Low Handgun Lethality Rates?

[BB57]

/...a large, heavy hunk of steel that you'd decide wasn't worth carrying inside of 2 hours. I was a Deputy Sheriff in a Texas from 1983 to 2000. Carrying a heavy, unwieldy duty weapon isn't even considered for numerous reasons.../

This is right on point.

I own several much more effective handguns, but I prefer to carry a Model 60 or a Kimber Micro, depending on the season and the clothing involved, because I shoot them both well and because can carry both of them comfortably from the time I get up to the time I go to bed - and thus always have them with me if needed. A lowly .380 on your person is infinitely more effective, than a 1911 or a .44 Magnum a few feet too far away to be able to use effectively.

Similarly, I see a number of posts in any given month where someone shows their "every day carry" and invariably includes a large frame automatic, two spare double stack magazines, a rather large knife, a tactical light, and various other tactical ****.

It sounds like a great idea, except all that stuff is heavy to carry and time consuming to put on. Consequently, it increases the odds that you may pass on carrying a handgun at all and not have it on you when you need it.

 

[Smoke]

Now, the to OP's original questions:

1) Most self defense shoots - about 95%- are over in 5 rounds or less in 5 seconds or less, so a high capacity magazine isn't normally needed. In fact the FBI studied 12 years of agency involved shoots and determined that 75% of them ended with 3 shots or less fired at ranges of 3 yards or less.

2) Where a spare magazine comes into play is 1) in the other 5% that may involve multiple assailants and or that may occur in low light and/or at longer engagement ranges - although the longer the range the harder it'll be to justify that deadly force was needed - and 2) in certain malfunctions where a simple tap, rack, bang won't clear it. In that case, dropping the magazine and clearing the action is generally the fasted way to resolve a malfunction and get your pistol back in the fight.

For that reason alone I always recommend a person carrying a semi-auto pistol always carry a spare magazine.

Carry two or three 15 round magazines? Nope. It's not necessary at all and is just (pardon the pun) overkill for a civilian concealed carry permit holder looking to defend him or her self. If you're an LEO walking into dark and scary places looking from trouble, then yes having 46 rounds with you might be prudent, and if you're dumb enough to do that without backup, you need what little prudent you have left.

3) All handgun calibers are inadequate when it comes to "stopping power". As noted in my previous post, you need a CNS or cardio pulmonary hit to get rapid incapacitation, regardless of what you are shooting. Built placement is king, and the shooter who can score the first critical hit will probably prevail. It takes speed, accuracy, and at least a minimum degree of penetration and all three are important.

4) Most LEOS are not "gun people" and most don't shoot more than they have to in order to qualify - and that may be as little as 50 rounds once or twice a year under conditions that don't generalize well to real world conditions. As a result hit percentages are in the 25% range in good light at 7 yards or less. In low light or at longer ranges the hit percentage falls to around 12-15%. Worse, those are not effective, incapacitating hits, those are just plain old hits that might not be enough to get the job done. And meanwhile all those misses are skipping around the neighborhood looking for innocent bystanders to tag.

5) About half the "stops" that are made in a gun fight are psychological stops where the shooter thinks "Damn..I've been shot! Getting shot sucks! I don't want to get shot any more!" and thus drops his or her weapon and surrenders, or just falls down. In those cases, all that's needed is a caliber large enough to make the assailant aware he or she has been shot. The .22LR and .25 ACP don't do that real well. Everything else pretty much has it covered. It's probably worth noting here that game animals don't react that way ever - it's fight or flight 24/7 and they expect no quarter to be given.

It sounds like you've really done your research here. Do you mind if I ask what your background is?

 

[Whitwabit]

I think much of the reason for the lower percent of lethal shots is simply shot placement ..

Hunting which it is being compared with is very much like standing in front of a target at the range ..

While shooting of a person your heart is racing you will hear it pounding in your ears .. you may very likely be moving to cover while firing rounds in the direction of your assailant ..

the very least you may be dodging what ever weapon is being used against you .. and you will be very scared !!

Can see how someone even a good shot under those conditions could miss or their shots be in the outer extremities ..

 

[alwaysoutdoors]

9mm is sufficient in trained hands.

