Should Human Foes Be Thought of as Animals for Ballistic Purposes?

Double Naught Spy

January 5, 2005, 12:14 AM

Cosmoline, the reasons why pigs may look like good human substitutes because of some features in common, many of the perceived commonalities stem from not having the necessary anatomical insight, There really are some real problems with the human/pig comparison. First, not all pigs have similar superficial skin like humans. Some are pretty darned shaggy as well, adding another difference as compared to humans. Their skin tends to be thicker and tougher. Pigs were originally forest/jungle animals before being domesticated. Hair along with thicker and tougher skin made it possible for the pigs to crash through the underbrush without sustaining as many injuries as would happen with thinner and weaker skin. Opening wounds, even superficial, is far from ideal in the wild as blood will attrack carnivores.

Since pigs are quadrupeds, their musculature is distriuted differently than is found in upright, bipedal humans. So standing a pig upright is not the same and a human in upright position. For example, pigs have considerably more musculature in their pectoral girdle (back and chest areas). Also there is a lot of difference in the neck and spine musculature and connective tissue.

Outside of those aspects, pig skulls are much larger compared to body size and are more robustly built. They also have massive jaws and associate jaw muscles.

Aside from being quadrupel and having musculature distributed differently from humans, their limbs are subjected to greater physical stresses than what we would find in normal humans and so many of their bones are actually much larger than would be found in a human of comparable weight.

Pigs do not have clavicles (collar bones) or they are vestigial (smaller and not fully formed).

In the case of domestic pigs, these animals are usually slaughtered (as with cattle) at the most ideal time, when they have just about reached full skeletal size. This provides the greatest amount of product relative to feeding costs and tenderness. If butchered after the bones have stopped growing, then you will have tougher meat and your price per pound production will rise. What does this mean? Simple, as the pig has not stopped or is about to stop growing, the bones tend to not be as completely ossified as compared to the bones of a full adult. These means the bones are softer than the fully formed adult bones.

So, as Cosmoline would like to use large calibers that blast a hole clean through the pig, why would he use 110-125 gr .357 rounds for defense against humans? Simple. Over penetration and risk to bystanders as a result. For example, you would use a .45-70 round to blast holes clean through a pig just fine and the resulting over penetration would not pose a risk to bystanders, or not much, as there likely will not be many such bystanders down range from the pig being hunted in the wild.

Blasting a hole clean through, thereby expediting blood loss and resulting in shock and stopping the pig or aggressor, such a plan is feeble if you are trying to stop a human attacker. It may take some time for him to bleed out. During that time, your attacker may manage to still kill you. So, blood loss is far from ideal to rely on for making a timely stop of an attacker.

Black Snowman

January 5, 2005, 01:15 AM

Lets not get too hung up on Comso's comparison to a specific animal. What we are looking at here is stopping ability of a round and how the schools of thought compare between stopping animals other than humans and stopping humans.

In my thinking the danger of over penetration in a defensive shooting is a greatly exaggerated issue. If there are innocents behind an assailant I'm worried about striking I'm probably not going to shoot at all but go for my knives and do my best. Just like being aware of your backstop when hunting. The difference being you don't get to choose your backstop or position in a defensive shooting.

It seems to me what will drop an animal instantly will drop another animal of roughly the same size and composition instantly give correct shot placement. Unfortunately here again we run into the problem of getting to pick and choose. Hits will be difficult enough to just get in a defensive situation, you're not going to be able to go for an ideal shot.

You might have to shoot through heavy leather clothing, and an intervening arm, or even a barrier like a window or car door. What about if you graze an arm on a chubby guy like myself dressed for winter? You'd need enough penetration ability to go through 4 layers of leather 6-8 layers of cloth, 2 inches of fat and 4 inches of muscle even if you manage to miss all of the bone before you even get to the chest cavity. Do you want a round that won't penetrate my chest completely even if I'm not wearing a shirt and you miss every dense tissue in an "ideal placement" shot under less than controlled circumstances?

Look at some of the great street performer right now. 147 gr JHP 9mm are dominating 9mm defensive loads. Their energy and momentum numbers are terrible compared to the 124 and 115 grain loads but they still out perform them thanks to their better penetration coupled with reliable low-velocity expansion.

OK, I'm done talking for now. This is getting long :) I know I won't convince everyone, but I at least want folks to see where I'm coming from.

cookekdjr

January 5, 2005, 12:37 PM

Should Human Foes Be Thought of as Animals for Ballistic Purposes?
Of course. Because they are animals. I don't care how a round performs on gelatin, if it will reliably drop a 200 lb ape (or deer ;) ), then I trust it.

Cosmoline

January 5, 2005, 01:16 PM

So, as Cosmoline would like to use large calibers that blast a hole clean through the pig, why would he use 110-125 gr .357 rounds for defense against humans? Simple. Over penetration and risk to bystanders as a result

If overpenetration is the only reason, then I am far from convinced. Consider this. If you have a bullet blasting a hole through the back of a foe, let's say there's x% chance of that bullet hitting a bystander. The expanded bullet is perhaps retaining 50% of its original energy, and its course may well have been deflected. It's possible the round is also key-holing by then as it has lost its shape. Let's also say that, as seems pretty clear, the bullet giving a through-and through wound with expansion is going to stop the foe with far more certainty than a bullet that stops half way through. Shock will come quicker, and a man with a hole clear through his chest is unlikely to keep on attacking.

Compare with smaller, faster bullets designed to stop in the target and fragment. There is no chance of hitting bystanders if the round stays put. But with every additional shot that must be fired, there is z% chance of a miss, and every miss gives rise to the same x% chance we found in the first case. Someone else can work out the math on this, but from the actual field reports I've seen, LEO's and others using small, fast projectiles ARE INDEED having to shoot many times to stop suspects, and indeed a high percentage of their shots are missing. It would seem, therefore, that any advantage gained by eliminating the x% of a bystander hit from small, fast bullets that do not penetrate well is offset by the need to keep firing--to keep rolling the dice in other words. And the MISSED shots retain 100% of their energy, their ballistic shape and trajectory. Making them far more lethal if they do hit a bystander than the spent, spinning heavy round that overpenetrated.

Keep in mind here I'm NOT talking about FMJ rounds in either scenario. In both cases I'm talking about expanding rounds.

Cosmoline

January 5, 2005, 01:22 PM

carpettbaggerr

January 5, 2005, 01:28 PM

Pigs have no thumbs -- therefore they can't shoot back at you. A deer might run 100 feet before it dies, but a sapient primate would pull a gun and empty it into your head.

Cosmoline

January 5, 2005, 01:36 PM

Sure. But so what? Why does that lead you to use a LESS effective bullet on the animal with the firearm? It would seem to me you'd want to use as powerful and damaging a round as possible on the human, since the human can be just as lethal as a bear or more so.

Black Snowman

January 5, 2005, 01:46 PM

So carpettbaggerr, how does that relate to your ammo selection for defensive shooting? That statement doesn't seem to indicate any preferance for ammo specifications or performance just a differance in the circumstances.

In a hunting scenario you're trying to gain maximum stopping power with a single shot. In a self defense scenario you're trying for the same thing, the major differance being you're more likely to keep shooting until you KNOW the target is stopped since they are an immidate threat.

So, the best parallels would be dangerous game hunting. Because if the 1st shot doesn't work you are, more than likely, in a defensive shooting scenario. I've never heard of any dangerous game hunter looking for less penetration in trade of a larger wound channel .

Sure they're ususally shooting things much tougher than ourselves but they aren't looking at maximum tissue damage or energy dump. They looking to blast through as much animal as possible because the only thing that will guarantee a stop is incapacitation.

What man-size dangerous game is there? What is used to hunt that? I think this would be a good indication of what is nessisary for a physical, biological, stop. An incapacitation.

RyanM

January 5, 2005, 01:56 PM

I feel compelled to point out a few things;

1. All else being equal, a bullet that exits does not cause a person or animal to bleed out faster. While exit wounds do bleed more profusely (according to what I've read, and been told by my friends that hunt; I don't hunt though, so I dunno firsthand), the majority of bleeding is going to be internal, pouring into the body cavity.

2. All else is not equal, however. A bullet which exits retains more velocity (not energy, explained below) towards the end of its penetration. For instance, let's say two similar bullets which expand to the same diameter penetrate someone's inferior aorta (under the heart, next to the vena cava, supplies blood to the lower body). One bullet stops immediately after going through the aorta, while the other punches through the skin and muscle in the back, and keeps right on going into the next county. Expanded diameter is the same, so velocity is the variable. The bullet that stops inside the body will have had a rather low velocity by the time it got to the aorta, and thus crushes a rather small hole (also explained below). The bullet which "overpenetrates," however, would be going at a quite high velocity as it transects the aorta, and thus crushes a substantially larger hole.

3. It is expanded diameter (or diameter with non-expanders), shape, velocity, and retained velocity which determine hole size. Not energy, not momentum. Elastic tissues can "flow" around a bullet, but will do so to a greater degree if the projectile is more aerodynamic and/or lower velocity. The faster and blunter the bullet, the less time and space are given to flesh for it to get outta the way. All the energy in the world won't do squat if the bullet is too aerodynamic or too slow to efficiently crush tissues.

Thus, a bullet which starts with a high velocity, but sheds it quickly in tissue, creates a large hole to begin with, but a smaller hole deeper in. A bullet which retains velocity in tissue better, such as a heavier bullet with the same expansion, might crush a smaller hole than the faster, lighter bullet because it starts with less velocity, but the retained velocity deeper in gives it a more consistent hole-making performance where it really counts, deep inside the body.

In general, penetration performance in gelatin or water gives you a good idea of the bullet's retained velocity. If it penetrates deeper, it's retaining more velocity.

4. Neither momentum nor energy adequately describe temporary cavitation ("hydrostatic shock," if you absolutely must), either. Consider a BB gun firing a .177 steel BB at 500 FPS. If fired into a bucket of water, you get a small splash. That's ~4.38 joules energy, or .057 kg-sec momentum. Let's say you drop a 1 pound can of beans into the bucket from 14 feet up. That's ~4.38 joules of energy, but 1.95 kg-sec of momentum. Big splash, right? But let's say you then drop a 1 pound, .177 diameter rod from the same height, so it goes in the bucket end-on. ~4.38 joules, 1.95 kg-sec of momentum, but basically no splash.

