The Element of Chance in Defensive Shooting

[pettypace]

Lately, I've been pondering the element of chance in defensive shooting.

For example, which of these three targets -- Left, Right, or Middle -- represents the most skillful shooting? (Sorry, but you might have to squint hard through the old B&L spotting scope to pick up shots in the black.)



Of course, it's a trick question because all three targets were "shot" by a computer at the same level of "skill" -- a standard deviation of 3" on the target.

Here's a link to the program that did the shooting:

http://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/...d=3&Dd=0&N=100

I've read that "the majority of shots fired in the field by U.S. LE officers miss their intended target." (source) If that's true, it probably means a standard deviation not less than 9" on the target. And it's hard to believe the average "Armed Citizen" would do much better.

Here's how 100 shots at that level of accuracy might appear on the target:

http://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/...d=9&Dd=0&N=100

So, try plugging in Sd=9, Dd=0, and N=5 to see just how often a cylinderful from the snubby might prove decisive.

Good Luck!

[leadeye]

Certainly does make the case for shotguns.

[Larry Gibson]

I don't bet my life or that of my family on "chance".

Most LEOs miss a lot because they are improperly trained. I was an advanced firearms instructor for a state board of police training so I know. With the high capacity semi-autos, too much movie and tv watching and too little training there is too much "spray and pray" and not enough "front sight on target press trigger". LEOs also missed a lot "back in the day" of revolvers too......for all the same reasons....lack of proper weapons marksmanship under stress and lack of proper tactical training.

When I put forth a proposal for the annual firearm/tactical budget I had a captain complain to the chief that the money would be better spent teaching the officers how to better write tickets..... The chief looked at me with an inquiring look so I replied; "While there is some expense if the officer writes "void" across the face of a messed up citation it's not nearly as costly as having to write "void" across the officers or innocent bystanders birth certificate." ...... I got my training money for the officers........

[Wayne Dobbs]

As a follow on to Larry, after training thousands of troops and seeing millions of rounds downrange and reviewing facts on shooting incidents, I was able to cook it down to this: if a good guy shooter saw sights/visually confirmed weapon alignment on target, there were more hits than misses. If they didn't see sights or use same, they fired more misses than hits, usually ALL misses. This included several dozen events at ranges from arms length to 20ish yards, with most in the usual range of under 20'.

[black mamba]

My experience affirms Larry's. Among the many LEOs I've known, very few know much at all about firearms or shooting. I worked at a gun store for years, and would routinely ask officers what they were carrying, and many had no idea, "Whatever the department gives me." The average handgun enthusiast, not just someone who shoots occasionally, would likely be a better shot than the average LEO, because they shoot a lot more. I shoot 600-800 rounds a month; what would the average LEO shoot?

[seaboltm]

Depends on the situation too. When in the academy years ago I saw a video of a Texas state trooper attempting to arrest a suspect. Suspect spun around with a gun. A very short scuffle occurred. The trooper had the suspects pistol. As the suspect turned to flee the trooper did a one hand mag dump. All shots missed. The suspect was found some time later and arrested. Not many real situations are like a target range, hence the need for scenario training.

[TNsailorman]

I have shot in combat matches with police offices and I can say that a few were very good, but some were very bad. They believed in "fire power" or as Larry said "spray and pray" more than aimed fire. once they got the wonder nines with 15 to 19 rounds they attempted to use them in a mass fire tactic, but then the civilians who had them did the same thing. I remember a saying back in the early 70's that a Memphis police officer that shot in the early IPSC matches taught people and that was "you can't miss fast enough to win a fight". I think his name was John Shaw but my memory is not the best these days. I was taught by my father, a WW II veteran, to hit with the first shot. He bought me a single shot, break action shotgun and I still have it. I trained my son on the same shotgun. Put the first one in the right place and you may not ever need a second one. It just takes practice and more practice. my .02 anyway, james

[dverna]

Having competed with LEO's my experience is they run from poor to excellent. I know they average LEO does not train much if at all.

As to the information presented, I am not surprised. The simulation will be dependent on the SD. And what we can achieve at a range is going to be much smaller than how we will perform under pressure and even worse when the target is moving and horrible when they are shooting back.

Training lowers the swings in SD as the pressure to perform increases. Knowing you are competent and capable makes a huge difference. One reason I enjoyed competing was to feel that pressure and perform under it.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

As a law enforcement firearms instructor for 20 plus years and a officer for over 30 years I totally agree with the above posts. I saw a decrease in the focus on firearms over the years. We used to compete for training and competition. Recently we had an offender shoot 2 officers, his gun jammed and the third officer went hands on instead of shooting the offender. IMO departments do not want officers oriented in firearms. Society also became less firearms oriented. Society increased its expectations of what they wanted cops to do for them, departments responded and hired less firearms oriented officers. The officer that went hands on with the offender that shot the 2 officers defaulted to his subconscious response. That’s why they hired him. I saw nice guys at the entry level oral board indecisive on the shoot question advance in the hiring process.

