quote:

Originally posted by XLT:
makes me wonder at night time how effective night sites would be, as I think most concentrate on the target more then the sights

Night sights make all the difference imaginable.

Although many shooters have been conditioned by the mantra “front sight, front sight, front sight,” you’re right that at close distances there’s a natural tendency to focus on the target that’s the deadly threat we’re facing. There is, however, a huge difference between not focusing on the sights and not being aware of them. I have seen for myself how much more poorly people shoot under low light conditions when they can’t see their sights at all than when their handguns are equipped with night sights. I believe I recall that jljones has conducted formal experiments that confirmed the same thing.

That’s also why I shoot better and faster in daylight when I’m using a handgun with a highly visible front sight rather than plain black or even a white dot.

Subject resisted, subject was shot.
Guy was doing the funky chicken before he croaked, I laugh at his hilarious death.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by XLT:
makes me wonder at night time how effective night sites would be, as I think most concentrate on the target more then the sights

Night sights make all the difference imaginable.

Although many shooters have been conditioned by the mantra “front sight, front sight, front sight,” you’re right that at close distances there’s a natural tendency to focus on the target that’s the deadly threat we’re facing. There is, however, a huge difference between not focusing on the sights and not being aware of them. I have seen for myself how much more poorly people shoot under low light conditions when they can’t see their sights at all than when their handguns are equipped with night sights. I believe I recall that jljones has conducted formal experiments that confirmed the same thing.

That’s also why I shoot better and faster in daylight when I’m using a handgun with a highly visible front sight rather than plain black or even a white dot.

Do you feel that lasers have any place in law enforcement? I personally am not a giant fan but in low light conditions I can definitely see the advantages. I guess the same could be said for weapon mounted lights. In use WML's make night sights pointless...would be better served with a fiber optic sights as the bright beam will wash out any glow from the tritium. I guess I'm situations when you have to transition from light on to light off in an effort to not give away your position you will still need to be able to see the sights in the dark. Maybe TFO type sights are the answer. The new TFX sights are intriguing.

On that point, Dusty, there was a thread maybe about a year ago of a shooting outside a restaurant in Texas somewhere. A female and male officer each took up position in front of and behind a male perp and escorted him from the bathroom of the establishment out the front, he pulled a fake gun when they got outside and the male officer pulled a Glock equipped with a light/green laser combo with the light set to strobe from the draw, and he dropped the guy right there while the female officer pulled and then holstered her tazer first and then drew her pistol. The male officer got a good, I wanna say three to five rounds off in a half a second at about six to ten feet, and that laser was tracking the guy the whole time. Female officer didn't seem to have her pistol into play until the guy was on the ground and her partner had stopped shooting. The encounter is viewable from both their perspectives, the cams they were using were mounted to safety glasses.

I'll see if I can find the videos. *Found it:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:
Having to fumble for your radio during a gun fight can also get you dead.

Yes, but another common mistake officers make in incidents like this is to focus on communicating rather than dealing with the threat. The one with the radio out in the video was evidently in a secondary position and therefore his using it was probably okay, but I’ve had to stress the need to deal with the threat first and foremost in my own exercises. The police literature has many old stories of officers’ exposing themselves to additional danger by trying to get back to their patrol vehicles so they could call for help. That’s obviously less common today when most have handheld radios, but the principle is the same.

The aviation expression is: "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate." It isn't that the folks on the other end of that radio link can't help, but they can't fly your airplane for you, and if the plane doesn't get flown nothing else matters.

I consider weapon mounted lights to be an essential accessory for any defensive firearm that might be used under low light conditions—but not a substitute for self-luminous sights. In law enforcement situations it’s very common for attacks to occur at high speed and without any warning. Think, for example, of the incident in the above video. If an officer or two had been dealing with the individual and didn’t already have their handguns drawn, they simply wouldn’t have been able to activate most lights without losing time before delivering fire. There are plenty of videos on the Internet that illustrate what I’m referring to.

That’s one of my primary objections to relying on lasers as well. If circumstances permit, then there’s nothing wrong with using a laser (except for the possible intrusion of Hick’s Law*). If, however, someone is accustomed to using it all the time and can’t shoot well without it, then what happens when there isn’t time to activate it before shooting or if it fails for some reason? Night sights could conceivably fail as well, but it’s much less likely. (* The more choices of action are available, the longer it takes people to select an action.)

