Deep thoughts on LE loadout these days

[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.