Thirty years ago today – April 11, 1986 – what may have been the most studied gunfight of the Twentieth Century took place in Dade County, Florida. Eight FBI agents on a rolling stakeout engaged two well-armed robbery/murder suspects. Circumstances allowed the bad guys to get the first move, and minutes later, both perpetrators were dead…but so were Special Agents Ben Grogan and Jerry Dove. Ed Mireles, John Hanlon, and Supervisory Special Agent Gordon McNeill suffered wounds that would impair them for life, and Special Agents Gilbert Orrantia and Richard Manauzzi sustained wounds from which they would recover.
The lessons learned from this would profoundly change law enforcement training and weaponry, and to some extent, that of law-abiding armed citizens. For the 25th anniversary of the event I did an interview with survivor John Hanlon, still downloadable from the ProArms Podcast. A few short weeks after the shootout, I was teaching at the Metro-Dade Police Academy and my old friend Dr. Joe Davis, the legendary chief medical examiner of Dade County, was kind enough to come over and give us all a full insider briefing. As the years went on I was able to interview some of the survivors. My take on it, based on that research, can be found in the “Ayoob Files” archives at www.americanhandgunner.com.
Some of the lessons:
- The killer who shot first had a Ruger Mini-14 .223 rifle, which proved to be a terribly efficient force multiplier. He used this gun to inflict every serious wound suffered by the good guys. This incident, probably more than any other, gave impetus to make the .223 patrol rifle the almost universal standard issue for police patrol that it is today. Only two of the agents even had a shotgun, and only one was able to deploy it.
- At that time, only the agents assigned to FBI SWAT had semiautomatic pistols; the remainder were armed with revolvers. Two of the good guys, McNeill and Hanlon, were permanently injured while they were hopelessly trying to reload their empty revolvers after having sustained wounds to their gun hands or arms. By the early 1990s, most American police had switched to higher capacity, faster-reloading service pistols from the traditional service revolver.
- Early in the fight, a bullet from Dove’s 9mm pistol pierced the opposing rifleman’s arm and into his chest, slicing an artery and inflicting a “fatal, but not immediately neutralizing” hit when it stopped short of his heart. It was after that, that he inflicted most of the deadly damage. FBI subsequently adopted a standard requirement that their handgun ammo penetrate a minimum of 12” into muscle tissue-simulating ballistic gelatin, a standard most law enforcement and many lawfully armed citizens subsequently adopted.
- Ben Grogan, said to be the best shot in the approximately 200-person Miami FBI office, would likely have been voted “most likely to dominate the gunfight.” Unfortunately, he was extremely myopic and lost his glasses in the car-ramming crash that preceded the shootout, and this undoubtedly hampered his performance. He died at the scene. Prior to that, this writer had occasionally shot with uncorrected vision; for the last 30 years, I’ve made a point of shooting at least one qualification course a year that way.
There is much more to it, of course, but my space here is limited. Suffice to say that this is a day to remember the sacrifices of the heroes who ultimately won that terrible fight, but prevailed at a terrible cost. May those no longer with us rest in peace, and may the survivors remember that they and their brave colleagues did not suffer in vain that awful Friday morning thirty years ago. We will never know how many lives have been saved in the three decades since because of the lessons that emerged from this incident.
I understand that most police depts. are slow to change with the times when new techniques and equipment becomes available, much like the military. As you said, Mas, at least something good came from this slaughter and the deaths of these brave men.
Mas, I believe that you approved of the S&W 39, 9mm. I had a chance to see our State Police, at their local range. Most of their allotted was eaten up with clearing jams. I believe the model 59 was better. Any comments?
A seminal event in LEO history and some hard lessons learned. I was just a young buck coming onto the job then and it was an eye opener that stayed with me throughout. Thanks for sharing, Mas.
I am a bit of a heretic when it comes to high-intensity fire-fights such as the infamous Miami Shootout. Many people seem to believe that the chief lesson to be learned is that one needs to be continuously armed-to-the-teeth with multiple high-capacity weapons and multiple spare magazines and heavy ammo load. I confess that I fall into the Jeff Cooper School which believes that “a large capacity magazine is most useful if you plan to miss a lot”.
I think the nature of these types of gunfights is still poorly understood. I think that gunfights can be classified into two categories. The first is a defensive gunfight whereby one or both parties truly do not want to fight (i.e. the mindset to fight to the death is lacking). The second is the offensive gunfight whereby both sides are (a) well-armed and (b) are determined not merely to survive the fight but to prevail and to destroy the enemy.
Soldiers on the battlefield very commonly encounter the offensive style of fire-fight since both sides are typically well-armed and are dedicated to fighting for their cause. Law enforcement officers (like those in Miami) will (on very rare occasions) encounter a criminal gang that is well-armed and determined to fight to the death rather than surrender. However, years of data (such as the NYC Firearm Discharge reports) clearly show that even most law enforcement fights follow the “defensive” model rather than the “offensive” one. The NYC Discharge reports clearly show that most fights follow the “Rule of Three” in that the fight typically consists of firing no more than 3 shots in less than 3 seconds at a suspect who is standing at a range of less than 3 meters (10 feet). This is the hallmark of a defensive fight.
This explains why law enforcement was able to successfully cling to the revolver for so many decades. In truth, a 6-shot revolver has plenty of capacity to handle the typical defensive engagement and is still adequate for most law enforcement duties even today. Based upon the NYC data, I would estimate that the odds of a law enforcement officer having to engage in an offensive style firefight at much less than 10%. Or, to put it another way, I feel that, even for law enforcement, the defensive style of shoot-out would represent more than 90% of all incidents.