Once again, it's the projectile's size, shape, velocity, and retained velocity that matter the most. High momentum usually means high retained velocity, but not always. No one factor of a given bullet can ever be singled out as most important in wound ballistics.

Given all this, Fackler's theory of wounding makes the most sense; shot placement, shot placement, more shot placement, and make sure the bullet penetrates enough (which also ensures retained velocity).

Black Snowman

January 5, 2005, 02:12 PM

Nice post RyanM. A good summery of all the mechanics of wounding information that I've read and trusted.

Blood loss isn't what we're looking for in the exit wound. We're looking for the largest possible wound channel through as much of the target as possible. Which is why I went from 55 gr HP .223 to 1 oz 12 ga slugs for my home defense round. :)

cookekdjr

January 5, 2005, 02:13 PM

cookekdjr

January 5, 2005, 02:15 PM

Which is why I went from 55 gr HP .223 to 1 oz 12 ga slugs for my home defense round
Broken bones and a huge gaping hole(s). Now that's a man stopper.

Double Naught Spy

January 5, 2005, 08:32 PM

So, blood loss is far from ideal to rely on for making a timely stop of an attacker. So what then? Are you saying we must rely on psychological factors alone to stop an attacker? Anatomy makes it very clear, the ONLY ways to reliably stop the body of an attacker from keeping on going are CNS hits or shock from blood loss. That's it. Maybe relying on blood loss isn't ideal, but that's what we've got to work with. It seems to my mind much more reliable than relying on the pscychological reaction of some loon trying to murder me.

Cosmo, you are having trouble with understanding some basic concepts. I didn't suggest you must rely on anything. Anatomy does not make it clear that the only ways to reliably stop the body of an attaqker from keeping going are CNS hits or shock from blood loss. This is NOT so much determined by anatomy as it is damage to anatomy, but it is still quite naive. cookekdjr pointed out physical impairments that 'stop' people from progressing as a result of gun wounds. While not possible with most pistol rounds, hydrostatic shock is another means of stopping people.

You seem to have the mind set that many gun folks I have encountered have that somehow defense is all about a gun, in this case, apparently a pistol. The premise is basically that of a good defense being based on a good offense. In other words, you stop an attack by attacking your attacker - shooting him with your pistol. Fine, but in the process, the pistol sucks as body armor and so you have done extremely little to stop his incoming rounds.

So you and others are confused about the notions about the differences in stopping your attacker and stopping your attacker's abilities to harm you. Stopping your attacker's abilities to harm you may involve stopping your attacker, but as I noted, if you are waiting for something like blood loss to occur, the attack may not stop until after you are dead. I don't care if you think I am suggesting you count on psychological effects or not. I didn't say that and I would not suggest that is your best venue. It can be a real aspect of the fight, but certainly not one to count on any more than blood loss.

If your firearm has not stopped your attacker physically via some sort of mobility impairment or physically stopping the attacker's abilities to be able to harm you (disabled his weaponry, his ability to hold or manipulate weaponry), then you need to be out of the effective area of his weaponry or have some way to protect yourself that negates his weaponry.

Distance always works in your favor. The further you are from the threat, the less likely the threat is able to harm you. So you shoot the guy and he is bleeding, but he still has some time to live and now he is pissed at you. You have mortally wounded him, but he doesn't know it. Do you stand your ground like a moron or do you take advantage of your better situation (hopefully) and work to increase your distance from the guy. If he is bleeding out or bleeding in, the more physical exertion he has the better for you, but you have to make sure that you are outside of his ability to harm until he finally does drop. In the words of the FBI at the shootout in Miami, paraphrased, "They were dying, but they weren't dying fast enough." Matix killed several agents and wounded several others AFTER being mortally wounded.

Cover (not concealment) can defeat the aggressor's incoming rounds. Body armor can help. Such measures are passive protection. Having to shoot, stab, or physically hit your attacker are all active methods of defense and you may not always be in a position to make active and aggressive moves against your attacker. That is why things like distance and cover become critical.

If you want to balk at psychological effects (and with some justification, no doubt), aren't able to make that all important CNS stop, and are having to wait for blood loss to take its toll, what do you count on? Count on trying to put yourself in a position where the bad guy can't harm you or that limits his abilities or chances to harm you. People often overlook footwear as being critical in self defense and your abilities to move and increase distance is likely a key element to your survival.

Hey, if you want to carry a .50 BMG pistol, .50 Beauwolf AR15, .45-70, maybe a little .470 Nitro Express Merkel double barrel rifle (much like a coach gun), then knock yourself out. You will have shots that pass cleanly through your supposed attackers. That may stop the attack, but you still get to worry about the consequences of the people you harm down range. You are still responsible for the damage done by your rounds even after they pass through a bad guy.

Regardless of what you may think, exit holes do not necessarily mean there will be that much more blood loss. As noted, blood loss is often internal. People bleed to death with little blood escaping externally. There are a lot of rounds that can do a lot of internal damage and work quite effectively without passing all the way through.

tex_n_cal

January 5, 2005, 08:52 PM

I am also reminded of a smallish, eating size wild boar that I dead centered about 100 yards away, with a 150 grain Nosler Partition from a factory .30-06 round. He stepped forward right as I shot, and I think I hit him a little too far back. The shot knocked him down, but he got up squawling and ran like hell. We never found him. You don't hear of too many humans running after a torso hit with a high power rifle.

why_me

January 5, 2005, 09:03 PM

1.Aim.
2.Shoot.
3.Slide lock
repeat as necessary

Any one seen this lion getting shot multiple times and still charging hunters?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/lionhunt.html

RyanM

January 5, 2005, 10:15 PM

Double Naught Spy, I notice you mention "hydrostatic shock." I think I know the actual phenomenon you're referring to, and you're right, it's not possible with a handgun. If the "temporary cavity" (the technical term for tissue "splash"/stretch) affects the spinal cord (or if the spine is hit directly, but not broken), it can violently slam the vertibrae together hard enough to render a person unconscious.

And your points about needing a good defense in the form of cover, concealment, etc., are valid, but...

If "anatomy doesn't make it clear," etc., then what exactly do you think all those weird-looking, squishy things in one's body are for?

Every single possible way of reliably, or unreliably, stopping a person centers around the brain. Either take it out directly with a well-placed headshot, take out its means of communicating with the body, or destroy it by starving it of oxygen.

Yes, you can shatter bones, but this requires a relatively heavy bullet at high speeds, as well as a solid hit. Bones are hard enough to deflect a bullet that does not strike squarely and solidly.

Even the "non-anatomical" ways of stopping a person, such as shattering an arm or leg, still depend on the brain, since the _only_ way a person who is not totally disabled (while somehow not sustaining enough damage to their CNS that they fall unconscious) will cease aggressions is if they willfully give up (unreliable), if they pass out from pain (very unreliable), or if they bleed out from their wounds. If they do none of the above, they are still quite capable of continuing aggression, since their brain has neither given up, nor been forced to give up.

In reality, the only 100% reliable way to remove someone's ability to attack is to damage their CNS, directly or indirectly, to the point that they either pass out or die. Anything else--short of rendering both arms totally unusable--relies _solely_ on psychological factors, such as pain threshold, determination, and sheer cussedness. And I really doubt there's anyone on this earth that can shoot out the bones of both an attacker's arms in the middle of a firefight.

JohnKSa

January 5, 2005, 10:21 PM

Gordon,

I'm not suggesting that it takes 45 minutes for an animal shot with typical hunting ammunition to die. However it is generally procedure to sit tight for a good long while after making a good shot to allow the animal to die. If you immediately give chase, they get an adrenaline rush which can give them the strength and motivation to travel long distances before they expire. Clearly NOT an acceptable situation in a self-defense scenario where adrenaline is EXPECTED.

Furthermore, animals are not often "dropped in their tracks" by "typical hunting ammo" and the "typical hunting shot" that is taken. They tend to either run or mosey a bit before the damage/blood loss catches up with them.

Anyway, the POINT is that hunting and self defense are two completely different ammunition/firearm applications!

The goal of hunting is clean kills. Timeframe is not a major player as long as it doesn't get ridiculously long.

The point of self defense is immediate incapacitation.

It follows that the ammunition is designed differently and that what is good for one application isn't necessarily good for the other.

Gordon

January 6, 2005, 12:21 AM

John; were gonna have to agree to disagree with this one Pard ! :)

Cosmoline

January 6, 2005, 02:33 PM

00 Spy-- your points about the importance of concealment and cover are entirely correct. However they're off topic. What I'm trying to get to the bottom of is why small, fast bullets from a handgun are deemed superior for self defense than the larger, harder-hitting bullets that are considered standard for non-human animals.

In the words of the FBI at the shootout in Miami, paraphrased, "They were dying, but they weren't dying fast enough." Matix killed several agents and wounded several others AFTER being mortally wounded.

Well there we go. The FBI agents died, and died faster, because they were hit with a Mini 14's 223 rounds--rounds that left both entrance and exit wounds and tore out sufficient parts of the circulatory system to cause shock faster. The suspects were hit with a mix of 9mm's and .38 LSWCHP's that were designed not to overepentrate.

Cosmoline

January 6, 2005, 02:36 PM

Anyway, the POINT is that hunting and self defense are two completely different ammunition/firearm applications!

Well here's the question. If self defense rounds actually stop humans faster than a hunting round would, why not use fragmenting, non-penetrating rounds for hunting? Obviously, because the animal would likely be just wounded. So you have to wonder why the devil we're using the rounds against a human animal. At least I do. So far the arguments have led to be believe that I was right to doubt conventional wisdom.

cookekdjr

January 6, 2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:
Anyway, the POINT is that hunting and self defense are two completely different ammunition/firearm applications!

Well here's the question. If self defense rounds actually stop humans faster than a hunting round would, why not use fragmenting, non-penetrating rounds for hunting? Obviously, because the animal would likely be just wounded. So you have to wonder why the devil we're using the rounds against a human animal. At least I do. So far the arguments have led to be believe that I was right to doubt conventional wisdom.

