17 MOST IMPORTANT GUNFIGHT STATS: BACKED BY DATA AND REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE

[Defaultmp3]

True; there's no such thing as a guaranteed anything.

BUT, IMO the lessons learned from the last 35 years of Peace Officer involved shootings have completely missed the point in replacing basic marksmanship skills and fight-stopping, decisive power with volume of fire.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/pat...forcement.aspx

Refer to the above link.

In Miami, the agents would have had nowhere nearly the problem they did if they'd only had .357 Magnums in their Model 19s. Bill Jordan (not the Realtree one) intended the Combat Magnum to be shot in practice with .38 Specials and carried in the field with .357 Magnums. This poor penetration issue is what directly led to the Colt .38 Super and the Smith and Wesson .38-44 Heavy Duty back in the Depression. Peace officers "relearned" the lesson they learned back in the days of J. Edgar Hoover, and Frank Hamer: The 38 Special (and its virtual clone in the selfloader field the 9mm) is a fine target caliber, but lacks considerably in fight-ending power.

Columbine speaks to the need for immediate and decisive fight-stopping response, which the 9mm isn't capable of and the 40 is marginal at best at.

North Hollywood, basics, basics, basics. Train in the fundamentals; a .357 can be deadly out to several hundred yards. Ed McGivern, Major Wesson, and Elmer Keith demonstrated that in the Depression.

Mumbai I simply don't see as controlling in any way here, but the precept of immediate and fight-stopping power that can only be delivered by a heavy-caliber revolver in the hands of a man trained in its use is still a valuable one, Team of terrorists, shoot the one that looks to be in charge and the others will take cover long enough for reinforcements to get there. Again, immediate and decisive response.

Tactically, there is very little that can be done within 75-100 yards by a "police carbine" that can't be done by a heavy revolver. Is there place for modern so-called "practical" courses of fire? ABSOLUTELY; the defensive handgunner needs to be able to deliver immediate and decisive force on demand. BUT there's also place for the "obsolete" bullseye training too, the regulation 25 yard NRA target and an 8" gong (or man-sized silhouette) at 50 and 100 will do nicely. You have got to understand the basics before you move into advanced techniques.

[plain old dave]

On reading.

I completely agree, but different authors.

Sixguns By Keith

H***, I Was There by Elmer Keith

Keith grew up in the waning days of the Old West in Montana, studying with the men that SURVIVED the Old West. May not have been a gunfighter, but was one of the most accomplished handgunners that ever lived.

Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting by Ed McGivern

McGivern was literally the fastest handgun shot that ever lived. 5 shots in 4/6 of a second. Repeated several times. Several of his Guinness records have yet to be matched.

Most anything by Jeff Cooper

Enough said.

Most anything by Col. (or Major, the Senior) Charles Askins

Askins was the master tactician in the early days of the US Border Patrol, and led several award-winning pistol teams.

No Second Place Winner by Bill Jordan

Jordan was the generation after Askins and was the main mover behind the Smith and Wesson Combat Magnum, the handgun that later became the Model 19. The man could draw and hipshoot aspirins in under a second with a Combat Magnum. And was no slouch in the practical department either, having spent a career as a Border Patrol agent.

These gents figured out the art and science of going home alive every night in occupations where gunfights were a regular occurrence long before most posters here were even born. Col. Cooper made my maxim of immediate, decisive and fight-ending force much more succinct:

The purpose of shooting is hitting.

On Shots per gunfight:

NYPD GUNFIGHT STATISTICS 1990-2000
NYPD SOP-9
YEAR HIT PROBABILITY SHOTS FIRED PER GUNFIGHT SHOTS FIRED PER OFFICER
1990 19% 8.2 4.4
1991 15% 5.9 3.7
1992 17% 7.7 3.6
1993 15% Unavailable Unavailable
1994 12% 9.3 4.4
1995 18% 12.5 6.2
1996 14% 11.1 6.1
1997 10% 10.6 5.3
1998 25% 10.0 5.5
1999 13% 10.6 5.9
2000 9% 16.8 6.9

The perceptive reader will pick up the significant increase in the early 1990s, roughly when the revolver was replaced by the high-capacity automatic in most departments. IIRC the Knoxville PD replaced their Smith and Wesson Model 13s with Glocks in 1991, while I understand that many senior NYPD officers still carried revolvers til very recently. Also worthy of note is the marginal decrease in shots fired as the 1990s moved along, possibly due to improved training. The takeaway, though, is that on average MORE shots were fired after the advent of the high capacity automatic. A worthwhile questions is how many officers were engaged per fight? 2 per target seems reasonable up to 2000, while the 2000 states make 3 officers more plausible.

