Snub Relevance?

[Jack Flash]

Why do you think the profession of someone using deadly force to defend himself would matter one whit in terms of what is required? Wouldn't the attack and the attacker be what matters?

Why is "the last time [anyone] needed more than five rounds in a self defense situation" pertinent to the thread?

You got it, most of the time.

Actually, if I defend myself and the attacker runs, and he does not have an accomplice, it's over.

I would not want to be left with an empty gun, however.

If I were a sworn officer, I would not be permitted to shoot the fleeing suspect, but I would have the duty to apprehend him.

That possibility that additional defensive shooting could be necessary would make a "topped up" firearm advisable. It is also possible that additional fire would be necessary before reloading.

Officers almost invariably carry double-column high-capacity pistols and extra magazines, for that reason.

In the case of the of-duty officer who needed twelve rounds, non of that applied. It was a single shooting incident involving one attacker who kept coming. A civilian would not have needed fewer rounds.

Both LEOs and civilians are limited to using deadly force only to defend themselves or others.

Just wow. I thought the train took the wrong tracks, but it seems to have derailed.

I must be the odd man out, because I try not to put myself in situations a cop would be in, so I don't feel the need to carry a Glock 21 type pistol and 2 extra magazines. Maybe I just live in a better part of town?

For the record about the duties of a police officer, at least here in FL.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,”

 

[Sistema1927]

Police experiences mean very little for the average citizen. They are expected to go into danger, we should be smart enough to try to stay away from it. I have found that carrying makes me doubly cautious, not wanting to have to defend my decision to utilize deadly force makes me tread very, very carefully.

 

[Rexster]

There is an interesting discussion on you-tube about guns we carry to get ourselves out of trouble, versus the guns we carry when we are knowingly going toward trouble. The main interviewee is Darryl Bolke, a widely-respected firearms trainer, and retired LEO. This is a long one, but well worth it, IMHO.



I will differ with Darryl Bolke on a couple of points. One regards light-weight J-Frames, which he likes, but I have grown to dislike, as they as just too small for me, past the point of diminishing returns, and, when arthritis set in, just hurt too much to hold firmly, much less fire, unless I installed over-sized grips. My normal minimum weapon, even for a secondary weapon, is the Ruger SP101. We do agree, however, on the snub-gun, in principle.

Another way in which we differ is regarding the guns that one carries to go toward trouble. He firmly believes in substantial auto-loaders for that task. If I just had to ride to the sound of the guns, I would rather have a GP100 revolver in my hands, than any other handgun. (This assumes that I cannot have a long gun, in my hands, of course.)

 

[Zendude]

I will differ with Darryl Bolke on a couple of points. One regards light-weight J-Frames, which he likes, but I have grown to dislike, as they as just too small for me, past the point of diminishing returns, and, when arthritis set in, just hurt too much to hold firmly, much less fire, unless I installed over-sized grips. My normal minimum weapon, even for a secondary weapon, is the Ruger SP101. We do agree, however, on the snub-gun, in principle.)

In your situation with arthritis or similar condition, a Ruger LCR 327 loaded with 32 H&R can extend the usefulness of a lightweight snub.

 

[Kleanbore]

I must be the odd man out, because I try not to put myself in situations a cop would be in,

None of us do.

so I don't feel the need to carry a Glock 21 type pistol and 2 extra magazines.

Nor do I.

The extra capacity and magazines becomes important to a law enforcement officer IF a suspect runs and must be pursued after shots are fired AND IF a subsequent defensive encounter requires the use of deadly force.

Maybe I just live in a better part of town?

That can influence the likelihood of a deadly force encounter, but what is required to survive it once it occurs will be influenced very little.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law.

That is as it must be. Citizens cannot hold the Government liable for not providing something that it cannot provide. The ruling(s) arose from the filing of suits against municipalities for damages suffered in criminal attacks.

That is irrelevant here.

“Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

In now way does that mean that a police officer is not expected to enforce the law by preventing violence and by apprehending suspects. It is irrelevant.

 

[Kleanbore]

Police experiences mean very little for the average citizen. They are expected to go into danger, we should be smart enough to try to stay away from it. I have found that carrying makes me doubly cautious, not wanting to have to defend my decision to utilize deadly force makes me tread very, very carefully.