I'm totally with you on doubting the convential wisdom. I prefer heavy and slower bullets to light and faster bullets (although heavy and fast is also good ;) ). I also prefer fmj to hp, and I'll start drooling the second you say "hard cast". :)
I think your logic exposing the fallacies of our hunting vs. self-defense convential wisdoms is impeccable.
-David

BluesBear

January 6, 2005, 03:58 PM

The bullet hole between a .357 caliber projectile and say, a .44 caliber projectile isn't that much greater either- we're talking about a difference of 8/100ths of an inch.No we're talking about an AREA of .10" for a .357/.38 bullet vs an area of .14" for a .44 slug vs an area of .16" for a .45 projectile. And THAT friends IS a difference.
Irrespective of the fact that the typical weight of 110-158 grains vs 180-240 grains vs 185-250 grains. Factor that in and you have a noticable difference. That you can usually drive the smaller lighter bullets faster is what will bring the terminal performance of the different bullets closer together.

You have to think of terminal bullet performance in a four dimensional context.

Velocity
Weight
Diameter
Shape

All four contribute to the effectiveness or the lack thereof.

As to comparing man to a pig Cosmoline was correct in a portion of his initial question.
IF the pig was standing up and facing you (that is, belly front), when you shot it, it would react more like a human.
Except in the land of the Brothers Warner, a pig usually moves on all fours. Therefore you are usually shooting them from the side or the back. And therein lays the difference.

Face facts folks™, whether you want to admit to it or not and no matter by what terminology you use to refer to it, a bullet DOES have "energy". Witness the fact that a bullet will topple a steel plate with a proper hit. And anything that stops that bullet transfers that energy to into itself.
Use the aforementioned steel plate as a oversimplified example. (at least I hope you see it as oversimplified)
If you hit the plate on the very edge it usually will not fall over, the bullets careens off at an agnle retaining much of it's energy. A solid center hit transfers most of the energy to the plate thereby pushing it over. But energy is only part of the terminal effictiveness equation.

:scrutiny:
Also folks, this term "Hydrostatic Shock". :confused:
There really ain't no such thing. In an abstract way of thought you could say that "Hydrostatic Shock" is what YOU feel when you do a belly flop off of the high board. :yikes:

Hyrdostatic is fluids at REST!
Hydrostatic FORCE is what causes your floor to sag under your waterbed. :banghead:

HYDROKINETIC Shock is the damage done by a bullet passing through a liquid.
Hydrokinetics deal with fluids in motion and that friends and neighbors is what causes most tissue damage from high power rifle bullets.

:uhoh: People who say hydrostatic shock are the same people who think irregardless is a proper word. :rolleyes:

RyanM

January 6, 2005, 05:03 PM

Well there we go. The FBI agents died, and died faster, because they were hit with a Mini 14's 223 rounds--rounds that left both entrance and exit wounds and tore out sufficient parts of the circulatory system to cause shock faster.

I think shot placement might have been the bigger factor, on both sides.

Agent Dove was hit twice in the head, and I believe agent Grogan was hit in the aorta or heart. Almost any round would have had very similar effects in those regions.

Matix was hit early on in the fight by agent McNeill, just below the right temple. The bullet shattered his cheekbone, fractured the bottom of his cranium, and bruised his brain (but didn't penetrate the brain, unfortunately), knocking him instantly unconscious. Another bullet, also fired by McNeill, hit him in the neck at a downward angle (since he was slumped over by that point) and severed the arteries leading to his right arm, and possibly distrupted the nerves controlling the arm as well. As a result, the only damage Matix inflicted were superficial birdshot wounds to several agents, before he was hit.

Agent Dove managed to get a 1 in a million hit on Platt early on as well. The bullet hit Platt's right arm and severed the brachial arteries and veins, penetrated through into his chest, severing yet more arteries (his right lung was totally collapsed and 1.3 liters of blood were in his chest cavity at the time of autopsy), and stopped 1 inch short of his heart. Even so, he did not bleed out fast enough; if that bullet had gone just an inch or two further, things could have turned out very differently.

Platt was also hit in the right forearm shortly after (before killing agents Dove and Grogan) by either Risner or Orrantia. That bullet shattered his radius, and damaged his arm muscles enough that his thumb became non-functional, forcing him to drop the revolver he had at the time.

Despite two excellent hits which almost totally disabled his right arm, Platt was able to fire his mini-14 and hit McNeill in the neck (he survived, but was paralyzed for hours due to blunt trauma to the spinal cord), Grogan in the chest, Hanlon in the groin, and Dove twice in the head, all within the space of a few seconds.

Yet more evidence that "removing someone's ability to attack," as said by Double Naught Spy, tends to do anything but, and that solid hits which affect the CNS will have the greatest effect.

Also,

JohnKSa, I'd argue that the goal of both hunting and self defense ammo is identical; incapacitation ASAP. You say that the goal of self-defense rounds is to incapacitate "immediately," while hunting rounds are intended to incapacitate "eventually." That's not really true in my experience.

While it would be nice if a good bullet would guarantee an instant stop in either application, that's just not possible. In both cases, you want to incapacitate your target as soon as is possible. Just because hunters can wait for an animal to bleed out doesn't mean that they want to.

I don't think there's even that much of a difference between penetration requirements of hunting and SD rounds; the main difference is the acceptable minimum, and dependent on the species. In either case (hunting or SD), the minimum is what can get the bullet to vitals from most conceivable angles, while the maximum is non-existent. In both cases, more is better, as long as wounding ability (as determined by expanded diameter and shape) is not sacrificed to increase it. And if wounding ability must be sacrificed to give the minimum penetration (like with pocket pistol calibers), then that round is not a good choice!

If anything, the penetration requirement for hunting bullets (when hunting non-dangerous animals) is shallower than for SD rounds, since the number of conceivable angles is lower. If all you can see is a deer's butt facing you, you aren't going to shoot it anyway and hope your bullet miraculously reaches its heart (ewwww); you'll wait for it to turn around and present a better angle. If that doesn't happen, oh well, no venison tonight.

But when defending yourself (and others, don't forget) from a dangerous animal (humans included), you do not have that luxury. If a lion is charging at someone, and you are directly behind it, you must make that butt-shot, so your ammunition must be able to reach vitals from that angle. And a similar shot angle on a human also might be necessary, like if some nutso is taking potshots at people from up in a tree, and you find yourself directly below them.

I do not buy the "controlled penetration" requirement for SD. Not one bit. To me "controlled penetration" should mean "can penetrate vitals from any conceivable shooting angle," just like "gun control" should mean "good aim."

edit to add: Bluebear, it really is not energy, Yes, bullets "have" energy, but that energy is also not conserved as kinetic energy. Try looking up something like "physics, impacts" in google and you'll quickly see that in any type of impact momentum is always conserved, and kinetic energy is never conserved. Kinetic energy is always "lost" in some form or another, such as heat (KE on a molecular scale), noise (KE in the air), etc. But momentum stays as momentum and is conserved, even if the bodies involved are deformed, as in an inelastic collision.

I think the "energy transfer" theory might have gotten started back in the 1800's. IIRC, people used to believe that bullets' kinetic energy was changed into heat on impact, melting the bullet (which accounted for the deformation of high-velocity bullets; they have more energy and thus would get hotter, right?) and burning holes through people, while turning part of their body to rapidly-expanding steam (the suspected reason for bullets "exploding" things like pot roasts). Energy transfer indeed!

MrMurphy

January 6, 2005, 05:31 PM

Guys have been hit by high powered rifle rounds and kept fighting in all of the wars in recent history and not so recent history.

In WW1, WW2, Korea, all the other little wars in other places, etc, up through the Falklands, there are stories (proven true) of guys hit in the leg, arm, body, etc who kept advancing and/or fighting, sometimes for quite a long time.

I remember a guy in the Pacific in WW2 was hit like five times, finally got in range to grenade some bunkers shooting at his men. He died, but not before wiping out the Japanse threat, and lowcrawling over a hundred yards under fire.

That guy from Vietnam who didn't get his Medal of Honor till the 80s from Reagan (Indian guy, Benavidez I think?) He was hit 8 or 9 times by AK fire, bayoneted, and hit multiple times by shrapnel yet stayed on his feet retrieving wounded guys and finally getting on the helicopter (returning fire all the while, and knifing the guy who bayoneted him).

We are not animals, because we can fight through the pain and keep going (mental discipline) much more effectively.

Black Snowman

January 6, 2005, 07:00 PM

Nothing is 100% reliable obviously. In the bank robbery shootout that got so much publicity for it's use of full auto AKs one man was shot 9 times and lived. I'm guessing they were using FMJ ammo for him to have gotten that lucky. The only loss of life in that whole incident were the 2 perps.

They fired hundreds of rounds with no regard for what was behind their targets and no one was killed. Some non-combatants were hit, although it's unclear if they were targets or not. Considering these were punching through cars, walls, etc in a busy urban area it would seem to me that over-penetration is a less than critical issue. The Miami shootout shows that under-penetration can lead to major loss of life.

These are both singular circumstances but still real world events. They are two of the most widely publicized events involving a shooting giving us greater information and detail than most and bare some consideration.

All things considered it seems that big holes all the way through are your best bet for a minimal loss of life and I have yet to see any evidence presented to convince me otherwise. Keep in mind that I used to be in the "light and fast" camp until doing my homework. I'll readily admit when I'm wrong and I was.

If someone can come up with any new evidence I'm more than happy to take it into consideration. In the mean time give me a heavy hollowpoint :)

Cosmoline

January 6, 2005, 07:01 PM

I've read many of those accounts, as well. But keep in mind those were Hague Convention bullets, not hunting rounds. Nobody could take a .30'06 or 8x57JS hit to the head or torso with a modern SP and keep fighting. Literally too much of you would be gone, and the rest would be leaking out fast. OTOH it's well known that FMJ's are no good for large game beause they do far too little tissue damage. I use military surplus for ptarmigan and small game, actually. Works good.

