving target, either, so don't stay put.

 

[Mule88]

Martial Warrior....great thread, thanx for sharing.

 

[USAF385]

The human body is an amazing thing. You could shoot 10 guys of similar build in the same spot with the same caliber from the same gun and get 10 different outcomes.

One of the reasons marksmanship is so poor is because few people know how to hit moving targets.

Most of the range training I see involves shooting at a cardboard cutout who is gracious enough just to stand there and let you shoot at him.

I have an uncle who used to set up a moving target using a model train. He got the idea straight from Home Alone where Kevin has a Michael Jordan cut out moving around the house on a train.

It wasn't the fastest moving target, but it worked.

 

[The Big D]

One very stressful training technique I recall from my LEO days involved the use of recorded radio transmissions and cruiser lights/sirens.

This was at the indoor range and with low light conditions. The strobes and radio broadcasts simulated real life scenarios. The broadcasts were emergency calls, "officer needs help" calls, and similar.

It was quite intense.

We also had outdoor training where we would be driving a cruiser (near the range) and dispatched to respond to an evolving situation. At least part of the time it was a "shoot" situation that commonly involved deployment of a shotgun (from the rack), firing with the shotgun from cruiser "cover," and then sprinting to various "cover/concealment" points whilst firing with a pistol at metal pop up targets. Reloads were, of course, part of the training. And not all of pop ups were "threats." I remember it to this day.

Be safe.

 

[4011]

I carried my old 686 for years. The dept. finally made the last two of us to go to the Glock 17. The first exercise where I had to reload in an exercise I put the Glock into my left hand and tried to dump the six out and reached for my speed loader. Our trainer fell out laughing. Needless to say he ran me thru that exercise several more times. Everyone needs to keep what this gentleman has written in the back of their mind. The best gun the best round is for the person who is carring it to decide. I'm comfortable with a 380 38 are a 9. I think I can put a round where it will count. Hope I never have to find out. Just my thoughts.

 

[WR Moore]

The stats quoted from NYPD are from years with serious flaws in the data collection. When ADs/NDs/UDs, suicides, euthanizing animals and other non-armed encounter situations were excluded, the stats per incident changed. Thanks to the NY ACLU, the shooting reports for NYPD are available on the ACLU website. The 3 second claim was always suspect, exactly who was timing it?

Revised stats:
One officer/one B(ad)G(uy/irl)-4.7 rounds per shooting incident.
Two officers/one BG- 6.2 rounds per shooting incident.

When the BG actually shoots:
One on one- 8.4 rounds per incident.
Two on one- 12+ rounds per incident.

Notes: except for the 4.7 rounds, the digit to the right of the decimal point is to the best of my recollection. I need to print the reports off in hard copy, but the fractions really aren't that big an issue.

BTW, I also wouldn't bet that 30 year old stats on reloading and other issues are relevant today.

Edit: OK, the latest and greatest NYPD Firearms Discharge Report available has had some format changes. In 2006, NYPD averaged 7.6 shots per officer/11.1 shots per incident in gunfights, 3.5 in other shootings vs human subjects/4.7 shots total [ you've seen this number before above!], 3.0 against dogs/3.8 shots total.

 

[Martial Warrior]

A few things need to be kept in mind with these, or any statistics; what was/is the the % of the 'to hit' on the first and subsequent shots (if any)?

This is a key element. The FBI did do a study, back in the 90's I believe that demonstrated that the first shot hit % went down as L.E. transitioned to semi-autos. From 78% first shot hit down to 49% first shot hit. Now, a couple of take home points here; This study took place during the intial transitional period of 10 'main stream' years. During that time, first shot hit % nationwide did drop. This doesn't mean semi-autos suck. It doesn't mean they are less accurate. It simply means that during the 10 year period of the study during the main stream transitional period that the first shot % went down. This is a training issue and one that probably has been addressed since the study for most agencies. But it begs the question...to what level has it been addressed? If the number of shots have gone up, why? Less effective ammo? A shot placement issue? Tougher bad guys (as in the wearing of armor or trustys of modern chemistry)?

