Michael's work yielded some very interesting results. What he discovered that there were relatively few "rules" that kept divers alive. That flew in the face of the "more is better" school of learning. Yes, he found, more information is always useful, but there was a clear difference between "useful" and "save your ass." Cave diving, for example, functions on four basic rules:
• Have specialized training.Michael also discovered that death was often the result of an accumulation of small mistakes as opposed to one cataclysmic error. Three seemed to be the magic number — a person could survive one, maybe two mistakes, but Number Three was often the killer.
• Always have a continuous line back to the surface.
• Have multiple redundancy for mission critical gear — regulators, lights, etc.
• Use the "rule-of-thirds" air management system as a minimum — use one-third of the air going in, one-third of the air coming out, one-third in reserve.
I bring this up because I think it's something those of us in the firearms community should be doing on a regular basis. We do it occasionally in various magazines, but Menduno's particular genius was in regularizing the process and divorcing it from the emotionalism that surrounds those deaths (Michael and I have lost far too many friends...).
With that spirit, I want to take a look at the Tyler, TX . PLEASE, in no way do I want to denigrate Mark Wilson's heroic sacrifice (see my previous post), but there are things we need to discuss.
I've now read a number of the reports on the shooting; plus, I was able last weekend to talk to a resident of Tyler who is a bonafide firearms and self-defense expert and a number of other experts who followed the situation very closely. Their observations mirror Michael Menduno's thesis that Mark Wilson's death was the result of an accumulation of smaller mistakes, any one of which taken individually was probably survivable.
Here's what we discussed last weekend:
1) Wilson's initial choice of weaponry put him at an immediate disadvantage. He chose his regular carry gun, a Glock 9mm (sorry...don't know which one). Handgun against rifle is a classic worst-case scenario.
2) The attacker was wearing body armor. My understanding from off-the-record sources is that Wilson, a skilled shooter, shot at least a five-to-seven shot group on the attacker's chest, any one of which should have been fatal. The armor negated Wilson's marksmanship.
3) Wilson went prone behind his pickup truck to present a smaller target behind cover. Apparently, the combination of being hit and in a prone position rendered Wilson unable to escape the attacker's advance.
What can we infer from Wilson's actions? Well, Wilson's actions were in line with a lot of current training. We're taught quick reaction is critical, and the quickest reaction is with the gun closest at hand. I don't know about you, but RIGHT NOW the closest gun to my hand is a J-frame S&W in .38 Special, a pocket carry gun. There is a rifle upstairs, but the remainder of my rifles are in the safe in the gunroom. Might that be a situation I need to reevaluate? In my home, do I need better access to a rifle?
I do not own body armor. I'm going to have to think about that. If I had body armor in my house and/or in my car, I would be able to at least add an additional level of protection should I face a shooting situation either in my home or in public.
An additional point on armor...there's a lot of it out there! Does my training (and, by extension, the competitions in which I participate) accurately reflect that fact? Mine does — for decades, I have kept some variation of the "Mozambique drill," two shots center mass; one head shot, in my training. In simulations and training scenarios, I try to think in terms of three center mass shots, followed by multiple head shots. IF ALL YOUR TRAINING IS FOCUSED ON CENTER-MASS SHOTS, I SUGGEST YOU REEVALUATE YOUR TRAINING TODAY!
We need a "PLAN B...PLAN C...PLAN D...etc." training mindset, that is, a continuous flow from Pan A to Plan B, etc. Granted, this requires Real World situational awareness: "three shots center mass, head shot head shot, pelvis shot, pelvis shot, etc." UNTIL THE ATTACKER IS NEUTRALIZED! We cannot shoot...stop...evaluate...shot again if necessary. There is not enough time!
Additional point about training — marksmanship matters! Head shots are hard, especially when someone else is shooting at you. onsider. The pelvic girdle is a small target. Take an IDPA/USPSA target and draw body armor on it...now reevaluate your shot placement. Also consider trainer Dane Burns' mantra...distance from threat is good; more distance is even better. The farther you are from the target, the harder it is to make the shots. Think about it.
If we're serious about this, we must add FORCE-ON-FORCE scenarios to our training! We need to be able to train in an environment where the targets shoot back, because it profoundly changes one's approaches! I mentioned Karl Rehn's training in a previous post as being particularly effective because he intentionally inserts an element of chaos in the simulations.
We need to reevaluate our preprogrammed responses to situations. I've always considered prone firing from behind cover as an acceptable course of action. My question is now this...does the loss of mobility inherent in prone overcome the most stable marksmanship platform and smaller profile? Another question...do I practice lateral movement enough in my training? I am beginning to believe more and more that movement = survival; does my training reflect that?
