For the Military Inclined

[sabredog]

Isn't this a contradiction of terms? Here in your own example, you have demonstrated the effect of being 'stopped' by being shot.

No. Not as the term is commonly used. What I refer to, and what any professional (or civilian so concerned) would consider to be the only true measure of "stopping power" is the ability of the shooter - not necessarily the gun. Shot placement and a penetrating round of whatever caliber you are proficient with. The fact that if you penetrate to the brain or heart and stop the threat thereby has a high duh factor.

It is not "stopping power" as in "the .45 has high stopping power and the 9mm doesn't" that you are referring to.

Back in the 1950's when the FBI agents carried 5-shot .38 caliber snubbed nosed revolvers, they were taught to shoot the 'Inverted T' ~ Two shot to the chest/abdomen and one to the head. The round fired at the head was not meant to kill, but merely 'incapacitate'.

Officers are still taught that method, which is often called the "Mozambique Drill". The reason for it, though, has more to do with the increased likelihood that a threat may have body armor than that the first two rounds won't have stopped him. We taught a two-shot minimum response to any lethal threat to also maximize the chance of neutralizing the threat...which is a good thing since in all of the officer involved shootings we had while I was there nobody ever finished with that third shot.

 

[mike wightman]

Even more interesting, imo, was the study released by US Army Ordnance in 1954 elucidated everyone about distances at which the average firefight took place ~ approximately 50 yards.

They based their findings on all battles American soldiers took part in ~ from the Revolutionary War, through the various Indian Wars, the Civil War, Boxer Rebellion, WW I and II, through the Korean Conflict.

It was This Study that Eugene Stoner based the creation of his AR-15 Combat Rifle (do not confuse with the current AR-15) chambered for the 5.56 x 45mm cartridge.

Riik O'Shae

A conclusion the German Army had come to 10 years earlier...

 

[Epee]

In truth the German military and several others came to that conclusion after WW1. Ever since the Swedes dragged warfare into the gunpowder era with the introduction of lightweight muskets, volley fire had been the order of the day. Bringing the most bullets on target involved lining everyone up and blazing away. Weapon's technology opened the distance between the line farther and farther (and increasing the need for individual marksmanship BTW) as everyone wished to out-range their enemies.

That form of warfare died in the trenches of WW1 as, first the French and then especially the Germans developed small unit tactics capitalizing on increases in individual firepower.

Peacetime economics and wartime production slowed the introduction of any general issue weapon that required special, non-standard ammo. This is why submachineguns were so popular in WW2; you got the short-range firepower using standard issue pistol ammo. Besides the German Sturmgehwehr the U.S. M1 Carbine was a step in a similar direction even if it was far less powerful and employed with a very different tactical purpose.

 

[McPerth]

One interesting item from the Korean War is that of those wounded, 92% were from fragments from artillery and mortar shells, or grenades, with 7.46% due to small arms fire. A substantial number of the Killed in Action were from small arms fire. Basically, if a soldier or Marine was hit by small arms fire, he had a pretty high chance of being killed. If hit by fragments, he was more likely to be wounded, rather than killed.

On a similar study made by the British for WWI (I've read from it in an S&T magazine, but I'm afraid I cannot give you exact references, sorry), there were similar results, but it also pointed that data was from hospital numbers, and that another possible conclusion was that you were more likely to reach hospital if wounded from artillery fire (and so easy to be rescued in the trenches) that by small arms (that usually indicated more close combat and more difficulty to evacuate wounded), and yet harder for bayonet wounds, that amounted (IIRC) less than 1% of the wounds treated in hoispital.

So, those numbers may show that small arms have greater initial lethality (as you seem to point) or that their increased letality is due to the delay to reach hospital (if they do at all), or even that, when not lethal, small arms wounds are lighter and are treated outside the hospital (at the unit's medical post).

 

[sabredog]

It could also be because the smalls arms fire causing the wound (which may include machinegun fire) is more or less aimed fire whereas artillery wounding is random. Soldiers are taught to aim for the chest - so the wounded who get evacuated are more likely to have wounds involving serious organs and not just muscle.

 

[Riik O'Shae]

It is not "stopping power" as in "the .45 has high stopping power and the 9mm doesn't" that you are referring to.