 

[Hand Cannon]

Training and reaction

We do not need to guess, or make assumptions about how you will react in a deadly force encounter. You will do exactly what you were trained to do. There are so many examples of this principle in law enforcement that the principle is not, and can not, be questioned. Just recently an LEO emptied his duty gun at a perpetrator, missing all of his shots. He quickly checked to see if his firearm was empty then he handed it to the perpetrator. Quite obviously during qualifications, when the LEO's were finished with a string of fire they had to hand their EMPTY firearm to one of the range masters who insured the weapon was indeed useless. Just as obviously the only time that particular LEO shot his duty weapon was during qualification. There are many videos from police cameras demonstrating that when the SHTF, the officer is going to react in the manner he was trained to do. As a whole I believe non-LEOs are better marksmen than LEOs. Civilians, or non-LEOs, should train themselves to react with a firearm as well. If you do not train, when the big moment comes you will do exactly as you trained; if you do not/did not train for that circumstance in general then that's what you'll do - NOTHING - and you will likely be shot without having even presented your carry gun.

 

[Muss Muggins]

. . . Just recently an LEO emptied his duty gun at a perpetrator, missing all of his shots. He quickly checked to see if his firearm was empty then he handed it to the perpetrator. Quite obviously during qualifications, when the LEO's were finished with a string of fire they had to hand their EMPTY firearm to one of the range masters who insured the weapon was indeed useless. . . .

I call that which makes grass green and fragrant. Provide a link to the news or at least location of the incident . . .

 

[keith44spl]

I carry a sidearm daily.

If I'm expecting trouble, or looking for trouble (warrant service)
I carry a rifle. A handgun is a convenient defensive tool.....


*I'm also a handgun hunter....
It's a totally different thing from the defensive use of same.


.

 

[crazyphil]

We all have heard about Jim Cirillo's experience with lethality. The
Stake Out Unit was involved in 252 gunfights. Jim personally put
down up to 19 bad guys. He said he only saw 2 one-shot-stops and both
shots were to the brain. He said even accurate heart shots were not instant
stoppers. Another veteran of 14 gunfights, Bob Stasch, a Chicago Police
Sergeant, said he had only experienced 1 one-shot-stop.
I believe in learning from those who have seen the elephant, not from
all of our internet commandos. The objective of my practice is to get
the gun out, point and shoot in less than a half second, consistently
making accurate head shots on moving targets from arms length up to
7 yards. If you can do that the .357 is adequate. It's not the gun or
the caliber so much as the man, his training, and his practice.

 

[Arik]

We all have heard about Jim Cirillo's experience with lethality. The
Stake Out Unit was involved in 252 gunfights. Jim personally put down up to 19 bad guys. He said he only saw 2 one-shot-stops and both shots
were to the brain. He said even accurate heart shots were not instant
stoppers. Another veteran of 14 gunfights, Bob Stasch, a Chicago Police
Sergeant, said he had only experienced 1 one-shot-stop.
I believe in learning from those who have seen the elephant, not from
all of our internet commandos. The objective of my practice is to get
the gun out, point and shoot in less than a half second, consistently
making accurate head shots on moving targets from arms length up to
7 yards. If you can do that the .357 is adequate. It's not the gun or
the caliber so much as the man, his training, and his practice.

One gun fight Jim had to put 3 rounds of 00 buck into the guys chest at close range before he stopped fighting. 1st shell was at hand distance. .....the guy stumbled backwards, regained his footing and charged. Second shell made him think twice and he turned to run. Jims partner shot him with a 38spl in the hip and the guy fell on his stomach, dropping his gun. Jim walked over to him with the shotgun pointed. The guy grabbed his gun and turned to fire when Jim shot another shell of 00 buck shot unto his chest (3 chest hits at close range). That third time the bad guy was done

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[BB57]

We do not need to guess, or make assumptions about how you will react in a deadly force encounter. You will do exactly what you were trained to do. There are so many examples of this principle in law enforcement that the principle is not, and can not, be questioned.../

/...There are many videos from police cameras demonstrating that when the SHTF, the officer is going to react in the manner he was trained to do.

