Tueller Principle

[Charles L. Cotton]

[The Dallas LEO shooting thread was getting hijacked (my fault), so I wanted to start a new thread about the dangers of edged and impact weapons.]

I've run the Tueller Drill with many dozens of people of various skill levels. I've never had a single person get the first round off in as little as 21 feet. The average is over 30 feet. Jim and I ran it in a class a few weeks ago using a girl that had very good gun handling skills. The runner was young, but he wasn't a track star either. The first round went off at 11 yards (marked by dropping a weighted towel) and the second round went off at a whopping 17 yards. That 33' and 51' respectively folks!!

Also, our shooter was drawing from a holster; ladies, imagine what those distances would be with a purse. Carry your gun on you; your purse is for lipstick, hair brush, loose change, cell phone, kitchen sink . . .

Chas.

[Moby]

Not really a fair comparison respectfully sir.
1. The officers had their weapons drawn and aimed. Not holstered.
2. The man had his hands at his side and did not take a step forward.

I just don't believe it was a clean shoot.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Not really a fair comparison respectfully sir.
1. The officers had their weapons drawn and aimed. Not holstered.
2. The man had his hands at his side and did not take a step forward.

I just don't believe it was a clean shoot.

Read my post on the Dallas LEO thread and you'll see I fully agree with you regarding the Tueller Principle. It looks bad for the officer(s) based upon their alleged statement that the man "lunged at" them before he was shot. That said, I'm withholding judgment until the investigation is finished.

Chas.

[Waco1959]

Older but interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

[Excaliber]

Not really a fair comparison respectfully sir.
1. The officers had their weapons drawn and aimed. Not holstered.
2. The man had his hands at his side and did not take a step forward.

I just don't believe it was a clean shoot.

Read my post on the Dallas LEO thread and you'll see I fully agree with you regarding the Tueller Principle. It looks bad for the officer(s) based upon their alleged statement that the man "lunged at" them before he was shot. That said, I'm withholding judgment until the investigation is finished.

Chas.

I agree with Charles.

The video directly contradicts the alleged statement of the officers on a clear point of fact that is not dependent upon viewer positioning. We don't know if the suspect made verbal threats or not. However, in the absence of the suspect's movement toward the officers, I don't see justification for deadly force under the circumstances as reported and the content of the video. I recognize that some types of perceptions are often inaccurate under life threatening stress, but it's still hard for me to understand how they could have perceived a gross movement described as a lunge when the camera didn't see anything like that.

The fact that Dallas PD has dropped aggravated assault charges against the man who was shot provides a hint of where the investigation is likely to go.

With that said, I wasn't there and the investigation is ongoing. I also do not feel comfortable drawing a conclusion based on partial information, especially so soon after the event when history indicates that some of the things reported as facts are likely to change after further scrutiny.

[carlson1]

[The Dallas LEO shooting thread was getting hijacked (my fault), so I wanted to start a new thread about the dangers of edged and impact weapons.]

I've run the Tueller Drill with many dozens of people of various skill levels. I've never had a single person get the first round off in as little as 21 feet. The average is over 30 feet. Jim and I ran it in a class a few weeks ago using a girl that had very good gun handling skills. The runner was young, but he wasn't a track star either. The first round went off at 11 yards (marked by dropping a weighted towel) and the second round went off at a whopping 17 yards. That 33' and 51' respectively folks!!

Also, our shooter was drawing from a holster; ladies, imagine what those distances would be with a purse. Carry your gun on you; your purse is for lipstick, hair brush, loose change, cell phone, kitchen sink . . .

Chas.

I am not for sure when the Tueller Drill came out, but in 1982 we were taught how quick someone with a knife could be on top of you in the Academy. The best I remember it was the 21 foot rule.

I had some youth in 1982, but now with my health and disability I have mentally extended that 21 foot rule. I have always been more afraid of being cut than shot.

[Jumping Frog]

Tueller was an optimist.

First, a lot of people misunderstand what Tueller's findings were. The editors at Force Science Institute state is as:

[EDITOR'S NOTE: For the record, the 21-Foot Rule, when accurately stated, says that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with an edged weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet. Thus, when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet you need to have your gun out and ready to shoot before he starts rushing you or else you risk being set upon and injured or killed before you can draw your sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.]

Force Science News issue #239 from the Force Science Institute recently retested sprint times using male and female test subjects to assess police officer implications for distances other than 21 feet.

Stride length study results are here: http://www.forcescience.org/sprintstudy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stride length. Sprinting straight forward from a starting position, the average subject (let’s say a suspect charging toward an officer) covers more than 3 feet in his first stride. His third step stretches out to more than 4 feet, and by his sixth stride he’s closing distance at more than 5 feet per stride.

Step time. The average forward sprinter takes a first step in about a third of a second and follows with subsequent steps about every quarter-second. He can propel himself through 6 strides in slightly more than a second and a half, the researchers found.