[M-Tecs]

I don't have any first hand experience with this. I have worked with and trained with both LE and Military have been in lots of actual experience with using deadly force. I have also worked with both LE and Military that were afraid of their duty firearms. After much discussion and observation three thing became clear.

First skill with firearms ranged from scary to National Champion levels.

Second once you got to the "guy guy" level they did not miss much. A while back one of the gun writers claimed once you got in the stats of LE involved shooting by the gun guy types it was 1.8 shots per hit. I don't remember what the average LE shots per hit was but I am thinking it was 7 or 8?

Third LE SWAT team members do not have a clue how different the skill sets are between Military and LE snipers.

Both line is the more competent you are the less chance figures into the equation.

[Cosmic_Charlie]

I used to shoot with a cop who did firearms training all over my state. He had 140 fellow officers on his department and he thought about 10% of them were proficient with their sidearms. I never really thought much about how good your average Joe was with a handgun. I guess because the people I shot with were avid about the activity. My skill at arms came from thousands of shots taken with a pump up pellet pistol. Now a days people don't shoot as much as they used to. My brother who was a Marine officer said the corps was having a real time of it training new recruits because so many had never handled a rifle.

[RJM52]

..all above is sad but true... I have 30+ years of horror stories and really it comes down to one thing...attitude....and 95% of the LEOs on most departments don't have it.

It isn't a "new" thing either. Officers were no better shots in the 1950s than they are today. Simple reason is that the chances of getting into a gunfight in ones career is well under 1%. When I was with Dallas PD back in the 1970s and 80s they averaged 80 gunfights a year for a force of 2500 officers. Figuring that 99% of the gunfights involved patrol officers if you stayed in Patrol for most of your time you had something like a 7% chance of getting into it with a BG...

Civilian shooters think that they are better shots than LEOs but really that isn't so. The average Joe/Jane gun owner doesn't shoot any more nor is any more proficient on a qualifier than most LEOs. 99% of the gun owners have never even taken a safety course let a lone a tactical shooting course... Shooters on boards like this are comparing themselves to the average LEO instead of the 5% that are shooters.

And when you live in a state that has only a couple a LEO involved shootings a year instead of a week, it is very easy get complacent....at the academy, instructor and individual level...

Bob

[Silver Jack Hammer]

I sent you a PM

[44MAG#1]

I may be missing something. But I am interested in knowing what this thread is meaning, trying to say and or indicate.
Please help me to understand it.

BTW I know about average, median, mode and standard deviation.

[rintinglen]

The original post was pointing out, using statistical computer imaging, that dispersion resulting from inaccurate shooting can result in either a good, a bad, or a mediocre result, depending where on the bell curve that particular group of shots landed. The point being IMO, the smaller the average error, the smaller the standard deviation and the greater the likelihood of a preferable result. "Aim small, miss small."

The thread drifted a little as shooting enthusiasts identified causes of the poor shooting performance of the average police officer. Complacency, inadequate training, and lack of a combat mindset were among the causes described.

But my belief is that the underlying message is that if you are going to carry a gun for self-defense purposes, it is not good enough to shoot that one "garage-wall-worthy" group and delude oneself into thinking that one's skill was adequate. A better standard to use is the worst group one shoots.

An athlete once said "you don't practice until you get it right, you practice until you can't get it wrong." That is the standard that defensive shooting skills should be judged against.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

The PM was sent to Cosmic Charlie

[downzero]

It appears this thread has degenerated into a debate about LE firearm proficiency, although it began as a discussion about hit probability and the resulting error.

To answer the initial question somewhat, the answer depends on how much time it took to deliver those three shots. While you can't miss fast enough to win, I really do believe that the first person who scores a round on target will win the fight. In my job, I have spent quite a few hours on the range with the police and I have reviewed dozens of officer involved and "criminal" shootings, but I would not claim that any real patterns have emerged for me. Each case has its own facts and circumstances that are probably more important than assessing the level of training, type of ammo, caliber, etc. Even dark versus light can have an influence on how a real human scenario plays out versus a movie or on a 1 way shooting range.

Accuracy is important and if the world was perfect, every good guy would deliver a round into the CNS with a perfect .8 second draw and shot on target.