The VA state police had an incident where a trooper involved in a traffic stop where the suspect stepped out of his car and began firing at the trooper. The trooper returned fire but experienced a malfunction. Per his training, he raised his hand and looked over his shoulder to get the attention of the range officer. Watching the video, at that moment the training cadre for the VA state police recognized they had a serious training problem.

as a whole I believe non-LEOs are better marksmen than LEOs. Civilians, or non-LEOs, should train themselves to react with a firearm as well. If you do not train, when the big moment comes you will do exactly as you trained; if you do not/did not train for that circumstance in general then that's what you'll do - NOTHING - and you will likely be shot without having even presented your carry gun.

LEOs are civilians, and I'm more or less opposed to the whole "us against them" mind set that can flow from LEOs calling citizens "civilians", but I agree with your basic premise, with some qualifications.

There are LEO who struggle with an annual or semi-annual qualification and never fire a round outside of what they need to qualify. And most LEOs are not "gun people" and don't shoot as a recreational activity.

However, I see many, many, monumentally bad recreational handgun shooters as well as concealed carry permit holders who shoot far less than those twice a year shooting police officers.

Where the armed citizen is far better than the average officer is when that armed citizen practices a lot, and shoots in tactical matches to cultivate skills that translate well to a self defense shoot. But I suspect that is less than 10% of all handgun shooters and less than 10% of all concealed carry permit holders.

In both cases, the potential to be a very good shooter is there, the person just has to decide that it is worth the time, money and effort.

 

[BB57]

/...He said even accurate heart shots were not instant stoppers.

That's not a surprise as it's the loss of blood pressure and relating loss of oxygenated blood to the brain that results in the loss of brain function that then results in the stop. You can call a cardio-pulmonary hit 'rapid' incapacitation, but you can't call it 'instant'.

Even if you hit the assailant in the upper chambers of the heart or sever the large arteries above the heart, the assailant will still have 10-15 seconds of usable consciousness left. The lower chambers of the heart are more muscular and are partially self sealing. A hit there can result in the person functioning for a longer period of time, and in rare cases people have even survived those shots.

Consistent with this, if you've got extensive hunting experience, you've also probably observed a deer run 50 yards or so after being shot in the heart. It's the same basic effect in action.

 

[BB57]

I usually don't comment on the mechanics of others. I'm a "you roll your way, I'll roll mine" kind of guy, but this is the goofiest advice I've heard in a while. EDIT: The part I quoted, as well as the rest of the post I didn't, displays a complete misunderstanding of the Glock platform. The poster would have us believe that no officer ever shot themselves in the leg before Glock. I watched Barney Fife do it about four times with a Colt revolver today on the Andy Griffith show reruns . . .

However you want to roll is fine with me.

But just so I understand you correctly, you're using Barney Fife and Mayberry RFD as source documentation?

Oookayyy....

I'll play along with that. Barney shot himself in the leg 4 times with a DA service revolver (I'll take your word on the number, you seem to be an ardent fan). Imagine how many times he'd have shot himself with a Glock with it's lighter and shorter trigger pull - unless of course Andy insisted Barney carry one with a 12 pound "Mayberry" trigger. (I like that better than "New York trigger" anyway.)

Let's then extend this to Barney conceal carrying a Glock without the benefit of a duty holster that allows him to reholster the Glock with less chance of an obstruction in the trigger guard. It would have been a weekly occurrence and they'd have called it "Fife leg" instead of "Glock Leg".

The Glock isn't a bad weapon, that's not the issue. The issue is that the operating system comes with some specific limitations that have to be recognized and respected. Safety with a Glock comes down to trigger discipline and protecting the trigger from any and all intruding objects as there is no additional safety net to mitigate any lapses that occur.

Concealed carrying a Glock poses some additional risks that have to be both honored and accommodated to avoid people shooting themselves in stressful situation. That requires both understanding and training, and those two have not always been present in the training people receive in handling a Glock.

 

[Hand Cannon]

Agreed

The VA state police had an incident where a trooper involved in a traffic stop where the suspect stepped out of his car and began firing at the trooper. The trooper returned fire but experienced a malfunction. Per his training, he raised his hand and looked over his shoulder to get the attention of the range officer. Watching the video, at that moment the training cadre for the VA state police recognized they had a serious training problem.


LEOs are civilians, and I'm more or less opposed to the whole "us against them" mind set that can flow from LEOs calling citizens "civilians", but I agree with your basic premise, with some qualifications.