It is often claimed that the move to high-capacity semi-automatic handguns and large capacity magazines was forced upon law enforcement by a new generation of super well-armed criminals. If you believe that myth then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap. I would point out that depression-era gangsters were armed with tommy guns, sawed-off shotguns and BARS that they stole from armories. Yet, the vast majority of law enforcement continued with the revolver for many decades thereafter.
In fact, the move to semi-automatic handguns was driven (as such changes usually are) by new technologies. The development of polymer frame semi-automatics gave them an edge over revolvers in terms of both cost and easy of carry (weight) compared to steel frame revolvers. The extra magazine capacity was simply a bonus rather than the true reason for the change. I have no doubt than many police administrators did “sell” the story that the extra capacity was “necessary” so as to pry funding for the switch-over from tight-fisted bean-counters. But the truth is that the police went to semi-automatics because they were cheaper and lighter to carry. Plus, they are just about as reliable as revolvers with the new generation of JHP ammo.
As for a civilian engaging in concealed carry, I would estimate the odds of finding oneself in an “offensive” firefight as 1 in a Million. That is why I think that most civilians are served just fine with a 5-shot J-frame or similar revolver. After all, a civilian is under no obligation, at all, to engage in a fire-fight to the death. Retreat and evasion should be his first lines of defense with the gun only being used, as necessary, to create an opportunity to implement them.
Very sad event. With hindsight its easy to see the suspects were extreamly dangerous folk. IIRC they had killed folks for guns, cars, etc.
Had they also shot a few folks in earlier robberies? (I forget)
So the FBI never thought they would encounter them (one of the) if not the FIRST day of hunt. Going against known long gun armed folks with snub nose revolver?
Was there also something about the two “heavy weapons” folks not “in the game” but dealing with some personal things when they are supposed to be backing up FBI?
Mas, you mention corrective lenses and the handicap of losing them in a fight. I confess to replacing my tri-focals with reading glasses when qualifying (sure beats searching for the right magnification level to sharpen up the front sight by tilting your neck up and down).
You also mention that you occasionally qualify without corrective lenses to help compensate or prepare for the possibility of losing them. I practice a technique that I’ve not seen discussed here since I started following your blog. That technique is “instinct shooting” (that’s what my department called it). My department dedicated a whole day (sarcasm intended) of instruction on concentrating on as small a point on the target as possible (a button on the shirt for example) coming up on target without using the sights (they even placed tape over the sights to prevent their use) and firing 3 shots (triple tap). If you had a good, well practiced grip and trigger pull, it was like magic, at least for me. From 7 yds. in, all shots would hit within in 2-3 inches of the point you were concentrating on, and usually at least one shot hitting the button.
After that one time attempt at teaching the entire department this technique, the program just sort of faded away (probably budgetary concerns, as it took several months to run all the officers on our department through this one day of training, close to 25,000 man hours), but it impressed me to the point that I continued this as my normal technique from 7 yds. in on all practice and qualifications. Instinct, muscle memory only, concentration on target, no sights. I’ve never dropped a point using this technique.
Question; Was this training a fad that didn’t catch on, or was it abandoned by folks hoping to up their x-ring count at the short ranges? Have you used this technique? Teach it? Recommend against it?
For those questioning the reading glasses comment, that is for 10 yds. and out where I do use sights.
I have also studied this Terrible tragedy for years now. I have to ask, Mas did you see the picture of the slain agents that show a shotgun laying next to them? I can find nothing mentioning this. I often ask myself what would of happened if McNeil would of had a high capacity auto like Grogen and Dove since he finished firing after he was wounded. And the same goes for Hanlon while he was at the rear bumper. Perhaps Mcniel could of ended it had he fired 15 rounds at 7feet instead of 6? It just seemed like for the good guys. If it could go wrong, it did. Those guys are heroes for sure. I found a site on the Internet that plays the 911 calls. I was shocked at one that you can actually here the gunshots in the background. It’s was chilling.
Travis: As soon as the Bureau allowed, McNeill switched to a 16-shot SIG P226 9mm. The Remington 870 12 gauge photographed at the scene was dropped there by Agent Mireles after he emptied it at the perps, then drew his S&W 686 and finished them both as he advanced on them, firing one-handed.
Dennis: While point-shooting is one answer to visual problems, I’ve found that for the myopic shooter, squinting with the shooting eye has the same effect as stopping a 35mm camera’s shutter down to f./16, which does the same thing, increasing depth of field of focus. Whoever drew Mr. Magoo understood myopia.
Larry: There were other agents in the field that day with heavier weapons, but the rolling stakeout they were all carrying out covered a large area, and only the eight agents mentioned were able to get to the scene before it was over.
Randy: While I personally had good luck with Model 39s, I saw so many of them develop problems that I couldn’t recommend them. S&W got those guns reliable in the second generation (3-digit model numbers like the 459s Risner, Dove, and Grogan were shooting in this incident), and really perfected them in the third generation with the four-digit numbers, such as the 5906 and the splendid 4506.
I am nearsighted with 20/50 uncorrected vision. Without my eyeglasses, the front sight naturally is in good focus with the target blurred. That makes it easier for me to shoot wearing over-the-counter safety glasses instead of the prescription glasses that correct my vision to 20/20.
TN_MAN: Three points of disagreement with you.
