Bringing a handgun to a rifle fight.

DaisyCutter said:

I carry a Springfield TRP and I practice shooting at longer ranges just for the possibility of having to engage a shooter armed with a rifle. I sacrifice some capacity (OMG!) but I consistently hit a silhouette at 50 yards, and even land a couple rounds per mag at 100 yards. I never could develop that proficiency with a striker fired pistol.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't discount your abilities so easily, unless you have some legitimate handicap like an eyesight issue or the like. Consistent 100 yard hits on a silhouette target is well within the capabilities of a full or mid sized striker fire, even more so with a good 1911. Keep training!

SSN Vet said:

Any insight or thoughts on how these responding officers are so successful when they are apparently outgunned.

Click to expand...

I've watched the YT footage a few times of Dayton. It appears that the officer that has the concealment of the building corner, then the suv, and then approaches Connor Betts does have a long gun. It's not apparent whether it is a shotgun or rifle, but at the 1:01:02 mark of the CCTV, you can see the outline of a barrel, illuminated by the headlights of the car behind the suv.

I'm not trying to be smart here, but you've answered your own question:

SSN Vet said:

>A well trained officer with a side are trumps a video game trained opponent with a carbine.
>They are responding in numbers.
>Mass shooters run out of steam at the first sign of armed opposition .... either due to cowardice, a death wish or they just lose their stomach in the face of what they've done.
>The responding officers are "motivated and focused" where the BG is a troubled nut job wandering around looking for easy random targets.

Click to expand...

Just to break down the Dayton footage that is available:
Police respond in numbers to the gunman.
Their tactics and training far exceed the skills of a young man with a AR pistol, a beta c mag, a helmet, some sort of tactical vest, and a full backpack.
From the "patio" camera, there are at least three officers firing on the gunman (before the big guy with the shotgun walks in). From the "front" camera there are at least two officers - at least one of which is ready to approach from concealment and confront.
The gunman either doesn't see the officers on the building corner or is vainly attempting to escape the officers that have him pinched with no cover. The gunman doesn't even attempt to point his firearm at the officers on the building corner.
These lone wolf shooters have no escape plan; they have no help; in many cases they have no cover and no ultimate goal other than the destruction of themselves and innocent people.
The patio footage is a great example of officers who can shoot and move with a slide step and a tactical reload. Three of them all arrived at the corner, but quickly spread out to shoot, for both angle and to reduce the chance of friendly fire.
The skill set differential, the numbers, the situational awareness on the part of the officers (and lack thereof on the part of the shooter) is a huge difference that overcomes the firearms used.
This is why these situations are so much more than than just handgun vs rifle (or even AR vs Glock). The simple handgun vs rifle debate assumes equal skill sets, equal numbers, and equal positioning which is mostly untrue in situations like this.
The officers are better trained and have better positions. Strength in numbers, center of mass hits, and pinch point was the difference.

DaisyCutter said:

✓

In my younger days I had several foot pursuits I ended with a partially or completely missed Taser shot. They heard the little *pop* of the Taser deploying and they automatically fall down. It's totally mental.

Click to expand...

Had a guy we tried to bean bagged one night, officer missed. Suspects flops back, back arched, doing his best agonal breathing impression while screaming about "going to the light to see Momma." We almost didn't get him cuffed we were laughing so hard after a second. If they suspect had planned it, he totally could have evaded on foot while we tried to stop laughing.

bearcreek said:

I hadn't heard this. Do you have a link?

Click to expand...

It was reported on the news, which probably can't be trusted.

Another thought---a shooter facing an unarmed group has no need to take cover since no one is shooting back, and the desire to kill a fleeing crowd necessitates moving in order to maintain the assault. This presents a visible target to responding officers who courageously rushed into the fray with their handguns.
A rifleman who has taken cover represents a far more formidable target against pistols

One important point: in the vast majority of cases, the shooter has absolutely zero firefight experience. He has never seen someone shot for real, and has never been shot at. He has no idea how to control the adrenaline rush, no idea how to react in a non-video game environment.

Most of these guys must be really overwhelmed by the time they realize that there is no turning back, that lead is coming for them, that they're basically already dead.

