Actual civilian gunfights

[TexasRifleman]

Any idea, though, about civilian gunfights?

I doubt there are any real statistics on non LE gunfights to any degree. I suspect it will all be circumstantial.

Trebors point is probably right, and why I say that the 2.7 "average" doesn't really matter. You will have lots of single shot incidents skewing the numbers lower.

The most believable scenario in my opinion is the idea that the average guy with little to no training will shoot until the gun stops running, however many rounds that may be.

By then the perp is most likely down or fleeing. I would agree that there are probably not many fights with reloads.

 

[ATLDave]

Here's one that happened in my town yesterday: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/homeowner-shoots-intruder-buckhead/nFNYM/

Two shots from shotgun (both intended as warnings, but one hit anyway?!?), home invasion/burglary. Sounds like the perpetrator was drunk/stoned/high out of his gourd. Gets hit in the leg, stops his advance up the stairwell, cops come, incident over.

 

[Greg528iT]

Remember the 2.6 or 2.7 is an average. If 2 people are in a fire fight, and one get's pinned down and does not fire a single shot, that means the other participant has fired 6-7 shots, before the end of the conflict. It also does not account for the number of incidents where 1 shot, is fired and the conflict has ended (assuming a good hit and the other participant goes down). That leaves a few exchanges where a LOT more shots are fired.
statistically speaking

 

[TexasRifleman]

I ask simply because some folks here must clank like a bulldozer walking around, what with all the spare ammo, BUG's, etc. How often does this stuff even come into play in the real world?

This was the original question, and no one has touched on it much so I will confess first.

Sometimes I carry a bunch of crap around with me simply because I can. Is that what you wanted to hear? lol. That's probably the real reason for that much gear, just because we can.

I've carried concealed an XDm in .40 with a 16 round mag and 2 spare mags just because I wanted to... I didn't really expect to need 49 rounds at the mall.

 

[Sam1911]

one get's pinned down and does not fire a single shot,

Well, one of the things we're having trouble pinning down is exactly what kinds of incidents have been counted to make up these statistics.

While that one guy who can't get off a shot is an important one to include, the indication is that only when shots were fired were those incidents included. And then, confoundingly, ANY shots fired were counted, including suicides and negligent discharges, which have nothing to do with defensive shootings at all!

I rather do believe that very little of instructive value can be taken from such statistics.

My gut tells me that many more violent encounters are resolved by the SHOW of a gun than the firing of one.

My gut tells me that most folks will shoot until the gun is empty.

My gut tells me that most folks will miss with the majority of the shots they do manage to fire.

My gut tells me that most folks will never need to or be able to accomplish a reload before the encounter is over.

My brain tells me that I can afford to carry a reload or two and that malfunctions and mag failures are about as likely a reason to need one as needing to fire a 10th-58th shot (depending on which gun I'm carrying).

But I'm really uncertain what the statistics really tell me...

 

[Unistat]

I carry a spare mag as a backup mag more so than ammo ; )
Y/D

^This.

...but, several of the self-defense shootings in this area in the last few years have had double digit round counts and were over in seconds.

It doesn't have to be a protracted engagement for lots of lead to fly.

 

[Fotno]

The more I read and talk to folks who have actually survived gunfights, the more I see gunfights as completely unpredictable. How much ammo is fired in a civilian engagement? The answer to that would be dependent on dozens of factors; The determination, number and intent of the aggressor(s), the training (or lack thereof) of the defender(s), the weapons involved...Etc.

I come from a law enforcement family, grandfather, father, uncles, cousins and friends so I've heard the 'war stories' since I was a kid.

My father (career LE) believed that most crooks tended to rely on their guns right up till they were getting shot at themselves, and then they couldn't get out of the situation fast enough. In his experience when a crook looking for an easy score is fired upon, they would either return fire then run, or just plain run if they had any avenue of escape. Far more dangerous according to dad, were attackers who had lost most/all of their sense of self-preservation as a result of mental illness, substance abuse or a desire for revenge/retribution.

I realize it's a cop-out to say it 'depends', but it really does. I think Sam1911's gut feelings are right on the money, and they match my own feelings to a tee.

