Deep thoughts on LE loadout these days

[KevH]

I’ve been mulling over posting something about this and have until now refrained, but a thread on another forum I frequent and some recent observations watching freshly graduated police academy kids is prompting me to stir the pot. It’s a long post so buckle up.

When I became a police cadet back in the end of the 1990’s, there were still a few officers (all Vietnam vets to give age perspective) who were carrying revolvers on uniformed patrol every day. Typically they carried two extra speed loaders or full moon clips. Their common loadout was 6+6+6= 18 rounds.

By far, the most common loadout in my county (San Francisco East Bay) when I started in the early 2000’s was a single stack 45 ACP handgun (1911, SIG P220, or S&W 4506-1) and the officer carrying two extra mags on the belt. This loadout was 8+8+8+1=25 rounds. This was well over 70% of the city cops around here.

The second most common loadout locally was typically a Beretta 92 or S&W 5906 (our sheriff’s office) in 9mm or a Glock 22 in 40 S&W each which held 15 rounds and the officer would carry two extra mags for 15+15+15+1=46 rounds.

Finally, the third most common was the Beretta 96 (a couple small PD’s and some personally owned guns) or S&W 4006 (CHP) which each carried 11 rounds in the mag and was typically carried with one on the gun and two on the belt for 11+11+11+1=34 rounds.

I’d like to note that no one carrying any of these loadouts, whether 18 rounds, 25, 33 or 46, ever complained of being under-armed or having too little ammo in my recollection.

Over time load outs grew a little. “Quad” mag pouches for single stacks became a big thing around 2010 and as 9mm caught on most standard mags increased to 17 round capacity.

Fast forward to today when I commonly see three 21 or 22 round mags on a belt or external carrier with another in the gun. This is 85 rounds (or more) of 9mm on their person.

My initial thoughts on this have been “that’s a lot of weight I wouldn’t care to carry around,” and “hey, you do you, not needed, but if it makes you feel better cool.” But are there downsides to this much ammo?

This thread, as well as some personal experience, really started me thinking about it:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?57383-The-case-for-the-assessment-pause

I made this comment in that thread:

“When someone is trying to kill you (or you think someone is trying to kill you) it is very easy to floor the accelerator and very hard to hit to brakes fast enough.

Hours later, when asked how many rounds you fired, you may think three or four, but more often than not your magazine may tell a much different story.”

I stand by that statement.

This is totally anecdotal, but as I have seen the capacity of the magazine increase, I have seen split times decrease, and I have seen the emphasis on making accurate shots decrease as well, regardless of irons or optics. Correlation? Perhaps.

I have had to fight and argue to keep the six 25 yard shots in our annual 36 round duty qual. There are quite a few in my department that only want 15 yards and in because “speed is what really matters.” My counter argument has been “it only counts if it hits what it needs to.”

I also within the last few years had an argument with another senior firearms instructor during an instructor development day who was pushing everyone to shoot fast and he told me I wasn’t shooting fast enough and wasn’t “pushing it.” My splits were around .25 second and my group was the size of a fist from 7 yards. His argument was my group was too tight and if I wasn’t so nitpicky on accuracy I could be so much faster. Dude…

I recently sent one of our younger “good shooter” officers to the same police firearms instructor school I went through. The first day they make you shoot 25 yard NRA Bullseye on a B-16 (slowfire). I remember me and the other guy with me from my department back then both shooting our 45 ACP 1911’s with irons passed it easy peasy on the first attempt. Our young guy today with his X5 Legion with optic and 21 round mags had a hell of a time. He relayed to me after the course how he thought it was ridiculous to have to shoot that and…you know…speed matters. Houston, we have a problem…

I started carrying a Gen3 Glock 17 for dog-handler reasons back in 2014 and switched to a Gen5 Glock 19 MOS a year ago, but still stay qualified on a 1911 and carry it occasionally. I attended an academy graduation a couple weeks ago wearing the 1911 which led to conversation with a newbie of “how are you comfortable with that” and “aren’t you afraid of running out of ammo?” Comfortable? Very…and no, no I’m not.

Not that I’ve done this (wink-wink), but put two decent shooters on plate racks. One with the old 25 round single stack loadout and one with the “lots of ammo” loadout and don’t give them any rules except for knock the plates down as fast as you can. I guarantee you the single stack guy will always have slower splits, but will have less rounds shot with more hits. Very often, he or she is actually faster (sometimes significantly so) to knock down all the plates than the “faster” shooter.

Now let’s apply this exercise to real life in an OIS. Who would you want in an OIS? Which one is most defensible in court and in the court of public opinion and media scrutiny? The person that fired lots of rounds really fast or the person that fired fewer rounds slightly slower, but made his or her hits count?

The counter argument is always the one-off like the Timothy Gramins OIS (officer with a Glock 21, expends all three mags and almost out of ammo and now carries an excessive amount of 9mm). In most articles/interviews with him he’s quoted as saying, “Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’" Well, there you go.

I’m not sure if it’s because they’re just available or John Wick or what, but more than three of the 20+ round mags is definitely the thing right now, I’ve formed the personal opinion that it isn’t a good thing. Anecdotally, it seems the byproduct is more rounds fired and a degradation of accuracy.

I’m seriously thinking of switching back to the 1911 with the old loadout for myself, because when I’m honest with myself, do I need anything else right now?

[blues]

I've carried revolvers and semi-autos as an 1811 for the feds. I think I was a better shooter with revolvers with quals out to 25 yards...with a Model 19 or Model 15...and not far behind with a Model 36.

I probably shot my best quals with semi-autos with either a Gov't Model (Series 70) or a third generation S&W double action only. I've never been quite as good with the Glocks, though I do prefer them.

Your post reminds me of an argument I had with our firearms instructor, Seth Nadel, at the Customs academy in Marana, AZ back in late 1987 or early 1988.

He complained to me that I would have shot a perfect score on the course, (with a S&W Model 19 as I recall), if I had just taken my time more at 25 yards. He was really upset with me. And I argued back to him that I was always the first one on the line to break leather and get my shots off. To me, that meant I had a better chance of winning the gunfight.

I guess there is some level of "good enough" at a given speed. I'm not exactly sure how to qualify it. (Pun intended.)

Enjoyed the post. (I wish that Uncle Sam had given me the option to buy that Gov't model...but alas.)

[AMC]

Saw the beginnings of this at my old place too. The 4-5 spare magazines, the extended magazines (more understandable when the issued ones were 12's, but still). Big thing now is carrying 2 mags on the belt, and 2 more on the outer vest carrier. Pointing out in training that if you need this much pistol ammo, you shouldn't be trying to solve the problem with a handgun....generally fell on disbelieving ears.

I routinely see cops carrying either factory 21 round 320 mags, or the even more common Glock mags with Taran Tactical extensions. And usually in a triple pouch on the belt. Not everyone, for certain, but definitely common. Personally, I think the cool-guy cosplay thing is in effect, as well as a misplaced sense of priorities. When I was limited to 11 round .40 Beretta 96 mags, I didn't think I needed more mags. I thought I needed to get much better at shooting.

[RevolverJIM]

You may have referred to the question that I asked on that other site: How many magazines?

The reason that the question was asked is my concern about the very same thought that you seem to have.

https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/articles/watch-bwc-video-shows-shootout-between-nm-officers-suspect-inside-supermarket-4MLRLJNHxJJ4SvA5/

I don't have nearly enough information to even begin to understand this event!

As Bill Jordan said, "Speed is fine, accuracy is FINAL!"

I amend his comment thusly: "Capacity is fine, accuracy is FINAL!"

[HCM]

I’ve been mulling over posting something about this and have until now refrained, but a thread on another forum I frequent and some recent observations watching freshly graduated police academy kids is prompting me to stir the pot. It’s a long post so buckle up.

When I became a police cadet back in the end of the 1990’s, there were still a few officers (all Vietnam vets to give age perspective) who were carrying revolvers on uniformed patrol every day. Typically they carried two extra speed loaders or full moon clips. Their common loadout was 6+6+6= 18 rounds.

By far, the most common loadout in my county (San Francisco East Bay) when I started in the early 2000’s was a single stack 45 ACP handgun (1911, SIG P220, or S&W 4506-1) and the officer carrying two extra mags on the belt. This loadout was 8+8+8+1=25 rounds. This was well over 70% of the city cops around here.

The second most common loadout locally was typically a Beretta 92 or S&W 5906 (our sheriff’s office) in 9mm or a Glock 22 in 40 S&W each which held 15 rounds and the officer would carry two extra mags for 15+15+15+1=46 rounds.

Finally, the third most common was the Beretta 96 (a couple small PD’s and some personally owned guns) or S&W 4006 (CHP) which each carried 11 rounds in the mag and was typically carried with one on the gun and two on the belt for 11+11+11+1=34 rounds.

I’d like to note that no one carrying any of these loadouts, whether 18 rounds, 25, 33 or 46, ever complained of being under-armed or having too little ammo in my recollection.

Over time load outs grew a little. “Quad” mag pouches for single stacks became a big thing around 2010 and as 9mm caught on most standard mags increased to 17 round capacity.

Fast forward to today when I commonly see three 21 or 22 round mags on a belt or external carrier with another in the gun. This is 85 rounds (or more) of 9mm on their person.

My initial thoughts on this have been “that’s a lot of weight I wouldn’t care to carry around,” and “hey, you do you, not needed, but if it makes you feel better cool.” But are there downsides to this much ammo?

This thread, as well as some personal experience, really started me thinking about it:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?57383-The-case-for-the-assessment-pause

I made this comment in that thread:

“When someone is trying to kill you (or you think someone is trying to kill you) it is very easy to floor the accelerator and very hard to hit to brakes fast enough.

Hours later, when asked how many rounds you fired, you may think three or four, but more often than not your magazine may tell a much different story.”

I stand by that statement.

This is totally anecdotal, but as I have seen the capacity of the magazine increase, I have seen split times decrease, and I have seen the emphasis on making accurate shots decrease as well, regardless of irons or optics. Correlation? Perhaps.

I have had to fight and argue to keep the six 25 yard shots in our annual 36 round duty qual. There are quite a few in my department that only want 15 yards and in because “speed is what really matters.” My counter argument has been “it only counts if it hits what it needs to.”

I also within the last few years had an argument with another senior firearms instructor during an instructor development day who was pushing everyone to shoot fast and he told me I wasn’t shooting fast enough and wasn’t “pushing it.” My splits were around .25 second and my group was the size of a fist from 7 yards. His argument was my group was too tight and if I wasn’t so nitpicky on accuracy I could be so much faster. Dude…

I recently sent one of our younger “good shooter” officers to the same police firearms instructor school I went through. The first day they make you shoot 25 yard NRA Bullseye on a B-16 (slowfire). I remember me and the other guy with me from my department back then both shooting our 45 ACP 1911’s with irons passed it easy peasy on the first attempt. Our young guy today with his X5 Legion with optic and 21 round mags had a hell of a time. He relayed to me after the course how he thought it was ridiculous to have to shoot that and…you know…speed matters. Houston, we have a problem…

I started carrying a Gen3 Glock 17 for dog-handler reasons back in 2014 and switched to a Gen5 Glock 19 MOS a year ago, but still stay qualified on a 1911 and carry it occasionally. I attended an academy graduation a couple weeks ago wearing the 1911 which led to conversation with a newbie of “how are you comfortable with that” and “aren’t you afraid of running out of ammo?” Comfortable? Very…and no, no I’m not.

Not that I’ve done this (wink-wink), but put two decent shooters on plate racks. One with the old 25 round single stack loadout and one with the “lots of ammo” loadout and don’t give them any rules except for knock the plates down as fast as you can. I guarantee you the single stack guy will always have slower splits, but will have less rounds shot with more hits. Very often, he or she is actually faster (sometimes significantly so) to knock down all the plates than the “faster” shooter.

Now let’s apply this exercise to real life in an OIS. Who would you want in an OIS? Which one is most defensible in court and in the court of public opinion and media scrutiny? The person that fired lots of rounds really fast or the person that fired fewer rounds slightly slower, but made his or her hits count?

The counter argument is always the one-off like the Timothy Gramins OIS (officer with a Glock 21, expends all three mags and almost out of ammo and now carries an excessive amount of 9mm). In most articles/interviews with him he’s quoted as saying, “Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’" Well, there you go.

I’m not sure if it’s because they’re just available or John Wick or what, but more than three of the 20+ round mags is definitely the thing right now, I’ve formed the personal opinion that it isn’t a good thing. Anecdotally, it seems the byproduct is more rounds fired and a degradation of accuracy.

I’m seriously thinking of switching back to the 1911 with the old loadout for myself, because when I’m honest with myself, do I need anything else right now?

A few thoughts as someone who also started LE in the 90s with 18 (GP-100) 22 (SIG 220) then 34 (Beretta 96D) round load outs.

Correlation is not causation. The idea that fewer rounds somehow = better accuracy is a fallacy.

The behavior by both groups is a direct result of what they train / what is emphasized in training.

If you only train accuracy at the expense of speed, you will get slow but accurate shooters, who look great in certain situations, and do poorly another situations. Training speed at the expense of accuracy results in a mirror image deficiency.

I came from a place with an unbalanced emphasis on accuracy because firearms instructor = PPC shooter.

I watched classmates who qualified well struggle in Force on Force “at the speed of life.” Then got another eye opener when I tried USPSA (with a DAO Beretta 96).

Unfortunately, instead of adopting balanced training working both speed and accuracy the trend has simply become replacing lopsided training overemphasizing accuracy with lopsided training over emphasizing speed.

You have to train both because the target / threat dictates the ratio required.

It’s one of the reasons I think it’s foolish to remove the bullseye courses of fire from Instructor courses.

To me one of the least appreciated benefits of optics equipped pistols is the ease of hitting things beyond 25 yards. IMHO
an LE optics pistol training program should include shots at 50 yards or more, even if it’s just a familiarization exercise. Locally we’ve done an annual fam fire exercise at 50 for the past decade.

Unfortunately the current state of LE firearms training in most places is deficient in both respects.

Optics aside, many places still running irons only teach hard front sight focus for all shots regardless of speed or distance, pinning triggers etc.

I recently assisted a local department (issuing Glock 17 MOS / option to buy a Holosun or ACRO) who had officers who could not draw and fire a single round to the 8 inch circle on an IDPA target at 5 yards in less than two seconds. Some could not do so in less than 2.5. 4-5 second bill drills etc. unfortunately, the same officers were not shooting single hole / fist size groups without the timer. Nor were they maxing out the 25 yards head shot drill that followed. Many of those untimed head shots were misses or wound up in the chest. These were the same ones arguing that no one would ever need to fire a pistol beyond 7 yards or an M4 beyond 15…

My guys are lucky in that we shoot quarterly and fire about 1,000 rounds per officer, per year.

Many local agencies here shoot 100 rounds once a year, never rotate duty ammo unless you get into a shooting / euthanize an animal etc.

Personally I could give up capacity and go back to 8/8/8 but I would not give up an optic.

[Chuck Whitlock]

This is totally anecdotal, but as I have seen the capacity of the magazine increase, I have seen split times decrease, and I have seen the emphasis on making accurate shots decrease as well, regardless of irons or optics. Correlation? Perhaps.

I think there may also be a (concurrent?) correlation with the change from TDA autos to (first) Glocks and other SFA pistols, and the subsequent race to "better" (shorter/easier) triggers. As always, correlation does not equal causation.




Over time load outs grew a little. “Quad” mag pouches for single stacks became a big thing around 2010 and as 9mm caught on most standard mags increased to 17 round capacity.

Fast forward to today when I commonly see three 21 or 22 round mags on a belt or external carrier with another in the gun. This is 85 rounds (or more) of 9mm on their person.



I routinely see cops carrying either factory 21 round 320 mags, or the even more common Glock mags with Taran Tactical extensions. And usually in a triple pouch on the belt. Not everyone, for certain, but definitely common.

I dallied with the triple pouch for a while. One rationale was that I used to work at smaller agencies, and was often the "lone ranger" with backup coming from afar. I had two real issues with them.

1) Minor issue: I always had more tension on the middle magazine than the outer ones, and wasn't able to balance that out.

2) Much bigger deal: The magazines are oriented 90* from how I've always...over decades...worn spare magazines. I just couldn't (and didn't see the need to) throw a different manipulation into the mix.



I’m seriously thinking of switching back to the 1911 with the old loadout for myself, because when I’m honest with myself, do I need anything else right now?

I currently do that exact thing as an investigator. In uniform.......1) I'd like to have 4 spare magazines with a single stack (DB's whole "looking for trouble" concept), and the quad mag pouches are bulkier than I like. 2) If I'm going to be rolling around in a parking lot with sumdude and get my pistol ground into the pavement, I'd rather it be the easily replaceable Wilson grip module on my P250c. 3) For some reason, the ALS mechanism on my 6360's are smooth-as-silk with a Glock or Sig, but I struggle with smooth access when it comes to a 1911. I'm not sure why that is, other than the holster having to work around the thumb safety.

[feudist]

There are "Black Swan" events where high round count shootings occur and they warp everyone's perceptions emotionally.
We still talk about Miami 1986.
In my studies, individual officers rarely run out of ammo because there's simply not enough time. Most very high round count incidents are the sum of several officers shooting, and shooting too much(the bunch fire effect) and this is then conflated with the need for an individual to be able to shoot that much.
Many(most?) officers that are killed by gunfire are killed gun in holster, mooting, well, everything about guns and marksmanship.
A few years back, we had our highest volume gunbattle in departmental history. It involved a rile armed robber who had already shot a clerk and an officer and was cornered in a parking garage. Over a hundred rounds were fired in several exchanges by 6 or 7 responding officers before the little shit was killed. No one fired more than a couple of rounds from their second mag. Before that, across 32 years we'd had a couple of 13-14 round shootings. Most were a fast burst of 3-6 and the suspect either surrendered, was incapacitated or rannoft.
I think the amount on board the gun is the most relevant metric, because that is time in the actual fight, and 2 or 3 seconds of fire is what's needed in the vast majority of cases. Reloads rarely affect the outcome.
A spare mag has value primarily for malfunction clearing and a third magazine only in the most outlier of cases.
It's hard to construct a scenario of remotely responsible gunfire where innocent life depends on the 30th round, much less the 45th or 60th.

[TGS]

I’d like to note that no one carrying any of these loadouts, whether 18 rounds, 25, 33 or 46, ever complained of being under-armed or having too little ammo in my recollection.

I think that's an awfully presumptive statement to make when American LE history can be typified by a steady trend of trying to "up-gun" in some manner.

Incidents like the depression era gang shootouts. Newhall. FBI Miami. North Hollywood. In the last 20 years, the rise of terrorism and worst case scenarios like Mumbai and Nairobi are huge inspirations to not just cops but gun owners, as well as the various worst case scenarios active shooters here like Dallas.

We wouldn't be where we are if your statement were true. We'd still be carrying a single 32 caliber revolver, maybe with some spare rounds in a pocket.

[KevH]

You may have referred to the question that I asked on that other site: How many magazines?

The reason that the question was asked is my concern about the very same thought that you seem to have.

https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/articles/watch-bwc-video-shows-shootout-between-nm-officers-suspect-inside-supermarket-4MLRLJNHxJJ4SvA5/

I don't have nearly enough information to even begin to understand this event!

As Bill Jordan said, "Speed is fine, accuracy is FINAL!"

I amend his comment thusly: "Capacity is fine, accuracy is FINAL!"

I don't think this is a gun problem, so much as a decision making problem.

Watching that video as well as this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOOT7TTIaXw) I think Albuquerque PD needs to spend a good amount of time teaching UofF case law, decision-making, and doing good practical scenario-based training.

In the case of the two videos: Indecision > Inaction > Delay > Missed Opportunity > Poor Timing > Negative Outcome

- The guy should have never been allowed to enter the grocery store. Period. You shoot him before he goes in when you have an appropriate backdrop.

- The stabber guy gets one command, the officers communicate and the one with the best position of advantage (so bystander doesn't get shot) shoots the him

Both of those videos show a lack of comfort with decision making and a lack of understanding of the rules of engagement coming from case law. This leads to paralysis and inaction (and a lot of yelling which is typically accompanies the prior traits), which causes a delay to deal with the threat.

The delay causes a missed opportunity to shoot the suspect with the least amount of risk to officers and the public. The one guy could have been shot without the bus stop folks in the background and the grocery store guy could have been shot before entering the store (both would have been completely justified under the law).

Watching the videos most of know what is going to happen, but because our officers delayed and missed the good opportunity know the eventual event we all know will occur still happens, but is poorly timed and puts innocent lives at risk.

This then leads to to the negative outcome of an innocent bystander being shot in the once case and many lives put at risk in the other. The other outcome is negative press and bad public relations for the department.

