Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: 9mm LEO street results

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    The guys trying to fix things are all squared away, shoot on their own time, competition etc. But changes to official curriculum's come slowly. It normally involves convincing bosses who are not gun people and only know what they were trained and indoctrinated to do, which is usually the same stuff you are trying to replace.
    This is my biggest criticism of my Agency. No forward think thinking. And the folks in charge of firearms programs were never firearms or into training type folks.

    It does make good change slow to happen

  2. #42
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by ECS686 View Post
    This is my biggest criticism of my Agency. No forward think thinking. And the folks in charge of firearms programs were never firearms or into training type folks.

    It does make good change slow to happen
    Law of primacy, what is learned first is what sticks - it makes change harder for those without any other frame of reference.

  3. #43
    Member SoCalDep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Secret City in Tennessee
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    The guys trying to fix things are all squared away, shoot on their own time, competition etc. But changes to official curriculum's come slowly. It normally involves convincing bosses who are not gun people and only know what they were trained and indoctrinated to do, which is usually the same stuff you are trying to replace.
    I will second this for the great guys from CHP I know. Great shooters and forward thinking. Without being too specific, it sounds like Sacramento doesn’t want to hear from their adjunct instructors about what might work better. I don’t know if that’s a ground level “We’re the main firearms cadre and we know better” stuff or if it’s an issue of trying to convince the higher-ups, but there’s a lot of talent out there who are frustrated.

  4. #44
    Member KellyinAvon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Indiana
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    We can add two more success stories for the 147gr HSTs this week.
    Both were with handguns? One yes, but both? I'd have expected 55 or 62gr with one of them.

  5. #45
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by ECS686 View Post
    I was issued a Model 15 in the USAF. For curiosity how did that go and what load?

    Using a revolver on the municiple side I remember back in the day the 158 LSWCHP out of a 4" seemed to work pretty good. Of course the new 125 and 130 38 special seem to do just as good out of 4" but 2" is iffy
    The Winchester 158 grain LHP +P was our last revolver duty load before our gradual transition to Glock 17s.
    When I came in ‘81, the Remington 125 SJHP +P was the duty load.
    The shooting we had took place during a mental temporary detention order execution.
    First deputy was shot through the neck with some sort of .32 handgun by the TDO subject.
    Second deputy returned fire and stopped further aggression. First deputy recovered completely and retired soon thereafter.
    Shooter deputy retired as a Major in the ‘90s and is still around.
    Subject was paralyzed and passed some years later.
    Unknown what brand or type of duty load was used.

  6. #46
    Site Supporter 0ddl0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Jefferson
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    We can add two more success stories for the 147gr HSTs this week.
    I'm betting shot placement and/or quantity trumped caliber in at least one of those, judging by the officer's unfortunate post dictum captured on facebook live.

  7. #47
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    The guys trying to fix things are all squared away, shoot on their own time, competition etc. But changes to official curriculum's come slowly. It normally involves convincing bosses who are not gun people and only know what they were trained and indoctrinated to do, which is usually the same stuff you are trying to replace.
    That position has been entrenched for quite a while. In the late 90s (98-99?), the state commission on peace officer standards & training hosted an use of force seminar that was "intended" to be a platform for pushing that out state-wide. My org didn't send any firearms instructors but the defensive (arrest & control) tactics guys got to go. So my knowledge is not first hand.

    I have been told some of the larger SoCal agencies with entrenched programs really worked hard to quash to the move. There's a story about one instructor calling out some other participants by name, asking how many shootings they'd been involved in, and how often they used their sights.

    With the increasing rate of adoption of PMO (or RDS), it is interesting how this focus (pun intended) will change going forward and what future conversations will be like.

  8. #48
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    Modern point-shooting advocates places a lot of emphasis on "reality" and history. Most confrontations, especially shootings, occur at close range. Many people can be reasonably accurate in many of these confrontations, especially if trained. Point-shooting advocates also point to history, often Fairbairn and Sykes, but especially Rex Applegate who advocated for point shooting for law enforcement late in his life.

    If this style of shooting is what you've been taught, with sighted fire being seen as unrealistic, more of a sport, and something to only utilize at extended ranges, however defined, I think many people, especially executives, are going to stick with what they see as old reliable. Like many of you, however, I have some issues with that.

    First, much respect to Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate, but training the Office of Strategic Services and the Special Operations Executive for behind the lines combat in World War 2 is not training law enforcement the better part of a century later. Time was of the essence, especially in the early years of the war, and getting someone operational right quick was certainly more important than providing the best pistol training. Moreover, OSS and SOE were not intended to be primarily pistol-fighting outfits. For many of their personnel, getting involved in a pistol fight would be an indicator of mission failure.

    When I attended Chiodo's class, there seemed to be an emphasis on multiple shots fired to end the threat. This didn't seem to be a problem for Chiodo. I don't have a problem with multiple shots fired, but I have a concern when volume replaces accuracy. While a much lesser concern, I will remark that two or three shots fired by police is likely to be less of an issue with politicians or the media that multiple rounds discharged.

    Realistic point-shooting proponents acknowledge that aimed fire is required at greater distances. When I attended, Chiodo's class at an IALEFI RTC, the cadre of fairly experienced instructors could do OK in range conditions out to ten or twelve yards or so. I later played with point shooting when running a lateral hire through his firearms training. This officer, an extremely talented shooter and now an instructor, did about as well. The issue I see is that "greater distance" is going to vary from officer to officer and be dependent upon lighting, time, and stress. If our point shooting failed at ten to twelve yards, could we train a recruit class to point shoot at that distance? What about in low light? What about more difficult shots such as at a suspect's leg or shoulder exposed from behind cover or the always popular hostage rescue shot?

