I have a problem with "Shot placement is key" and "Overpenetration"


PDA






mljdeckard
June 3, 2012, 02:33 AM
Of course shot placement is key. No one would say that they should get anything other than the very best hits they can in a given situation.

HOWEVER, when it usually gets used in here, it is for a couple of reasons. Particularly in subjects like saying why less-powerful cartridges are good for self defense. I feel like some people think a tiny bullet is fine for a defensive encounter because you can hit anyone in the jugular with a .22.

Does this somehow mean that if you use a more powerful cartridge, shot placement ISN'T key? You can be sloppy if you are using a .44.

I also feel like a lot of people are trying to say that shot placement is the cure for for anything that can go bad in a gunfight. Hitting your neighbor through the drywall. Hitting innocent bystanders behind the bad guy who is trying to kill you.

Exactly what is this idea of 'overpenetration'? Where do we get this idea that there is such thing as a bullet that is too powerful? I want a bullet to be likely to completely traverse a human target, under most conditions. There is just penetration, and you want all you can get, particularly with pistol bullets, which are not great tools for the job to begin with.

In real life, in a gunfight, you can't assume that your conditions will be ideal. You can't assume that you will get a full-frontal shot center of mass. You can't assume that all of your shots will hit. Some people make it sound like Rule #4 doesn't apply as long as you are using hollow-points. Like, you can stand grandma behind a bad guy, and go ahead and shoot him, and it's ok because you are using hollow-points. Rule #4 always applies, on the range, on the street, in war. You can't assume that any shot you fire will fail to penetrate what you are shooting at and hit what is behind it. Therefore, why do you not always want the most powerful bullet that will work for your situation?

Or should I not ponder such things while watching Hatfields and McCoys on my DVR?

If you enjoyed reading about "I have a problem with "Shot placement is key" and "Overpenetration"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
smalls
June 3, 2012, 02:46 AM
My concern with over penetration is this: bullets can travel very far. So if I happen to miss center of mass, I still want it to not go through him. Why do we need 18 inches of penetration? Even if an arm is in the way of center of mass, there's still not 18 inches to an organ.

Shot placement is key with any caliber. Center of mass is where all the organs are. If I shoot someone in the foot, they may bleed out, but they still have a greater chance of inflicting damage to me, because my shot was not incapacitating. Now a shot through a lung, or the heart, I've got a much greater chaance of them stopping their attack.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2012, 02:53 AM
If an arm is in the way, you might have plenty of leather or bone between the bullet and the vitals.

Again, you are ASSUMING that your shot will hit. And are you not concerned with what is behind your target if you DO hit? It may or may not hit what is behind your target, no matter what bullet you are using. It's not like you can plan differently because you are using a bullet which you believe is less likely to traverse the target. You still have to plan that it WILL. This means you might as well have the best one you can get.

smalls
June 3, 2012, 03:01 AM
Absolutely, I'm concerned with what is beyond my target. Like I said, if I miss COM, I still do not want my bullet to go through.

Unfortunately, we can't have both, penetration to go through an arm, a leather jacket, and hit vitals, and underpenetration to make sure bullets don't hit bystanders. And misses, well, it really doesn't matter what bullet you use if you miss and accidentally hit grandma. We don't have bullets that know the difference between good guys and innocent bystanders.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2012, 03:06 AM
This is correct. You can't have both. So, you are saying you would rather use an underperforming bullet, even through it won't eliminate any risk or change your plan in any way?

natman
June 3, 2012, 03:13 AM
There's no overpenetration, just underexpansion.

smalls
June 3, 2012, 03:31 AM
Yes, I would rather use a bullet that underpenetrates. The way I see it, if it hits a bad guy, it's still a bullet, and it's going to do damage. Maybe not as much as possible, but it's still gonna hurt, and hopefully incapacitate/stop the attack. And hopefully, by choosing a bullet that doesn't penetrate "too much", I save grandma.

In the event of an attack, rule 4 may go out the window. Under such stress, and fraction of a second worth of thinking/reaction time, I may not see grandma, or anything else besides the threat. Hopefully my bullet choice makes up for that.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2012, 03:41 AM
Hopefully does the job? Hopefully doesn't kill grandma? These are two things for which I don't want half measures.

Rule number four ALWAYS applies. No exceptions. If that bullet hits something you did it.

Bubba613
June 3, 2012, 04:51 AM
No gunfight was lost by over-penetration.

Loosedhorse
June 3, 2012, 05:59 AM
...You can be sloppy if you are using a .44.If I hit a guy in the elbow (I aimed COM, but he moved) with a .25, well, he might notice that. If I hit him in the elbow with a .44 Mag HP, I may remove most of the joint--I think he'll notice that.

Also, despite tunnel vision and auditory exclusion, I think the experience of seeing a Model 29 pointed at and fired into you is different than the same experience with a Baby Browning. And yes, if the difference buys me a "psychological stop", I'll take that.Like, you can stand grandma behind a bad guy, and go ahead and shoot him, and it's ok because you are using hollow-points.If the bad guy is about to murder me (and then murder grandma) I'm taking the shot: she'd want me to, just as I'd want her to shoot if the situation were reversed.

And yes, I'd hope that she's using hollow-points, not FMJ. :D Overpenetration can matter a lot.Therefore, why do you not always want the most powerful bullet that will work for your situation?If by that you mean the most powerful cartridge and gun combination that I can shoot well and conceal, that's exactly what I want...although capacity comes into it somewhere. I might trade 6 shots of .44 Special for 18 of 9mm.

And whichever I choose, there's every reason to load it with HPs.

MistWolf
June 3, 2012, 07:14 AM
Check out the info in this video. Focus on what he says about shot placement and penetration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dA36NYLqns&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Dr. Detroit
June 3, 2012, 07:23 AM
No gunfight was lost by over-penetration.

I'm not so sure this is true. A drug-crazed robber entered a pizza store near my city and pointed a shotgun at the clerk, demanding cash. When the robber was momentarily distracted, the clerk drew a 9mm pistol and shot the guy several times at very close range. But it was only moments until the bad guy picked himself up off the floor and again became a threat. It took a few more rounds to stop him for good.

The problem was that the clerk was using round-nose ammo which was sailing straight through the bad guy, leaving only a narrow wound channel. It doesn't get more "overpenetrating" than that. I think the idea is to select ammo that has the best chance of leaving/losing as much of its energy as possible inside the bad guy, while hopefully achieving sufficient penetration to reach vital organs and structures.

G-d forbid we ever need to do it.

Dr. Detroit

Salmoneye
June 3, 2012, 08:03 AM
The eternal argument...

Some people buy a .357, then 'load down' with .38 specials so they don't get the flash/bang of the magnum, and the bullets don't 'over-penetrate' in an HD scenario...

As soft lead staying in the bad guy is what you want, why not simply buy a .38 S&W (not special) and have done with it, right?

:D

Bubba613
June 3, 2012, 08:58 AM
I'm not so sure this is true. A drug-crazed robber entered a pizza store near my city and pointed a shotgun at the clerk, demanding cash. When the robber was momentarily distracted, the clerk drew a 9mm pistol and shot the guy several times at very close range. But it was only moments until the bad guy picked himself up off the floor and again became a threat. It took a few more rounds to stop him for good.