I was referring to your story as explained by you. Your officer was using a .40S&W to 'stop' the assailant from continuing their action (presenting an AK weapon) to the officer.

I didn't say nor imply anything about calibers.

Riik

 

[Riik O'Shae]

A conclusion the German Army had come to 10 years earlier...

Very interesting... That the Germans would study the same sources (American soldiers in combat starting with the Revolutionary War through the end of the Korean Conflict...) and come to exactly the same results...

Riik

 

[Riik O'Shae]

...which is a good thing since in all of the officer involved shootings we had while I was there nobody ever finished with that third shot.

Good fortune indeed since the perception that the assailants wearing body armour apparently never thought to actually wear body armour...

Riik

 

[mike wightman]

Very interesting... That the Germans would study the same sources (American soldiers in combat starting with the Revolutionary War through the end of the Korean Conflict...) and come to exactly the same results...

Riik

Score a pedant point

The germans came to the same conclusion based on their studies of their combat reports and data, but then you know that

 

[Riik O'Shae]

But while people are reading that, they should also read an article, “Lethality in Roleplaying Small Arms Systems” by Frank Chadwick, which appeared in Challenge 73. It analyses combat reports from the San Diego PD Border Crime Task Force and, as such, should be a closer match to non-military experience of combat. During five separate incidents (at close or point blank ranges), 29 of the 90 rounds fired by officers were hits. There were 32 hits in total ... 2 head and neck hits, 11 chest hits, 4 abdomen hits, and 15 limb hits. Only 1 of the head and neck hits and 1 of the chest hits were fatal.

Police accuracy is notorious for being highly inaccurate when compared to civilians involved in shootings. This is thought to be primarily due the lack of practice by police officers versus civilians.

Many officers only receive minimal ammunition (if any) during the year issued by their respective police agencies while many civilians obtain ammunition from stores or go so far as to reloading ammunition for practice.

I witnessed an event at NAS Anacostia in Washington, DC where a DC police officer (Sgt) came in to requalify for his department and the service weapon (S&W Model 10) had to be pried from his holster because his weapon had sweated into the holster due to it not being drawn (by his own admission) for more than 4 years.

On the other hand, smaller Police Departments located in rural areas tend to be excellent weapon experts because help may be 40+/- minutes away. You really are on your own. So these officers are more dilligent with their practise.

Riik

 

[aramis]

I witnessed an event at NAS Anacostia in Washington, DC where a DC police officer (Sgt) came in to requalify for his department and the service weapon (S&W Model 10) had to be pried from his holster because his weapon had sweated into the holster due to it not being drawn (by his own admission) for more than 4 years.

And a buddy of mine used to wonder why weapon inspections were held every shift....

In all seriousness, my local PD doesn't seem to be terribly good shots, but they're not bad. They requal annually, most go to the range monthly or more, and used to have weapon inspections at start of shift every day (and may still, but my data on that's 20 years old...).

 

[sabredog]

At my agency you qualified twice a year. Half the time spent during one of those times was at night. Qualifications were "cold", meaning that once everyone was present we all went out and shot the qualification round - then we had practice for the rest of the day. During practice you could shoot as many as 400-500 rounds through your gun. Only about a 5th of those drills involved precision target shooting - most were stress-fire shooting with movement and malfunction drills. Cover, casualty extraction, and room clearing with shoot-no shoot drills. We always finished up with some competition using dueling trees and timers, or elimination through precision single shots at progressively longer distances.

If you failed qualification you had to do some remediation with one of us instructors for an hour and then attempted to re-qualify. If you failed the second time you had a meeting with the sheriff and your commander, depending on how that went you might lose your job or end up being placed somewhere you couldn't carry a weapon if an opening was available. Depending on the sheriff at the time that may or may not have been pretty draconian (it was rare, but some people were taken off the road for failing consistently) but since it was pretty hard and fast policy it made sure everyone used their monthly-issued 50 practice rounds and used them.

More leeway was given to to the corrections people so long as they didn't have dual certification and could work the road, too. After we transitioned to AR's from MP5 carbines you had to pass the urban rifle qualification to carry the carbine. No misses are allowed or you fail - all rounds had to hit the box.

We have a dedicated armorer guy who is in charge of cleaning and servicing all of our issued weapons. You are required to have him check your weapon once every year, though after your weapon is cleaned at the range when qualifying we would go over everyone's weapons and check for wear and damage.