 

[ATLDave]

Here's a thought: Human reaction times are finite, and non-instantaneous. The moment when a threat stops being a threat and the moment when the threat is percieved to no longer be a threat will virtually never be the same instant, and the perception will usually lag. I would suspect that, in many of the mag-emptying incidents, if the ammo had run out sooner, the result would have been the same. The shooter just cannot register that the asailant is on his way down, or turning to run, as fast as he/she can pull the trigger a couple more times.

I guess where I was going with this thread is that a huge amount of energy and attention seems to be focused (on this board and even in training classes) on dealing with incedibly-unlikely permutations of an already unlikely scenario. I don't think there's any harm in preparing for things like a combat reload, or taking cover from return fire, or dealing with a mid-mag malfunction, but I wonder if highroad CC'er's spend a disproportionate amount of their time and energy (and money) training and equiping themselves for them. Or maybe these are just more interesting to discuss than trigger control, front-sight focus, and other shooting fundamentals that seem far more likely to really influence the outcome of a civilian SD shooting. Or, for that matter, a clear understanding of what the rules of one's jurisdiction are regarding justifiable use of potentially-deadly force, etc.

 

[Sam1911]

Are you seeing such concentration, discussions, training, and practice as a zero-sum kind of operation, wherein spending time practicing one detracts from proficiency with the other?

I'm not sure I agree, or really disagree either, with that opinion. Certainly the first few shots are the most critical, usually, sometimes. But we could chase that theory back another level and say that shooting someone is an extremely unlikely permutation of the unlikely scenario that we find ourselves in a dangerous confrontation. And, by extension, perhaps all this shooting practice with trigger control, front-sight focus, etc. is all taking away from the much more important pursuit of good situational awareness and the social skills useful in avoiding the use of violence.

My perception is that there is little cost to carrying a reload, and if I'm going to carry a gun, I might as well have a back-up mag to go along with it. Having it doesn't weigh me down any. (Like TR said, it balances the gun well.) If I'm going to carry a gun, knowing how to quickly, smoothly reload it and clear a malfunction is just a common-sense skill to acquire. It sure doesn't take range time away from other things -- in fact it improves my range time.

I guess I don't see that one aspect of the picture really obscures or precludes the other. I want to be proficient with arms, AND as good as I can be at avoiding trouble, AND to have a realistic understanding of the legal principles involved in self-defense.

A complete novice might not be able to chase all those goals simultaneously, but one does not need to remain a novice forever.

 

[Delford]

While some of the posters seem to think they'd pull til they're dry, news reports of several shootings (unfortunately) in our area are over with one or two shots. These are not gunfights. I can't recall a gunfight ever reported in our city. Hopefully there never will be.

Once consideration for stopping is how bad your ears ring when shooting with no ear protection. I carry a .45 and while walking in the woods on a farm thought I needed to pull the trigger to see what it would be like. The next 8 shots were with a lip balm tube in one ear and the cap in the other. If my adrenaline was flowing in a dangerous situation I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger but the pain in my ears would attenuate how many times I fired, making sure the threat was no longer there.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If my adrenaline was flowing in a dangerous situation I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger but the pain in my ears would attenuate how many times I fired, making sure the threat was no longer there.

More anecdotal stuff but reports I've read that researched shootings, both LE and civilian, say that folks don't remember even hearing their shots.

 

[Averageman]

I've never been in a "civilian" shooting; but I have been in a couple in the Military.
I never wished afterwards that I had come to the fight with LESS ammo or MORE hearing protection.
I think it is pretty easy to carry a full sized pistol and extra magazine and a flashlight and do so whenever possible daily.

 

[ATLDave]

Sam1911, I can't/don't disagree with anything you say. I guess I'm just a bit bemused by the apparent relative effort that goes into things that are extremely unlikely as opposed to merely very unlikely.

Lots of talk on THR about being prepared for worst case scenarios. Well, worst case scenario is that some guy mistakes me for someone else and shoots me in the back of the head from 50 yards away. Because I'm unwilling to go around town with a SAPI plate duct-taped to the back of a kevlar helmet on my head, I just have to accept that I am not prepared for the worst case scenario.

