Who Needs High-Capacity Magazines? Even Police Only Hit 1 in 5 Shots

[mcurrier]

Who Needs High-Capacity Magazines? Even Police Only Hit 1 in 5 Shots

 

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1741-who-needs-high-capacity-magazines-even-police-only-hit-1-in-5-shots

[E4 No More]

That's a two-edged sword. To the uneducated who do not know that many citizens with HCPs shoot more than the average cop, they'll see it as said citizens inherently having a worse hit probablility than the police.

[RED333]

Yep, it s better to say " With more than 1 or 2 bag guys and most likley more, we do need more rounds in our Firearms".

Every bullet fired had a lawer along for the ride, you are going to have to pay for that stray round.

To say that you know you are going to miss will just feed the left with facts to fight us with.

[Guest CCI]

I'm going to go off topic here!

 

But you post some of  the most interesting, informative, information on this site!

 

Back to topic!

 

I believe it that's the military, one or two thousand rounds just to get one kill!

[mcurrier]

I'm going to go off topic here!

 

But you post some of  the most interesting, informative, information on this site!

 

Back to topic!

 

I believe it that's the military, one or two thousand rounds just to get one kill!

 

Not sure if you mean me... but... I'm semi-retired and am an information sponge.  I have been involved in what I call "Investigative Politics" since 2000.  I read a TON of stuff and subscribe to some very obscure newsletters and such.

 

I have too much time on my hands.  I should probably be out shooting or something, BUT... I love this country and those who try to destroy it or the rights of it's Citizens REALLY PISS ME OFF!

 

To be honest, every now and then some crap slips through, but I try to only serve up the relevant stuff.

[Major Kong]

I believe it that's the military, one or two thousand rounds just to get one kill!

Do you have some data to back that up?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

On the flip side, from what I've read which may be wrong, some of the young nutcases do fast accurate head shots with real high accuracy in the mass killings. Some have postulated that this is from long practice in mass-murder video games but dunno if that is true either.

 

Maybe shooting into a crowd at close range it is "shooting fish in a barrel" and therefore only appears to be "spooky accuracy" because maybe the odds favor every bullet hitting an intended mark under those conditions? They are not being selective at all.

 

Would be weird if one might enhance accuracy better by playing video games rather than real trigger time.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[enfield]

I'm reading Col. Grossman's "On Killing", and it has some interesting information related to rounds per kill for soldiers/Marines, and it probably applies to cops also.  

 

He says that killing, up close and personal, doesn't come naturally to the vast majority of people.  They have to be carefully conditioned to pull the trigger and kill a fellow human.

 

The remainder, the small minority, become Special Forces or John Dillinger.

 

In other words, a lot of the rounds fired in Vietnam were fired over the heads of the enemy.

[2.ooohhh]

On the flip side, from what I've read which may be wrong, some of the young nutcases do fast accurate head shots with real high accuracy in the mass killings. Some have postulated that this is from long practice in mass-murder video games but dunno if that is true either.

 

Maybe shooting into a crowd at close range it is "shooting fish in a barrel" and therefore only appears to be "spooky accuracy" because maybe the odds favor every bullet hitting an intended mark under those conditions? They are not being selective at all.

 

Would be weird if one might enhance accuracy better by playing video games rather than real trigger time.

 

 

I would imagine the mass murders hitting "gun free zones" find it much easier to hit their mark b/c no one is returning fire. It's a hell of a lot harder to get rounds on a target when your taking fire.

[Guest CCI]

Not sure if you mean me... but... I'm semi-retired and am an information sponge.  I have been involved in what I call "Investigative Politics" since 2000.  I read a TON of stuff and subscribe to some very obscure newsletters and such.

 

I have too much time on my hands.  I should probably be out shooting or something, BUT... I love this country and those who try to destroy it or the rights of it's Citizens REALLY PISS ME OFF!

 

To be honest, every now and then some crap slips through, but I try to only serve up the relevant stuff.

Forgot to hit the quote button, yes you!

[Guest CCI]

Do you have some data to back that up?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs62.html

 

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-28580666.html

[mcurrier]

Forgot to hit the quote button, yes you!

Well then, I will say Thanks.