In the real world, it's probably more like 2-2.5 seconds from seeing a threat to delivering a round, and while I agree that every shooter should train for aimed fire even under extreme stress, handgun training is missing something very very important if there's a discussion of hit probability without a serious conversation about speed.

IPSC and USPSA (and really all practical shooting sports that were born from them) value speed for a reason, because speed and accuracy are both extremely important.

Certainly does make the case for shotguns.

This isn't really on point for the thread, which talks about hit probability. Shotguns have multiple projectiles, but they still have to be aimed, or at least very precisely pointed, for those multiple projectiles to do the damage needed. An edge hit that puts half of your 8 pellet buck off target isn't going to produce any better results than 4 shots from a .32 in the same place.

Shotguns can be highly effective, though. Your average joe street cop is probably better off with one than a rifle unless there's body armor, multiple targets, considerable distance, or reloading required, all of which is quite unlikely for policing. It's probably easier to teach the rifle on the range to new shooters, but a shotgun delivers so much payload with one good shot. I can say that I'm in the extreme minority in thinking this, though. My LE firearm instructor friend is absolutely convinced that the shotgun is obsolete (other than for "killing birds and opening doors," as he says).

[44MAG#1]

"The original post was pointing out, using statistical computer imaging, that dispersion resulting from inaccurate shooting can result in either a good, a bad, or a mediocre result, depending where on the bell curve that particular group of shots landed."

To me that goes without saying to anyone that shoots. Take a given shooter with a "given" ability and let them shoot 10 targets in the style shooting they prefer to do. There will be a worst target and a best target with the others inbetween. Anyone, no matter their skill level, will not shoot each and every target with the same degree of accuracy all the time. Accuracy will vary to some degree from target to target and from time to time we go shooting.. With poor shooters it can vary quite considerably. With next to phenomenal shooters it will vary much, much, much less but it will still vary.


"The point being IMO, the smaller the average error, the smaller the standard deviation and the greater the likelihood of a preferable result. "Aim small, miss small.""

Naturally the smaller the average the smaller the standard deviation, or it should be. We can only aim as small as we can hold. If a new shooter can only hold in an area that is 6 inches at a given range that is his small. Hopefully as he practices and shoots many, many, many rounds over a long period of time his holding area will get smaller so he "AIMS" smaller.

"The thread drifted a little as shooting enthusiasts identified causes of the poor shooting performance of the average police officer. Complacency, inadequate training, and lack of a combat mindset were among the causes described."

While not pro law enforcement I am not anti law enforcement. To me it is just a "half a glass of water" when it comes to them. Their mind set is, to me, questionable. Plus it is fueled by far less fear of being held accountable for their actions when they are questionable, which is fueled by the many citizens that still think the are still always right no matter what they do.

[pettypace]

I may be missing something. But I am interested in knowing what this thread is meaning, trying to say and or indicate.
Please help me to understand it.

BTW I know about average, median, mode and standard deviation.

Good question, 44.

As someone who has never pulled a trigger in fear or anger, it was certainly not my intention to bad-mouth the shooting skills of those who have. As the title of the thread suggests, I had hoped to promote some discussion about the element of chance as it might apply to civilian self defense. I offered the Monte Carlo shooting simulator as a tool to facilitate that discussion. I probably should have offered some examples of how the simulator might be used.

For example, if we accept a hit ratio of something under 50% (standard deviation = 9"), what's the probability of a "vital" hit (as define by MacPherson) on the first shot? Here's how the the Monte Carlo simulator might answer that question:

http://snubbyfest.000webhostapp.com/...9&Dd=0&N=10000

So, it looks like Sd=9 offers less than a 7% chance of a "vital" hit. And if that's the case, then "spray and pray" begins to look like a rational tactical choice because (if distant memories of Prob & Stat serve me) it would take 10 shots just to have a 50/50 chance of a "vital" hit.

I wonder how Dr. Deming might have approached the problem?

[Larry Gibson]

It appears this thread has degenerated into a debate about LE firearm proficiency, although it began as a discussion about hit probability and the resulting error.............

The OP stated in his original post; "I've read that "the majority of shots fired in the field by U.S. LE officers miss their intended target." (source) If that's true, it probably means a standard deviation not less than 9" on the target. And it's hard to believe the average "Armed Citizen" would do much better." Thus the OP opened the door for the discussion and included in the title of his thread "the element of chance". I stated my thoughts on "chance" in a shooting situation and went on the clarify that position based on actual experience. The computer program simple uses an SD variable and does not consider trained vs untrained, aimed vs unaimed fire [even when shot very quickly]. Yes, speed is important but as you mention, so is accuracy. That is because; only the hits count....and in the real world he hits first wins (not to be confused with shoots first).