One Stop Shot Data Questions

My feeling is that an LEO involved in a shooting would be more accurate/efficient than an ordinary citizen who finds himself or herself in a self-defense situation, though I know this is not always the case.

Click to expand...

On average, based on what I've seen at the shooting range, the average LEO is no better than the average citizen. In fact frequently, CCWers are actually significantly better.
Why?

Nobody is making a gun owner own a gun. If you own a gun and shoot it's because you want to. Therefore, you're that much more likely to actually shoot, or learn about proper shooting techniques.
LEOs HAVE to have a gun whether or not they want it. We've all seen the Police tradein pistols and shotguns that are nearly new internally.

Not knocking LEOs at all, and there are plenty of them who are IPSC/IDPA competitors, etc... but as a rule, I think you're making an awfully bold assumption.

As a former NRA instructor I would much rather have the average LEO shooting at me than most of the nonLEOs that I have trained or shot with. The cities have been choking down the LEO budgets for training and equipment for years. The administrators don't think they need to be highly skilled (but they DO need the latest radar gun cause it's a money making machine). They're wrong of course. Almost every cop I have ever known gets no free ammo or range time. They have to pay for it and most cannot afford it. In our city the cops (county and city) don't even have a range to qualify on any more. I think they're using some farmer's cornfield. And now I read that the Fed is going to withold Fed funds unless every police officer has body armor issued to them. Very sad. One shot stops are a theoretical dream that rarely happens. It is a marketing tool. The only way to increase one shot stops is to increase training and range time.

1) Who are the shooters who have 'contributed' to the data? Are they trained/experienced LEO's, who arguably would be more accurate, or does the data also include CCW'ers who have had to defend themselves? My feeling is that an LEO involved in a shooting would be more accurate/efficient than an ordinary citizen who finds himself or herself in a self-defense situation, though I know this is not always the case.

Click to expand...

M&S’s data came from cops and civilian shooters. They stopped collecting data years ago and the performance of the latest ammo, most of which is discussed by cops on Marshall’s website, is known only by scattered field reports.

2) Is there any idea as to the shot placement of the 'one stop shots'? For example, if out of 10 shots fired 8 were head shots, it would skew the OSS percentage without really illustrating the effectiveness of a round when fired center of mass.

Click to expand...

No. Head shots are what you sometimes get in gunfights. Excluding them would invalidate the results.

3) What was the body type of the people who were shot? Were they bulit like Steve Urkel or Arnold Schwartznegger? Were the targets male or female? Young or old? Were any on drugs/alcohol at the time? Were there other health factors (bad heart, etc.) that may have contributed to a OSS?

Click to expand...

People who need to be shot come in all sizes and shapes. They often drink and take drugs. That’s life in the real world. You don’t get to choose who’s going to attack you

Actually, unless something has changed in the last few years, they only count torso shots. Head and limb shots are excluded from the data.

Ankeny, you may be right about it being a regional thing. My experience has been limited to three midwestern states only but has been pretty consistent. Almost all of the LEO guys I meet these days are definitely not gun enthusiasts although they do seem to consider themselves highly trained. Most seem to consider their sidearm as just another peice of weight hanging on an already heavy duty belt. All of the departments I have worked with will not provide range time or ammo to the troops.

I think most of you discount that police get into stressful situations much more that your average shooter... He or she may not shoot as well but when part of your job is getting into fights, I'll take the guy that does it everyday.