[T2C]

....................

[Kain]

True; there's no such thing as a guaranteed anything.

BUT, IMO the lessons learned from the last 35 years of Peace Officer involved shootings have completely missed the point in replacing basic marksmanship skills and fight-stopping, decisive power with volume of fire.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/pat...forcement.aspx

Refer to the above link.

In Miami, the agents would have had nowhere nearly the problem they did if they'd only had .357 Magnums in their Model 19s. Bill Jordan (not the Realtree one) intended the Combat Magnum to be shot in practice with .38 Specials and carried in the field with .357 Magnums. This poor penetration issue is what directly led to the Colt .38 Super and the Smith and Wesson .38-44 Heavy Duty back in the Depression. Peace officers "relearned" the lesson they learned back in the days of J. Edgar Hoover, and Frank Hamer: The 38 Special (and its virtual clone in the selfloader field the 9mm) is a fine target caliber, but lacks considerably in fight-ending power.

Columbine speaks to the need for immediate and decisive fight-stopping response, which the 9mm isn't capable of and the 40 is marginal at best at.

North Hollywood, basics, basics, basics. Train in the fundamentals; a .357 can be deadly out to several hundred yards. Ed McGivern, Major Wesson, and Elmer Keith demonstrated that in the Depression.

Mumbai I simply don't see as controlling in any way here, but the precept of immediate and fight-stopping power that can only be delivered by a heavy-caliber revolver in the hands of a man trained in its use is still a valuable one, Team of terrorists, shoot the one that looks to be in charge and the others will take cover long enough for reinforcements to get there. Again, immediate and decisive response.

Tactically, there is very little that can be done within 75-100 yards by a "police carbine" that can't be done by a heavy revolver. Is there place for modern so-called "practical" courses of fire? ABSOLUTELY; the defensive handgunner needs to be able to deliver immediate and decisive force on demand. BUT there's also place for the "obsolete" bullseye training too, the regulation 25 yard NRA target and an 8" gong (or man-sized silhouette) at 50 and 100 will do nicely. You have got to understand the basics before you move into advanced techniques.

You're getting wrapped around the caliber and the idea, or perhaps romance, that a revolver is going the make a difference because of caliber. There is no caliber that your average officer is going to be able to control that is going to be a reliable fight stopper, a full house .357 or .44 isn't the answer here. Most, honestly, have a hard time handling a .40 in my experience forget a .357 let alone a .44. And I am not even going to get started on the issue about training a combat reload on a revolver compared to an auto. Stopping power is a myth as was already pointed out. What does stop fights is rounds put on target and handguns are far from the easiest to shoot, this is where a carbine, like an AR, comes into play since shooting a shoulder fired weapon is a hell of a lot easier than a handgun and even the lowly 5.56 is going to be able to cause more disruption to a target than a .44 caliber bullet going down range. And as the old saying goes, a hit with a .22 is better than a near miss with a .50BMG.

You're trying to solve a software issue with hardware and that isn't going to help. What is needed here, in all honesty, isn't some miracle gun or caliber, what is needed is more training. Most officers and people for that matter can't shoot to the accuracy potential of their sidearm and ammo combination. What has also not helped matter is the lack of precision emphasis. I have met people who claim to be trainers who will adamantly argue that there is no need to train before 8 feet because 80% of shootings never exceed that. What about the other 20%? One asks. "Well statistically you won't ever had to shoot beyond that so don't worry about it." The hell!!?

Also, I'd make the point that one may wish to consider that the average number of rounds discharged in a shooting according to info in this thread is 3.59 rounds currently when it was previously 2.something rounds. So lets for the sake of argument say it was 2.25 since that is a nice round number. So assuming the average officer back in the day carried a six shot revolver, and assuming they had it loaded with six rounds and didn't have an empty chamber under the hammer they discharged 37.5% of the ammo in the gun. If we assume the average officer is carrying a .40 glock with 15 in the mag and one in the chamber we are now down to 22.5% of the ammo in the gun. So the argument can be made that with more rounds, yes officers are firing more rounds, but still, per percentage here, discharging a less percentage of ammo in their gun. This is also assuming, per the source that the 3.59 rounds discharged was solely on the side of the officer and not total from both sides, at which point we don't know if the officer or the threat are the ones emptying mags.