Well said.

 

[mavracer]

I wold have been toast. I cannot run backward as fast as did the defender, and my carry pistol has a lower capacity.

Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Hundreds of videos like this, stories like Mike Day or a Mike Platt and personal hunting experience with dead animals that run off cause they don't know they're dead. But imma keep shooting COM cause some trainer said so.
Maybe instead of changing guns to shoot a standard El Prez since the BG prolly won't be exactly 10m and 1m apart. You had modified the drill to fit the equipment and pick one target for a single round to the upper A zone.
Then instead of dying with your shield you would survive with the 642.

Earlier you asked.
How can understanding the limitations of somehing make it adequate if one cannot ensure that those limitations will not be exceeded?
You're looking at the problem wrong. If you don't recognize your limitations you are far more likely to exceed them.
I know with 5 rounds on tap I can't accept a 20% hit rate but you seem willing to accept it.


Here's a little math problem for you if you have time to get 8 rounds off and have .2 sec splits. I have a pedestrian .35 seconds between shots what do you think taking nearly double the time between shots will do to to hit rate?

 

[Kleanbore]

Maybe instead of changing guns to shoot a standard El Prez since the BG prolly won't be exactly 10m and 1m apart.

No, 10 m is probably not realistic.

I shose that to make a point, The drill reuires six shots.

You had modified the drill to fit the equipment and pick one target for a single round to the upper A zone.
Then instead of dying with your shield you would survive with the 642.

If a single round will suffice and one can determine whether it has, one would fire a single round. Probably unlikely.

If you don't recognize your limitations you are far more likely to exceed them.

Well said.

know with 5 rounds on tap I can't accept a 20% hit rate but you seem willing to accept it.

I hope for a 100% hit rate in training.

f you have time to get 8 rounds off and have .2 sec splits. I have a pedestrian .35 seconds between shots what do you think taking nearly double the time between shots will do to to hit rate?

I don't know--depends upon the distance.

It's a matter of balancing speed and precision In a dynamic critical incident, one cannot expect to have the luxury of time. In .35 second, an attacker can run 5 feet.

Theres a video under discussion in ST&T showing a citizen attacked at his door by a man in his yard with gun in hand.

The defender successfully fired four shots in about a second. That's what it took.

I have trained to do that. Where I would most likely have fallen short is in (1) recognizing the very rapidly unfolding threat timely and (2) draw time.

 

[mavracer]

I shose that to make a point, The drill reuires six shots

10M is far more realistic than them standing evenly spaced directly in front of you and no it requires 12, gee I must be learning this Kleanbore deflect by arguing semantics method.

I don't know--depends upon the distance.

Not really slowing down usually improves accuracy regardless of distance.

It's a matter of balancing speed and precision In a dynamic critical incident, one cannot expect to have the luxury of time. In .35 second, an attacker can run 5 feet.

You can't miss fast enough to win and even without a functional heart from your first shot he'll still have 14.65 seconds plus to stab you repeatedly. Seams insane but you do you.

 

[JohnKSa]

Here's a little math problem for you if you have time to get 8 rounds off and have .2 sec splits. I have a pedestrian .35 seconds between shots what do you think taking nearly double the time between shots will do to to hit rate?

It depends heavily on the circumstances. If you can stand still and the other person isn't moving, it could make a big difference. If you are moving trying not to get shot, and the other person is moving trying not to get shot, the hit rate might not change at all.

The change in hit rate isn't the only significant factor. There are other questions that should be asked.

For example, If the other guy is shooting 0.2 splits and you're shooting 0.35 splits that means if you both start shooting at the same time, he'll have fired 4 times before you fire your 3rd shot and he will fire his eighth shot at the same time as you fire your fifth--1.4 seconds into the fight. So another question, is, assuming that taking longer improves your hit rate, do you live long enough to make your improved hit rate count?

And even without a functional heart from your first shot he'll still have 14.65 seconds plus to stab you repeatedly.

