Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,505 Posts
Good read Knuckles, I have read much of the stuff before, Ayoob quotes from that study a lot. The major problem with the study is that it's severely dated and most of your IDPA, and realistic pistol matches were born from the 70's and 80's. If you guys want to learn how to shoot a weapon effectively, there was a show on the military channel awhile back about the companies that make tactical gear hosted by Hunter Ellis. They did a special on the Beretta factory in the US and the rep they had with him showed how to really shoot a pistol. I'm sure one of you guys can find the video and post it, when you do take a hard look at how he brings his weapon up to fire. Looks goofy but he kept it all in the black.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,931 Posts
I also found the information very interesting. I am glad to not be a LEO, and hope to never have to find out how badly I react if I am in a shoot out, or shot at!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
they're hit rates are pathetic, and look they've actually gone down.. i hear all the time how police shootings involve large number of shots.. they went from 6 or 7 round 38's to 15-18 round semi's, i guess they figure they can afford to waste shots now.

definitely need to increase police training i think, i hear most PD's you only have to qualify like 2 times a year.

i wonder do they MAKE them practice in between qualifications?, they should.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,737 Posts
joe sixpack said:
i wonder do they MAKE them practice in between qualifications?, they should.
I hope they do. If I were a LEO I would be out shooting at least once a week.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,931 Posts
Problem always seemed to be they wanted you to practice on YOUR time, and not pay you for the practice time, unless it was Qualification time. So people did not want to practice until they had too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,043 Posts
joe sixpack said:
they're hit rates are pathetic, and look they've actually gone down..
That info on hit rate was taken from 1990-1992. 6-shot DA revolvers were still in service at that time.

That hit rate is the same basically all over the U.S. I wouldn't call it pathetic though---that's just the nature of the beast. Most cops go their whole career without being involved in a shooting (They are the lucky ones) The majority that do become involved are only involved in ONE situation. All the practice and training in the world cannot prepare you for what it is like to pull your gun on another human being and pull the trigger. (I know this firsthand)

Remember---simulators, practice situations with instructors, and target shooting do not equate to a real life occurrence. Only real life does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
hmm.. sadly NYPD thats probably a good argument for the anti's to use.. look look! not even the police can handle their weapons in a crisis, and they're suppose to be trained.

this is exactly why we should ban guns.



obviously a real life situation is'nt gonna give you time to take aim and relax, but when "Less than 3 yards ..... 28%" thats 9feet or less.. thats pathetic.. and down 10% from 2 years previous.

i can shoot from the hip and hit a man size target at 9 feet, what are they doing discharging into the ground? unless they're struggling for control of the gun that kinda hit rate is indefensible imo.

seriously.. would you like to be around for the other 72% of the shots? im guessing it's only by the grace of god people near by are'nt killed or wounded from stray bullets.


i have heard that they weed out people who are gun savy infear of them being gunho on the job, if thats true that would explain a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,043 Posts
I have no further comments for this thread. But it will remain open. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,505 Posts
Actually the hit rates are pretty good since they most likely didn't hit an innocent bystander. In the heat of the moment when you got an adrenaline dump, the bad guys moving and possibly shooting at you, are you going to remain calm enough to center your sights on him and hit him, a moving target, on your first shot? Very few people on this planet can do that, that's why the military uses an assault rifle capable of a three round burst, to increase hit potential. Naturally on a battlefield, they aren't as concerned with collateral damage as a municipal police force is, which is why an officer is restricted to the weapons they are allowed to have, But unless you train for it every day, all day to draw and fire at a moving target who is shooting at you, you will not see your hit percentage go up. The most we can hope for is to survive the encounter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
well i can understand that but i still can't get past that hit rate at less then 9 feet, i'd wager any one of us on this board could hit a man size target at less then 9feet even in the heat of the moment with much better accuracy.


but ok lets say that the hitrates are acceptable, how do you explain or excuse them dropping from 2 years previous? i'd like to see the same stats for every year up to 2007..

because judging by those 2 years they're getting worse not better or at least maintaining.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,761 Posts
joe sixpack, until you have been there you don't have a real understanding about it. It is easy to armchair quarterback the stats.

Steelheart
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Maybe the Hit Score would go up by increasing the Spread Size of there shot Diameter by using a "Hand Scatter Gun Cannon" called "THE JUDGE"...<:)) Three 000 Buck gives them a a Three Foot Spread at normal ranges... That would increase there chance of hitting the Dancing Bad Guy by a Sizeable Percentage...<:))
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
Steelheart said:
joe sixpack, until you have been there you don't have a real understanding about it. It is easy to armchair quarterback the stats.

