Needs to have better aim – Redux
A recent Yahoo story was about “Chicago rideshare driver with concealed carry license shoots 2 robbers who stole his cellphone, fired at him” https://news.yahoo.com/chicago-rideshare-driver-concealed-carry-012004396.html . Some of the comments were simply congratulatory or expressed relief the driver wasn’t injured.
But being a story posted on Yahoo, it naturally included many responses by simple-minded Internet Common Taters to the effect of :
“He needs to improve his aim. Two cons could have been taken out.”
I’ve written about this before. https://thetacticalprofessor.net/2016/07/24/the-cost-of-killing/
There are three aspects of this incident worth mentioning; sociological, tactical, and marksmanship. The sociological aspect is covered more than adequately in the post linked above. The tactical aspect relates to the object of the exercise of Personal Protection. What we are trying to achieve is covered in my series about Breaking Contact. https://thetacticalprofessor.net/2021/10/27/breaking-contact-part-6/
The marksmanship aspect is something that clearly these potato heads have never considered past ‘maybe’ popping off a box of ammo at an indoor range.
Trying to get even a decent sight picture on a criminal who is threatening you near your driver’s side car door is almost impossible. Try it sometime with your inert gun and the difficulty becomes immediately obvious.
The only really good way to learn it is by using a SIRT pistol and a cardboard target on a stand outside the door. Those are resources very few people have. Even if they did, finding a place to practice it is difficult. Your neighbors and the POlice will not be very enthusiastic about you practicing this way in public. Nor will the Board of Directors of your gun club be happy about such a useful exercise at the club.
So I wish the potato heads would cut the Ride Share Driver some slack. He forced a Break In Contact, wasn’t injured, and didn’t have to interact with the Criminal Justice system excessively. That’s a win.
FBI Double Action Course
#wheelgunwednesday
Prior to the FBI adoption of the Wheaties cereal box sized S&W Model 1076 in 1990, revolvers were the Bureau’s sidearm for well over half a century. After the FBI switched to the S&W Model 13 revolver in 1981, it created a publication, FBI Revolver Courses and Techniques, for using the gun with the Weaver technique.
“Sight Alignment: During close-in shooting (five to seven yards), the shooter does not have time to acquire perfect sight alignment. The shooter is, therefore, instructed to fire with both eyes open and to bring the sights up to eye level, seeing the front sight in the secondary vision. As distances increase, the need for better sight alignment increases and trigger pull should be slower.”
One of the Courses in the publication is the Double Action Course. It is intended as a practice regimen for double action shooting. The par times are short as is the allotted time for the one reload included. All strings are fired from the holster except one string at 15 yards.
DOUBLE ACTION COURSE (DAC)
The entire course is fired using the Weaver Position.
5 Yards
6 rounds -2 rounds on each whistle (in 3 seconds)
4 rounds -2 rounds on each whistle (in 3 seconds)
7 Yards
6 rounds -2 rounds on each whistle (in 3 seconds)
4 rounds -2 rounds on each whistle (in 3 seconds)
10 rounds -Load 6 rounds, on whistle, fire 6, reload 4 rounds, fire 4, all in 20 seconds.
15 Yards
6 rounds -2 rounds on each whistle (in 3 seconds). Fired from Weaver Ready.
4 rounds -All 4 rounds in 6 seconds
25 Yards
5 rounds -All 5 rounds in 10 seconds kneeling position
5 rounds -Repeat
Scoring: 2 points each for hits in either the KS or K4 area.
100 points possible.
Firing at an indoor range where drawing from the holster isn’t permitted can be done by using a table start.
Par times can be used via ear buds underneath hearing protection muffs and a par timer app on one’s cell phone. The phone’s Bluetooth connection will transmit the start and stop beeps to the ear buds.
Although it was shot by FBI Agents on the huge B-21 target, any silhouette will do.
It’s a fun course and very practical for those who carry a weapon.
Note to indoor range owners and operators. Granted that OSHA regulations can be onerous to work downrange maintenance with. But having inoperative carriers, targets left downrange on carriers and on the floor, thousands of fired brass cases in front of the booths, etc. presents a very unappealing scenario to the public. This is not a new phenomenon. In 1919, Walter Winans devoted an entire chapter WHY PISTOL SHOOTING IS UNPOPULAR in his book The Modern Pistol and How to Shoot It about the unpleasantness of this experience.