Well, 14.65 is probably not the actual number, but yes, it's certainly true that a gun isn't a magic wand that one can count on to stop an attack instantly. Which is precisely why people tend to move around during self-defense encounters--and, in turn, why people miss a lot more than they do on the range. And why statements like this: "I know with 5 rounds on tap I can't accept a 20% hit rate..." don't really mean much. Real world circumstances can have a huge impact on hit rate. If the encounter you end up in isn't conducive to taking controlled shots with nice sight pictures, then what you want to "accept" may not be relevant at all.

Look, I'm not saying that snubs aren't relevant or trying to argue that every encounter requires 15 rounds to solve--neither is true. But it is important to have reasonable expectations.

In other words, one shouldn't expect to have a 1:1 hit ratio in a real world shooting. Can it happen? Sure, but it's not something that a defender can reasonably count on.

One shouldn't expect that a single shot will disable an attacker--even if it is a good solid COM or a head shot (there's a lot of the head that isn't brain or spinal cord). Can it happen? Sure, but it's not something that a defender can reasonably count on.

One shouldn't expect that by slowing down, they can expect to improve their hit rate to some arbitrary standard. Could that be true in some circumstances? Sure, but the circumstances of the encounter might also force a defender into shooting faster than they would otherwise choose to do and also prevent carefully aimed shots.

The key isn't that everyone needs to pick an autoloader with a slew of rounds on board, the point is that people need to have reasonable expectations about the limitations of the system (gun+ammo+shooter) they they choose to rely on for their safety in a self-defense encounter.

 

[GEM]

I must be the odd man out, because I try not to put myself in situations a cop would be in, so I don't feel the need to carry a Glock 21 type pistol and 2 extra magazines. Maybe I just live in a better part of town?

One point is that you might be in the rare but extreme situation which is not your choice. A rampage is something you might want more than a J frame. Cops aren't the only people who go to malls, schools, synagogues, churches, mosques, Sikh temples, workplaces (if you can carry). The better part of town mantra is really not relevant.

Once again and again. You play the odds of the J frame (and similar) being a one opponent, close in gun. Do you train with it - the odds say you do not. It is your choice but cognitively expressing that decision is more honest than denying that the semi and an extra mags is a better choice for a wider range of possibilities.

The better part of town is just pure BS if you consider extreme incidents. If you don't consider those, then you don't even need ammo as most DGUs are deterrent against economically motivated single criminals.

 

[Kleanbore]

10M is far more realistic than them standing evenly spaced directly in front of you

Yes.

Not really slowing down usually improves accuracy regardless of distance.

The question was what will it do to the hit rate.

You can't miss fast enough to win

One does not want to miss.

 

[mavracer]

The question was what will it do to the hit rate.

And as usual you tried to deflect trying to argue semantics.
At what distance would slowing down not increase the probability of a hit?
The answer should be in some linear measurement.

 

[Kleanbore]

And as usual you tried to deflect trying to argue semantics.

I am not trying to argue at all.

At what distance would slowing down not increase the probability of a hit?

I believe you may be thinking in terms of a stationary target.

I should think that more hits would likely be achieved if one were to shoot more rapidly at a fast moving target at close range.

People are taught to be able to shoot as rapidly as possible with combat accuracy. That will depend in large part on distance.

I certainly would not shoot more slowly than I believed myself capable of combat accuracy if I were under attack.

I really do not know how many shots I would likely fire in a real situation.

People are taught to shoot as many times as necessary. That's going to be a judgment call made under very tough circumstances.

 

[mavracer]

The change in hit rate isn't the only significant factor.

But it is a significant one not to be dismissed.

So another question, is, assuming that taking longer improves your hit rate, do you live long enough to make your improved hit rate count?

What difference does it make if you don't live long enough to shoot the extra rounds?

 

[Zendude]

It’s plausible to miss and still win, provided the area behind the attacker is clear. I would guess that a significant number of criminals don’t like getting shot at and are not expecting a citizen to shoot at them.

 

[mavracer]

I should think that more hits would likely be achieved if one were to shoot more rapidly at a fast moving target at close range.

Sounds a lot like spray and pray to me.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

There is an interesting discussion on you-tube about guns we carry to get ourselves out of trouble, versus the guns we carry when we are knowingly going toward trouble. The main interviewee is Darryl Bolke, a widely-respected firearms trainer, and retired LEO. This is a long one, but well worth it, IMHO.