HB

According to an F.B.I. report released awhile back they interviewed felons who had survived many gunfights. A few interesting things came to light. First was that the felons had about a 70% hit ratio vs. around 20% for LEO's. Among the things mentioned for the differences were that the bad guys practiced alot more than they were generally given credit for. In junkyards, gravel pits or even in their own neighborhoods were gunfire was nothing unusual and didn't attract much attention.
They usually shot at things like beer/pop cans and (I can hear the screams already) usually said they just pointed the gun and shot. They said in a real gunfight it took too long to line up the sights. They didn't as a whole care what kind of gun nor caliber. They said basically if they got the first hit they won. Sort of " the firstest with the mostest is the bestest" kind of thing. Mindset was another factor.
Many had survived several gunshot wounds. 85% of those shot by handguns survive by the way. After the pain they went through they had pretty much decided they were not going to be the one shot again. So they had no hesitation in shooting another human being. A somewhat twisted but effective combat mindset if you will. So they usually were ready for trouble and had their guns out first. Basically an ambush.
So unless forewarned the LEO's often were behind on the OODA loop. Had some moral conviction about shooting another human being. And as said before they usually were walking into a situation where they had a hardened killer waiting for them. These are general findings of the report. Many LEO's are combat vets thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no idea how this will fit into the equation. Hopefully to the good guys advantage. Another interseting thing about the report was shot placement.
The bad guys didn't care where they hit someone or as mentioned with what caliber. If they hit first they almost always one. One said if you hit them and they pause or drop you can just decide rather to execute them or not. The idea of the "one shot stop" with a hangun is not something one should count on. All handguns suck at stopping people. Notice they didn't give a damn about caliber. They cared about getting hits with whatever they had. And they planned on using more than one shot (I can execute them if I decide to once I hit them). Many of them as stated had survived multple gunshot wounds. Of all calibers by the way.
If you read the book "Shooting to Live" they repeat many of the same ideas. This book is based on over 600 shootings in the Shanghi Police force in the early decades of the 20th century. It has a whole chapter on stopping power. And like a recent article by Dave Spalding they basically said you cannot predict what will happen when a person is hit by any handgun.
He gives two examples of men being hit multiple times by .455 Webly and .45ACP. Neither went down and had to be beat into submisson with the empty pistols. Said the only one shot stop they got was with a .380 and the perp got right back up. Says the 7.62x25 used in the Broomhandle Mausers firing a 90gr. bullet left really nasty wounds and was greatly feared.
In the book they trained the shooter to fire bursts into a target. He said the only way they got any sure effect with a pistols was to shoot it as fast as you can like a submachine gun. The whole idea of the "one shot stop" has proven to be about useless. The OSS stats threw out any situation in which more than one shot was used. And probably most instances with a pistol stopping someone is with multiple hits.
Mr. Ayoob spoke recently concerning a friend who ran drug operations in South America. He carried a G17 loaded with 9mm fmj ammo. When Mr. Ayoob asked him about the reputation of the 9mm balls lack of stopping power he just said he had no trouble. He fired a burst into the bad guys chest. If he didn't go down he fired a burst into his head. Stopping power?
Hitting your opponent (hopefully good chest/neck/head shots) as often as necessary. Period.
People tend to like to trust a particular caliber for stopping another human being. They tend to say well I've got a .40, .45, or whatever so it should knock the guy down. Bull****! The only thing you can do with a handgun is get one that is reliable, that you can shoot well, and get's good penetration and hopefully expansion, and train and practice lots. Which is hard work and alot of people don't want to do that. If you think your super bullet/caliber combination is going to keep you safe and stop someone with one hit you are probably wrong.
Any of the service calibers will work. Or fail. The difference between the calibers is not significant. People will argue that 1-2 mm's of expansion or frontal area will make a huge difference. It's like saying this head of a pin has 20% more size than that one. They are still just the head of a pin. Same with service caliber rounds. And if you do the research you'll find even the "manstopping .45" often doesn't. True fact not urban legend. Lots of folks are surprised when they hit someone with their caliber of choice and the person they hit is unimpressed.
So IMHO the whole idea of a OSS is useless. With a handgun most don't stop with one shot. Again it's easier to say since I carry a (fill in the blank) one time and the guy is down than to train. Training and good tactics save you. With the body of knowledge that's out there about handgun effectiveness isn't it time to put this whole thing to bed? I think so.

So true, Siglber.

As Evan Marshall says, “The one shot stop is a unit of measurement, not a tactical philosophy”.

Shoot as fast as you can hit and keep shooting until it’s over.

If I shoot once, and miss, but the guy stops doing what I shot at him for, does it still count as a 'one shot stop'

Hail Mary shots, once shot stops, c'mon people ...

You can drop a nuclear bomb in a city and people that are not completely vaporized may keep fighting.

Accept the fact that there is no death ray.

I think the one shot stop concept is doable when you get into the really obnoxious calibers...454 or 500mag for instance. But those aren't practical. They do so much damage I have a hard time imagining someone NOT getting stopped with one shot.

I'm not a believer in the OSS theories...and I have seen

way too many videos of police officers shooting at people in real life and scoring no hits to think they -as a class-are any better shots than CCWers..In fact, I think many civilians are shooting enthusiasts and practice more often than many LEO's, but this is just my opinion after over 15 years of licensed carry and range time.

Mark

Marshall and Sanow's intent was to develop a statistical comparison related to relative ammunition effectiveness used by and available to law enforcement. From what I read they only included center mass hits, excluding all others as well as multiple hits.

A shooting was considered a one shot stop if the person shot ceased all hostile resistance after being hit one time center mass regardless of if the cessation was due to incapacity or simple surrender.

The study results basically show what most would agree with, like the .22 lr is less effective than the .45 acp. The arguments come from those that feel certain rounds should rate higher or others should rate lower according to their limited experience, "feelings" and or other paradigms.

Statistical studies like these should be used to help make a decision on what type or even brand of ammo you would want to carry in your handgun. It doesn't tell you how a particular center mass shooting will turn out as even the best rounds have instances where it requires more than one shot. No one will ever get in enough gun fights in real life, to find out if their experiences support the stats.

