Gunfight Article and Stick

CommoGeek · 01-04-2005, 05:02

http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics_t...ght/index.html

The article brought up some points we've seen before: hits count, not caliber and those that are trained for the fight usually win it. I thought his comments on the front sights of revolvers vs. autos to be... different as well as his point shooting comments.

Since this is in a major publication I thought I'd throw it out here to chew on.

Thoughts on the article? (with the obligatory

)

G · 01-05-2005, 00:16

Excellent article for it's intended audience.

Found the section on sights very interesting. Will be trying some day-glo yellow tape on my front sight soonest!

I am involved with the training of a large group of people for such encounters in an environment where 99.99% of them will hopefully never experience such an encounter, and often wonder how they will react if / when the time comes...

I believe there is only so much that DT, dry work, range time, scenario and force on force training that I can give 'em. Hope they are never tested!

As an aside, two of my troops were holidaying in Thailand and escaped the tsunami through (what I think) is the enhanced sense of self preservation that comes with such training.

We constantly hammer our people to "trust your gut" and "if you think something is wrong, the worst thing you can do is nothing".

The two were leaving an island on a longboat bound for Phi Phi island when the tide went out from under them leaving them on the seabed. They were pushing the boat out toward open water wondering what the hell had just happened when they noticed a white haze heading at them from a distance. While others stood and watched, my guys shouted "run", grabbed their backpacks and hightailed it back to the island. They had no real idea what they were running from, but "felt" that things weren't normal.

The water did catch up with them, but they had made it far enough inland to be able to stay on the feet while the water washed around them, and were then able to return and help rescue survivors.

Many who did not heed their call to run are no longer around.

I'd like to think that our training had something to do with their survival.

Take Care...

G

NousDefionsDoc · 01-08-2005, 15:24

You should post the article and the study mentioned if you can find it. The link will eventually be OBE.

**Team Sergeant** · 01-08-2005, 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommoGeek

http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics_t...ght/index.html

The article brought up some points we've seen before: hits count, not caliber and those that are trained for the fight usually win it. I thought his comments on the front sights of revolvers vs. autos to be... different as well as his point shooting comments.

Since this is in a major publication I thought I'd throw it out here to chew on.

Thoughts on the article? (with the obligatory

)

If you want input make your point. I do not read civilian mag's to learn how to fight.

"and those that are trained for the fight usually win it."

So what do you say about the 100 police officers pinned down by 2 guys with AK's ??? Were they not trained? Did the ones that survived the engagement really "win"?

Let me put it another way, how long do you think the bad men with AK's would have lasted in front of same number of soldiers armed with just pistols? Against SF types (with just pistols)? Would the possible outcome be solely based on our training or might our "mindset" come into play?

Team Sergeant

BTW I'm not placing fault with our police, I am however pointing out that it's not just tactics or weapons that win fights, it's the mindset.
(Some of my best friends are LEO's.)

CommoGeek · 01-08-2005, 17:11

TS,
I thought it condensed several threads we've seen around here before while adding a different, not necessarily "right" position, on some things.

It would be a minor understatement to say that you have many more years and rounds doing this for real than I. I don't think, at least I didn't take it as such, that the author intended to slam police in the example/ illustration that you cited. Rather I thought it was directed at the masses, a few of which read this board.

I do agree that a LOT goes into winning a gunfight, to include a measure of luck now and then. Most people that I know that own a weapon don't think about using the pistol/ shotgun/ rifle except to hunt or target practice. For them I'd say they need to learn a better mindset than the "plinking on the range" thoughts that they have.

My apologies if I came off..... "clownish" for lack of a better description.

Smokin Joe · 01-09-2005, 03:31

FYI Dave Spaulding (the Author of that Article) is a LEO or Retired LEO.

TS,

I whole heartly agree with what you are saying. I believe the biggest problem that plagues LEO's in a gunfight is there mindset and there training. All academy's (that I know of) teach the 1970's mindset of create distance and time blah, blah, blah and most Agencies will not teach a 'close with and kill mentality' or even let that type of training enter into there circullum. That's saved for the SWAT Cops

. To me that is NEGATIVE TRAINING. Because they set a precadent of only letting there "Special Cops" get the training that will truely save there life.

I thinks this is derived from an adminstrative level mindset. Police Admins don't look at situations, calculate losses in there planing phase, then go foward with the best plan Columbine comes to mind here. On that note the only good thing to come out of Columbine is it forced LEO Admins to teach or atleast provide some training in seeking out and ellimating the threat. Basically LEO's Admins don't except or plan on taking losses, so they don't plan on or accept to take losses. If they do they pretty much just shit themselves. Bottom line there is no "Acceptable Loss" when in comes to LEO gunfights. Where as the Military calculates losses and moves forward on accepting projected losses provided the plan is sound.

Wooow sorry for the rambling its late I've had way too much coffee and am working a double. Hope all that jibberish makes sense tomorrow.