I will differ with Darryl Bolke on a couple of points. One regards light-weight J-Frames, which he likes, but I have grown to dislike, as they as just too small for me, past the point of diminishing returns, and, when arthritis set in, just hurt too much to hold firmly, much less fire, unless I installed over-sized grips. My normal minimum weapon, even for a secondary weapon, is the Ruger SP101. We do agree, however, on the snub-gun, in principle.

Another way in which we differ is regarding the guns that one carries to go toward trouble. He firmly believes in substantial auto-loaders for that task. If I just had to ride to the sound of the guns, I would rather have a GP100 revolver in my hands, than any other handgun. (This assumes that I cannot have a long gun, in my hands, of course.)

Thank you. I shall watch that video after dinner, before retiring to my chambers for slumber.

 

[Kleanbore]

Sounds a lot like spray and pray to me.

That's not what I meant to imply.

One learns to shoot as rapidly as possible while hitting the target--as did the defender in the aforementioned video.

 

[trackskippy]

[

Sounds a lot like spray and pray to me.

Its really about time this silly thing goes away. Unless of course, its your religion.

The only people that might be doing it, are those with no real training or skills at all.

With a little practice, its pretty easy to make good hits on target while you are moving and shooting at the same time, which I think is more likely reality than not. Just doing that half of the equation in practice puts you WAY ahead of those who base their skills on static target shooting and tight little groups. FoF is a great way to work on the other half.

The number of shots involved to solve the problem is exactly the number it takes to do that. If you don't have a gun with a capacity that can accommodate a broad possibility of problems, then you're going to have to have some other options practiced to make up for it.

 

[Jack Flash]

One point is that you might be in the rare but extreme situation which is not your choice. A rampage is something you might want more than a J frame. Cops aren't the only people who go to malls, schools, synagogues, churches, mosques, Sikh temples, workplaces (if you can carry). The better part of town mantra is really not relevant.

Once again and again. You play the odds of the J frame (and similar) being a one opponent, close in gun. Do you train with it - the odds say you do not. It is your choice but cognitively expressing that decision is more honest than denying that the semi and an extra mags is a better choice for a wider range of possibilities.

The better part of town is just pure BS if you consider extreme incidents. If you don't consider those, then you don't even need ammo as most DGUs are deterrent against economically motivated single criminals.

As I stated above...I at one time did carry a J frame, I've been carrying a Sig P365 for a couple years now.

I'm a lot better shot with the Sig than the 642. Plus after putting over 1,500 rounds thru the Sig without a hitch. I feel most comfortable with it.

 

[mavracer]

That's not what I meant to imply.

Well speeding up increasing the number of rounds fired to achieve the same number of hits would certainly speak to this.
You do realize that 20% hit factor is an 80% miss factor.
I get having extra rounds isn't a bad thing but adding 3 rounds hardly constitutes a change in tactics.

 

[Kleanbore]

...speeding up increasing the number of rounds fired to achieve the same number of hits

That's not the idea at all.

You do realize that 20% hit factor is an 80% miss factor

Whaat brought that into the equation?

In a real world defensive encounter, with surprise, stress, and fast movement, the hit rate will be what the hit rate will be. I cannot predict what mine might be.

The number of effective hits (hits on critical internal body elements) will be strongly influenced by the number of hits.

I get having extra rounds isn't a bad thing but adding 3 rounds hardly constitutes a change in tactics.

No. Why would it?

But it can have a material impact on the probability of effecting a physical stop. Adding 3 to 5 will have a much greater impact than would adding 3 to 10.

 

[Old_Grouch]

The number of effective hits (hits on critical internal body elements) will be strongly influenced by the number of hits.

Right. The more rounds you send toward the threat the greater the likelihood of hitting something vital.
The common colloquialism for that is "spray and pray".

 

[trackskippy]

Right. The more rounds you send toward the threat the greater the likelihood of hitting something vital.
The common colloquialism for that is "spray and pray".

Spray and Pray and shooting "towards" a threat, vs a quick, well placed burst into it, are two completely different things.

One suggests "hope", the other, "skill".