Semi-automatic pistols are easier to shoot well than revolvers. The trigger is easier to manage and the hand is closer to the bore axis which reduces muzzle flip. For a given amount of training, which is always less than optimal, you get a better shooter with a semi-auto than with a revolver.
Most stops from handgun wounds are due to the bad guy quitting rather than his being rendered incapable of continuing to fight. That’s why most gunfights end with a small number of shots fired. For the guys that won’t quit, you need either a hit in the central nervous system to shut them down instantly or you need to make enough holes that they bleed out quickly. The latter is when you need high capacity.
According to Tom Givens (RangeMaster, Memphis), civilian gunfights occur at slightly longer ranges than police gunfights.
Mas,
One item which is frequently mentioned as related to this incident, which you chose not to include, but we’d like your take on it, is the 40 S&W.
Thanks,
I was working the day this occurred as a police officer in Florida. It truly effected all of us especially the guys like me who were firearms enthusiasts and interested in why these bad guys didn’t stop. I watched the training video so many times and study this incident as a firearms instructor and a cop big into street survival tactics.
It’s a shame how it went down the FBI Agent’s with the machine guns on the other side of town and one Agent who was extremely profeciant in firearms skills loosing his prescription glasses at the moment the gun battle begun.
At the end it did prove that power of the 12 gauge had in stopping these monster’s by one Agent.
I had always figured that the move toward .223’s for some dept.’s was due to hiring more of the small folks for Policing coupled with the end of the Agrarian lifestyle being the norm.
So where as for many decades the vast majority of Police grew up as farm boys hunting with shotguns now it seems to be that the majority are smaller, urban ones who have mostly not ever Hunted or had any familiar with firearms prior to coming to the job.
As per events such as those in Dade County on 04/11/86, I wish to second TN Man and Travis G – Determined attacker(s) and what does/does not go wrong are much more important factors than equipment (capacity/caliber).
I seem to remember reading that the 10mm was developed or advocated for the FBI as a result of this shootout where the .38 and 9mm did not penetrate deep enough to stop the fight. Both perpetrators, as I remember, had received wounds that later on proved fatal, but still managed to kill and severely wound.
Did not the FBI also require agents that wore glasses to have a second pair available at all times as a result of this shootout?
Some time ago I read online a story of a shootout between the cops and a young man who was determined to not give up. The story included autopsy photos and X-ray images of his body after he was killed. He managed to absorb several hits from officer’s .40 caliber pistols but it was a single shot from a .223 rifle that put an end to the fight. The .40 caliber bullets were clearly visible inside his body in the X-ray images. None of them had penetrated deep enough to reach vital organs.
@ Kendahl
The points that you raise may be additional factors in favor of semi-automatic handguns, as duty weapons, but they are not points of disagreement with me. To disagree with me, you must take a contrary position from the one I took. Since I said nothing in my previous post regarding such things as (a) the easy of shooting a semi-auto compared with a revolver or (b) types of trigger systems or (c) heights of bore axis above the hand, it is hard to see how the points that you raise can be in disagreement with anything mentioned in my previous post.
You should not presume disagreement where none exists. The new generation, of polymer-frame semi-automatics, has a lot to offer. They have many advantages as a duty weapon. The point that I was raising in my previous post, however, is that the particular advantages of large magazine capacity and rapid reloading are not the “supreme advantages” that everyone seems to believe. I swear, on some of the internet sites, you see people who champion the Springfield XD(M) over the Glock 17 because it will hold 19+1 versus the measly 17+1 of the Glock! If you run either one of these handguns dry in a gun fight, then (a) you need to settle down and stop “spraying” and “praying” or, else, (b) you have really stepped into a nasty offensive firefight and you need to exchange your handgun for a M4 or an AK, pronto!
In my opinion, the other advantages of polymer-frame semi-automatics (such as low cost, ease of carry, reliability with modern JHP ammo, durability, ease of maintenance plus the advantages that you mentioned) are of greater importance than magazine capacity / speed of reloading.
Large magazine capacity is an advantage in maybe 1 out of 10 typical police shootouts. Speed of reloading is probably an advantage in only 1 out of 30 or fewer. If you doubt this, I refer you to the latest (2014) NYC firearm discharge report which can be found here:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2014V2.pdf
In particular, I refer you to pages 25 and 26 of this document. You will see that, in 2014, the NYPD engaged in 35 shootouts which involved 58 officers who fired their weapons. Of these 58 officers, 41% only fired a single shot with 77% of them shooting 5 rounds or less. This is a figure that easily fits within the capacity of modern duty-size revolvers some of which now hold 7 or 8 rounds.
The average number of rounds fired per officer was about 3 ½ in 2014. The maximum that any officer fired (for the entire year) was 12 rounds. No officer was forced to execute a speed reload (not even one for the entire year for the entire NYPD) since the handguns commonly used by the NYPD have a 15+1 magazine capacity.
I am not saying that large magazine capacity is worthless. Just that it is a rarely-used advantage in real world police engagements whereas the other advantages of polymer-frame semi-autos (such as low cost or ease of carry) provide value every day and were (IMHO) the true reasons why American law enforcement switched (en masse) to the semi-auto from the revolver.
Of course, if a police officer happens to be particularly unlucky and finds himself in a tight spot where a large magazine or a speed reload is actually needed, then it may prove critically useful at that point. Statistically, however, such situations are somewhat rare. For a civilian with concealed carry, the odds of needing such advantages approach those of winning the lottery (except on the bad luck side).
The infamous Miami Shoot-out truly did add emphasis to the search for better police ammunition. The establishment of the 12 inch depth of penetration is but a small part of it.