Steelheart
nice cop out lol no pun intended.

still no one has a answer for why the hit rates went down rather then up or status quo..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
I think we are starting to:

:deadhorse:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,761 Posts
joe sixpack said:
nice cop out lol no pun intended.

still no one has a answer for why the hit rates went down rather then up or status quo..
My statement was not intended to be a cop out. It was a response to your question. Fortunately I've never pointed a weapon at someone in defense of myself or others (or in anger for that matter) but I have read what I can from people who have "seen the elephant" both online and in print. Your statement about how easy it is to make hits.

My first carry course was taught by a gentleman by the name of Darrel Mulroy. He had studied lethal force encounters and hit rates for a few decades. His school was Plus P, since closed. On their website they had an Online Classroom which I copied for future reference. Here's his chapter on Hit Rates and what he learned about them (next post).

You will note that the hit rates he came up with are less than what was given in the above article.

Steelheart
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,761 Posts
Lesson #25: The Miss Rate

A well noted gun magazine writer heard of something I said on the Internet and wrote about it in one of his gun articles. When I was young I worked as a security guard while attending school. I had been a nationally ranked target shooter and had occasion to shoot at a fellow who had been involved in a robbery and pulled a knife on me. I fired ONE shot at him in daylight at about 10 feet and missed. The gun magazine writer claimed I emptied my gun. He just can't get the facts straight again I guess. That incident always baffled me on how I could miss considering my championship target skills.
Over the years as a news photographer and reporter and even in police work I kept seeing signs that police had a poor hit rate. I was a major fan of gun magazines and couldn't find a mention of what was obviously a problem.
In one case, I knew an officer that emptied his gun in a kitchen at a violent offender and missed. The officer went back to the range to get help and was told it was his fault. He left police work convinced he was incapable of defending himself.
After years of experience I was convinced police missed at least 50% of the time at room ranges. Little did I know that it was worse than that. Each case I saw where an officer missed what they shot at, the blame was placed with the officer. It seemed the instructors at the range had a great job. They were never to blame. They were sure quick to take credit for any successes however.
A major part of the problem of the high miss rate is found in machismo and posturing. Recently, I mentioned to a student security officer about the 92% miss rate. He pulled himself up and said, "I don't miss." I then asked him who does? He shifted his weight and pointed at some other security officers. "They do." He smiled. There is a major part of the problem.
From the late 1950's I watched one fad after another come and go as to what was the "best" way to shoot in self-defense. The positions and methods changed it seemed with each issue of a gun magazine but the hit rate still suffered.
In the early 1990's when I co-authored the book Too Close for Complacency, I put into print that I estimated the miss rate at 21 feet or LESS was about 92%. The human fecal matter sure hit the wind-circulating device. The law enforcement community was outraged. At every mention of the book we were challenged. We ruffled some serious feathers with that one.
It wasn't long and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did a study. They reported an 88% miss rate. New York City Police releases a study each year and they showed an 85% miss rate. We stuck to the 92% claim for one valid reason. Police are notorious for UNDER reporting the number of shots fired.
The FBI decided to do a study and released, "Violence Against Law Enforcement Officers." This "study" was bogus on its face. They bragged of only a 60% miss rate by officers. Imagine boasting of a 60% miss rate? What was interesting is that they changed the playing field to 75 feet or less. Few people understand that the closer the threat the higher the miss rate and your hit rate will increase with distance. Even at 60% you have to cringe to think that many bullets are floating around the environment looking for a place to go after missing the thugs. Even that news didn't get anyone's attention.
What went unnoticed in that report is a little thing the FBI reported. The police and firearms instruction community sure wanted to ignore it. It was more shocking than the 92% miss rate I claimed.
The FBI study said that the hit rate for thugs was 91%. This little fact should send shock waves through the gun-training crowd. Don't we always hear that "training is the key?" Well with NO training how can thugs hit 91% of the time? Also, that figure says that we will enter into a fight that we will miss 92% of the time vs. the thugs 91% hit rate. That doesn't sound like a fight I want to get into. The only solution offered by the modern gun training community, was to do more of what they had been doing that produced the high miss rate. Kind of like shooting a hole in the bottom of the boat to let the water out.
If training were the key, a consumer would have to cry "fraud" when it comes to training. Something is seriously wrong with this entire picture. Excuses abound, solutions are absent it seems.
When I got into the firearms instruction business I had to address this alarming miss rate. I tackled it head on. It was obvious the solution was not in the present firearms training community that was insisting on clinging to decades of formal target shooting mentality that failed at an alarming rate. I saw to many good cops that missed what they shot at. Many were top target shooters. I can't dance in the blood of the dead cops that missed what they shot at. I had to harvest and learn from their failures to find out what went wrong.
The firearm instruction community is also at odds with my methods because I do not believe you can teach self-defense with a firearm unless you have "done it." I am known for saying that virgins shouldn't teach sex. Of course those that disagree have never done it.
After being involved in a few shooting incidents I knew that my training either from a police academy or formal target shooting did not apply in the streets. I also started to associate with other shooters that have done "it" and they agreed. Thus, the search for what was wrong and how to fix it. The search for solutions to the miss rate was not going to be found in the formal target shooting crowd or the gun (magazine) rag types.
I went to the academic/scientific types at the University of Minnesota and other top educational sources. What I found shocked me at first, but it made sense and a lot of it.
