No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 7/7/2006 From John Farnam: 5 July 06 Some good advice on frangible 223, from a friend who uses a lot of it: "Stay away from iron-based frangible, such as Remington's 'Disintegrator.' Iron residue stays hot for a LONG time after impact, and has started several range fires. Copper/polyester projectiles are light and require a hot loading in order to reliably cycle the action on most autoloading rifles. The invariable result is a fast bullet that surely disintegrates upon impact, but is still going fast enough to generate momentary impact temperatures high enough to melt steel and thus leave pock marks. The best frangible 223 bullets are copper/tin. Density close to lead, and the bullets are hard enough to successfully crimp to the case. We recommend nothing faster than 2,800 f/s. Stay below that, you should see no damage on high-quality steel targets." Comment: Even the best frangible 223 is still going to be far less satisfactory than conventional bullets, even in training. I don't like it, but, when compelled to use it, I'll opt for the best performer available. /John (Those who use steel targets may benefit from the chapters on them in Louis Awerbuck's book Tactical Reality: An Uncommon Look at Common-Sense Firearms Training and Tactics. As I said last week, steel targets provide great reinforcement in training but not entirely without risk.) 5 July 06 On "Frankenguns," from a friend and well-known riflesmith: "Many don't know that the M4 requires a different front sight housing than does the old style. The correct front sight housing will have an "F" stamped in it. Correct M4 front sight housing will be a nominal 1.970" from the top of the barrel to the flat between the sight ears. An M4, put together with an 'old' barrel (and sight housing) will invariably shoot high, way beyond the ability of sights to correct. Many print four inches or more above the point of aim at twenty-five meters! Those with 'Frankenguns' (cobbled together built from whatever parts can be found, scrounged or bought cheap at a gun show) should be on the lookout for this. Most M4s that consistently print high have the wrong front-sight housing. Plug that same barrel into a standard upper, and it will probably zero just fine." Comment: We see "Frankenguns" in courses. Few work well! As they come form the factory, ARs are far from perfect, but at least most manufacturers have some idea of what it takes to produce a serous, utility rifle. Many scanty-documented updates have come and gone in the forty years the AR-15 has been around, as noted above. Best advice is acquire a factory rifle and then train yourself around it. Learn to use it as it is, keeping modifications to a minimum. /John (Many of these attempts to emulate weapons available only to law-enforcement agenices or one's favorite branch of military service, but not to private citizens, are little more than exercises in appearance. Some modifications may have functional value but one should make sure of that before risking any compromise in function.) 5 July 06 Cor-Bon DPX and car doors: At a pistol course last weekend, I had the opportunity to shoot up several expendable vehicles we had on the range, expressly for that purpose. We used the vehicles (a late-model Jeep and a late-model Honda) as props during several tactical exercises, and then we shot them with various rounds in order to give students first-hand knowledge and experience with the issue of vehicle penetration. As a general statement, high-performance pistol bullets, at typical pistol velocities, are disappointing on car doors, failing to penetrate most of the time. In fact, even most 223 rifle bullets don't do much better in this regard than do pistol bullets. Car glass, particularly when struck at shallow angles, is also rarely penetrated, and, when it is, the path of the bullet is radically altered, sometimes by almost ninety degrees! That foregoing generalization was largely confirmed by our experience last weekend. Car doors are, or course, not homogeneous, and bullets do occasionally sail through, but, while most penetrate the outer skin, the vast majority fail to punch through the inner layer and carry on into the car itself. It was my intention to compare 45ACP DPX (160gr), which I carry in my Detonics 9-11-01 (1911) with other, quality, high-performance pistol ammunition. We shot car doors from all sides, but the most relevant test, in my opinion, was when we shot into the door at a thirty-degree angle, as would be the case when I would shoot at someone who is using the partially-open door for cover. Results were dramatic! With this angled-impact test, most high-performance hollowpoint pistol bullets penetrated through-and-through less than ten-percent of the time. Even when they did, upon exiting they were badly mangled and had lost much of their weight. What exited was actually just the biggest piece! DPX, on the other hand, penetrated over eighty percent of the time, and the bullet stayed in one piece in nearly every case. This experience confirmed my decision to carry DPX in all pistol calibers I normally carry, including 380Auto, 9mm, 40S&W, 357SIG, 45GAP, and 45ACP. (1) It expands reliably in soft tissue, even after penetrating heavy clothing. (2) It is not deflected by car glass, even during angular penetration. (3) And, it punches through car doors vastly more reliably than does nearly any other pistol bullet. Highly recommended! /John (Both John and Evan Marshall have been singing the praises of Cor-Bon's DPX loads since they hit the market. I will confess to having recently purchased 100 rounds each of the .38 +P and the .30 Carbine loads. With regard to the handgun load, my interest was in being able to shoot out of a vehicle, through window glass, without experiencing deflection, and the greater likelihood of expansion after penetrating heavy clothing as we have real winters in my part of Arizona. With regard to the M1 Carbine, my truck gun, being able to penetrate metallic cover could become an issue, once I have had the need and opportunity to deploy a long gun. As My Carbine is carried in a Waller Soft Safe, which provides me with pockets that easily accommodate eight loaded magazines, I decided to split my basic load of 120 rounds evenly between the DPX load and the previously carried Winchester "hollow softpoint" load. This way, I can select either a low-penetration or a high-penetration load as I reach for a magazine. My initial impression, from a brief test session, was that both the previously carried loads, the Speer .38 +P 135 gr. and the Winchester X30M1 produced smaller groups for me than the DPX loads in the same calibers.) 