Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Glynco, yup.

 d-usa wrote:
Shooting qualification is pretty lax for many agencies. And I think for quite a few people the annual qualification may be the only time they shoot at all. Our 9mm qualifying was 21 out of 30 hits at 7 yards, with out course of fire consisting of a variety of different shooting scenarios (things like "from holster, fire 3 shots in 4 seconds, fire 3 shots - emergency reload - 3 shots in 10 seconds, and a couple other things). I've done plenty of handgun shooting before, so that wasn't much of a problem and I managed to get all 30 shots on target and scored 145 out of 150 points.

very nice!

I've always been curious to see what kind of numbers there are on innocent bystanders being hit by police or private citizens legally defending themselves. When I tried to google it in the past I didn't find anything useful.

I'm guessing it's pretty rare, but without any numbers I really have no idea. (I'm definitely NOT trying to make the argument that proficiency is unimportant.)

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I've always been curious to see what kind of numbers there are on innocent bystanders being hit by police or private citizens legally defending themselves. When I tried to google it in the past I didn't find anything useful.

I'm guessing it's pretty rare, but without any numbers I really have no idea. (I'm definitely NOT trying to make the argument that proficiency is unimportant.)

Police: All Empire State shooting victims were wounded by officers
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/


Nearly Two Dozen Bystanders Struck in Police Shootings Since 2010: NYPD
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160519/midtown/nearly-two-dozen-bystanders-struck-police-shootings-since-2010-nypd


What Happens After the Police Shoot Innocent Bystanders?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/what-happens-when-the-police-shoot-bystanders

'I'm so sorry': Australian police probed after shooting 3 bystanders
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/asia/australia-police-shoot-3-bystanders/

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I've always been curious to see what kind of numbers there are on innocent bystanders being hit by police or private citizens legally defending themselves. When I tried to google it in the past I didn't find anything useful.

The police are not required to report fatal shootings, let alone nonfatal ones, so it's impossible to know how many people are shot or killed by the police every year for sure.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Not to derail this thread, or bash members of law enforcement, but a while back I was reading an article that many police departments now have a required IQ range for applicants. Too smart or too dumb and you can't be a cop.

One city's target IQ range was 85 to 110. I mean.... 85 is literally half-way to mentally handicapped.

aye, while its not a universal thing, some departments did turn away applicants judged "too smart". A federal court ruled it allowable IIRC in 2000. Not sure if that is still current practice anywhere or not.

I've had sort of the same thing happen with a Masters degree ("you're overqualified, go away", "my rent statement *reaaaaally* does not care if I'm overqualified on paper, I wouldn't have applied if I didnt want the job...")

More worryingly is the shooting requirements, as earlier noted. The NYPD apparently can miss like 12 shots off target out of 50 at 7 yards and qualify...

On top of that the NYPD custom orders their Glocks with 12lb triggers to match their old double action revolvers from 30+ years ago so they dont have to change their training...and then they wonder why the NYPD has issues putting rounds on target

The problem with NYPD (hence 12lb triggers) was they were riding their triggers after clearing their holsters as well as re-holstering and shooting themselves. So of course, the answer was to force Glock to install 12lb triggers. You cant make that stuff up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I've always been curious to see what kind of numbers there are on innocent bystanders being hit by police or private citizens legally defending themselves. When I tried to google it in the past I didn't find anything useful.

The police are not required to report fatal shootings, let alone nonfatal ones, so it's impossible to know how many people are shot or killed by the police every year for sure.

Not sure about that, but I do know for sure that they are not held responsible for shooting bystanders in the course of their duties. But should a non-badged shooter shoot a bystander, that shooter should be ready to be loved tenderly by the DA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Shooting qualification is pretty lax for many agencies. And I think for quite a few people the annual qualification may be the only time they shoot at all. Our 9mm qualifying was 21 out of 30 hits at 7 yards, with out course of fire consisting of a variety of different shooting scenarios (things like "from holster, fire 3 shots in 4 seconds, fire 3 shots - emergency reload - 3 shots in 10 seconds, and a couple other things). I've done plenty of handgun shooting before, so that wasn't much of a problem and I managed to get all 30 shots on target and scored 145 out of 150 points.

Are they throwing in snap caps to simulate stoppages as well?

if you were interested on the police not being required to report shootings thing I mentioned earlier, but we're probably moving pretty far off-topic now.

Thanks for the links, I'll have to do some reading.

We did not have snapcaps during qualifying, but we did run drills with them in random order in our magazine to practice clearing them during different drills.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Not to derail this thread, or bash members of law enforcement, but a while back I was reading an article that many police departments now have a required IQ range for applicants. Too smart or too dumb and you can't be a cop.

One city's target IQ range was 85 to 110. I mean.... 85 is literally half-way to mentally handicapped.

aye, while its not a universal thing, some departments did turn away applicants judged "too smart". A federal court ruled it allowable IIRC in 2000. Not sure if that is still current practice anywhere or not.