As I put together the information I found surprise after surprise as the scientific community found humor in the logic I told them was on line for self-defense shooting.
It would take a book to explain it all but here is what I not only learned but have well documented.
1. We do not and can not resort to our training when we are afraid. It is not possible mentally or physically.
2. Some of us can not defend ourselves based on a documented genetic flaw.
3. There is no such thing as "muscle memory reflex." In fact it is not a scientific medical term, but is a cliche invented in gun magazines. It doesn't exist.
4. From an evolutionary point of view we are better suited to beat someone with the gun or throw it at him or her than shoot it.
5. Our mind will shut down four of our five senses leaving us only vision to defend ourselves with and our mind so limits our ability to think under stress that we have only a sliver of our mind and body available to shoot a gun.
6. The brain produces a chemical that will make us forget we have a gun, or how to use it.
This is probably pretty confusing and I wish I could go into detail. I had to look at these and other discoveries and try and figure out what we could do to hit what we shoot at. A University told me what I had to work with. I learned that based on the brain's ability to process information I had to reduce by 90% the amount of information that is commonly used to teach someone how to shoot a gun. If I could reduce it to 95% less, I would have a better chance of making it work.
The problem has been that we have over complicated the information we give shooters. In fact, it is so complex that it is not possible to apply it. We need to know what time it is and we are telling folks how to build a watch.
The information provided by the academic community made sense, it also seemed obvious and I was surprised nobody went this route years ago.
We took some actual videos of real shootings and examined them in detail including converting the officers to stick figures and replicating their motions via a robotic arm. What we found were officers that performed almost distorted, jerky, motions that had little coordination. What we did was similar to what pro-athletes use to see how they run and perform. After examining hundreds of videos we soon learned we not only don't resort to our training, we can't.
Watching hundreds of videos we found the officers had a lot in common in how they responded. It was almost a duplication of efforts and yes; it produced a high miss rate. The officers at times argued with the video. They couldn't believe what they did.
It is also vital to note that in police service in 1998, that the average time of service for a police officer killed was 12 years. It isn't the untrained rookies getting killed. If training and experience were the key to survive a lethal confrontation, then the rookies would be getting killed; not the well trained and experienced officers. Again, excuses won't explain this.
We put together a training program that is now on line and being reinforced on the street as working to hit what we shoot at. We keep getting comments that our system is so simple. Yes it is. We went as far as we could to reduce the act of shooting in self-defense to a bone simple system that has a chance to work.
Not long ago we had a student attend a basic class. He owned a bar in downtown Minneapolis. One evening three thugs wanted for dozens of armed robberies came into his bar and shot an employee without warning and said they'd kill everybody in the car if they didn't get enough money. My student came out from behind the bar and fired two shots with a .38 special and two gunmen fell to the floor dead with their guns in their hands. The third thug fled. The bar was dark and crowded.
The shooting got front-page attention because of his shooting skills. It was hard for the press or police to believe he performed like this in the dark. I was interviewed because I trained him and I was the only training he had ever had. The results didn't surprise me.
His total time on the range in class was less than ONE hour.
We gave him a system he could use and he used it. Just days ago another student called and reported a shooting incident. He hit the thug, the other officer missed.
So far our students have a 100% hit rate in the dark.
The 92% miss rate claim still stands in the police world today. If you examine military records or other records of shooting encounters you find a miss rate that is that high or more.
It would indeed take a book to explain all of it, but even if we allow the FBI distorted figure of 60% to stand, it is abhorrent. The best possible distorted spin on the miss rate is still a death trap for shooters.
It is time to examine in scientific detail real shootings. There is NO place for target shooting concepts in the real world. I love those that preach shooting from "positions." They draw complex angles showing you how to stand. Bill Jordan once showed me an old Chinese wood engraving about 250 or more years old showing a shooting using a popular position used in target and self-defense shooting circles. Bill said, "we are still using 250 to 300 year old technology to teach police how to shoot."
Police claim to worry about liability. The word makes them flinch, but they gladly send officers out on the street that will be a danger to low flying aircraft.
We also fail to address the documented fact that only 12% or less of police officers killed ever attempt to defend themselves. Most will die with their guns in their holsters. How can we ignore that? The experts have to ignore it.
The officers that died with their guns in the holsters were not dumb. They were badly trained from the first day on the job. They were handed information that was useless and they had no clue as to what to expect on the street. They had instructors filled with information that won't and can't work and don't know any better because they never had to apply their own information and advice.
I will make this challenge. Let the first person come forward that can show via documented and verifiable study, that target or range scores have application to staying alive on the street. That is a fair request.
There are a number of video systems in the training community as well. What they amount to is $50,000 video games. Can anyone document that they increase the hit rate ONE percent? If the manufacturers could do that, they would scream it from the rooftops. Like so many other things the concept....SOUNDS GOOD!
The sale of snake oil in the 1990's and into the next millenium is alive and well and will continue. It is time to put their feet to the fire and make them address the miss rate and to leave the documented failures.
I don't win friends and influence people, but my students are winning on the street. Each phone call reinforces what I do. I offer no excuses. If one shall fail it will be MY fault.
Any firearm self-defense instructor has to take that responsibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
ah see im not disputing that you lose your fine motor skills and such..