John Joseph said:

The responding officers were able to defeat the perp's body armor with their handguns.
That also defies convention.

Click to expand...

Do we know where the rounds hit him? I'm thinking if the active shooter is wearing body armor, wouldn't a headshot take care of the problem?

Before we finish congratulating the officers in Dayton - all of us should reflect for a moment on the shooting in Dallas - where there was a very different outcome...

I'm no gunfighter - but did 22 years in police work - mostly on the street down here in south Florida during the cocaine cowboy years... I came to appreciate that most of our opponents were seriously disturbed individuals with little real training and almost no practical experience in the actual gunfighting arena - against someone that's shooting back at you.... The current training philosophy for "active shooters" (a phrase that did not exist when I was a kid in the sixties.... and the Texas tower shooter at the end of that decade was just an indicator of what was to come in later years...) greatly resembles counter ambush training where everyone is taught to immediately go on the offensive, rather than go to ground - since that's your best chance of survival.... in an ambush. An active shooter represents much the same problem - if you go into a defensive posture - the shooter gets to continue killing.... so it's critical that officers respond aggressively and actively seek him (or her) our before the body count gets any higher... My hat's off to the respoding officers in Dayton Ohio - they're a great example to every officer in the country ... Look back to the Dallas incident though - and an aggressive response only set the officers up to become casualties themselves since the shooter had height and concealment advantages that the officers weren't aware of until they came under fire....

There are certainly many veterans with very good skills and serious combat experience here in our country - thank heavens they rarely ever break bad and go after others -since the average officer might have training and discipline - but will never have a lot of gunfighting experience (with a few exceptions...). The same goes for highly skilled martial artists in our world - the vast majority of them will never even consider using their skills against innocents, thank heavens...

More to say about this sort of stuff - but not on a board that's open to the public... I am very pleased to note that departments large and small seem to be adapting to the challenges they face. Agencies (like my local Broward Sheriff's Office) that don't adapt and train up will find themselves in a very bad position if and when an incident like this occurs... Wait a minute - Parkland already did occur.... and the fall out from it continues to work it's way through that agency....

In a one-on-one dynamic engagement at close quarters, things like magazine capacity, max effective range, and "power" take a back seat to training, initiative, and decisive action. A response from a team doing all of these things makes them exponentially more effective.

John Joseph said:

It was reported on the news, which probably can't be trusted.

Click to expand...

That's for sure. Most reporters wouldn't know the difference between body armor and a Condor "combat
vest. For that matter, they wouldn't know the difference between "defeating" body armor and simply shooting around, under, over or between it.

Wouldn't tunnel vision and sound exclusion work equally while attacking? What is it Ayoob called this?

Start your shot placement in the upper thigh, groin area and work your way up. They won’t have armor on that low.
If you’re a hunter and you have learned to successfully kill you know that you don’t always have the shot you want. Anchor them and then finish them.

Well said... down here in paradise years ago (my era was 1973 to 1995) we began to encounter BGs on the street using not only body armor - but full police uniforms occasionally. If I suspected that I was dealing with body armor - my first shot would be about one or two inches under their belt buckle - and proceed from there if that didn't do the trick... At least that was the plan - but like most cops I only fired a single shot in my 22 years on the street - then spent six months in and out of court with an extended inquest and got to hear more lies in open court than I ever anticipated....

Most folks don't realize that policing rarely involves gunplay for the majority. That's why it's so critical to train up for that once in a lifetime moment when folks have been injured or killed and it's up to street cops to stop the shooter as soon as possible to prevent more bloodshed.

Casefull said:

Start your shot placement in the upper thigh, groin area and work your way up. They won’t have armor on that low.
If you’re a hunter and you have learned to successfully kill you know that you don’t always have the shot you want. Anchor them and then finish them.

Click to expand...

Sounds all well and fine till the adrenaline dump hits your system.

Texas10mm said:

Sounds all well and fine till the adrenaline dump hits your system.

Click to expand...

This is so often overlooked.

Anticipating the adrenaline dump and the general heavy exertion (and all the emotions that accompany that terrible moment...) I always made point of reminding my young guys (and gals...) that they still had to line up that target before pulling the trigger - and I always accompanied that advice with an admonition to aim just a bit low since under high stress most of us will... shoot a bit high...