One of my exercises screens the officer from an array of three targets at 4 yards. One target has a picture of a gun. The officers are first required to memorize a playing card and find a specific object mixed in with similar ones (cartridge cases). As soon as they find the right object, they raise their hands and I start a shot timer. At that point they must step from behind the screen, identify the target with the gun, and fire four shots. The hit zone is rather large and the target is only 4 yards away, but the first shot must be fired within two seconds and all four shots fired in 3.5 seconds. Three of the four shots must strike the hit zone. When it’s all over, they must tell me what card they were shown at the beginning. From a cold start very few officers pass. Unless they were highly practiced and depending on the activation method, even fewer would pass if they were required to turn on a laser before shooting.

Night sights are always available, require learning no new techniques beyond what’s used in normal light, and they’re highly effective. If someone is using supplemental lighting and the lamps aren’t visible, then the sights themselves will be; it’s not as if we can’t use what’s available and most effective under the circumstances.

One of the most common misconceptions about using night sights is that it’s always necessary to use a weapon mounted light or flashlight to locate and identify one’s target before shooting. This is something that anyone who has shot low light courses under realistic conditions or who has even paid attention to her environment at night knows is simply not true. Short of being enclosed in a totally sealed room with the lights out or in a cave, total darkness is extremely rare. My range is located in a rural area well away from residences or any sort of public lighting, and at night if the Moon is not visible, It.Is.Dark!

Shooting at brown cardboard targets against a brown dirt berm there requires artificial lighting beyond about 10 yards. When using a black steel silhouette for handgun work in the winter, though, no one ever has any problem when I require the first stage of the low light qualification course to be fired with night sights only. Would it be different if the silhouette were against a dark background? Yes, and that’s why I also require using flashlights or WMLs for part of the course.

That range is very unusual for how dark it can get. The previous range had a streetlight about a half block away and then our officers tended to resist using their flashlights because they were so unnecessary.

To reiterate, I consider a WML and a flashlight to be essential when searching/clearing a building or area. They’re not essential most of the time once a target has been identified, and may even be a handicap or liability. And lighting up the target first is not always required; seeing flashes of light and hearing loud noises coming from a figure standing in the dark should be sufficient clues that defensive action is appropriate.

Added: Re the incident in which the guy with the laser on his gun tracked the target throughout the shooting, that’s what skilled shooters without lasers do: They keep tracking their target as they’re shooting. In that case we have no way of knowing whether the shooter was using the laser to track his target or just using good shooting skills that did not depend on a laser.

quote:

Originally posted by Copefree:
100% agreed. I was mainly just shocked that out of the 18 shots fired, only 2 found the little bastard. Luckily one of them quickly activated the 'room temperature' feature.

I hope no one was injured inside those houses behind the car. It is sad that only 2 out of 18 hit the bad guy. But it does happen, I guess when the police is under pressure. Few years ago, when we were still living in Pasadena, CA, there was a police shoot out right outside our door. We live in a corner lot house. My son, niece and nephew (all less than 10 years of age) were watching TV in our living room, closest to the street. I was at the kitchen. I heard numerous shots. I screamed at the kids and told them to get on the floor. Few seconds later, shots stopped. I looked at the window. I saw 3 patrols cars with blue and lights on. Another car few meters away. After the shooting stopped, and after they secured the car, one officer checked up on us and asked if we were OK. No one was hit, thankfully. The following morning, I went outside the house. Found 3 bullets on our window frame, our car was hit on the hood, our SUV was hit by a fragment on the door. Detectives came by the same day to check out our property. The bad news, not one single bullet hit the bad guy. This happened in Pasadena few years back.

quote:

Originally posted by ador:

quote:

Originally posted by Copefree:
100% agreed. I was mainly just shocked that out of the 18 shots fired, only 2 found the little bastard. Luckily one of them quickly activated the 'room temperature' feature.

I hope no one was injured inside those houses behind the car. It is sad that only 2 out of 18 hit the bad guy. But it does happen, I guess when the police is under pressure. Few years ago, when we were still living in Pasadena, CA, there was a police shoot out right outside our door. We live in a corner lot house. My son, niece and nephew (all less than 10 years of age) were watching TV in our living room, closest to the street. I was at the kitchen. I heard numerous shots. I screamed at the kids and told them to get on the floor. Few seconds later, shots stopped. I looked at the window. I saw 3 patrols cars with blue and lights on. Another car few meters away. After the shooting stopped, and after they secured the car, one officer checked up on us and asked if we were OK. No one was hit, thankfully. The following morning, I went outside the house. Found 3 bullets on our window frame, our car was hit on the hood, our SUV was hit by a fragment on the door. Detectives came by the same day to check out our property. The bad news, not one single bullet hit the bad guy. This happened in Pasadena few years back.

