Defensive shooting and group size



  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,375 Senior Member
    Zee wrote: »
    This brings up a good point. If people settle for the old "Minute of Torso" crap............what if all you have a shot at is the foot? Kinda screwed if the extent of your shooting capability is simply hitting a target backer. You'll likely wish you weren't such a piss poor shot.

    In case you are questioning the foot thing, that's all one officer had to shoot at in the Cali Bank Robbery a few years ago. When they pulled up to the robber in the truck and he got out, ran to the front of the truck, and started shooting at them. One officer ran to the rear of the patrol car, got down on the ground, shot under both the patrol car and truck, and shot the robbers legs/feet until he fell down. Good thing his "grouping" capability was better than MOT. No?

    Consequently, I've used the same technique in simunition training. Dropped to the ground, shot the "adversary" in the feet under a obstacle. When they fell to the ground, I shot them in the head.

    Seemed like a good idea at the time.

    Some years back, I was attending an NRA Police Instructor's course in Fredericksburg (The experience made for a feature article in Handgun's Magazine that Dave Arnold bought). During one night fire (shoot-don't-shoot) exercise with an outdoor F.A.T.S. program, the officers in attendance were getting killed or killing no-shoot targets or sending missed bullets all over the place. The FBI instructor - who was not particularly happy that his training course was scheduled to appear in Handgun's, would never call me by name. He always referred to me as "Writer" when I had a question in class. That night, as the event was coming to a conclusion, he called on me to take the last scenario. I hadn't volunteered, so I got the impression I was being set up to fail miserably and decided I was going to take the first "legal" shot I was presented with.

    The scenario involved a work-place violence episode in which the assailant wielded a 1911 and who had it placed against the woman's head. Based on the scale of the target size, the head of the assailant being about six inches on the screen, the distance represented 20 or slightly more yards. I noticed the hammer on the .45 was not cocked, so I shot the guy in the head, just above his right eye about level with the bridge of his nose. The gun I used was a Springfield XD-9. The instructor was a bit miffed, because had I waited another 4 or 5 seconds, I wouldn't have had a target and I would have found myself facing a cocked gun and an already killed hostage. It was supposed to be a no-win scenario because we were expected to attempt to get the assailant to surrender first, and the program didn't allow for that. In discussion afterward, none of my fellow attendees would have tried that shot when it was made, and would have tried to talk to the subject - mainly because none of them were certain they could have made it, and based on the week's performance, I tend to agree.

    It's funny, but all my adult life, I expected my handguns and my personal level of competence to allow me to hit the head of a typical silhouette at 25 yards standing. I never bought into the "Combat" accuracy terminology that began to appear in the 80s throughout the gun magazine industry. I believed it derived from a plethora of new guns that simply did not have the intrinsic precision necessary to have target accuracy, and the writers who could shoot, had to establish a level of quality that would allow the magazines to continue getting revenue from the manufacturers who couldn't produce precision.

    Now, we have an entire generation of shooters, who eschew precision and accuracy, for the security blanket of "accurate enough".
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Colonel Cooper spoke of a similar training incident with the FEDs, they did not want him to use his 1911 because it represented an unfair advantage, his response was, "perhaps that is the first thing we should demand of a sidearm, that it should be unfair."
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction


Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services


GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.