[billyscott]

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654347932982281/

[billyscott]

Good post mcurrier. I've read different figures and the best I've seen is that if a person is surprised in their home by a burglar they hit about 50% of the time. There is no guaranteed  one shot stop with a handgun so you're looking at two hits with two misses, four shots per invader. Two invaders, eight shots. Three will need twelve shots. Yeah, limit me to six. NOT!

[TMF]

I'm reading Col. Grossman's "On Killing", and it has some interesting information related to rounds per kill for soldiers/Marines, and it probably applies to cops also.  
 
He says that killing, up close and personal, doesn't come naturally to the vast majority of people.  They have to be carefully conditioned to pull the trigger and kill a fellow human.
 
The remainder, the small minority, become Special Forces or John Dillinger.
 
In other words, a lot of the rounds fired in Vietnam were fired over the heads of the enemy.

I read his book a while back. There are a whole lotta things I disagree with in there, especially where he postulates that by joining some SOF units the person likely falls in the 2% sociopath population. Completely false, and evident of someone that hasn't bothered to do the research and is simply making theories without facts to back them up. He lost all credibility with that one.

The other parts regarding societal changes and the willingness of troops to kill enemy troops (an increasing willingness over the course of the past century) is also skewed, as the data isn't scientific. I mean, remember how at one time we had columns of troops on line bayoneting each other? That is about as close as combat gets. I don't doubt that a Soldier's willingness to kill is dependent on the situation and the means used to kill. Obviously someone firing a howitzer at an enemy they never see isn't impacted like the guy who is looking at a man through the sights of a machinegun. While the cannon cocker won't hesitate to send a round, the individual looking at a human in his sights may be a different story, based on their background/personality/beliefs. Now, if that man he sees in his sights is shooting at him or fellow soldiers, the chances of hesitation are slim to nil. Same for close combat. A person's willingness to kill is going to be affected by whether or not that decision will result in living or dying. He doesn't attempt to address all that; instead, tries to make it into a black and white issue.

On the issue of the military expending a bunch of rounds to the ratio of enemy casualties: you can't compare that to self defense or law enforcement shoots. Anyone who does is just ignorant. Firefights involve things such as maneuvering, which employs tactics such as suppressive fire. I've put 200 rds of .50 cal into a house, and likely didnt kill anything, but I stopped and ambush as soon as it began. That is how war works. Has nothing to do with marksmanship skills. Folks who want to compare that to either a lack of marksmanship, firing discipline or a lack of willingness to kill the enemy need to STFU.

[TMF]

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654347932982281/

Comparing a maneuver element armed with M-16s to a sniper armed with an M40 SWS is like comparing apples and dildos. A sniper is not engaging an entire maneuver element in a tactical fight. He is likely taking one shot with the opposing side unaware he is being targeted. Trying to compare that to a platoon of guys in the bush (where they can't see 10 meters in front of them) armed with M-16s doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Also, hitting a 300m target with an M16A1 is much, much more difficult than hitting a 600m target using an M40. Edited February 9, 2013 by TMF

[East_TN_Patriot]

Also, it is my understanding that one of the reasons we had such a high round count to kill ration in Vietnam was due to the use of the full auto M16.  Guys were doing spray and pray tactics and emptying out mags like crazy at the enemy.  This is the reason why they added the 3 round burst setting.  Another point about military round counts speaks to how soldiers are trained.  The concept of suppressive fire is generally not taught in law enforcement, whereas it is a regular thing in military training.  

 

All that said, police shootings generally expend very few rounds and the hit count is poor.  Even though that is the case, the police still carry high-capacity magazines for a reason.  The OPs link is more evidence of the belief that the only reason anyone would "need" a high-cap magazine is to maliciously kill as many innocent victims as possible in a short amount of time.  I need to find the study again, but one researcher looked at the number of rounds expended during mass shootings compared to the time of the event and found that there is no evidence to support the idea that fewer rounds in a magazine would have changed the scenario at all.  

Edited February 9, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[mcurrier]

Comparing a maneuver element armed with M-16s to a sniper armed with an M40 SWS is like comparing apples and dildos. 

 

LoL!  You said "Apple". ;)

[1gewehr]

Also, it is my understanding that one of the reasons we had such a high round count to kill ration in Vietnam was due to the use of the full auto M16.  Guys were doing spray and pray tactics and emptying out mags like crazy at the enemy.  This is the reason why they added the 3 round burst setting.  Another point about military round counts speaks to how soldiers are trained.  The concept of suppressive fire is generally not taught in law enforcement, whereas it is a regular thing in military training.   