Teach your people how to make good decisions under stress and you will have a better outcomes.

If anyone from APD (especially their training division) is here PM me. I have lots of material (CA POST approved) on how to teach this.

[Screwball]

I carry a Glock 19, with three magazines on my belt. Another magazine on my vest. And I keep an extra in my center console (along with my 9mm moonclip and 12-round LCP Max magazine).

All my magazines are 15 rounders, with that long CBP base. I’m looking into getting a +2 setup to run in the gun and checking with my F/I regarding it. While the agency says it is good to go, we are in the Boston Field Office. [emoji849]

I think it came up in another thread, but I carry that much on me because we do work in pairs at somewhat remote areas… upwards of an hour from any type of backup. And there are officers that I really don’t consider as backup that I can be paired off with (it’s sad to say, but very true). If I’m in my personal vehicle, I always have a long gun (or two) with me. We still have multiple ports that do not have long guns stationed. It has got better with new management… but I still see old school thinking that leaves my coworkers with a certain appendage in their hands.

[BehindBlueI's]

Correlation is not causation. The idea that fewer rounds somehow = better accuracy is a fallacy.

The behavior by both groups is a direct result of what they train / what is emphasized in training.


Disagree. The mindset difference is observable both in the street and in qualifications. Humans value scarcity to an absurd degree. See: toilet paper panic. The mere notion that something is going to be scarce at some point in the future makes humans value that thing more right now at a deep emotional level.

The referenced officer who ran through nearly his full load of Glock 21 bullets didn't stop, re-evaluate, and emphasize better accuracy until he realized he was down to a few more chances. Would he have blown through all those rounds if he'd seen the empty coming sooner? If he'd had three more mags, would he have just kept doing what he was doing with the first 3?

What *is* a fallacy is that training was somehow better "back then". Maybe for some departments. Others were doing a go shoot 35 rounds during a duty day then back on the street. Let's ignore the fact range qualification scores and officer survival rates have zero correlation in long running stats like the NYPD's reports simply because that super back in the day training wasn't very realistic, as that's probably ranging a bit far afield for this.

I believe whole heartedly that the increase in round counts, but with no increase in percentage of hits, is due to larger magazines, shorter/easier triggers, and less recoil. Nobody blew through 18 rounds of .45 Colt simply because it took too much fucking time to do it. Long squeeze, bang, get gun out of recoil, long squeeze bang until reload time, etc. Now it's just bangbangbangbangbang until reload, which is very quickly done with very little manipulation or manual dexterity to accomplish, and back to bangbangbangbang. The overall *time* spent shooting may not be any longer, but the number of bangs you an fit in during that time has increased dramatically.

[KevH]

Correlation is not causation. The idea that fewer rounds somehow = better accuracy is a fallacy.

The behavior by both groups is a direct result of what they train / what is emphasized in training.



While I don't think having fewer rounds leads to better accuracy (an argument reminiscent of the old USMC 1903 Springfield vs M1 Garand or M14 vs M16 argument ), I do think there is an unavoidable psychological impact knowing you have more rounds to waste.

I've set up the dueling plate rack example on more than one occasion and watched that dynamic play out. The outcome is repeatable.

It's simply the Law of Scarcity from economics in action. The less you have of something the more valuable something becomes and the less likely you are to waste it.

I think with regards to shooting, it subconsciously causes people to slow down just a tad and make their hits count.

If we walked the same two shooters over to paper targets and told them to each fire five rounds into the head of a silhouette with no time limit I don't think the capacity of the magazine would have any impact at all on the performance.

[Dennis]

Cops need more realistic shooting training.

Cops need to continuously assess while shooting in today's climate.

Cops could run into a situation requiring excess ammunition.

All can be true at the same time.

Define your mission and the training and equipment follows.

I am perfectly ok with your mission to be saving your back while not looking for trouble, especially nowadays [emoji6]

Dennis.







Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[Utm]

When we switched from g22's to g45 mos I started carrying 22 round mags from shield arms. One day I got tired of them stabbing me in the stomach and weighing down my belt more than I needed. I went back to stock mags. Don't regret it one bit. We are also limited to double mag pouch only, no triple or higher.

[KevH]

I think that's an awfully presumptive statement to make when American LE history can be typified by a steady trend of trying to "up-gun" in some manner.

Incidents like the depression era gang shootouts. Newhall. FBI Miami. North Hollywood. In the last 20 years, the rise of terrorism and worst case scenarios like Mumbai and Nairobi are huge inspirations to not just cops but gun owners, as well as the various worst case scenarios active shooters here like Dallas.

We wouldn't be where we are if your statement were true. We'd still be carrying a single 32 caliber revolver, maybe with some spare rounds in a pocket.

Not trying to be presumptuous, but that is my recollection. The guys in my area that I knew carrying revolvers did so because they wanted to. I'm sure someone somewhere bitched about not having enough ammo on their belt since bitching is very nature of our profession.

My discussion above is with regards to magazine and magazine capacity and the perception of what is normal and or needed for a uniformed officer or deputy. The types of pistols carried has evolved considerably in the last 25 years.

With regards to "up-gun" we certainly have since then and I would argue in a positive way.

When I started a long gun in a car was likely a 12 gauge Remington 870 loaded with standard 00 Buck. Right before I became a cadet North Hollywood happened which started the rifle discussion and led to slugs being allowed. Then Columbine happened. I remember a super hokey article in Combat Handguns talking about using a MagLight as a stock with your pistol duty pistol to give you a "long gun for long shots."

Now nearly every patrol car in the US has a rifle in it with 20 or 30 round magazines of 5.56. Those rifles are much more applicable (and appropriate) to the active shooter scenarios you describe above and I would certainly take a long gun over any pistol no matter how many pistol rounds are carried on the belt.

[John Hearne]

I can't quantify it well enough to say correlation, but I know how well the pool of our 25 commissioned shoot. Inevitably, the ones with the 21 round magazines are the worst shooters, and have shown little interest in changing that.

I often laugh to myself when I presscheck my P320. 18 rounds in the gun, as many as I carried on my duty belt back in the days of GP-100 and two speedloaders. (To be fair I often had a speed strip with five rounds in a uniform pocket - if one Barney bullet is good, four more is better)

[HCM]

Not trying to be presumptuous, but that is my recollection. The guys in my area that I knew carrying revolvers did so because they wanted to. I'm sure someone somewhere bitched about not having enough ammo on their belt since bitching is very nature of our profession.

My discussion above is with regards to magazine and magazine capacity and the perception of what is normal and or needed for a uniformed officer or deputy. The types of pistols carried has evolved considerably in the last 25 years.

With regards to "up-gun" we certainly have since then and I would argue in a positive way.

When I started a long gun in a car was likely a 12 gauge Remington 870 loaded with standard 00 Buck. Right before I became a cadet North Hollywood happened which started the rifle discussion and led to slugs being allowed. Then Columbine happened. I remember a super hokey article in Combat Handguns talking about using a MagLight as a stock with your pistol duty pistol to give you a "long gun for long shots."

Now nearly every patrol car in the US has a rifle in it with 20 or 30 round magazines of 5.56. Those rifles are much more applicable (and appropriate) to the active shooter scenarios you describe above and I would certainly take a long gun over any pistol no matter how many pistol rounds are carried on the belt.

Where that long gun is in the car makes a big difference in accessibility and the likely hood it will be a factor.

Re: number of mags, I always carry 1 extra mag on the belt whether in plainclothes or geared up. Plainclothes that extra is usually a 21 rounder. Geared up - 1 x 21 round pistol & 1x M4 on the belt and either the same or just another 21 round pistol mag on body armor. We have guys running around with 3 to 6 M4 mags and a supervisor with 3 M4 mags and 6 pistol mags including two mounted horizontally on either side of his lower back (he started in the 90s too so you can’t blame the millennials). My back hurts just looking at them. I figure if the guys on the bin Laden raid were good with 3 plus one in the gun I’ll be ok. Of course I have the obligatory extra loaded mags in the car for … reasons.



I will say that if I had to fight the dude with a rifle using just a pistol, I’d much rather use an optics equipped pistol than anything from “back in the day.”

[RevolverJIM]

Re the Accuracy vs. Speed discussion......

You gotta have a good supply of both! One is pretty much useless without the other.

[DDTSGM]

I've been reading threads of this type with interest.


There are "Black Swan" events where high round count shootings occur and they warp everyone's perceptions emotionally.

We still talk about Miami 1986.

We still talk about the shooting part of Miami, but rarely talk about the cause of Miami. That shit gets glossed over.

We have the Line of Duty Death Announcements stickied thread.

Within the last month there have been several officers who have been killed responding to what I would call disturbance calls. I want it to be understood, I'm not casting aspersions on any of these officers, because you can't put information you don't know to use. But, let's take a look at these instances from a different perspective:

You're going on the call with the officer. You ask him 'so Jimmy, how do officers get killed or injured on this type of call?' What do you think the officer would say? Would he say:

'Well shots fired from doors or windows kill most officers on these type of calls, so we need to be heads up for that on approach.' 'We'll approach from the side and as we get closer to the location, we'll need to separate with one covering the other's approach.'

'There is also a high percentage of officers shot from ambush outside the residence, especially if they have known of the police response for a period of time, so we need to be alert for that.'

'Initial contact is perhaps the most dangerous, so we need to position ourselves so that the cover officer has a view of the interior when the door opens, and is using cover, concealment, or distance to give them the opportunity to engage the subject if need be.'

And so on.

I'm concerned about this because in my experience, a lot of academies and FTO's don't present this type of info to officers in a manner which tells them of it's importance.

Instead they are worried about getting them through a qual course, or like some of us here, perfecting a sub second draw and .18 splits. All of which does you no good if you get popped because you walk up to the situation like you are trick or treating.

JMO

[Magsz]

I’ve been mulling over posting something about this and have until now refrained, but a thread on another forum I frequent and some recent observations watching freshly graduated police academy kids is prompting me to stir the pot. It’s a long post so buckle up.

When I became a police cadet back in the end of the 1990’s, there were still a few officers (all Vietnam vets to give age perspective) who were carrying revolvers on uniformed patrol every day. Typically they carried two extra speed loaders or full moon clips. Their common loadout was 6+6+6= 18 rounds.

By far, the most common loadout in my county (San Francisco East Bay) when I started in the early 2000’s was a single stack 45 ACP handgun (1911, SIG P220, or S&W 4506-1) and the officer carrying two extra mags on the belt. This loadout was 8+8+8+1=25 rounds. This was well over 70% of the city cops around here.

The second most common loadout locally was typically a Beretta 92 or S&W 5906 (our sheriff’s office) in 9mm or a Glock 22 in 40 S&W each which held 15 rounds and the officer would carry two extra mags for 15+15+15+1=46 rounds.

Finally, the third most common was the Beretta 96 (a couple small PD’s and some personally owned guns) or S&W 4006 (CHP) which each carried 11 rounds in the mag and was typically carried with one on the gun and two on the belt for 11+11+11+1=34 rounds.

I’d like to note that no one carrying any of these loadouts, whether 18 rounds, 25, 33 or 46, ever complained of being under-armed or having too little ammo in my recollection.

Over time load outs grew a little. “Quad” mag pouches for single stacks became a big thing around 2010 and as 9mm caught on most standard mags increased to 17 round capacity.

Fast forward to today when I commonly see three 21 or 22 round mags on a belt or external carrier with another in the gun. This is 85 rounds (or more) of 9mm on their person.

My initial thoughts on this have been “that’s a lot of weight I wouldn’t care to carry around,” and “hey, you do you, not needed, but if it makes you feel better cool.” But are there downsides to this much ammo?

This thread, as well as some personal experience, really started me thinking about it:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?57383-The-case-for-the-assessment-pause

I made this comment in that thread:

“When someone is trying to kill you (or you think someone is trying to kill you) it is very easy to floor the accelerator and very hard to hit to brakes fast enough.

Hours later, when asked how many rounds you fired, you may think three or four, but more often than not your magazine may tell a much different story.”

I stand by that statement.

This is totally anecdotal, but as I have seen the capacity of the magazine increase, I have seen split times decrease, and I have seen the emphasis on making accurate shots decrease as well, regardless of irons or optics. Correlation? Perhaps.

I have had to fight and argue to keep the six 25 yard shots in our annual 36 round duty qual. There are quite a few in my department that only want 15 yards and in because “speed is what really matters.” My counter argument has been “it only counts if it hits what it needs to.”

I also within the last few years had an argument with another senior firearms instructor during an instructor development day who was pushing everyone to shoot fast and he told me I wasn’t shooting fast enough and wasn’t “pushing it.” My splits were around .25 second and my group was the size of a fist from 7 yards. His argument was my group was too tight and if I wasn’t so nitpicky on accuracy I could be so much faster. Dude…

I recently sent one of our younger “good shooter” officers to the same police firearms instructor school I went through. The first day they make you shoot 25 yard NRA Bullseye on a B-16 (slowfire). I remember me and the other guy with me from my department back then both shooting our 45 ACP 1911’s with irons passed it easy peasy on the first attempt. Our young guy today with his X5 Legion with optic and 21 round mags had a hell of a time. He relayed to me after the course how he thought it was ridiculous to have to shoot that and…you know…speed matters. Houston, we have a problem…

I started carrying a Gen3 Glock 17 for dog-handler reasons back in 2014 and switched to a Gen5 Glock 19 MOS a year ago, but still stay qualified on a 1911 and carry it occasionally. I attended an academy graduation a couple weeks ago wearing the 1911 which led to conversation with a newbie of “how are you comfortable with that” and “aren’t you afraid of running out of ammo?” Comfortable? Very…and no, no I’m not.

Not that I’ve done this (wink-wink), but put two decent shooters on plate racks. One with the old 25 round single stack loadout and one with the “lots of ammo” loadout and don’t give them any rules except for knock the plates down as fast as you can. I guarantee you the single stack guy will always have slower splits, but will have less rounds shot with more hits. Very often, he or she is actually faster (sometimes significantly so) to knock down all the plates than the “faster” shooter.

Now let’s apply this exercise to real life in an OIS. Who would you want in an OIS? Which one is most defensible in court and in the court of public opinion and media scrutiny? The person that fired lots of rounds really fast or the person that fired fewer rounds slightly slower, but made his or her hits count?

The counter argument is always the one-off like the Timothy Gramins OIS (officer with a Glock 21, expends all three mags and almost out of ammo and now carries an excessive amount of 9mm). In most articles/interviews with him he’s quoted as saying, “Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’" Well, there you go.

I’m not sure if it’s because they’re just available or John Wick or what, but more than three of the 20+ round mags is definitely the thing right now, I’ve formed the personal opinion that it isn’t a good thing. Anecdotally, it seems the byproduct is more rounds fired and a degradation of accuracy.

I’m seriously thinking of switching back to the 1911 with the old loadout for myself, because when I’m honest with myself, do I need anything else right now?

I think I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I'm a little confused as to what your central message is.

If someone wants to carry ten magazines, who cares? It's up to them to determine if the weight is worth it. I don't believe there is a correlation between carrying more ammunition and lowered accuracy standards. I think this has more to do with a TON of different factors that have cropped up in recent years.

1. There is more training available to the average cop than ever before as it relates to firearms. Some of it is good, some of it is great, some of it is terrible.
2. We have a younger generation that grew up with games like call of duty where ammunition was essentially infinite.
3. Statistically, while insignificant, our worst fear that we face is an active shooter. Fifty years ago, the media wasn't harping on these events like they are today. This imprints itself on the psyche of new cops.
4. There are a ton of red shirts that have no clue how to shoot. We have a ton of red shirts that returned from the GWOT and believe that their combat experience in Fallujah translates directly towards domestic law enforcement. They also qualified expert in the military so they know what they're talking about.
5. Speed is sexy, accuracy is not. At least to the uninitiated. A combination of both is pure bliss at least in my eyes.
6. We have seen an ingress of competition shooting styled training into law enforcement training in an effort to push speed. The fact of the matter is, poor instructors who do not understand the core concepts extract the speed component and somehow forget about the accuracy component. Good competition trainers are teaching their students both components.
7. Our standard in service training is not put up to any measured, testable metric. If you can burn down a .8 draw at 5 yards, you're a stud right? I mean, you hit the body, right? Clearly, the suspect who presented the deadly threat is neutralized, right? Right?
8. Ignorance amongst LE trainers. This past year I was told to speed up as my group was too tight and I needed to spread my rounds around in order to be "combat effective". Yes, handguns poke holes in people and then people die from blood loss. Yes, multiple wound channels are a good thing. No, lowering standards for some stupid ass mantra "combat effective" is NOT a good thing. This completely flies in the face of marksmanship training in an effort to pretend that a lawful self defense shoot is somehow "combat".

If someone can shoot .20 splits and maintains whatever accuracy standard you have then yes, this person IS a better shooter than someone that can maintain that same accuracy standard at .25 splits. This doesn't mean much as the excellent technical shooter may be a fat tub of lard that can't run more than fifty yards without needing an oxygen tank. In a vacuum, the faster and more accurate you are, the better you will be when it comes time to save your life. There are so many other factors that go into winning an OIS. I personally believe that the amount of magazines you carry has nothing to do with it.

I do want to say that my post above is in no way meant to discount your observations or experiences. I can see where you're coming from and there are definitely dudes out there that believe that carrying ten magazines will keep them safe. They believe they will survive a shooting because to them, the ten magazines means they're prepared. I really don't want to believe that cop is the norm.

EDIT:

We have a new in service qualification course coming shortly. If anything, the accuracy and performance standards are actually being raised. When I was hired, I thought that the FDLE qualification was an absolute joke. I went through the academy and dropped zero points the ENTIRE training evolution. I am merely a B class shooter. The new standards will be challenging to many officers/deputies and I think that's a good thing.

[jnc36rcpd]

As I posted in a previous thread, we need to teach people that mag dumps will not save their lives.

After briefly carrying a S&W, I spent most of my salad days with a Ruger Service Six and two speedloaders. I generally had a shotgun in the car (four rounds) and frequently had a speed strip and/or extra shotgun rounds on my person. As time went on and semiautomatic pistols became more common, I felt outgunned. I realized skill at arms rather than ammunition capacity would prevail in most situations, but the exceptions were not rare.

Mark Coates demonstrated fast and effective shooting from a revolver, but he might not be on that Memorial wall if he had had a higher capacity handgun. If Gordon McNeill had been carrying a Smith 459 as the SWAT agents were on that day of days in Miami, it would have been a dark and dangerous day, but likely not the tragedy it became. If Phil Lamonico had shot better, he might have prevailed, but being shot in the armor had likely thrown off his game and a higher capacity pistol might have turned the tide in his favor.

When I wrote our proposal to transition to the SIG 226, I was startled, but not really surprised, by an opinion of the Michigan State Police that troopers sometimes failed to fire when appropriate due to fear of running their revolvers dry.

I was very happy with my 9mm SIG 226 and two magazines on the belt. I was much less comfortable with the .40 version and two magazines. I realized I was unlikely to need (or survive) the first thirteen shots in the weapon and two twelve magazines, but I preferred higher capacity. I played with triple mag carriers and extended magazines. I never felt comfortable with the retention of the open top version nor with the operation of the closed carrier and both were heavier than another leadership/management class. Those never made it out of my house.

I also tried higher capacity magazines. They worked well and carried OK, but I preferred my grip on the pistol stayed the same in the most likely shootouts so those went on the plate carrier.

I think we need to look for balance on this issue. I was briefly my former agency's firearms training coordinator. Several officers (all female as some may suspect) struggled with the size of a .40 SIG 226. I authorized the SIG 239 with four spare magazines. As I told my chief about my senior corporal, I'd prefer she save my life with the first eight rounds than avenge my death with nine through thirteen. (Hyperbole, I admit, but it worked.)

While it probably doesn't apply to anyone posting, I see value in telling trainees to speed up their shooting on some drills. I, likewise, see value in telling some (in today's world most) to slow down and hit. It wouldn't hurt any of us to shoot faster and more accurately.

For most people in most circumstances, lower capacity firearms and reloads win the day. That said, there are exceptions and higher capacity firearms and magazines may allow a good guy or gal to prevail.

I would not want to be standing in a funeral home explaining to someone that while a higher capacity weapon might have allowed their loved one to prevail, we just couldn't figure out how to train them to use the damn thing.

[KevH]

Magsz

I'm making the point that as capacity has increased exponentially (and like BehindBlueI's pointed out we have low recoil and much lighter/easier triggers) that emphasis on accuracy, round accountability, and target assessment/tactical pause has dropped. I'm arguing that so much emphasis on capacity and the number of rounds carried on the person has escalated to the point where other important factors are being overlooked (like basic marksmanship).

jnc36rcpd

I by no means am advocating we go back to revolvers (although I don't point and laugh at those that do...there was a guy at a neighboring agency that could run his 625 very fast and efficiently although I think he's retired now). I'm also not saying that everyone needs to go back to single stacks.