The problem was that the clerk was using round-nose ammo which was sailing straight through the bad guy, leaving only a narrow wound channel. It doesn't get more "overpenetrating" than that. I think the idea is to select ammo that has the best chance of leaving/losing as much of its energy as possible inside the bad guy, while hopefully achieving sufficient penetration to reach vital organs and structures.

There's the problem right there. Nothing short of a head shot will stop a drug crazed person. SO it was a failure of shot placement, not over penetration, that caused the failure to stop.
Expansion in a handgun round is iffy.

jmr40
June 3, 2012, 09:18 AM
Perfect shot placement is nice, but rarely possible. I see lots of threads where so called experts complain about the number of shots sometimes fired, and the number that missed, by LE when a shooting happens. Bad guys don't have a bullseye drawn on their chests and they don't stand still in perfect light for you to take aim and fire. They are running, jumping, kneeling, and hiding behind barriers while you are doing the same. There will be missed shots and the many that do hit are not in vital areas simply because you have to hit the areas that are exposed. There is no such thing as having too much ammo available.

I don't worry about overpenetration. I made the decision long ago that I will not fire on another person unless there is no doubt that that person will cause more harm than any possible harm could come from missed shots or overpeneration from my gun.

elrowe
June 3, 2012, 09:27 AM
Assume every shot will either miss or pass-through the target (any target, not just the bad guy) and hit whatever's behind it.

I want any animal, including human ones if they need it, I shoot to be bleeding through two holes so that it incapacitates as quickly as possible. The difference in permanent wound channel between FMJ and JHP pistol rounds of almost any caliber or velocity is minimal (.355" vs. .61" for 9mm Golden Sabers for example), so bleeding rate is critical unless you hit central nervous system locations.

Old Fuff
June 3, 2012, 10:55 AM
An awful lot of folks (and not all of them bad guys because the good can get hit too) have survived gunfights and other shooting incidents because the bullet(s) that hit them didn’t impact a vital organ or cause massive bleeding. This may be good or bad depending on which side you’re looking from.

In any case survival (which it’s all about) depends on the ability to incapacitate or disable an opponent in the shortest possible time. Otherwise they may do the same to you.

It is a given that big diameter bullets make bigger holes then smaller ones, and they aren’t dependent on expanding because the leave the bore expanded in the first place. For that reason my ideal pocket revolver is one the size of a J-frame Smith & Wesson with an 8-shot cylinder chambered to take 12 gage shotgun shells loaded with slugs. :what:

Some of you may detect some flaws in my reasoning, but what the heck! :D

So we must make some compromises between what is practical to carry vs. what ammunition can be used in them. Also maximum power may not be the best answer if the gun/ammunition combination presents a blast and recoil that insures that any quick shots made after the first one will likely be all over the map. A fast miss never wins the gold ring.

So life comes down to a measure of compromises. For example, in my present residence if I shoot and miss a close range shot at a hostile uninvited visitor (impossible I know, but “what if…”) the bullet might likely go through a large window with single pane glass, across a two-lane street, and hit an occupied house on the other side. For this reason my .38 Special house-gun is loaded with mid-range full wadcutters, that will likely penetrate far enough into to the person mentioned above at close range and leave a very effective primary channel, but not have much horsepower left if I miss and the slug ends up across the street. From the perspective of raw “stopping power” my cartridges may be far from the best choice, but hopefully I can make up the difference with marksmanship – which is a necessary component of effective bullet placement.

Under other circumstances and in different situation I may change to an entirely different handgun and ammunition. In a medium/large-sized revolver the .44 Special cartridge becomes very attractive. For personal protection under most conditions I see no need for Magnums other then those under the .357 size, and again I would tend to favor a .44 or .45 bore over any .357 Magnum unless maximum penetration was an important consideration.

Others of course can make their own choices, but over the years I have carried everything from a .22 WRM to .45 and never felt under gunned. I have always depended on my ability to hit exactly what and where I intend to, rather then the specifications of what I’m using to do it.

ball3006
June 3, 2012, 11:35 AM
Two holes bleed better than one. I believe any hole in a bad guy is good. Expect the bad guy to continue to fight unless you hit the head or spine. Guys just don't fall down or get blown down like in the movies. A body will continue to fight until the lights go out. If you want better bullet placement, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE......chris3

smalls
June 3, 2012, 11:51 AM
Unfortunately, all you can do is hope, because there will always be variables you don't know. You don't know if your round will make it to organs, you don't know what kind of clothing he's wearing, that may or may not impede your shot, or how his body will angled, etc.

You can train (and should), but you're still going to not know what YOUR fight will look like.

Unless you know all the variables, you can't figure out the solution. In this case, the solution is the round chosen, and the type of bullet shot. That's why there is no magic bullet, because you don't know the variables.

JERRY
June 3, 2012, 11:58 AM
i'll get the popcorn, this is getting good.

Bubba613
June 3, 2012, 12:12 PM
It is a given that big diameter bullets make bigger holes then smaller ones, and they aren’t dependent on expanding because the leave the bore expanded in the first place.

I realize this was teh lead in to a joke, but there really isn't that much difference in calibers using JHPs.

loneviking
June 3, 2012, 12:17 PM
I don't worry about overpenetration as from first hand experience it seems rather rare. In thirty years of E.R. work and somewhere north of 3 dozen shootings, I don't recall ever seeing an exit wound. Can it happen? Sure, and I've seen pictures but they were all from rifle rounds. I just saw a video on the news of a cop in hilly being beaten by a drug crazed felon. The cop drew and put four rounds into the bad guy who just kept fighting. There's just too many incidents like that to argue for an under powered, under penetrating round.

Loosedhorse
June 3, 2012, 12:31 PM
Two holes bleed better than one.I'm not sure. Most of the bleeding from a chest or abdominal wound will be internal; compared to a bullet that reaches the far skin and stays there, a bullet that completely perforates your attacker buys you a little extra skin bleeding. That's not going to matter unless you need the blood trail to track him. ;)Expect the bad guy to continue to fight unless you hit the head or spine.Expect the bad guy to continue the fight, period. Remember Yogi Berra: "It ain't over till it's over."

smalls
June 3, 2012, 12:32 PM
Underpowered and underpenetrating are not the same thing, though.

Fremmer
June 3, 2012, 12:37 PM
based on my experience with deer, 2 holes certainly are better than 1 hole. yrmv.

jrdolall
June 3, 2012, 12:46 PM
Two holes bleed better than one.

This is a valid statment for deer hunting but is not applicable to self defense. An exit wound will not allow the person shot to bleed out any quicker. Blood pouring from an organ or artery is leaving the area and the person will be just as bad off if the blood stays inside the body cavity or if it pours out an exit wound.
We all need a round that is guaranteed to inflict the maximum amount of damage and then stop before it exits. I like the idea of a J Frame with 8 rounds of 12 g. Let me know when they get that figured out:)

jscott
June 3, 2012, 02:00 PM
OP wrote:

Exactly what is this idea of 'overpenetration'? Where do we get this idea that there is such thing as a bullet that is too powerful? I want a bullet to be likely to completely traverse a human target, under most conditions. There is just penetration, and you want all you can get, particularly with pistol bullets, which are not great tools for the job to begin with.