Consider the following: The perfect police weapon would have 100% stopping power (with a solid hit to the suspect) and yet be totally non-lethal (lethality rate = 0.0%). Unfortunately, such a weapon exists (literally) only in Science Fiction. A Star Trek Phaser, set for heavy “stun”, meets this requirement.
Let’s leave science fiction, for the moment, and consider what progress has been made in the real world. New York City began to collect data on police shootings starting in 1971. Consider the first ten years of such data (1971 to 1980). According to this dataset, the NYPD shot 1,524 people during this period of which 447 died. That works out to be a lethality rate of about 29.3 %.
The firearm used during this period would have been a 38 special revolver loaded with Lead SWC (not hollow-point) ammo. It’s hard to get good data on stopping power but one approach is that taken by Evan Marshall. One can quibble with his approach but, for the sake of argument, let’s accept his figures for this discussion. See this article:
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=4593
Mr. Marshall gives the stopping power of the 38 special +P SWC load at 49 %. I think that most would feel that this is probably “in the ballpark” since this load was considered to be a fairly poor “stopper”.
So, prior to the Miami Shoot-out and the development of better ammo, the NYPD had a sidearm that was almost 30% lethal but only about 50% effective for quick “stops”. This is a long way from the “Phaser” standard!
Now, let’s look at the period of the last 10 years of data (2005 to 2014). During this period, the NYPD shot 292 people of which 106 died. The lethality rate = 36.3%.
The firearm used during this period is the 9mm luger typically loaded (so I understand) with 124 grain +P gold dot JHP ammo. Mr. Marshall puts the stopping power of this load at about 88%.
Now this is more like it! It’s not a Phaser yet but we are getting there!
For a modest increase in lethality (about 24%), we see a great increase in stopping power of about 80% (compared against the 38 special load). Ammo technology has truly advanced in the last few decades and the Miami shoot-out was one of the drivers of it.
Private info, not for posting unless you deem fit. This is in the FWIW category
Sometime after the incident in Miami I happened to be shooting with Stan Holland. At that time Stan was instructing at FLETEC and (IIRC) was head instructor for the US Marshalls service. He appeared in the Ultimate Survivor training tape in the section on the US Marshall who stopped an attack intended to free a prisioner.
When we discussed the eyesight question, Stan claimed that Grogan rotated through FLECTEC and Stan made him qualify without corrective lenses and he did so. He was most emphatic about the point, so I didn’t go into details on the course or other information. I later suspected that possibly some heat had been applied after the incident. Since Stan is now deceased, we can’t get more information.
Possibly if qualifying without specs had been a regular part of training it might have made a difference? I made it a point to occasionally quality and/or compete without corrective lenses. The last time was a TPC match and I found it a bit disorienting vs the square range. I flat overlooked a couple of targets.
TN_MAN
I understand all your well thought out points on round counts. But as a civilian with a carry permit. I just don’t feel good carrying less rounds. As a business owner iv seen to many videos of robbers coming in in groups of 3 or 4. More is better as we should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I don’t want to be that one guy who is the 1% who needed more than just a few rounds. Some call me paranoid but I call it just being prepared. And I just don’t want to reload. Lance Thomas I believe felt the same way.
And yes I have been slammed on some forums for my views against revolvers because of there slow reload and low capacity to to which I believe was a big factor in the FBI shootout . And yes accuracy is king but for some of us it takes a few more rounds to get there. Especially under pressure and being shot at.
Really enjoying this discussion and hearing all points of view!
Respectfully,
Travis
Brother Moore, I did indeed deem it fit for posting, and it’s here. Thanks much for sharing. You are an asset to the blog, and I appreciate it.
A Revolver, that, to me is much easier to reload than a semi mag sans maglulua type thing and under duress none the less. if my hand is off, I will use teeth or toes. Whatever still works. Just NEVER give up because when you lie down to die that is what you can reasonable expect and likely get!
No offense semi folks! You’ve got your ways too.
As a Shotgun Man, reloading is always part of the plan. I count on running out here or there and winning anyhow.
To each their own!
P.S. – TN Man Here, here! Much enjoyed, well said Sir!
“Really enjoying this discussion and hearing all points of view!
Respectfully,
Travis”
Thank you, Travis, for nailing what this blog is about (at least for me). I, and I believe, many others, are constantly searching for our comfort level when it comes to providing protection for ourselves, loved ones, and others. Everyone approaches this from their own perspective, seeking the peace of mind of knowing that they are covering all the bases, overlooking nothing. After “overlooking nothing” we then have to analyze what will work for us, as an individual.
I’ve chased this puppy for a long time, a large portion of that time in law enforcement. I confess that I’ve changed my duty weapon over the years, several times, based on latest technology, recent publicized deadly force incidents, etc., hoping that what worked for someone else would work for me.
After retiring, my choices, in many folks minds, went into retrograde. I moved from a Sig 239 in .357sig (single stack), to a Glock 26 in 9mm (double stack), to a S&W J-frame .38 spec 5 shot revolver, to a diminutive Ruger LCP .380acp. Why? It meets my comfort level physically. It meets my comfort level mentally. Is it the right choice for everyone? Nope, just for me. Just at this point in time. Could my choice change? You betcha.
@ Travis G
I understand your point. If all else is equal, why not add in the advantage of large magazine capacity? Certainly, for home or business defense (where the size of the firearm in unimportant), one can do so.
However, for concealed carry, all else is not equal. A large magazine means a large and heavy (service-size) handgun. When one also adds in (a) a larger holster and (b) larger heavier magazines, then it all adds up to more bulk and more weight to carry every day.
