1911A takes down a Zero ?

police get lots of firearms training and practice......but I don't know how many times I've seen them miss a large man at close range that is barely moving or not at all ..

Kodiak, you even agree in this thread

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/55222-take-cover-or-watch-the-show/

also there is a link to policeman hitting his partner! killing an innocent woman and not killing/ ''hitting'' the target, in the above WW2F thead

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/nyregion/firing-at-man-in-times-square-police-wound-two-bystanders.html?_r=0 here a large man missed!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/nyregion/firing-at-man-in-times-square-police-wound-two-bystanders.html?_r=0 84 shots 83 misses !

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/02/stockton-police-fired-more-than-600-rounds/#

how many times have you've seen a picture like this vehicle in above link?? rounds all over the place..or many shots fired and no kill shot??

sure devoted shooters who practice a lot , not under stress, can do it, .....but you said with a ''little'' practice and ''patience''...this is what I disagree with
if you take the average guy and give him even a lot of practice, it is hard to hit a moving man at 50m....it's hard to hit center mass, as in the above link and last link...even a stationary target
I've read many times of police firing multiple rounds with no kill shot, or if a kill shot, many of the other rounds were misses or non-fatal hits.....they fire many times with not many center mass hits, as seen in links above....

''ew York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.
In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.''

that's just a hit rate, not a center mass rate......from link below bold and italics mine

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/nyregion/two-shot-in-mount-vernon-amid-new-york-city-police-investigation.html

here they hit and kill an innocent bystander that they are not aiming at, but fail to kill the target they are aiming at....this is just like the other story in first link in above post...the cops kill an innocent woman and fail to kill/''hit'' the target

''A second team of undercover officers nearby shot at the robber as he fled, firing several rounds,''
bold and italics mine

from a quick search, I see a big drop from 50 to 100y for the 1911A1 mentioned in the initial story

your video illustrates why they call it max effective range...you will not be effective at 100m in combat or tactical situations....your rounds will not be effective....might get lucky
my math might be wrong, so please correct if so--whatever distance you are off at 25 yards, it's 4 times that at 100 yards? and that's without including the drop?

 

Police generally get terrible training and worse, they're handicapped with Glocks or similar firearms with awful triggers. Most cops aren't "gun guys" just guys issued a gun who only fire it annually to qualify. Cops that can shoot well, do so because they like to shoot and do so on their own time.

Again though, I'm not saying I necessarily believe it happened, just that it's plausible given the circumstances.

 

takes devotion, etc.. in boot camp, we snapped in for a whole week...that was a whole week of just doing the sitting, prone and standing positions over and over, etc...no firing....sight picture, over and over,....then we did a whole week of firing and qualified on the last day.....still a lot them did not make expert and some had to re-qualify...I think the self discipline is super important.....that was rifle though...we also did snap in with the 1911A1...yes, it seems like some people just don't ''want'' to do well, or ''can't''

 

they don't teach them breathing...2/3 out and hold...

 

sorry if I'm a little off topic....it's not an everyday occurance to be in a shootout...so not many people will be able to function ''properly''....you can train 24-7, but it's not the same....very, very dynamic...just think of the ''feeling'' of your life in danger....and now you have to attack or defend against the threat....more than one threat? innocents around? rounds flying near you, skipping and hitting nearby...
I don't think I worried about breathing on the timed fire for pistol.....but it was long ago, maybe I did..? .....any1 here concentrate on breathing when doing 'quick' fire? for accurate rifle shooting yes...we did do training on quick rifle shooting--I forget the exact training term.. ...no time to think about breathing.....point and fire --no aiming

 

I'd say it's generally just habit rather than discipline or training. I don't know if Baggett came from a shooting family or if he ever discussed that, but good shooting is more familiarity than a course of intensive training. You need to pick up your gun and shoot it, a lot. When you do that, it becomes less a matter of discipline and focus and turns into simple muscle memory. I suppose it's like driving - take a guy like me who has spent the best part of his life driving in rural Alaska and turn me loose in downtown Phoenix and it takes every bit of my concentration and focus not to end up running over a Prius, while for people who drive there every day it's like taking a walk in the park.
In the same vein, turn me loose with a pistol and a golf ball and I'll keep it jumping until it's out of sight.

We don't know if Baggett was a skilled shooter or just got lucky, or if he brought the plane down at all. I just think given the circumstances as described, it's certainly possible.

 

any math experts out there? with the round going 250m/s [825 fps ], plane going 100mph, at a distance of 75 meters at 45 degree angle at time of shot,, what distance lead would you need? just wondering
yes Kody, I have read that many times how you need to continuously practice shooting.....

 

I think much of what you and Bronk7 are debating is merely a matter of semantics. What he was describing with snapping in and discipline is basically a repetitive training process to instill muscle memory and make habitual, good marksmanship traits. Your stating good shooting is muscle memory and habit, same/same. I would disagree with "good shooting is more familiarity than a course of intensive training", most marksmanship instructors will tell you that it is easier to take someone that has never shot and make them an expert, than to take someone that has shot a lot, but has developed poor habits. The second case may initially be a decent shooter, but it is hard to make them into an excellent shooter. There is also a good amount of innate natural ability that can't be quantified, but is a factor. To some people it comes naturally and intuitively, it's how their brains are wired. They're the ones that with training and practice can become the exceptional ones. I've shot since I was old enough to hold a gun, fired expert during my time in the Marine Corps and Army, was even sent through a six week Special Operators Pistol Course, and still shoot a good bit. I'm a very good shot, I've worked with men that have insane skill levels, you watch them and think how the hell did they make that shot, (that's the innate natural ability I spoke of earlier, honed by years of training and practice). That said, I still doubt they could make the shot being discussed, unless lady luck stepped in.

 

Memo to Col. Bobimoto,

Did we plan for this contingency or should we sue for peace now?

The Prime Minister

 

Video here a while back showed a ww2 US training video on the 1911. They shot a German helmet from x number of yards away (normal combat range) and it put a large dent in it.
If the plane were coming towards , straight on, the .45 would have to travel through the windscreen.

Maybe i missed (99 problems) the part where the pilot was shot through his open canopy from the side/above (while turning his head to view parachutist ?).
parachutist...that sounds weird...parashootisst..paarashooist

 

Actually, I'm playing the simulation, even though I did have to restart twice because of omissions/errors I had made and didn't catch in my sandbox tests. The plan we came up with in conjunction with Gebirgsjaeger (General Nishio) for China is working excellently. The new TOE's are working well, and allow for a lot of tactical flexibility. They'll also be more powerful once we have the weapons and trained personnel to implement the squad TOE. They did manage to infiltrate a large KMT formation down to the coast and attacked a position I didn't have heavily defended. I resisted the urge to alter our operations in order to deal with this threat and sent an armored infantry, light tank QRF that I had refitting to relieve them. I had two naval surface action groups training in the Pescadores and thought what the hell, I'll send them to bombard the enemy troop concentration. Figured I could at least destroy some of their supply and disrupt any impending assault, giving the QRF more time to get there. It had better effect than I expected and was going to repeat, but found out I had insufficient port facilities and naval support forces to reload the 14" guns. Sent some engineers (to improve the port facilities) and additional naval support personnel to remedy the situation in the future. In the meantime I sent them to Shanghai where they married up with some AKE's I sent from Kagoshima, reloaded and returned. I have a longer turn around than from the Pescadores, but it is brutally effective. The poor Commonwealth troops on the coast of Malaysia are in for a beating when that balloon goes up. I'm running my BB's through in pairs now just practicing on the poor Nationalist troops that are now trapped. Building proficiency.
I do spend about 90% of my time on logistical fine tuning and industrial management, I'm gearing up the economy to full wartime footing, it's a calculated risk because I'm drawing down war stockpiles very quickly. If I take 65% or so of my SRA objectives as planned without appreciable delays I should be in good shape.

 

I think Poppy is on to something here. But it is pair-a-shootists

There was a second shooter, and he was on the grassy knoll. That's the guy that shot the pilot in the head.

 

The A6M did not have bullet proof glass installed at this time. The first A6M with bullet proof glass on the center windscreen would be the A6M5b Model 52-Otsu.

 

100 mph is ~145 ft/sec. The round will take .3 seconds to travel 75m. The plane will have traveled ~44 ft in that time bringing it ~30 ft closer and 30 ft tangential. I suspect however that the plane would have been flying a significantly lesser angle if the pilot wanted to make sure that he had shot the parachutist. Likely he would try to pass slightly to one side and below him. That could significantly decrease the amount of lead. I've seen people shoot small birds with a BB gun that would probably be harder shots. In any case I suspect that he wasn't shooting at the pilot but at the plane. From the description he had already planned what he was going to do before he would have known that the cockpit was open.

 

I'm with LWD, there is not a single suggestion in the story that he shot at a 45 degree angle. In fact, just the opposite - one of the few solid statements in the tale is that he took four shots and scored on the last shot. So, he was shooting at an approaching plane, a shallow angle. If not approaching, he doesn't have time to take four shots. I'll also point out that handgun training then, was one-handed with the pistol extended out straight armed, something he could do even with his left arm wounded. In fact, my old man, a WWII vet, taught me to shoot that way and I didn't do it differently until the USCG made me adopt the modern Weaver stance. So, he had every opportunity to shoot just as everyone shot pistols in that day.

One of the few other statements about the event is that the pilot had his canopy back and was coming in to verify he'd killed Baggett. Well, no way anyone is going slide the canopy back at 200 or 250 miles per hour, so he's making a slow pass which is something else that nudges it into possible.

I'll use the same analogy I used earlier. If I stand on the shoulder of a road with a car approaching a few lanes over at 100 miles per hour and I'm supposed to kill the driver... Well, that driver is going to be dead, likely on the first or second shot. Baggett, was dangling from a parachute which complicates the shot, but he had four opportunities so entirely plausible.

 

I remember reading an account, I think from North Africa, of a mortar dropping a round into the open hatch of a German tank (possibly a Tiger). That would seam to me to be at least on the same order of difficulty. If the tank was moving it would be even more difficult.

 

Well to make your analogy work you'd need to fire after jumping off the trailor of a tractor trailor truck driving at 12-15 miles an hour to simulate rate of descent and lateral drift. Don't have a clue how to simulate oscilation which would vary.

 

In my vagrant yoot, I made four (or three?) civilian jumps from a training place outside of Monroe, Michigan. I didn't pursue it because I couldn't really afford it, but back then in your training jumps you weren't strapped to a trainer, you just jumped on your own. Me and my buddy went through the mock landings - we jumped and rolled off of a four foot platform, etc. It was all pretty casual in those days. At any rate, I did the jumps in very mild weather - trainees could only jump when it was basically windless, so I recall making two or three trips for each jump. We'd drive all the way out there and the wind would just be slightly too high for people who didn't have the qual. At any rate, the training jumps had no free-fall, you just jumped and pulled the cord from whatever altitude it was - I don't recall how high that was - 5000 feet? There's a jerk and some oscillation, as you say, but then you just settle into a slow descent. I recall my buddy and I yakking back and forth and pointing at landmarks and places we knew. Your arms are completely free and you don't even feel the descent - more like hanging from a balloon. It's not until you get close to the ground and see the approach that you remember that you are descending and pull left or right to try and hit the marked spot, not that it mattered in those open corn fields around there.

I just don't think the parachute descent would be that big a deal, as long as the weather was mild. More like shooting out of an open elevator, if the conditions were good.

 

I've got over 100 jumps with military canopies, 5 of which are with the WWII era T-7, which should be similar to the canopy of a WWII aircrew chute. The reason you felt like you were floating is you have no frame of reference, that's why it seems the ground rushes up and smacks you. You don't sense it but that doesn't change the fact that you are moving vertically at a pretty fast clip. You also can't perceive your lateral drift because of no frame of reference. In your analogy you're stationary and all movement is by the target on a horizontal axis. In the incident we are discussing you have both the target and the shooter moving in both the horizontal and vertical simultaneously. In the analogy the shooter has frame of reference to judge speed, distance, closure rate, etc. of the target, not so in the actual event. And again you're standing still in the analogy, not moving at an unperceived rate of decent or lateral, diagonal movement. The brain uses a lot of incoming data to calculate a shot, if the data isn't present or improperly perceived it effects the shot placement. One of the reasons its harder to shoot at night, range estimation is inhibited, targets can appear closer or further away than they actually are.