I've had sort of the same thing happen with a Masters degree ("you're overqualified, go away", "my rent statement *reaaaaally* does not care if I'm overqualified on paper, I wouldn't have applied if I didnt want the job...")

More worryingly is the shooting requirements, as earlier noted. The NYPD apparently can miss like 12 shots off target out of 50 at 7 yards and qualify...

On top of that the NYPD custom orders their Glocks with 12lb triggers to match their old double action revolvers from 30+ years ago so they dont have to change their training...and then they wonder why the NYPD has issues putting rounds on target

Is that the serious qualification? only hitting 38 out of 50 shots at 7 yards????? Please tell me this is an exaggeration. I don't train that much and I could do that one-handed, left hand at that, with a mild cross wind.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Not to derail this thread, or bash members of law enforcement, but a while back I was reading an article that many police departments now have a required IQ range for applicants. Too smart or too dumb and you can't be a cop.

One city's target IQ range was 85 to 110. I mean.... 85 is literally half-way to mentally handicapped.

aye, while its not a universal thing, some departments did turn away applicants judged "too smart". A federal court ruled it allowable IIRC in 2000. Not sure if that is still current practice anywhere or not.

I've had sort of the same thing happen with a Masters degree ("you're overqualified, go away", "my rent statement *reaaaaally* does not care if I'm overqualified on paper, I wouldn't have applied if I didnt want the job...")

More worryingly is the shooting requirements, as earlier noted. The NYPD apparently can miss like 12 shots off target out of 50 at 7 yards and qualify...

On top of that the NYPD custom orders their Glocks with 12lb triggers to match their old double action revolvers from 30+ years ago so they dont have to change their training...and then they wonder why the NYPD has issues putting rounds on target

Is that the serious qualification? only hitting 38 out of 50 shots at 7 yards????? Please tell me this is an exaggeration. I don't train that much and I could do that one-handed, left hand at that, with a mild cross wind.

I can't say for 100% sure, it could be something different, the NYPD will not publish nor officially comment on their shooting qualifications. However, I've heard that from two former NYPD officers in person at different times and a number of other sources. I had heard the 12lb trigger thing in reference to matching old revolver triggers, Spacemanvic's explanation about them riding triggers also makes sense (horrifyingly) but wasn't one I'd heard before so there could be something similar with shooting quals.

But yeah, if true, I'd hate to see who couldn't manage that.

It seems about right. Our qualification with rifle is heavily influenced off of law enforcement qualifications. We have to hit 48 out of 60 shots. I can't remember what the qualification for handguns was but it was pretty silly too. Even my CCW/CHP class was more difficult and it was a joke as well. Qualifications for armed professionals are extremely relaxed and I believe it should be beefed up some. If you are missing 12 shots at 25 yards with a rifle, you are going to miss a lot more under stress. When I'm in uniform or as a civilian on the street, I am accountable for every single bullet that comes out of my gun. This is why I take additional training, paid for out of my own pocket.

I've seen people fail our quals before, sometimes they were just having a really bad day. Other times the person had no business having a gun in their hands. I've noticed law enforcement and private security companies not spending nearly enough time training their officers. They bring them out 2-4 times a year to qualify and that's it.

Owning a gun is one thing, but train with it regularly. Shooting is a parishable skill and needs to be maintained.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Not to derail this thread, or bash members of law enforcement, but a while back I was reading an article that many police departments now have a required IQ range for applicants. Too smart or too dumb and you can't be a cop.

One city's target IQ range was 85 to 110. I mean.... 85 is literally half-way to mentally handicapped.

aye, while its not a universal thing, some departments did turn away applicants judged "too smart". A federal court ruled it allowable IIRC in 2000. Not sure if that is still current practice anywhere or not.

I've had sort of the same thing happen with a Masters degree ("you're overqualified, go away", "my rent statement *reaaaaally* does not care if I'm overqualified on paper, I wouldn't have applied if I didnt want the job...")

More worryingly is the shooting requirements, as earlier noted. The NYPD apparently can miss like 12 shots off target out of 50 at 7 yards and qualify...

On top of that the NYPD custom orders their Glocks with 12lb triggers to match their old double action revolvers from 30+ years ago so they dont have to change their training...and then they wonder why the NYPD has issues putting rounds on target

Is that the serious qualification? only hitting 38 out of 50 shots at 7 yards????? Please tell me this is an exaggeration. I don't train that much and I could do that one-handed, left hand at that, with a mild cross wind.

Yea thats kind of a joke. But then again, this is for a poisitoin in the prison system correct? Firearms use as a priority is probability about #27 in what he would need.

The lady I bought my Redhawk .44 mag from found the original wooden grips and gave them to me. They're a lot thinner front-to-back than the Pachmyr grips that were on there and feel a lot better in my hand. The better fit seemed to cut down a lot on perceived recoil.