For some people, this is not a problem. They are perfectly willing to “dress around the gun” so as to carry more bulk and weight. They are willing to spend extra time every day “suiting up” with the heavier weapons. They have the dedication to put up with that inconvenience every time they step out the door.
However, I am not one of those persons. If it is going to be a lot of trouble to be armed. If I am going to have to wear a cover garment even in the middle of a TN summer, then I won’t do it. I’ll start making excuses such as “Aw, I’m only running over to the store for some bread and milk. I’ll be back in 10 minutes. No need to fool with packin’ that heavy piece.”
One advantage of a small frame revolver, which is seldom mentioned, is convenience. One can keep the revolver loaded all the time in a secure location along with a pocket holster and a couple of loaded speed strips of ammo. It does not take 15 seconds, to slip the revolver and holster into one pocket and the speed strips into another. It is so convenient that there is really no reason to make excuses to go unarmed.
So, from my point of view, it is not a choice between carrying a large-capacity firearm versus a lower-capacity firearm. Rather, it is a choice between being armed 100% of the time with the small-frame revolver versus being armed maybe 30-40% of the time with the big, bulky service pistol. Since the first rule of gun fighting is to “have a gun”, the small revolver suits my temperament best. Your mileage may vary!
It was a sad day for sure and I said a Prayer for those Brave men who died that day. As I learned from my WW2 Grandfather the mind set of I will not quit till I am dead and this lesson been reinforced by combat vets from every conflict since. I appauld the changes made but my grave concern is the over all poor shooting skills so many LEO’s I have shot with at the range. I also agree with the poster so few folks are raised with guns and with death that we witness on the farm and in the woods. Thanks for remembering those fine men it hard to believe it been 30 years.
Two are one, and one is none.
Jim Cirillo, who was involved in more gunfights than almost anyone else in the 20th century, used to say that when the shooting starts, you’re going to want two things more than anything else–a bigger gun & a helluva lot more ammo!!! I’m pretty sure that the survivors of the Miami Shootout would tell you the same thing.
It’s been a long time since I’ve read detailed analyses of the “FBI Miami shootout” and my memory of the things that went wrong for the good guys is probably flawed. But…it seems that the hapless FBI agents erred badly that fateful day in a number of ways that could have been prevented with better planning and training. What I recall is the agents cornered the dirtbags in a awkward residential area; then the agents accidentally hooked their front bumper onto the maggots’ rear bumper; and some agents’ handguns were stowed below or on their car seats and were not available when the gunfight ensued, resulting in a goat rodeo, etc. The tragic outcome is some agents paid with their lives and others were badly injured.
It would appear our proverbial “20-20 hindsight” has deteriorated with the passage of 30 years, meaning there is no single answer to the Miami tragedy. First, there is no question the agents would have benefited from better ammo and larger capacity handguns, not to mention long guns. Then, there continues to be much speculation as to whether there was enough time and prior knowledge of Platt and Matix to allow the agents to bring to bear what they should have had – carbines. Last, I have read much, from many sources, that also point overwhelmingly to the lack of the proper tactics and training playing a big part. We are the beneficiaries of their sacrifices in so many ways. The 9mm ammo of today is far superior to the 9mm of 1986. Also, the need for more and better training and practice continues to grow as folks realize there really is no perfect bullet or platform.
This brings me to my particular situation. I am blessed enough to be able to still currently shoot a .45 ACP with some pretty solid results. HOWEVER, as the intensity of my arthritis advances (I will be 68 on July 6th), inevitably I will be “downsizing” my choice of caliber sooner rather than later. This means either a 9mm version of the Sig P320 I now carry or a gun that has been teasing me for sometime – a Gen 4 Glock 19. Having said THAT, it’s interesting that both sites I read avidly have been turning me towards a S & W 642 of late. To further muddy my waters, the 642 is available within 3 miles of my home for $347.00, which I’m told is a real good price. Decisions, decisions.
One way to look at the choice of carry handgun is the “worst case scenario”. In other words, one should carry weapons to match the worst that can possibly happen even if it is a one in a million chance.
I (and this is just me) disagree with this approach. Where do you draw the line? If two is one, then isn’t a dozen even better? Under that kind of thinking, one should not venture out the door unless one is armed like a soldier with M4, M9, multiple 30 and 15 round magazines, body armor, Kevlar helmet, in effect, the whole nine yards. One ends up needing a M1 Abrams battle tank to go shopping at the mall! (OK, that is stretching the point but you get the idea.)
Instead, I view the decision as being based upon roles. There are three (3) main roles: a) the soldier, b) the law enforcement officer, and c) the private citizen.
The soldier can expect offensive engagements (maximum fire-fights) so he needs offensive firepower. No handgun is suitable for this role (See “The role of the five” by Jeff Cooper). He needs heavy weapons preferably belt-fed.
The private citizen can expect a defensive engagement (probably governed by “The rule of three”). He needs a concealable handgun of reasonable stopping power (for its weight) and a minimum five shot capacity. That should handle a purely defensive engagement but the citizen should carry at least one or two reloads in case he needs more. His role is purely defensive. Escape and evasion are his plan with the handgun used only as an emergency tool to facilitate his escape.