8 July 06 The deadly "Hesitant-Reload," from a friend and student currently in Country: "John, we've lost several troopers over here to the 'Hesitant-Reload Syndrome." This represents a flaw in our current training, and we try to correct it when guys arrive, but sometimes there is no time before they find themselves in active fighting. When troopers reload their rifles, many commit the twin, deadly mistakes: They (1) stop and look down at their rifle, and (2) thrust their rifle's muzzle in the air in an attempt to gain access to the magazine well. Insurgent sharpshooters are waiting for them to do just that! So long as they are in motion and/or using cover skillfully, our troopers make difficult targets, but, as you say in your courses, 'It's a reload, not a recess!' Many troopers act as if they get to relax and stop paying attention to what is going on around them when a reload becomes necessary, instead of staying in motion and being actively engaged visually, WHILE they are reloading. We have to constantly remind them to stay in motion and/or reload behind cover. Hesitating in the open to reload is suicide! The second issue is thrusting muzzles into the air. 'Muzzle down!' is a constant refrain around here, but new troopers often forget. Even when you are taking full advantage of the relative safety provided by good cover, a rifle barrel protruding into space is an all-too conspicuous flag and lets the enemy know exactly where you are and, often, what you are doing. When the vertical, protruding barrel subsequently tilts forward, enemy sharpshooters know you've reloaded and are about to fire over the wall. They just put their crosshairs where your head is likely to appear and wait. They're usually right on the money! Tell your Marine and Army students about this. You must fight THROUGH your reload, staying in motion and using cover. Keep the enemy guessing! He should never be sure of exactly where you are or what you're doing or are about to do. Keep your muzzle down, always!" Comment: This is sage, and hard-earned, advice from one who is in a position to know. Let us all take note, while we still can! /John (This is a very interesting and useful observation. I have always been uncomfortable about raised muzzles due to risks from unintended discharges landing who-knows-where. This is just one more argument for knowing just where your muzzle is pointed.) 6 July 06 Nervous Students: I make it a habit of gently, informally probing the motivation of my students, and I've detected a trend lately, a trend that is not unique to my school: Students tell me they're seeking our instruction because they're "nervous." We haven't seen so many simultaneous, worldwide hotspots in many decades. My students, particularly those getting involved with serious guns and the ontogenesis of purposeful shooting skills for the first time in their otherwise etiolated lives, tell me that they want, they desperately want, some capacity for "independent action," an issue that scarcely crossed their collective minds, until recently. It may be mostly a symptom of natural, societal maturation, yet I hear it over and over. "I'm scared," "I'm worried," and "I don't want to be helpless any more" are typical refrains, as we all wrestle with the persistent, jittery, but unmistakable perception that world history is plummeting headlong into another Great Dark Age! Other institutions are experiencing similar phenomena. Churches that, in the process of pursuing fashionable trends, had compromised the most, are the very ones that are now shrinking the fastest! "Gun control," as a political issue has, once again, become an unmentionable topic. With only a few, notable exceptions, Democrats and Republicans alike refuse to discuss it openly. They both fear a public that has grown weary of being told they are too stupid to own guns. That fraudulent refrain may have scored points, at least among the naive, when the future looked bright. It falls on apprehensive and uncharitable ears now! I'm not in the crystal-ball business, but I think there is good reason for the chilling motivation that sends students to us for the first time, people who wouldn't have dreamed of it as little as a year ago. They're scared! Right now, we're all a little scared. "God and soldiers we adore, In time of peril, not before!" /John 8 July 06 It works both ways! This, from a friend and colleague who has just returned from an overseas tour: "Amen, Brother! In Iraq, I habitually watched to see which way the muzzle, typically elevated, went when the insurgent moved. I couldn't see him, but I always knew in which direction he was headed. When the muzzle stopped and tilted forward, I focused in. I killed two via shots to the head, just as you described. I'd been following their movement behind a wall by the six inches of barrel poking up. When their heads appeared, exactly where and when expected, I was always ready. They never finished their prayer!" Comment: Hope they're enjoying the seventy-two virgins! /John --- From Force Science Research Center: I. NEW STUDY LAUNCHED ON "HIT PROBABILITY": WHAT'S YOUR REAL RISK FROM SURPRISE GUNFIRE...