I'm missing 2-3 ducks today. Looks like I'm going to be sleeping out where I can see the run again. Not a good time for my AR to be down. I hope my cat is up to the task again, as the dogs are worthless.

That looks awesome

Hah, yes! Wooden grips/stock all the way!

My sweetheart of a brother got a Remington 7400 30-06 from a guy at work for free. He already has a really nice 30-06 and decided to give it to me. So now I have a pretty nice 30-06. It has the original wood on it and I like its look but Im also thinking of getting a synthetic stock and making it look more modern. It certainly made my day

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
The lady I bought my Redhawk .44 mag from found the original wooden grips and gave them to me. They're a lot thinner front-to-back than the Pachmyr grips that were on there and feel a lot better in my hand. The better fit seemed to cut down a lot on perceived recoil.


I'm missing 2-3 ducks today. Looks like I'm going to be sleeping out where I can see the run again. Not a good time for my AR to be down. I hope my cat is up to the task again, as the dogs are worthless.

Color me green with envy, that is a classy firearm.

What does the recoil feel like on a .44mag. Having a large hand-cannon is something I've been wanting to add to my collection, and I'm trying to decide on a caliber. .44 mag is at the top of my list, as the ammo is the most readily available.

 cuda1179 wrote:
What does the recoil feel like on a .44mag. Having a large hand-cannon is something I've been wanting to add to my collection, and I'm trying to decide on a caliber. .44 mag is at the top of my list, as the ammo is the most readily available.

My model 29 kicks a fair bit. However it is so heavy that it will knock you off target (in cool cowboy in the air fashion) but is not painful. Redhawks/blackhawks are even heavier.
Whats painful to me are small pistols. The weight to recoil is actually substantially higher for the micros.

One of the girls in my class was scared of the Glock 17 because "it's so heavy" and kept on complaining that they should have a lighter gun for people like her because the recoil on the big gun is going to be painful.

Quite a few of us tried explaining to her that small guns usually have worse recoil, but we didn't get anywhere. I like my LCP, but the tiny gun with the tiny .380 ammo gives me a beat up wrist after a day on the range.

When learnen da peeps I always start with a nice .22 pistol, then move up the food chain as they get bored. I never introduce a mini gun (I am not a fun of them at all). The most smallest I will go is to introduce them to my mom's old .380 llama (browning and I think Rock River have an equivalent). Its a scaled down 1911 with an actual locked breech mechanism and is a major soft shooter. Blowback .380s just recoil unforgivably due to the weight.

I did cheat once and had someone who had a real mental block shoot a .22 until they were comfortable, then had them shoot "bigger" .22 which was really a Browning Hi Power clone and they loved it.

I have a preference for wood myself, but I do own a lot of synthetic stuff.

 Frazzled wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
What does the recoil feel like on a .44mag. Having a large hand-cannon is something I've been wanting to add to my collection, and I'm trying to decide on a caliber. .44 mag is at the top of my list, as the ammo is the most readily available.

My model 29 kicks a fair bit. However it is so heavy that it will knock you off target (in cool cowboy in the air fashion) but is not painful. Redhawks/blackhawks are even heavier.
Whats painful to me are small pistols. The weight to recoil is actually substantially higher for the micros.

This is pretty accurate in my experience. With a "normal" .44 mag load in a full-sized revolver it jumps a lot but isn't painful. A person might not want to shoot a full box at a time, but shooting a dozen or two rounds isn't too bad.

Of course, there is a lot of variance when it comes to the revolvers themselves and how hot they're loaded. Some of the smaller .44 mag revolvers are extremely unpleasant to shoot, while some of the light .44 magnum loads don't feel much different than a .45 ACP in a big, heavy revolver.

I used to shoot magnum revolvers more regularly, but for the past ~11 years I was mostly shooting semi-autos. I can definitely tell the magnum revolvers bother me more than they used to.

I have fitted a SUSAT onto my .300 Blackout upper

Not sure why, but it came up at a good price and I wanted a 4 power scope for it, so I went for it...



Loading some rounds up later, going to the range on Sunday to get it zeroed.

That looks like it is mounted way too far backwards to use with the stock in your shoulder and a good cheek weld.

It does look that way, but the eye relief on a SUSAT is about 1/4 inch

 Slinky wrote:
It does look that way, but the eye relief on a SUSAT is about 1/4 inch

That's pretty nuts.

That SUSAT mount...O_o

Like, the bolt action AR thing doesn't bother me, love those Magpul fixed stocks, the suppressor setup is neat, but that SUSAT setup, even if functional, just looks...weird

The LOP looks crazy long on that.

I agree the aesthetics are odd, particularly as we're all used to the look of an AR with ACOG mounted etc.

But if you see this pic:



You will see why the mount is that way for a SUSAT to be used on the AR. I will see how I get on tomorrow, but it points nicely, and I like the simple pointed post reticle.