JohnKSa

January 8, 2005, 01:53 AM

John; were gonna have to agree to disagree with this one Pard !Gordon,
Are you seriously saying you've never heard or been told that it's advisable to wait several minutes (exact time varies) after making a good game shot rather than immediately giving chase?

I'm not saying that hunting ammo is designed to DELAY death, just that it's designed to ENSURE death with a good hit while immediate incapacitation isn't a major goal. The things that help ensure death (maximum penetration and an exit wound) don't generally make instant incapacitation a likely effect. If you want to go to the extreme, look at dangerous game ammunition. SOLIDS. ZERO expansion and absolute maximum penetration. Folks using that ammo are betting everything on their shooting ability and don't want ANY chance of an ammo failure preventing their shot from going exactly where it's aimed. Anybody saying that solids are the way to go in self-defense ammo? Maybe some, but not many. Because they don't kill? NO--because they don't kill quickly. Climbing a tree while a buff bleeds out is one thing. Getting shot at while your attacker bleeds out is quite another.

Nobody could take a .30'06 or 8x57JS hit to the head or torso with a modern SP and keep fighting.Cosmoline,
People have been shot/injured with far more devastating weapons than an SP rifle round and kept fighting--you could find counterexamples without too much work. Furthermore, your starting premise is not consistent with that statement. Animals of human size and smaller can be shot in the chest and keep functioning for surprising amounts of time. If you spend much time hunting or on a hunting forum you'll see more than one example of that.it's well known that FMJ's are no good for large gameOn the contrary, Solids or FMJ are RECOMMENDED on large game--particularly large dangerous game.

RyanM

January 8, 2005, 02:47 AM

John, I noticed you missed the part of my post that was directed at you. Probably because I talk (write) too much.

I'll also add in, though, that your arguments have been very strange. You seem to be stating that unconsciousness or death due to direct/indirect CNS damage is _not_ the same thing as "incapacitation." Would you care to tell us what "incapacitation" is then?

Plus, who says you'll have a convenient tree when shooting at lions, buffalo, and other dangerous game? Solids are chosen in those instances because they have the highest chance of causing rapid incapacitation in the largest number of scenarios and widest variety of shooting angles. But that's because I (and probably those dangerous-game hunters, too) define incapacitation as being unconsciousness or death due to direct or indirect CNS damage, as CNS damage is the only medically-proven way of "shutting down" a determined agressor which I am aware of.

If you can show evidence of there being a medically and scientifically sound, reliable method of incapacitation which does not rely on damaging or distrupting the CNS, I'll gladly change my tune.

jc2

January 8, 2005, 06:58 AM

The things that help ensure death (maximum penetration and an exit wound) don't generally make instant incapacitation a likely effect.
I'm not sure that can be said with any degree of certainty. Only a couple of very specific CNS hits "generally make instant incapacitation a likely effect." Unless you are a true-believer in magic bullets, there is no handgun ammunition that "generally make instant incapacitation a likely effect." What we do know is there is only two sure ways of achieving incapacitation with animal (two-legged or four-legged) is the aforementioned very specific CNS hits or blood loss. There is no magic bullet to "generally make instant incapacitation a likely effect."
Plus, who says you'll have a convenient tree when shooting at lions, buffalo, and other dangerous game?
Were we talking about "lions, buffalo and other dangerous game" or pigs and humans? There are good reasons solids are required when hunting buffalo, elephants, etc.--and there is a ten-fold difference between 200 pounds and 2000 pounds. This really a red herring.
IF the pig was standing up and facing you (that is, belly front), when you shot it, it would react more like a human.
Except in the land of the Brothers Warner, a pig usually moves on all fours. Therefore you are usually shooting them from the side or the back. And therein lays the difference.
While there is some validity to this point about not sure it is not being somewhat overstated. It is certainly valid if you assume all your shots at two-legged animals will be unobstructed, frontal torso shots--but that is not usually the case

coylh

January 8, 2005, 06:59 AM

I don't understand this conversation. Is the question, why do we carry a .357 mag (presumably prepared to shoot humans) when we might carry a 45-70 to shoot a pig? Seems to me like the weight of the gun is a bigger factor than ballistics.

Or, is the idea that you would use 10mm 200 grain wadcutters to shoot a pig, but 10mm 135 grain hollow points to shoot a person?

McCall911

January 8, 2005, 08:22 AM

Didn't I read that General Hatcher, who investigated wounding effectiveness in the early part of the 20th century, actually used human cadavers or corpses for his testing? Pretty morbid obsession the general had, if true.

RyanM

January 8, 2005, 01:32 PM

coylh, yes, that's what's being discussed. "Conventional wisdom" is to carry extremely different rounds when hunting human-weight animals; heavy solids or softpoints for ainimals, and lightweight hollowpoints for self-defense.

Common sense, which is quite different from "conventional wisdom" appears to say that the opposite is true. A deer hunting round which does not punch clean through, but still can reach vitals from most angles is fine, since you will probably only be making clean broadside and quartering shots on deer. A man-stopping round, however, might not be used under such ideal circumstances. Men are thinner front-to-back, but the potential angles involved are more varied; directly above, directly below, from the side, anywhere, so deep penetration and good shot placement are necessities.

Reduced penetration in a SD scenario might reduce the dangers to others, but that's like driving a VW beetle, in order to reduce the damage you cause in an accident!

McCall911, not sure about General Hatcher, but I know Captain Thompson and Major LaGarde did tests of various handgun rounds on live cattle, as well as human cadavers, in 1904. Not very scientific, though. According to their data, it looks like you're better off with a hammer than a gun. Half of the cow shootings went something like:

00:00 - One shot through intestines.
02:00 - One shot through intestines again.
03:10 - One shot through intestines again.
06:10 - Shot twice in the head.
07:15 - Shot in the ear.
08:15 - Shot behind the ear.
08:15+ - Killed by four hammer blows to head; no round reached brain.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/background.htm#test

Cosmoline

January 8, 2005, 06:40 PM

Animals of human size and smaller can be shot in the chest and keep functioning for surprising amounts of time.

Survive a heart/lung shot? Not that I've ever heard. Unless the rifle round is underpowered or fails to function, a heart/lung shot is going to be lethal because it will always cause massive blood loss and shock.

I suppose a man might survive a gut shot for awhile, you're right. But a full size hunting round square in the chest? I don't see how, though I suppose anything is possible. The guy will have a half-inch ragged hole through his vital parts.

Cosmoline

January 8, 2005, 06:45 PM

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/histo...ground.htm#test

Great link! LOL That's not the sort of test anyone could repeat today, is it :D Lordy lordy. What wonderfully violent people. They kept shooting, then apparently gave up with a number of rounds and just beat the life out of the beast with a hammer!

From these results it appears our servicemen should have been issued M-1 hammers :evil:

Cosmoline

January 8, 2005, 06:48 PM

Or, is the idea that you would use 10mm 200 grain wadcutters to shoot a pig, but 10mm 135 grain hollow points to shoot a person?

Yes, that's it. Or, more specifically, why the conventional wisdom suggests I should use small, fast, frangible HP's in my .357 and not 180 grain HP hunting rounds.

Dr.Rob

January 8, 2005, 07:42 PM

As a hunter I'll chime in.

Yes and no.

While I use a 30.06 165 gr soft point spitzer boat tail bullet for thinned skinned non-dangerous game, it's NOT the bullet I'd load in a battle rifle of the same caliber.

Why?

While the 156 Sierra game king is a well designed controlled expansion bullet that delivers great accuracy and killing power, even at long range, its NOT designed to shoot through walls, car bodies, trees, bunkers etc. FMJ bullets do that very well, AP bullets do it better.

Hunting bullets are designed to kill. The problem is, wound ballistics isn't a 'science.' No two animals shot in the same place at the same angle, at the same time, with the same amount of relative humidity and heat will ACT the same when shot.

I've seen an antelope take a shot too far back from a 7mm Remington magnum that kept running like it wasn't even winded. When my hunting partner finally bagged the animal with a neck shot, we opened it up to discover the 7mm bullet hit NOTHING at all, just barely creased the diaphram. That bullet didn't hit enough tissue to expand at all.

I've seen an antelope drop like it was pole-axed by a single shot from a .357 Ruger SP101 with a 125 grain bullet.

I've SEEN hydrostatic (or whatever you want to call it) shock when I bagged a doe at 200 yards with my handloaded 30-06 165 listed above. There was literally a "halo" or cloud of blood mist when I hit both lungs and her (I'd guess) full heart. She STILL ran 50 feet before piling up.

I've seen an elk take a shot at point blank range from that same 30-06 load while it was ASLEEP, get up and run 200 yards, only to find out that shot completely destroyed its heart.

I've killed an antelope with a 90 gr Hydrashock from .380.

Now which is a better hunting round? Which is a better self defense load?

(I'll concede that after seeing the wounds from the .380 I retired it from beside duty)

Placement is everything. The rest is carrying the biggest fastest heaviest rock you are comfortable throwing for the job at hand.

Animals can tell you 'some things' but not everything.

Black Snowman

January 8, 2005, 07:42 PM

OK, here's a little quiz. Let's say hypothetical I'm attacking you with a knife (obviously I wouldn't do that but this is just for educational purposes). Here's a picture of me in my poorly executed fighting stance I learned in Tae Kwon Do. I'm dressed like I am pretty much every day.

http://home.kc.rr.com/bsmith1952/img/Guns/Stance.jpg

How much penetration do you think you'd need to hit COM? With a shallow penetrating bullet this stance, known and used by millions of people around the world when fighting hand to hand, your only viable option is a head shot, which is an even smaller target than what I'm presenting for my torso.

Digest and discuss :)

PS: Yes I have a knife in my right hand which is covering my chest and behind my left arm.

JohnKSa

January 8, 2005, 08:22 PM

I was intentionally not addressing CNS hits. If CNS hits are your goal then obviously penetration is your game and expansion isn't likely to help much.

I guess I'm very surprised that so many knowledgeable people are unable to see the difference between the goals of hunting and the goals of self-defense and how the difference in those goals affects the choice of guns and ammunition.

I'm also surprised to see that so many folks accept that an animal hit in the chest with a hunting round will be instantly incapacitated.

I think that this discussion would have been much shorter if it had been started on a hunting forum.