What I am saying is that those of us that put an extreme value on proficiency and marksmanship don't need two boxes worth of pistol ammo attached to our person at all times and that I believe, based on what I've witnessed in just the past few years, we have seen a shift in our profession to more value being placed on the ability to throw the maximum amount of lead as fast as we can, without placing proper value on its efficiency of use.

Is there such a thing as having too much ammo on your person? Maybe or maybe not. But it is worth having the discussion. Perhaps when you look at the psychology of the Law of Scarcity excess of something is a bad thing.

In an era where we are more accountable for every round fired than ever before, where we are constantly scrutinized, our people are somehow getting the false impression that they need to throw as much ammo as possible as fast as they can.

I ultimately think that's a very dangerous place to be.

[kidcop]

You can't miss fast enough to win.

As a rural detective back in the day, at a verrrry lax agency when it came to equipment, I carried a 1911 with 2 extra mags. When serving warrants I would add a third spare mag. They all had bumpers as I have mighty meathooks that were always getting pinched during reloads.

Fast forward to the agency I retired from a couple years ago, which didn't allow the 1911. Still a rural detective, carrying a SIG P226, with one extra mag, adding a second on warrants. They were both 20 rounders, not for the capacity, but for the extra real estate for my hands. The one in the gun was a standard capacity.

Bottom line, the instructors whom I had that I respected stressed fast hits over faster misses, and smooth, smart reloads. Capacity never really was a topic.

If I ever go back for another degree I'll do a multivariate analysis including capacity, rounds fired, hits, and misses.

[Lost River]

A few personal thoughts.

When people/officers start shooting, it is quite often emotional firing. They are jacked up on adrenaline. They are mad, scared, excited and/or a combination of all of the above and it takes a bit to get back in control. During that time, an officer can dump a whole mag. Officers who have already been through numerous extremely tense situations, or are simply by their nature less inclined to get wrapped up in such things tend to do better than the new people, or "that" guy. The one or two patrolmen or detectives, that everyone knows is high strung and gets worked up over things easily.

When I was working right after I left LE and was doing EP work, I had a team of guys that had specific backgrounds. All combat vets, plus a few LE/combat vets. The short version is that I wrote our organizations firearms as well as training policy. When it came to training, we spent a substantial amount of time on pure accuracy.

We always started out cold each day with "The" test. 10 rounds, 10 yards, 10 seconds on a B8. Accuracy was emphasized. Then we worked on dot drills. A few of the guys switched from carrying G19s to G34s due to this. Because it was likely that there would be numerous innocent people around, and if a shooting were to occur, it more likely than not would be less than ideal circumstances for us, I told the teams over and over "Make your first shot your best shot and alter the course of the battle.".

I said it so much that the guys would start to repeat it when I began to say it, which was actually a good thing. Along with telling them I did not want them shooting a lot, I wanted them shooting well. Precision shooting was emphasized. Only after we spent a bunch of time doing dot drills did we work on doing speed work.

Thinking how to solve shooting issues was key and using a mantra that was taught to me years ago, it was drilled into them:

"We need thinkers who are shooters, and shooters who are thinkers".

Trying not to get caught up in the moment is part of that, as is good communication. Designating shooters vs officers who are assigned to de-escalate is also a part of the toolbag. Being ready to switch roles in an instant of things are not working is also part of it.

Personally I don't care too much if I have a single stack or something along the line of a G17 on me.

That said, I see some advantages to the higher capacity guns, but it is not about shooting more. It is about manipulating less.

If I shoot 5-6 rounds with a 1911 and the matter is not resolved, and things are still evolving, I am going to want to perform a reload. If I shoot 5-6 rounds with a G17 that may not be the case. During that time I spent reloading, I could have been opening a door, shielding people, looking for an exit, grabbing a child, etc.

Each has their place and I see both sides. What I think would be beneficial is more focus on training people for dealing with truly intensely stressful situations and having them perform to a known standard. This is really an administrative issue. Many departments spend inordinate amounts of money sending their senior admin to BS classes that are really just taxpayer funded vacations at extremely nice hotels, often with wives accompanying them. That money would be better spent on the other end of the chain of command, providing officers more quality training, instead of the usual 3-4 range days per year on a square range shooting paper targets, and listening to a couple of classroom lectures, which they tune out in the first 5 minutes.


Just my 2 pennies.

[RevolverJIM]

A few personal thoughts.

When people/officers start shooting, it is quite often emotional firing. They are jacked up on adrenaline. They are mad, scared, excited and/or a combination of all of the above and it takes a bit to get back in control. During that time, an officer can dump a whole mag. Officers who have already been through numerous extremely tense situations, or are simply by their nature less inclined to get wrapped up in such things tend to do better than the new people, or "that" guy. The one or two patrolmen or detectives, that everyone knows is high strung and gets worked up over things easily.

When I was working right after I left LE and was doing EP work, I had a team of guys that had specific backgrounds. All combat vets, plus a few LE/combat vets. The short version is that I wrote our organizations firearms as well as training policy. When it came to training, we spent a substantial amount of time on pure accuracy.

We always started out cold each day with "The" test. 10 rounds, 10 yards, 10 seconds on a B8. Accuracy was emphasized. Then we worked on dot drills. A few of the guys switched from carrying G19s to G34s due to this. Because it was likely that there would be numerous innocent people around, and if a shooting were to occur, it more likely than not would be less than ideal circumstances for us, I told the teams over and over "Make your first shot your best shot and alter the course of the battle.".

I said it so much that the guys would start to repeat it when I began to say it, which was actually a good thing. Along with telling them I did not want them shooting a lot, I wanted them shooting well. Precision shooting was emphasized. Only after we spent a bunch of time doing dot drills did we work on doing speed work.

Thinking how to solve shooting issues was key and using a mantra that was taught to me years ago, it was drilled into them:

"We need thinkers who are shooters, and shooters who are thinkers".

Trying not to get caught up in the moment is part of that, as is good communication. Designating shooters vs officers who are assigned to de-escalate is also a part of the toolbag. Being ready to switch roles in an instant of things are not working is also part of it.

Personally I don't care too much if I have a single stack or something along the line of a G17 on me.

That said, I see some advantages to the higher capacity guns, but it is not about shooting more. It is about manipulating less.

If I shoot 5-6 rounds with a 1911 and the matter is not resolved, and things are still evolving, I am going to want to perform a reload. If I shoot 5-6 rounds with a G17 that may not be the case. During that time I spent reloading, I could have been opening a door, shielding people, looking for an exit, grabbing a child, etc.

Each has their place and I see both sides. What I think would be beneficial is more focus on training people for dealing with truly intensely stressful situations and having them perform to a known standard. This is really an administrative issue. Many departments spend inordinate amounts of money sending their senior admin to BS classes that are really just taxpayer funded vacations at extremely nice hotels, often with wives accompanying them. That money would be better spent on the other end of the chain of command, providing officers more quality training, instead of the usual 3-4 range days per year on a square range shooting paper targets, and listening to a couple of classroom lectures, which they tune out in the first 5 minutes.


Just my 2 pennies.

Very well stated, can't disagree with any of this.

[HCM]

Some relevant quotes from GJM ‘s “Shooting Well vs Being a Good Shooter” thread.

GJM:

I think most shooters are wired to be either fast or accurate but not both. I am wired towards accuracy.

It is an interesting question as to whether it is easier to teach a fast shoot accuracy, than an accurate shooter speed. Accurate shooters often take more comfort in their accuracy than is ideal for their development as a shooter.



GJM


It is an interesting question as to whether it is easier to teach a fast shoot accuracy, than an accurate shooter speed. Accurate shooters often take more comfort in their accuracy than is ideal for their development as a shooter.
IIRC, at the Roger's School lecture, Bill Rogers said to teach speed first then precision, IIRC.


Dan Lehr


IIRC, at the Roger's School lecture, Bill Rogers said to teach speed first then precision, IIRC.


Like GJM I am wired towards accuracy. Developing speed has required work.

Coming from a place which has traditionally over emphasized accuracy I have seen several examples of this:

“Accurate shooters often take more comfort in their accuracy than is ideal for their development as a shooter.”

[camel]

Some relevant quotes from GJM ‘s “Shooting Well vs Being a Good Shooter” thread.

GJM:


GJM


Dan Lehr


Like GJM I am wired towards accuracy. Developing speed has required work.

Coming from a place which has traditionally over emphasized accuracy I have seen several examples of this:

“Accurate shooters often take more comfort in their accuracy than is ideal for their development as a shooter.”

It’s an old age conundrum. How do you evaluate a situation at the speed of your life while processing the events around you and have the mindfulness to hit the breaks and say that’s enough shooting. I agree with gjm for what he has quoted.

It really comes down to how fast are your hits effective and are you processing that fact as you work the problem.

[BK14]

While I agree with the overall issue, of Officers focusing on volume of fire, versus quality hits at a reasonable pace, I don’t think the issue can be narrowed down to capacity.

I currently carry 3 extended mags as reloads. Two on my belt, one on my vest, and one in the gun, all with 20+ rounds. I’ve considered dropping one on my belt, but I use it for matches and training sometimes, so I’d regret ditching the second mag. When I did carry a single stack 1911, I carried a four mags on my belt (3-4 support side, one right behind the gun) and two on my vest.

When I was more heavily invested in competition earlier in my career and before, my “hit factor” I matches was trash, regardless of with a 23 round mag, or my single stack mag. Once I trained more, and more importantly controlled my mental part of the game, my hit factor increased, regardless of the platform.

I’ve seen plenty of videos of Officers with reduced capacity guns going cyclic, and have personally witnessed multiple shootings where officers carrying extended magazines fired in a controlled, and responsible manner. I’ve mentioned it before, but one example I’m aware of, an officer’s first shooting was with standard 17 round magazines, the second, he’d bought Taran extensions. The first, was cyclic without effective hits, the second was controlled, with 100% round accountability (all three shooters on the second incident had extended magazines, and had 100% hit rate….). However, a big difference between the two for the one officer, were multiple conversations about mindset of pace, and training done emphasizing accuracy, fast.

Locally, there have been multiple incidents that utilized “suppression fire” to support bounding out of positions while taking effective fire from the bad guy. Society isn’t getting better.

I think that a lot more of this goes back to mindset and training. If someone is too mentally weak, to guarantee their hits without being driven by the fear in the back of their mind that their gun doesn’t have many rounds in it, then I think that’s a failure in selection and training. At a minimum skill level, the knowledge of more or less rounds on board could change how someone makes decisions, I don’t think that’s what should inform those decisions. I don’t think a skilled, competent, mentally prepared officer, that can control their emotions would have any dis-advantage besides the weight penalty, in carrying extended high-capacity reloads.

But that’s just my opinion.

[RevolverJIM]

Agreed. Suppression fire is a good reason to have lots of ammo immediately available.

As has been mentioned, large capacity magazines are not the problem. How the ammo is used is the problem and that's a serious training issue.

[Hambo]

I think the amount on board the gun is the most relevant metric, because that is time in the actual fight, and 2 or 3 seconds of fire is what's needed in the vast majority of cases. Reloads rarely affect the outcome.
A spare mag has value primarily for malfunction clearing and a third magazine only in the most outlier of cases.


Hence the reason I have an 18rd Mec-Gar in my Beretta, but I carry a 15rd as a spare. I want to start with as much as possible, but I want a super-reliable spare in case of a malfunction.

My random thoughts on the topic.

If you watch a lot of OIS/BC videos, it's hard not to agree with KevH. Back in the day, a lot of officers had some experience with firearms prior to hiring. It could have been the military, hunting, high school rifle team, et, all of which emphasized accuracy. Now, not so much. With the influence of the GWOT and proliferation of firearms trainers, I believe that there are a lot of people teaching what amounts to OCONUS ROE.

Also, as pointed out, there are officers who don't shoot early enough in confrontations because they don't know case law and are worried about how the BC video will play out later. Other officers continue to dump rounds into what has become a dead body and forget all about the optics because they're on some low-level autopilot.

We could fix the problems, but LE agencies won't because it would require saying that not only is it OK to shoot/kill certain people, it's absolutely necessary. Then they'd have to spend money on quality trainers/training, do a lot of FoF, and emphasize skill maintenance. None of that is going to happen with low recruiting/retention.

[HCM]

Then they'd have to spend money on quality trainers/training, do a lot of FoF, and emphasize skill maintenance. None of that is going to happen with low recruiting/retention.

Gear and even hiring quality outside trainers is relatively cheap - the real monetary obstacle is the cost of man hours.

Coverage is also a thing.

Let’s say you want to pay overtime for coverage to give everyone one extra eight hour day of extra training on regular time.

You have a 70 man dept and your officers make $70,000 a year. That’s $33.63 an hour or about $269 per day.

You’ve got to pay OT at $50.45 for coverage for the 20 officers: $403 per OT officer per day.

Whether you pay the officers to train on OT or you pay someone OT to cover for them an extra 8 hour training day for 70 officers is over $28,000.

FOF is valuable but particularly time intensive; safety protocols, gearing up, gearing down, clean up etc. Locally this has been the biggest obstacle to doing FOF vs doing other things.

[HCM]

While I agree with the overall issue, of Officers focusing on volume of fire, versus quality hits at a reasonable pace, I don’t think the issue can be narrowed down to capacity.

I currently carry 3 extended mags as reloads. Two on my belt, one on my vest, and one in the gun, all with 20+ rounds. I’ve considered dropping one on my belt, but I use it for matches and training sometimes, so I’d regret ditching the second mag. When I did carry a single stack 1911, I carried a four mags on my belt (3-4 support side, one right behind the gun) and two on my vest.

When I was more heavily invested in competition earlier in my career and before, my “hit factor” I matches was trash, regardless of with a 23 round mag, or my single stack mag. Once I trained more, and more importantly controlled my mental part of the game, my hit factor increased, regardless of the platform.

I’ve seen plenty of videos of Officers with reduced capacity guns going cyclic, and have personally witnessed multiple shootings where officers carrying extended magazines fired in a controlled, and responsible manner. I’ve mentioned it before, but one example I’m aware of, an officer’s first shooting was with standard 17 round magazines, the second, he’d bought Taran extensions. The first, was cyclic without effective hits, the second was controlled, with 100% round accountability (all three shooters on the second incident had extended magazines, and had 100% hit rate….). However, a big difference between the two for the one officer, were multiple conversations about mindset of pace, and training done emphasizing accuracy, fast.

Locally, there have been multiple incidents that utilized “suppression fire” to support bounding out of positions while taking effective fire from the bad guy. Society isn’t getting better.

I think that a lot more of this goes back to mindset and training. If someone is too mentally weak, to guarantee their hits without being driven by the fear in the back of their mind that their gun doesn’t have many rounds in it, then I think that’s a failure in selection and training. At a minimum skill level, the knowledge of more or less rounds on board could change how someone makes decisions, I don’t think that’s what should inform those decisions. I don’t think a skilled, competent, mentally prepared officer, that can control their emotions would have any dis-advantage besides the weight penalty, in carrying extended high-capacity reloads.

But that’s just my opinion.


Agreed. Suppression fire is a good reason to have lots of ammo immediately available.

As has been mentioned, large capacity magazines are not the problem. How the ammo is used is the problem and that's a serious training issue.

You both bring up a really good point regarding suppressing fire (which some now refer to as “directed” fire for both legal and political reasons).

I can think of two examples where suppressive fire was used effectively in police gun fights. Unfortunately, in both examples, it was used successfully by bad guys two flank and kill officers who are behind cover. .

The infamous Kyle Dinkheller shooting and the Officer killed while taking cover behind the columns during the Dallas police domestic terrorist attack in 2016.


https://youtu.be/DnmguqcjzqE

It’s one of those aspects of how shooting / marksmanship and “fighting with a gun” differ.

[Coyotesfan97]

While I agree with the overall issue, of Officers focusing on volume of fire, versus quality hits at a reasonable pace, I don’t think the issue can be narrowed down to capacity.

I currently carry 3 extended mags as reloads. Two on my belt, one on my vest, and one in the gun, all with 20+ rounds. I’ve considered dropping one on my belt, but I use it for matches and training sometimes, so I’d regret ditching the second mag. When I did carry a single stack 1911, I carried a four mags on my belt (3-4 support side, one right behind the gun) and two on my vest.

When I was more heavily invested in competition earlier in my career and before, my “hit factor” I matches was trash, regardless of with a 23 round mag, or my single stack mag. Once I trained more, and more importantly controlled my mental part of the game, my hit factor increased, regardless of the platform.

I’ve seen plenty of videos of Officers with reduced capacity guns going cyclic, and have personally witnessed multiple shootings where officers carrying extended magazines fired in a controlled, and responsible manner. I’ve mentioned it before, but one example I’m aware of, an officer’s first shooting was with standard 17 round magazines, the second, he’d bought Taran extensions. The first, was cyclic without effective hits, the second was controlled, with 100% round accountability (all three shooters on the second incident had extended magazines, and had 100% hit rate….). However, a big difference between the two for the one officer, were multiple conversations about mindset of pace, and training done emphasizing accuracy, fast.

Locally, there have been multiple incidents that utilized “suppression fire” to support bounding out of positions while taking effective fire from the bad guy. Society isn’t getting better.

I think that a lot more of this goes back to mindset and training. If someone is too mentally weak, to guarantee their hits without being driven by the fear in the back of their mind that their gun doesn’t have many rounds in it, then I think that’s a failure in selection and training. At a minimum skill level, the knowledge of more or less rounds on board could change how someone makes decisions, I don’t think that’s what should inform those decisions. I don’t think a skilled, competent, mentally prepared officer, that can control their emotions would have any dis-advantage besides the weight penalty, in carrying extended high-capacity reloads.

But that’s just my opinion.


Agreed. Suppression fire is a good reason to have lots of ammo immediately available.

As has been mentioned, large capacity magazines are not the problem. How the ammo is used is the problem and that's a serious training issue.

Our rifle program taught suppression fire as part of an active shooter response. We also trained in bounding overwatch forwards and back using live ammunition. Nothing too crazy but it was good stuff. It was training specifically for taking fire as you moved up to the structure where you had to get into the building and stop the threats

We also had a pack of six magazines issued to us for active shooter situations. Our rifle instructors taught measured not cyclic suppression fire. They also taught looking for solid portions of the structure to fire at. They emphasized it doesn’t do any good to use suppression fire if you wind up at the structure without any rifle ammunition left.

[Hambo]

Gear and even hiring quality outside trainers is relatively cheap - the real monetary obstacle is the cost of man hours.

Coverage is also a thing.

Let’s say you want to pay overtime for coverage to give everyone one extra eight hour day of extra training on regular time.

You have a 70 man dept and your officers make $70,000 a year. That’s $33.63 an hour or about $269 per day.

You’ve got to pay OT at $50.45 for coverage for the 20 officers: $403 per OT officer per day.

Whether you pay the officers to train on OT or you pay someone OT to cover for them an extra 8 hour training day for 70 officers is over $28,000.

FOF is valuable but particularly time intensive; safety protocols, gearing up, gearing down, clean up etc. Locally this has been the biggest obstacle to doing FOF vs doing other things.

I could go into a lot of number crunching, but I found that the city had the money to pay for whatever it wanted to. City government didn't prioritize safety forces in general, and the police chief gave zero fucks. They all rolled the dice that million dollar lawsuit payouts would average out to be less than an increased training budget, then cried a river when they had to pay one.

[Magsz]

Magsz

I'm making the point that as capacity has increased exponentially (and like BehindBlueI's pointed out we have low recoil and much lighter/easier triggers) that emphasis on accuracy, round accountability, and target assessment/tactical pause has dropped. I'm arguing that so much emphasis on capacity and the number of rounds carried on the person has escalated to the point where other important factors are being overlooked (like basic marksmanship).

jnc36rcpd

I by no means am advocating we go back to revolvers (although I don't point and laugh at those that do...there was a guy at a neighboring agency that could run his 625 very fast and efficiently although I think he's retired now). I'm also not saying that everyone needs to go back to single stacks.

What I am saying is that those of us that put an extreme value on proficiency and marksmanship don't need two boxes worth of pistol ammo attached to our person at all times and that I believe, based on what I've witnessed in just the past few years, we have seen a shift in our profession to more value being placed on the ability to throw the maximum amount of lead as fast as we can, without placing proper value on its efficiency of use.

Is there such a thing as having too much ammo on your person? Maybe or maybe not. But it is worth having the discussion. Perhaps when you look at the psychology of the Law of Scarcity excess of something is a bad thing.