Add in the huge number of rounds fired from aircraft, both fixed-wing and helicopters, and that goes a long way towards explaining that ratio.

 

Another factor folks don't think about is that a civilian in their home defending against a home invasion will rarely have reloads on their person.  so, what they have in the firearm, is probably all they will have usable for defense.  As stated above, three attackers will most likely require AT LEAST twelve rounds and leave the defender with an empty gun.

With multiple targets, hit ratio declines as the defender is changing targets while shooting.  So my advice would be that three attackers will need more than 16rds, unless the defender is very good or lucky.

Most people in a gun fight continue to shoot until all attackers are down or gone, or they run out of ammo.  That applies to civilians AND police.  And LE feels that officers need at least three 15-17rd magazines.  Why are civilians less valuable than LE?

[East_TN_Patriot]

Most people in a gun fight continue to shoot until all attackers are down or gone, or they run out of ammo.  That applies to civilians AND police.  And LE feels that officers need at least three 15-17rd magazines.  Why are civilians less valuable than LE?

 

 

 

Indeed. This is essentially the same point I made last night to a colleague who is in support of the ban on "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines stating that only the police and the military have a "need" for these items.  

Why do the police get special privilege?  Because they protect us from crime?   Anyone who is informed and honest will admit that the police cannot protect people from violent crime.  In virtually all cases, the police simply respond and help clean up the mess.  It's up to individuals to defend themselves against criminals.  In my 10 years in law enforcement, 8 on patrol, I can think of very few cases of serious violent crime where the police intervened and prevented death or serious injury of the victim.  

[wjh2657]

Comparing a maneuver element armed with M-16s to a sniper armed with an M40 SWS is like comparing apples and dildos. A sniper is not engaging an entire maneuver element in a tactical fight. He is likely taking one shot with the opposing side unaware he is being targeted. Trying to compare that to a platoon of guys in the bush (where they can't see 10 meters in front of them) armed with M-16s doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Also, hitting a 300m target with an M16A1 is much, much more difficult than hitting a 600m target using an M40.

 

As one who spent a three year tour "in country" as a sniper and a later 13 Month tour as a FAC with an ANGLICO team I have to add that the mission of the two is completely different. As a grunt the mission is to lay down a field of fire on an usually unknown number of targets in cover and concealment. The purpose is to break the momentum of their attack and drive them back. There is no time or tactical system to pick out individual targets and practice good marksmanship.   Your mission is to drive them out and back, kill ratios are incidental.  Many times a police mission will be the same.

 

As a sniper your mission is the kill itself. "One target, one shot" prevails. A home invasion is man to man, much more like the sniper mission, but with multiple shots and possibly multiple targets. If they have already broken in, you are not going to break their momentum, you have to put them down. There will be little cover or concealment and no appreciable loss of momentum. I still say this is 12 gauge pump shotgun work!  

[Randall53]

Magazine capacity is just not an issue in my home.  Home invaders will be facing 1 of 2 870's (1 by the bed, the other hid in the living room....I'm old with bad legs and back so I can't run to fetch a gun.) each loaded with 8 rounds of buckshot guided to their mark by a red dot laser mounted to the rail. I pray I never have to use either one.  But I'd rather be prepared and not need one, as need one and not be prepared.  I've hunted all my life and can cycle a pump with the best of them.

[Just2Honor]

I'll add that when you talk of firing in Vietnam you need to realize that soldiers very often didn't see an enemy due to the dense undergrowth.  The job was to repulse the enemy's ambush or attack with rapid and sustained fire.  Volume counted, not necessarily accuracy like it was one on one or on a range.        Most of the rounds didn't go over the jungle, they went into it as fast as possible until the other side stopped fiting or you ran out of ammo.

[JayC]

Yes which is why we need to keep reminding the public that 'trained' police officers are 5 times more likely to kill an innocent person than a untrained citizen in a justified shooting.

 

That's a two-edged sword. To the uneducated who do not know that many citizens with HCPs shoot more than the average cop, they'll see it as said citizens inherently having a worse hit probablility than the police.