I'm not sure you understand ballistics. Penetration does not equal power. Many rounds with vastly differing foot/pounds of energy, or "power," results will penetrate to nearly identical depths.

Penetration, whether too much or not enough, has very little to do with how "powerful" a particular round is. More "powerful" rounds may penetrate significantly less than less powerful ones. Weight, velocity, bullet design, expansion, and more all contribute to penetration and do not necessarily correlate to foot/pounds of energy or anything else for that matter.

You are unwise if you want a bullet to completely traverse a human target. This has little to do with the round striking an innocent beyond said target - a round passing through a threat and striking an innocent is extremely rare. Of greater concern is a miss striking an innocent which is much more common, especially when you consider that hit ratios of less than 50% are the norm. This is the reasoning behind the rule of being sure of what lies beyond your target even in a gunfight. Being that misses are more likely to strike innocents than overpenetrating rounds, overpenetration should only be a minor consideration in round selection in that regard only.

What you should be concerned with in terms of penetration is this. A round that passes completely through a target will retain much of its energy. That means that your bullet will have failed to transfer all of its energy into the threat. That is a bad thing. On the other hand, a round that under penetrates is less likely to disrupt or destroy vital organs, many of which lie deep within the body of even a front facing threat.

That's why you want optimal penetration - not too much and not too little.

Skribs
June 3, 2012, 02:08 PM
Of course shot placement is key. No one would say that they should get anything other than the very best hits they can in a given situation.

I like, whenever the subjects of caliber war, penetration depth, energy dump, HP vs. ball, etc. come up, someone says "placement." Like, the fact that you have to hit your target makes every other variable mean nothing. "Should I get HP or ball ammo for my .380?" "Placement." "Should I go with 9mm or .45 for HD?" "Placement." It doesn't answer the underlying question, and is often irrelevant to the question.

I can get the same placement in HP and ball. I can get the same placement in .45 and 9 (although 9 would be easier to use, and some people can't handle anything bigger). So..."placement" doesn't help differentiate between the options available.

Exactly what is this idea of 'overpenetration'?

There are several theories as to why OP is bad:
1) If you don't spend all your energy in the target, then there is something ineficient going on. You could have had it expand wider, or had less recoil, or dump more energy into the target. Personally, I'd rather risk overpenetration than underpenetration (didn't reach the vitals), but that's just me. With that said, I don't go for something that has 30" of penetration and doesn't expand, I just want a HP that penetrates 15-18" instead of 10-12".
2) The fear that the bullet will continue through the target and hit something else behind him. This is mostly irrational to me, because if you're going to miss (which you will with a pistol round), then it's going to hit stuff behind the target anyway.
3) The fear that if you miss and hit a wall, it will hit someone behind the wall. This is just plain illogical. If you want something that won't go through walls, you're pretty much limited to an airsoft gun or really fine birdshot.

elrowe
June 3, 2012, 02:08 PM
This is a valid statment for deer hunting but is not applicable to self defense. An exit wound will not allow the person shot to bleed out any quicker. Blood pouring from an organ or artery is leaving the area and the person will be just as bad off if the blood stays inside the body cavity or if it pours out an exit wound.
We all need a round that is guaranteed to inflict the maximum amount of damage and then stop before it exits. I like the idea of a J Frame with 8 rounds of 12 g. Let me know when they get that figured out:)
Same biology, deer don't bleed differently than humans. As pressure builds internally (with only one small hole or if the holes seal up - yes, they do that), bleeding slows down, delaying incapacitation.

Is there a doctor in the house?

theautobahn
June 3, 2012, 02:46 PM
What you should be concerned with in terms of penetration is this. A round that passes completely through a target will retain much of its energy. That means that your bullet will have failed to transfer all of its energy into the threat.

Why did it take 27 posts for this point to be made? A bullet only has so much "energy" - if the bullet stops within the target, then it has dumped all of its available energy into the target. If it exits, then not all of the energy is transferred to the target.

This is the main reason that you want your bullets to stop within the body. An over penetrating round injuring an innocent bystander is a valid reason as well, but is a close second (even with the quickest expanding bullets [Glaser, etc.], there is a chance (very small, but still exists) that it may pass through and hit a bystander.

gbeecher
June 3, 2012, 03:21 PM
I agree, of course shot placement is crucial. A 'miss is as good as a mile', so the saying goes. On the subject of overpenetration, what about a razor sharp broadhead arrow fired from a modern compound bow? Oftentimes it passes clean thru a game animal! I understand the need to protect innocent bystanders, but eliminating the threat from the criminal or enemy is priority number 1! If the threat is not eliminated, the innocent bystanders may very well be harmed anyway.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2012, 03:38 PM
I very much agree. Two holes are betterr than one, and a bullet that only penetrates partway through the target and still has undamaged tissue in front of it has failed to do its job.

Fremmer
June 3, 2012, 04:07 PM
It certainly is applicable here. 2 hole penetration means your bullet destroyed as much tissue as possible, causing more bleeding and damage. That's just the way it works, Imho.

Edited to add, allow me to be more specific. A lot of times i don't get the perfect broadside shot at a deer. I have to take what I get, so I want a round that will plow through the shoulder, zip through the lungs or other innards, continue through to smash the opposite shoulder or a rib before exiting through. I don't want that round to stop in the animal, because i don't want lack of tissue damage allowing it to run for miles.
And the worst wounds are the gutshot deer without complete penetration, they can and do run a long time from those.
Plus it would seem bizare to select a bullet and caliber based on how well it under penetrates.

valnar
June 3, 2012, 04:18 PM
I just got finished with my CCW class (I'm a procrastinator) and the 41 years police veteran firearms instructor who taught the class only uses a .45 with 230gr hollow points for this reason. Well, that and the fact he says it easily stops people better than a 9mm. He says the faster bullets like a 9mm or .357Mag can go through multiple walls and may not stop someone any better.

Skribs
June 3, 2012, 04:23 PM
I just got finished with my CCW class (I'm a procrastinator) and the 41 years police veteran firearms instructor who taught the class only uses a .45 with 230gr hollow points for this reason. Well, that and the fact he says it easily stops people better than a 9mm. He says the faster bullets like a 9mm or .357Mag can go through multiple walls and may not stop someone any better.

A .45 230-grain will go through walls better than a 9mm will. Thing about pistol bullets is that hollowpoints don't prevent overpenetration through walls. They clog up with drywall and fail to expand, and work like a ball round.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2012, 04:24 PM
jscott, you can't depend on energy transference from pistol bullets to stop someone.

Here's how you determine how much energy stopping in your target helps you. Take a 50 lb bag of cement mix, and set it on a barrel and shoot it a few times. How much that bag reacts, is how much a pistol bullet is going to knock someone over.

The standard for any good defensive cartridge is that it will pass through at least 12" of ballistic gelatin. No one (except maybe Magsafe and Glaser) makes defensive ammunition intended to stop in the target.

huntsman
June 3, 2012, 04:26 PM
Why did it take 27 posts for this point to be made? A bullet only has so much "energy" - if the bullet stops within the target, then it has dumped all of its available energy into the target. If it exits, then not all of the energy is transferred to the target.

This is the main reason that you want your bullets to stop within the body. An over penetrating round injuring an innocent bystander is a valid reason as well, but is a close second (even with the quickest expanding bullets [Glaser, etc.], there is a chance (very small, but still exists) that it may pass through and hit a bystander.
So how is said energy measured? and if all its energy means a 30%-50% increase is it that noticeable? if it's your sole justification in using a specific bullet then there must be some hard facts to back up your decision.

Loosedhorse
June 3, 2012, 04:57 PM
Two holes are betterr than one, and a bullet that only penetrates partway through the target and still has undamaged tissue in front of it has failed to do its job.Well, I've recovered a fair amount of bullets from under the far hide. The dead animal didn't seem to mind that the bullet "failed to do its job." The fear that the bullet will continue through the target and hit something else behind him. This is mostly irrational to me, because if you're going to miss (which you will with a pistol round), then it's going to hit stuff behind the target anyway.Posted many times before (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=7802832&highlight=count#post7802832):Well, it was a report in in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/09/nyregion/new-york-police-will-start-using-deadlier-bullets.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm) that publicized this NYPD report:According to statistics released by the department, 15 innocent bystanders were struck by police officers using full-metal-jacket bullets during 1995 and 1996, the police said. Eight were hit directly, five were hit by bullets that had passed through other people and two were hit by bullets that had passed through objects.

In that same period, officers in the Transit Bureau, who already used the hollow points, struck six bystanders. Four of them were hit directly, one was hit by a bullet that ricocheted and another was hit by a bullet that passed through an object.

In that same period, 44 police officers were struck by police gunfire using the old ammunition: 21 were hit directly, 2 were struck by bullets that ricocheted and 17 were struck by bullets that passed though other people. Of the four officers struck by hollow-point bullets, three were hit directly and one was hit by a bullet that passed through another person.Massad Ayoob also had an article on (I believe) the same NYC statisitics.

By my count, that's 23 persons hit by bullets passing though other persons. Just the documented cases; just the ones involving police. In two years. One city.

Not sure we can disregard over-penetration as just a media myth. Of course, NYPD was at that time using 9mm hardball, one of the most penetrative rounds going.You can't likely change a miss into a hit by selecting a particular load. But you can prevent an over-penetration by load selection. Odd that, because you might miss and endanger bystanders, you therefore think it's alright to endanger them even if you hit your attacker.

mljdeckard
June 3, 2012, 05:33 PM
But again, there is no such thing as a load that will reliably stop an attacker AND is guaranteed to not go the target. Even if you get a bullet somewhat less likely to go through a human target, you can't PLAN that it won't. YOU still have to ASSUME that it WILL. Misses and ricochets will continue to occur. One might also reflect that this report on New York is at least somewhat worsened by the fact that it is pretty much the most densely populated area in America.

Skribs
June 3, 2012, 05:41 PM
According to statistics released by the department, 15 innocent bystanders were struck by police officers using full-metal-jacket bullets during 1995 and 1996, the police said. Eight were hit directly, five were hit by bullets that had passed through other people and two were hit by bullets that had passed through objects.

In that same period, officers in the Transit Bureau, who already used the hollow points, struck six bystanders. Four of them were hit directly, one was hit by a bullet that ricocheted and another was hit by a bullet that passed through an object.

In that same period, 44 police officers were struck by police gunfire using the old ammunition: 21 were hit directly, 2 were struck by bullets that ricocheted and 17 were struck by bullets that passed though other people. Of the four officers struck by hollow-point bullets, three were hit directly and one was hit by a bullet that passed through another person.

So of those 15 bystanders that were hit, only 5 were hit because the bullet had penetrated through. Those that were hit directly, the ammo choice wouldn't have made a difference (actually HP ammo would have been worse), and depending on the barrier, it might have turned the HP into a non-expanding round.

Of those officers that were hit, again, only 17 of the 44 were hit by bullets that had passed through. The ricochets or direct hits could have happened with hollowpoints. That quote also doesn't show how much HP rounds were used vs. ball ammo, so its hard to tell.

---

I should qualify my statement. Like I said above, I'm not looking for 30" of penetration. But the people who want the rounds that penetrate 6" or less because of the fear that it will go through and hit someone else is an irrational fear. The purpose of a self defense shooting is to stop the target, so why pick a round that will not stop the target on the off-chance it goes through him and hits someone else?

And, like I said - if you miss, then the target doesn't slow it down at all. More than half of the people hit in that study linked would have been hit with anything, because the officer missed their intended target. I'm more worried about hitting someone in that case than about a bullet that went through the target.

Multiple studies have found different numbers, somewhere between 12-18" or 13-16", and so on, for the penetration you should want in SD ammo. People who want 0-12" of penetration are the people I believe have that irrational fear of OP.

rcmodel
June 3, 2012, 05:46 PM
No gunfight was lost by over-penetration.Not true.
There were a lot of dead cops years ago who emptied a cylinder full of .38 Spl LRN into a BG and still got killed before he went down.

There were a lot of WWII vets who came home full of 9mm FMJ holes and killed the German who shot them with an M1.

I knew one of them quite well.

rc

Skribs
June 3, 2012, 05:49 PM
Rc, would those BGs/soldiers have gone down first had the cops/germans used hollowpoints?

Ragnar Danneskjold
June 3, 2012, 05:50 PM
Death through bleed-out may end up making sure the bad guy can't hurt anyone else, but there's enough oxygenated blood already in the brain and limbs to let a bad guy with catastrophic chest wounds still squeeze of a round or lunge at you with a knife. Damaging the central nervous system is the only way to interrupt a bad guy's physical actions against you. And that means shot placement. Put as many rounds into the spinal area as you can.

Loosedhorse
June 3, 2012, 06:08 PM
Multiple studies have found different numbers, somewhere between 12-18" or 13-16", and so on, for the penetration you should want in SD ammo.What are these "studies"? I'd like to know.

Perhaps we are all aware of the FBI Handgun Wounding and Effectiveness (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%229mm%20vs.%20.45%20auto%22%2C%20fbi%20academy%2C%20quantico%2C%20va%2C%20september%201987.%20conclusion%20of%20the%20workshop&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CF0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firearmstactical.com%2Fpdf%2Ffbi-hwfe.pdf&ei=FNzLT-PAJ8i26QHFhZH4Dw&usg=AFQjCNGiBDvVk0FdWtg8L8pNHim0xFThxw) paper. It is not a study, but an "article"--a position paper that states the FBI's standards.