The law enforcement officer can expect about 90% defensive engagements mixed with 10% offensive ones. He needs weapons that are more than the purely defensive ones used by the citizen but less than the heavy offensive weapons of the soldier. The law enforcement officer usually reacts defensively (like the citizen) but circumstances may arise whereby he is called upon to go on the offense (like a soldier). A polymer frame duty sidearm in an effective caliber (for defense) combined with a patrol carbine (for emergency offensive operations) provides a good mix for the mixed engagements of the law enforcement officer.
It is a mistake (IMHO) to confuse the above roles and start thinking that, if it is used by the military or by law enforcement, then that makes it ideal for the private citizen too. The roles of the three groups are quite distinct which argues (in my mind anyway) for a separate and distinct set of weaponry for each group.
Don – Pa,
On the off chance that I may be able to aid yourself with decisions – That S&W 642 is $122 off MSRP…
Get it! 🙂
I do hope your arthritis is reparable and that you may enjoy many more years of shooting any cartridge, along with any other activities you so choose Sir.
@Don – Pa.:
Well I will confuse your choices even more Don.
Having been a Master Class PPC competitor for many years, I am now 80 Years old, and confined to to a wheelchair, due to a Quadruple Spinal Fusion, aggravated by Arthritis, and the usual infirmities attendant with old age.
So, my choice for down sizing, from .460Rowland converted Model 1911s, .44 Magnums, etc., was to go with an FNH Fiveseven (5.7X28mm) semi-auto, with several (You’ll want at least two Spare Mags, to switch off to, about every month) thirty round Magazines, to make sure I have at least 61 rounds immediately available in the event I may be forced to eradicate any Snakes, two legged, or otherwise.
In the event you are unfamiliar with the 5.7X28mm round, you can get it, from FN, with a Hornaday 40gr (.224). JHP bullet, loaded to about 2,100 + Feet Per Second, out of a 4.7″ pistol barrel. This was developed to be a Military round, but didn’t become popular enough to be widely used in the US?
Be aware though that in the dark, this round, though low recoil, does produce a two, to three foot, “Fireball” which may be disconcerting to anyone, say the crook you are shooting at, who is not familiar with the round? Mine is also equipped with a “Red Laser” sight.
Good Luck Don, with whatever You decide to downsize with!
Paul
Don-Pa,
In my prior post I spoke of my journey from full size duty handguns to my present mouse-gun for concealed carry as a retired civilian. My last stop prior to the current .380acp pocket pistol was the S&W 642. I loved that particular weapon and would still be carrying it except for the fact my wife’s arthritis progressed to the point she could no longer work the slide on a semi-auto, so she took possession of the 642 (giving me the excuse to buy the micro-weight LCP).
I spoke of comfort both mentally and physically when considering a concealed carry weapon. TN_MAN also addressed the size and comfort considerations. Everyone has to come to their own solution, but if you can pick up a 642 for that price, don’t pass it up. Age and ailments have changed my dynamics and a 642 (or the LCP) fits my current metrics and I believe would yours.
Cap, FWIW, about nine years afterwards, there was a shoot in my neck of the woods. A quick Google search only revealed this archived story: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/440165/FUGITIVE-DIES-IN-SHOOTOUT-WITH-THE-FBI.html?pg=all
There’s much more to it, of course, but memories fade. I recall that the Bureau had requested uniformed officers in marked units to initiate a stop (possibly a “lesson learned” from the Miami shoot); unfortunately, the subject apparently knew he’d been made, and initiated a hasty ambush of sorts against the officer at a traffic light. IIRC, one of the suspect’s rounds hit the officer at the gap under the armpit as he unassed his unit to counterattack, passing between the armor panels, and penetrated the officer’s heart in the lower right ventricle; the other was alleged to have struck his trauma plate, such that it would have severed the officer’s aortic arch if it had penetrated. St. Michael was looking out, as the officer survived, and the subject was dead at-scene when he confronted the FBI Agents.
“Below the Line” trivia: I was serving jury duty at the time (as a sworn officer?!?), and the Circuit Court Judge monitoring the jury pool questioned me about the tactics the Bureau used out in the hallway. I referenced the Miami shoot, and cribbed heavily from the Bureau’s reenactment film and your Ayoob Files articles; His Honor seemed satisfied with the answers (BTW, thanks for the cribsheet, Cap – Courthouse Survival is almost as important as Street Survival, in more ways than one!)
I suppose the -obvious- point is learn from what actually happens in gunfight, and what works in practice as opposed to the range. Although sometimes the lessons aren’t always obvious and sometimes it’s “What worked/happened in this particular gunfight.”
I suppose this is an unknowable, but Bill Ruger got some stick in some quarters for apparently getting behind the “assault weapons ban” on hi-cap mags. I have wondered if his apparent support was because one of his company’s products, with a hi-cap mag(?), was used in these notorious murders.
TN_Man: I think your statement that high-cap mags are good if you plan to miss a lot misses (or dismisses) the dynamics of a gunfight: fast and messy, with lots of moving around by both sets of shooters. Remember that SA Dove, who was SWAT-trained, fired 29 rounds, missed 28 times (his bullet killed but didn’t stop the rifleman), and died with an empty gun in his hand. This was a SWAT-trained agent in a fight where no shot of his was longer than two car-lengths. As much fun as it is to dump on the FBI, I know for a fact that they (and most Federal agencies) have better firearms training than most police departments. SA Mireles, in the video the FBI made about the firefight, was asked how much ammo you should have. His answer: As much as you can carry.