In short, I would not get wrapped around the idea that we need more stopping power. I'd get wrapped around that we need more training and higher levels of proficiency with a firearm, both sidearm and long arm and training to be able to engage at distances beyond the expected norm as well as training in being aware of their surroundings and tactics. A revolver is not going to solve this issues and in no way can you replace a carbine with a revolver and think you are going to get any amount of performance gain in regards to making hits on targets.

[plain old dave]

You're getting wrapped around the caliber and the idea, or perhaps romance, that a revolver is going the make a difference because of caliber. There is no caliber that your average officer is going to be able to control that is going to be a reliable fight stopper, a full house .357 or .44 isn't the answer here. Most, honestly, have a hard time handling a .40 in my experience forget a .357 let alone a .44.

Peace officers did just that for DECADES. The Wolf and Klaar .44 Third Model Hand Ejector Smith and Wesson was designed for lawmen, as was the .38-44 Heavy Duty. There are plenty of prewar 44 Specials that letter to Highway Patrols and other law enforcement agencies, as well as the vast majority of 38-44s. The .38-44 was the direct predecessor to the .357 Magnum, offering 1200+ fps MV from an ostensibly 38 Special. They were made on the large N frame as it was thought at the time that the medium K frame wouldn't take the sustained hammering from the high pressure 38-44 caliber, which made better power figures than some modern factory 357s.

And I am not even going to get started on the issue about training a combat reload on a revolver compared to an auto.

Again, immediate and decisive force. Stop the fight before you HAVE to reload. 3 and change is STILL less than six.

What does stop fights is rounds put on target and handguns are far from the easiest to shoot, this is where a carbine, like an AR, comes into play since shooting a shoulder fired weapon is a hell of a lot easier than a handgun and even the lowly 5.56 is going to be able to cause more disruption to a target than a .44 caliber bullet going down range.

The 223's lack of terminal effectiveness has been cussed and discussed for decades. A 240 grain bullet will always kill better than a 55-60 grain one. Anybody that says otherwise just hasn't studied physics.

You're trying to solve a software issue with hardware and that isn't going to help. What is needed here, in all honesty, isn't some miracle gun or caliber, what is needed is more training. Most officers and people for that matter can't shoot to the accuracy potential of their sidearm and ammo combination. What has also not helped matter is the lack of precision emphasis. I have met people who claim to be trainers who will adamantly argue that there is no need to train before 8 feet because 80% of shootings never exceed that. What about the other 20%? One asks. "Well statistically you won't ever had to shoot beyond that so don't worry about it." The hell!!?

That's what they did from c. 1985-1995. The Miami officers HAD .357s. All they needed was .357 Magnum ammunition, and train with the Model 19 the way Col. Jordan intended: Mostly with 38 Specials, and enough 357s to be familiar with the buck and roar. And be sure to have 357s in the cylinder when shooting for keeps. As the man said, the Combat Magnum was meant to be 'carried a lot and shot a little.'

Also, I'd make the point that one may wish to consider that the average number of rounds discharged in a shooting according to info in this thread is 3.59 rounds currently when it was previously 2.something rounds. So lets for the sake of argument say it was 2.25 since that is a nice round number. So assuming the average officer back in the day carried a six shot revolver, and assuming they had it loaded with six rounds and didn't have an empty chamber under the hammer

Just, stop. There is and never has been ANY reason to carry any DA revolver with the hammer on an empty chamber; every solid frame Smith and Wesson DA revolver ever made has a hammer retraction mechanism, and every Colt at least since the Police Positive has had a similar mechanism.

In short, I would not get wrapped around the idea that we need more stopping power. I'd get wrapped around that we need more training and higher levels of proficiency with a firearm, both sidearm and long arm and training to be able to engage at distances beyond the expected norm as well as training in being aware of their surroundings and tactics. A revolver is not going to solve this issues and in no way can you replace a carbine with a revolver and think you are going to get any amount of performance gain in regards to making hits on targets.

Just try it. Find a 6 1/2" Model 28 and see what can be done on a man-sized silhouette at 50 and 100 yards. I prefer 5 and never have understood why there are no 5" Model 28s, but that's beside the point. Or of you're really feeling sporty, a Model 24 or 1950 Military and Police in .44 Special and move out to 200 or 300 yards. I've done it at 425 with a .45 Colt and have witnesses. Once you know your gun and the holdover, long-range handgun shooting is a VERY diverting change in your training.

I think we're mostly in agreement; the change from the 357 to the 9mm was addressing a problem that SHOULD have been addressed through training.

[Wake27]

Reposting for relevance.

[Kain]

Peace officers did just that for DECADES. The Wolf and Klaar .44 Third Model Hand Ejector Smith and Wesson was designed for lawmen, as was the .38-44 Heavy Duty. There are plenty of prewar 44 Specials that letter to Highway Patrols and other law enforcement agencies, as well as the vast majority of 38-44s. The .38-44 was the direct predecessor to the .357 Magnum, offering 1200+ fps MV from an ostensibly 38 Special. They were made on the large N frame as it was thought at the time that the medium K frame wouldn't take the sustained hammering from the high pressure 38-44 caliber, which made better power figures than some modern factory 357s.



Again, immediate and decisive force. Stop the fight before you HAVE to reload. 3 and change is STILL less than six.






The 223's lack of terminal effectiveness has been cussed and discussed for decades. A 240 grain bullet will always kill better than a 55-60 grain one. Anybody that says otherwise just hasn't studied physics.




That's what they did from c. 1985-1995. The Miami officers HAD .357s. All they needed was .357 Magnum ammunition, and train with the Model 19 the way Col. Jordan intended: Mostly with 38 Specials, and enough 357s to be familiar with the buck and roar. And be sure to have 357s in the cylinder when shooting for keeps. As the man said, the Combat Magnum was meant to be 'carried a lot and shot a little.'




Just, stop. There is and never has been ANY reason to carry any DA revolver with the hammer on an empty chamber; every solid frame Smith and Wesson DA revolver ever made has a hammer retraction mechanism, and every Colt at least since the Police Positive has had a similar mechanism.





Just try it. Find a 6 1/2" Model 28 and see what can be done on a man-sized silhouette at 50 and 100 yards. I prefer 5 and never have understood why there are no 5" Model 28s, but that's beside the point. Or of you're really feeling sporty, a Model 24 or 1950 Military and Police in .44 Special and move out to 200 or 300 yards. I've done it at 425 with a .45 Colt and have witnesses. Once you know your gun and the holdover, long-range handgun shooting is a VERY diverting change in your training.

I think we're mostly in agreement; the change from the 357 to the 9mm was addressing a problem that SHOULD have been addressed through training.

Dude you're wrapped around this revolver thing, and no we are not agreeing that cops should still be carrying a .357. training, 100%, but I'll take a Glock or Beretta 9mm with a weapon light, and modern JHP over a six shot .357 for duty use for all kinds of reasons, but we will get to that. You have this idea that the revolver is still the acme of a defensive sidearm. It's past. You've got this idea that because was used to great affect 50 years ago. You're either ignoring, or not taking into account advances in technology and you're focusing on anecdotal evidence. You're assuming that the writers of the books you wish to quote would still advocate that today with modern technology. Yes, a .357 will get the job done, but so will a 147gr Golddot out of a Glock 17, it is shot placement, not some concept of stopping power, you want to stop a threat you put rounds on target in the areas that are going to affect that stop.

First, lets get this out of the way. For the most part, the era you're referencing here a .357 was considered adequate, because it was what was known, modern JHP technology didn't exist, and to a great extent semi automatics were not considered to be reliable enough for duty work. There was also the fact that for the most part revolvers were cheaper to get and have work than an autoloader, the reverse is true now, and that is one of the many reasons you'll not see them re-adopted because a revolver is going to be more expensive than something like a Glock which is the standard thesedays, like it not and I won't claim not to have issues with them, even though I have and do carry them, but they are cheaper. And modern tactics a weapon mounted light is damn near becoming mandatory for low light work, yes you can work around and use a handheld, but trust you me it is much easier to use one that is weapon mounted. You also had a mindset that was against change, people don't like changing to something new because of fear of the unknown, lack of understanding, ect. Again, technology has improved, modern JHP ammo performs at levels of consistency and to desired penetration levels that likely were not even thought of 20 years ago, let alone 40 or more. Also, my 9mm is throwing a round that is the same diameter as your .357.

As far as reloading goes, you're proving my point by assuming that you'll only need to engage a single threat just like other instructors assume you'll only every engage at X distance. You don't plan for the best, you prepare for the worst. What if you have to engage two targets, three, four? And if you have to reload it is going to be a hell of a lot slower than an automatic, especially if you have to do so injured. How fast can you reload your revolver singlehandily? Cuz I can reload my automatic pretty quick when I need to with one handed. If you don't think that is a concern then please go read the 1986 FBI shootout in Miami which is one of the reasons the FBI pushed for an automatic, and why many LE agencies began to adopt them. It also began the requirements for a defensive round that we use today.

As far your assertion on 5.56 terminal effectiveness.

Please go do some reading on ballistics because with that statement you don't understand how it works. Not in the least.

As far as the empty chamber, yes there are people who will insist that you need to carry on an empty chamber. Again, hold overs from a by gone era, much like a model 19 would be in modern police work. There is also people who tell you not to carry a live round in an automatic because it is unsafe or because the Israeli's don't. Which also brings me to the assertion that you can engage off hand targets at 50 and 100 yards, ect with a revolver. And yes you can. I can also do so with an automatic just fine. My beretta 92 is a personal favorite for hitting a target at 100 yards off hand. A friend used to have a Tokerev that off hand I was popping clay targets that were on the berm from 60-70 yards away. I can also do it with my carry gun a Glock 19. It's not the gun so much as it is the shooter and by christ most shooters and this goes double for cops DON'T PRACTICE, hell some I don't think even try. But, that said, if I am shooting at someone at 100 I'd rather be shooting their ass with a rifle than a pistol of any kind, not to say I won't practice because I do, because I prepare for everything I can.

So no, we are not fully agreeing on anything. Yes, there needs to be more training, but no, a .357 is not an advantage, not in this day an age, not with modern bullet designs, and modern tactics.

The tools are not what make the officer, the solider, the warrior. The tools change. It is the mindset that must remain the same. The mindset to fight, to kill if you need to, and to survive. You must also be willing to adapt, to understand new tools, new ways, and change as needed, otherwise you die, or you become irrelevant.

Again, as I said, a revolver can get the job done, but it is not the standard of today. It will still do the job, and even be effective in the hands of a person trained to use it. But, it has been superseded by progress just as the M1 Garand became obsolescent so has the revolver in mainline duty and combat work.

[plain old dave]

The problem is that Tupperware replaced skill.

On Revolvers:

They will reliably work with any ammunition. I have NEVER owned a selfloader I considered reliable enough for shooting for keeps. They ALL short-shuck, stovepipe, or hang shells up on the chamber. The revolver is easier to shoot well. No safety, magazines or "tap and rack." In 35 years of revolver shooting, I have had ONE cartridge revolver hang up. That was rectified by using a different powder.

As to the Masters, Keith, Askins Jr, and Jordan all lived into the plastic era. And all three were diehard revolver men. Iirc, Askins took the revolver side in a number of the "revolver vs. automatic" articles that ran regularly in the middle 80s. Col. Cooper preferred the Government Model and coined the term "crunchentinker" for the high capacity selfloader. He also famously quipped, "If you need more than seven shots, you're headed for a war, not a gunfight."

Low light conditions, point shooting. I cleaned the low light qual course the very first time I ever shot an M9 without the flashlight. Missed Expert by one point on the regular course, too.

The 357 does ballistic things that are battering 40 cal Tupperware to pieces.

As to multiple targets, at least in NYC they have multiple policemen shooting one target so that doesn't wash.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

[HeruMew]

We're beating a dead horse.

I told you your opinions wouldn't go without conflict Dave.

Haha.

So you guys can better understand Dave and his history, please refer to: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...ere&highlight=

That is all.

[T2C]

Whether you are armed with a revolver, semi-automatic, .380 ACP or .44 Magnum, integrating moving into your defensive plan is of paramount importance. Keep moving, keep breathing and keep thinking.