Reliability Testing – Part II
Continuing on with “How many rounds would you say make up a legitimate ‘reliability test’ for a pistol?”
This is a comment to the 2023 post that echoed a comment I failed to notice and answer on the 2017 post.
“ ‘One of the mathematical analyses presented in the original Facebook discussion was that 5 malfunctions per 1000 meant more than one malfunction in a 17 round magazine (8.72%).’
You need to link to this math because it isn’t correct if you assume independence.”
Here is the person’s explanation, verbatim.
“Claude – 5 in 1000 is a 0.5% failure rate, or a 99.5% success rate per shot. The odds of shooting twice in a row is 99.5% X 99.5%, or 99.5% to the 2nd power. The odds of shooting 17 rounds with no problems is 99.5% to the 17th power, or 91.8%, leaving an 8.2% chance of failure.”
The problem is that the assumed 0.5% failure rate was the result of shooting twice. So double counting the failure and then raising it to the 2nd power is an inherent structural flaw in the analysis. I don’t claim to be a statistician but occasionally a structural problem in constructing a mathematical analysis will be immediately obvious to me. If the output of a mathematical analysis is obviously divergent from reality (Glock 17s do not average more than one malfunction per magazine), it means the math is flawed in one way or another.
What is the reliability of a Glock 17? During one class I was teaching at the elite Rogers Shooting School, I had two failures to go into battery with the Gen 2 Glock 17 I used as my School gun. I pushed the slide closed with my thumb (OMG, a diagnostic malfunction clearance) and went on with the drill. The malfunctions seemed odd to me because they were out of the ordinary. Upon further reflection, I realized the teaching season was nearly over (October) and I had neither cleaned nor lubricated the gun all year. It had fired, with various types of ball ammo, somewhere upward of 15,000 rounds without a malfunction. The other School guns performed similarly.
An analysis that determined a Glock 17 had a probability of one malfunction per magazine flew in the face of my experience. That’s the kind of thing I keep an eye open for. If an analysis doesn’t match up with a broad segment of reality, there’s probably something wrong with the analysis.
Having built a model rocket does not make you a rocket scientist.
Reliability Testing
A colleague asked me a few days ago:
“How many rounds would you say make up a legitimate ‘reliability test’ for a pistol?”
My response was 100 because that’s more than 99.9% of people will ever fire a pistol they buy. He was surprised about this answer because he thought it would be considerably more.
There’s a very detailed discussion about it in a post I wrote years ago. Most of the cognoscenti who were responded to the question then felt that 1000 rounds was the minimum desirable number. There were certain aspects of their analyses leading to that conclusion that I felt weren’t explored with enough depth.
https://thetacticalprofessor.net/2017/04/21/reliability/
Numerous justifications for 1000 round torture tests were presented to me by the cognoscenti. One of the mathematical analyses presented in the original Facebook discussion was that 5 malfunctions per 1000 meant more than one malfunction in a 17 round magazine (8.72%). My belief about that obtuse analysis remains the same.
“If I’m going to have at least one malfunction per magazine, I’ll just keep carrying a revolver.”
I’ll write a bit more about my latest revolver work for #wheelgunwednesday next week.
Hahaha. Alt Text autogenerated by Microsoft Word for the above picture:
“A board game with brown squares”
WWII Helicopter Rescue Mission – Unintentional Discharge Related
Dr. Mark Felton never ceases to amaze with his recounts of wartime exploits. The elaborate efforts made by the US Army to rescue a soldier involved a journey three-quarters of the way around the globe.
“A soldier based in a weather station atop a 4700 foot tall mountain [in Burma] had accidentally shot himself in the hand and infection had set in. He needed immediate evacuation to hospital.”
“On the 24th of January 1945, a helicopter undertook the first combat medical evacuation in history.”
Ironically, the first helicopter Medevac mission in history was not due to combat action but rather because of an Unintentional Discharge.
Home Invasion – Part II
and that’s the first time I realized how difficult it was to try and remove somebody’s testicles by hand.
