Old story but an eye opener, apparently a cop with a revolver and speed loaders got into an extended gunfight that required a couple of reloads. Following all the excitement, the cops pocket was had empties in it. Always during training he put ejected cases into his pocket.

Where did you read that?

The same claim was widely reported in the years after the infamous Newhall incident, but it was later discounted by various authorities.

Train as you want to fight is certainly good advice, but if you’re referring to that story, it may not be correct.

Going to have to question this. I carried and trained with a revolver for over forty years. Not ever did I train to do this, nor was I ever taught to do this. Empty cartridges and speed loaders hit the ground.

That does sound very much like the old disproved urban legend from the Newhall incident.

Where did you read it and can you provide a link?

Just as an aside: I started in LE when we all used revolvers. While i have previously ejected spent cases into my hand, I would never put them into my pocket...because with a duty belt on, you can't easily access your pockets

I carried revolvers in ancient times. Safariland speedloader case with 4 loaders on my duty belt. Never saw or heard of anyone putting brass into their pockets. As others mentioned, possibly a myth about the Newhall Incident.

I probably read it decades ago in a gun magazine.

This does sound like the Newhall incident and according to this article the 40 year old myth is busted. Apparently speed loaders weren't used.

https://www.police1.com/office...nt-qCwXs8stVK31qmSC/

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:
I probably read it decades ago in a gun magazine.

This does sound like the Newhall incident and according to this article the 40 year old myth is busted. Apparently speed loaders weren't used.

It really is best not to keep repeating this false narrative as it does throw shade on the CHP without any reason.

It is almost as bad as people repeating the "21-foot Rule" as justification for using deadly force when within 21' of an assailant with an edged/impact weapon

Amazing how this myth seemingly came out of thin air and spread so widely. I'm certainly cured of spreading it.

I can't find anything on the specifics about the "rumor" / Urban Myth, but I recall hearing the FBI's shooting in Miami (1986), there were shell casings from one of the revolver shooters placed on a bumper of an FBI vehicle.

Yeah, these stories, true or not, come up from time-to-time.
I believe that somewhere, there may be some veracity to the claim.

Either way, Yes, you do fight how you train.

The "Head sweep" / "Tactical" looking, or whatever you want to call it on the range. I see sooo many people just whipping their head around like they want to break their neck.

When asked a simple question like "What color are the instructors pants?" there's usually an "Uhhhhh....."

I read a great book years ago when I was really getting into training & instructing.
"Training at the Speed of Life"

https://www.amazon.com/Trainin...nitive/dp/0976199408

To summarise- Train correctly, and with a correct purpose. Avoid Training Scars!
And for Christ sake, please, Please, PLEASE check and make sure of the condition of your handgun at all times! Leave your ego at the door, and don't get pissed if an instructor or someone else asks you to show your weapon clear!

There's more than one true but unfortunate story in the book of an instructor putting a REAL ROUND into a student.



Ahhh, the 21foot "rule" / Tuller Drill.
The "Offender" in the original scenario was Dan Innosanto, without a doubt, one of the baddest mo-fo's in the world with a knife in his hand. He's got to be in his late 80's now, and I wouldn't mess with him and a knife at 100 yards.

The original purpose was to show *** HOW FAST THINGS HAPPEN *** (and how quickly things go bad), not to give a bar to the training. ie- "At 21 feet, you must do this"
and that was from Mr Innosanto himself.

This was one of Bill Jordan's vignettes in his book, "No Second Place Winner." (p. 105 - 106)

“A few years back a Border Patrol team became involved in a discussion with some contrabandistas in which they were considerably embarrassed by one of the smugglers holed up in some brush about 200 yards away. His presence unduly complicated the proceedings in that he was armed with a .30-30 rifle with which he was enthusiastically underscoring points in the argument made by the main group of his compatriots. The Border Patrolmen were armed only with .38 Special revolvers which put them at somewhat of a disadvantage under the circumstances. However, two of the three men applied themselves to the task of routing the nearby enemy while the senior officer, Sam McKone, took up the question of the rifleman in the brush.

They tell of a western epitaph which reads, "Here lies Tom Jones. Committed suicide by betting his pistol against a rifle at 200 yards." This could be a normal result of such a contest, but Sam McKone is not one of the Jones boys. Among his other marksmanship awards is a gold medal declaring him to be a Distinguished Pistol Shot. Additionally, being shot at was not a matter to distress Sam unduly, since it was not exactly a novel occurrence in his life. To make a long story short, by applying a little Kentucky windage and an educated trigger squeeze, Sam scored three hits which made the rifle shooter lose all interest in the fate of his companions and start thinking solely of his own welfare, here and hereafter. What has all this to do with the statement that a man will do unconsciously as he was trained, provided the training was thorough and extensive? Well, after the fight someone noted that McKone's pocket was bulging and politely inquired as to what might be spoiling the drape of his trousers. Puzzled, Sam thrust in an exploring hand. The pocket was full of fired cases. During the fight, without realizing he was doing so, McKone, an old reloader, had saved every empty!”