In the paper, we find this statement:While penetration up to 18 inches is preferable, a handgun bullet MUST reliably penetrate 12 inches of soft body tissue at a minimum, regardless of whether it expands or not. If the bullet does not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.Only one reference is given for this statement:Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto", FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, September, 1987. Conclusion of the Workshop.This "workshop" (https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/Abstract.aspx?id=253695)--not study--seems to be the main reason for the penetration criteria. As far as I know, the theory that such penetration is what's "needed" for effectiveness has never been confirmed by an actual study of effectiveness. In fact, I often hear that the FBI's recommendations are valid specfically because they can't be scientifically checked.again, only 17 of the 44 were hit by bullets that had passed throughPerhaps we should have asked those 17 officers if they would have preferred their fellow officers using the FMJs they did, or JHPs instead? ;)

Like I said, it is strange logic to think that, because 27 were hit by errant shots, we should dismiss the 17 that were hit by pass-throughs as not worthy of consideration.

Skribs
June 3, 2012, 06:25 PM
LH, which is more important? Something that is likely to penetrate to the depth to stop an attack, or something that is not likely to penetrate through the target? If your priority isn't to stop the attack, why are you shooting?

I'm not arguing HP vs. FMJ. I am arguing that if your primary goal is to prevent overpenetration, and as such you choose light loads, weaker calibers, smaller pellets, or frangible rounds that will penetrate significantly less than what may be needed to reach the vitals, then you're less likely to stop the attack. Oh, and you can still injure passersby if you miss. So even though your goal is to not hurt anyone else, you still can.

If your primary goal is to stop the attack, and you choose an appropriate load with that goal in mind (something with enough penetration to do the job), then yes, on a direct hit where you hit a skinny target square in the chest without first going through his arms, you will have a much higher chance of a bullet passing through someone, but you also have a reduced chance of failure to stop the attack.

I'd also like to know how many shootings there were during that time frame. Yes 17 is a high number of people to get hit, but I'm pretty sure innocents or friendlies getting hit (either by a miss or a penetrator) is very unlikely.

Loosedhorse
June 3, 2012, 07:05 PM
LH, which is more important? Something that is likely to penetrate to the depth to stop an attack, or something that is not likely to penetrate through the target? If your priority isn't to stop the attack, why are you shooting?I believe you are presenting me a false dichotomy: if I choose a round that won't overpenetrate in most circumstances, that does not mean it will not physiologically stop the threat in most circumstances.

Then there's the phenomenon of psychological stops, which I assume (based on the number of people who survive being shot by handguns) are more frequent than physiological stops. It would be a pity to perforate both the bad guy and grandma behind him when a non-vital hit would have stopped him. So, again, an FBI-level penetrative round may not be needed to stop your fight, just as an FBI-level round might not be enough to do that before your attacker "takes you with him."

If you are instead asking me on which side I would like to err, well, that's a more interesting question. As has already been mentioned, in some settings (like my home or hers) grandma might me on the other side of the bad guy; my kids might be, too.

I guess I shouldn't consider the possibility of their being struck by a pass-through differently than an innocent I don't know...but I do.

BTW--any luck on all those "multiple studies"?I'm pretty sure innocents or friendlies getting hit (either by a miss or a penetrator) is very unlikely.It is very unlikely I will need a gun, but I carry in spite of the low probability. So, if it is very unlikely I will need less penetrative rounds to prevent injuring an innocent who might be family...I shouldn't use them because of the low probability?

rcmodel
June 3, 2012, 07:22 PM
Rc, would those BGs/soldiers have gone down first had the cops/germans used hollowpoints? Just judging by the number of game animals I have shot over the last 50 years with both types of bullets.

Yes, they would have.

I have seen coyotes & deer run over 1/2 mile with a FMJ though the body, leaving an ice-pick wound to slowly drop blood pressure & bleed out.

They most often don't go far, if go anywhere at all, when a JHP blows through them and leaves a gapping hole through the internal organs.

rc.

Casefull
June 3, 2012, 07:29 PM
Stopping power is a lot of bs. If you want to stop someone hit them with a bowling ball, masonry block, bat, etc. If on the other hand you want to kill them quickly and cause violent shock to their system(so as to incapacitate them) shoot them with as high a velocity and large of caliber you have on hand. Too many of the posters obvously do not have real world experience with blowing holes through living tissue. More velocity is always better. It wrecks more tissue going through...every time for any given bullet design. When you say the energy is wasted that is just a lot of theory. Shoot a squirrel with subsonic 22 round in the body. Minimal damage and may take more than 1 hit for said squirrel to fall from tree. Shoot same squirrel with speedier 22 long rifle and you get a wicked wound with instant shutdown on the squirrels part. This is true with elk, deer, etc. with the larger calibers. My 2 cents.

Bubba613
June 3, 2012, 08:19 PM
jscott, you can't depend on energy transference from pistol bullets to stop someone.
True. A pistol is not a rifle. Jack O'Connor in one of his rifle books has a terrific section on wounding. He states, iirc, that the energy transfer from a rifle round will cause the cells around the wound channel to die instantly, and this effect creates a chain reaction that kills the animal.
But he notes this effect only happens above 2000 fps. There aren't many pistol rounds that will do that kind of velocity.

Old Fuff
June 3, 2012, 10:01 PM
See post #21

The Old Fuff:
It is a given that big diameter bullets make bigger holes then smaller ones, and they aren’t dependent on expanding because the leave the bore expanded in the first place.


Bubba613:
I realize this was the lead in to a joke, but there really isn't that much difference in calibers using JHPs.

For various reasons hollow-point bullets don't always expand the way they are suppose to. In jelly they look good, but human beings are sometimes different. A large caliber bullet isn't dependent on expansion to do what it's supposed too. In terms of leaving a large primary channel they represent more of a sure thing rather then a probable maybe.

The problem is that the larger the cartridge the bigger and heavier the handgun that uses it has to be. Depending on circumstances a compromise may be necessary.

jscott
June 3, 2012, 10:18 PM
jscott, you can't depend on energy transference from pistol bullets to stop someone.

I never said you could. You would be foolish to rely on any single factor, especially in a handgun caliber, to stop someone. Shot placement is key but that does not mean that all other factors are to be thrown to the wind. While the transference of energy may be a greater factor in rifle rounds (rifle rounds are generally faster and velocity is squared in the foot/pounds energy equation), that does not mean that you should fully discount the transference of energy in a handgun. You should also not discount a balance of optimal penetration with bullet design and a variety of other factors. Were you able to do so by simply stating that you cannot place an emphasis on such factors in a handgun, we would all be just as well shooting a .25 as a .45 because "only shot placement matters." I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Overpenetration is a factor, even in handgun calibers. Among other factors, I will continue to contend that a full tranference of energy is desireable and therefore rounds that overpenetrate should be avoided.

The foot/pounds of energy equation states that velocity (squared) x bullet weight (in grains), divided by 450,400 = foot/pounds of energy.

If a bullet travels completely through an adversary it will retain much of it's velocity. Since that particular portion is "squared," that equates to a lot of energy, even in a handgun. It is not "the factor," but it is "a factor."

Here's how you determine how much energy stopping in your target helps you. Take a 50 lb bag of cement mix, and set it on a barrel and shoot it a few times. How much that bag reacts, is how much a pistol bullet is going to knock someone over.

This is a very silly statement. I can push someone with my bare hands at 1 foot per second and make them fall backward with much more effectiveness than any firearm projectile I hurl at them at 1,000 feet per second. That does not mean a push is better than a bullet. You are simply confusing terms that cannot be correlated to any significant degree.