I was never taught this formally but felt it was very good advice for real world situations when you were scared to death and it was all on the line... Very glad I'm long out of police work.

Everyone always talks about the “adrenaline dump hitting your system”. As though you cannot function once that happens. That’s why people train. Some fight, some run, and some freeze up. Has a lot to do with how we are put together.
For me having a plan is always better than not having a plan when I have to do something quickly.

The second liveleak video clearly shows that the second officer to run through the scene was carrying a carbine..

The old adage about rifles and handguns is certainly true when dealing with distance and cover/concealment. It's just a fact the rifle is more likely to score hits on small targets or penetrate through barriers than a handgun especially as range extends. That doesn't mean handguns are not effective in close encounters. There is merit in volume of fire and maneuverability with a sidearm. Sending a dozen or more bullets in quick succession towards an adversary who is not expecting resistance like these mass-shooters can be a game changer even if not lethal hits. More often than not they lose their nerve and ends up with them killing themselves like the recent garlic festival or the Vegas shooting rather than fighting to the bitter end. Lord help us if that changes. (I'd note some of these crazies just stop the carnage on their own and wait for cops.)

Texas10mm said:

Sounds all well and fine till the adrenaline dump hits your system.

Click to expand...

You don't think pelvic girdle shots are a good idea? What do you suggest as an alternative if the bad guy is wearing armor?

Casefull said:

Everyone always talks about the “adrenaline dump hitting your system”. As though you cannot function once that happens. That’s why people train. Some fight, some run, and some freeze up. Has a lot to do with how we are put together.
For me having a plan is always better than not having a plan when I have to do something quickly.

Click to expand...

In the words of the linguist Mike Tyson “Everyone has a plan ‘till they get punched in the mouth.”

Training is great, but if you don’t think that you’re going to be impacted by an adrenaline dump you’re fooling yourself. As a civilian you’re not knowingly going into battle and prepared for a fight. You’re watching a movie, shopping for underwear, eating dinner, etc. You’re not mentally prepared for these things, no one is.

Once it hits the fan and the adrenaline surges, you’ll likely have tunnel vision, decreased dexterity, etc. It’s very likely your hands may shake. This isn’t to say you become useless, but the odds of squeezing off precision shots or hopping up and kicking tail like John Rambo ain’t good.

Working in a hospital I saw it multiple times when people would code. New or inexperienced staff become all thumbs and forget basic stuff. Watching someone dying in front of them throws them off their game unsurprisingly. Can’t imagine this wouldn’t happen in a similar manner when fighting for your life.

To add to that, one of the reasons Pat McNamara trains like he does is to simulate the increased HR that accompanies a surge of adrenaline. (IIRC)

Always seemed to make sense to me anyway.

I have never been in a shoot out. And I cannot predict how I would act. I have however been in a lot of life-threatening, dangerous situations in my 67 years on earth. I have always acted. I was scared ****less some of the times and others not, but I still did what I needed to do.
I have been a hunter all my life and I have been killing animals all of my life. None of those animals was shooting at me. That is always the huge difference. Those animals did nothing to me, I killed them for sport and food. If someone Is shooting at me or other innocencts it would be an honor to put them down.
You guys can put the paralyzing adrenaline dump on somebody else, whether I have an adrenaline dump or not I’ll put the front site on target and squeeze off rounds. Because that would be what needs to be done.

Casefull said:

I have never been in a shoot out. And I cannot predict how I would act. I have however been in a lot of life-threatening, dangerous situations in my 67 years on earth. I have always acted. I was scared ****less some of the times and others not, but I still did what I needed to do.
I have been a hunter all my life and I have been killing animals all of my life. None of those animals was shooting at me. That is always the huge difference. Those animals did nothing to me, I killed them for sport and food. If someone Is shooting at me or other innocencts it would be an honor to put them down.
You guys can put the paralyzing adrenaline dump on somebody else, whether I have an adrenaline dump or not I’ll put the front site on target and squeeze off rounds. Because that would be what needs to be done.

Click to expand...

No offense, but typing it on the internet doesn’t make it a fact.

The fact you shot a deer from a stand or whatever isn’t terribly relevant to this discussion.