RyanM

January 8, 2005, 09:05 PM

JohnKSa, no one has yet said that an animal hit in the chest will be incapacitated "immediately." We've said that an animal hit in the chest will be incapacitated "quickly" in most circumstances. "Quickly" as compared to an animal shot in the gut or leg.

I was also not talking about direct CNS hits. The vast majority of fatal hunting and gunfight wounds are caused by indirect CNS damage, via oxygen starvation of the brain, due to loss of blood pressure to the brain, due to blood loss, due to various-sized holes placed through vital blood-bearing internal structures, due to a piece of lead (and ofttimes copper) propelled at high velocities. Stopping an animal or human revolves completely around shutting down the brain.

Black Snowman, I don't think that would be a "good shot." You don't look like you could manage much more than a duck-walk in that stance, so I could just turn around and run. If you stood up to chase me, I'd have a clearer shot at your chest. :neener:

Seriously, though, my estimate is... 1 layer of leather, 1 layer of fabric, 4-8" of bicep muscle (depending on how big you are, and the angle), possibly an inch or so of bone in that 4-8", another 2 layers each of fabric and leather, possibly a rib, about an inch of muscle, then finally 6-8" of lung tissue and hopefully, the 4" wide (or so) heart.

Assuming my goal is to totally perforate your heart, that torso skin is equivalent to 2" of muscle/gelatin on the entrance and 4" on the exit, that arm skin is half as resilient as torso skin (1" and 2"), that each layer of leather is equivalent to 1/2" muscle, that lung tissue is half as resilient as muscle, and that the heart is as resilient as muscle all the way through, that bone is 8 times as resilient as muscle, and that fabric doesn't make much difference, (mosta those resiliency figures are backed up by research, but I'm feeling lazy right now) and that it's a worst case scenario and I hit all those bones and the maximum-stated figures...

That's the equivalent of 34.5" penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin. 22.5" if we assume I miss your humerus and don't hit a rib. 17.5" if we use the minimum figures.

Just as an example of a "street round" which doesn't expand, 148 grain LWC's fired from a 2" barrel .38 snubbie penetrate about 20". Enough to lodge in the middle of your heart or go right through it, so long as they don't hit bone.

A 9mm, 115 grain Corbon through a Sig P226 penetrates about 9", which is enough to either lodge in your arm somewhere and seriously piss you off, or, in an absolute best-case scenario (as figured above), just barely break the skin of your chest after passing through your arm and coat, also seriously pissing you off.

Gordon

January 8, 2005, 09:40 PM

I was always taught to wait to 'smoke a cigarette' before trailing game. Since I don't smoke that means less than 5 minutes and more than 3 minutes of listening and watching. Nowhere near 45 minutes! Hell it's gutted by then! Now of course a human with a weapon (or a dangerous game animal) ain't gonna wait. That means: A- use enough weapon, or Plan B-Brain em! Using a pistol I have been taught for almost 30 years to hit COM a few times then start on the head. In hostage and sniper scenario's start on the brain! Animals we break shoulders and such that doesn't work well on humans. Black Snowman: .45 ACP ball would DO you in that position, but a fragmented or 'light' pistol bullet wouldn't get to heart, generally , which is why I won't use .38s(9mm) under 135 grains or .40 to .45 under 180 grains with heavier better. Pistol velocities are too low for any real 'power' (blowing out big chunks of flesh) thats why you can control them! My preferred defensive weapon for CQB is a 12ga with Brenneke slugs, a weapon I feel reasonably secure with. Over 100 feet give me my 16" FN FAL with 155grain Hornady TAP bullets. Over 200 yards or so , Barrett Light 50 time! However you won't usually catch me anytime with out a : S&W 296 with 180 Hornady XTP, a Lightweight Colt officers with 230 grain +p Ranger , or a Glock 27 with 180grain Ranger. I plan on "loading up" the perp with lot's of well aimed shots from these pop guns! And YES I have shot several goats with all those loads and they go down pretty damn fast ! ;)

Double Naught Spy

January 8, 2005, 10:30 PM

Cosmoline, you seem rather fixated on the point of exit wounds and blood loss. Can you provide any documentation where the exit wound is deemed consistently necessary to provide rapid blood loss that otherwise would not be provided?

I believe you are in error about exit wounds in regard to the FBI Miami shootout. The agents killed were Dove and Grogan. Dove took 2 .223 shots to the head and Grogan took one to the chest. The chest wound was not through and through. People on both sides suffered through and through wounds on limbs that were non-lethal.

One of the beautiful things about the .223 is that it tends to not over penetrate and yet still does a lot of damage as the bullet tumbles and fragments include tissue. Actually, the bullet tends to tumble when disrupted by a lot of things, some quite trivial, in fact.

The .223 is a good urban round, in part because of its ineffectiveness of over penetration and is much better than most pistol calibers when fired from a barrel around 14" long or longer. Most of us don't get to conceal carry a .223 with a 14" barrel too often.

If your notion of more power is better, then you need a nice S&W .500. The 4" barrel variety is supposedly suggested for brown bear. The 10" barrel can be used for elephant. You don't need a rifle, but then again for human foes, you probably don't need S&W .500, but it would work fine, over penetrate more than likely, but work.

BluesBear

January 9, 2005, 05:34 AM

Black Snowman, After I stopped laughing, I'd shoot you center-mass with my .44.

Even of it didn't knock you over from that highly efficent Chuck Berry Duckwalk position #9* you would no longer be holding up that arm.
Your chest would then a fine target and I'd just shoot you again.

(Or I could just blow off that kneecap and watch you fall over like a kid on a tricycle and squirm and scream for a while.)

In all seriousness, if you are close enough to be a danger to me from that position then there are several large enough targets for me to accurately engage.

Also what many people are missing is than when hunting you wait for the best shot at your quarrey. After all, deer don't shoot back. But for self defense you shoot as soon as you can to save your ASSets.

Not if you're hunting wild pigs on foot... that can get quite dangerous, so you want a big bullet that will drop them in their tracks. Something like a .45-70 would do nicely. Od a 10 shot semi-auto slug gun. Which is what a lot of us would grab instead of our puny little 44s and .45 if we KNEW we need to defend ourselves.

No one "accidentially" goes Boar hunting. But you just might "accidentially" get mugged.

I was asked once upon a time, "Why do you carry that big ole .45". I replied, "because a .45/70 gatling gun won't fit in a jackass shoulder holster."
(Even on me.)

I was also asked in a handgun class I was traching back at the original Sport Shooters. One of my students asked me, after discussing various calibers and available platforms for launching them, "What handgun wiould you carry if you knew someone would attack you in an alley." My answer was, "I'd carry any gun that wouldn't get in the way of my Ithaca 37PS8."

*upon reflection that's not the highlt efficent Chuck Berry Duckwalk position #9. I now believe that to be the even deadlier, Behind the log #2 looking for a handful of soft leaves that ain't Poison Ivy, position that every hunter dreads.

jc2

January 9, 2005, 06:40 AM

I guess I'm very surprised that so many knowledgeable people are unable to see the difference between the goals of hunting and the goals of self-defense and how the difference in those goals affects the choice of guns and ammunition.
My goal when hunting (and that of every hunter I know) is to put the down the animal as quickly and cleanly as possible. While I would phrase it differently, that is basically the same goal of self-defence.

Universal

January 9, 2005, 11:20 AM

I have killed several pigs and each time I used a .22LR rifle. One shot to the forehead at close range did the trick every time. These animals were usually around 220 to 240 pounds.

Gordon

January 9, 2005, 09:18 PM

"I have killed several pigs and each time I used a .22LR rifle. One shot to the forehead at close range did the trick every time. These animals were usually around 220 to 240 pounds."

Lucky you! :what:

I have seen pigs slaughtered firing a .22 BEHIND the EAR. But face on the pigs skull is pretty formidable hunk of bone mass AND slopes away! An eye shot might do it with a .22lr on a 200#+ hawg, but come on! :rolleyes:

Cosmoline

January 9, 2005, 10:21 PM

I'm not fixated on exit wounds. I'm fixated on blood loss. And the more holes, the more blood loss. On a good chest shot through-and-through you should have one entry hole, two lung holes (one on each side) and one big exit wound. If the bullet opened up or otherwise managed to slice and dice all the way through, then blood loss will be maximized. Thus shock will come sooner. It's really very simple. As was discussed earlier, there are only two ways to stop the body of an assailant reliably. A direct CNS hit and shock through drop in blood pressure. That's it. And of course the CNS shot is going to be tricky. So we want blood loss, which means we want lots of holes and lots of torn bits and pieces of the circulatory system.

JohnKSa

January 9, 2005, 10:25 PM

My goal when hunting is to put the down the animal as quickly and cleanly as possible.So you only take shots when you can guarantee a CNS hit?

Come on, you're playing word games. Everyone wants their prey to die as quickly as possible. Nobody including me is saying hunters want the animals they shoot to linger. But hunters are DRIVEN by the goal to make sure that their shot is lethal (don't lose the animal). That means most people forgo CNS shots in preference of heart/lung shots. These are virtually guaranteed to be lethal, but they DO NOT "put an animal down as quickly as possible".

Lethality is not even a consideration in self-defense. Nobody gives a rip if an attacker lives or dies. They just want him to stop attacking as quickly as possible.

Here's an example of the difference between hunting and self-defense where the "shootee" is the same in both cases. Most folks would tell you that to HUNT a bear with a .44Mag you should go with a very heavy, controlled expansion round. I think most people would pick a 300gr XTP or something similar. On the other hand, I've seen a person who's shot several bears say that for STOPPING AN ATTACK he prefers to use 240gr JHP. The dramatic tissue damage (though perhaps superficial) immediately distracts the bear from attacking and focuses his attention on the wound which gives the person time to deal with the threat more precisely or escape.

RyanM

January 9, 2005, 11:51 PM

I've also heard people recommend a rubber, 12 gauge slug for bear defense, because the rubber slug is just barely enough of an impact for the bear to feel, and between the "ohmygoshen!" factor of being whacked with an invisible object, and the very loud report of the shotgun going off, usually spook the bear enough to convince it to leave post-haste. The second shot in the tube (or second barrel) is usually recommended to be a heavy, solid slug, like a 1 3/8 oz. Remington Buckhammer, since those would have the best chance of putting the bear down if it remains unintimidated.

The 12 gauge rubber slug also works quite well, from what I've heard, yet to even the smallest black bear, such a bullet would be the equivalent of getting hit by a thrown water balloon to a human, in terms of pain.

So basically, using lighter weight, rapid-expanding rounds for stopping bear attacks is once again relying on very unreliable psychological mechanisms. And anyone that says animals _don't_ have a psychology has apparently never owned a pet!

Dr.Rob

January 10, 2005, 12:09 AM

OK I'll give kudos for the ninja monkey stance.

But even using the Platt and Maddox data, a 115 gr Winchester silvertip fired through your left arm, severing your brachial artery could still deflate your left lung and force your expiration, even if you did stick me with your knife and force me to expire.

After all that 9mm in question was fired at 50 feet, not 5. Leather might clog the bullet and make it act like an FMJ and zip right through and through.

The other point that some of you might note... while it's hard to pick out what's what anatomy wise due to clothing, stance, angle, lighting etc. Any hit within 2inches of the eyes would likely do the job.

Still, I wouldn't use a .380.

And the reason you take a heart/lung shot over a head shot/CNS on a trophy deer? Are you kidding me?

An animal with ONE deflated lung can make you chase it all day. An animal the loses BOTH with one shot is a sure kill. And would you REALLY take a brain shot on 7x7 trophy bull? That's an AWFULLY small target on a moving, breathing active animal... I've taken neck shots before... but it's not a shot I'd recommend to a novice.

Hunting isn't SD for a number of reasons, one of them being good hunting ethics. When Vinnie the wonder ninja breaks into my place looking to fund his new found substance abuse problem I'd like to THINK that I wouldn't treat him like a deer.

After all I have respect for the deer.

Stopping a charge may or may NOT involve breaking the shoulder/spine or 'braining' the charging beast in question. The only reason to "break the shoulder' is to anchor in in place so you can apply more lead until the beast expires. Thus "stopping" the charge but delaying the overall outcome. This would be akin to shooting the ninja in the knee, hoping he'll drop drop his kyoketsu shoge, or before he gets in range to spit a poison dart in your face, then emptying the magazine into his vitals while he dances around on one foot. pretty much easier SAID than done.

And you know a solid bullet is almost useless on an animal with thin skin. Solids are designed to get through pachyderm hide or dense bone to get a "Texas Heart shot" (from any angle). This is almost exclusively reserved for hippos, rhino and tuskers, not brown bears and lions. Big, controlled expansion bullets are still the norm for most game.

So while you might win the 'holy cow talk about penetration' war when you expunge a junkie ninja from your abode with an elephant gun... ("Well we figured this must be the place we found a spleen in the street.") It's not the best way to 'stop' an attack from a disgruntled assasin.

Ok on that note i'm off to bed. :uhoh:

Gordon

January 10, 2005, 01:44 AM

"I think most people would pick a 300gr XTP or something similar. On the other hand, I've seen a person who's shot several bears say that for STOPPING AN ATTACK he prefers to use 240gr JHP. The dramatic tissue damage (though perhaps superficial) immediately distracts the bear from attacking and focuses his attention on the wound which gives the person time to deal with the threat more precisely or escape."
I've read that and YES I BELIEVE that guy, he is a Game Management person with a lot of Bears under his belt. But you are spliting hairs here between the 240 XTP (which is what the guy used) and the 300 grain load of SAME. Sure the 240grainer opens more than the 300grainer and therefore gives a quicker reaction. Thats why we use controlled expansion bullets that are optimum for the game. From my testing I use 240 XTP on Deer and (along with 250grain Win Partition Gold) and 300 XTP on Hogs , which contrary to the .22 boy, are TOUGH to anchor. I , of course, have only used rifles on bear.

Black Snowman

January 10, 2005, 12:16 PM

The "ninja monkey stance", as Dr.Rob so beautifully put it, is surprisingly effective at keeping your vitals out of trouble in a confrontation. A 115 gr clogged 9mm MIGHT reach a lung if it misses all the bone, but I'd rather not bet on it getting there, or it performing a stop once it did. I'll take BluesBear's .44 Mag please :D

A "duck-walk" from that stance isn't recommended. The idea is you're a small target and you're legs are already coiled in a position to deliver power. Even a gross amateur like myself can change position and cover ground quite quickly from that position and it pretty much any direction but down. I'd recommend shoot first, then laugh. ;)

If you're seeing that, it means they're standing still, anything else and its a moving target. Always good for shot placement. :uhoh:

Gunnutz13

January 10, 2005, 12:35 PM

Double Tap to center mass...one in the brain pan to finish. Shoot until the threat stops...mad animal or mad human... :evil:

unspellable

January 10, 2005, 01:51 PM

An endwise hunting shot needs to go through the body length wise and needs a lot of penetration. The typical hunting shot is from the side and given penetration will go through both lungs. A fast humane kill is the primary objective, a fast stop is secondary, no big deal if a deer runs a short distance before it collapses. (At least for game that's not likely to take it the wrong way and try to stomnp on you.) On most quadrapeds the side shot is parallel to the shortest deminsion of the torso.

The typical defensive shot at a human is at the front and parallel to the shortest dimension of the torso, and generally will involve only one lung. A fast stop is the primary objective, won't do to have your opponent keep shooting while he bleeds out, killing is not an objective.

carebear

January 10, 2005, 03:00 PM

Quick stop? Oh yeah.

Clean? What do I care, guy attacked me. :evil:

Cos,

I think I read it a ways back, but I don't think you necessarily need an "exit wound" to cause blood loss. Internal bleeding after clipping an artery, the heart, liver, kidney, any of the blood-rich organs is going to be significant. Blood that escapes the exit wound may just be from surface skin damage, with arterial collecting in the abdomen.

Two holes certainly increases the blood trail but since I'm not planning on following my attacker into the brush (except perhaps to do some mocking ;) ) I think the internal bleeding would be enough.

Might be good from a blood loss angle to get some ER-experienced types.

I know you hear all the time of people bleeding to death internally.

Dees

January 10, 2005, 04:59 PM

I do believe that a heavier bullet is better for SD but I still don't understand why some say energy transfer from a bullet stopping inside somebody is not something to consider.

Let's say I punch a piece of paper being held tightly at each corner, my fist is likely to go through the paper and the paper would not move back at all. Now, I try to punch through 100 sheets of paper all held tightly at each corner; my fist is not going to make it through. Wouldn't some of the energy from the punch be transfered into the paper casuing the paper to move backwards? Is this not the same thing as a bullet stopping in someone?

RyanM

January 10, 2005, 10:23 PM

Dees, please do not try to "explain" things which you do not understand. I mean that in the kindest way possible. If I said "guns work because the gunpowder grains inflate like popcorn and force the bullet out of the barrel," you'd be saying exactly the same thing to me.

It is, in fact, pressure which puts holes in things. I'm not sure how many PSI/pascals are required to make a hole in tissues, but 147 grain 9mm wadcutters at 750 fps do it quite handily. If you punch one sheet of paper, the pressure of your punch is sufficient to make a hole, but insufficient to make a hole through 100 sheets.

The higher the velocity, and the pointier the bullet, the more pressure. However, flesh doesn't need that much pressure to crush, so a very flat-faced bullet which applies equal pressure with its entire face will make a very large hole at most velocities. A rounded bullet, however, applies high pressure with the tip, and increasingly lower pressure as the angle changes. The lower pressure near the edges of the bullet is what allows flesh to "flow" around ball ammo, expanded bullets, etc.

It is the momentum, on the other hand, which pushes the paper back when the pressure is insufficient to penetrate. When your fist does penetrate, the momentum of your punch is transferred to the piece of paper (if any) which is cleanly removed from the sheet, otherwise it mostly goes to the air. Momentum is always conserved in impacts.

Kinetic energy, on the other hand, is never conserved as kinetic energy. Some KE is always lost on impact, to deformation, vibration, noise, heat, etc.

I'm actually not sure if temporary cavitation is a product of momentum or energy (according to MacPherson, a literal rocket scientist, however, it is momentum), but the hole is definitely made by pressure, which is a factor of projectile face size and shape, and velocity, and that's about it. Mass (and momentum) determines, in part, the retained velocity inside the target, but the velocity and projectile size/shape will determine the size of the hole crushed at any given moment or any given point in the wound track.

Please read up on your physics. Until then, popcorn-propelled bullets!

edit: I should mention, pressure making a hole is why extremely high velocity and/or pointy bullets penetrate soft body armor better. Body armor is generally too thin for weight/retained velocity to make much difference, thus a projectile with a pointy face and/or high velocity generates more pressure, and is able to punch through the high tensile strength armor, while a slow and heavy, blunt-faced bullet generates significantly less pressure. Both the light-pointy-fast and heavy-blunt-slow bullets have enough pressure to crush holes in flesh, of course, since flesh has a considerably lower tensile strength than kevlar (r).

Dees

January 10, 2005, 11:04 PM

I never did like Physics, I always prefered Chemistry :D

Thanks for the post Ryan, I understand what makes holes, but I'm still in the dark about energy transfer. You obviously know more than I do about physics and I'm not saying you're wrong, in fact, I'm sure you're right. I just don't understand why.

RyanM

January 10, 2005, 11:10 PM

To be honest, I'm not entirely certain why they work that way, either. Just seemed like the most logical way of explaining stuff, that higher pressure means tissue gets less time and space to move out of the way; and when I asked a bona fide physics professor, he confirmed that it's actually pressure which determines hole size through solid and semi-solid media (like how higher-velocity and flatter bullets make cleaner holes through paper).

But, he also said that it's very nearly impossible to fully explain or understand fluid impacts without really specializing in them, as well as some quantum physics. And that stuff is just way over my head.

DelayedReaction

January 11, 2005, 02:45 AM

Before I start, I should explain that I'm a senior mechanical engineering major who's studied wound ballistics a bit. I'm not an expert or professional.