In an era where we are more accountable for every round fired than ever before, where we are constantly scrutinized, our people are somehow getting the false impression that they need to throw as much ammo as possible as fast as they can.

I ultimately think that's a very dangerous place to be.

We definitely agree on the issue. I disagree on the cause.

As outlined in my prior post. We have a ton of REALLY bad training going on. We have people that cant differentiate between how to build speed, how to build accuracy and how to combine both of them to produce a complete fundamental skill set. The red shirts at my institution are teaching pistol hold over at five yards....The size of the dot completely covers the target...................sigh. (sorry, didn't mean to get off topic).

I carry 58 rounds of 9mm on me. I have thought about carrying a fourth magazine. I only add one to my gear when I am the shield bearer for one handed reloads as its hard for me to access my magazines cross body due to all of the shit that I wear plus the shield.

I am a product of push until you're no longer adhering to your accuracy standard. Assess, figure out why. Push at 100% until you can repeat the standard 100% of the time then push to fail again. Repeat the process. The issue is that I bet if you and I sat down our standards would far exceed the standards of most. As you outlined in your post, people don't want to shoot at twenty five yards. That's a training issue, not an ammunition issue and I really don't think it has anything to do with lowering standards because we "carry more ammo".

Again, just my opinion. Ultimately, *we* need to figure something out as this is not the direction our profession should be traveling in.

Did you see the video of the one fella with the Staccato P that has no clue how to operate his gun and just dumps rounds and magazines all over the place like its a loot drop in a video game? I can find the video if you'd like to see it. It's horrid. I guarantee that guy was amazed at how *fast* he could shoot his staccato completely bypassing everything else that we would consider important. I'm assuming quite a bit there but i'm sure everyone in this thread has seen that.

[BK14]

Did you see the video of the one fella with the Staccato P that has no clue how to operate his gun and just dumps rounds and magazines all over the place like its a loot drop in a video game? I can find the video if you'd like to see it. It's horrid. I guarantee that guy was amazed at how *fast* he could shoot his staccato completely bypassing everything else that we would consider important. I'm assuming quite a bit there but i'm sure everyone in this thread has seen that.

I’m not sure which one you’re referring to, but I’d like to see it if you can find it.

[BK14]

Our rifle program taught suppression fire as part of an active shooter response. We also trained in bounding overwatch forwards and back using live ammunition. Nothing too crazy but it was good stuff. It was training specifically for taking fire as you moved up to the structure where you had to get into the building and stop the threats

We also had a pack of six magazines issued to us for active shooter situations. Our rifle instructors taught measured not cyclic suppression fire. They also taught looking for solid portions of the structure to fire at. They emphasized it doesn’t do any good to use suppression fire if you wind up at the structure without any rifle ammunition left.

They’ve been stepping it up a little too. In 2nd quarter, they included bounding laterally and a simulated entry into a structure at the end of the bounding. They’ve been saying it for a couple years, but they’re trying to drag out all of patrol to learn about bounding for downed officer rescue training. Outside of specialized areas, I think most supervisors would shit a brick if they heard officers using suppression/directed/focused/whatever fire. So the exposure to a larger part of the department is critical.

I think one of the keys to the successful rifle program, and our firearms program as a whole, is an effective balance in speed and accuracy.




You both bring up a really good point regarding suppressing fire (which some now refer to as “directed” fire for both legal and political reasons).

(Snip)

It’s one of those aspects of how shooting / marksmanship and “fighting with a gun” differ.


We’re fortunate to train the tactic annually, with specialized units training variations more regularly.

Obviously there are other reasons to carry extended magazines, easier control on manipulations, easier to seat, seats with magwells, stripping malfunctions, drops free easier, potentially less to think about on ammo management post shooting, etc.

While I don’t base everything I do on outlier events, I’ve had enough teammates and other local officers that have directly been in those type of events. I already wear plates when I’m geared up, the minimal extra weight of a few extra rounds isn’t what’s going to wreck my back anyways 🥲

[Magsz]

I’m not sure which one you’re referring to, but I’d like to see it if you can find it.

There's quite a bit of extra commentary. The video of the OIS is in the beginning of the video. I apologize, this was a P320, not a Staccato. I THINK there may be another video similar to this but this was the first one that I could find. The same point still stands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14dV2tEmAds

[HCM]

There's quite a bit of extra commentary. The video of the OIS is in the beginning of the video. I apologize, this was a P320, not a Staccato. I THINK there may be another video similar to this but this was the first one that I could find. The same point still stands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14dV2tEmAds

I think your original comments on this were a little bit off base.

It’s pretty clear in the video of the guy is not intentionally dumping magazines. His grip is causing him to unintentionally dump them. IME that and grip causing unintended slide stop activation with rounds still in the mag are common with people shooting as fast as possible for the first time or even just faster than they are used to. The ambidextrous controls on many newer pistols don’t help with this.

That goes back to the argument that the first time you try to shoot at a reactive pace shouldn’t be in a fight. Failing to train both speed and accuracy is setting people up for failure.

PS - The officer in the video is engaging a carjacking suspect dumping mags from a fully automatic weapon who just shot and wounded his partner. John Correia needs to shut the fuck up.

You can see all the body worn / vehicle camera’s from this incident without Correia running his pathetic suck hole here:


https://youtu.be/yaQ-w4OS7bk

[KevH]

I think your original comments on this were a little bit off base.

It’s pretty clear in the video of the guy is not intentionally dumping magazines. His grip is causing him to unintentionally dump them. IME that and grip causing unintended slide stop activation with rounds still in the mag are common with people shooting as fast as possible for the first time or even just faster than they are used to. The ambidextrous controls on many newer pistols don’t help with this.

That goes back to the argument that the first time you try to shoot at a reactive pace shouldn’t be in a fight. Failing to train both speed and accuracy is setting people up for failure.

PS - The officer in the video is engaging a carjacking suspect dumping mags from a fully automatic weapon who just shot and wounded his partner. John Correia needs to shut the fuck up.

You can see all the body worn / vehicle camera’s from this incident without Correia running his pathetic suck hole here:


https://youtu.be/yaQ-w4OS7bk

I can't stand watching the Correia commentary videos. It's too much.

HCM is spot on with his assessment. The gun has nothing to do with mags falling out. The "OH SHIT WE'RE GUNNA DIE!!!!" dump of cortisol into the officer's system is causing him to grip the gun differently and eject mags.

No matter how hard you train you will always see shooter-induced malfunctions during real events. It's inevitable. What we need to do is teach officers to expect them and how to work through them when they occur.

You can never truly replicate combat stress, but you can replicate it "a little bit." Some places used to have cops run around the range. All that does is make them tired. To correctly do it you need to create a degree of panic which typically involves a timer and someone chipping away in their ear. You are introducing psychological stress factors which induce a physiological response.

It takes work for the instructors, it's hard on the students, and people tend to get their feelings hurt. Lots of departments are either too lazy, just don't know how to do it, or someone complains and then they stop.

So most places just skip doing it which ultimately does no one any favors.

[KevH]

I think most supervisors would shit a brick if they heard officers using suppression/directed/focused/whatever fire. So the exposure to a larger part of the department is critical.


We have taught the concept in the past. I remember around 2008 or so doing a bunch of training with an "Australian peel." Is there potentially a time and a place for it? Maybe.

We work in places where people live, where they work, where they go to school, where they wait for the bus, etc. Our shootings often occur in these areas right?

When shooting starts, people's homes, schools, businesses, and churches are often in our backdrop.

Keep in mind that this is the world we live in:
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/lapd-officer-unjustified-in-shooting-that-killed-teen-girl-in-burlington-store/3040509/

Suppressing fire on a suspect in an open field may be one thing. Doing it in a neighborhood is another.

...and remember, if you teach someone to do something, some will likely do it. Even if it not the appropriate thing to do in that setting.

So I would be cautious with instructing those tactics. Just saying. Because you or me may be the supervisor shitting the brick someday depending on where and how it is deployed.

[Coyotesfan97]

We have taught the concept in the past. I remember around 2008 or so doing a bunch of training with an "Australian peel." Is there potentially a time and a place for it? Maybe.

We work in places where people live, where they work, where they go to school, where they wait for the bus, etc. Our shootings often occur in these areas right?

When shooting starts, people's homes, schools, businesses, and churches are often in our backdrop.

Keep in mind that this is the world we live in:
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/lapd-officer-unjustified-in-shooting-that-killed-teen-girl-in-burlington-store/3040509/

Suppressing fire on a suspect in an open field may be one thing. Doing it in a neighborhood is another.

...and remember, if you teach someone to do something, some will likely do it. Even if it not the appropriate thing to do in that setting.

So I would be cautious with instructing those tactics. Just saying. Because you or me may be the supervisor shitting the brick someday depending on where and how it is deployed.

I never participated in it because I retired but I know our rifle instructors were planning on incorporating non rifle Officers into the bounding overwatch training so they’d be exposed to it.

Our rifle training was quarterly. The people in the program shot a lot. Any time the instructors taught suppression/directed fire they reviewed and drilled when it was appropriate or not. We were taught to use the foundation or similar hard targets on buildings as the aiming point.

[UNM1136]

One of my new guys bought one of those made in PRC kinda Dragonskin non NIJ certified vests. After three days he called in sick for a week because of his back pain. He pulled out the "plates" and put in his issued panels. Then, because there was MOLLE on the outside he hung every flipping thing he could on it. Rifle mag, IFAK, pistol mags. Many at 2-10 O'clock. Many of us questioned how he would go over fences and walls in foot pursuits.

Then we found out. The OEF veteran had not secured his pouches properly. In his first foot pursuit with the vest a bunch of pouches came off to provide a trail of the chase. With the help of another senior officer the dummy wore my hand cuffs to jail...

In smug moments I would say he did not understand his gear, and lost it. In more smug moments I would say his gear was too heavy, poorly positioned and had to be dumped.

I have tried to talk to him and he just deflects...Still wears the vest that youthingy claimed to be able to stop .50BMG at some wierd number of yards...but took the plates out.

But he had places to put shit, so he did...

pat

[Chuck Whitlock]

FOF is valuable but particularly time intensive; safety protocols, gearing up, gearing down, clean up etc. Locally this has been the biggest obstacle to doing FOF vs doing other things.

I became acutely aware of this when I got certified as a Simunitions scenario instructor. I have also attended a couple of trainings with abysmal safety protocols for Sims (participants donned safety gear, but not the rest of the class observing, etc.)

Frankly, I believe that a whole lot of FOF can be better accomplished with Airsoft and blue guns, reserving Simunition for narrow, specific stuff. But that ain't so sexy.




Our rifle program taught suppression fire as part of an active shooter response.

Our rifle instructors taught measured not cyclic suppression fire. They also taught looking for solid portions of the structure to fire at.



Suppressing fire on a suspect in an open field may be one thing. Doing it in a neighborhood is another.

I attended a solo-response-to-active-shooter instructor class that included suppression fire. This was focused on ideas like shooting the light fixture above the shooter in a crowded hallway, etc. The middle school we were training in had several heavy nylon "accordion" walls between rooms, which helped to emphasize "cover v. concealment". I suppose that the floors/ceilings of a multi-story school or office building ought to be able to contain service projectiles.




As you outlined in your post, people don't want to shoot at twenty five yards. That's a training issue, not an ammunition issue and I really don't think it has anything to do with lowering standards because we "carry more ammo".

Again, just my opinion. Ultimately, *we* need to figure something out as this is not the direction our profession should be traveling in.

If they can't keep their rounds within spitting distance on a B8 at 5 yards, are they really accomplishing anything shooting at 25 yards?

[Magsz]

I think your original comments on this were a little bit off base.

It’s pretty clear in the video of the guy is not intentionally dumping magazines. His grip is causing him to unintentionally dump them. IME that and grip causing unintended slide stop activation with rounds still in the mag are common with people shooting as fast as possible for the first time or even just faster than they are used to. The ambidextrous controls on many newer pistols don’t help with this.

That goes back to the argument that the first time you try to shoot at a reactive pace shouldn’t be in a fight. Failing to train both speed and accuracy is setting people up for failure.

PS - The officer in the video is engaging a carjacking suspect dumping mags from a fully automatic weapon who just shot and wounded his partner. John Correia needs to shut the fuck up.

You can see all the body worn / vehicle camera’s from this incident without Correia running his pathetic suck hole here:


https://youtu.be/yaQ-w4OS7bk

I'm trying to respond as objectively as possible. I wasn't there. I can only look at the video and respond to what is presented to me.

My wording was off base.

Let me clarify a few points.

1. By me using the phrase "Mag dumping' I meant that in two ways. First off, he was ejecting magazines out of the gun due to a bad grip. An OIS is the last possible time that you want to find out that your X5 grip doesn't fit your hands and vice versa. Or, your magwell impedes your ability to properly seat your magazines.

2. You can see the increased rate of fire compared to his partner. I can't tell who had the better angle of fire, less obscured back stop etc. There are a ton of factors that would dictate cadence of fire. I won't comment beyond that as I don't think its fair.

3. I posted the video because that was a relatively high round count OIS that fits the topic of discussion. I posted that also because it fits some of the points I made earlier regarding people thinking that their equipment will save them. I'm not saying that officer thought that but there's alot going on there. Magazine extensions, X5 grip (not sure if that's issued) etc.

4. I haven't educated myself on the back story of that particular shooting as I had originally only seen a clip of it. Good luck gaining fire superiority against an automatic weapon. That comes back to the original point. In THAT particular case, the only way to gain fire superiority was to neutralize the suspect with effective, aimed fire. Thoughts?

I hope that clarifies my points. I didn't bother listening to the narrator as I don't care what he has to say. I'd rather talk amongst peers here.

EDIT: I also have to add that my choice of words where I mentioned the fella having a staccato was not well chosen. I wasn't even right on the gun type lol. I hope my post above clarifies.

[HCM]

I'm trying to respond as objectively as possible. I wasn't there. I can only look at the video and respond to what is presented to me.

My wording was off base.

Let me clarify a few points.

1. By me using the phrase "Mag dumping' I meant that in two ways. First off, he was ejecting magazines out of the gun due to a bad grip. An OIS is the last possible time that you want to find out that your X5 grip doesn't fit your hands and vice versa. Or, your magwell impedes your ability to properly seat your magazines.

2. You can see the increased rate of fire compared to his partner. I can't tell who had the better angle of fire, less obscured back stop etc. There are a ton of factors that would dictate cadence of fire. I won't comment beyond that as I don't think its fair.

3. I posted the video because that was a relatively high round count OIS that fits the topic of discussion. I posted that also because it fits some of the points I made earlier regarding people thinking that their equipment will save them. I'm not saying that officer thought that but there's alot going on there. Magazine extensions, X5 grip (not sure if that's issued) etc.

4. I haven't educated myself on the back story of that particular shooting as I had originally only seen a clip of it. Good luck gaining fire superiority against an automatic weapon. That comes back to the original point. In THAT particular case, the only way to gain fire superiority was to neutralize the suspect with effective, aimed fire. Thoughts?

I hope that clarifies my points. I didn't bother listening to the narrator as I don't care what he has to say. I'd rather talk amongst peers here.

EDIT: I also have to add that my choice of words where I mentioned the fella having a staccato was not well chosen. I wasn't even right on the gun type lol. I hope my post above clarifies.

The clip I posted with the body worn camera from all the officers at the initial shooting and some of the body worn camera from swat when the guy barricaded in his house paints a better picture of what’s going on.

That particular suspect was an example of “it’s better to be lucky than good.”

I agree that the middle of a gun fight is no time to find out your new blaster doesn’t work with your grip. This is why they need to at least experience .25 ish splits. We recently ran the doubles drill leading into Bill drills with the end goal of getting everyone to shoot a 3 second bill drill. A three second bill drill is not very impressive among “shooters” but for my regular/ non enthusiast LEOs a 1.5 second draw and .25 splits is twice as fast as they are used to shooting. As such is helps highlight issues that don’t appear shooting at a more relaxed pace.

Stress testing your gear is important. I watched an experienced shooter I know spend two days in an MSP class unintentionally dumping mags from his new Stacatto - an issue he’d never really experienced with Glocks or M&Ps.

For reference in my agency the fastest shooting in our qual is reactive / about .5 splits.

[BK14]

We have taught the concept in the past. I remember around 2008 or so doing a bunch of training with an "Australian peel." Is there potentially a time and a place for it? Maybe.

We work in places where people live, where they work, where they go to school, where they wait for the bus, etc. Our shootings often occur in these areas right?

When shooting starts, people's homes, schools, businesses, and churches are often in our backdrop.

Keep in mind that this is the world we live in:
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/lapd-officer-unjustified-in-shooting-that-killed-teen-girl-in-burlington-store/3040509/

Suppressing fire on a suspect in an open field may be one thing. Doing it in a neighborhood is another.

...and remember, if you teach someone to do something, some will likely do it. Even if it not the appropriate thing to do in that setting.

So I would be cautious with instructing those tactics. Just saying. Because you or me may be the supervisor shitting the brick someday depending on where and how it is deployed.

Yup, unfortunately I’m in the same circuit court as you and that article. That said, proper application and implementation of a tactic like focused fire is used in an extreme circumstance, and when used right, shouldn’t be putting the public in anymore risk than the circumstances that are already being presented by the suspect. I’m strongly against baby with bath water situations, as that’s how we’ve lost a lot of good things. Just off the cuff, so maybe I’m missing things, but it seems like that Officer mistook an assault with a bike lock for an active shooter, thought that an impact weapon was a gun, thought changing rooms were a brick wall (seemingly indicating that he didn’t think he needed as strict of round accountability?), didn’t hold himself to an accountable split pace despite being a rifle operator (its drilled into our guys that our rounds over penetrate barriers) and pushing the pace into a rapid response dynamic. Shitty situation, sucks he may be getting charged, but that doesn’t negate the potential need for a properly applied good tactic.


To your point, depending on who and how it was being trained, and how it was being implemented, sure I’d be worried if I was supervisor. . I’m not a rifle instructor, I don’t formally teach the tactic, but I have attended and assisted with schools that teach it. Teaching the context, application, and proper targeting is required. Which I think my agency does very well. Like I said, the tactic isn’t used often, but it was used successfully a handful of times with my agency.


I realize this is a tangent from your original post. This is just a portion of where my head went in my personal articulation for now many rounds I carry.

[KevH]

Yup, unfortunately I’m in the same circuit court as you and that article. That said, proper application and implementation of a tactic like focused fire is used in an extreme circumstance, and when used right, shouldn’t be putting the public in anymore risk than the circumstances that are already being presented by the suspect. I’m strongly against baby with bath water situations, as that’s how we’ve lost a lot of good things. Just off the cuff, so maybe I’m missing things, but it seems like that Officer mistook an assault with a bike lock for an active shooter, thought that an impact weapon was a gun, thought changing rooms were a brick wall (seemingly indicating that he didn’t think he needed as strict of round accountability?), didn’t hold himself to an accountable split pace despite being a rifle operator (its drilled into our guys that our rounds over penetrate barriers) and pushing the pace into a rapid response dynamic. Shitty situation, sucks he may be getting charged, but that doesn’t negate the potential need for a properly applied good tactic.


To your point, depending on who and how it was being trained, and how it was being implemented, sure I’d be worried if I was supervisor. . I’m not a rifle instructor, I don’t formally teach the tactic, but I have attended and assisted with schools that teach it. Teaching the context, application, and proper targeting is required. Which I think my agency does very well. Like I said, the tactic isn’t used often, but it was used successfully a handful of times with my agency.


I realize this is a tangent from your original post. This is just a portion of where my head went in my personal articulation for now many rounds I carry.

I reflect on an incident that occurred at my own department about fifteen years ago.

A mentally disturbed man had gone a bit wiggity-wack in his second story apartment had been seen walking around outside his apartment (second story landing) with a pistol. Officers arrive on scene and he points the pistol at the officers who are at the bottom of the stair case which causes three officers to fire at him pretty much simultaneously.
- Officer A, a former USMC 0311 who served in Iraq fires fires a couple rounds of 40 S&W which strike the guy.
- Officer B, a veteran officer fires a MP5N on three-round burst striking the guy.
- Officer C, who is not a very good shot, fires several rounds of 40 S&W which miss our suspect completely and go into the backdrop, which is another apartment that is unassociated with the mentally disturbed man.

Maybe you see where I'm going with this story.

Of course, as you may have guessed, a nice young family lived in the backdrop apartment and were home at the time including a young girl the same age as Officer A's daughter.

Thankfully, no one except the pistol-pointer was hit by gunfire, but the family easily could have been. Neither Officer B or C were really affected by this incident (if they read this someday and disagree then sorry). It did affect Officer A. I remember talking to him quite a bit about a year or so after the incident and he told me how different shooting someone stateside was than shooting someone in Iraq. 99% of this focus was on the girl in the apartment and what could have (but thankfully did not) happen. You could tell it truly bothered him to the core.

I tell this story because when I first watched the LAPD video it the first thing that I thought about. It is also what I think about when I see videos of cops semi-carelessly emptying their mags or when I hear conversations about suppressive/directed/whatever-the-trendy-thing-is-to-call-it fire in a police setting.

We have to be responsible for every single round that leaves our barrels.

If we teach our people either bad or wrong tactics, no matter how well intended, and as a result they kill an innocent, then we are part of the problem.

[BK14]

I reflect on an incident that occurred at my own department about fifteen years ago.

A mentally disturbed man had gone a bit wiggity-wack in his second story apartment had been seen walking around outside his apartment (second story landing) with a pistol. Officers arrive on scene and he points the pistol at the officers who are at the bottom of the stair case which causes three officers to fire at him pretty much simultaneously.
- Officer A, a former USMC 0311 who served in Iraq fires fires a couple rounds of 40 S&W which strike the guy.
- Officer B, a veteran officer fires a MP5N on three-round burst striking the guy.
- Officer C, who is not a very good shot, fires several rounds of 40 S&W which miss our suspect completely and go into the backdrop, which is another apartment that is unassociated with the mentally disturbed man.

Maybe you see where I'm going with this story.

Of course, as you may have guessed, a nice young family lived in the backdrop apartment and were home at the time including a young girl the same age as Officer A's daughter.

Thankfully, no one except the pistol-pointer was hit by gunfire, but the family easily could have been. Neither Officer B or C were really affected by this incident (if they read this someday and disagree then sorry). It did affect Officer A. I remember talking to him quite a bit about a year or so after the incident and he told me how different shooting someone stateside was than shooting someone in Iraq. 99% of this focus was on the girl in the apartment and what could have (but thankfully did not) happen. You could tell it truly bothered him to the core.

I tell this story because when I first watched the LAPD video it the first thing that I thought about. It is also what I think about when I see videos of cops semi-carelessly emptying their mags or when I hear conversations about suppressive/directed/whatever-the-trendy-thing-is-to-call-it fire in a police setting.

We have to be responsible for every single round that leaves our barrels.

If we teach our people either bad or wrong tactics, no matter how well intended, and as a result they kill an innocent, then we are part of the problem.


I’m right there with you. Regardless of the social climate, the need for round accountability is very high in my mind, as well as the teams I work in and around. I really don’t know how to get the masses to think and process more, and be more accountable for their rounds. Even simple things like changing angles for high-risk stops to not be pointing a gun at people in the backdrop goes right over some people’s heads.

I’m not going to discuss the details of the focused fire situations, as some are still open, and some would be easily identified as my agency. But if you ever want to get into more details or specifics of tactics let me know.

[Hambo]

and remember, if you teach someone to do something, some will likely do it. Even if it not the appropriate thing to do in that setting.


Oh, hell yes, they will. Just because you know and understand how/when something should be done, doesn't mean you can imagine what the biggest retard in your department will do with this new skill.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Regarding the liability of what's taught in terms of gun-handling and tactics, just look at that recent Georgia case (the one with a jury verdict today).

I had a lengthy reply to the OP typed yesterday but got sidetracked. There are cultural, training, and equipment-related issues.

Briefly, yes, let them shoot at speed, every so often, so they know what it looks like when the wheels come off.

Non-dedicated people with short, easier-to-shoot triggers and lots of readily available projectiles might well be a less-than-desirable combination.

And I remember when I thought the idea of "designated shooters" was asinine. I'm thinking there is a lot of merit if we get more than two on scene. I also think that much greater attention needs to be paid to who, what is around, between, and down range.

[HCM]

108260

From Matt Pranka’s IG story.

Essentially cop reports his red shirt at work telling him to shoot no faster than one round per second because shooting faster doesn’t give the rounds time to produce their full kinetic effects…

1) another example demonstrating you can over emphasize speed and you can over emphasize accuracy. We need a balance of both.
2) the state of LE Firearms training in many places is abysmal.

[TGS]

108260

From Matt Pranka’s IG story.

Essentially cop reports his red shirt at work telling him to shoot no faster than one round per second because shooting faster doesn’t give the rounds time to produce their full kinetic effects…

1) another example demonstrating you can over emphasize speed and you can over emphasize accuracy. We need a balance of both.
2) the state of LE Firearms training in many places is abysmal.

I got one for ya...

One of my buddies who used to be with DC Metro PD was told not to shoot 115gr ammo out of his issued Glock, because 115gr wasn't enough powder and the bullet might not exit the barrel, causing a squib/kaboom.

To be honest I'm not sure if it was an FI or some other instructor from his academy.

[steve]

I would carry what you shoot the best and are most comfortable with muscle memory wise. For many years I carried a P225 and did not feel under gunned.

[Lon]

Frankly, I believe that a whole lot of FOF can be better accomplished with Airsoft and blue guns, reserving Simunition for narrow, specific stuff. But that ain't so sexy.



This +1000

[03RN]

. 3) For some reason, the ALS mechanism on my 6360's are smooth-as-silk with a Glock or Sig, but I struggle with smooth access when it comes to a 1911. I'm not sure why that is, other than the holster having to work around the thumb safety.

Have you tried the nub?
108282

[DDTSGM]

Frankly, I believe that a whole lot of FOF can be better accomplished with Airsoft and blue guns, reserving Simunition for narrow, specific stuff. But that ain't so sexy.


This +1000

I think that it depends on what you are trying to accomplish and what you consider the 'narrow specific stuff.'

For teaching, drilling, validating tactics, I agree.

However, airsoft and blue guns don't impart the same arousal as systems with the potential for physical pain/discomfort do. I've never used them extensively, but shock vests might accomplish the same thing that Sim rounds do.

People don't quite understand that it is not the pain penalty which anchors a response in your 'rolidex' of life experiences, it it the potential for the pain penalty. The avoidance of said penalty is what anchors the response at an emotional level. If you get hammered, that is anchoring a negative experience, you need the positive outcome.

Sims Cowboys and Indians style scenario probably do more harm than good in anchoring the appropriate response.

Sims, IMO, should only be used in well-scripted scenarios with disciplined role-players. Any participant that does not successfully complete the scenario should be debriefed and immediately go through the scenario so they can achieve a positive outcome.

In fact, I believe if the participant begins to go astray/lose the bubble, the scenario should be stopped with a Socratic style debrief on the fly conducted before the scenario resumes with the scenario officer monitoring from 'over' the participant's shoulder. Then the participant should go through the scenario solo to successful completion to imprint a positive outcome using the tactics.

This sounds foreign as hell to many, but the only folks who should lose Sim gunfights are role-players. If that ain't happening stop and reset as discussed above.

Mind you, I'm not talking Delta, HRT, etc. operators, I'm talking street police, and general civilians who need survival responses ingrained.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Have you tried the nub?

I have, actually. Unfortunately, before trying the nub(s), I removed the "fence" around the thumb safety on both a 6378 and a 6360. I need to get unmolested versions and try it again.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I think that it depends on what you are trying to accomplish and what you consider the 'narrow specific stuff.'

For teaching, drilling, validating tactics, I agree.

However, airsoft and blue guns don't impart the same arousal as systems with the potential for physical pain/discomfort do. I've never used them extensively, but shock vests might accomplish the same thing that Sim rounds do.

People don't quite understand that it is not the pain penalty which anchors a response in your 'rolidex' of life experiences, it it the potential for the pain penalty. The avoidance of said penalty is what anchors the response at an emotional level. If you get hammered, that is anchoring a negative experience, you need the positive outcome.

Sims Cowboys and Indians style scenario probably do more harm than good in anchoring the appropriate response.

Sims, IMO, should only be used in well-scripted scenarios with disciplined role-players. Any participant that does not successfully complete the scenario should be debriefed and immediately go through the scenario so they can achieve a positive outcome.

In fact, I believe if the participant begins to go astray/lose the bubble, the scenario should be stopped with a Socratic style debrief on the fly conducted before the scenario resumes with the scenario officer monitoring from 'over' the participant's shoulder. Then the participant should go through the scenario solo to successful completion to imprint a positive outcome using the tactics.

This sounds foreign as hell to many, but the only folks who should lose Sim gunfights are role-players. If that ain't happening stop and reset as discussed above.

Mind you, I'm not talking Delta, HRT, etc. operators, I'm talking street police, and general civilians who need survival responses ingrained.

I agree. One of the things that I have noticed is participants shouting commands while fully kitted up sound like they are screaming into a fish bowl, and are just as articulate as a grown up in a Peanuts cartoon. You lose a lot of ability to communicate effectively, along with not being able to see facial expressions. I'm thinking that the trainer(s) should decide what lesson they want to teach, then select the appropriate gear to impart that specific lesson.

[Lon]

I think that it depends on what you are trying to accomplish and what you consider the 'narrow specific stuff.'

For teaching, drilling, validating tactics, I agree.

However, airsoft and blue guns don't impart the same arousal as systems with the potential for physical pain/discomfort do. I've never used them extensively, but shock vests might accomplish the same thing that Sim rounds do.

People don't quite understand that it is not the pain penalty which anchors a response in your 'rolidex' of life experiences, it it the potential for the pain penalty. The avoidance of said penalty is what anchors the response at an emotional level. If you get hammered, that is anchoring a negative experience, you need the positive outcome.

Sims Cowboys and Indians style scenario probably do more harm than good in anchoring the appropriate response.

Sims, IMO, should only be used in well-scripted scenarios with disciplined role-players. Any participant that does not successfully complete the scenario should be debriefed and immediately go through the scenario so they can achieve a positive outcome.

In fact, I believe if the participant begins to go astray/lose the bubble, the scenario should be stopped with a Socratic style debrief on the fly conducted before the scenario resumes with the scenario officer monitoring from 'over' the participant's shoulder. Then the participant should go through the scenario solo to successful completion to imprint a positive outcome using the tactics.

This sounds foreign as hell to many, but the only folks who should lose Sim gunfights are role-players. If that ain't happening stop and reset as discussed above.

Mind you, I'm not talking Delta, HRT, etc. operators, I'm talking street police, and general civilians who need survival responses ingrained.

Agree with almost every single thing you said except one thing. Done correctly, I think a scenario using airsoft can achieve the same arousal as SIMS.

I would love to be able to use SIMS for every scenario based training we do, but it’s just not realistic for most small to mid sized (serve communities of 50k or less). The last SBT we did would have required 20+ sets of SIM gear to have enough for everyone that needed them. The logistics of using SIMS and the cost involved just don’t make it feasible.

[TGS]

Agree with almost every single thing you said except one thing. Done correctly, I think a scenario using airsoft can achieve the same arousal as SIMS.

I would love to be able to use SIMS for every scenario based training we do, but it’s just not realistic for most small to mid sized (serve communities of 50k or less). The last SBT we did would have required 20+ sets of SIM gear to have enough for everyone that needed them. The logistics of using SIMS and the cost involved just don’t make it feasible.

Tangential, but this raises the question:

Why do we allow the existence of police agencies that are so small to the point of being unable to execute basic, fundamental training?

[Lon]

Tangential, but this raises the question:

Why do we allow the existence of police agencies that are so small to the point of being unable to execute basic, fundamental training?

I think a better question would be - why do the federal and state governments pass out all sorts of money to other countries and stupid grant opportunities instead of providing $$ for good quality training for local law enforcement?

Ohio had a fantastic program (the STEP program) where they provided SIMS gear to local law enforcement free of charge so long as the agency had a STEP instructor on staff. Like anything good the state does, it died after a couple years. My understanding is that they still have all the gear and hundreds of thousands of rounds of SIM ammo just sitting in a storage room somewhere.

[TGS]

I think a better question would be - why do the federal and state governments pass out all sorts of money to other countries and stupid grant opportunities instead of providing $$ for good quality training for local law enforcement?

Probably a better question for another thread...but in short, because if we can stabilize XYZ problem in another country, then that problem is less of a problem exported here.

I, personally, like the idea of not having to shoot it out with Boko Haram in the middle of Fairfax. YMMV.

That still doesn't address the underlying issue in America that we have an outdated system that allows for inefficient governance which at the same time is incapable of performing its own basic tasks that are inherent responsibilities. No amount of money can solve the problem of police agencies that are too small to be police in 2023. It's not 1970, after all.

[03RN]

Probably a better question for another thread...but in short, because if we can stabilize XYZ problem in another country, then that problem is less of a problem exported here.

I, personally, like the idea of not having to shoot it out with Boko Haram in the middle of Fairfax. YMMV.

That still doesn't address the underlying issue in America that we have an outdated system that allows for inefficient governance which at the same time is incapable of performing its own basic tasks that are inherent responsibilities. No amount of money can solve the problem of police agencies that are too small to be police in 2023. It's not 1970, after all.

I think if a community thought it's police needed more training then they would increase funding

[TheNewbie]

What we don’t want, in general, is the Federal government having even more input into local governance. Maybe more input from the State government, maybe not, that is very dependent on where you are at.


Small town PDs can range from pretty decent to embarrassingly incompetent and corrupt. Though that is true of all levels of government.


I personally think most tiny towns would be better off contracting with the Sheriff’s Office to provide LE services. This would allow for more patrol deputies for a county, while reducing funding costs to each town. Plus you are more likely to get better trained, more competent, and more easily retained personnel.


As far as funding goes, taxes are already absurdly high. The issue is where the money is spent. While I think we shovel too much money to lands far away, I do think there is a valid argument for why we do a lot of it.


There is plenty of money to be had if we wasted less on not only overseas spending, but on domestic spending as well. It’s all about priorities, and for the time being, America prefers to waste money vs spending it wisely.



Like everything, there are no perfect solutions and everything has a cost/benefit to it.

[WobblyPossum]

I think if a community thought it's police needed more training then they would increase funding

I’d be incredibly surprised if “the community” knew the level of training their police department had or if they knew the level of training that their police department should have.

[TGS]

I think if a community thought it's police needed more training then they would increase funding

A lot of times that isn't feasible when you get down to carving out small municipalities with small departments. It's easier to swing funding when you're in a midsize+ agency that is spreading the wealth across different tax bases. You can't squeeze water from a rock.

There's also the issue of manpower. Lots of departments simply don't have enough LEOs on staff to conduct various kinds of training. The problem isn't necessarily funding since you might already be employing the appropriate number of officers per capita...the problem being that every municipality can become a fiefdom with its own individual police department of less than 10 dudes, with their own isolated operations and training program. Combined into a county police department they'd have no trouble, but individually they're just too small to effectively accomplish anything....which leads to a quagmire of interservice agreements which can change with the whims of whichever tin-pot dictator runs the fiefdom and whether they like the guy in charge of the municipalities around him.

It's just a very inefficient structure. 90% of LE agencies in America are under 50 officers. 3/4 of America's LE agencies are 24 LEOs or less, and half are 10 LEOs or less. That's absolute insanity for the current day and age we live in.

I agree with TheNewbie. There's a happy medium to strike and we are missing it. I grew up in a place where every municipality had its own PD and its own police chief...the town grew up in had 8 officers, 12 by the time I graduated high school. I think they're at 14 today. It was a part time PD with state police covering the town at night.

Now I live in a place with consolidated county LE services. It's dramatically more efficient for the tax payer, and just all around a much better service model in every possible way (atleast as long as we aren't considering graft and corruption as goals).

Tl;Dr: I don't know the perfect size to aim for, but as a rule of thumb if a LE agency is so small that it can't even conduct basic force-on-force training or hold a range day while simultaneously maintaining LE services, that's a pretty good indicator that it shouldn't exist as its own entity.

[03RN]

I agree that I'm sure the community doesn't know jack about the needs of their local department.

I'm just philosophically apposed to going into a town and telling them what to do.

I grew up in a town without it's own PD. We had a resident state trooper in a 2 room building that was a school house from like the 1700s.

I moved up here in 2020 and work in a town with 3 cops. It seems like most of the small towns up here have a few part time guys and then draw on the county sheriff's and State troopers if needed.

I think with such low crime up here it would be a tough sell and exactly what people from New Hampshire hate about people moving into their small towns from out of state and trying to change them.

Don't get me wrong. I think more training is always good.

[TheNewbie]

TGS is certainly right in theory about size of an agency and training, but I’m not so sure in practice. Maybe, and it’s why these discussions are worth having, but there are probably 40 viable sides to thus topic.


One concern about increasing the distance between local control over police to county or state control, is that the LE agency is less accountable to the locals. Of course even this has pluses and minuses, and this is true of every type of government agency.


Another is that even if you make an agency bigger, with more funding, there is nothing close to a guarantee that it will be spent wisely or appropriately.


Ultimately I do think it should be up to the local population as to what they want. As long as it meets constitutional, and certain state, guidelines and practices.


While I’m for more limited Federal government than most here, I don’t think it’s wrong to see them as having a role in helping train and educate LE agencies all over the country, since LE actions can have a nation wide impact.


For really small towns, I still think the SO providing coverage would be a better overall benefit for all involved.

[TheNewbie]

Another thing, what constitutes a small agency in one part of the country might constitute a big agency in another.


From what I’ve seen, most small towns like their PDs. Of course, most people are not aware of training issues to the degree a lot of members here are.


That’s not an attack on those people, just a reality.

[TGS]

I agree that I'm sure the community doesn't know jack about the needs of their local department.

I'm just philosophically apposed to going into a town and telling them what to do.

I grew up in a town without it's own PD. We had a resident state trooper in a 2 room building that was a school house from like the 1700s.

I moved up here in 2020 and work in a town with 3 cops. It seems like most of the small towns up here have a few part time guys and then draw on the county sheriff's and State troopers if needed.

I think with such low crime up here it would be a tough sell and exactly what people from New Hampshire hate about people moving into their small towns from out of state and trying to change them.

Don't get me wrong. I think more training is always good.

This is really a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Your town worked fine with state police coverage. The state police is a large enough organization that they can offer proper training for the various troopers hat cover the hinterlands.

If, instead, you had some super small local agency of 3 guys that was unable to conduct its own training consistent with what we expect for LEOs in 2023...that's a problem. Those sorts of agencies are all over, and would likely be better supplanted by county and state services, as they can rely on such support infrastructure and overhead.

[DDTSGM]

I would love to be able to use SIMS for every scenario based training we do, but it’s just not realistic for most small to mid sized (serve communities of 50k or less). The last SBT we did would have required 20+ sets of SIM gear to have enough for everyone that needed them. The logistics of using SIMS and the cost involved just don’t make it feasible.

I ran the FonF stuff at our state academy.

We had over 40 sets of pro gear and enough dedicated weapons to conduct scenarios with our basic classes which meant arming 20 officers and their roleplayers each day of our final week.

Once we got the program off the ground and had enough gear, I got the okay to loan out the gear to agencies. They had to agree to replace anything they broke and pick up and return the gear they checked out. We didn't furnish ammo, though.

Quite a few agencies took advantage of the offer, although not as many as I would have liked.

Maybe your state academy would be willing to do something like that.

ETA: Lon, hadn't read your post about the STEP program.

[DDTSGM]

Tangential, but this raises the question:

Why do we allow the existence of police agencies that are so small to the point of being unable to execute basic, fundamental training?

Most states have mandated academy training - actually pretty sure all of them do, and almost all states have mandatory in-service training.

Many agencies conduct their own in-service training, which often ain't that whoopie both content and delivery wise, state law enforcement associations often host training on a regional basis and at their annual conferences.

So, in most circumstances, small agencies can get training as good as officers at the larger agencies.

Just to further discussion, how many officers at large agencies get to go to anything outside of departmental training UNLESS they are assigned to a specialized unit? Not very many.

In our little slice of heaven, I'd be willing to bet that the run of the mill officer from one of our medium sized agencies has a better grasp of the overall core competencies than does an officer at one of our larger agencies, for several reasons which I'd be glad to pontificate upon if you desire.

As far as law enforcement agency size, one size does not fit all. Their are differences in population density at work. If you live in a county which is primarily urban with small suburban communities contiguous to each other consolidation of services may seem to be a good idea.

However, if you take that same mindset to an area, let's say a county comprised of one large community, four or five smaller communities which are not contiguous to one another and a sheriff's department, consolidation of law enforcement services may not be that effective, efficient or desired.

And besides that, 'Murica, we don't need no stinkin' centralized police.

[TheNewbie]

I would say training at small towns is less of an issue than exposure to different types of calls. In a city of even 10k, an officer will get plenty of regular experience that will equip them to be an efficient patrol officer.

Tiny towns may not have the same luck.

[TGS]

Dan Lehr, I don't have any beef with mid-size agencies at all, and nothing I've written has suggested such. Nor has my point been that the larger the agency = better police officers, so I don't know why youre bringing up either point.

What I'm talking about here are small agencies, which are so small as to be self limiting in their basic duties and function. There is quite literally nothing you could write that will convince me an agency so small as to fail the rule of thumb I wrote above is the best way to do business.

As for interservice agreements with mutual aid, coverage, training, etc, I touched on the problems above. Interagency relationships change with the winds, and it turns out that "charity" from other agencies isn't a good plan. Officers from small agencies are not getting the same opportunities, regardless of the fact there are class spots available here and there for various topics.

Regarding the idea of a midsize or large agency being unable to police a combination of rural, suburban, and urban territory...this is a made up problem. Agencies successfully doing just that for a hundred years (or more) is pretty convincing evidence that it's hogwash. Districting works just fine at breaking up enforcement priorities, and I'm not talking about taking ghetto cops and making them police the same way in a rural area; that's a red herring.

As for the thought, "But those larger agencies don't do anything extra that isn't state mandated anyways, so it doesn't matter". 1) that's patently false, and 2) the point isn't that X agency of 230 officers doesn't do training above state mandates, the point is that Y agency cant do shit even if they wanted to because they're prohibitively small.

Again, there's quite literally nothing you could tell me that would convince me that an agency which is so small that it can't realistically conduct basic in-service training is a good idea, even if that's just trying to conduct a range day while still having patrol staffed.

[TheNewbie]

Most states have mandated academy training - actually pretty sure all of them do, and almost all states have mandatory in-service training.

Many agencies conduct their own in-service training, which often ain't that whoopie both content and delivery wise, state law enforcement associations often host training on a regional basis and at their annual conferences.

So, in most circumstances, small agencies can get training as good as officers at the larger agencies.

Just to further discussion, how many officers at large agencies get to go to anything outside of departmental training UNLESS they are assigned to a specialized unit? Not very many.

In our little slice of heaven, I'd be willing to bet that the run of the mill officer from one of our medium sized agencies has a better grasp of the overall core competencies than does an officer at one of our larger agencies, for several reasons which I'd be glad to pontificate upon if you desire.

As far as law enforcement agency size, one size does not fit all. Their are differences in population density at work. If you live in a county which is primarily urban with small suburban communities contiguous to each other consolidation of services may seem to be a good idea.

However, if you take that same mindset to an area, let's say a county comprised of one large community, four or five smaller communities which are not contiguous to one another and a sheriff's department, consolidation of law enforcement services may not be that effective, efficient or desired.

And besides that, 'Murica, we don't need no stinkin' centralized police.



Good points.


Certainly big centralized police would be a terrible thing for the American way of doing things.


Centralized on a small scale maybe is not such bad thing. Let’s say a town that averages a few “real” calls a month. Then maybe letting the SO cover and take calls would be better.

[DDTSGM]

Dan LehrAs for the thought, "But those larger agencies don't do anything extra that isn't state mandated anyways, so it doesn't matter". 1) that's patently false, and 2) the point isn't that X agency of 230 officers doesn't do training above state mandates, the point is that Y agency cant do shit even if they wanted to because they're prohibitively small.

Again, there's quite literally nothing you could tell me that would convince me that an agency which is so small that it can't realistically conduct basic in-service training is a good idea, even if that's just trying to conduct a range day while still having patrol staffed.

I would like to know where you got "But those larger agencies don't do anything extra that isn't state mandated anyways, so it doesn't matter" from what I said. I believe my statement was along the lines that often officers at larger agencies don't get to attend anything other than departmental training unless they are assigned to a specialized unit. I don't believe that statement is patently false.

As for the 'Y agency can't do shit because they are prohibitively small' you state it as an absolute and that isn't necessarily true. In the central states, agencies work together to do training and cover for guys so they can go to training.

We are in agreement on one thing, if the department can't cover three shifts, perhaps it's time to think about contracting with the Sheriff's Department.

You seem to equate size with both competency and excellent delivery of service. That isn't always true. I agree, consolidation of a metropolitan county may be the most cost effective and efficient way to run LE, BUT, it isn't an absolute that it is the most effective way in all circumstances.

As an example, the picture below is Butler County Kansas, the states largest county at 1447 square miles. It's larger than Rhode Island and slightly smaller than Delaware. Population 67,000. LE agencies: Butler County SO, El Dorado DPS, Andover PD, Augusta PD, Towanda PD, Rose Hill PD, and Leon Marshall (I think).

108308

Each small town has it's own identity, and those that choose have their own police department. The sheriff's department covers the rest of the communities and the farmers.

So how would you consolidate such a county and maintain the same level of service? I don't think that the people would want it and I don't think it would be that much more efficient.

[Hambo]

That still doesn't address the underlying issue in America that we have an outdated system that allows for inefficient governance

The civics class answer is that the US wasn't set up for efficient governance. The LE answer is that sometimes large agencies are less efficient than small ones. Do you want NYPD training/quals or would you rather work for Lee Weems?

[Le Français]

The civics class answer is that the US wasn't set up for efficient governance. The LE answer is that sometimes large agencies are less efficient than small ones. Do you want NYPD training/quals or would you rather work for Lee Weems?

Neither. But, although I don’t think TGS will be applying there either, I’m pretty sure that Weems’ SO is bigger than the example TGS is pointing out as a problem: Agencies so small that they are only independent in superficial ways. If you have to depend on the charity of the chief of the agency next door to cover you when three officers are sick, you don’t get to congratulate yourself that that chief isn’t technically in your chain of command.

[TGS]

You seem to equate size with both competency and excellent delivery of service. That isn't always true.

I don't know how many times I need to say that this is emphatically what I'm NOT stating, with the exception that agencies which are so small as to be unable to conduct training are handicapping their LEOs. I've stated it several times now. I've made no statement that competency automatically goes up as agency size increases. Please re-read the rule of thumb I proposed.

As for the places in Kansas you mentioned, I don't know those populations and department sizes to make an educated guess, so I'm not going to. With that said, for sparsely populated rural areas, state police services tend to work well. That's the genesis of several full service state police agencies in America, and it works....Alaska State Troopers being at the extreme end of the spectrum as an example. It works in many other countries as well. This isn't some mind-blowing, new, radical concept that I'm talking about here.

As for identity of the town...dude, give me a break. Each town might have somewhat of a identity and town pride that manifests itself as a historical society, annual town celebration and whatnot, but they're not alien cultures to each other; I'd bet cash money there's officers that already live in one locality and work in another, just like anywhere else in America. I'd bet you a fat dollar that most residents wouldn't know the difference unless some ornery bitch with a point to make went on a campaign against the idea with an appeal to emotion. Like I said, I grew up in a small town. Population 4k and under during my childhood, PD numbers stated above. This isn't a foreign concept to me.


The civics class answer is that the US wasn't set up for efficient governance. The LE answer is that sometimes large agencies are less efficient than small ones. Do you want NYPD training/quals or would you rather work for Lee Weems?

See above.

Please read my prior posts and the rule of thumb I presented if this still isn't clicking.


Agencies so small that they are only independent in superficial ways.

That's a really good way of putting it.

Politically independent. Operationally, only superficially so.

[DDTSGM]

TGS, I'll give you one thing, you are dogged and dogmatic.

Agreed, Alaskan State Police are an anomaly. Although the firearms guy training his minions to make a war face kinda makes me wonder.

There may be some areas of the country where the State Police deal works well and the folks are all happy with their level of police service, but you'd have to give me more than your assurance of that fact.

I get it, you look down your nose at small town officers, and that's cool.

You don't seem to understand the concept of home rule and local governments deciding what type of policing they want, and that's cool, also.

We aren't going to agree on the elimination of police agencies smaller than X number of officers, so I'll bow out of this one.

BACK TO LE LOADOUTS.

[Le Français]

It's hard to imagine how someone who has worked for a tiny PD could really come away with the impression that it's the best way to do things. There are pros and cons of course, but going to a "resident state trooper" (or "resident county police officer") model where someone from a larger agency is assigned to a small town on a rotating basis gives you personalized, local policing, and the advantages of a larger agency, like the fact that your entire police force isn't teetering on the brink of collapse if someone goes on vacation and another is sick, there're more funds and resources for training, and the people assigned to that small town can look forward to moving on to something else later (highway, detective bureau, SWAT) so they actually stay instead of quitting after facing the prospect of bouncing around a small town like a pinball for 25 years. The turnover in tiny PDs is horrendous, and results in a lot of rookies working alone.

Also, it's not like law enforcement in individual towns isn't already heavily influenced by the state the town is in. The vast majority of laws enforced by local cops are state laws.

[camel]

I don't know how many times I need to say that this is emphatically what I'm NOT stating, with the exception that agencies which are so small as to be unable to conduct training are handicapping their LEOs. I've stated it several times now. I've made no statement that competency automatically goes up as agency size increases. Please re-read the rule of thumb I proposed.

As for the places in Kansas you mentioned, I don't know those populations and department sizes to make an educated guess, so I'm not going to. With that said, for sparsely populated rural areas, state police services tend to work well. That's the genesis of several full service state police agencies in America, and it works....Alaska State Troopers being at the extreme end of the spectrum as an example. It works in many other countries as well. This isn't some mind-blowing, new, radical concept that I'm talking about here.

As for identity of the town...dude, give me a break. Each town might have somewhat of a identity and town pride that manifests itself as a historical society, annual town celebration and whatnot, but they're not alien cultures to each other; I'd bet cash money there's officers that already live in one locality and work in another, just like anywhere else in America. I'd bet you a fat dollar that most residents wouldn't know the difference unless some ornery bitch with a point to make went on a campaign against the idea with an appeal to emotion. Like I said, I grew up in a small town. Population 4k and under during my childhood, PD numbers stated above. This isn't a foreign concept to me.



See above.

Please read my prior posts and the rule of thumb I presented if this still isn't clicking.



That's a really good way of putting it.

Politically independent. Operationally, only superficially so.

No offense. I’m not a police officer on the job. I’d hate to call you a fed. I don’t know you personally. I’ve read your posts and mostly I agree with you. But. You are really combative when it comes to discussion.

[TGS]

I get it, you look down your nose at small town officers, and that's cool.

I have never once looked down on, berated, or criticized small town LEOs in this conversation. You can fuck right off with constantly trying to put words in my mouth and attacking my point of view with strawmen and shit I've never once said and have constantly corrected you on. That's weak shit.

[HCM]

It's hard to imagine how someone who has worked for a tiny PD could really come away with the impression that it's the best way to do things. There are pros and cons of course, but going to a "resident state trooper" (or "resident county police officer") model where someone from a larger agency is assigned to a small town on a rotating basis gives you personalized, local policing, and the advantages of a larger agency, like the fact that your entire police force isn't teetering on the brink of collapse if someone goes on vacation and another is sick, there're more funds and resources for training, and the people assigned to that small town can look forward to moving on to something else later (highway, detective bureau, SWAT) so they actually stay instead of quitting after facing the prospect of bouncing around a small town like a pinball for 25 years. The turnover in tiny PDs is horrendous, and results in a lot of rookies working alone.

Also, it's not like law enforcement in individual towns isn't already heavily influenced by the state the town is in. The vast majority of laws enforced by local cops are state laws.

Not to mention there is sometimes a fine line (or no line at all) between “home rule” and undue influence/ untouchables/do you know who my self/father/mother/husband/wife is ?

IME the smaller the agency the more this is an issue.

[Le Français]

I get it, you look down your nose at small town officers, and that's cool.


TGS and I corresponded frequently for years on the topic of law enforcement when I was working for an extremely small PD. Never once did I get the impression that he looked down his nose at small town officers. On at least one occasion, he steered me away from a federal job with a large agency, recommending that I stay at my PD instead, as I was getting more investigative experience there.

The minuscule LE agency model is not good. It is more vulnerable to a host of problems than are larger agencies. Them’s the facts.

[Dov]

I’ve been mulling over posting something about this and have until now refrained, but a thread on another forum I frequent and some recent observations watching freshly graduated police academy kids is prompting me to stir the pot. It’s a long post so buckle up.

When I became a police cadet back in the end of the 1990’s, there were still a few officers (all Vietnam vets to give age perspective) who were carrying revolvers on uniformed patrol every day. Typically they carried two extra speed loaders or full moon clips. Their common loadout was 6+6+6= 18 rounds.

By far, the most common loadout in my county (San Francisco East Bay) when I started in the early 2000’s was a single stack 45 ACP handgun (1911, SIG P220, or S&W 4506-1) and the officer carrying two extra mags on the belt. This loadout was 8+8+8+1=25 rounds. This was well over 70% of the city cops around here.

The second most common loadout locally was typically a Beretta 92 or S&W 5906 (our sheriff’s office) in 9mm or a Glock 22 in 40 S&W each which held 15 rounds and the officer would carry two extra mags for 15+15+15+1=46 rounds.

Finally, the third most common was the Beretta 96 (a couple small PD’s and some personally owned guns) or S&W 4006 (CHP) which each carried 11 rounds in the mag and was typically carried with one on the gun and two on the belt for 11+11+11+1=34 rounds.

I’d like to note that no one carrying any of these loadouts, whether 18 rounds, 25, 33 or 46, ever complained of being under-armed or having too little ammo in my recollection.

Over time load outs grew a little. “Quad” mag pouches for single stacks became a big thing around 2010 and as 9mm caught on most standard mags increased to 17 round capacity.

Fast forward to today when I commonly see three 21 or 22 round mags on a belt or external carrier with another in the gun. This is 85 rounds (or more) of 9mm on their person.

My initial thoughts on this have been “that’s a lot of weight I wouldn’t care to carry around,” and “hey, you do you, not needed, but if it makes you feel better cool.” But are there downsides to this much ammo?

This thread, as well as some personal experience, really started me thinking about it:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?57383-The-case-for-the-assessment-pause

I made this comment in that thread:

“When someone is trying to kill you (or you think someone is trying to kill you) it is very easy to floor the accelerator and very hard to hit to brakes fast enough.

Hours later, when asked how many rounds you fired, you may think three or four, but more often than not your magazine may tell a much different story.”

I stand by that statement.

This is totally anecdotal, but as I have seen the capacity of the magazine increase, I have seen split times decrease, and I have seen the emphasis on making accurate shots decrease as well, regardless of irons or optics. Correlation? Perhaps.

I have had to fight and argue to keep the six 25 yard shots in our annual 36 round duty qual. There are quite a few in my department that only want 15 yards and in because “speed is what really matters.” My counter argument has been “it only counts if it hits what it needs to.”

I also within the last few years had an argument with another senior firearms instructor during an instructor development day who was pushing everyone to shoot fast and he told me I wasn’t shooting fast enough and wasn’t “pushing it.” My splits were around .25 second and my group was the size of a fist from 7 yards. His argument was my group was too tight and if I wasn’t so nitpicky on accuracy I could be so much faster. Dude…

I recently sent one of our younger “good shooter” officers to the same police firearms instructor school I went through. The first day they make you shoot 25 yard NRA Bullseye on a B-16 (slowfire). I remember me and the other guy with me from my department back then both shooting our 45 ACP 1911’s with irons passed it easy peasy on the first attempt. Our young guy today with his X5 Legion with optic and 21 round mags had a hell of a time. He relayed to me after the course how he thought it was ridiculous to have to shoot that and…you know…speed matters. Houston, we have a problem…

I started carrying a Gen3 Glock 17 for dog-handler reasons back in 2014 and switched to a Gen5 Glock 19 MOS a year ago, but still stay qualified on a 1911 and carry it occasionally. I attended an academy graduation a couple weeks ago wearing the 1911 which led to conversation with a newbie of “how are you comfortable with that” and “aren’t you afraid of running out of ammo?” Comfortable? Very…and no, no I’m not.

Not that I’ve done this (wink-wink), but put two decent shooters on plate racks. One with the old 25 round single stack loadout and one with the “lots of ammo” loadout and don’t give them any rules except for knock the plates down as fast as you can. I guarantee you the single stack guy will always have slower splits, but will have less rounds shot with more hits. Very often, he or she is actually faster (sometimes significantly so) to knock down all the plates than the “faster” shooter.

Now let’s apply this exercise to real life in an OIS. Who would you want in an OIS? Which one is most defensible in court and in the court of public opinion and media scrutiny? The person that fired lots of rounds really fast or the person that fired fewer rounds slightly slower, but made his or her hits count?

The counter argument is always the one-off like the Timothy Gramins OIS (officer with a Glock 21, expends all three mags and almost out of ammo and now carries an excessive amount of 9mm). In most articles/interviews with him he’s quoted as saying, “Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’" Well, there you go.

I’m not sure if it’s because they’re just available or John Wick or what, but more than three of the 20+ round mags is definitely the thing right now, I’ve formed the personal opinion that it isn’t a good thing. Anecdotally, it seems the byproduct is more rounds fired and a degradation of accuracy.

I’m seriously thinking of switching back to the 1911 with the old loadout for myself, because when I’m honest with myself, do I need anything else right now?

I don't think Keith Jones hangs out here, but Chuck Haggard is still in touch with him, has mentioned study at his department covering 1970-1987 with a total of 199 incidents, only once incident out of all of those with 5 & 6 shot revolvers needed a reload to win fight.

That one incident with reload was using 158 RNL vs criminal with a rifle and 7th round stopped criminal.

The late Chuck Taylor also had similar observation, page 37 of 4th edition of Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, he mentions that he "conducted more than 4000 handgun fight case studies and found only a dozen or so in which quick reloading was ever attempted. In no case did it materially affect the outcome of the fight." Because in those cases the shooter was missing.

Think Tom Givens has shared similar thoughts.

And Ed Lovette.

[RevolverJIM]

I'm reading (for the second or third time) Ed Mireles' book on the FBI Miami firefight.

No disrespect meant to any of the Officers involved in that event but there are several instances in Ed's narrative where one can see that Officers made mistakes that probably had a significant influence on the outcome.

It seems to me that hand gun magazine capacity, or lack thereof, had very little, if any, effect on the outcome of the event.

I'm willing to be corrected so if you guys see something that I missed, don't be shy:)

[HCM]

I don't think Keith Jones hangs out here, but Chuck Haggard is still in touch with him, has mentioned study at his department covering 1970-1987 with a total of 199 incidents, only once incident out of all of those with 5 & 6 shot revolvers needed a reload to win fight.

That one incident with reload was using 158 RNL vs criminal with a rifle and 7th round stopped criminal.

The late Chuck Taylor also had similar observation, page 37 of 4th edition of Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, he mentions that he "conducted more than 4000 handgun fight case studies and found only a dozen or so in which quick reloading was ever attempted. In no case did it materially affect the outcome of the fight." Because in those cases the shooter was missing.

Think Tom Givens has shared similar thoughts.

And Ed Lovette.


https://youtu.be/R94t8E71Ct0

As Slim Charles says “the thing about the old days is… they the old days”

1987 was 36 years ago. The trends in suspects being better armed were already driving the shift away from revolvers and 7-8 shot autos to higher capacity pistols. Incidents like the Norco Bank Robbery and the FBI’s 1986 Miami shooting.

Now suspects with with “Glock switches” and AK / AR pistols are common.

It’s been observed that combatants often run out of time before they run out of ammo and that the first hit “on meat” tends to predict the winner.

One way of running out of time which often results in losing a gun fight is being the first to run out of ammo and having to reload. In a fight, bullets are opportunities for you, and lack of bullets (even temporarily) is an opportunity for your opponent. Even if you successfully reload, the first shot(s) after “handling” the gun, such as after a draw, reload etc tend to be the most problematic.

IME places that over emphasize accuracy also tend to have cops shooting unreasonably slow which goes back to “running out of time.” Training standards which allow / encourage 2 to 3 seconds for a first shot from the holster and 1 second splits (actual example) are IMHO Criminal negligence. Shooting and fighting with a gun are not always one and the same. Shooting well is a component, but not the entirety of fighting with a gun.

It doesn’t matter what the capacity of the gun is because mag dumping is a training and emotional control issue.

Both in life and OIS videos I’ve seen officers fall into three groups falling along the normal “bell curve” distribution:

At one end, you have those who lose emotional control and mag dump. They are in panic mode and regardless of any “psychological law of scarcity” they are going to expend the contents of their gun to make the threat go away.

In the middle, you have the majority of officers who either default to their training or in some ambush / unequal initiative situations put out an initial burst of fire, assess it as ineffective, then get their shit together, apply their training and neutralize the threat. These are the people who benefit the most from having more rounds in the gun.

At the other end you have what I call the “nerd assassins.” They quickly and efficiently apply their training and get hits ending the fight in a few rounds. These tend to be people who train on their own and have high levels of emotional control in stressful situations.

Limiting officers to 6 or 8 round capacity will not turn the first group into the last group and would be detrimental to the majority in the middle.

[BehindBlueI's]

One way of running out of time which often results in losing a gun fight is being the first to run out of ammo and having to reload.

If it "often results" in a loss, you would think there would be a multitude of readily available incidents to discuss. There aren't. It's well trodden ground that long term stats show it on par with tripping on your shoe strings as the reason for a loss. If you dig through enough shootings you may eventually find one somewhere, but it's outsized in the hypothetical realm compared to reality. "Often" is simply wrong.

Glock switch armed opponent? That's a burst of fire that your either hit by or aren't.

If you're reloading in the open where that lull of fire gives your opponent more time to hit you, needing to reload isn't your problem.

I don't think anyone is actually proposing limiting officers to revolvers or 1911s as a means to force them to be more betterer. That horse left the barn, went over the hill, and swam beyond the horizon. The idea is how to get people to mimic the mindset inherent in having less ammo and each miss mattering more sooner AND to stop shooting people who are obviously down and out because the last bullet made them twitch so they are "still moving".

[HCM]

If it "often results" in a loss, you would think there would be a multitude of readily available incidents to discuss. There aren't. It's well trodden ground that long term stats show it on par with tripping on your shoe strings as the reason for a loss. If you dig through enough shootings you may eventually find one somewhere, but it's outsized in the hypothetical realm compared to reality. "Often" is simply wrong.

Glock switch armed opponent? That's a burst of fire that your either hit by or aren't.

If you're reloading in the open where that lull of fire gives your opponent more time to hit you, needing to reload isn't your problem.

I don't think anyone is actually proposing limiting officers to revolvers or 1911s as a means to force them to be more betterer. That horse left the barn, went over the hill, and swam beyond the horizon. The idea is how to get people to mimic the mindset inherent in having less ammo and each miss mattering more sooner AND to stop shooting people who are obviously down and out because the last bullet made them twitch so they are "still moving".

Time limitations- in the form of not having time to miss / waste rounds. Which comes back to working both speed and accuracy.

Mimicking having less ammo is a fallacy. They have the ammo. They don’t have the time.

[brad413]

Agree with almost every single thing you said except one thing. Done correctly, I think a scenario using airsoft can achieve the same arousal as SIMS.

I would love to be able to use SIMS for every scenario based training we do, but it’s just not realistic for most small to mid sized (serve communities of 50k or less). The last SBT we did would have required 20+ sets of SIM gear to have enough for everyone that needed them. The logistics of using SIMS and the cost involved just don’t make it feasible.

I really liked how the Virtra 300 made this kind of scenario based training logistically possible for me as a trainer at a small station in a large nationwide agency. A trainee and one (or better two - one to operate the system and one to observe the trainee) trainer could execute scenarios with a large number of role players (that weren't in safety gear because they were actors on a screen and thus looked like normal people) quickly and effectively. The pain penalty from using marking rounds could be replicated (maybe better) with the threat-fire device.

Additionally, a minimal amount of time was spent gearing up and waiting to complete the training. Essentially, all live equipment (duty weapon, ammunition, X2, baton, spray, etc) was stashed in a gun locker, the trainee was searched and then the live equipment was replaced with the simulation equipment. Took about 5 minutes.

My observations from running the Virtra for about 10 years:

the trainees experience a lot of stress from the system subconsciously though they consciously know its not real
they slow down and try to get hits (maybe because they know we are going to judge performance a round at a time)
the trainees liked the system for the self-assessment value it gave them. Because the role players were on a screen, they weren't defensive about getting shot up by an FI (who they consider a great shooter) acting as a role player



On the other hand it is pretty expensive, but there are cheaper options. Obtaining and using it seemed to be a very good (but not perfect) way to conduct effective scenario based training.

Interestingly, when I ran some scenarios using traditional simmunition marking rounds and safety gear, and ensuring the role-players were completely compliant with the commands issued by the trainees in the scenarios, the stress of the trainees appeared to be higher than when they were in the VIRTRA progressing through a much more complex scenario. For example, I observed a higher level of trainee stress with a completely compliant felony stop scenario with everyone in safety gear and simmuntion guns loaded with marking rounds than I did with a (school) active shooter scenario in the Virtra. I don't know why this occurred.

Regarding the original question of this thread, I suggest that, based on my study and experience, that over time, LE firearms training has evolved from an emphasis on accuracy and tactics to an emphasis on (not speed) but successful completion of training (or really liability reduction). I don't want to go on a new old guy rant, but I didn't see a lot of apparent concern from poor shooters about their poor performance. And about about half the poor shooters wanted a technical fix to apply against their poor skillset - in this case more and bigger mags. Or an optical sight on their pistol. They aren't really concerned about doing the work to become a better shooter or the study to apply better tactics.

I watched the video in the previous post several times. It seems like in this case the Houston officer who was inadvertently dropping mags was shooting really fast for the distance his threat appears to be at. Even more concerning, it appeared there might have been another officer downrange at the time (the wounded officer). I am curious regarding what distances he regularly shoots at and what consideration he was applying to the other officers that were in the foreground of his threat. If he was using "suppressive" fire I am kind of also interested in knowing what backstop he was suppressing into. It appears that street is mostly apartments.

[Vista461]

For really small towns, I still think the SO providing coverage would be a better overall benefit for all involved.

Except when the SO can’t get enough people to stay, so those of us in the smaller towns end up getting mutual aided to cover the SO’s area on a regular basis. So if the smaller towns got rid of their PD’s best of luck getting a decent response time.

Luckily we work together well. :)

[DDTSGM]

I have never once looked down on, berated, or criticized small town LEOs in this conversation. You can fuck right off with constantly trying to put words in my mouth and attacking my point of view with strawmen and shit I've never once said and have constantly corrected you on. That's weak shit.

I sent you a PM.

[KevH]

1987 was 36 years ago. The trends in suspects being better armed were already driving the shift away from revolvers and 7-8 shot autos to higher capacity pistols. Incidents like the Norco Bank Robbery and the FBI’s 1986 Miami shooting.

Now suspects with with “Glock switches” and AK / AR pistols are common.

It’s been observed that combatants often run out of time before they run out of ammo and that the first hit “on meat” tends to predict the winner.



Since you guys brought it up...

What should have been the lesson from Norco (1980) and Miami (1986) were:

- Better tactics should be created, taught, and ingrained in the minds of a wide spectrum of officers.
- All cops need rifles and to know when and how to deploy them.
- Learn emergency medical treatment and how to self-treat
- Agencies working in the same vicinity should be able to "patch" channels and have radio communication with one another

Some lessons were learned from Norco, but it took North Hollywood and Columbine twenty years later for departments to actually really start listening and getting rifles to patrol and slugs available for shotguns. Even then, it was a very slow process.

IFAKs and tourniquet access (they didn't even start teaching about tourniquets in California until at least 2010) didn't become a thing until after guys started getting home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

We (and literally every other SF Bay Area agency) still can't talk to CHP via our radios and I still watch cops wandering into bank robbery calls and doing stupid stuff and running up to cars on what should be Riverside or FBI method high-risk car stops.

Instead of addressing the obvious lessons that should have been learned from Miami, the FBI went down the pistol caliber improvement rabbit hole only to wind up thirty years later with the same cartridge (although improved by time).

There is no way officers having higher capacity pistol magazines and carelessly blowing through pistol ammo "fast" would have had any impact on either of those events.

I'm not sure what your past experience at your department did to you, but you keep bringing up accuracy and its emphasis as a negative. It's not. Without accuracy speed is utterly meaningless. I agree, the shots should be as fast as practical initially; however, if they don't hit their intended target they are more likely to be a detriment (see my prior posts about hitting innocents). They also can be a detriment in our world today when they keep getting fired after they should have stopped.

We can all shoot really fast and hit a silhouette at 5 or even 10 yards. That's easy. Go through the UofF video thread. The four areas we see cops struggling are:

1) Recognizing danger and making the decision quick enough when to engage.
2) Shooting at any distance beyond 7 or 10 yards (especially 25 yards or greater) and doing so accurately under stress
3) Knowing when to stop shooting and actually doing it.
4) Being cognizant of your backdrop and being accountable for all rounds fired.

Having more ammo in the magazine isn't helping fix any of the aforementioned issues.

[Dov]

Since you guys brought it up...

What should have been the lesson from Norco (1980) and Miami (1986) were:

- Better tactics should be created, taught, and ingrained in the minds of a wide spectrum of officers.
- All cops need rifles and to know when and how to deploy them.
- Learn emergency medical treatment and how to self-treat
- Agencies working in the same vicinity should be able to "patch" channels and have radio communication with one another



Absolutely.

Doesn't DB, who if I'm not mistaken has more recent LEO experience than 1987, and my understanding is correct emphasizes accountability for each shot and failure drill as the SOP? From what he has said here and on podcasts that was a direct response to legal climate his department was in, it was lot easier to articulate and justify 2 to 4 well placed hits than it was a dozen less than ideally placed shots.

Keith Jones department was an outlier for some time, sure Mas & Chuck Haggard recall but maybe to many here aren't old enough to recall that, for how low their round count was compared to other departments.

I've talked online to Keith about that, he said at the time he thought it was the switch from 38 special to 357 mag/125JHP until someone (Mas?) pointed out that other departments with same load were not seeing the same results.

Besides, or possibly IMVHO the major factor, was they had looked to improve their training for officers. They looked at what several California departments where doing, I've been meaning to try and find out if same department DB worked at, and changed their 120 round annual or biannual qualification to 10 sessions of 12 rounds (2 gun fulls for revolvers) with instruction and scenarios based on real LEO incidents.

For budget reasons and such they couldn't get more ammo for training, so they used it as efficiently as possible.

And it worked, worked so well they drew national attention form others trying to figure out what they were doing.

Think that is a great example of your "Better tactics should be created, taught, and ingrained in the minds of a wide spectrum of officers."

IIRC Keith said they settled on 10 times a year as real world compromise between wanting to do it monthly and realities of vacation, court appearances, etc.

[Hambo]

It's hard to imagine how someone who has worked for a tiny PD could really come away with the impression that it's the best way to do things. There are pros and cons of course, but going to a "resident state trooper" (or "resident county police officer") model where someone from a larger agency is assigned to a small town on a rotating basis gives you personalized, local policing, and the advantages of a larger agency, like the fact that your entire police force isn't teetering on the brink of collapse if someone goes on vacation and another is sick, there're more funds and resources for training, and the people assigned to that small town can look forward to moving on to something else later (highway, detective bureau, SWAT) so they actually stay instead of quitting after facing the prospect of bouncing around a small town like a pinball for 25 years. The turnover in tiny PDs is horrendous, and results in a lot of rookies working alone.

Also, it's not like law enforcement in individual towns isn't already heavily influenced by the state the town is in. The vast majority of laws enforced by local cops are state laws.

If you're talking about a small town that has the option of contracting with LA County, I agree wholeheartedly. However, in rural counties the SO is probably as poorly funded (or worse) than small PDs. I grew up in a very rural area, and the SO was mainly concerned with the jail. Regular patrol was two cars for the entire county, and unless they happened to be driving by, the response time was 20-30 minutes for the first one to get to you. The Highway Patrol wrote tickets and accident reports. The towns/villages that had PDs had them because the county and state didn't do anything for them.

[WobblyPossum]

The main lesson I took from the reading I’ve done and lectures I’ve attended regarding the 1986 Miami incident was that if you’re going to go out hunting bad men, you should expect that you’ll find them and prep accordingly prior to rolling out.

[BehindBlueI's]

Time limitations- in the form of not having time to miss / waste rounds. Which comes back to working both speed and accuracy.

Mimicking having less ammo is a fallacy. They have the ammo. They don’t have the time.

Which has nothing to do with "One way of running out of time which often results in losing a gun fight is being the first to run out of ammo and having to reload." which is what I quoted and responded to.

The rest of it, I've said what I've got to say and am not rehashing it again.

[MickAK]

I’d be incredibly surprised if “the community” knew the level of training their police department had or if they knew the level of training that their police department should have.

I think this is an important point often missed by people that frequent PF. Even if you're aware, and try to become an educated voter so that you can influence these issues in a positive direction it is an opaque and not particularly easy thing to try to influence. People do what they do, and the level of training has more to do with the personalities and experience of people who end up in those positions than it does the wishes of the community. You do your best to support competent people and that's all you can do.


If you're talking about a small town that has the option of contracting with LA County, I agree wholeheartedly. However, in rural counties the SO is probably as poorly funded (or worse) than small PDs. I grew up in a very rural area, and the SO was mainly concerned with the jail. Regular patrol was two cars for the entire county, and unless they happened to be driving by, the response time was 20-30 minutes for the first one to get to you. The Highway Patrol wrote tickets and accident reports. The towns/villages that had PDs had them because the county and state didn't do anything for them.

Very much this. As bad as small town PDs can be, they are at least there to do a bad job, which is sometimes preferable to nobody coming if there is a big bar fight and a couple of domestics and an accident or two. And sometimes they do an amazing job.

[Le Français]

If you're talking about a small town that has the option of contracting with LA County, I agree wholeheartedly. However, in rural counties the SO is probably as poorly funded (or worse) than small PDs. I grew up in a very rural area, and the SO was mainly concerned with the jail. Regular patrol was two cars for the entire county, and unless they happened to be driving by, the response time was 20-30 minutes for the first one to get to you. The Highway Patrol wrote tickets and accident reports. The towns/villages that had PDs had them because the county and state didn't do anything for them.

Understood. I was expounding more on what I think would make sense if we could go back to the drawing board than what I think could be implemented tomorrow. States with a highway patrol+state bureau of investigation instead of a northeast-style state police are probably furthest from being able to get rid of tiny PDs without severely reducing police services. States like NJ and PA that have state police agencies but are also thick with tiny PDs would have to hire a lot of troopers.

One thing to remember is that axing tiny PDs and contracting with larger agencies would result (in theory) in saving the cost of the executive and administrative staff, since those would already be in place at the larger agency.

[BehindBlueI's]

Very much this. As bad as small town PDs can be, they are at least there to do a bad job, which is sometimes preferable to nobody coming if there is a big bar fight and a couple of domestics and an accident or two. And sometimes they do an amazing job.

I've never been sworn on a small town PD, but I started out in Communications for a small sheriff's dept that also dispatched all emergency services in the county. One sheriff's dept, 2 small city PDs, 1 EMS provider, 1 professional FD, and a couple-three volunteer fire depts.

From my perspective, the small town PDs can handle 85-95% of the issues police face. Domestics, traffic crashes, thefts, burglaries, the occasional armed robbery, that sort of thing. The other 5-15% is more difficult due to lack of training, experience, and support services. We have our own crime lab and crime scene techs. They don't. If you don't know how to subpoena information from a particular wireless provider, someone else on the dept has and you can get some guidance. That sort of thing.

Pay rate also varies *wildly* based on the local tax base. At that time, some places paid $12/hr and some paid $26/hr for similar sized depts for an entry level officer.

[willie]

Tangential, but this raises the question:

Why do we allow the existence of police agencies that are so small to the point of being unable to execute basic, fundamental training?

Captain Obvious here says that state legislatures determine this, and then there is the old thing of local control and territorial mindsets. Having made at least 50 trips between Waco and my parents' home in southwest Mississippi, each time I passed through a large number of different police jurisdictions. Have at least average intelligence, I recognized that integrity of leadership would vary from one to the other. For this reason I traveled with a radar detector but never exceeded speed limits. I wanted to know where folks were. Once at 3 AM in rural East Texas a policeman in a 1 horse town pulled me over without cause. I presented drivers license and carry license. We chatted. He asked to search my vehicle. I said no. He asked why. I said I didn't know him, his mayor, or his chief. I pointed out that to me he was a stranger, and I did not want a stranger going through my stuff. Of course, I said all this in a courteous manner. Always when I travel, I'm clean shaven and neatly dressed. My vehicle is clean in and out. I'm white. Everybody is nice to me,

State troopers in the 3 states that I traveled through--had they stopped me--would have given me a much higher comfort level. However, I still would not have consented to a vehicle search. I seriously doubt that a trooper would have made a bull shit stop.

[Vista461]

I've never been sworn on a small town PD, but I started out in Communications for a small sheriff's dept that also dispatched all emergency services in the county. One sheriff's dept, 2 small city PDs, 1 EMS provider, 1 professional FD, and a couple-three volunteer fire depts.

From my perspective, the small town PDs can handle 85-95% of the issues police face. Domestics, traffic crashes, thefts, burglaries, the occasional armed robbery, that sort of thing. The other 5-15% is more difficult due to lack of training, experience, and support services. We have our own crime lab and crime scene techs. They don't. If you don't know how to subpoena information from a particular wireless provider, someone else on the dept has and you can get some guidance. That sort of thing.

Pay rate also varies *wildly* based on the local tax base. At that time, some places paid $12/hr and some paid $26/hr for similar sized depts for an entry level officer.

We use the same state crime labs most if not all of the state does. The state also offers evidence tech training which we have a few Officers trained at, and I assume most departments here do. Covers everything from collection to photography to what have you.

From my perspective, I don’t want to work at a huge department, because they’re usually in large cities/counties along with DA’s offices, that seem to do their best to undermine officers efforts.

https://www.wisn.com/article/river-hills-police-facebook-post-targets-milwaukee-county-district-attorney/44797449#

This is typical in Milwaukee county, which is why I’ll never work in that County again. Less than 40% prosecution of felonies. And then people wonder why crime keeps going up.

For the last almost 7 years I’ve worked in a another county that actually prosecutes, where the biggest city is a under 100,000 people. Much better here. ;)

I don’t know if it’s typical, but we train with a couple other small departments, which helps spread the costs around.

Most of our county is dispatched by the same center too so communication is easier too, may have to switch channels but dispatch can coordinate between us as well. We actually have a great dispatch center so that’s a bonus.

Different strokes for different folks, but if my only choice was to work at a bigger department like Milwaukee with the associated headaches of the politics that came with the big city, peace out, I’d retire.

[DDTSGM]

Captain Obvious here says that state legislatures determine this, and then there is the old thing of local control and territorial mindsets. Having made at least 50 trips between Waco and my parents' home in southwest Mississippi, each time I passed through a large number of different police jurisdictions. Have at least average intelligence, I recognized that integrity of leadership would vary from one to the other. For this reason I traveled with a radar detector but never exceeded speed limits. I wanted to know where folks were. Once at 3 AM in rural East Texas a policeman in a 1 horse town pulled me over without cause. I presented drivers license and carry license. We chatted. He asked to search my vehicle. I said no. He asked why. I said I didn't know him, his mayor, or his chief. I pointed out that to me he was a stranger, and I did not want a stranger going through my stuff. Of course, I said all this in a courteous manner. Always when I travel, I'm clean shaven and neatly dressed. My vehicle is clean in and out. I'm white. Everybody is nice to me,

State troopers in the 3 states that I traveled through--had they stopped me--would have given me a much higher comfort level. However, I still would not have consented to a vehicle search. I seriously doubt that a trooper would have made a bull shit stop.

I think may be mistaken. Especially on Interstates or other through highways.

[willie]

I think may be mistaken. Especially on Interstates or other through highways.

I traveled the same route for 35 years.

[HCM]

We use the same state crime labs most if not all of the state does. The state also offers evidence tech training which we have a few Officers trained at, and I assume most departments here do. Covers everything from collection to photography to what have you.

From my perspective, I don’t want to work at a huge department, because they’re usually in large cities/counties along with DA’s offices, that seem to do their best to undermine officers efforts.

https://www.wisn.com/article/river-hills-police-facebook-post-targets-milwaukee-county-district-attorney/44797449#

This is typical in Milwaukee county, which is why I’ll never work in that County again. Less than 40% prosecution of felonies. And then people wonder why crime keeps going up.

For the last almost 7 years I’ve worked in a another county that actually prosecutes, where the biggest city is a under 100,000 people. Much better here. ;)

I don’t know if it’s typical, but we train with a couple other small departments, which helps spread the costs around.

Most of our county is dispatched by the same center too so communication is easier too, may have to switch channels but dispatch can coordinate between us as well. We actually have a great dispatch center so that’s a bonus.

Different strokes for different folks, but if my only choice was to work at a bigger department like Milwaukee with the associated headaches of the politics that came with the big city, peace out, I’d retire.

Re: Prosecution - small / rural county doesn’t always equal actually prosecuting.

We are based in the city but cover 10 adjacent and mostly rural counties.

4 of those actually prosecute and do so in a timely manner.

3 of them try to prosecute but even simple misdemeanor cases either take years to resolve or get dropped due to speedy trial issues due to lack of resources.

Then there is one judicial district which covers 3 counties. The district attorney’s office which covers all 3 counties does a good job actually prosecuting felonies in district court if the police file a case with the DA but the county attorney for each county prosecutes misdemeanors in county court. Or at least they do in theory. In those 3 counties police make arrests for misdemeanors and file reports / prosecution packets with the county attorneys office. Even though there is a digital and paper trail showing those reports were submitted to the county attorneys office, the county attorneys office just sits on or destroys those reports, then drops the charges a year or two later, claiming they never received a report from the arresting agency. I’d be surprised if 10% of misdemeanor cases in those counties make it to court.

