Why I won’t be doing the 2000 round challenge

[Josh Runkle]

I've seen this video at quite a few fire service conferences and I think there are some great nuggets we can take from it as an Leo or ccw. We train for high risk low frequency events. And within those high risk low frequency events we have some in which we have time to think and others in which we must simply react. When we have to react we rely on training.

In the fire service we rarely go on fires (70% is medical) and especially rarely ever fires with trapped victims. Yet we spend a majority of our time training on fires. Why? Because they are extremely high risk and low frequency.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow! 30% of your calls are fire/rescue? That's pretty different than here. Here in Ohio, most places are about 94% EMS and 6% rescue/fire.

[JCS]

Wow! 30% of your calls are fire/rescue? That's pretty different than here. Here in Ohio, most places are about 94% EMS and 6% rescue/fire.

Well that's about how it is here as well. I think 7% of our calls were fire related last month. The other 23% is like car wrecks and public assists (picking up old people that fall down). Of that 7% of fire calls even fewer are actual full blown structure fire calls. I just said 70% medical because most people think it's the other way around and don't realize how much ems we do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SLG]

That is a good video. A lot of it can be summed up in the concept of The Ace.

[TCinVA]

We train for high risk low frequency events. And within those high risk low frequency events we have some in which we have time to think and others in which we must simply react. When we have to react we rely on training.

The BJS records 994,220 instances of aggravated assault, 300,170 instances of rape/sexual assault, 645,650 instances of robbery in 2013. That's 1,940,040 criminal acts that would meet the criteria for the use of lethal force in defense against them.

I don't think that needing a firearm to defend oneself is even a low frequency event. I think it often looks that way because we get focused on the number of homicides related to the size of the overall population, and because we do not routinely hear about defensive use of firearms since so few people are actually routinely armed. Certainly some areas are worse than others...but there are literally millions of opportunities for armed self defense every year. The victims just aren't armed.

To me, the real benefit of the 2,000 round challenge has been for someone to get to know their gun. To get to know their equipment...because it is equipment that is supposed to make the difference between life and death in a critical moment. Sadly people usually do not take the time, trouble, and expense to prove that piece of equipment before betting on it.

I don't believe most people really understand how many defective guns or how many defective rounds of ammunition get shipped on a routine basis.

The need to use a gun in personal defense arises more often than we might like to think...and the weapon/ammunition we reach for in that moment might be less reliable than we like to think.

[SLG]

TC,

Stop me if you know this...

The concept of the HRLF act in relation to defense use of a gun has to do with the individual. It is low frequency for everyone in the U.S. Maybe not LF for many organizations, but for the individual, definitely.

[GJM]

The BJS records 994,220 instances of aggravated assault, 300,170 instances of rape/sexual assault, 645,650 instances of robbery in 2013. That's 1,940,040 criminal acts that would meet the criteria for the use of lethal force in defense against them.

I don't think that needing a firearm to defend oneself is even a low frequency event. I think it often looks that way because we get focused on the number of homicides related to the size of the overall population, and because we do not routinely hear about defensive use of firearms since so few people are actually routinely armed. Certainly some areas are worse than others...but there are literally millions of opportunities for armed self defense every year. The victims just aren't armed.

To me, the real benefit of the 2,000 round challenge has been for someone to get to know their gun. To get to know their equipment...because it is equipment that is supposed to make the difference between life and death in a critical moment. Sadly people usually do not take the time, trouble, and expense to prove that piece of equipment before betting on it.

I don't believe most people really understand how many defective guns or how many defective rounds of ammunition get shipped on a routine basis.

The need to use a gun in personal defense arises more often than we might like to think...and the weapon/ammunition we reach for in that moment might be less reliable than we like to think.

TC, do you mean shoot 2,000 rounds to get to know your gun, or shoot it 2,000 rounds without cleaning/lube to get to know it?

Sometimes, I think people get to know their guns too well, and that can be an equal problem when they have very high round count guns as carry guns. Using aircraft engines as an example, the most dangerous times are the first 50-100 hours after overhaul, and the last few hundred hours before overhaul.

I try to have two types of guns. Guns that have been proven reliable and then get modest use after as carry guns, and shooters, that I shoot high round counts through with less fastidious PM.

[DocGKR]

"I try to have two types of guns. Guns that have been proven reliable and then get modest use after as carry guns, and shooters, that I shoot high round counts through with less fastidious PM."

Yup--that is what I generally do...

[TCinVA]

TC, do you mean shoot 2,000 rounds to get to know your gun, or shoot it 2,000 rounds without cleaning/lube to get to know it?

There is value in either approach. It's good to know that the gun runs reliably over an extended period. It's also good to know how it handles being dirty and lacking lubrication. Racers "shake down" their cars before a race. Ships go through trials before they enter service. Aircraft are subjected to a wide number of tests before they are certified to fly, and even after that certification further testing is usually done.

Having some sort of process where we prove the equipment we are betting on seems prudent to me, especially as it's become clear that quality control is not exactly job 1 in the firearms industry.

Sometimes, I think people get to know their guns too well, and that can be an equal problem when they have very high round count guns as carry guns. Using aircraft engines as an example, the most dangerous times are the first 50-100 hours after overhaul, and the last few hundred hours before overhaul.

I try to have two types of guns. Guns that have been proven reliable and then get modest use after as carry guns, and shooters, that I shoot high round counts through with less fastidious PM.

There's certainly a point of diminishing returns where additional uses of the weapon can degrade reliability due to wear on springs or other small parts...but I'd wager the people who reach that point are motivated statistical outliers who are probably sufficiently familiar with preventative maintenance to keep the machine running.

[JSGlock34]

I try to have two types of guns.

Mm, yes. In your case, two of each model, apparently.

[Tamara]

I try to have two types of guns. Guns that have been proven reliable and then get modest use after as carry guns, and shooters, that I shoot high round counts through with less fastidious PM.

I shoot my actual carry gun in matches and classes. That's when I rotate out the carried ammo as well.