The gentleman was very angry that his wife and homestead had been attacked and he had been shot at.
He used a 6 inch revolver to shoot back. No results, unfortunately.
And with that I went back to retrieve my own firearm. So I went to the vehicle. I had a handgun, a 38 special with a 6 inch barrel.
Quite an amazing and educational story.
Part I https://thetacticalprofessor.net/2023/06/17/home-invasion-part-i/
Home Invasion – Part I
It’s not often that we are able to listen to such a detailed narrative of how a home invasion went down. Having the victim tell the story makes it even more remarkable. This is a very brave woman and family. The overhead view of the property and accompanying explanation of the movements are invaluable.
My thanks to the creator of the video. More about the story in the next post.
RIP Sheriff Gene Matthews
Subscribe to continue reading
Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.
Charlotte Bus Shootout
On May 18, 2023, an altercation occurred between a bus driver and a young criminal riding the bus in Charlotte NC. As the altercation escalated, the young criminal produced a pistol from his pocket and approached the driver. Upon seeing the young criminal’s weapon, the driver produced his own pistol and opened fire on the young criminal. The young criminal fired back. Multiple rounds were subsequently exchanged.
ABC News link https://youtu.be/IoRgLsiefdE
Both shooters were wounded in the engagement. The young criminal was hit once in the abdomen and required six days of hospitalization with life threatening injuries. The bus driver was wounded in the arm, treated, and released. The young criminal was arrested and charged with Assault With A Deadly Weapon Inflicting Serious Injuries, Communicating Threats, and Carrying A Concealed Firearm. The bus driver was fired from his job but has not been charged, at least yet.
Issues
There are numerous issues that can be discussed regarding the incident.
- De-escalation
- The driver was fired for not using de-escalation techniques as taught by his employer. At this point, there is no way of knowing whether de-escalation would have been possible.
- Preparation for combat
- Although the young criminal was carrying a weapon and ‘communicated a threat,’ he had to consider the situation after he pulled his pistol out.
- The bus driver was clearly prepared for the incident because his draw was a one second draw any firearm instructor would be happy with.
- Situational Awareness
- The bus driver, despite having to drive the bus, was immediately aware of the young criminal’s approach after he armed himself.
- Point Shooting
- Distances
- The initial exchange of gunfire took place at about 4 feet, the boundary between Personal Space and Social Space in Proxemics.
- Distances
- As the shootout continued, the distances increased dramatically with the final shot taking place at seven to 10 yards.
- Both shooters fired one handed. Neither used a Gangsta style shooting stance. The young criminal’s initial stance was a classic point shooting Square stance with weapon just below the eye-target line as described by Fairbairn and Sykes in Shooting to Live.
- As the young criminal retreated, the bus driver employed a ‘tactical blind fire’ method of continuing his barrage.
- Hits
- The results were that out of a magazine fired by each shooter, one hit was made by each. The young criminal was hit in the abdomen and the bus driver was hit in the arm. The hit ratio was less than 10 percent. Although the young criminal was seriously wounded, he was still mobile and unneutralized, as is often the case with abdominal wounds.
- Weapons used
- Glock 19
- SCCY
- Neither weapon appears to have malfunctioned.
- Both were equipped with iron sights.
- Anger management
- In Principles of Personal Defense, Jeff Cooper said “Now how do we cultivate an aggressive response? I think the answer is indignation. … Your response, if attacked, must not be fear, it must be anger. The two emotions are very close and you can quite easily turn one into the other. … Anger lets you do this.“ Although it is unlikely that the bus driver has ever read Cooper’s book, it’s very clear that he used Cooper’s philosophy.
- Actions after the initial exchange
- The bus driver fired three volleys.
- The initial exchange at the front of the bus, including the tactical blind fire.
- After the initial exchange of gunfire, the bus driver got up from his seat, opened the partition, had a verbal exchange with the young criminal, and then began shooting again.
- Finally, after the young criminal had exited the bus through the rear door, the bus driver debussed through the front door and fired one more round at the young criminal, who was now in the open seven to 10 yards away. This shot is problematic.
- The bus driver fired three volleys.