When the BG shoots back (or starts first) I can see the number of total rounds going up with the plethora of semi-autos on the market as well as their probable lack of training with them.

But I would think that ammo effectiveness has gone up rather than down. I would like to think that shooting practices for officers has also gone up...but that is a subject for another conversation perhaps.

In 2006, NYPD averaged 7.6 shots per officer/11.1 shots per incident in gunfights

So I would question this stat, not from the perspective of whether or not it is correct. Rather...why was there an increase? Why were officers armed with revolvers more accurate than those armed with semi-autos in the 10 year survey? What has changed? What hasn't changed? Would an officer today that is armed with a revolver (off-duty or civilian as well) be 'out gunned'? And if so, what statistic shows this?

I think it all boils down to;

1. Having a quality firearm that functions reliably.
2. through 98. Shot placement.
99. Being confident in your weapon of choice.
100. Caliber, bullet weight, bullet type, number of rounds in the cylinder or magazine.

 

[Martial Warrior]

I need to add a point about holstering your weapon after the incident. Many years ago when I started, we would do our standard qualification at the 50 yard line and work our way towards the 3 yard line. The common (bad training) factor was to draw the weapon and fire X amount of rounds for that distance, do a quick 'cover' and reholster. It was bad training because the reholstering was part of the timed course. So the covering was a quick shake of the gun and then a race back to the holster.

Nowadays we shoot a different amount of rounds at various distances to the target...or targets. And the covering is not part of the timed course. Thus we stress that you never holster the weapon until you feel the situation has been completely resolved and the threat is no longer present. In our simunitions training the cover portion might be a few seconds to 15 minutes (awaiting back up from a place of cover). We never rush to get the gun back to the holster. We scan the area for additional threats and only holster when the situation is safe.

This keeps in mind that we will likely be under duress and reverting to our training. Thus it prompts us to continually be aware of our surroundings before, during and after an incident.

Again, just points to ponder.

 

[WR Moore]

So I would question this stat, not from the perspective of whether or not it is correct. Rather...why was there an increase? Why were officers armed with revolvers more accurate than those armed with semi-autos in the 10 year survey? What has changed? What hasn't changed?

The stat of 7.6 shots per officer, 11.1 shots per incident takes care of those incidents involving more than one officer.

Many of the old stats do not show officers with revolvers having a higher hit percentage. One of the old puzzles back in olden days was how NYPD could claim 2.7 rounds per encounter and later in the same report establish an overall hit percentage of 20%. Never made sense. Historically, the 20% was, overall, more an accurate level of competance, it also much more closely matches the 4.7 rounds per incident of the stats after all the "non armed encounter" incidents were separted out. Give or take a few percentage points, it appeared frequently in the reports of many agencies. Some highway patrols/state police did better.

I'm not familiar with the revolver vs semi report. [ Exactly how does one establish which wound track was the first round in any shootout beyond one round?] On the other hand, I'm very familiar with Bureau publications that could not be regarded as models of scientific objectivity. Does anyone in the real world actually regard the Miami Incident as "an ammunition failure"? I will conceed that many early transitional training programs left a lot to be desired. Also that the bureau may have been victims of 'wishful reporting' with regard to hit percentages with revolvers from departments loath to spend money/make change.

More legitimately, the ISP (Illinois) posted a hit percentage in the high 60 th percentile with their S&W 39s, far above their revolver achievements. It was felt that the double action first round, having a different trigger stroke than following rounds was frequently not a hit, but there was no concrete way to prove the issue. Quite frankly, increased hit percentage was one of the initial driving forces behind the switch to semi-autos. Increased training improved hit percentages with the TDA pistols, development of pistols having the same stroke all the time (while not being single action) have also helped.

 

[ab4ka]

outstanding post! I'd love to see this sticky'd.