• “Our findings show that a suspect standing 9 feet from an officer can charge at him and be close enough to reach out and slash him with an edged weapon in just over half a second. Starting just 5 feet away, a determined offender can be stabbing an officer with his extended arm in a third of a second,” Lewinski says. “What does this do to the traditional thinking about a reactionary gap and about a preemptive use of force?”

As far as the traditional Tueller distance, Force Science News issue # 17 says:

–Once he perceives a signal to do so, the AVERAGE officer requires 1.5 seconds to draw from a snapped Level II holster and fire one unsighted round at center mass. Add 1/4 of a second for firing a second round, and another 1/10 of a second for obtaining a flash sight picture for the average officer.
–The fastest officer tested required 1.31 seconds to draw from a Level II holster and get off his first unsighted round.
–The slowest officer tested required 2.25 seconds.
–For the average officer to draw and fire an unsighted round from a snapped Level III holster, which is becoming increasingly popular in LE because of its extra security features, takes 1.7 seconds.
-Meanwhile, the AVERAGE suspect with an edged weapon raised in the traditional “ice-pick” position can go from a dead stop to 21 feet on a level, unobstructed surface offering good traction in 1.5-1.7 seconds.
-The “fastest, most skillful, most powerful” subject FSRC tested “easily” covered that distance in 1.27 seconds. Intense rage, high agitation and/or the influence of stimulants may even shorten that time, Lewinski observes.
-Even the slowest subject “lumbered” through this distance in just 2.5 seconds.

In part 2 of the study, the discuss how many officers needs 30 feet, not 21 feet.

[rbwhatever1]

I setup a Tueller drill this morning and never got the first shot off at 21 feet. I had the runner positioned behind me give the "go command" as i was facing the target 20 feet in front of me. I moved 10 feet closer to reduce sight allignment time and still never got the first shot off at 21 feet. I was pulling a concealed 1911 from a kydex Secret Stryke IWB holster. I also tried a concealed jackass shoulder rig with the runner positioned at a 45 degree angle behind my right shoulder for safety. Never got the first shot off and wasn't even close. I need a slower runner. I'm going to buy a stop watch and have the runner start behind me running away to make this more "enjoyable" for the runner as i figure out the time & distance.

I should have had the runner going away from me and stop when the gun fired. Lesson Learned. The runner was in full revolt after about 45 or 50 attempts. When i tried to increase the distance to 30 feet she recommended starting from an adjacent pasture to give me adequate time to defend myself.

This is amazing information, thanks for posting it!

[jnichols2]

Unread postby rbwhatever1 » Sun Oct 20, 2013 8:16 am

I setup a Tueller drill this morning and never got the first shot off at 21 feet. I had the runner positioned behind me give the "go command" as i was facing the target 20 feet in front of me. I moved 10 feet closer to reduce sight allignment time and still never got the first shot off at 21 feet. I was pulling a concealed 1911 from a kydex Secret Stryke IWB holster. I also tried a concealed jackass shoulder rig with the runner positioned at a 45 degree angle behind my right shoulder for safety. Never got the first shot off and wasn't even close. I need a slower runner. I'm going to buy a stop watch and have the runner start behind me running away to make this more "enjoyable" for the runner as i figure out the time & distance.

I should have had the runner going away from me and stop when the gun fired. Lesson Learned. The runner was in full revolt after about 45 or 50 attempts. When i tried to increase the distance to 30 feet she recommended starting from an adjacent pasture to give me adequate time to defend myself.

This is amazing information, thanks for posting it!

I believe the Tueller drill is probably accurate, as it's performed. But lets not get tunnel vision about what it means.

Reverse the roles: See how well a "victim" with a knife in his pocket does against a surprise ambush by a thug with a gun at the ready.

It's not good to be ambushed by someone you let get within 21 feet. It's better to realize something's not right at 50, or even 75 feet.
It's not easy to guess someone's intentions, but awareness helps.

I once saw two guys slip out of an alley way about 100 feet ahead.
I felt like a wimp when I crossed the street, but then they melted back into the alley.
Were they setting up an ambush? I'll never know.
Will I cross the street again? Put my hand on my gun? Yes!!

[texanjoker]

[The Dallas LEO shooting thread was getting hijacked (my fault), so I wanted to start a new thread about the dangers of edged and impact weapons.]

I've run the Tueller Drill with many dozens of people of various skill levels. I've never had a single person get the first round off in as little as 21 feet. The average is over 30 feet. Jim and I ran it in a class a few weeks ago using a girl that had very good gun handling skills. The runner was young, but he wasn't a track star either. The first round went off at 11 yards (marked by dropping a weighted towel) and the second round went off at a whopping 17 yards. That 33' and 51' respectively folks!!

Also, our shooter was drawing from a holster; ladies, imagine what those distances would be with a purse. Carry your gun on you; your purse is for lipstick, hair brush, loose change, cell phone, kitchen sink . . .

Chas.

I am not for sure when the Tueller Drill came out, but in 1982 we were taught how quick someone with a knife could be on top of you in the Academy. The best I remember it was the 21 foot rule.

I had some youth in 1982, but now with my health and disability I have mentally extended that 21 foot rule. I have always been more afraid of being cut than shot.

It was bumped up to 30 feet during some advanced training I attended. Even with a gun out of the holster, one can close 21 feet rather fast and there is no guarantee the rounds will hit or stop the threat before the threat makes contact.

[hillfighter]

I believe the Tueller drill is probably accurate, as it's performed. But lets not get tunnel vision about what it means.

Reverse the roles: See how well a "victim" with a knife in his pocket does against a surprise ambush by a thug with a gun at the ready.

Action beats reaction but Tueller wasn't talking about being ambushed. It's about someone you know is there and armed with a contact weapon. You know they're a possible threat but they haven't assaulted anybody yet, so society would frown at gunning them down just to be safe.

Dennis Tueller's article was published 30 years ago but I don't know when he did his first experiments. The inspiration was a student at the academy asking how close is too close if an aggressor has a contact weapon like a knife or club. Instead of making up something, he did an experiment with the cadets to answer the question. He wrote the article to share the information with other firearm trainers. Unfortunately, too many people remember that 7 yard line on the range but forget the concept behind the whole thing.

[JSThane]

Even with a gun out of the holster, one can close 21 feet rather fast and there is no guarantee the rounds will hit or stop the threat before the threat makes contact.

Another big thing here is "initiative." Some call it the OODA loop; Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. The attacker is at the last stage; the victim is usually at stages one or two. At my academy, my classmates and I ran drills with rubber knives and red guns; even -expecting- the "attack" and already having a course of action decided, the "victim" wound up getting slashed every time. Running the drill with fake OC (mint-flavored, instead of habanero scented ), a couple folks got a face full of minty goodness, but their forward momentum was enough -every time- to complete the simulated attack. Most simulated "victims" never got their red gun or mint-spray can out in time.

And this is when we were mentally prepared for an "attack," were using duty belts, had our hands near the tool we had already decided to use, etc.

Now factor in surprise, a concealed pistol, fishing out a less-lethal option from a pocket, etc. The attacker may well have time to get to you from double the "Tueller distance" before you can present an effective defense. The more nimble among us can possibly use this time and space to "dance" away (depending on our surroundings), and break contact while we get out our pistol, but lots of folks can't.

Bottom line, cop or not, someone comes at you with a sharp implement, you're going to get slashed or stabbed.

I have always been more afraid of being cut than shot.

Glad to know I'm not the only one that thinks this way!

[ELB]

We (the guys I train with) run this drill periodically with airsoft pistols and training knives. I don't think we have found it impossible to get a hit on the attacking knifer in less than 21 feet, BUT; it is always at very close range, a matter of feet, and the shot is very unlikely to be a stopper to the brain stem. Thus you still get stabbed even as you are trying to put rounds two thru 17 into the attacker.

MOVING off the x increases chances of getting more than one hit quite a bit. Moving backwards barely helps, the attacker will still overrun you; lateral and angular movement seems to work best, and the more you can force the attacker to turn the more you disrupt his attack. (Altho there are opinions to the contrary, we seem to be able to draw and hit multiple times while moving).

And of course, anyone who plans to use a knife for something besides scaring people realizes with about three seconds of thought that showing it at 21 feet or any other distance than arms-length or less is foolish. It makes is much more interesting for the target if his first indication that this is a knife fight comes after being stabbed three or four times. Which is why we spend a lot of time working on immediate knife-attack responses that do not involve immediately drawing our gun, but making sure we are not going to get stabbed again.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Dennis Tueller expressly stated that 21 feet has nothing to do with the principle and he never used the term "21 Foot Rule." He guesses that 21 feet came from the fact that his agency did their routine shooting at 7 yards. So there is no "21 Foot Rule" and there's nothing magic about that distance.

Although I have no doubt that people who regularly train may be able to get a round into an attacker in less than 21 feet, these folks do not represent the vast majority of people who carry handguns for self-defense. They don't even represent the vast majority of LEOs.

The discussion about the so-called "21 Foot Rule" begins at 3:45.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=JxeTNnEWmbY[/youtube]

Chas.

[mojo84]

Seems like a sharp down to earth guy. What he says makes a lot of sense.

I had an encounter little over a week ago and I would have been in a bad situation if the guy had decided to get aggressive. He was well within my reactionary distance/time. It makes a lot of sense the "21 foot rule" could be very different for each person depending on their reaction time. Considering I had the guy approach me quietly from behind and was within about seven feet before he made his presence known and my gun was tucked inside my shirt in a CB Supertuck, I was way behind the eight ball. I'm not sure 21 feet is enough for me in many circumstances since my gun is usually tucked in.