Sheriffs demonstration of standard capacity mags Vs 10 and 6 capacity mags

page: 1
11

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...



a very informative video i stumbled upon today and i found it highly informative and love the fact that it corrects some of the often quoted gun myths that are brought up in the standard or "high capacity magazine ban" debate that i feel are soundly disproven in the above video.

some highlights for those that do not like to watch videos or can not due to being on mobile devices or at work

video starts off silently and shows a few tidbits of information on magazines( " denote text from video")

"Magazine capacity
Standard: as originaly designed for that firearm model
Extended:Larger then original design,Usually after market vs OEM
Restricted:Reduced to less then original design due to legal or regulatory requirement"

the video then continues to explain police shooting situations and compare them to civilian shooting situations
(further quotes from video)

"Civilians defending themselves frequently do so under conditions similar to those experienced by Police officers.
Most US law enforcement agencies have shifted to firearms with larger capacity magazines because:
70-80% of rounds fired by officers in lethal force encounters miss the intended target
many rounds that DO impact the target Fail to achieve immediate incapacitation"

and one final snipped before the real part of the video begins

using the NYPD as an example and remembering the above statistics(70-80% miss rate ) the video cites that in 2010 NYPD officers fired a total of 368 rounds to stop 24 attackers(6.5% hit rate) it is of note that 27% of these attacks required less then one shot ,it futher goes on to cite and example in which nypd(4 officers) inside of an apartment building fired 24 rounds and hit the suspect 3 times (14%hit to86%miss ratio) further of note in a seperate case in 2010 four officers fired 46 times hitting one suspect and wounding the other 21 times as well as 3 bystanders and i belive a few officers each.video then goes on for several more informative slides until about 1:45 seconds into the video the officer starts doing the comparison between standard(15 in this case),10 round and 6 round magazines in a pistol(glock by the looks of it)

the results are as follows for both shooters starting with the male shooter "jim" and then "Christy" each shooter for the pistol section shoots 30 rounds total with each type of magazine

in the first test jim fires 30 rounds(baseline for pistol test) from two standard capacity (15 rounds) mags in 20.64 seconds
for the second test jim has 3 ten round magazines(either standard or Restricted depending on state) and completes the test in 18.05 seconds(much faster then the two 15's and the estimated federal limit of magazine capacity)
Jim then does the test with 5 six round magazines(restricted) and completes the test in 21.45 seconds(1 second aprox difference between 2 15 round magazines) pretty informative if you ask me it is of note that the officer when starting off Christys test states that the first shooter was the more experienced of the two shooters(i read that as older) Christys results are as follows
time for 2 15 round magazines(standard) 22.90 seconds
time for 3 ten round magazines(standard or restricted depending on state) 25.51 seconds
time for 5 six round magazines(restricted) 26.93 seconds

the second test in the video inviolves an AR-15 and uses 20 rounds as the baseline for comparison with the test being 1 20 round mag and two 10 round mags

Jims time with 1 twenty round mag(standard or restricted depending on juristiction) 12.16 seconds
Jims time with 2 twenty round mags(standard or restricted depending on jurisdiction) 10.73 seconds(1.43 seconds faster)
Christys time with 1 twenty round mag was 12.26 seconds
and her time with 2 ten round magazines was 14.63 seconds

the next test is one i found quite interesting as it is them disproving(in my and the videos opinion) the common held myth that smaller magazines will increase the chances of taking out an armed shooter during a reload.and is a demonstration where the shooter fires then has to reload before a person standing to the side of them can get to them from 25 feet away,the runner starts when he percieves a reload and then stops when the next round is fired.

Jims results are as follows the runner got about nine feet until jim was able to reload time is not given so you will have to watch that part of the video.

Christys results are not stated but are shown

the third demonstration in the video is of a revolver and starts off with basic info on loading a revolver and a bit about their history then using a six shot revolver as an example you see a gentleman shooting at three targets with a bag on his hip,he then proceeds to pull (i couldnt count exactly) what looks like 5-6 revolvers from the bag and continually engage the targets until he is out of guns,what the officer refers to as a "new york reload" and what that means that in 18.80 seconds he fired 30 rounds from 6 shot revolvers by discarding them and grabbing another. thats 4.10 seconds faster then JIM could fire 2 fifteen round magazines from a Glock and done with revolvers.... ill let that sink in for all the anti gun people out there

the final test is a replca of what the army did in 1912 to test the colt 1911 pistol where you start with an empty pistol and have 3 Seven round magazines on a table,the object of which is to fire 21 rounds in 12 seconds.
they made the following changes to the standard test by adding target requirements(you have to aim not just spray and pray) and the time was as follows
Jim fired 21 rounds ON TARGET in 9.78 seconds(w three reloads) for comparisons sake jim fired 20 rounds in 12.26 seconds with the AR_15 and 14.63 seconds with a reload

i found this highly informative and figured with the ongoing debate some of our members would find this as interesting as i did




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


S&F OP! Well done.

The issue really boils down to nothing more than "People Control" to begin with. Notice how it started as "Gun Control", they got whooped on it, so they now use the term, "Gun Safety".

Ring a bell?

Drugs, Terrorists, Health, for anyone to say that the governments goal is not to have FULL CONTROL over our lives is insanity.......



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 

thank you for your reply
yeah i also like how the video was presented politely and to the point and not for lack of a better term "with screaming and yelling" ala alex jones style,firther more it refuted two key claims of the anti gunners that smaller magazines will lead to people being able to "take down an active shooter while unarmed" and that further restrictions to civilian's in regards to magazine capacity just serve to hurt us as opposed to criminals.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Good Thread.

And it has to be remembered, those stats don't take into account the misses due to the blind panic and terror being felt by say for example a lone woman at home, being attacked by several attackers in a surprise / shock situation.

She's likely to be terrified, in shock, and probably not going to be as experienced or trained to the same standard as a Police officer.

The miss rate would no doubt go up considerably then... standard capacity Vs. higher capacity in a situation like a home invasion, IS going to mean the difference between life and death, no doubt about it.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


exactly and i liked how they had a vetran trained shooter doing one side of the test and then a younger more inexpirneced shooter do them as well to almost explain it as Jim represents the police and military and highly trained gun owners responses where as Christys was more for the casual shooter(home owner) or those that do not put as much time into training as other people do so we could have a comparison for highly trained vs inexprienced but still competent if that makes any sense

thank you for your reply



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
This certainly does point out the non-seriousness of the arguments made by the anti-firearms crowd. It was professional and well thought out. Thanks to the people who made it and to the OP for sharing it here so I could find it. This will be used by everyone with any sense to drive the point home that gun control/safety legislation being proposed is about incremental power grab by the corporatist government minions.

I would also point out that the government is not a homogenous organization. There are good people that started out wanting to do good but you can not crawl into a barrel of bad apples and think you are going to somehow not rot yourself while you try and change it from its rotten inside core.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


It seems to me that many cops cannot hit the broadside of a barn from the inside when it comes to firing their firearms. Most lack the proper training because it is not in the city/county/state budget.

Training is key here. Otherwise you end up with the spray and pray folk. Up here in Cleveland, 137 rounds were recently fired at two people who were involved in a high speed chase. One of the LEOs actually jumped up upon the hood of the car and fired through the windshield. Tell me he wasn't freaking out somehow.

I never saw anything like that in Iraq.

It really does boil down to, training, training, training.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh my god I love that video.....

Star and flag, Op... Star... and.... Flag....


Note: I was extremely impressed with the 1911, 30 round, 3 clip demonstration... 9 seconds... wow.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


yeah and seeing that it was not just fast firing but accurate firing on the target near the end of the video made it all that much more impressive not bad for a 100 year design indeed



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


that is an important and often over looked point you bring up,cops cant train with out money to train and shoot and if they cant train and shoot they are far more likely to miss.

its something that will continue to effect not just police but private citizens with all this ammo panicking that is going on and with the price of ammo on the rise practicing is going to become a bit more expensive then is used to be for all of us.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
cdn2.cheaperthandirt.com... e-cap-mag-video-blogpost&utm_source=EmailDirect.com&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20130301-Chronicle+Campaign

found an additional link and more info the officers name in question is Sheriff Ken Campbell of Boone County, Indiana and evidently this video was funded by ArmaLite


Sheriff Ken Campbell of Boone County, Indiana, oversaw testing that magazine limitations have little or no effect on a shooter’s ability to deliver aimed fire. Funding for the video was provided by ArmaLite.


www.boonecountyindianasheriff.com... i guess he is also up for re-election soon
edit on 2-3-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Discussed earlier here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion in the above linked thread.
Thanks




**Thread Closed**


for future reference:

We Have A New Search Engine--Please Use It!





top topics
 
11

log in

join