Mistakes accumulate, until you've no longer got any moves on the table.
Okay, this post is long enough as it is. Comments??? Especially from the training community...
6 comments:
It may be obvious, but let's say it any way: A handgun is best used to fight one's way to a long gun. Consider how things may have played out differently in this case had Wilson grabbed a .30-30 carbine or milsurp rifle (e.g, Mauser, Enfield, Mosin-Nagant, SKS, etc.) from his vehicle and engaged with it. This is not to detract from his heroic response in any way. However, it reinforces -- for me, at least -- that while a handgun is better than nothing, I don't expect it to end a fight. A rifle or carbine in a true rifle caliber (not a pistol caliber) can often solve far more problems in average hands than even a handgun in expert hands.
I'll second what Rob said here. Having a rifle at ready use seems to be the key thing here. We don't know where Wilson came from so in this context it might have been moot, but he could have had less of a disadvantage with some kind of carbine. Be it a "tanker Garand", an M1 Carbine (my choice) or something similar with lots of punch/energy.
A Garand would have likely ignored the presence of armor in the subject but would have then had a very flat trajectory past the target into the surrounding urban area. In such a situation, is that a no-shoot scenario for fear of hitting good guys on the other side?
Thats part of the reason I chose the M1 Carbine. A bit more velocity, small bullet and less capability to go through someone's (brick) house end to end in the background. That's my concern with going to something larger (like a cut down No4 Enfield). The trajectory is going to be relatively flat for 300 yards beyond whom I'm shooting at and in my generally urban environment, that's going to be pretty bad. At least with the M1 Carbine, I can maneuver to where I can get a better angle and a solid backstop (a building's concrete wall) in the event I miss the target.
My reason for choosing the M1 carbine in the first place resulted from my stopping 3 men from beating one man (likely to death) one 2 am in Atlanta a few years ago. My post event thoughts had me wondering what the heck I would have done if they'd all drawn and advanced with pistols, even with cover of my old car at the time, I'd still have been at a numerical disadvantage.
"he grabbed his handgun." He didn't have nor take a rifle. One wonders how much damage has been done by various pundits who repeated advise against using any tool that could- repeat-could later be held up as an indicator of the users "killer" mind set.
If you own long guns and handguns, why would you not have a long gun for home and personal defense? Afraid that it would look bad? Uhhuh. Being dead looks bad.
Even before this tragic event I have been planning on getting some sort of car gun. I looked at many of the differant options available and finally settled on the Kel-Tec Su-16 chambered in .223. I chose this gun for several differant reasons. The biggest selling point for me is the fact that it folds into a very small package. It is plenty accurate out to 50-60 yards and is moderately reliable. I am planning to store it in the trunk of my car in something like a jumper cable bag or anything I can find that doesn't make it look like a gun. This gun will be a great equalizer if I should go up against a rifle armed attacker.
We always need to think about who we're training. People who spend the time training, formally and informally, to be even vaguely competent to take on this kind of complex tactical scenario and carry it through, are relatively rare even among those who get carry permits. Courses should have a clear idea of who it is they're intended for.
I think that's particularly relevant to the question of going prone behind the truck, for example. I think the "right" answer to that varies widely depending on the experience and training of the person.
Hearing people in my classes talk, I also think a *lot* of people getting civilian carry permits have grand tactical ideas far in advance of anything they're likely to be able to carry out under fire, and that the (typical in Minnesota) 5-hour carry class isn't going to help them any on that (the class isn't about shooting or tactics much, it's about law and avoiding conflict in the first place, and assumes basic familiarity with pistol shooting as a prerequisite).
People more experienced than me, and teaching more advanced classes, will almost certainly find different advice appropriate for their students than I do for people getting their first carry permit.
I do think it's important that the word NOT go out through the gun magazines and web pages to everybody that the "only" way to think about self-defense shooting is in terms of this level of tactical complexity. Most people getting carry permits are target shooters, hunters, and plinkers, who have *no* tactical training and aren't going to get it later on either; but they'll read the magazines and do all their thinking in terms of actions they can't carry out under stress.
And how often is armor actually out there for a civilian to encounter? When was the *previous* case where armor foiled a civilian self-defense shot?
I do take your point about use of rifles when possible -- though check your state laws first! And, as several have said, worry about penetration. .223 looks pretty good for this kind of use to me.
As a Scuba diver and soon to be handgun owner I just want to say 'Thank You'.
I know reading this kind of post-event analysis is hard for the friends and family of those involved but everyone I've talked to has said something along the lines of, "If it happens to me, I WANT you to do the same, so someone else can learn from it." That's certainly my attitude, and I think I've learned a lot from the Scuba issues I've read about.
Post a Comment