Tactical Disarmament: Most Dangerous Option

By Derrick D. Bartlett
Tactical Shooter 1999

click for larger image

Ft. Lauderdale SWAT snipers on line preparing to conduct test.

Several years ago, a sharpshooter in the Midwest saved an individual from killing himself by shooting the revolver from his hand with a .308 sniper rifle. This was a shot heard throughout the sniper community. Everywhere, snipers, tactical commanders, and departmental administrators debated and discussed the pros and cons of this controversial tactic. Some were impressed with the success in this instance, and felt it was a tactic which merited practice and consideration. Others took a more skeptical stand, taking time to recognize the dangers inherent in this course of tactical action.

The shot in the Midwest was absolutely perfect. Everything went as well as anyone could have hoped. The shot struck the weapon at precisely the right point; the weapon broke apart and was rendered inoperable. The subject holding the gun was unharmed. No bystanders were hurt by flying debris or bullet fragments. And the subject was not carrying a second weapon. He sat quietly and waited until assault team members took him to the ground and into custody.

Of course, the team responsible took full credit for the success of their operation. The sniper claimed to be able to place his shots "within a thirty-second of an inch." Pretty amazing when one considers all of the uncontrollable factors, which influence a shot. (Strangely, even manufacturers of the finest sniper rifles guarantee no greater than a quarter minute of angle accuracy from their weapons. A minor detail.) He knew exactly where to strike the weapon to make it inoperable, send the parts in a safe direction and did it from 65 yards away. Quite the accomplishment. Skill, luck, or a fortuitous blend of both?

What else could have happened? On another day, with another sniper shooting at another weapon, how might the story have ended? This particular incident was highly publicized, appearing in local and national news reports. However, other less publicized incidents have met with less perfect results.

The idea of keeping an individual from killing himself by shooting at him is frightening, dangerous, and in most states, illegal. Although Snipercraft has been clearly against the use of this tactic from the beginning, we felt it was important to conduct an objective study to document the facts which support our belief. To accomplish this, we set up a controlled series of tests and recorded our results for analysis. Armed with additional facts, decisions regarding the employment of this tactic can be made from a position of knowledge.

Ours is not the first test of this type; nor is it the definitive, comprehensive study on the topic. It was not our intention to develop a chart of statistical probabilities for various outcomes. We only shot at 20 different weapons. Percentages generated from this sampling would be irrelevant. Instead, the strength of this study comes from a review of the highlights among our test shots. Our tests were intended to collect empirical data, and to show the full spectrum of possible outcomes.

To conduct our tests, we constructed a clamping device. This was a platform made of 5/8 inch plywood, to which two steel vises were bolted. These would be used to hold the test weapons in place. Certainly, the vise would hold the weapon a lot firmer than any person would grip it, however, for safety purposes, we wanted to control the movement of the weapons after they were impacted by our shots. This control was appreciated after the first firearm discharged on impact.

Cardboard panels, covered with blank white paper, were set up on three sides of the clamping device. These "witness panels" would help us document the flight of any fragments, debris, and bullets.

We fired shots at a variety of weapons, including revolvers, semi-automatic handguns, rifles, shotguns, and a derringer. We also included several types of knives and machetes in the test. To my knowledge, this is the first time edged weapons have been included in this type of study. Having seen a number of standoffs in which the suicidal subject was armed with a knife, we felt the inclusion of edged weapons was relevant and practical.

The entire test was documented by a member of the Fort Lauderdale Police Video Unit. Videotapes and digital still photographs were taken of each shot and its aftermath.

The shots were taken by four members of the Fort Lauderdale Police SWAT/Sniper team. Three snipers used bolt action .308 rifles. One shooter used a .223 AR-15. The distance was 25 yards. This was done, in part, to help ensure accurate shot placement at precise aim points on the targeted weapons. It was also a concession to the limitations of the video camera. With the zoom at its highest setting, 25 yards was the maximum distance from which the video operator could get clear pictures. Anticipating the possibility of flying debris, we didn’t want to place the camera (and the operator) too close.

With everything in place, we began our testing. We started learning lessons of great value from the very outset.

First, we were made aware of the difficulty of placing the perfect shot. Each weapon was held stationary in a clamping device. The shooters fired from supported positions 25 yards away from the weapons. Even under these controlled circumstances, some of the shooters failed to place their first shots exactly on designated aim points. This proved to us shooting a weapon from a hand, which could be moving in a random fashion, at any practical distance, is as much luck as it is skill. Don’t kid yourselves. Such a shot in real life leaves no margin for error.

What follows is a review of significant findings from our tests:

• Shooting a 5" buck knife with a .308 rifle, the bullet struck the hardened steel blade exactly on target. The bullet disintegrated after impact. The blade broke up into several large fragments, some of which imbedded themselves in the witness panels.

• The same results happened when a 5" dagger was shot with a .223. Again, the bullet disintegrated, and the knife blade broke into large pieces. Pieces were recovered in a 360-degree arc around the platform.

  Another exploded cylinder.  Note results of sympathetic detonations of nearby cartridges.  The gun is practically destroyed as a result.

• A 5" Boy Scout knife was shot with a .308. The point of impact was where the blade and handle met. The handle broke away, with a large segment traveling through one of the witness panels. The blade fragmented as others had. The blade tip was propelled about 12 feet straight up, made a lazy arc, and returned to embed itself point first in the wooden platform holding the clamps.

  Shotgun, shot in half.  Bullet struck just behind loaded chamber.

• Shooting an 8" butcher knife surprised us. The .308 round made a clean, through and through hole in the soft steel. The intact bullet punched an equally clean hole in the cardboard backer beyond the knife. We duplicated this result while shooting at two machetes, first with another .308, then with a .223. On the shots with the .308, the bullets separated from their jackets, evidenced by two distinct holes in the witness panel. Not only might your bad guy not be disarmed by your shot, but people downrange now have to be concerned about errant projectiles. Definite food for thought.

  This shotgun was struck in the bolt/chamber area.  Large fragments went in several directions.  Again, note amount of displaced metal at exit site.

• Shots fired at a pair of shotguns yielded spectacular, but misleading, results. A .308 was fired at the bolt area of a full stock, single shot, Mossberg shotgun. The impact broke the gun in half. There were, of course, fragments of the weapon and the bullet, in the witness panels. A similar shot at the trigger housing of a second shotgun also destroyed the weapon. However, several large, steel fragments flew away from the impact point with such velocity, they completely penetrated the 5/8" piece of plywood which held the clamps.

• A loaded .38 revolver was placed in the vise with the hammer cocked. A shot striking just under the cylinder caused the hammer to fall, and the gun to discharge.

• A .38 caliber revolver was shot in the cylinder with a .308. The gun was fully loaded, with the hammer down. The round under the hammer discharged. The round in the cylinder where the .308 bullet impacted also detonated. Both rounds blew out their respective primers. So, in addition to the expected shower of metal and lead fragments, there were two .38 caliber bullets flying away at a 90-degree angle.

• We shot a cocked and locked Colt .45 Government Model. The gun was loaded, and the grip safety was taped down, simulating its condition if held in someone’s hand. With a .308 shot striking the slide, near the ejection port, the gun discharged. Once again, an errant lead projectile is added to the usual shower of lead and metal.

• Simulating a real life shot, which happened recently on the West Coast, an Astra 9mm handgun was shot with a .308 through the grip area. Although the magazine was damaged, the gun was still functional, and capable of firing the round in the chamber.

• Finally, we shot a loaded .38 caliber derringer using a .223. The round struck the weapon just above the trigger area. Amazingly, the .223 round broke up and did not penetrate the derringer. Instead, the derringer popped open, and one of the two rounds detonated.

In a perfect world, on a perfect day, a single shot from a high-powered rifle can surgically remove and neutralize a weapon held in the hand of a suicidal subject. There will be no injuries caused by the bullet fired or secondary missiles. No bystanders will be endangered by errant rounds and sympathetic discharges. If only we worked in a perfect world.

If you or your agency is giving thought to using tactical disarmament as a tactical option, be aware of the possible consequences and outcomes.

The targeted weapon is probably going to be in motion, and partially obscured by the hand of the person wielding it. The weapon is already a small target. In the case of firearms, the point which needs to be struck in order to completely disable it, is even smaller.

The sniper will be shooting a frangible, lead projectile at a steel object, possibly containing explosive cartridges. When the weapon is struck, there is going to be substantial fragmentation, a mixture of metal and lead. Displaced metal will fly away from the point of impact at all angles, and at speeds in excess of 1000 feet per second. Those fragments will vary in size, but many will be large enough, and traveling fast enough, to lacerate, blind or kill. There will be no way of predicting or controlling the extent, speed or direction of the fragmentation.

In the case of loaded firearms, there is a strong possibility it will discharge after being impacted by a rifle shot. The rounds discharged by the weapon will also depart in unpredictable directions. By firing the shot, the sniper will possibly place everyone in the vicinity at risk of injury or worse, including the person he is trying to "save".

This is not meant to imply something bad will happen when attempting to shoot a weapon from someone’s hand. It simply means something bad can happen.

Knowing beforehand the high level of risk involved in employing tactical disarmament, any agency choosing to use it had better have an unlimited supply of money on hand. There is no way to guarantee the safety of anyone at the scene of such a shooting. The final outcome of this type of use of force is almost completely random. Avoiding injury or death is simply beyond the control of the shooter. Consider carefully whether or not this is still a viable tactical option. Careers, reputations and lives may be riding on your final decision.

All photos courtesy of John Lashua, Technical Services Unit, Fort Lauderdale Police Department, and Snipercraft.

My thanks to the Fort Lauderdale Police Evidence Unit for supplying the test weapons, John Lashua, Technical Services, for providing the videotape and digital photos, and the FLPD SWAT snipers, for putting in the time to conduct these tests.

Any agency wanting copies of the study or the videotape can contact me at Snipercraft, 954-389-0829, or e-mail SniperZ2@aol.com.