    Lastly, we don't know with any reliability or certainty if point shooting works. It may have killed a lot of bad guys in Shanghai back in the day and maybe a boat load of Nazis, but to we have any idea how well point shooting organizations are doing compared to agencies that emphasize sighted fire in 2020? (To his credit, when asked about this at a conference several years ago, Mike Conti said that the Massachusetts State Police had had some, but not a lot of, shootings using their "reality-based new paradigm", but they hoped to engage a university to do a statistical analysis when they hit the ten year mark of point shooting.)

  9. #49
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by jnc36rcpd View Post
    Modern point-shooting advocates places a lot of emphasis on "reality" and history. Most confrontations, especially shootings, occur at close range. Many people can be reasonably accurate in many of these confrontations, especially if trained. Point-shooting advocates also point to history, often Fairbairn and Sykes, but especially Rex Applegate who advocated for point shooting for law enforcement late in his life.

    If this style of shooting is what you've been taught, with sighted fire being seen as unrealistic, more of a sport, and something to only utilize at extended ranges, however defined, I think many people, especially executives, are going to stick with what they see as old reliable. Like many of you, however, I have some issues with that.

    First, much respect to Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate, but training the Office of Strategic Services and the Special Operations Executive for behind the lines combat in World War 2 is not training law enforcement the better part of a century later. Time was of the essence, especially in the early years of the war, and getting someone operational right quick was certainly more important than providing the best pistol training. Moreover, OSS and SOE were not intended to be primarily pistol-fighting outfits. For many of their personnel, getting involved in a pistol fight would be an indicator of mission failure.

    When I attended Chiodo's class, there seemed to be an emphasis on multiple shots fired to end the threat. This didn't seem to be a problem for Chiodo. I don't have a problem with multiple shots fired, but I have a concern when volume replaces accuracy. While a much lesser concern, I will remark that two or three shots fired by police is likely to be less of an issue with politicians or the media that multiple rounds discharged.

    Realistic point-shooting proponents acknowledge that aimed fire is required at greater distances. When I attended, Chiodo's class at an IALEFI RTC, the cadre of fairly experienced instructors could do OK in range conditions out to ten or twelve yards or so. I later played with point shooting when running a lateral hire through his firearms training. This officer, an extremely talented shooter and now an instructor, did about as well. The issue I see is that "greater distance" is going to vary from officer to officer and be dependent upon lighting, time, and stress. If our point shooting failed at ten to twelve yards, could we train a recruit class to point shoot at that distance? What about in low light? What about more difficult shots such as at a suspect's leg or shoulder exposed from behind cover or the always popular hostage rescue shot?

    Lastly, we don't know with any reliability or certainty if point shooting works. It may have killed a lot of bad guys in Shanghai back in the day and maybe a boat load of Nazis, but to we have any idea how well point shooting organizations are doing compared to agencies that emphasize sighted fire in 2020? (To his credit, when asked about this at a conference several years ago, Mike Conti said that the Massachusetts State Police had had some, but not a lot of, shootings using their "reality-based new paradigm", but they hoped to engage a university to do a statistical analysis when they hit the ten year mark of point shooting.)
    As Tom Givens and others have noted, the Sykes Fairburn style of point shooting did not originate in WWII. It originated in the British run colonial police in Shanghai China in the 1920s as a way to quickly and cheaply train large numbers of local policeman to be at least somewhat effective using Colt 1903s and some 1911s with the minuscule sights of the era.

    That was a century ago and sights, among other things have greatly improved. Regardless we do know how well point shooting worked back then Sykes and fairburn kept stats showing how ell their Chinese cops did with their minimal training vs what they had before. The win, lose draw ratio of departments using sighted fire today is higher.

    What a skilled shooter like an instructor can do and what a line officer can do are often two different things. Point shooting under static range conditions is one thing, adding movement and force on force is another. IME point shooting falls apart when movement and opposition are added.

    Two other factors muddy the waters IMHO: First, if you have trained use of sights to a high level (unconscious competence) you may well use your sights and not consciously remember doing so; Second, most officers are only trained to a level of conscious competence. In both FOF and real situations they are usually doing a target focused “soft sight focus” similar to what many top action pistol shooters use. Sometimes this is good enough and sometimes they need to switch to an actual sight focus to get effective hits and stop a fight. You can see this pattern of ineffective fire, evaluation and re-focusing in many dash and body cam videos.

    These factors make quantifying aimed fire vs point shooting more difficult but what is not in doubt is that training aimed fire builds a a base for success in the form of good index, grip and trigger control based on feed back from the sights. Someone who practices aimed fire can point shoot ok but the reverse is not true. Practicing point shooting is building on a base of sand.

    Focusing on the sights vs a threat is a trained response. If you don’t train it, or don’t train it to a sufficient level you won’t do it at all. Based on the soft focus trend mentioned above, I personally feel the real answer is RDS as it allows sighted fire with a target focus, without the 10,000 hours required to become a USPSA GM.

    The results in actual OIS are a bit skewed as most officers opting for RDS at this point are gun nerds. However, Aaron Cowan at Sage Dynamics and others have gathers some interesting data showing increased effectiveness of RDS over irons in FOF.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by deputyG23 View Post
    The Winchester 158 grain LHP +P was our last revolver duty load before our gradual transition to Glock 17s.
    When I came in ‘81, the Remington 125 SJHP +P was the duty load.
    The shooting we had took place during a mental temporary detention order execution.
    First deputy was shot through the neck with some sort of .32 handgun by the TDO subject.
    Second deputy returned fire and stopped further aggression. First deputy recovered completely and retired soon thereafter.
    Shooter deputy retired as a Major in the ‘90s and is still around.
    Subject was paralyzed and passed some years later.
    Unknown what brand or type of duty load was used.

    Thank you for the info.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •