CBSA & RCMP Course of Fire

Discussion for firearms and less-lethal equipment.
User avatar
Actus Reus
Grand Poobah
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2002 1:01 am
Location: A couple of pay grades above where I should be....
Contact:

Re: CBSA & RCMP Course of Fire

Postby Actus Reus » Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:23 am

I don't know very much about this topic, but I would never consider my armour to be foolproof. even if it does stop a round, the impact will still cause some damage. Any thoughts?
For by wise counsel thou shalt wage thy war.

Polizei
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:33 am
Contact:

Re: CBSA & RCMP Course of Fire

Postby Polizei » Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:17 am

Of cource. Armor is never "foolproof".
And the damage by the blunt-trauma depends on what typ of protective level you wear, what type of material the vest is made of and the weapon
that is used against you.
Here armor just get´s its rating if the blunt-trauma is not deeper then 40mm using a 9x19
I belive thet the US armor get´s its rating (IIIA) when the trauma is 44mm. The 4mm will not make the world stop in this case.
And I have not heard about a confirmed case were an officer was killed by the blunt-trauma, of a bullet that was supposed to be stopped by the
armor.
Its the same with the spare-mags. When I carry them I should not put them at my backside.
So when I wear armor I should not use a stance on perpose were I would face my weak-spot to the threat.
Nor would I wear armor over my uniform RCMP-Style.

User avatar
Dave Brown
Site Admin
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

Re: CBSA & RCMP Course of Fire

Postby Dave Brown » Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:06 pm

I teach modified isoceles for this very reason. Weaver is okay for tac officers who can spend hours and hours a month practicing to make it their dominant response in an emergency, or for those VERY rare officers who come in using the Weaver as their unconscious reaction because of years of competitive pistol training. (I have theory in firearms training that roughly translates into ... well, okay, it EXACTLY translates into "Don't fuck with what works.")

Tac officers are also wearing much heavier armour. The Weaver allows them to better hug walls and search rooms.

As for street officers, I would prefer them as close to straight on to threats as the normal interview stance allows. There have been no - at least as far as I can tell - documented cases of soft body armour ever failing to stop a round it was designed to stop. Body armour WORKS.

What doesn't work, of course, is when rounds go underneath, through the seam or through the arm hole. (To me, the most vulnerable part.) This is one of the reasons why I do not agree with alternative stances that 'blade' an officer toward a threat.

portcullisguy
Grand Poobah
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2001 1:01 am
Location: GTA
Contact:

Re: CBSA & RCMP Course of Fire

Postby portcullisguy » Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:32 pm

Dave Brown wrote:What doesn't work, of course, is when rounds go underneath, through the seam or through the arm hole. (To me, the most vulnerable part.) This is one of the reasons why I do not agree with alternative stances that 'blade' an officer toward a threat.


And, of course, almost all rifle ammunition -- which as you pointed out is not what typical law enforcement body armour was designed for anyway.
portcullisguy
"You work your side of the street, I'll work mine."

User avatar
PHB
King Poobah
Posts: 1838
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:28 am
Location: Cowboy Country
Contact:

Re: CBSA & RCMP Course of Fire

Postby PHB » Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:33 pm

Hoodwinkle wrote:When going through the course of fire, it felt very unnatural for me to be shooting in the isosceles stance and even more so when conducting interviews...I always reverted back to the bladed stance. :? I do agree with having as much of your body armour facing your opponent for obvious reasons.


Congrats on passing the course! I can't wait until I go!
RCMP Members Email this guy and leave the Legal Fund:

agclarke@istar.ca

For Our Future! http://www.mppac.ca PROUD UPSTART

User avatar
NightHawk
Veteran Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:37 am
Location: Nothin But Rain, BC
Contact:

Re: CBSA & RCMP Course of Fire

Postby NightHawk » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:20 am

Hoodwinkle wrote:
IrishCanadian wrote:
Hoodwinkle wrote:Thanks! It was fun and an eye opener. ;)


No, taking a swig of JD at 8am as a pick-me-up from the night before, prior to hitting the range doesn't count as an "eye opener" hood.


LOL...that only happened once...well maybe twice...but I blame the by-law wienie for dumping my beer the night before! :rant:




Were you chilliwack or connaught?
Looks like I need a new avatar...

LikethisFornow
Rookie Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Vancouver, BC
Contact:

Re: CBSA & RCMP Course of Fire

Postby LikethisFornow » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:08 pm

Dave Brown wrote:I teach modified isoceles for this very reason. Weaver is okay for tac officers who can spend hours and hours a month practicing to make it their dominant response in an emergency, or for those VERY rare officers who come in using the Weaver as their unconscious reaction because of years of competitive pistol training. (I have theory in firearms training that roughly translates into ... well, okay, it EXACTLY translates into "Don't fuck with what works.")