Steve C., above, lays it out pretty clearly and succinctly. Note and double note that the data includes both "That's enough, I give up!" as well as stops due to immediate incapacitation. There is no data on how many people immediately stop or flee when shot due to fear.

The lesson to take from that observation is that your 90% "one shot stop" cartridge probably isn't nearly as effective as you think it is.

From M&S:

Only torso hits are used.

Multiple hits are discarded.

A "stop" is: "If the 'victim' was assaulting someone when shot and collapsed without being able to fire another shot or strike another blow. If he was fleeing, he collapsed within 10 feet."

Shootings were only included if M&S were able to review some of the data such as police reports, evidence tech reports, victim statements, autopsy reports, videos, photos, etc.

Recovered bullets or their photos were examined.

A minimum of 10 qualifying shootings was required before a load is included in the M&S stats.

There are no definitive figures at all on the topic, and there never will be. There are things in life that cannot be measured due to a high amount of variability, such as human tissue function from person-to-person. It is 100% impossible to put a number on bullet effectiveness, as people will always react differently from one another, and even the same person will react differently, depending on the internal and external environment and how it changes (attitude, distance, drugs, etc.).

M&S data is only good for one thing...knowing what round was used in a particular situation, and the reaction it caused under the conditions present at the time. One thing we don't know based on the results is where the bullet struck the person exactly, which can mean a night and day difference (even in the same organ).

M&S compiled info based on shootings and that in itself is useful. Trying to put a percentage number to effectiveness of a round is not, because nothing in any of the shootings are exactly consistent.

SIGLBER said:

According to an F.B.I. report released awhile back they interviewed felons who had survived many gunfights. A few interesting things came to light. First was that the felons had about a 70% hit ratio vs. around 20% for LEO's. Among the things mentioned for the differences were that the bad guys practiced alot more than they were generally given credit for. In junkyards, gravel pits or even in their own neighborhoods were gunfire was nothing unusual and didn't attract much attention.

Click to expand...

This seems awfully familiar.... Is this that report about cop-killers that keeps resurfacing every so often? If so, then it's not representative of the average criminal, but ones who are skilled, confident, ruthless, and audacious enough to deliberately target LEOs for the express purpose of assassinating them. And even if it's a different report, it focuses on the ones who survived many gunfights, which probably means that they're better shooters than the average crook, who is just as likely as not to have no ammo in his gun, let alone know how to use it.

SIGLBER said:

They usually shot at things like beer/pop cans and (I can hear the screams already) usually said they just pointed the gun and shot.

Click to expand...

They're probably not very well trained shooters, although unfortunately they may be better trained than most LEOs (no offense intended, but if that were not true, then qualifications should be far, far tougher than any that I'm aware of).

SIGLBER said:

They said in a real gunfight it took too long to line up the sights.

Click to expand...

They're right, and I don't use the sights either within 5 yards.

SIGLBER said:

They didn't as a whole care what kind of gun nor caliber.

Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss, and in this case probably results in the most realistic attitude, statistically speaking. That said, choosing the right caliber can make some difference, which while small in comparison to other factors, may turn out to be quite significant in individual cases.

SIGLBER said:

Another interseting thing about the report was shot placement.
The bad guys didn't care where they hit someone or as mentioned with what caliber. If they hit first they almost always one. One said if you hit them and they pause or drop you can just decide rather to execute them or not. The idea of the "one shot stop" with a hangun is not something one should count on. All handguns suck at stopping people. Notice they didn't give a damn about caliber.

Click to expand...

This seems somewhat self-contradictory--why is the first hit so important if handguns suck so bad at stopping? I guess it depends on what one means by stopping.

SIGLBER said:

In the book they trained the shooter to fire bursts into a target. He said the only way they got any sure effect with a pistols was to shoot it as fast as you can like a submachine gun. The whole idea of the "one shot stop" has proven to be about useless.

Click to expand...

That's right, if you don't have a shotgun, then you'll have to simulate one.

dogngun said:

way too many videos of police officers shooting at people in real life and scoring no hits to think they -as a class-are any better shots than CCWers..In fact, I think many civilians are shooting enthusiasts and practice more often than many LEO's, but this is just my opinion after over 15 years of licensed carry and range time.

Click to expand...

We're all just people, whatever our line of work. Aside from individual differences, the training we receive and perform is what would make the difference, if any. So what kind of firearms training do LEOs typically go through in order to become LEOs? From this outsider's perspective, it doesn't seem like much unless individual LEOs take it upon themselves to become better shooters.

Manco said:

. And even if it's a different report, it focuses on the ones who survived many gunfights, which probably means that they're better shooters than the average crook, who is just as likely as not to have no ammo in his gun, let alone know how to use it.