@ Old1811
You focused your post on a quote (which is not even mine and which I first encountered in the writings of Jeff Cooper) and based your entire comment upon it. This is disappointing since it totally ignores everything I said in multiple posts above and (by doing so) totally misses the point that I was trying to make. I would have thought that all my posts (above) were long-winded enough to avoid that! 🙂
Let me try one more post (without quoting from Jeff Cooper this time). Hopefully, it will clarify my stance or (else) it will just make it muddier. Here goes:
The point I was making is that I believe that there is not just one kind of gunfight. I believe that there are (at least) two (2) distinct types of gunfight. I am arguing that a Type A gunfight (into which almost all citizen gunfights and about 90% of law enforcement gunfights fall) is a defensive gunfight. The mindset of the defensive gunfight (for at least some of the involved parties) is to escape and evade. The mindset to fight to the death is lacking. A Type A gunfight usually happens quickly and without much warning. It is seldom anticipated.
A Type A gunfight is usually resolved quickly and is often patterned on the Rule of Three (i.e. 3 or fewer shots fired in less than 3 seconds at an opponent who is standing at a range of less than 3 meters). Because a handgun is primarily a defensive weapon and can be carried concealed and is (thereby) continuously available, it is the ideal weapon for a Type A engagement.
The second type is an offensive gunfight. In a Type B offensive firefight: (a) both sides are well armed and (b) both sides have the mindset to fight to the death rather than escape and evade. A Type B firefight calls for offensive weapons (i.e. carbines, shotguns, machine guns, etc.) rather than handguns. There may be some anticipation of a Type B fight although it can also happen quickly.
The Miami gunfight was clearly a Type B fight. The FBI initiated the gunfight by staging the crash of the suspects’ car. The true failure of the FBI, in the Miami fight, was that they did not anticipate that the stop would erupt into a Type B fight despite the prior knowledge that (a) these suspects were highly dangerous and (b) they were heavily armed.
One hears of the mistake of bringing a knife to a gun fight. Well, the FBI made a similar mistake in bringing Type A defensive weapons (handguns) to a Type B offensive firefight. The bad guys, in this case, were properly armed with a carbine with which to go on the offense while the FBI was handicapped by having mostly handguns. It is true that the FBI used one shotgun but it was not deployed in a decisive manner and, so, did not even things up.
Your post implies that (a) I am wrong, (b) there is only one kind of gun fight, (c) the single kind of fight is the Type B offensive fight such as they had in Miami and (d) therefore, the citizen should always be armed and prepared to fight an offensive firefight.
I respectfully disagree. A citizen has no business getting involved with a Type B firefight. His whole duty and responsibility is to just defend himself and to escape and evade as soon as possible. His carry weapon should, therefore, be geared around the requirements of a Type A engagement NOT the Type B firefight.
Furthermore, if you are correct and feel that the citizen must be prepared for a Type B fight, then (it follows) that no handgun is fully adequate for a Type B fight (as the FBI found out in Miami). Therefore, private citizens should not be carrying handguns only. To be truly prepared for the Type B fight, we should all be carrying a semi-auto carbine (such as an AR, AK or Mini-14) with us every day too.
Since it is impractical (and in most places illegal) for a private citizen to be continuous armed with a semi-auto carbine plus handgun, then it follows that a private citizen can never be fully prepared for a Type B fight with just his normal carry arms. Therefore, I feel the best approach is to be armed for the Type A engagement and be prepared to escape and evade. For a Type A engagement, a concealable handgun of adequate stopping power should be enough. The current standard for such firearms is a stub-nose 38 special or small, single-stack 9mm semi-automatic with a typical capacity of 5 to 8 rounds. The ammo used should be geared toward civilian defense (example: Hornady Critical Defense) rather than law-enforcement / barrier penetration such as the Hornady Critical Duty ammo.
The high-capacity semi-automatic duty pistol (typically used for law enforcement purposes) is probably more than needed for a Type A gunfight but it still falls short of meeting the demands of a Type B firefight. Law enforcement officers carry it because, on rare occasions, it may buy them time to get to their patrol carbine in the event that they get caught up in a Type B firefight. They are in uniform and openly carry it in a holster so its extra size and bulk is not an issue. For the citizen, however, the small handgun will work for a Type A engagement while being much more concealable and easier to carry than a service pistol. Thus, the small handgun (as listed as standard above) is actually best for the armed citizen as opposed to the service size, double-stack semi-automatic.
The armed citizen should not be armed for a Type B fight (IMHO) unless he has some reasonable expectation that a Type B fight is eminent. For routine civilian carry, the above Type A armament will do. If he does think a Type B fight is eminent, then he should be on the phone to 911 and reaching for a loaded carbine. Better yet, he should already be retreating and “getting the hell out of Dodge”.
I well realize that my views on this matter vary sharply from those of the “can’t have too many bullets” crowd but, I hope you see that, I did not reach my position without giving the matter a lot of thought.
TN_MAN,
I hear what you are saying, about the two types of gunfights, and I agree. I remember reading an old rule of thumb for police that went like this; “you carry a handgun because you may be surprised and find yourself in a gunfight. If you know you are going to a gun fight, then you get a shotgun” (or today, a carbine). I suppose the gray area would arrive if a defensive civilian was attacked by three or more goblins. With a snubnose revolver, that’s two shots to the chest for two of the attackers, and only one shot for the third attacker. In a case like that, you would want more bullets in order to stop the fight sooner. But yeah, three against one is a bad fight, and it would be best to escape and evade if possible. That would definitely be a type B gunfight, and it would be tough to be the victor. You could probably only triumph if the goblins were incompetent, and you had a really good day when you did everything right!