[03RN]

I think may be mistaken. Especially on Interstates or other through highways.

I was arrested one night by CT state troopers after being woken up in my truck in a parking lot.

It was after a company Christmas party and I was blacked out drunk. My keys were not in the ignition and I was just in the parking lot of the restaurant the party was at. I was sleeping with a blanket and a pillow.

I wound up having my glasses broken(I'm typically very cooperative when drunk) and the cuffs bite into my wrists hard enough I still have a scar almost 20 years later. I don't remember any of it.

After my sister bailed me out the arresting officer apologized for waking me up and said we were even because I threw up in his cruiser.

Only charges were possession of a firearm while intoxicated. My carry gun was in my range bag under my seat.

[BehindBlueI's]

We use the same state crime labs most if not all of the state does. The state also offers evidence tech training which we have a few Officers trained at, and I assume most departments here do. Covers everything from collection to photography to what have you.

I understand most everyone has access to a state lab, which is why I made the distinction that we have our own lab. It's nice as we can request rush analysis, bump things to the front of the line over other things, etc. with only our own say so (LT and up can authorize a rush request, or an assigned prosecutor in some circumstances). We do in house DNA, prints, and firearms exams via Crime Lab. Digital forensics and video is also in-house, but is a mix of sworn and civilian personnel. We do farm some things out to state or a 3rd party vendor, mostly drug and alcohol related things just due to sheer number and to free our own techs up for other things.

Evidence techs =/= crime scene techs, at least for us. ETs are generally sworn officers, though we used to have some civilian techs, who can do photos, collect prints, DNA swabs, etc. CSU techs are civilian personnel who have a van of equipment, from power tools to cut into door panels to retrieve bullets to metal detectors to find bullets in the dirt to all the CSI-y stuff. They do scale sketches, we can get drone footage of outside scenes, etc.

[DDTSGM]

I traveled the same route for 35 years.

Willie, regardless of what the rules/laws are, some folks profile and stop based on that profile. You were probably lucky enough to not fit the profile very often. There are still a lot of folks out there who want to be interdiction heroes.

[willie]

Willie, regardless of what the rules/laws are, some folks profile and stop based on that profile. You were probably lucky enough to not fit the profile very often. There are still a lot of folks out there who want to be interdiction heroes.

Dan, I'm too boring to stop, but the same trooper in the Tyler, Tx area used to stop me because he wanted to buy my 870 Marine Magnum that I traveled with. He first it at a road block set up for escaped convicts. This was before it became legal to carry a handgun in Texas. Of course I had one but would have denied it.

[ssb]

Small town police musings:

I had a case once where the officer’s affidavit began with a very detailed description of what an cautious and legally knowledgable driver the defendant was. It was evident the officer followed this person for about ten minutes, roughly the amount of time it took to drive through the town. He detailed every occasion a stop sign was stopped at and a turn signal was used. The traffic stop occurred as the defendant was leaving town, for a violation I was suspicious of. I expressed my concern before the preliminary hearing to the officer that we may not have a legal basis for the stop. He attempted to assure me:

“(My name), we got this. I’m from (city he was a police officer in). We tax.”

The officer did not in fact got this and, upon review of his dash cam and relevant case law, it was clear that he did not have a legal basis for his stop. Accordingly, I had to dismiss a case which involved the seizure of a pound of methamphetamine.

Traffic and city code violations bring a revenue stream that is often the primary - if unspoken - reason a town will oppose contracting with the sheriff’s office. However, as BBI states, my experience has been that a small town department that can maintain 24/7 coverage is capable of handling 90% of the issues police actually deal with in small towns: domestics, thefts, DUIs, and the like. My experience has been that most of them seem to follow the guru model of policing, that model being to invest heavily in training the one detective/investigator. And that works well enough until it doesn’t. They end up with a big scene or a major crime, and super-detective is, unfortunately, just one guy or girl who is surrounded by young officers who simply aren’t yet capable of assisting effectively. Eventually, the super-detective will get fed up with the city council or the chief and leave for greener pastures, and then the department starts all over again.

Because my area is rural, the savvier small town agencies cultivate good working relationships with the sheriff’s office. Major crimes frequently cross town/city limits into the county, and all of the sudden one investigator becomes four or five. The sheriffs are not necessarily better-resourced, however, and one I can think of simply does not use detectives to investigate burglaries because, well, they’re hard and resources are scarce. The investigation is very limited: patrol deputies will take a report and if the property isn’t pawned soon after the burglary, it’s simply unlikely to be solved. Coincidentally, burglaries are the most common major crime in that county, and they have a much greater impact on the citizens than doing traffic stops to find an ounce of meth.

We have fantastic state investigators in my area, but unfortunately they only get to show up to assist the local agency when we request them. The level of service they can provide is either pretty much a full takeover of the investigation or an agency assist where the agents are basically extra sets of hands, and they also bring lots of crime lab resources to bear if utilized effectively. It is, of course, politically difficult for a DA’s office to signal to a client agency that it is incapable of doing something. It is likewise often difficult for the agency to swallow its pride and admit the need for help. So, to get those resources requires lots of careful persuasion in the early hours of a major incident.

[Lowspeed_highdrag]

I’ve been mulling over posting something about this and have until now refrained, but a thread on another forum I frequent and some recent observations watching freshly graduated police academy kids is prompting me to stir the pot. It’s a long post so buckle up.

When I became a police cadet back in the end of the 1990’s, there were still a few officers (all Vietnam vets to give age perspective) who were carrying revolvers on uniformed patrol every day. Typically they carried two extra speed loaders or full moon clips. Their common loadout was 6+6+6= 18 rounds.

By far, the most common loadout in my county (San Francisco East Bay) when I started in the early 2000’s was a single stack 45 ACP handgun (1911, SIG P220, or S&W 4506-1) and the officer carrying two extra mags on the belt. This loadout was 8+8+8+1=25 rounds. This was well over 70% of the city cops around here.

The second most common loadout locally was typically a Beretta 92 or S&W 5906 (our sheriff’s office) in 9mm or a Glock 22 in 40 S&W each which held 15 rounds and the officer would carry two extra mags for 15+15+15+1=46 rounds.

Finally, the third most common was the Beretta 96 (a couple small PD’s and some personally owned guns) or S&W 4006 (CHP) which each carried 11 rounds in the mag and was typically carried with one on the gun and two on the belt for 11+11+11+1=34 rounds.

I’d like to note that no one carrying any of these loadouts, whether 18 rounds, 25, 33 or 46, ever complained of being under-armed or having too little ammo in my recollection.

Over time load outs grew a little. “Quad” mag pouches for single stacks became a big thing around 2010 and as 9mm caught on most standard mags increased to 17 round capacity.

Fast forward to today when I commonly see three 21 or 22 round mags on a belt or external carrier with another in the gun. This is 85 rounds (or more) of 9mm on their person.

My initial thoughts on this have been “that’s a lot of weight I wouldn’t care to carry around,” and “hey, you do you, not needed, but if it makes you feel better cool.” But are there downsides to this much ammo?

This thread, as well as some personal experience, really started me thinking about it:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?57383-The-case-for-the-assessment-pause

I made this comment in that thread:

“When someone is trying to kill you (or you think someone is trying to kill you) it is very easy to floor the accelerator and very hard to hit to brakes fast enough.

Hours later, when asked how many rounds you fired, you may think three or four, but more often than not your magazine may tell a much different story.”

I stand by that statement.

This is totally anecdotal, but as I have seen the capacity of the magazine increase, I have seen split times decrease, and I have seen the emphasis on making accurate shots decrease as well, regardless of irons or optics. Correlation? Perhaps.

I have had to fight and argue to keep the six 25 yard shots in our annual 36 round duty qual. There are quite a few in my department that only want 15 yards and in because “speed is what really matters.” My counter argument has been “it only counts if it hits what it needs to.”

I also within the last few years had an argument with another senior firearms instructor during an instructor development day who was pushing everyone to shoot fast and he told me I wasn’t shooting fast enough and wasn’t “pushing it.” My splits were around .25 second and my group was the size of a fist from 7 yards. His argument was my group was too tight and if I wasn’t so nitpicky on accuracy I could be so much faster. Dude…

I recently sent one of our younger “good shooter” officers to the same police firearms instructor school I went through. The first day they make you shoot 25 yard NRA Bullseye on a B-16 (slowfire). I remember me and the other guy with me from my department back then both shooting our 45 ACP 1911’s with irons passed it easy peasy on the first attempt. Our young guy today with his X5 Legion with optic and 21 round mags had a hell of a time. He relayed to me after the course how he thought it was ridiculous to have to shoot that and…you know…speed matters. Houston, we have a problem…

I started carrying a Gen3 Glock 17 for dog-handler reasons back in 2014 and switched to a Gen5 Glock 19 MOS a year ago, but still stay qualified on a 1911 and carry it occasionally. I attended an academy graduation a couple weeks ago wearing the 1911 which led to conversation with a newbie of “how are you comfortable with that” and “aren’t you afraid of running out of ammo?” Comfortable? Very…and no, no I’m not.

Not that I’ve done this (wink-wink), but put two decent shooters on plate racks. One with the old 25 round single stack loadout and one with the “lots of ammo” loadout and don’t give them any rules except for knock the plates down as fast as you can. I guarantee you the single stack guy will always have slower splits, but will have less rounds shot with more hits. Very often, he or she is actually faster (sometimes significantly so) to knock down all the plates than the “faster” shooter.

Now let’s apply this exercise to real life in an OIS. Who would you want in an OIS? Which one is most defensible in court and in the court of public opinion and media scrutiny? The person that fired lots of rounds really fast or the person that fired fewer rounds slightly slower, but made his or her hits count?

The counter argument is always the one-off like the Timothy Gramins OIS (officer with a Glock 21, expends all three mags and almost out of ammo and now carries an excessive amount of 9mm). In most articles/interviews with him he’s quoted as saying, “Then I told myself, ‘Hey, I need to slow down and aim better.’" Well, there you go.

I’m not sure if it’s because they’re just available or John Wick or what, but more than three of the 20+ round mags is definitely the thing right now, I’ve formed the personal opinion that it isn’t a good thing. Anecdotally, it seems the byproduct is more rounds fired and a degradation of accuracy.

I’m seriously thinking of switching back to the 1911 with the old loadout for myself, because when I’m honest with myself, do I need anything else right now?

Wow, there's alot to unpack here. Sounds like your agency's firearms program is seriously lacking if it considers 25 yard shooting to be long distance and outdated. We run speed bulls at 15 and 25, doubles at 15, and B8 strong hand and freestyle bulls at the 25 a few times a year. I commend the instructor that wanted to push you past .25 splits with a tight group at 7, he was trying to make you grow. How will you ever know what you are capable of if you do not push yourself to the point of missing in training and then diagnose the miss?

[KevH]

Wow, there's alot to unpack here. Sounds like your agency's firearms program is seriously lacking if it considers 25 yard shooting to be long distance and outdated. We run speed bulls at 15 and 25, doubles at 15, and B8 strong hand and freestyle bulls at the 25 a few times a year. I commend the instructor that wanted to push you past .25 splits with a tight group at 7, he was trying to make you grow. How will you ever know what you are capable of if you do not push yourself to the point of missing in training and then diagnose the miss?

You obviously read just my original post and not the subsequent comments in this thread.

[AMC]

You obviously read just my original post and not the subsequent comments in this thread.

That seems pretty clear.

Lowspeed_highdrag, I'm not sure how large your agency is, or how long you've been on the job, but the type of training you're describing is not rare in LE.....its virtually nonexistant. The ability to have regular, in depth, individual-focused sustainment training is also, unfortunately, nearly impossible logistically speaking in most large agencies. There's always time, money and resources to devote and improve training....but training simply isn't an ACTUAL priority for 99%+ of LE agencies.

On the topic of the recent thread drift, Small LE agencies, a great deal depends on the individual agency's established culture. I've seen small agencies with a very well established training culture, that fund and promote continuous training across multiple skill sets. Their philosophy is "Well....there's never gonna be enough of us. We better be good at this shit!" I've seen small agencies that due to budget shortcomings never really establish such a model.

Another issue that I have recent, close personal experience of is that in many small agencies, if they do not have a well established system of accountability, with a trusted management culture, that problems will much more quickly metastasize across the agency. The town I live in has a smaller (60 officer) department. I have in the past had positive interactions with officers from this agency, and several of them (I think the last count was 9) have lateraled to my old agency over the year. All good dudes, who universally lamented a toxic supervisory/management culture as their primary impetus to leave.

Recently the young son of some very close friends had an encounter with them, after he called for assistance when his family vehicle was vandalized while driving by a drunken idiot. Unfortunately, said drunken idiot was heavily connected to the local PD. So the young man was immediately arrested for felony ADW. The only rationale offered for this was that they reviewed video from a nearby restaurant, and it showed he hadn't slowed down when passing a pedestrian standing off of the curb outside of a marked crosswalk....so that's assault with a deadly weapon.

The case was kicked 2 days later by the DA....after the family was out $5000 to bail their youngest kid out of county jail. I know the owner of the restaurant, so I asked to look at the video with the kids parents. He agreed, and said "But like I told the officers, the camera angle doesn't show anything. It doesn't go past the outdoor seating area of the restaurant." Sure enough....the video did not show the incident, contrary to what the officer had told the arrested and his parents.

Attempts to obtain a copy of the police report were....difficult. I accompanied my friend for moral support. She was first told that police reports are not public record, and she can't have it. I asked how that jived with both the Public Records Act, and instructions on their website about obtaining copies of police reports? Then there were claims that the report hadn't been reviewed by a supervisor yet, so it couldn't be released. Ten days after a custodial felony arrest and a supervisor hadn't read the report?

My friend finally got the report. The entire statement of probable cause, the rationale for booking this 19 year old kid who called the cops for help, was the only thing redacted from the report. Though multiple witnesses (the kids girlfriend and 2 off duty cops from outside jurisdictions) were not even mentioned in the report.

That shit is DIRTY. And it's what happens when you lack a trustworthy management structure, and a culture of accountability.

[Coyotesfan97]

That seems pretty clear.

[MENTION=22852]

Recently the young son of some very close friends had an encounter with them, after he called for assistance when his family vehicle was vandalized while driving by a drunken idiot. Unfortunately, said drunken idiot was heavily connected to the local PD. So the young man was immediately arrested for felony ADW. The only rationale offered for this was that they reviewed video from a nearby restaurant, and it showed he hadn't slowed down when passing a pedestrian standing off of the curb outside of a marked crosswalk....so that's assault with a deadly weapon.

The case was kicked 2 days later by the DA....after the family was out $5000 to bail their youngest kid out of county jail. I know the owner of the restaurant, so I asked to look at the video with the kids parents. He agreed, and said "But like I told the officers, the camera angle doesn't show anything. It doesn't go past the outdoor seating area of the restaurant." Sure enough....the video did not show the incident, contrary to what the officer had told the arrested and his parents.

Attempts to obtain a copy of the police report were....difficult. I accompanied my friend for moral support. She was first told that police reports are not public record, and she can't have it. I asked how that jived with both the Public Records Act, and instructions on their website about obtaining copies of police reports? Then there were claims that the report hadn't been reviewed by a supervisor yet, so it couldn't be released. Ten days after a custodial felony arrest and a supervisor hadn't read the report?

My friend finally got the report. The entire statement of probable cause, the rationale for booking this 19 year old kid who called the cops for help, was the only thing redacted from the report. Though multiple witnesses (the kids girlfriend and 2 off duty cops from outside jurisdictions) were not even mentioned in the report.

That shit is DIRTY. And it's what happens when you lack a trustworthy management structure, and a culture of accountability.

Hello city manager why don’t you add some zeros to the false arrest check. Seriously I hope they break it off in that cities ass.

[AMC]

Hello city manager why don’t you add some zeros to the false arrest check. Seriously I hope they break it off in that cities ass.

Sadly, so far none of the police misconduct lawyers in the area seem interested. Not a big department, plaintiff isn't dead/crippled/bankrupted.....no big payday or flashy media coverage likely. We'll see. I've told them not to give up. And I'm retired now. Lotta free time. Might need to make these dirty fuckers my new hobby. I may not be Perry Mason, but I'm pretty sure I can be Paul Drake.

[revchuck38]

I may not be Perry Mason, but I'm pretty sure I can be Paul Drake.

Thanks for making me look that up! Now I want to search YouTube for old Perry Mason shows. ;)

[RevolverJIM]

Thanks for making me look that up! Now I want to search YouTube for old Perry Mason shows. ;)

Ha!! I'm old enough that I didn't need to look it up:)

[revchuck38]

Ha!! I'm old enough that I didn't need to look it up:)

I am too, I just didn't watch it when I was a kid. :cool:

[Sammy1]

I started in the 90s and just recently retired. I have seen firearms programs over the years go from marksmanship to point shooting to speed and agility drills (running around). When I left, I was butting heads with my replacement. He was all about fun drills on the range, running and gunning, pushups, squats, burpees.... The problem is no one was held accountable for accuracy. Also, you can't do this stuff with guys that can't qualify on the static Q course. You have to do baby steps with safe gun handling, holster work and marksmanship before you ever move ahead to running and gunning.

The other thing I've seen people over reliant on equipment. Constantly wanting the latest and greatest gear and they can't even shoot their duty gun accurately at 7 yds!

[AMC]

Sadly, so far none of the police misconduct lawyers in the area seem interested. Not a big department, plaintiff isn't dead/crippled/bankrupted.....no big payday or flashy media coverage likely. We'll see. I've told them not to give up. And I'm retired now. Lotta free time. Might need to make these dirty fuckers my new hobby. I may not be Perry Mason, but I'm pretty sure I can be Paul Drake.

Jumping back on this to followup, and for full disclosure. Met with a high ranking officer from the local department, who was very helpful. I've known him for a while, as have others on the forum. He assisted me in getting the full, unredacted initial report. Yay transparency!

On review of the initial report, I recognize a case of what I'd call overzealous incompetence, more than malfeasance. Reading the accounts of the interviews, I'm remembering countless interviews done by officers that I needed to intervene in to redirect, because the officers were letting their preconceptions dictate the outcome, and misconstuing what was being stated to them. Thats not even mentioning the misattribution of a statement made by a witness (recorded by the officer) that he later attributes to the kid in question in order to impeach his statement (noting 'contradictions' that don't actually appear in the kids' statement). Then there's the description of damage to the vehicle in question, and an explanation for the mechanism of damage, that makes you wonder if he took a high school physics class, much less a Collision Investigation Course.

The statements by the two off-duty sworn officers who were witness to the incident were recorded, in a supplemental report, which I don't have access to. But at least they were recorded. And an explanation of the probable cause, which made me just shake my head at the reaching being done, was included. The person who gave me the report said he understood why the case was kicked.

Just to be clear, I'm not slamming this because they're 'small town'. I witnessed the same level of incompetent crap in the big city. As I've said before....few things are more dangerous to the public liberty than a young policeman with nothing to do.

[AMC]

Back to the regularly scheduled programming and KevH's original thoughts. I think he's right, in that there's a 'thing' here. I think it's driven by a number of factors. The proliferation of 'cool guy gear' into patrol, the rapid development of newer and higher capacity duty pistols with factory extended magazines, the introduction of outer vest carriers with load bearing capability, and also the psychological impact of high profile, high round count, deadly officer involved shootings. More and newer is always 'better' to those lacking context and/or experience. The reality is sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I always preferred to have that 3rd spare magazine in a secondary/backup pistol.

I think social media, especially Instagram, also heavily influences modern officers equipment choices. And then the young guys feed each others enthusiasm. It's the responsibility of the veteran officers to direct that enthusiasm in productive directions, and not to squash it. I used to tell young officers to stop buying guns, and start buying skill. And that 'work' was the currency they'd need. That new Gucci Glock with an RMR and X300 in a Tier 1 appendix rig is not what you carry on duty, so get some ammo, take a class, get a USPSA or IDPA membership, and start dryfiring. Not as sexy as the new Agency Arms Rose Gold Glock....but its way more useful.

KevH....the example you gave of the instructor pushing speed is an example of someone who has half the equation. Pushing speed to the point of losing accuracy is a great training exercise to self diagnose your grip. The whole point is to figure it out and eventually fix it so that you can shoot the fist sized group faster. Giving up accuracy to gain some marginal speed is missing the whole point of the exercise....which viewpoint is more common that not among 'tactical' shooters.

[AMC]

Double post. Curse my slow ass wifi.