**Team Sergeant** · 01-09-2005, 10:42

If a person straps a gun to his or her side with the intent (or possibility) of shooting another human being then he (or she) should have the requisite training to perform such an act in the proper manner.

It is wrong to train someone with just enough information to be dangerous. Both the military and the civilian law enforcement are guilty of the above.

In my travels I have witnessed those I thought were good at their jobs and others I would not allow to be mall security. The difference between the two is usually a personal decision to become better than the “masses”. We all know people that fit into this category, they’re the ones that shoot/train on their own time and seek out instructors with the proper qualifications and mindset. They take responsibility for their actions and understand the grave burden placed on their shoulders such as defending the masses.

Again techniques, tactics and procedures are not worth a hill of beans if one does not possess the mindset required to win. I’m not talking about taking on a bad guy holding a hostage and shooting said bad guy at 100 yards from cover and concealment, or 300 Marines destroying a building with all sorts of military firepower. I’m talking of the one on one situation, or the 20 to one situation where surrender is not an option. Ones mindset coupled with proper training is the only factor that will “win the day” in those situations.

I’d write more by I know that my words might/will be read by the bad people of this world and I do not wish to give gunfight lessons online. I’d much rather instruct the law enforcement officers and military in person and ensure that they possess the proper techniques, tactics and procedures to “win the day”.

Team Sergeant

FYI, you may ask yourself “Who trained the Team Sergeant?” I’ll answer that for you, some of them are on this board, they are the Special Forces SOG,Vietnam Veterans and Senior Special Forces Officers and NCO’s. If you want that type of training then I would suggest a chat with your local recruiter. Just remember, while many try, most will not earn the Green Beret.
De Oppresso Liber

Smokin Joe · 01-09-2005, 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

If a person straps a gun to his or her side with the intent (or possibility) of shooting another human being then he (or she) should have the requisite training to perform such an act in the proper manner.

It is wrong to train someone with just enough information to be dangerous. Both the military and the civilian law enforcement are guilty of the above.

In my travels I have witnessed those I thought were good at their jobs and others I would not allow to be mall security. The difference between the two is usually a personal decision to become better than the “masses”. We all know people that fit into this category, they’re the ones that shoot/train on their own time and seek out instructors with the proper qualifications and mindset. They take responsibility for their actions and understand the grave burden placed on their shoulders such as defending the masses.

Again techniques, tactics and procedures are not worth a hill of beans if one does not possess the mindset required to win. I’m not talking about taking on a bad guy holding a hostage and shooting said bad guy at 100 yards from cover and concealment, or 300 Marines destroying a building with all sorts of military firepower. I’m talking of the one on one situation, or the 20 to one situation where surrender is not an option. Ones mindset coupled with proper training is the only factor that will “win the day” in those situations.

I’d write more by I know that my words might/will be read by the bad people of this world and I do not wish to give gunfight lessons online. I’d much rather instruct the law enforcement officers and military in person and ensure that they possess the proper techniques, tactics and procedures to “win the day”.

Team Sergeant

FYI, you may ask yourself “Who trained the Team Sergeant?” I’ll answer that for you, some of them are on this board, they are the Special Forces SOG,Vietnam Veterans and Senior Special Forces Officers and NCO’s. If you want that type of training then I would suggest a chat with your local recruiter. Just remember, while many try, most will not earn the Green Beret.
De Oppresso Liber

Wanna run for Sheriff in 2008?

Maas · 01-09-2005, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

All academy's (that I know of) teach the 1970's mindset of create distance and time blah, blah, blah and most Agencies will not teach a 'close with and kill mentality' ...........On that note the only good thing to come out of Columbine is it forced LEO Admins to teach or at least provide some training in seeking out and eliminating the threat.

I was glad to see that was changed after Columbine. One team of shooters with the mindset of which TS spoke and authority to act, could have saved many lives.

**Team Sergeant** · 01-09-2005, 20:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maas

I was glad to see that was changed after Columbine. One team of shooters with the mindset of which TS spoke and authority to act, could have saved many lives.

"Active shooter" is the term now being used IIRC.
I'm also glad it is being taught.
TS
(And I also continue to enjoy teaching our nations LEO's and military.)

Smokin Joe · 01-09-2005, 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maas

I was glad to see that was changed after Columbine. One team of shooters with the mindset of which TS spoke and authority to act, could have saved many lives.

Maas the problem is that 85-90% of Cops are not being taught this on an individual level. Sure guys (general term) are getting Active Shooter training but it is not being applied on the 'individual' level. When individual officers get into a shootings (its scientifically proven) they will shrug there shoulders, crouch down, pull there gun, maybe shoot, maybe not and retreat from the threat. I have yet to hear or read of an LEO shooting (individual level) where the officers rushed the threat(s).

Training maybe getting done but its not enough because when the fit-hits-the-shan the training is not taking over. This tells me that officers are getting just enough training to be dangerous to themselves and others. However they are not recieving enough training to win gunfights.

Just my .02 cents From an LEO Firearms Insturctor Point of View.