There are LEO who struggle with an annual or semi-annual qualification and never fire a round outside of what they need to qualify. And most LEOs are not "gun people" and don't shoot as a recreational activity.

However, I see many, many, monumentally bad recreational handgun shooters as well as concealed carry permit holders who shoot far less than those twice a year shooting police officers.

Where the armed citizen is far better than the average officer is when that armed citizen practices a lot, and shoots in tactical matches to cultivate skills that translate well to a self defense shoot. But I suspect that is less than 10% of all handgun shooters and less than 10% of all concealed carry permit holders.

In both cases, the potential to be a very good shooter is there, the person just has to decide that it is worth the time, money and effort.

Don't disagree with anything you've posted. Yes, LEOs are civilians. I used the term to separate the two groups; LEOs & non-LEOs. However, while what you pointed out regarding the labels is true, there is a very real difference in how LEOs see the world, and non-LEOs when compared to John Q . Public's perceptions. There is a "us" and "them" mindset among LEOs...and the mindset only grows more pronounced the longer an LEO serves as an LEO.

 

[Hand Cannon]

Right

I call that which makes grass green and fragrant. Provide a link to the news or at least location of the incident . . .

Call it what you wish. It may influence other members of the forum, but, having been an LEO from 1983 to 2000, many of the in-service training sessions I attended included recitations of situations as outrageous as the one I posted. Enough so that the above situation doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Call it what you wish. It may influence other members of the forum, but, having been an LEO from 1983 to 2000, many of the in-service training sessions I attended included recitations of situations as outrageous as the one I posted. Enough so that the above situation doesn't surprise me in the least.

And absent a video, news article, or police report, I have found LEO inservice training anecdotes to be oftentimes the subject of a Snopes article . . .

 

[ContinentalOp]

The VA state police had an incident where a trooper involved in a traffic stop where the suspect stepped out of his car and began firing at the trooper. The trooper returned fire but experienced a malfunction. Per his training, he raised his hand and looked over his shoulder to get the attention of the range officer. Watching the video, at that moment the training cadre for the VA state police recognized they had a serious training problem.

Don't forget the Newhall incident.

 

[Protected One]

The VA state police had an incident where a trooper involved in a traffic stop where the suspect stepped out of his car and began firing at the trooper. The trooper returned fire but experienced a malfunction. Per his training, he raised his hand and looked over his shoulder to get the attention of the range officer. Watching the video, at that moment the training cadre for the VA state police recognized they had a serious training problem.

That's what I would call INCOMPLETE training, AND, being mentally detached from the situation at hand.

If that Trooper was trained (sufficiently) on how to clear the various malfunctions that can (and do) occur with handguns, then his job is to PRACTICE them until they become second nature. And you better believe that if I had a job where my very life could depend on me doing so....I WOULD DO IT! The fact that he raised his hand and looked over his should for the "non-existent" range officer tells me that he was not clearly trained on how to handle malfunctions.

The mental detachment from his situation?....that's on HIM!

 

[tops]

Consistent with this, if you've got extensive hunting experience, you've also probably observed a deer run 50 yards or so after being shot in the heart. It's the same basic effect in action.

I have heard people talk about shooting a deer in the heart and he dropped DRT. I'm sure it wasn't a heart shot. The only time I have dropped deer when I shot was a brain or spine shot and I expect that is what it takes to drop a person. Larry

 

[rwsmith]

I doubt it....

A rifle is the better killer. Handguns are portable and quick handling. Given that hangun hunters mostly lean toward .44 magnums, Center Contenders, Blackhawks, Colt Woodsman, XP-100s, Ruger Mark III, Magnum Research .45/70, Many long barreled .22s. .44 Causul, .500 Linebaugh it seems that most hunting with pistols is done with either big bore or pistol/rifle hybrids in small caliber.

You can shoot game with a .38 snub IF THAT IS APPROPRIATE for the animal you are hunting. Also, the construction of the bullet probably counts more than caliber.

All that said, I'd be leery about shooting anything in a hunting situation (range, angle, visibility, etc.) anything like a hog with a 9mm defensive type gun. Just sounds like a recipe for having a wounded animal running off in the brush.

 

[Wise_A]

I agree with you to a point - right ump until the word "Glock".

Shooters revert to their lowest level of mastered training when under stress, so sufficient mastery is important.