& WHAT'S YOUR BEST PROTECTION? What are the chances that a suspect who suddenly presents a gun and starts shooting as fast as he can will actually hit an officer he's trying to kill? At what distance will his accuracy significantly drop off? Does playing video games measurably enhance his skill? What's an officer's best reaction for avoiding fatal hits? What training approaches will best ingrain ideal officer-survival responses in the most LEOs? These are among a myriad questions the Force Science Research Center hopes to answer about offender hit probability, officer survival tactics, and training methods as it gets underway with "the most ambitious and complicated" research study to date regarding the human dynamics of deadly force encounters. After months of planning, the first phase of the unprecedented research was launched last month [6/20/06] at the Milwaukee (WI) Police Academy by popular law enforcement firearms instructor Ron Avery, president of The Practical Shooting Academy, Inc., and executive director of the Rocky Mountain Tactical Institute, and Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of FSRC at Minnesota State University-Mankato. The study is expected to span at least 2 1/2 to 3 years and ultimately involve thousands of test subjects. "The kind of study we're undertaking has never been done before at this level of sophistication," Avery told the first group of volunteers to participate in the testing. The results promise to establish new benchmarks in scientifically analyzing dangers to LEOs and identifying specific tactics officers can use to counter them for the best hope of surviving. "The ultimate impact on both training and street performance could be huge," Lewinski declared. The study is designed to evolve through 3 stages: PHASE 1 as its principal objective will measure the probable accuracy of would-be assailants attempting suddenly to deliver on-target rounds from various distances within the time frame of most officer-involved shootings. In PHASE 2, various survival options that officers have will be tested at different distances from a shooter to see which appears to provide the most likely safety, given the circumstances of an assault. PHASE 3 will then explore what type of training will best assure that officers make the safest choice when they are suddenly challenged by a suspect determined to kill them. Avery was chosen as lead researcher for the project because of his reputation and skill with firearms, Lewinski told Force Science News. Founder of The Practical Shooting Academy, Inc., in Colorado, Avery has trained thousands of members and teams from a broad range of federal agencies, military special forces and law enforcement departments. He is himself a world-class shooter who has been involved in high-performance training and shooting for more than 26 years. During 2 days at the Milwaukee Academy, Avery tested 33 volunteers from the current recruit class as the project's first subjects. With the cooperation of the director, Lt. Stephen Basting, he was assisted by Academy firearms instructors Sgt. James MacGillis (rangemaster), Ofcr. Peter Pfau, and Ofcr. Greg Wagner. Other staff provided input as to the study's relevance and design. The volunteers' ages fell within the most common range of suspects who shoot LEOs. And, like officer killers, their previous experience with firearms ranged from never having held a handgun before to having received military training. Also, like typical assailants, most were male. First the recruits were assigned code numbers so their names could not be linked with any results. Then the team gathered important demographic data--not only the usual subject specifications (gender, age, race, size, etc.) but also unique information such as: --how frequently do they shoot or dry practice (if at all); --how many rounds do they fire and how long do they spend in an average session; --what is their grip strength and reaction time; --what competitive or sports shooting do they do; --what other athletics are they involved in; --do they participate in paintball or Airsoft shooting; --how often do they play video games where quick responses are required; --do they use a replica firearm in these games, and so on. "The idea," Avery says, "is to be able to see if there is any significant correlation between these factors and the subjects' hit probability." On the range, the recruits were given a .40-cal. Glock pistol loaded with live ammunition and positioned facing a stationary human-silhouette target designed specifically by Avery for the study. The unique target is overlaid by a subdued grid that permits each square inch to be assigned a number for data-collection purposes. Hits can then be weighted according to their probable effectiveness for inflicting fatal and nonfatal injury. [For a fuller description of the target, see FSN Transmission #38, sent 2/17/06.] Playing the role of assailants, the subjects were told to alternately hold the gun in positions officers commonly face on the street--behind a leg, behind the back, at head level--and then, upon hearing a tone signal, to swiftly bring the weapon to whatever firing position they choose and discharge 3 rounds "as fast as they can and as well as they can" at the "police officer" target within 1.7 seconds. That time frame fits most fatal shootings of police, according to Avery's research and experience, and is intended to simulate circumstances in which an officer is taken by surprise. This was repeated at 15 different distances, ranging from within arm's reach between shooter and target out to approximately 25 yards. The subjects were told they could use any shooting technique they wanted (sighted or unsighted, 1- or 2-hand grip), so long as they started firing within 1 second of hearing the tone and finished by the 1.7-second deadline. Each subject fired a total of 45 rounds. Through a sophisticated computer analysis, any precise hit area on the target, vital or nonvital, can be correlated with any component in the demographic data base. "There are many correlations that will be interesting to assess," Lewinski says, "but the most important is expected to be the relationship between distance and accuracy: what is the likelihood of an officer being hit, particularly in a vital area, at any given distance. "We already