Interesting that the Newhall thing has been debunked. It involved Cal Hwy Patrol officers, and the story was told by CHP instructors during her academy training. I'll have to tell her.

quote:

It is almost as bad as people repeating the "21-foot Rule" as justification for using deadly force when within 21' of an assailant with an edged/impact weapon

Other than not being able to judge that distance with any degree of precision, what's wrong with that? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. In the time it takes to react, draw and shoot, the bad guy could easily cover that distance. It is also perfectly reasonable to assume that bad habits picked up in training will manifest themselves in a real-life gunfight.

When I self-trained with a revolver and carry/reloading with speed strips (much easier to carry than speedloaders, which have to be the same size as the revolver's cylinder), I made a point of not only immediately tossing the empty speed strips, closing the cylinder and resuming fire, but not looking where I tossed them. With a bad guy facing me, that's not where I should be looking. Unfortunately, this cost me a number of speed strips when I couldn't find them again.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
what's wrong with that?

What’s wrong is that it has led to a fundamental misunderstanding of what the caution was about.

I saw this exact thing happen in an exercise I set up:

I told an officer that he heard a noise behind him. He turned around, and saw a man holding a knife. I didn’t say anything about any sort of threatening action, just that a man was holding a knife about 5 yards from the officer. (The setting was close to a gun show where knives among other things were sold.) His response: immediately draw and fire. When I asked him why, he cited the “21 foot rule” as if that was justification for his action.

If someone is behaving in a threatening manner with any sort of deadly weapon, we should be prepared to defend ourselves, to include having our own weapon in hand and moving to a better position (including backing up if appropriate). Someone could, however, be much closer than 21 feet and exhibiting hostile behavior, and yet still not give justification for unthinkingly shooting them. Our use of deadly force must be justified by the totality of the circumstances, not just because they’re holding a potentially deadly weapon within some arbitrary distance.

What if an officer was responding to someone shooting at cans in an inappropriate area, and the shooter turned around with a rifle in hand when the officer was 50 yards from him? Would the LEO be justified in shooting the man?

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Other than not being able to judge that distance with any degree of precision, what's wrong with that? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. In the time it takes to react, draw and shoot, the bad guy could easily cover that distance.

What's wrong is that the 21-foot Dill (not Rule) was developed by Sgt Tuller to demonstrate to recruits when NOT to count on their pistols...not as a justification for using them.

He came up with the drill to show that within 21', the officer should have alternative methods of dealing with the assailant...like unarmed disarm techniques or even their baton. The most often seen technique is to "get off the X"...which is a good beginning, but hardly sufficient

So what we can probably agree to is that some sort of unarmed training is a good idea? Personally I think armed training and unarmed training go hand in hand in addition to physical conditioning of some sort. We have seen how strong, fast and aggressive attackers are these days. The sight of a gun/knife or impact weapon doesn't deter them like the old days.

We used to say in the Army that you regress to your training. If you notice boxers and MMA guys, when they get tired, they usually go back to the 1-2 combo. The muscle memory is built when you have trained.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
Ahhh, the 21foot "rule" / Tuller Drill.
The "Offender" in the original scenario was Dan Innosanto, without a doubt, one of the baddest mo-fo's in the world with a knife in his hand. He's got to be in his late 80's now, and I wouldn't mess with him and a knife at 100 yards.

I'd say he's an extreme outlier there.

I wonder if he ever gets tired of being asked about Bruce Lee.

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:
What's wrong is that the 21-foot Dill (not Rule) was developed by Sgt Tuller to demonstrate to recruits when NOT to count on their pistols...not as a justification for using them.

Here's an interview w/ the man himself, Dennis Tueller, discussing the reasoning and misunderstandings about the Tueller Drill.

^^^^

The video linked below is a real-life example of many of the theoretical concepts outlined above. Noteworthy is that many of the conditions at the time the incident took place were favorable to officer survival, e.g. daytime with good lighting; flat, solid surface with room to maneuver, etc.

WARNING:
This is a very difficult video to watch. I normally embed videos in most of my posts when possible but in this situation, there is a link for those who may truly benefit from viewing it. There is much to be learned from it but there is also a price to be paid.

Bodycam: Officer Killed In Stabbing Attack, Armed Bystander Shoots Suspect. (GRAPHIC!)

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
Interesting that the Newhall thing has been debunked. It involved Cal Hwy Patrol officers, and the story was told by CHP instructors during her academy training. I'll have to tell her.

Check out the book: The Newhall Incident: A Tactical Analysis, by Mike Wood. It' been a bit since I read the book, but he had copies of the crime scene photos. One of the photo showed where an Officer dumped his revolver casing on the ground IIRC.
It's a good book and worth the read.