As long as people are rationally and knowingly deciding to prepare for extremely unlikely variants of very unlikely scenarios, that's cool. (I do it, too!) I just think we ought to be clear-eyed about how improbable it is that a civilian (excluding armored car drivers and jewelry store/pawn shop owners) will ever, ever need those skills or equipment. If we're doing it because it's fun, or provides a sense of mastery, then that's great and sensible. If we're doing it because we think we're more likely to die if we don't, then that's kind of hard to justify.

 

[ATLDave]

I've never been in a "civilian" shooting; but I have been in a couple in the Military.
I never wished afterwards that I had come to the fight with LESS ammo or MORE hearing protection.

One of the points that emerges in this thread, though, is that civilian SD shootings have a very different character than LEO shootings, much less military battles. Obviously, there are a lot of lessons from the latter that are applicable to civilian shootings - but not all of them.

 

[David E]

LOL!

I knew my brief post would spark some responses!

I had typed "WRONG!!!" originally, but it didn't show up as all caps. I re-posted it 3-4 times, but the caps (short for 'capital letters') never appeared. It seemed a bit incongruous to have exclamation marks after all lower case (small) letters, so I let it go. Amusing how the lack of a period offends some, especially when people like that inspired my sig line.

As I've posted countless times before on this forum, the 2.6, 2.7 whatever "shots fired" stat is WRONG because that stat INCLUDES things like AD's, warning shots, suicides, animal put-downs and similar incidents that typically only involve ONE shot fired and then, there is sometimes no one else present. These incidents must be factored out to achieve a meaningful "shots fired during violent confrontations" statistic.

 

[Tallinar]

Personally, I carry a six-shooter with no extra ammunition on my person. In my consideration of what sort of threats I am likely to encounter in my neck of the woods, I have concluded (in theory only) that if I can't end the encounter with these six rounds, I'm not going to be able to end it at all.

If my circumstances and location were such that I considered myself at risk of the Lance Thomas sorts of encounters, I would likely carry a high-cap automatic with an additional magazine. But I don't currently own one, and I don't feel undergunned with this here revolver.

We could theorize all day long about how many rounds we'd need in X, Y, and Z scenarios. I really think one would do well to assess their daily routine; lifestyle; what sorts of locations they find themselves in on a daily basis; and decide what to carry based on those things.

Besides, I think there are more day-to-day practical things we can do to keep ourselves and our families safe - such as simply making good common sense decisions that will aid us in avoiding violent situations altogether. Being armed is important, but as Sam said in another thread:

Your eyes, ears, and "street smarts" (Situational Awareness) are more important to your safety than a gun.

 

[Sam1911]

Your eyes, ears, and "street smarts" (Situational Awareness) are more important to your safety than a gun.

Wow. That's good! Mind if I borrow it?

 

[Tallinar]

Wow. That's good! Mind if I borrow it?

Oh, come on now. I gave you credit.

 

[Sam1911]

Ha, I missed that. Always funny to me to see someone else adopt something I said as worth passing on.

 

[Cosmoline]

Just going from local reports and incidents over the years, the shot totals tend to be low because the shooters don't want to linger. The one shooting I witnessed I didn't even realize had happened until the nightly news. I just heard some commotion, saw a car speed off and rode my bike past some guy holding his gut on the curb. Figured he'd had too much to drink, but he'd been shot! Dude didn't ask me for help, and refused to give a statement to police.

But there are cases where a lot of rounds are fired. The big football shootout a few years ago down at the park saw a huge number of rounds fired, but only one injury. Some of it was, I suspect, shooting around people to express some kind of bravado. So maybe it's better to be shot at by the criminals who shoot a lot of bullets, than by the ones who shoot only a few.

 

[Fotno]

Situational awareness should always be paramount. I know there are people who have no choice but to walk dangerous streets and be around dangerous people, but folks who intentionally or negligently place themselves in harms way for no good reason? Courting disaster IMO.