know from other studies how fast an attacker can pull a gun from a waistband, for instance. But at what distances can he or she deliver accurate fire? And how far out can they continue to stay on target? In other words, what is their relative threat level at different distances when officers do not have time to fully assess the circumstances and take protective action?" "Knowing this could have a major impact on law enforcement," Avery explains. "We'll be better able to reliably identify high-threat zones. Among other things, this could influence the tactics an officer needs to use to defend himself, as well as help him articulate in court why he needed to take aggressive action when he was not able to see an assailant's hands or when a subject suddenly produced an object from hiding that turned out later not to be a deadly weapon." Already, Avery and Lewinski confirm, some surprising results have been noticed even from the small sample in Milwaukee. However, they decline to elaborate on any findings at this time so as not to contaminate or influence the additional testing yet to come in Phase 1. The researchers plan to repeat tests like those in Milwaukee with a number of cooperating agencies in different parts of the United States. Police departments in Austin, TX, and Cheyenne, WY, are expected to be next, with others added as the experimental base grows. In all, Avery estimates that several hundred subjects will be tested during Phase 1. Throughout Phase 1, a variety of sidearms used on the street will be employed and testers will record such variables as temperature, time of day, light readings, barometric pressure, distractions and environmental setting. More positions in which the assailants' gun may be initially hidden may also be added. Is it valid in this study to use as test subjects role players who are from different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds than most cop killers? FSN asked. Lewinski and Avery insist that it is. Of course there's the not insignificant problem of arming true felons with firearms in a research setting. But beyond that, Avery explains, "The decision to shoot a law officer is a mental phenomenon. We are not attempting to analyze psychological factors here. We are looking at physical abilities, and those relate to age, gender, training, and experience rather than criminal orientation. The diversity of our demographic profile will match just fine with those critical factors." Avery added, however, that in the process of testing "thousands of people" across the study's 3 phases, researchers do intend to involve "multiple strata of society," with volunteers ranging in age from 12 to 66. Phase 2, which at some point will begin and run concurrent with the continuation of Phase 1, will concentrate on documenting the relative effectiveness of various responses officers can employ against sudden incoming rounds. "Our previous studies of action/reaction times have established that officers are definitely behind the reactionary curve in surprise attacks," Lewinski explains. "Some are shot and killed before they can draw, others while trying to bring their gun on target, and still others manage to hit a suspect but the suspect still gets off one or more other shots that take them out. "Given whatever we're able to prove about suspect hit probability, what is likely to be an officer's best option for reacting to an unexpected shooting? Should he try to shoot and move? Move and shoot? Stand still and draw? Try empty-hand control tactics? How should his reaction vary for best results at different distances, once the correlation between distance and offender accuracy is established? "Right now no one knows, on the basis of scientific study, what the most advantageous technique is, what will most enhance an officer's survival at different distances, given a suspect's ability to deliver accurate fire and an officer's ability to return fire accurately. During Phase 2, we'll be testing a wide variety of officers from all over the U.S. to determine what response has the highest probability of working best, given certain variables." In Phase 3, months in the future, the focus will shift to training, as the researchers test what kind of instruction and reinforcement seem to best assure that officers will be conditioned to make the safest choices in the quickest time during the stress-ridden challenge of a sudden threat. Current training will get a hard look to see if, in light of the findings produced by Phases 1 and 2, it is realistically preparing officers for life-threatening encounters. Among other things, says Avery, "We'll be looking at what kind of training leads to greater hit probability for officers within the time frame of real gunfights. What firearms training is obsolete? What qualification courses are truly relevant to the reality of the street? What training programs really contribute to good shooting performance under combat conditions and which ones are essentially administrative rubber stamp programs designed to meet minimal state and federal requirements?" As head of the Rocky Mountain Training Institute, Avery is eagerly looking forward to developing guidelines and training based on the results of the research study. "Our goal," says Lewinski, "is to create some of the best research ever done about officer survival. We don't come to this project with preconceived notions about the results or with an interest in pushing an agenda. We simply want to find out more about officer-involved shootings, and see what science says about how we can better avoid or prepare to win them." ================ (c) 2006: Force Science Research Center, www.forcescience.org. Reprints allowed by request. For reprint clearance, please e-mail: info@forcesciencenews.com. FORCE SCIENCE is a registered trademark of The Force Science Research Center, a non-profit organization based at Minnesota State University, Mankato. ================ -- Stephen P. Wenger Firearm safety - It's a matter for education, not legislation. http://www.spw-duf.info .