The 1911 and Browning Hi Power (as examples os SA pistols with a manual safety) were designed to be carried in Condition 1 (cocked and locked with a round in the chamber.

Heh, I am somewhat well-versed in the 1911. My Springfield is one of my favorite pistols--it's used in bullseye competition with a Nelson Custom conversion, and in .45 guise to spray lead at steel. I'm pretty nifty at snicking off that little thumb safety in the same motion that my finger finds the trigger.

It actually wasn't what I was thinking of when I thought of over-complicated pistols. The manual safety is nicely-placed for most people. Mostly Sigs and Berettas and that sort of thing.

For instance, I recently RSO'd a CCW course where one of my shooters carried a neat little DA Beretta. He was reasonably competent with it--good finger control, knew how to holster/unholster, and even hit the target with it. However, with the grip he naturally assumed, he could not reach the manual safety with his thumb, on the pistol he intended to carry for self-defense.

He went pale when I suggested to him that his left hand may be busy fending off punches or kicks or a baseball bat or a knife, and that maybe that Beretta, while a fine pistol, may not be the best choice for him.

Not to mention any specific pistols, but "Glock Leg" is used to describe the results of what happens when a poorly trained officer gets excited.

Agreed, but you can do that with any pistol. Even a New York trigger is easy to trip when you shove it in your holster with your whole arm.

I was always trained to have my finger off the trigger until I'm ready to shoot. Not "on-target", but shoot. So even if one were aiming a weapon at a living-but-not-imminent threat, the finger would be off. Otherwise, you risk gradually increasing trigger pressure under stress until you ND.

Same deal with manual safeties of any sort, I believe. If you rely on the manual safety, you risk leaving it off.

And frankly, I'd much rather take the risk of failing to do the thing that's been etched into me (finger discipline), than take the risk of having a brain fart and forgetting to snick off that safety when some enraged thug is trying to smash my skull open on the sidewalk.

It adds a whole new level of risk and training to mitigate that risk when you decide to conceal carry a Glock. You're now re-holstering it in an IWB holsters where intruding clothing, zipper pulls, jacket cord fobs, etc can all create an obstruction, as can a poorly designed soft leather holster.

If you're going to conceal carry a Glock (or similar design) use a holster with a belt clip, so that the whole holster can be easily removed to allow you to insert the pistol in the holster out in front of you where you can see it and keep it pointed in a safer direction - then re-insert the holster and pistol in your waistband as a unit with the trigger fully protected by the holster.

Agreed. That's just IWB and Pocket Holster 101.

PS--I agree with your second post as well.

Reholstering is something that really shouldn't be an issue with CC guns.

I disagree. Reholstering after a fight is important. Let me illustrate.

I've just been engaged in a deadly encounter, which I've won, and a man is lying dead on the ground.

LEOs respond to a call of "shots fired". That's all they know. They arrive, and find one subject on the ground, and another standing over him holding a pistol.

Given the information they have, they must treat me as an armed assailant, no matter how law-abiding I may look.

Option #2: I take my gun, and place it on the ground. Now I'm unarmed, I don't have control over my weapon (any passerby can scoop it up), or worse, my "dead" aggressor can come-to, snatch it and shoot me.

Option #3: I safely re-holster, call 911, and properly inform the LEOs of that fact.

That's what I would call INCOMPLETE training, AND, being mentally detached from the situation at hand.

If that Trooper was trained (sufficiently) on how to clear the various malfunctions that can (and do) occur with handguns, then his job is to PRACTICE them until they become second nature. And you better believe that if I had a job where my very life could depend on me doing so....I WOULD DO IT!

I used to be slow clearing double-feeds.

One day, I found that a couple boxes of .45s I'd whipped up had a nasty tendency to double-feed every second or third round.

Instead of tossing them to the 625, I shoved them down the gullet of my Springfield, point-shooting from a holster, reloading off my belt, and so on.

I'm not slow at double-feeds anymore.

The legendary effectiveness of the .357 is just that: legend.

Also, most departments weren't using .357s, they were using .38 Specials. In fact, most urban departments prohibited officers from using .357 Magnums due to overpenetration.

Check out what the LAPD issued to its officers well into the 1980s:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1961-1980/189821-onion-field-lapd-k-38s.html