First of all, pressure does cause the hole to open. Pressure is force over an area, and higher pressures (such as those caused by pointy bullets traveling at high speed) allow for better penetration. Incidentally, standard bulletproof vests (and bulletproof glass) work by spreading out the pressure to the point where it can't penetrate the vest. In essence the kevlar "catches" the round. This can also be complemented by ultra-hard ceramic inserts, which basically just stop the round in its tracks.

I'm pretty sure hydrostatic shock is a valid concept. From what I understand, it's more or less the fluids inside the body transmitting the force of impact. Think about it. A bullet pierces your flesh, opens up a gaping hole, and sheds energy into your body. A lot of that energy pushes away the parts in your body. Energy is defined as force over distance. So the bullet is now unleashing a force inside your body, which conveniently enough is basically a sack full of fluid. Fluid does not compress easily, and so any force imparted on it is immediately transmitted whever it can be. The end result is that the force of impact from the bullet is transmitted to wherever it can be, which usually causes organs to rupture and other generally unpleasant things to occur. I should mention that this doesn't mean that if you're hit in the leg your heart will explode, just that organs near a wound track tend to recieve a lot of damage.

So what bullet does the most damage? From what I understand, it's the bullet that sheds the most energy into your target. That's why hollowpoint ammunition is considered superior to FMJ in terms of wound ballistics; the open end allows the round to mushroom and deform. This slows the round down and allows more energy to be imparted into the target.

Now should humans be considered in the same realm as animals? Yes and no. Although physiologically similar to several animals (pigs have similar organs, goats have similar lungs, and Jersey cows at six months have brains similar to ours), there's more to it than just parts. Humans react differently than deer when shot. A deer may simply continue on its way until it falls dead, while a human may feasibly fall down right away. Some people think it's psychological, while others think the nervous system is just overloaded by the sudden appearance of a largish hole in the body. That's one of the reasons people support cavitation as a means of describing stopping power; larger cavities imply a better chance of the person falling from overload.

Again, this is just based off of what I've read and studied. Mary Roach has a book entitled Stiff which has a very interesting chapter on this subject. The book describes what happens to cadaevers that are donated to scientific research, and the interesting things that come about from it.

jc2

January 11, 2005, 06:48 AM

Hydrostatic shock is a valid concept. It does not become a factor in effectiveness though at handgun velocities. Normally, hydrostatic shock beccomes a factor in rifles once the velocity reaches 2100-2400 fps.

JHPs are considered superior (again, we are talking about handgun velocities/energy levels) to FMJs not because it "sheds more energy into your target," but because, if it expands, it causes more tissue damage (and even if it doesn't expand, the blunt shape causes more damage than that of a FMJ).

unspellable

January 11, 2005, 08:16 AM

The term "hydrostatic shock" is a totally invalid misnomer. First, hydrostatics is the study of stationary fluids and in this case we are talking about fluids that are any thing but stationary. "Shock" is a pressure wave caused by an object moving faster than the speed of sound. There is no practical pistol or rifle bullet that moves as fast as the speed of sound in water. The speed of sound in flesh is very nearly the same as in water. Hence a "shock" wave is impossible.

What does happen, is that the bullet creates a "wake" like a speed boat on water. This wake is what creates the temporary cavity. If sufficiently violent in delicate tissue it can cause tearing.

"Energy dump" is one point among many to consider, but it does not correlate very well with "stopping power".

There is a quantity called "kinetic pulse" that correlates well with the size of the temporary cavity. Can't recall the formula off the top of my head.

Momentum is conserved. This means the bullet arrives at the target with the same momentum it left the gun minus losses to the air. "Knock down" power is a myth as sufficient momentum to produce it would knock the shooter head over heels.

Energy is conserved in a closed system, how ever the system we are considering is not closed, so energy is always lost to heat, bullet deformation, etc.

BluesBear

January 11, 2005, 02:28 PM

I'm pretty sure hydrostatic shock is a valid concept.
Fluid does not compress easily, and so any force imparted on it is immediately transmitted whever it can be.
What you have just described is Hydro-kinetic NOT Hydro-static.

"Shock" is a pressure wave caused by an object moving faster than the speed of sound.Not always. Shock waves can be generated by less.

Perhaos a better term than Hydro-kinetic Shock would be Hydro-kinetic Trauma.

But since it seems impossible to get otherwise intelligent people to realize that Hydro-static is the wrong term getting them to accept Trauma instead of Shock will be just a futile exercize.

GI-GO :banghead:

carebear

January 11, 2005, 03:37 PM

You misspelled "hydro" in your sig Bluesbear, thus I am denying you credibility in all things.

Sorry. :evil:

I'll start trying to remember hydrokinetic trauma, if only because it makes one sound so smart. :D

RyanM

January 11, 2005, 06:26 PM

I'll start trying to remember hydrokinetic trauma, if only because it makes one sound so smart.

Wasn't that the reason the term "hydrostatic shock" caught on?

BluesBear

January 11, 2005, 07:14 PM

Thanks Carebear, what amazed me was that I only misspelled it once and not all three.

Cosmoline

January 11, 2005, 08:48 PM

killing is not an objective

Well this gets closer to the core of the mythology, I think. The notion is that one must "shoot to stop." This is another example of a pretty common-sense maxim getting stretched too far. The actual point of "shoot to stop" is that once there is no longer a threat of deadly force, you must stop using deadly force to defend yourself. So no coup de grace shots to the head after the bad guy is down. Pretty common sense. Unfortunately, that saying has been stretched to mean that you should not shoot at the head, or use ammo that's designed to kill. That, my friends, is BRAVO SIERRA. Lethal force is lethal force is lethal force. There may be good reasons not to aim for the head or CNS. In fact, there are very good reasons not to. But there are no legal restrictions on the shot. If lethal force is required, then use lethal force. If only "stopping" force is required, as from a rubber slug, then you have no business using lethal force at all.

Cosmoline

January 11, 2005, 08:58 PM

That's why hollowpoint ammunition is considered superior to FMJ in terms of wound ballistics; the open end allows the round to mushroom and deform. This slows the round down and allows more energy to be imparted into the target.

This is another point that's caused me problems. We all know that no projectile from any small arm (other than maybe a 4 bore) will actually knock a man down. So how much actuall "stopping power" does the bullet that stays in the target have? If it will barely shove him, how can it stop him? Any physics mavens want to tackle this? :D

carebear

January 11, 2005, 10:21 PM

Wasn't that the reason the term "hydrostatic shock" caught on?

Yeah, but "hydrokinetic trauma" has two more whole syllables. :evil:

Cos,

Just a conjecture, but could part of the "energy absorbtion" difference be that the aligned recoil spring/gas system-hand-arm-shoulder-body weight-leg system is better designed and set up to handle the actual force of the round's recoil over time at the moment of firing than the skin-muscle-(bone?)-organ of the target is at the comparatively "instant" moment of impact?

Kind of like how throwing a punch doesn't force the hitter back but can upset the hittee?

RyanM

January 11, 2005, 10:33 PM

Guns have muzzle blasts, so for the most part, felt recoil is pretty considerably greater than momentum due to impact, even with a semi-auto gun's action absorbing some momentum.

Also, the punch analogy only works if the puncher is balanced to throw a punch, while the punchee is not balanced to receive it. If it's vice-versa, then punching someone will, in fact, knock the puncher down instead of the punchee.

JohnKSa

January 11, 2005, 11:47 PM

The notion is that one must "shoot to stop.Not that one MUST shoot to stop but that one DOES shoot to stop.

If your attacker immediately stops attacking when hit by your first bullet that is SUCCESS! Even if he recovers and lives to be 112 years old.

If your attacker shoots you after your bullet hits him and you are badly injured or killed that is FAILURE. Even if he dies almost instantly at the scene.

Success and failure are clearly not determined by the death or survival of the attacker.

Whether he lives or dies is of ZERO interest to you. Whether he stops immediately or continues attacking, on the other hand, is a matter of CRITICAL importance.

In a hunting scenario, just the reverse is true.

If you shoot and the deer runs 100 yards, stands still for a minute, collapses and expires a minute or so later, that is success.

If you shoot and the deer immediately falls to the ground, but 15 minutes later after you posed for a pic it jumps up and makes its escape, that is failure.

Clearly, unless the animal dies there is no success. Even if it immediately dropped at the shot (instant stop) it's not a success unless it stays anchored.

That's the point--not that one should avoid "lethal shots" but that the lethality of the shot is not nearly as important as its immediate effect.

The success of a self-defense encounter is defined by the immediate cessation of the attack--NOT by the death of the attacker.

The success of a typical hunting encounter is defined by the death of the animal--NOT whether or not there was an instant "stop".

BluesBear

January 12, 2005, 12:58 AM

The success of a self-defense encounter is defined by the immediate cessation of the attack--NOT by the death of the attacker.

The success of a typical hunting encounter is defined by the death of the animal--NOT whether or not there was an instant "stop".

Personally, I think that sums it up quite nicely.

carebear

January 12, 2005, 02:30 AM

Ryan,

That's kind of the analogy I was thinking of, since typically you "know" when you are going to fire and are prepared for it, so much the better if you train to go into a good recoil absorbing position as you do so.

On the other hand, the shootee can't "get ready" to take a round, even if they get any notice the shot is coming. You can train to role with a punch, but not a bullet.

Black Snowman

January 12, 2005, 11:35 AM

JohnKSa makes a very good point. But it's not one that would compel me to change my priorities in ammunition selection. I want as close to a guaranteed stop as possible, not one that has some slight chance of maybe stopping a little faster if everything goes my way.

Them giving up after one hit is not something I can count on. Waiting for them to bleed out is not something I can count on. Large chunks of them missing are my best option. This is, in fact, why firearms are considered the best stoppers.

Even if I fail and I'm injured or killed, if he's still stopped that's a partial success because he won't be a threat to others. To maximize the odds of survival for myself and others I want something that has the most incapacitation potential.

In a handgun this is problematic at best so when making compromises the thing I want to sacrifice the least is penetration because I don't know if I'll be shooting a skinny crack head square in the chest or a 400 lbs PCP user broadside through an arm.