I have a CCP and I carry daily. I also train as much and as well as my finances and abilities allow. But I also avoid areas and situations that I know to be dangerous like the plague. If the good Lord be willing and the creek don't rise, I hope to pass from this life a very old man having never had the need to fire a shot in anger.

 

[9mmepiphany]

My understanding is that the meme that "most gunfights have 3 shots fired" comes from the old NYPC SOP 9 reports.

The NYPD records and tracks data on every officer involved shooting and publishes a report each year. These shootings include fights with criminals, accidental discharges, and suicides.

This info has been circulating in the LEO community for years. If you do some very simple statistical analysis of older SOP 9 reports I think you'll see the origin of the belief that "less then 3 rounds are rifed in most gunfights."

Personally, I think the SOP is widely and wildy misinterperated and that maxim on the law number of shots fired should be regarded as basically an urban myth at this point.

When the NYPD carried six shot revolvers, which was until fairly recently, the average number of rounds fired by NYPD officer in a fight was almost always six or less. When you add in the number of AD's and suicides (where presumbly only one round is fired) and then average the result, the number of "rounds fired per incident" (not fight, but incident, which is what they tracked) would skew even lower.

Now that the NYPD has been carrying Glocks for awhile, my understanding is the average number of rounds fired per actual "gun fight" has gone up. Basically, when they carried a six shot revovler, they fired up to six. Now that they have a 15 (or more) round Glock, they shoot more.

I don't have the documentation to back this up. This is just my understanding based on the reading I've done and what other people with better info than I have said on the subject.

So, the take away is, don't believe the old "most gunfights involve less then 3 rounds" story.

I'm not quoting this because I disagree with it, but because it brings up a lot of good points that I'd like to expand on.

The 2.7 figure is widely quoted...as is the distance of engagements...but you have to understand which figures are being collected (commonly atributed to NYPD or the FBI). These are the number of rounds which were discharged in shootings resulting in a death...if someone didn't die, they don't count the rounds fired (the crime scene is investigated differently). Some if 30 rounds were fired by both sides, both were hit and but neither expired, it doesn't count. However suicides and single shot executions do. The numbers aren't lying, it is a mater of how they are collected.

The last figures I saw concerning NYPD (it's been a while) guns was they they were armed with 10 round magazines...and they were still inclined to empty them in shootings.

When I read the OP, the first thing that came to mind was something that rolled into a local ER while I was there with a patient. It was a husband and wife who got into a shootout in their living room during an argument over either the channel to watch or their respective hygiene habits (it wasn't very clear as the trauma unit was pretty busy with cutting and draining and such). From what I gathered, she had a 9mm and he had a .357 Magnum. She fired more shots but had not emptied the magazine, he had to reload once. He scored the telling hit and will tell the definitive tale.

And, before the question is asked...yes, there was alcohol involved

 

[Mike1234567]

Whatever the "statistics" I'm going to have plenty rounds at my immediate disposal. Why would I limit myself and, perhaps, pay the ultimate price for my "miscalculation"?

 

[eazyrider]

When I carry it is a 5 shot revolver. I have no extra ammo. I just don't want to tote around a bunch of stuff. The average number of shots could be 20 and I would still carry the same amount. I have no intention of taking the fight to someone, I just want to be able to get out of the situation should it arise. Maybe I am wrong and if so then I am dead wrong but I can't plan for every contingency.

The odds of me actually having to use my gun are so infinitesimally small that I rarely think about it. The odds of being in a prolonged gunfight are even rarer. Each man makes his own decisions though and if your good with extra ammo, more power to you.

 

[Mike1234567]

To each his own.

I'm "guessing" that 5 rounds is enough for most situations which may arise. So, hypothetically speaking, let's say one's odds in "ever" needing to pull a firearm in SD is 1:1000. If only 1:5 of those events require more than 5 rounds then the odds (hypothetically) are 1:5000 for ever needing more firepower. Those are excellent odds but, should I be faced with dirt-bags wanting to kill me for whatever reason, I'm not tipping the scales in their favor. This isn't paranoia... it's just solid conviction/determination that I'll never short-change myself to the advantage of dirt-bags.