In just under a minute, you fire almost three dozen rounds before finally killing the heavily-armed bank robber who opened fire on you. 

It’s the story of Tim Gramins,

available again on YouTube and filled with lessons that can save your life.

For those who find it easier to read than to listen, my Ayoob Files account of this incident from American Handgunner magazine can be found here.

More to come as my own Evil Princess – producer/editor and therefore PrEditor Gail Pepin – brings the ProArms Podcast series back to life.


  1. One of the more chilling Ayoob Files for sure. One day I will put together a list of my Top 10 of them all. This will be on it, as will The Minister And The Mugger from Philly; Rev. Doctor Cairns is pretty BA! Thanks uncle Mas, as always!

  2. Wow! It is an incredible program which enhanced my perspective on these dynamic, ‘ambiguous and unstructured situations’.

    A few take-aways:

    head shots…they’re not just for hostage rescue
    Round capacity may be more important than the rounds themselves
    How training comes into play. e.g. The ‘I’ve done this before’ effect.

    Keep publishing this valuable and genuinely entertaining content.

  3. This case is a clear example of a Type 1 Firefight. You see the classic preconditions for a Type 1 incident:

    1) Both sides were heavily armed. Due to the rapid pace of the incident, neither side was able to use their heaviest weapons which were various long-arms. Nevertheless, even their sidearms were serious weapons.

    2) Both sides were strongly motivated to fight to the finish. The police officer was motivated by his duty and by his desire to survive for his family. The suspect was motivated by his hatred for the police and a dedication to fight to the death rather than be taken alive and sent back to prison.

    The result was typical of a Type 1 incident. A lot of rounds fired by both sides, multiple hits, and a protracted battle that did not end until one side, or the other, was utterly defeated.

    As I noted in an earlier blog comment, Type 1 Firefights are common in military engagements. They are relatively rare in law-enforcement engagements but, as this incident shows, they do happen.

    Still, Type 2 Defensive engagements make up the vast majority (about 95 to 97 percent) of law-enforcement engagements and near 100% of civilian engagements. So, Type 1 Firefights are outliers rather than the norm in law-enforcement.

    Despite their rarity, a law-enforcement officer certainly does need to be ready to fight and survive a Type 1 event if he is so unfortunate as to be caught up in one.

    It sounds like Officer Tim Gramins has taken this lesson to heart since he now goes on duty “loaded for bear”. I, personally, think that he may be engaging in over-kill. The odds of him getting involved in another Type 1 incident are quite low. Still, if it brings him comfort to be “armed to the teeth” then more power to him. That is his decision and I respect it.

      • A Type 2 engagement is defensive in nature as opposed to a Type 1 engagement which is offensive. The difference is mainly in “Mindset” although the availability of weapons is also a factor. Let me give a hypothetical example.

        A mugger, armed with a large knife, spots a potential victim (a young female) walking to her parked car late one evening. The area is isolated so the mugger decides to make the attack. He confronts the young woman, brandishes the knife, and demands that the woman surrender her purse, cell phone and car keys.

        The woman responds by pulling a stub-nose .38 special revolver, out of her purse, and firing a round at the mugger’s head which misses by about 2 inches. The mugger (instantly) decides that he has made a “failure of the victim selection process” and takes to his heels at top speed. After seeing him get away, the woman uses her cell phone to call the police and report the incident.

        The police arrive, get a description of the suspect from the woman and then canvas the area looking for the criminal. Unfortunately, he made a clean escape and the police were never able to track him down. The crime (ultimately) remains unsolved. No charges are brought against the female victim since it is determined that she acted in self-defense.

        The above hypothetical is an example of a classic Type 2 engagement. Both sides were armed but neither was “heavily armed”. The most important difference, however, is that neither side was willing to push it into a “fight to the death”. The mugger was only interested in an easy target. Once he saw that his potential target was not easy, he broke and ran. The female was only interested in defending herself. She had no interest in chasing the mugger down, either on foot or in her vehicle, and then dispatching him. Only one shot ended up being fired in the entire incident.

        Both sides ultimately reacted “defensively” rather than “offensively” thereby making for a classic Type 2 Defensive engagement.