- Endangering innocent bystanders
- There were two bystanders on the bus. Both were endangered by the tactical blind fire of Volley 1 and the bus driver’s second volley.
- The second volley was unnecessary and irresponsible. The underlying motive for these shots was vengeance “You shot me!” not self-defense.
- The final round fired in the open as a parting shot menaced the entire area. Cooper’s anger principle is entirely inappropriate at this point.
- Gunhandling
- The bus driver had to switch hands twice. To undo his seat belt and open his partition, he had to switch his pistol to his left hand. After stepping past the partition, he transitioned back to his right hand. He was able to do this without having an Unintentional Discharge.
- Verbal commands
- The bus driver commanded the young criminal to “Get your a** back!” when the young criminal was at the back door. The young criminal refused, fearing he would be shot again.
- Self-aid for wounds
- Both the young criminal and the bus driver were wounded. Neither had any first aid equipment. Note in the video that the bus driver is holding his arm where he was wounded.
- Chasing fleeing criminals
- Getting out of his seat to maintain visual on the young criminal was entirely appropriate. Following the criminal out of the bus was not. We see time and again the chase instinct that occurs when the predator-prey relationship reverses. It’s an instinct that we need to be aware of and not give in to.
My analysis of the Point Shooting aspects are on my Patreon page. I will be going over other aspects of the shootout in more detail in my next few posts there. Click the image below to follow.
The Value of Historical Methods
A viewer of my Shooting to Live Advanced Methods demo YouTube video asked an interesting question.
“Do you think that there is any value added by practicing the WWII Combatives shooting methods beyond learning historical training firsthand?”
In a conversation with him, he further elaborated that he was asking from his perspective as a competent shooter who practices regularly using demanding time and accuracy standards. From that perspective, my answer was NO. The only value to him would be for historical academic interest. There is nothing that will be learned of practical value for someone with his level of proficiency.
However, I continued on by saying that to the millions of first time gun buyers of the past few years, MAYBE. Only a miniscule fraction of those people will ever take a class on gun safety and learn how to shoot to some standard, whatever that standard might be.
For those millions of first time gun buyers, studying actual WWII shooting combatives, such as Shooting to Live and Field Manual 23-35 Pistols and Revolvers (1946), could have some value. Shooting to Live and its immediately successor, US Army Combat Firing, at least provide some structure and standards for brand new pistol shooters. Any system based on real combat is preferable to going to an indoor range and randomly blasting away based on what’s shown on TV.
I began the long term series about ‘Unsighted Fire’ aka Point Shooting on Patreon for a very specific reason. It is that obviously the vast majority of people who write about point shooting or make YouTube videos on “Fairbairn Method” shooting have never really read or studied any of the literature about it, including Shooting to Live. From the perspective of an historian and researcher, this lack of fact based information is both annoying and disturbing.
The gunhandling and safety aspects of WWII pistol combatives alone have a great deal of merit. Gripping the pistol properly. A strong emphasis on practical gunhandling in addition to marksmanship. Including malfunction clearance in early stages of Live Fire. Equal weight on Dry Practice as Live Fire, especially prior to the initial firing practice. Highlighting the concept of treating a pistol as always loaded. Emphasizing the importance of muzzle direction when handling a pistol. Practicing clearing and making the pistol safe when less than a magazine has been fired. Those are all highly useful skills, probably even more so than the marksmanship standards, which were not very high.
But please avoid muzzling your instructors. We won’t be happy about that. We will try to keep away from putting ourselves in a position where you can.
While the hit standards Shooting to Live and Field Manual 23-35 Pistols and Revolvers (1946) establish are rudimentary, they do give new shooters an idea that they’re supposed to actually hit something when shooting. The standard in Shooting to Live is 50 percent hits on a silhouette for single presentations within Social Space (4 yards). The 1946 US Army standard was 100 percent hits for single presentations on an E Silhouette at 5 yards.
Although most proficient shooters today would consider the techniques obsolete and the standards mediocre, at best, they’re still better than practicing what’s seen on TV and in movies. TV and movies are where most gunowners’ training takes place and that’s bad news.
If you would like to follow my Patreon page to go into more depth about point shooting and personal protection incidents, click on the image below.
tacticalprofessor 
You must be logged in to post a comment.