The point is valid, and I think it still supports my views on choosing a round that wounds effectively by "hunting" criteria. Shot placement is key, and something I don't get to choose in a defensive shooting. So I want to make sure the rounds can be effective under poor circumstances rather than will be effective under ideal circumstances. Murphy and all that. :)

RyanM

January 12, 2005, 01:14 PM

On the other hand, the shootee can't "get ready" to take a round, even if they get any notice the shot is coming. You can train to role with a punch, but not a bullet.

That's true, but since non autoloading guns kick quite a bit harder than just the momentum of the bullet, there are very few rounds that are anywhere near being the equivalent of even the skinniest little punch. For instance, a 10mph punch from a 90 pound weakling, with 1/3rd of their body weight behind it, has about 13.75 slug-seconds of momentum (and, as discussed, it's momentum that pushes things around, like bowling pins). In comparison, a 700 grain .50 BMG at 3,000 fps has about 9.38 slug-seconds. :what:

In other words, if that skinny little punch hit a 180 pound guy on ice skates and on ice, without knocking him over, he'd be sliding backwards at 1.67 mph. If a .50 BMG hit the same guy, he'd only slide at 1.14 mph.

I guess you could calculate "energy transfer" this way, too, just for fun.

Skinny punch, 100 ft-lbs.
Sliding guy, 16.7 ft-lbs.
"Energy transfer," 83.3 ft-lbs. By all military standards of energy-based wounding, that guy should be down and out. (50 joules or something? That's 36.88 ft-lbs!)

.50 BMG, 13,984 ft-lbs.
Sliding guy, 7.8 ft-lbs.
"Energy transfer," 13,976.2 ft-lbs. Ouchies.

Even so, "energy transfer" is pretty meaningless if you look at real and not hypothetical data.

Cosmoline

January 12, 2005, 01:41 PM

The way I see it, if you're using lethal force it means you must either kill the foe or the foe will kill you in the immediate future. There may be many times why you just need to stop someone. But the use of deadly force is limited to those situations where you must kill or be killed. Once the foe no longer presents a threat of imminent deadly peril, your own justification is gone. But don't get caught up in the phrase "shoot to stop." If you are using lethal force in the form of a firearm, you are in a situation where you must shoot to kill or be killed yourself.

At any rate, what evidence is there that high-velocity HP handgun rounds actually "stop" the attack faster than heavy hunting rounds?

JohnKSa

January 12, 2005, 11:23 PM

...the use of deadly force is limited to those situations where you must kill......using lethal force...means you must ... kill the foe...I have NEVER seen a law that gives one citizen permission to kill another--regardless of the circumstances. I HAVE seen lots of laws that give one citizen permission to use lethal or deadly force against another. Within that permission is the tacit understanding that death may result. However, permission is not given to KILL, permission is given to USE DEADLY FORCE.

Splitting hairs you say...

Not so.

As long as the attacker persists, you may resist in any way you have available to you. Shooting him, for example. As many times as you want. With any legal gun, any legal ammo. Aiming at any place on his person that you feel will be most effective. Headshots, heart shots, spinal cord shots, aim for the liver, shoot him in the lungs. It's ALL left up to you.

BUT, once he stops attacking, you MUST, under penalty of prosecution, stop using deadly/lethal force. Even if he's still alive. See, the law didn't give you permission to KILL him for attacking you, only to resist him with deadly force as long as he is attacking. Even if he dies as a result of your legal use of deadly/lethal force, that's still perfectly fine.

The key is that his death is a CONSEQUENCE of your legal use of deadly force--not the GOAL.

But your statement does clarify things. If you take the approach that the ONLY way to resolve a deadly force situation is to kill your attacker then I can see how the rest of your reasoning falls into place.

RyanM

January 13, 2005, 12:42 AM

JohnKSa, that is what we've been saying; the only guaranteed way to stop a person or animal is to wound them to the point that they pass out from CNS damage, either from a bullet through the CNS, or from blood loss. And at that level of damage, death is almost certain.

If they willingly give up, faint from terror, or otherwise stop attacking due to psychological reasons (and if the bullet does not take out their CNS or a vital bloodbearing structure, any stop resulting from that bullet is purely psychological), then whoopee-doo, but the chances of that are not always good.

There is no evidence that low-penetration rounds "stop" a person psychologically more often or more quickly than high-penetration rounds. Anything that flashes, goes "bang," and produces some sensation on the receiving end, has roughly the same likelihood of stopping someone due to purely psychological mechanisms, and I'd rather boost the odds in my favor by choosing a bullet which is as likely as possible to incapacitate via physiological means, as well.

BluesBear

January 13, 2005, 12:54 AM

I almost hate to post this, but it is a sad, sad truth in todays world and it must be told.

There is another very good reason to using the deadliest dealy force possible.

This lesson has been learned the hard way by many, including myself.

"A dead man cannot lie against you in court."

c22m22c

January 13, 2005, 10:22 AM

i typed this long ass...huge reply, erased it, and started over. twice. but it all boils down to a simple guideline for me (and maybe you too).

"carry whatever you think you need."

most hunters i know...tell me that when they hunt and see the animal they wanna shoot, they take the best shot they can. typically the behind-the-shoulder spot...but not always. they shoot this animal with a high powered rifle round (or pistol round). the intent is to drop the animal where it stands...but most times it survives, hauls ass, and dies on the move.

and most of the gunfighters i've talked with (and combined my personal experience with) tell me that in the heat of the moment...you take the best shot you can. typically the body (torso, COM, etc.)...but not always. they shoot this person with a bullet designed to cause massive damage. the intent is to drop the human where it stands...but most times it survives, hauls ass, and dies on the move.

oddly similar. but when the autopsies are performed...ALMOST INVARIABLY...the human target is more damaged.

the human body does some crazy stuff. when a guy can take 11 rounds of .38 to the head from two different guns, and walk away to the ambulance on the scene...or when another guy can take 2 12ga00 buck shots to the chest, and kill the officer after...or when a 325lb man was instantly killed with a .22lr from a pistol to the head...or a 186lb man is shot in the inner thigh with a .32 and dies in seconds...all bets are off. so i'll stick with my modified "mozambique" and put two in the head aiming for the eyes, and continue to cover my target until i can get some help.

i say again...carry whatever you think you need.

--ps-- if my high school physics serves me right...the MOMENTUM of a 9mm round is ROUGHLY equivalent to a 1lb weight dropped from a height of 6 feet. so when i drop a guy with my 9...its not because of momentum (and there goes the "stopping power" debate right down the toilet)...maybe it has something to do with bullet construction in addition to its "slow" velocity.

i suggest everyone check in to jim cirillo's info on ballistics. the man was a shooting legend in his own time for the NYPD stake out squad in the 60's when streets were mean and the men who roamed them, meaner. made his own bullets that were like expanding drill bits. awesome stuff.

Cosmoline

January 13, 2005, 01:33 PM

As long as the attacker persists, you may resist in any way you have available to you.

Well you're all turned around on this issue. You may NOT continue to use lethal force just because the attack persists. If the attacker is no longer posing an imminent deadly threat, you must stop using lethal force--EVEN IF HE CONTINUES TO TRY TO ATTACK. If he's disarmed, downed, but still trying to grab at you, you don't get to shoot him.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the use of deadly force does not allow you to kill someone. Of course it does. It's a justification for homicide. Literally. You are only allowed to use lethal force in self defense if you face imminent, unlawful threat of lethal force.

c22m22c

January 13, 2005, 03:29 PM

you are correct. imminent deadly threat absent...use of lethal force denied.

BUT...dead men tell no tales.

Cosmoline

January 13, 2005, 03:34 PM

True enough. And there's something to be said from a legal and practical point of view from being able to end the matter with one fatal shot to the front. Having to hose down a foe with smaller rounds runs the very real risk of entry wounds in the fellow's back or sides in the chaos of the fight, any one of which can land you in prison. A single massive shot to the front of an armed suspect who is presenting an imminent deadly threat when shot is probably the best bet all around.

carebear

January 13, 2005, 04:12 PM

A single massive shot to the front of an armed suspect

Grape or canister? :evil:

dead men tell no tales

Arghhh! Ye be right on that m'hearty! :p

Missouri Mule

January 13, 2005, 04:43 PM

Right, wrong, politically correct or what ever....
Any human being that am about to be forced to shoot and possibly kill in self defense or defense of my family qualifies as an animal in my eyes.

c22m22c

January 13, 2005, 05:08 PM

good call. ^

cosmoline, you make points i can't deny. i'm gonna add everything you've said to my personal doctrine. i'm still refining my personal doctrines, and i'm trying to get a good blend of various things.

thanks for your insights. :)

mountainclmbr

January 13, 2005, 10:39 PM

I never saw a pig that was high on chrystal meth. A whole 45 minutes with a wounded crazed person could be a very bad thing. Use 375 H&H mag minimum!

JohnKSa

January 13, 2005, 10:47 PM

You may NOT continue to use lethal force just because the attack persists.Given I have more than once talked about the attacker shooting back, I doubt that there's any real question about what I meant by "persists."I'm not sure where you got the idea that the use of deadly force does not allow you to kill someone.I'm not sure where you got the idea that I believe that. Again, given that I posted "Even if he dies as a result of your legal use of deadly/lethal force, that's still perfectly fine." I find it difficult to believe that there's any real question what I think on that subject.

RyanM, one need only to read a few of the Armed Citizen vignettes in the NRA magazines to realize that it's a rare attacker who continues to attack (actually pose a threat --just in case it's not perfectly clear what I mean by attack) to the point that he must actually be killed. The reality of self-defense is that a good many attackers immediately cease to pose a threat before the gun is even fired. And most of those who actually get perforated have a complete change of priorities (go from fight to flight, if you will) at the point that the first hole appears in their anatomy.

Clearly the statement "using lethal force means you must kill the foe" is not consistent with reality.

SOMETIMES it is, but certainly not in the majority of cases.

And, since there seems to be some problems understanding what I mean, let me be PERFECTLY CLEAR. I am not advocating shooting to wound. I am not advocating shooting once and then automatically pausing to assess damage. I believe a real threat deserves an all-out response, not half measures. If the guy dies that's not an issue as far as I'm concerned. He made his decision and must bear the consequences--whatever they be.