Deep thoughts on LE loadout these days

[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....sessment-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.