        Since the mindset to “save your own skin” is common whereas the mindset to “fight to the death” is rare, Type 2 Defensive engagements greatly outnumber Type 1 Firefights. Even in the military, there is a mix of the two. In law-enforcement, as I noted above, Type 1 Firefights are probably (based upon NYPD data) only about 3% to 5% of law-enforcement engagements with the rest being Type 2 Defensive incidents. We don’t have good data on civilian engagements but Type 1 Firefights seem to be even more rare here. So rare that I would expect that (at least) 99+ % of civilian engagements, like the hypothetical described above, are Type 2.

        Anyway, that is the way that I have come to look at the matter after spending years pouring over the NYPD Firearm Discharge reports and studying everything else on the topic. I grant that it is all just my opinion, since we don’t have the data to absolutely prove it, but I think that it is informed opinion.

      • While I gave a hypothetical example above, real world examples of Type 2 engagements are easy to find. I just received the September 2021 print edition of the American Rifleman magazine. Turning to page 10, I find “The Armed Citizen” page. A total of six (6) incidents were reported in this edition. Let’s briefly review the very first one:

        A man and his wife are driving through a Walmart Parking lot when a man flags them down. The husband gets out of the car to see what he wants. The man pulls a knife and threatens the husband. The wife responds by stepping out of the vehicle and shooting the attacker in the neck so as to protect her husband. The attacker is taken to the hospital where he is reported in critical condition. No charges are expected against the woman since she was acting to defend her husband. (IMHO, that man has a Good Wife! 🙂 )

        Now, is this not a Type 2 engagement? Clearly, it was.

        In fact, it looks to me like all six (6) of the incidents reported in this edition are Type 2 incidents. None of them seem to be Firefights to the death although even a Type 2 incident can result in fatalities. In fact, if you tally up the score from these six incidents, it works out as:

        Of seven (7) criminals involved in these incidents, six (6) ended up getting shot, for their trouble, with two (2) being killed and the rest wounded. One criminal was not injured. He ran off and is still at large.

        In five of the six incidents, the defender was not injured. In the sixth, the defender was not injured but three (3) other innocent people were shot. Two were wounded with the third being killed. The criminal in this incident is facing a murder charge plus two counts of attempted murder and one count of aggravated assault. So, he has some legal issues once he gets out of the hospital.

        The defender in this incident was an armed citizen who happened to be in the area and who intervened to stop the attacker. If he had not intervened, it may be that all three of the victims would have been killed.

        So, a Type 2 incident is not necessarily bloodless. Even they can be quite violent. It is simply that they tend to be concluded quickly with a minimal exchange of gunfire compared with a protracted Type 1 Firefight.

  4. According to the information, on this incident, Officer Gramins fired a total of 33 rounds of .45 ACP during this firefight and scored a total of 17 hits. Granted, some of these were minor hits to non-vital areas. Still, he scored three (3) hits to the head, one (1) hit to the heart, two (2) hits to the lungs and one (1) hit to a kidney. That is a total of seven (7) serious hits.

    So, his hit ratio was 17 out of 33 (52%) and his “serious hit” ratio was 7 out of 33 (21%). That is good shooting considering the stress of the event. At least, I think so.

    No information was provided as to the trigger pull weight of his Glock 21. I assume that it was probably the standard Glock trigger pull? Say about 5 to 6 lbs.?

    Interestingly, the average hit ratio of the NYPD, according to their historical Firearm Discharge Reports, is much worse then the one achieved by Officer Gramins. Back in the old “Revolver” days, it was around 25%. After switching to semi-automatics with the 12 lb. “New York” trigger weight, it probably went down further. We don’t know for sure because, in recent years, the NYPD refuses to report it. All they say is (from their 2019 Report):

    “The department does not calculate ‘hit percentage’ when describing ID-AC incidents. The NYPD uses an ‘objective completion rate’ per incident to determine the effectiveness of police firearms discharges. When a uniformed member properly and lawfully perceives a threat severe enough to require the use of a firearm and fires properly and lawfully at a specific threat, the most relevant measure of success is whether the member ultimately stops the threat. This is the objective completion rate. Regardless of the number of shots that strike a particular subject, the objective is considered completed when the actions of the subject that threaten imminent serious physical injury or death are stopped by a member’s use of deadly physical force, i.e., a subject stops their threatening actions after being shot.”

    Which is all a bunch of “Horse Manure”. If their hit ratio was high, then they would report it. All of the above is just to justify NOT reporting it. So, I feel justified in assuming that it is even worse than it was before.

    Given the unsettled times in which we currently live, it may be that the NYPD feels that it can’t live anymore with their 12 lb. trigger requirement. Just as their old effort to cling to FMJ ammo had to give way to the reality that JHP’s are a lot more effective, it now looks like they are conceding that the “lawyer and media approved” 12 lb. NY trigger must give way to a more reasonable trigger pull. See this story for further details:

    Mas. – I know that you rather like the intermediate 8 lb. trigger that is used by some NY agencies. What do you think here? Do you approve of the NYPD going to a 5 lb. Glock trigger? Would you rather they used the intermediate 8 lb.weight? Or do you think the critics correct and they should stay with their old 12 lb. triggers?

    • I never cared for the 12-pound NY-2. Was very comfortable with the NY-1 in the first through third generation Glocks. I personally prefer the Gen5 Glock’s standard trigger pull.

  5. Delighted to again have access to these informative, entertaining, educational and meaningful Pro-Arms podcast episodes. I discovered them rather late–2019 or so, on iTunes–listened to all available episodes, and to some repeatedly (and then some). Was disappointed upon learning that they were no longer available via iTunes. Thanks for making the time to produce these invaluable podcasts.

  6. I listened to this podcast lying on my bed. I may have nodded off a bit, but I doubt it. Too interesting.

    TN_MAN reports seven serious hits with .45 Automatic Colt Pistol caliber ammo, and I’m sure they were hollow points. The toxicology report claims the crook was clean, no drugs or alcohol in his system. His strength astounds me. Was he some sort of mutant?

    I believe civilians should never interfere in police business, unless the police are out-numbered. A lone policeman in a gun battle, even with only one crook, could certainly use some help. It is reported the neighbor had a gun, but never got in the fight. My guess is he had to get the gun out of his safe, then load it. In that time the back-up police arrived. Or maybe he just didn’t want to leave the safety of his home.

    I can imagine a civilian remaining in the home, firing a scoped rifle from an opened window or door. If the civilian had a clear shot, he could certainly assist the police officer. Maybe the civilian could grab a shotgun or pistol and go charging into the fight. This all depends on his position in relation to where the criminal is. Can the civilian sneak up on the crook? Is he in danger of bullets flying in his direction? What happens when the back-up police arrive? Will they believe the heroic civilian is a bad guy? I imagine putting on an orange baseball cap and running into the fight, hoping the police would hesitate to believe a crook would be wearing orange. Of course, all of this is just my speculation.

    I believe civilians should almost always stay out of police business. The only other time when I could see the police really needed civilian help was during the North Hollywood shootout. I remember Colonel Cooper commenting that a rifle would have been a big help in that situation. I’ve heard the perps were wearing double body armor at that shootout, so it may have had to have been a scoped rifle, wielded by a shooter who could make head shots, in order to be effective. That was a tough fight.

  7. This is an interesting topic so forgive me if I continue to “ramble on” about it.

    Humans like to develop “Rules of Thumb” to provide guidance in life. Gunfights also have such rules. One is the so-called “Rule of Three” which is:

    Gunfight Rule of Three – A typical gunfight will involve each participant firing up to three (3) shots in about three (3) seconds at a range of about three (3) yards (or meters).

    There are various data sources that provide (somewhat) a foundation for the above rule. See this link which provides some good information on this topic:

    What this “Rule of Three” is actually describing is a typical Type 2 Defensive engagement. It fits most Type 2 engagements reasonably well although there will always be exceptions.

    This rule DOES NOT fit Type 1 Firefights. Consider the case described here. Officer Gramins fired 33 rounds which is a lot more than 3. The shooting lasted 56 seconds which is also a lot more than 3 seconds. The range varied quite a bit. In fact, this fight can be viewed in three stages (A different Rule of Three 🙂 ).

    Stage 1 – The suspect ambushes Officer Gramins. The suspect does an offensive attack and charges Officer Gramins while he is trapped in his vehicle. Officer Gramins is forced to return fire from an immobile position. This stage ends when the weapons run dry for both combatants.

    Stage 2 – The suspect retreats to re-arm while Officer Gramins goes mobile and reloads. Officer Gramins then does an offensive attack and charges the suspect while firing. Officer Gramins ends this attack when he (again) needs to reload.

    Stage 3 – Both combatants seek cover. The fight continues from cover positions with Officer Gramins being able to deliver decisive aimed fire to finally bring the firefight to an end.

    So, the distances at which shots were fired varied wildly as each combatant shifts from attack to defense.

    Clearly, this was a Type 1 Firefight with both combatants using offensive attacks in order to try to defeat his opponent.

    So, my point being that a Rule of Thumb, like the above Rule of Three, may offer some guidance for Type 2 conflicts. However, it goes “out the window” when it comes to a Type 1 Firefight. Type 1 and Type 2 conflicts are truly different. They are “Apples and Oranges”. Rules and concepts developed for one will not apply to the other!

  8. This is off-topic but still police-related:

    If the information in the above report is correct (who knows with the state of our current biased media?) then I am not surprised that these police officers failed in their duty to protect the public.

    The media is strangely silent as to the racial makeup of those involved but I would “lay money” that the police officers were white and the suspects were black. Given the reverse racism and anti-police attacks in recent history, what else do you expect?

    These officers probably felt that it was the safest thing to look the other way. Safest for themselves and their career. If they intervened and ended up having to shoot a black suspect, then then BLM and the media would scream for their blood and they might get the “Derek Chauvin” treatment.

    Better to look the other way, and risk getting reprimanded or fired, then to intervene and risk getting sent to prison for life for the act of defending yourself!

    In spite of getting into trouble over it, maybe they are still smart. Maybe they “chose wisely” given that they work for the NYPD and Mayor De Blasio. We all know that De Blasio would throw a NYPD officer to the wolves in a heartbeat to cover himself with the media!

    • Based on the current crime situation, it’s a good idea to hire more qualified minority LEOs, especially the darker ones instead of white officers. Not only does this look good from a diversity standpoint but considering that most violent criminals nowadays appear to be members of minority groups, it would be better to have black/brown officers shoot black/brown offenders so the false accusation of racism could not be used as effectively by sleazy defense lawyers. It should not be this way, but times are different now and we need to adopt new methods of doing things.

  9. @ Roger Willco – “Was he some sort of mutant?”

    It took seventeen (17) hits from a 45 ACP to put him down. Seven (7) of them to vital areas including the head, heart, kidney and lungs. The ammo used, according to Mas’ report, was the Speer 230 Grain Gold Dot JHP load. From a five (5) inch barrel, this load is listed as having a muzzle velocity of 890 fps and a muzzle energy of 404 ft-lbs. The muzzle velocity, in this case, may have been slightly slower since the handgun used, a Glock 21, has a barrel length of 117 mm (4.6 inches) rather than the 5 inches of a typical 1911.

    Nevertheless, the suspect absorbed about 6,000 ft-lbs of kinetic energy before he went down. Enough to drop a bull elephant if it is administered correctly! 🙂

    No doubt, the suspect was “pumped up”. Pulling off the bank robbery would have keyed him up. Then, the high speed pursuit and the sudden turn to spring an ambush on the pursuing cop would have pumped him up more. I have no doubt that the suspect was in the middle of a full-blown “Flight or Fight” response during this battle.

    This incident shows what the human body can take when in full “Flight or Fight” mode. No artificial drugs or narcotics are needed, thank you very much. Nature’s own evolutionary cocktail is all that is required!

  10. The suspect in this case was definitely a tough one to stop. Heart, kidney, and lung shots will certainly kill but not necessarily stop a target quick enough to prevent return fire. Only hits to the upper and center of the head, with an adequate caliber, would be instant stops. In my totally unscientific tests using soaking wet newspapers packed in a 14″ cardboard box shot from a distance of 10 feet, Speer Gold Dot .45 ACP 230 grain expanded to 5/8″, the same in a 200 grain version opened to 3/4″ and the load I prefer in .45 ACP, the Winchester SXT Ranger 230 grain JHP expanded to 1″ with all three penetrating the box into a thick phone book used as a backer. The SXT with six very sharp expanded petal tips cut an impressive channel through the wet newspaper, but the 230 grain Gold Dot did penetrate slightly more into the phone book backer, maybe a 1/4″. Ballistic gelatin would have been much better but I lacked the resources to use such fancy media for my informal testing.

    My preferred weapon and load used for defense is a 7 shot Remington 870 in 12 gauge with Brenneke slugs, but it’s a bit difficult to conceal under normal clothes, so I carry a 1911 in .45 ACP with 30 rounds of ammo instead and keep the shotgun in my car.

    • nicholas kane,

      From what I have read, only a shot into the brain stem (not the brain) will stop someone instantly. I believe I learned this from Mas. The brain stem is in the very center of the brain, about the size of a fist. On January 8th, 2011, Gabby Giffords was shot in the brain, but she is still walking and talking today.

      Carlos Hathcock, the Marine sniper in Vietnam, reported enemies going spastic when they were hit with a bullet in the brain stem. It is the nerve center. I guess it controls all the body functions, and when a bullet enters the brain stem, it is “lights out,” immediately.

      • When evil creatures like G.G. who have contracts with Satan signed in blood, nothing will destroy them, except maybe burning at the stake. Besides, most Demoncrats have very rudimentary and primitive brains which only controls basic bodily functions, so unless it’s completely destroyed, does not affect them greatly, much like dinosaurs, insects, and fish. Just look at Crooked Joe, he’s as close to being a brain dead zombie as anyone 🙂

      • Esteemed Roger Willco, in my experience shooting a half dozen rattlesnakes with.45 Colt CCI snake shot, a shot from maybe seven feet focused right behind the head into the brain stem is the most quickly incapacitating. The head will be virtually detached instantly. The snake will give a big lurch, and then immediately go quiet, without striking at you. You still would not assume that the snake cannot “bite” for some time to come, but if you want to instantly quiet a viper, this is the shot I would make. Much safer than using a stick, a hoe, or a shovel. Never have seen snake shot ricochet.

    • A hit that destroys the lower brain stem or shatters the upper spinal column will put any mammal down instantly.

      Back in 2017, I went on a bison hunt in North Dakota. I got a nice shot at a young bison bull. In order to put the animal down quickly, I aimed at a spot about 2 inches behind the base of the bison ear. The bison was standing broadside to me.

      The rifle was a .300 Ruger Compact Magnum using 180 gr. SST Hornady ammo. The bullet hit just behind skull and impacted on the upper spinal vertebra at the base of the skull. Upon impact with the vertebra, the nose of the bullet shattered. The vertebra was totally destroyed breaking the spinal cord. In fact, the release of kinetic energy was so great that the base of the skull was shattered and the brain stem was mushed. A pressure wave traveled through the brain and actually cracked the front of the skull and bulged the bison’s right eye out of the socket. Only the base of the bullet survived the impact with the vertebra. It continued out the other side of the bison’s neck leaving a small exit hole about the size of a dime.

      Needless to say, the bison was killed instantly. At the shot, all four legs convulsively kicked the animal about a foot into the air. Then the animal collapsed in its tracks. The bison was down on the ground in less than a second and I expect that it was killed so fast that it never heard the sound of the shot.

      So, destroy the brain stem or shatter the upper spinal column and you have an instant stop. Most of the time a solid hit to the brain will also work but people (like Gabby Giffords, for example) have survived such shots. As Mas points out in his write-up on this incident, people have taken heart shots and continued to fight. Indeed, some people have survived heart shots if they get rapid enough medical care.

      To my knowledge, no one has survived having the brain stem destroyed. It is about the only, guaranteed, instant stop.

      • Esteemed TN_MAN, you made a good shot with an adequately penetrating bullet. Some people use a .220 Swift or similar light, high velocity bullet to drop moose with a neck shot. Can work well sometimes, but is too prone to fail eventually. Shooting into a grizzly hump with a bullet of adequate weight can work quickly if done properly, but the most experienced hunting guide that I know recommends a shoulder shot instead as more desirable. Simply food for thought. Good hunters never wound inhumanely.

      • @ Strategic Steve – “Simply food for thought. Good hunters never wound inhumanely.”

        In addition to providing a humane kill, the shot placement on this bison did not destroy any eatable meat. I intended this bison to provide actual food and not just “food for thought”! 🙂

        It cost me a little extra but the bison was dressed and butchered locally. It provided a lot of different cuts of meat with the misc. parts being ground up and packed in tubes. Basically, made into hamburger. Nothing went to waste.

        The meat was then frozen and packed into two huge coolers that I had brought with me. This kept the meat frozen until I could get it home and placed in the freezer.

        This young bison provided me with several hundred pounds of lean meat. As you can guess, I was eating bison steaks, bison stew, bison chili, bison burgers, bison stroganoff, etc. for many months thanks to this young bull. I also shared some of the meat with my neighbors and friends. So, this bison did not die in vain. He ended up feeding a lot of people.

  11. > At least one analyst … high-powered semiautomatic rifle.

    Uh. The SKS comes chambered in 7.62×39. That’s only ‘high-powered’ in journalist-land; it doesn’t even meet the muzzle energy requirements for deer hunting in some states.

    The ‘high-powered’ may just be journalist boilerplate, but it the ‘analyst’ actually used that term, I’d be leery of his competence.

    • “Also in the front seat of the gunman’s car was an SKS semiautomatic rifle, fully loaded with a 30-rd. magazine, and in a box. At least one analyst has suggested Gramins’ charging toward Maddox while emptying the second magazine in his GLOCK kept the gunman from accessing the high-powered semiautomatic rifle.”

      Terms like “high-powered” are all subjective. Compared to a 9mm Luger or .380 ACP pistol round, the 7.62×39 round of the SKS is powerful. Compared to a true rifle round, like the .300 RCM that I used on the bison, above, it is pretty weak. It all depends upon ones point-of-view.

      A standard SKS comes fitted with a fixed, 10-round box magazine. Mas writes that this one was fitted with a 30-round magazine. I assume that this SKS must have been modified with one of the aftermarket replacements (like this one for example):

      Officer Gramins was fortunate that this criminal did not grab his SKS and use it during the initial ambush. With the Officer trapped in his vehicle, the criminal could have (easily) used the rifle to kill him. With 30 rounds on tap, he would not have ran dry so fast. I expect that the 7.62×39 rounds of the SKS could have defeated the officer’s body armor.

      All that is assuming that this aftermarket part worked correctly. Many SKS rifles will not function reliably when modified with these aftermarket magazines. Maybe that is why the criminal decided to use the S&W 9mm during his initial attack? Because he had more faith in its reliability?

      Mas, do you know if this SKS rifle was tested, by the police, for reliable functioning after this incident? If the weapon was unreliable, that is an additional reason why it might not have been used.

      • To the best of my knowledge, all three of the perpetrator’s weapons were functional when the fight started. One of Tim’s .45 slugs struck the Bersa .380 in the course of the shootout and, unknown to Tim at the time, rendered the gun inoperable IIRC.

  12. None of Tims tactics make sense to me. But I do have a big problem there. I don’t know what I’m talking about. When I wore blue it was in England, where we had a long established strategy for handling gunmen, it was known as ‘getting killed’.
    Why did he not use the car door as cover? Does that only happen in films? I always assumed they were armoured. Why have a long arm you have to abandon? Why shoot while charging? Sounds like wasted shots.
    Again I’m sure a SWAT officer knows what he’s doing. Could anyone explain why?

  13. Mas, I’m struck (pardon the expression) by the discrepancy in how many rounds were sufficient to end a fight THEN and NOW. Jim Cirillo describes shooting once or twice to end a confrontation (with .38’s), but Officer Gramins needed three mags of modern 45 HP ammo to prevail. Further, his attacker was not high on anything (other than adrenaline). Are modern criminals tougher or genetically designed to withstand more punishment?


    • The Stakeout Unit guys were prepped beforehand for a gunfight, and usually in a dominant position behind cover when “the game opened.” Tim Gramins, an excellent shooter and tactician, was put behind the action/reaction curve by the circumstances of his gunfight with much less control of the battleground. I thought he did an excellent job. If you listen to our podcast interview with Bill Allard, the Stakeout Unit officer who racked up the most gunfight victories of anyone on the squad, you’ll hear about the guy who took three blasts of 00 buckshot in the chest AND a .38 slug before he gave up the fight, and the guy Bill had to hit with four rounds from a 12 gauge, six from a .38, and eight from a .45 to put down. Go to ProArms Podcast on YouTube to find it.

Comments are closed.