Click to expand...

This is where I disagree. You see the "average cook" is no different than you or me when it comes to skill with a weapon or intelligence. Like everyone else there is a great amount of variety in criminals and most of them practice with their weapons. This isn't 1998, criminals have evolved into a much smarter breed these days and underestimating someone just because they're a crook is a mistake.

A criminal isn't likely to carry an empty gun. A criminal is unlikely to shoot sideways and miss you while you carry out well placed body shots against him. The criminal could be an ex-marine or just some kid that was taught to shoot exceptionally well by dad, the fact is you just don't know. Its just like in martial arts they teach you not to just assume that the average bad guy knows nothing about close combat...thats the kind of arrogance that gets people killed.

So whatever you are shooting shoot it more than once.

I thought so

Kiln said:

This is where I disagree. You see the "average cook" is no different than you or me when it comes to skill with a weapon or intelligence. Like everyone else there is a great amount of variety in criminals

Click to expand...

Actually, I agree that there is no such thing as an "average" anything, but like most things, most crooks fall somewhere near the middle of the distribution curve. With regard to shooting skills, based on what I've seen, most people in general are fairly close to the low end of human potential. This was in reply to the report that seems to say that criminals are generally more highly skilled at shooting than LEOs, which I think is incorrect (the report was in reference to cop-killers specifically, if I remember correctly)--unless there are convincing arguments to the contrary, I would say that criminals are probably no more or less skilled than LEOs or civilians on the average (some may be highly skilled while some may not know which end to point where, but most are mediocre).

Kiln said:

and most of them practice with their weapons.

Click to expand...

So do LEOs and civilians, and from what I've seen, most of them aren't getting the most out of what little training they do.

Kiln said:

This isn't 1998, criminals have evolved into a much smarter breed these days and underestimating someone just because they're a crook is a mistake.

Click to expand...

They're just people like everybody else, and unless they have a very effective firearms training program, I would expect that most of them are not highly skilled shooters. I realize that some of them are, and that's what I train for as a worst-case scenario, so I don't think that I'm underestimating anybody, but it's still false that criminals are more highly skilled just because they're criminals.

Kiln said:

A criminal isn't likely to carry an empty gun.

Click to expand...

I've always heard that many of them do, and I've seen examples as well. Of course, just like I assume that all guns are always loaded, that's what I'll assume about theirs, but that's still not always true. It's not uncommon for criminals to carry BB/pellet guns or Airsoft guns these days, either, especially if they don't actually plan on shooting anybody (murder being a more serious crime than robbery, of course); one reason may be that they think they'll get the desired effect with fewer legal issues in case they're caught, which is an example of them being smart, at least until they run into a cop (or armed civilian) who shoots them because of it (that exact thing happened in my county just a couple of months ago, and it wasn't the first time).

Kiln said:

A criminal is unlikely to shoot sideways and miss you while you carry out well placed body shots against him. The criminal could be an ex-marine or just some kid that was taught to shoot exceptionally well by dad, the fact is you just don't know. Its just like in martial arts they teach you not to just assume that the average bad guy knows nothing about close combat...thats the kind of arrogance that gets people killed.

Click to expand...

I think that the most skilled shooter who ever lived could be killed by somebody shooting a gun for the first time, even with his eyes closed. Truly I do, based on everything I've ever seen and learned about combat. Skill and training help improve one's odds, which is important, but ultimately the result is completely determined by luck. Is that humble enough for you?

While it is prudent not to underestimate one's enemy, I don't think there is a point in exaggerating the average level of skill of certain people just because of their classification. If criminals really were significantly more skilled on the average than armed civilians, then maybe some people would decide that being armed is not worthwhile and is more likely to get them killed than simply surrendering no matter what. Whether to be armed or not is of course a very personal decision with many factors to consider, but I think that having a realistic view of the skill of criminals, on the average, is better than setting the bar so high that people would get discouraged, especially if it is not true.

The one shot stop, Big Foot, and the Loch Ness Monster get put in the same category for me. Photos of each are on the internet, but no one can introduce you to them.

Perhaps a bit of thread drift, but...

Skill and training help improve one's odds, which is important, but ultimately the result is completely determined by luck.

Click to expand...

While luck is certainly a factor, I believe that far more important is the element of surprise.
The BG frequently has an advantage in determining when the gunfight starts. He can ambush the LEO or otherwise decide when the first shot is fired--the LEO can (generally) only react. So the hit percentage is a bit skewed from the git-go.

How often does the LEO fire the first shot? Almost never, as they are trying their best to resolve the issue without violence (and attending lawsuits)...and this, unhappily, works to the advantage of the BG. It is asymmetric warfare, much as we face in the Middle East...the good guys play by the rules, and the bad guys ignore the rules and/or make up their own rules.