@ Old Fezzywig:
Yes, I agree. Your comment reminds me of the case of Richard Davis which Mas documented in his: The Ayoob Files: The Book.
Mr. Davis was working in the pizza delivery business when three crooks lured him to a empty house, on a false pizza run, and then tried to rob him. Mr. Davis’ armament consisted of just a six-shot H&R .22 revolver. Fortunately, the bad guys were equally ill-armed and only had a .25 auto. Still, it was three against one.
Mr. Davis did the best he could, he emptied his revolver and then escaped and evaded. He wounded one of his attackers pretty bad and took a couple of hits from the .25 himself as he ran. Fortunately, the hits were fairly minor and did not impede his escape. He reached his car and got away.
As I said, I regard a stub-nose .38 as the MINIMUM for carry for most people. Someone who is very recoil sensitive might carry a stub-nose .32 H&R Mag as an alternative. However, if you want a bit more, there is nothing wrong with a single stack 9mm. It is about the same size as the stub-nose and will typically hold a bit more ammo. A Ruger LC9, for example, holds 7+1. That would be two (2) shots for each goblin plus two (2) spares for a rainy day.
I don’t see the particular arm as the critical factor. It is more how you use it and how well you can escape, evade or get behind cover. To quote Cooper again, the object between your ears is your primary weapon provided it’s loaded!
Approximately 33 U.S. States have enacted various forms of Stand Your Ground Statutes* which explicitly state that it is NOT a citizen’s duty or responsibility to ” escape and evade as soon as possible “.
*In some circumstances not applicable if that same citizen initiated the fight or altercation that led to the lethal force incident.
Spencer, Paul & Dennis – thanks for the great input! Paul – I have actually fired a Fiveseven and was duly impressed by the accuracy – sure wish I had read your heads-up about the “tongue of fire” before I squeezed that first one off! Wow! Spencer – I keep hearing that same opinion on my local gun shop price – thanks for your ‘vote.’ Dennis – I feel like I know you after previous posts here – and I think we are of a like mind on this. I very much value your opinion and feel a 642 is just a matter of time for me. Thanks so much for your help. Sir! God bless you all – please stay safe, everyone.
@ TN_MAN:
First of all, the only thing stupider than “Bringing a Knife” to a Gun Fight, is (IE. “I don’t see the particular arm as the critical factor.”) bringing a Firearm that is too slow, or difficult to re-load, or that doesn’t have any “Hi-Capicity Magazines available for it.
And, I can assure you that when you are out along a desolate part of the border, or Traveling far from your home area, in those circumstances, If, and I Repeat, “If”, a gunfight takes place involving You, won’t have “Anything” to fight it with, unless “You Brought it with You”!
As I said earlier, “(You’ll want at least two Spare Mags, to switch off to, about every month) thirty round Magazines, to make sure I have at least 61 rounds immediately available in the event I may be forced to eradicate any Snakes, two legged, or otherwise”.
Now, I don’t expect to need all those 61 rounds, But, it’s awful nice to that they are there, in two quickly insertible Mags, If, and I Repeat, “If”, I should Need Them.
The above is exactly what I explained to a “White House” Security Guard, during a TDY at the “Old Executive Office Building”, then I dumped out 10 Model 19 Speed Loaders (Back in the days before we were issued Semi-Autos), and he asked me “Why do you need so many Speed Loaders”?
@ Paul Edwards,
If it gives you mental comfort to continuously pack around 60+ rounds of ammunition, then go for it. I rarely pack more than 15 to 20 rounds myself (including those in the gun). While a law enforcement officer, in an extraordinary situation, might just possibly needed as many as 60 rounds, it’s hard to “realistically” foresee any situation where a private citizen would need so many. Still, if the extra weight and inconvenience does not bother you, then more power (and ammo) to you.
@William,
You are correct that, in several States, you may not have a “legal duty” to retreat from a place you have a right to be. I probably wrote too forcefully when I implied a “duty” to retreat. It might have been better to simply say that it would always be the best policy to escape and evade if it can be done in safety.
Instead of quoting from Jeff Cooper, let me quote from the Wizard of Oz:
The Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz (speaking to the Cowardly Lion):
“As for you, my fine friend — you’re a victim of disorganized thinking. You are under the unfortunate delusion that simply because you run away from danger, you have no courage. You’re confusing courage with wisdom.”
I think it’s about that time for me to escape and evade this thread.
@TN_MAN:
As they say, “To Each His Own”, and since “Only the Survivor Tells the Story”, whatever that person says he did “Becomes Gospel”!
Since I am now an Old Retired LEO, the “61” 5.7X28mm, Miniature Rifle looking Rounds, that I now carry are not nearly as “Bulky”, or “Heavy”, as the 10 Loaded, Model 19 Speed Loaders, I used to tote around every day either!
As I said too, it is nice too know they are readily available, if needed, and since I’m still not really that trusting of all the current .224 caliber ammo, I figure I might have shoot em a few more times, to put em down, than I would with a .460R, or a .44 Mag., if I could still use them?
Sorry for the late post.
I think the lessons to learn are as follows:
1) bring a long gun to a long gun fight. To do this, have a long gun that is handy. The FBI shotguns at the time had long barrels. They rode in back seats. O’Neal’s stayed in the back seat, had it been a short shotgun, like the 14″ jobs the FBI uses today, he may have had it in the front seat and if he had engaged with it, instead of with his snub nose, the fight would have been over in seconds. The bad guys had a folding stock Mini, and used it.
2) everyone who had a back up gun used it, and if Dove had had one it might have saved his life.
Comments are closed.