Wow. Glad everything was ok. Did they reimburse you? You're lucky it wasn't the perps bullets that hit your cars. They probably would have been taken as evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:

quote:

Originally posted by ador:

quote:

Originally posted by Copefree:
100% agreed. I was mainly just shocked that out of the 18 shots fired, only 2 found the little bastard. Luckily one of them quickly activated the 'room temperature' feature.

I hope no one was injured inside those houses behind the car. It is sad that only 2 out of 18 hit the bad guy. But it does happen, I guess when the police is under pressure. Few years ago, when we were still living in Pasadena, CA, there was a police shoot out right outside our door. We live in a corner lot house. My son, niece and nephew (all less than 10 years of age) were watching TV in our living room, closest to the street. I was at the kitchen. I heard numerous shots. I screamed at the kids and told them to get on the floor. Few seconds later, shots stopped. I looked at the window. I saw 3 patrols cars with blue and lights on. Another car few meters away. After the shooting stopped, and after they secured the car, one officer checked up on us and asked if we were OK. No one was hit, thankfully. The following morning, I went outside the house. Found 3 bullets on our window frame, our car was hit on the hood, our SUV was hit by a fragment on the door. Detectives came by the same day to check out our property. The bad news, not one single bullet hit the bad guy. This happened in Pasadena few years back.

Wow. Glad everything was ok. Did they reimburse you? You're lucky it wasn't the perps bullets that hit your cars. They probably would have been taken as evidence.

Hey Dusty. The detectives that came over recovered all of the 3 bullets from our window frame. They also picked up the fragments that hit the car and SUV. They also took a lot of pictures and noted the trajectory angles.

I took a lot of pictures myself, both from inside our property and from the street view. When I first filed the claim with the City of Pasadena to fix the damage to my vehicles, the city Comptroller DENIED my claim. Stated something to the effect that "It happened in the course of law enforcement". Few days later, I sent a certified letter to our City Councilman, asking for assistance. I sent copies of my reimbursement request, photos of the damage to our vehicles and a copy of the DENIAL letter from the city. Few weeks later, I got a call from the same person who signed the denial letter, asking me to come pick up my reimbursement check. Also had me sign some release form.

My apologies to the OP. Didn't mean to hijack the thread. I just want to point out that under duress, sometimes the good guys will miss their target. I'm glad at least 2 bullets got the bad guy ended up this incident.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:


Are tasers worn on the side of your dominant hand?

Thanks for the post. I missed this one somehow.

I'm a Taser instructor for my dept. (which is not as difficult as it should be, btw). I encourage our folks to carry on the off side with the non-dominant hand. That adds just one more mental block between real gun and zapper.

There was a rookie officer in West Texas a few years ago who was shot by a bad guy and died. It appears his training overly stressed using the taser, and it appears that's what he brought to a gunfight.

quote:

Originally posted by enidpd804:

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:


Are tasers worn on the side of your dominant hand?

Thanks for the post. I missed this one somehow.

I'm a Taser instructor for my dept. (which is not as difficult as it should be, btw). I encourage our folks to carry on the off side with the non-dominant hand. That adds just one more mental block between real gun and zapper.

I am as well, though I haven't taught a class at my new agency, just help maintain my groups. But I've always carried mine in the front, weak side cross draw. I use my weak hand for it, but can pull it wit my strong hand if needed. In my old agency we almost all carried that way, at my new one I'm the only one that does. I've also tased more people than anyone I know in my new agency, yet zero since ive been here...so...

I think one big change is the reduction in use of tasers. You can train all you want, but there is no replacement for actual experience. Officers are scared to tase. The reduction in proactivity compounds that situation. Less instances of officers having to use force, because they aren't trying to catch bad guys, because they don't want to be YouTube stars and get indicted.

I work with many, many officers--I'd say nearly all with less than 2 years on-- that have never been in a violent use of force. It's a different world. You cannot expect, realistically, those officers to perform like Navy SEALs in their first encounter. Training is mostly a joke, and is contradicted by officers getting into trouble, either in media or internally.

A lot of officer have been trained to treat a taser like a real gun. I think that has a lot to do with officer not dumping the taser on the ground.

I think the reason this video stuck out for me is because whenever I pick up a pistol no matter how big or small I instinctually put two hands on the gun with a proper grip. I could see myself drop whatever was in my support hand instantly. That's also because that's what a couple hundred thousand rounds of ammo have programmed me to be most comfortable with.