Tac officers are also wearing much heavier armour. The Weaver allows them to better hug walls and search rooms.

As for street officers, I would prefer them as close to straight on to threats as the normal interview stance allows. There have been no - at least as far as I can tell - documented cases of soft body armour ever failing to stop a round it was designed to stop. Body armour WORKS.

What doesn't work, of course, is when rounds go underneath, through the seam or through the arm hole. (To me, the most vulnerable part.) This is one of the reasons why I do not agree with alternative stances that 'blade' an officer toward a threat.


i hear what you're saying, but if you are in the proper interview stance that is taught to you in UoF training, you will already be bladed from the subject at about a 45 degree angle anyway. you should not be interviewing a subject while standing directly in front of him/her. therefore, i feel it is faster/easier (it is for me anyway) to draw and fire from that position than it is to draw and simultaneously turn my body toward an isosceles position and try to fire. i know there's a small gap on my left side, but i'd argue that by drawing faster and getting the shot off quicker, i'd be less at risk than someone who's taking longer to get into position and having the additional risks associated with drawing and moving at the same time. for me, they tried changing it at first, but being in a 'tac style' position worked best for me, so eventually they gave up after subscribing to your DFWWW theory. :D modified weaver it is!

User avatar
Dave Brown
Site Admin
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

Re: CBSA & RCMP Course of Fire

Postby Dave Brown » Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:40 pm

LikethisFornow wrote:i hear what you're saying, but if you are in the proper interview stance that is taught to you in UoF training, you will already be bladed from the subject at about a 45 degree angle anyway. you should not be interviewing a subject while standing directly in front of him/her. therefore, i feel it is faster/easier (it is for me anyway) to draw and fire from that position than it is to draw and simultaneously turn my body toward an isosceles position and try to fire. i know there's a small gap on my left side, but i'd argue that by drawing faster and getting the shot off quicker, i'd be less at risk than someone who's taking longer to get into position and having the additional risks associated with drawing and moving at the same time.
Exactly my point. DFWWW.

Interview stances can be anywhere from 10 degrees to 45 degrees, depending on where it's taught. The two basic principles are to have one foot slightly to the rear for better balance, and an angle to your hips to better protect your holster. All this can be accomplished with as little as 10 to 15 degrees.

The problem with a 45 degree angle is that it is hard to train the shooter to keep shoulders, hips and feet all at the same angle. As soon as there is a bit of twist, the body is torqued slightly and this violates one of the basic rules of a shooting stance that dictates the stance should be comfortable and natural. A 45 degree angle to the feet requires a Weaver stance at the shoulders and this is, as I said, difficult to train and almost impossible to imprint into the subconscious so it becomes the dominant response in an emergency. If the feet are at 45 degrees, many people tend to swing their bodies so their shoulders end up at 10 to 20 degrees, which can affect their ability to attain a 'natural' stance.

Another issue is that, sights aside, the round tends to go where the body wants it to go and where the eyes are directing it to go. (To prove the importance of a good stance, and its contribution to muscle memory, we can show shooters in dry fire practice how they can hit dead center with their eyes closed, simply by pivoting the angle of the forward foot less than an inch right or left.) If the body is twisted anywhere, this muscle memory effect is lost.

That being said, I would still take a shooter who's natural stance is different from the norm and an unconscious response over someone who is textbook perfect but not comfortable with it. But as I said, this is quite rare.

And you are quite right that it is critical to be able to draw and fire from the stance you are already likely to be in than to try to move your feet, hips and shoulders into some awkward angles while someone is trying to kill you. Another "Davebrown-ism" in training says that the most accurate shot in the world won't win too many gunfights; nor will the fastest shot in the world. Gunfights are likeliest to be won by the first accurate shot. Shooting under stress will always involve a balance between speed and accuracy.

I therefore cannot argue with what works for you.

Besides, we are talking small differences. The biggest objections I have are stances that blade the body as much as 90 degrees to the threat. This is one we can almost all agree is a pretty dumb idea, especially if you consider it fails ALL our tests: it exposes the weakest part of the SBA to the threat; it is totally non-instinctive, AND it requires the officer to move to a totally different and unnatural position before they can shoot.

User avatar
bigbadjoe108
Seasoned Member
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:07 pm
Contact:

Re: CBSA & RCMP Course of Fire

Postby bigbadjoe108 » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:00 am

I know I don't have the experience of many of the other instrutors on this site, but I do have a personal experience from instructing an individual who was taught to shoot in the weaver stance originally. He was a pretty good shot, but on the 2 second 7 meter stage three, his shots would drift to the right of the 5 point zone and sometimes find a way into the 3 and 2. When I had him shoot from an isoceles, he was dead on for every shot.

Maybe just one man, but I am thinking with stance being one of the big 4, this could be some evidence! I know I like dead on for myself!
VVV


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest