A coroner who oversaw an inquest into the death of a mentally-ill man shot by police has questioned if officers could be armed with a new type of weapon to make them less likely to fatally shoot perceived assailants.

James Fox, 43, was hit five times after two Metropolitan Police officers opened fire as he opened the door of his flat in Picardy House, Enfield, on August 30 last year.

Jurors at an inquest at North London Coroner's Court in September found Mr Fox's death was lawful, adding the officers believed they needed to use force to defend themselves.

The court had heard the two officers, who cannot be named for legal reasons, shot Mr Fox as he raised a weapon towards them.

The man, who had a history of mental illness, died at the scene.

At a further hearing on Friday, coroner Andrew Walker raised the issue of the spread and number of shots fired as he received submissions from legal representatives for the Fox family and the Metropolitan Police Service.

Barrister Matthew Butt, for the police force, said it would be an "unfair premise" to assume firearms officers were "poor shots", telling the court some of the circumstances of Mr Fox's death were "impossible to train for".

However, the coroner queried whether another sort of weapon could be made available that would be less likely to result in small, yet deadly, wounds.

He said: "The difficulty here is, should there be consideration at these close ranges of another sort of firearm that does not cause small, penetrating injuries but (rather) uses a larger projectile to knock a person to the ground?

"I can't imagine that in this day and age, it would not be possible to produce a large-calibre, reliable, short-range weapon that was capable of incapacitating a person."

Mr Butt said there was no such device at present that came close to meeting the required standard but acknowledged "everyone wants to avoid a situation like this".

This suggested there was therefore a "national appetite" for the development of such equipment to be pursued, the coroner replied.

It came after barrister Owen Greenhall, for the family, told the court that officers needed more specific training to prepare them to deal with "unexpected confrontation".

Further instruction about how and when warnings should be given was also needed, he submitted.

He said: "It was accepted by the officers in this case that a warning could have been given immediately on hearing a noise behind the door."

He added the late man's family also had concerns about the "practical availability" of heavy or two-handed shields used by officers.

The coroner indicated he would compile a preventing future deaths report, including finalised recommendations, to be disseminated to parties at a later date.