Some agencies in my area are not exactly as stringent about their firearms training, but most are pretty close.

 

[HG_B]

In all seriousness, my local PD doesn't seem to be terribly good shots, but they're not bad.

I live a huge city and the cops aren't even good enough shots to hit themselves if they wanted to.

 

[aramis]

I live a huge city and the cops aren't even good enough shots to hit themselves if they wanted to.

Well, my local PD tends to kill when they shoot. Many of them hunt for fun and/or food.

 

[HG_B]

Well, my local PD tends to kill when they shoot. Many of them hunt for fun and/or food.

Of course. Just how I grew up. If I can see it, it is already dead.

 

[Epee]

Part of the perception that "cops can't shoot" come from the situations in which these shootings occur; skewing statistics.

Cops generally don't get to pick the time or place for a gunfight whereas the bad guys do. The criminal has the initiative when it comes to gunplay, he can engage or not, depending on if he feels he has the advantage and that gunplay furthers his interests. Given that, if the crook is smart, or at least cunning, he will use surprise, concealment and engage at extremely close, almost muzzle contact, range.

The Cop, on the over hand, must react to the bad guy; not shooting when he flees, shooting at further ranges to protect others, firing only at an enemy he is required to alert beforehand ("Stop! This is the Police...) and generally not being able to close the range beyond that of his opponents perception before engaging.

I'm not claiming that every officer is a crack-shot, nor that there are not officers that can barely hit the water from a boat, but I would wager that, among the criminal element, there is even less profeciency. Police shooting stats have to be viewed with the realization that the officer is almost always engaging under the worst possible conditions.

 

[atpollard]

Someone once suggested that running wind sprints before practice shooting would improve field accuracy by getting you trained to shoot with adrenaline flowing and your heart pounding ... like it probably will be if your target is shooting back at you.

 

[Riik O'Shae]

At my agency you qualified twice a year. Half the time spent during one of those times was at night. Qualifications were "cold", meaning that once everyone was present we all went out and shot the qualification round - then we had practice for the rest of the day. During practice you could shoot as many as 400-500 rounds through your gun. Only about a 5th of those drills involved precision target shooting - most were stress-fire shooting with movement and malfunction drills. Cover, casualty extraction, and room clearing with shoot-no shoot drills. We always finished up with some competition using dueling trees and timers, or elimination through precision single shots at progressively longer distances.

Some agencies in my area are not exactly as stringent about their firearms training, but most are pretty close.

I'd be willing to bet that you belonged to a Federal agency. Many Police departments lack the (Public's) deep pockets to afford such extensive training and ammunition usage...

Riik

 

[Riik O'Shae]

Part of the perception that "cops can't shoot" come from the situations in which these shootings occur; skewing statistics.

Actually, the Public's perception as to the accuracy of Police Department's shooting ability is predicated primarily what is observed in actual Police Shootouts.

Take the shootout in NYC that occurred recently... One assailant, two policeman ~ distance approximately 10 feet. 16 rounds fired by both Policemen total/zero rounds by assailant ~ Results: one dead assailant, 9 bystanders wounded by missed rounds and shards of broken pottery. The assailant's weapon was caught in his bag and unable to fire.

This is just one of thousands of atypical shootouts between police and criminals.

Your comment 'among the criminal element, there is even less proficiency, is incorrect. Many criminals spend hours practising in their off times. This is witnessed by the ragged targets found near their home turf.

Riik

 

[far-trader]

Actually, the Public's perception as to the accuracy of Police Department's shooting ability is predicated primarily what is observed in actual Police Shootouts.

I think what is observed by way of highly publicized extreme cases, such as the one you used as an example. Not usual cases. Epee makes a far better point in my opinion.

Your comment 'among the criminal element, there is even less proficiency, is incorrect. Many criminals spend hours practising in their off times. This is witnessed by the ragged targets found near their home turf.

As evidenced by the numerous gang shootings, where these "marksmen" with surprise and overwhelming numbers manage to totally miss their intended target (another criminal) and spray the area with bullets, usually injuring or killing innocents. Yeah, real proficient.

And with that this thread is closed as it is broaching too close to politics for my taste and I'm not a fan of police bashing.