the thing i focused in on the most was the <3yard %
im not saying it's easy to hit someone at longer ranges but at less then 9 feet i'd consider that damn near point blank, perhaps it would'nt be 100%, maybe not even 90,80,or 70%.. but i'd expect at least 60% hitrates at that distance.

the longer distances are'nt pretty but are more understandable.


but lets set that aside, lets say that 38 or 28% is reasonable..

the question i'll put forth once again is going by 38% to 28% what happen? why did it go down if 38% was to be expected then why are they now hitting for 10% less.. which about a 25% drop in relative accuracy.

or flip it around and say 28% is the norm and 38% was a momentary increase.. why did it go up? why did it come back down? we're talking about a relative increase of about 35%.

when dealing with hit rates this small and averages over the entire country + - 10pts is pretty significant.

so lets assume those numbers are normal for a well trained officer, and according to the article you posted even target shooters will suffer the same bad hit rates, we have to ask why did they change at all.

in addition we had'nt talked about the thugs hit rates yet.. now that i think of it.. it's pretty funny that they speak of stats from 1979 for the thugs 11%, but use 1990 stats for the police 19% overall.

but anyway lets for the fun of it talk about these two numbers.

if the police training is not valid for defensive shooting and they forget or rather can't use most of it in a fight then i would assume the police are no better prepared, or maybe even less prepared then a street thug.

if anything a street thug has probably been in more gun fights or shootings then the police, so why are their hit rates almost half that of police?


again im not saying it's so easy they should have 100% hit rates.. at longer distances, nerves, hands shake, i get it.. im specifically speaking about <9feet shooting.. the hitrates seem rather low and even if they are normal have went down so if it's normal then why has it gone down?

like i've said at <9 feet you should'nt even need to sight the gun.. i'd expect better hitrates fired at waist level.

anyway perhaps we are :deadhorse: so unless someone wants to talk about why these rates have went down i dont have anymore to add.

forget my previous statements that they are low.. assume they're normal.. why have they went down?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,043 Posts
joe sixpack said:
forget my previous statements that they are low.. assume they're normal.. why have they went down?
No one has an answer as to why the hit rate went down instead of up.

My assumption would be different officers involved in the shootings from the previous year.
Even though all cops are trained the same, not all of them can or will use that training the same way.

Put training out of sight for a second and just take the stress of such a situation. Not every human reacts the same in that situation.

I'm not defending the poor rate shown--- I'm simply trying to say every human responds differently when under extreme conditions. (BTW---my hit rate was 100% :))
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top