People often confuse such terms as energy, force, momentum, acceleration, stopping power, knock down power, etc. The simple fact is that how much that cement bag moves when struck is absolutely irrelevant (a slow, fat bullet will move it more than a fast, skinny one even though the first has much less energy) in terms of a bullet's effectiveness in stopping a threat, whether it be fired from a handgun or rifle. Neither is going to "knock someone over." That is the stuff of movies and is not a characteristic of small-arms projectiles. The various types of energy, force, and pressure are not all synonymous.

The introduction of such an assertion has absolutely nothing to do with the value of transferring foot/pounds of energy into a threat. Again, lest I be misconstrued, the transference of energy into the target is a factor and a strong reason behind avoiding over-penetrating rounds. I am not asserting that energy is the sole determiner though.

303tom
June 3, 2012, 10:23 PM
Have any of you ever been shot ?

jscott
June 3, 2012, 10:33 PM
Have any of you ever been shot?

Yes. It hurts. Why? Did I miss something?

mljdeckard
June 3, 2012, 10:39 PM
That's like asking a rat if it understands pharmaceuticals because it was a test subject.

Why is it you think it is important to make sure that a human target absorbs all of the energy from the bullet? The energy in a pistol round is concentrated into too small of a pinpoint to actually make the target feel all of that energy. When you shoot a handgun, the recoil you feel is roughly what the target will feel.

seeker_two
June 3, 2012, 11:07 PM
Energy transfer into the target is a myth. The important factor is energy transfer into the bullet. The bullet is the mechanism that does the work...whether it's designed to expand rapidly or penetrate deeply. The trick is to get the right balance of both with the muzzle energy available. Of course, all this is irrelevant if your bullet doesn't hit a vital target.

Using that logic, I load all my guns with loads offering moderate expansion, moderate penetration, and complete reliability. If I have to reload during a fight, my reloads offer deep penetration, minimal expansion, ability to penetrate cover, and complete reliability. And I try to practice whenever I can so I can place the shots where I need them.

Far as I'm concerned, the arguement is settled for me....

mljdeckard
June 3, 2012, 11:11 PM
What is your idea of 'moderate' penetration? How deep will they penetrate?

You think that it's less important for your initial shots to do the job than the follow-up shots?

GunnerShotz
June 4, 2012, 01:38 AM
Interesting convo!

4.Be sure of your target and what is beyond it. (Jeff Cooper, Wiki)

"Shot placement is key" is a true statement... also valid is a concern for "Overpenetration". So, I'll be keeping both in mind when training/practicing and choosing what rounds to use...

Does that not answer the "problem"?

Davek1977
June 4, 2012, 06:29 AM
I guess shot placement being key is just common sense to me. OF COURSE one DESIRES his bullet to go where he/she wants it to. AS far as over-penetration goes, I want my bullet to do what it is designed to do....as with the case with most modern hollow point defensive loads, that goal is to expand and penetrate. If there ever comes a time and place I am forced to use my weapon for a defensive purpose, I want the best performing bullet available to me, and I want it to enter expand and dump energy and most likely exit my target, as most well constructed bullets can possibly do. While whats behind my target is a concern, my primary concern is saving my life and eliminating the threat to my safety. In such a situation, rule 4 still applies, but may not be given quite as much weight as it would on the rang, for better or worse. I'd rather be alive t deal with the possible ramifications of my actions than dead and assured no one was hurt or no property damaged.

CZguy
June 4, 2012, 06:41 AM
Interesting convo!

Whats a convo?

beatledog7
June 4, 2012, 07:28 AM
All this debate would tend to support the idea that one's best defensive option is always to find a way to NOT shoot.

Pulling the trigger in a defensive situation always raises two risks:

- having a bullet hit something other than the intended target, either from pass-through or a clean miss

- getting a hit, or even multiple hits, but not stopping the attack

So the preferred option remains avoiding the need to shoot.

Given the truly unfortunate fact that shooting another person may someday prove unavoidable, and that the above risks cannot be completely removed, make the equipment choices you deem best, and be prepared to have that event change your life forever.

Loosedhorse
June 4, 2012, 08:48 AM
You think that it's less important for your initial shots to do the job than the follow-up shots? If I may:

We all know that the "average" gunfight will be over with fewer shots than contained in a J-frame .38. But if your fight is not average, and you need to reload, one reason might be that your adversary has been smart enough to go behind something. Maybe a more penetrative bullet can, at that point, turn his cover into concealment only. So, not at all odd to use a more penetrative round in your reload, anticipating that.

I feel the same way about non-LE back-up guns: we often hear of .380s or lower calibers being used as "BUGs"; but if my primary gun has run out of ammo and/or broken, and I'm still fighting for my life? I think I'll want a bigger gun, with more rounds that are more powerful, as a BUG.

YMMV.So the preferred option remains avoiding the need to shoot.

Given the truly unfortunate fact that shooting another person may someday prove unavoidable, and that the above risks cannot be completely removed, make the equipment choices you deem best, and be prepared to have that event change your life forever. +1

303tom
June 4, 2012, 09:39 AM
Yes. It hurts. Why? Did I miss something?
With what & did it go all the way through ? second question do you want to get shot again ?

mljdeckard
June 4, 2012, 09:44 AM
I still can't see why you would want two different layers or levels of deadly force. To me it seems to assume that you wouldn't want to use the most effective force possble when you are fighting for your life. To be in the middle of a gunfight, and launch into this algorithm of using one level, deciding it isn't enough, switching to another, and so on.

Loosedhorse
June 4, 2012, 10:35 AM
I still can't see why you would want two different layers or levels of deadly force.Unless you don't carry a second gun (or carry a second that's an exact copy of your first), you carry "two levels." Even if you carry the same ammo in a shorter-barreled second gun, the velocity will be different: two levels.

The reality is that some people (including LEOs) do carry different sized guns, often in different calibers, at the same time. I do. So, for many folks, there's a reason.

It's not "two different levels of deadly force", the way I look at it: all of it is deadly force--just one level. It might be two different levels of penetrativeness or power, or just two different locations of carry (two different ease-of-access levels), different levels of concealment, etc.

huntsman
June 4, 2012, 12:27 PM
The foot/pounds of energy equation states that velocity (squared) x bullet weight (in grains), divided by 450,400 = foot/pounds of energy.

If a bullet travels completely through an adversary it will retain much of it's velocity. Since that particular portion is "squared," that equates to a lot of energy, even in a handgun. It is not "the factor," but it is "a factor."


thank you for the equation

but I'm still curious as to how much is much (percentage wise) and wouldn't that wasted energy be minimized by using slow velocity cartridge(sub 1,000ft/ps)?

45_auto
June 4, 2012, 01:11 PM
wouldn't that wasted energy be minimized by using slow velocity cartridge(sub 1,000ft/ps)

Only if you believe that the "wasted energy" would have some magical effect on stopping someone. If that's the case, you should be carrying the lightest, highest velocity (most energy) cartridge possible for your handgun.

BBQLS1
June 4, 2012, 01:19 PM
Why do we need 18 inches of penetration? Even if an arm is in the way of center of mass, there's still not 18 inches to an organ.


18 inches of ballistic gel doesn't equal 18 inches of organ.

Well, that and the fact he says it (230 grain .45 ACP) easily stops people better than a 9mm.

With modern ammo, I don't think this is correct at all. Though I prefer .45 ACP for a variety of reasons, I don't at all think anyone is undergunned with a good 9mm round. They are both handgun rounds and leave much to be desired.

smalls
June 4, 2012, 01:28 PM
18 inches of ballistic gel doesn't equal 18 inches of organ.

Of course not. But how do they relate? If no relation, why would we even bother using gel?

mljdeckard
June 4, 2012, 03:49 PM
Because humans are too expensive.

18" isn't enough because ballistic gel doesn't come with a leather jacket or layers of bone.

gym
June 4, 2012, 07:43 PM
Each situation is different. There is no way to lump them all together and come up with the ideal equation for which round is better. You have several objects, "humans" moving in different directions while firing at each other, much of this is a crapshoot, assuming they all have similar skills. If not then the unskilled will give up or be shot the fastest, unless they are very lucky. And whose grandma are we talking about, the wifes or mine?
Much of who survives a gunfight has to do with how much experiance they have had, and how much luck they have that day. I always carry 2 guns, now that I am older I carry two 9mm, or a 40 and a 9. More in case one jams or gets damaged, I want a second gun in case the first one doesn't work, or I would just carry 4 magazines.
In multi person shootouts where you are alone and facing 2 or 3 adversaries, you can't shoot the first target 2 or 3 times, because you would be shot by one of the other 2, assuming they stuck around. So you put 1 round in each, two in the last, then go back and hopefylly finish the other 2. Ayoob was talking about this not long ago. But if you are facing 3 pro's you are probablly going to die, regaurdless of what you are using.

Certaindeaf
June 4, 2012, 07:51 PM
Of course shot placement is key..
You the preacher man!

huntsman
June 4, 2012, 08:21 PM
Only if you believe that the "wasted energy" would have some magical effect on stopping someone. If that's the case, you should be carrying the lightest, highest velocity (most energy) cartridge possible for your handgun.


naw that ain't me I'm just a basic .380 .45acp guy

seeker_two
June 4, 2012, 09:19 PM
What is your idea of 'moderate' penetration? How deep will they penetrate?

You think that it's less important for your initial shots to do the job than the follow-up shots?


1. 11"-15"....Cor-Bon Pow'R'Ball. Followed by FMJ.

2. Sometimes you need to change clubs during the game....

mljdeckard
June 4, 2012, 09:23 PM
So, you think 11-15" won't traverse a human target, Corbon Powerball is moderately powerful ammo, and that you will know at the beginning of a fight, that you won't need the best ammo you can get?

Loosedhorse
June 4, 2012, 10:34 PM
that you won't need the best ammo you can get?The "best ammo" depends on the situation. It's different with a skinny, tee-shirted attacker (and your daughter right behind him) than it would be for a leather-clad, beefy guy peaking arround some wood paneling. What's perfect for one of these scenarios is a disaster for the other.So, you think 11-15" won't traverse a human targetSkin is tougher to penetrate than gel. A round that would have traveled another few inches in gel can be stopped by the far-side skin. I've recoverd enough bullets under the far hide of game animals.

Even if it does exit the far skin, it makes a big difference if it exits without enough energy to wound the next person; or if can only make a 2-inch deep wound, which sure could be fatal, but very well might not be; or if the bullet's ready to zip through that next person, too.

mljdeckard
June 4, 2012, 11:22 PM
But you don't know before you get there which situation you will be in.

Loosedhorse
June 5, 2012, 12:04 AM
that you won't need the best ammo you can get?The "best ammo" depends on the situation.But you don't know before you get there which situation you will be in.Exactly. So why are you claiming there's a single "best ammo you can get"?

There's a best ammo for a given situation. If you it's likely think you'll be in situation X, pick ammo for that; if you think it's more likely that you'll be in situation Y, pick ammo for that.

And if you think it's likely that between the time you trigger your first shot and the time you reach for your reload--or your back-up gun--your situation may have changed from X to Y, then put different ammo in your reload (or back-up gun).

Personally, I think a .308 rifle would make a great back-up gun in some situation Ys. ;)

mljdeckard
June 5, 2012, 12:35 AM
That's what I keep for backup. (More correctly as a primary, if I can get to it.) We're talking about handguns here, and a .308 certainly isn't the solution for overpenetration.

We're splitting hairs here, and everyone should carry whatever they want. All I wanted to question was if a round that is fine with shot placement is really good enough, and whether you can plan on any round stopping in the target.

Fremmer
June 5, 2012, 12:42 AM
So if it completely penetrates, do you get your money back?

mljdeckard
June 5, 2012, 01:17 AM
No. If it completely penetrates, it did exactly what it was supposed to.

45_auto
June 5, 2012, 05:22 AM
No. If it completely penetrates, it did exactly what it was supposed to.

So your recommendation is to always carry ball ammo instead of hollowpoints since the ball has the best penetration?

mljdeckard
June 5, 2012, 07:34 AM
Not at all. Any premium JHP ammo is very likely to completely traverse a human target.

Loosedhorse
June 5, 2012, 08:21 AM
Any premium JHP ammo is very likely to completely traverse a human target.You have proposed an hypothesis. Support it.

I'll accept, for example, ER records (and autopsy records) of those shot with .45 ACP premium ammo; perhaps we can get to a percentage of how often such JHPs overpenetrate.

And a consensus for what "very likely" means. To me, "likely" means over 50% of the time; "very likely" should be --what?--75-80% of the time? Higher?

I await your data. Personally, I think that if .45 ACP JHPs were over-penetrating 80% of the time, that would be common knowledge. Instead, I more often hear folks arguing that even .45 ACP hardball won't overpenetrate. a .308 certainly isn't the solution for overpenetration.It can be: http://www.hornadyle.com/assets/uploads/308WIN_110_URBAN_4website.jpg

But, in any case, I proposed the .308 as a solution for when I need more penetration than I'm comfortable carrying for my first shots. I wonder why you misunderstood that.

:rolleyes::D

ChCx2744
June 5, 2012, 08:28 AM
Someone was on the topic of pistol rounds and over penetration earlier, which is what I would like to address. The pistol is pretty much just going to be my reflex, immediate threat suppressor, while my main objective is to run away and get to a rifle. If the threat is not neutralized and continues to where I am armed with a rifle, the rifle will take care of any "lack of penetration" issues; unless I can run away some more.

mljdeckard
June 5, 2012, 10:33 AM
The only one who seems surprised by the notion that defensive ammo is likely to completely traverse a human target is you. I use the word 'likely', because there is no guarantte that any bullet will do anything.

I'm not at al impressed by ER records. I'm much more interested in morgue records.

Do YOU have any?

Loosedhorse
June 5, 2012, 11:19 AM
The only one who seems surprised by the notion that defensive ammo is likely to completely traverse a human target is youThat's a second hypothesis. Now you have two to support.

By the way, there's this guy named Massad Ayoob (http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob97.html):Home defense rounds should be hollow points (HP), for the same reason that this type of ammo is universal among American police. The HP is designed to expand into a mushroom shape as it passes through flesh. This slows it down and reduces its penetration, making it unlikely that the projectile will pass through the felon’s torso and go on to strike a bystander who was blocked from the shooter’s position by the bulk of the criminal he shot.My emphasis. It seems you are wrong, and I am not the only person who would be surprised if were true that defensive ammo is very likely to traverse a human attacker, as you claim. He says it is unlikely to penetrate, you say it is very likely--whom are we to believe?

:rolleyes::D

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for your data. :rolleyes:I'm not at al impressed by ER records. I'm much more interested in morgue records.Yes, well, complete data might interfere with your hypotheses, so I understand that. Yet as far as I can ascertain, more folks shot with handguns (other than suicide) end up wounded rather than dead, so any full picture would have to include ER records, despite your bias.

As for data supporting that we would need to look at ER records as well: WISQARS (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html) lists 11,825 homicide (non-suicide)/legal intervention, firearms-realted deaths for 2009; and over 45,000 firearms-related, non-fatal injuries for assault (non-self-harm)/legal intervention.

If we just look at legal intervention, the numbers are 333 and 679. Most people survive being shot.

mljdeckard
June 5, 2012, 02:58 PM
Don't believe me? Do your own testing.

Massad Ayoob would never say that you should plan on your bullet stopping in the target.

Loosedhorse
June 5, 2012, 03:12 PM
Massad Ayoob would never say that you should plan on your bullet stopping in the target.Ah. Well, I guess you're more comfortable speaking for him than I am. I note that if I select a certain round for SD, I am in fact planning on it performing in a certain way...but not depending on it doing so. If I can't have certainties (and there are very few of those), I can still work with probablilities.

I'm still not sure if, when he said "unlikely" you think he meant "very likely;" or if when you said "very likely" you actually meant "unlikely." Either one would sure explain my impression that the two of you actually disagree, even though you seem to think you agree.

Certaindeaf
June 5, 2012, 04:07 PM
.Massad Ayoob would never say that you should plan on your bullet stopping in the target.
Is that code for he insures himself heavily?

mljdeckard
June 5, 2012, 06:53 PM
In a word, yes, I am. I have all of his books, he is one of many opinions I listen to. I can state that one with pretty high confidence.

I just honestly feel that you are putting very refined and subtle distinctions on a very violent and unpredictable object.

(I think I'm done, btw.)

seeker_two
June 5, 2012, 07:38 PM
So, you think 11-15" won't traverse a human target, Corbon Powerball is moderately powerful ammo, and that you will know at the beginning of a fight, that you won't need the best ammo you can get?


1. It may sometimes....then, it may not. It will expand....which is what I want.
2. It is moderately powerful when compared to other ammo.
3. It's the best for what I want it to do.

Anything else?

CaliCoastie
June 5, 2012, 10:42 PM
Shoot placement is key, I stopped associating myself with some one who told me that they liked to use a7mm mag deer hunting, because it didn't master where he shoot the deer. It does matter, if you have a deer that's quartering away from you and you pull your shoot just a little you take the shoulder out and the deer runs off. Caliber is not a substitute for poor shooting.
I unlike allot of people online am not prefect and took that shoot and lost my deer,I also felt like a$$ after. So go ahead and delude your self that placement isn't key......

JPG19
June 5, 2012, 11:03 PM
More damage will be done to the threat if the round does not fully penetrate through them and exit out the back. If I ever have to use such force, I want the threat to be stopped as quickly as possible.

PedalBiker
June 5, 2012, 11:38 PM
I've skipped over some portions of this thread, but I think a couple of things got missed.

One person mentioned the broadhead tipped arrow - the shape of the projectile is very important, including the sharpness of the edges. If you look at an expanded Golden Saber or PDX-1 you'll notice they're pretty jagged.


I like the FBI requirements - in large part due to the fact that it requires testing of at least a rudimentary nature. The discipline applied by the FBI protocol has been very beneficial. Even the Hornady Critical Defense which is stated as not being designed for the protocol used it as a baseline and Hornady had to do testing to ensure that the ammunition was doing what they wanted. In the past manufacturers would put a hole in the front of the bullet and call it good. The fact that we've got expanding ammo in 230g 45 and 147g 9mm is amazing.

GunnerShotz
June 5, 2012, 11:42 PM
But you don't know before you get there which situation you will be in.

Exactly!

Not only unfortunate, but also tragic sometimes, that we don't have a crystal (or stainless steel :D) ball that will see into the future for us. For the High Road record: I think you're both right. You know which both I'm talking about :neener:

I'll just essentially reiterate what I said the first time in this thread and then shut up:

I'll do my best to plan ahead and use what should be the 'best' firearm with the 'most' penetrating round that I am Most comfortable and accurate with for any conceivable situation. I'll also Plan on being less than perfect by following rule #4 by doing my best to be aware of what's beyond my target.

...... In my very humble opinion, the general nature of the original topic has led to some more specific ones that are being argued. Nothing wrong with that, but.....

Teachu2
June 6, 2012, 01:54 AM
More damage will be done to the threat if the round does not fully penetrate through them and exit out the back. If I ever have to use such force, I want the threat to be stopped as quickly as possible.

If the two rounds had equal energy, this would be a valid argument. If they don't, the argument is invalid.

If round A has 500 ft/lbs of energy when it impacts a subject and does not exit, it has delivered 500 ft/lbs to the subject.

If round B has 800 ft/lbs of energy when it impacts a subject and exits the subject with 100 ft/lbs of energy remaining, it has delivered 700 ft/lbs of energy to the subject.

I once witnessed a near-perfect delivery of such energy. My training officer shot a fleeing subject with a 9mm Silvertip from his duty weapon, at a distance of approximately 25 yards. The bullet entered the subject above the right kidney 3" to the right of the spine, traversed his abdomen, and exited just above his navel, where it was captured by his flannel shirt. Exit wound was about the same size as the entrance wound. To the naked eye, the bullet appeared to have completely failed to expand. The subject fell to the ground and surrendered - and I was low man on the totem pole, so I got to go with him to the hospital to collect evidence and maintain custody throughout his surgery. Subject survived.

OTOH, I attended three autopsies of subjects who had been shot with .45acp HP rounds - "Flying Ashtrays", as they were known back then. The three had 2-3 wounds each, and the Coroner on duty stated that was excessive - any of the 7 total hits were sufficient to cause death within seconds.

Didn't take me long to qualify my 1911...

Loosedhorse
June 6, 2012, 09:01 AM
In a word, yes, I am. I have all of his books, he is one of many opinions I listen to. I can state that one with pretty high confidence.One does wonder why anyone bothers going to Ayoob's courses or reading his stuff...when they can just ask you what he would say. :rolleyes:

Oh, well: enough silliness. I quoted for you what he did say, not my "high confidence" idea of what he might say. If with all your reading, you can't find anywhere where Ayoob says what you think he should say, well, that's telling.

gym
June 6, 2012, 12:46 PM
Why don't you just ask him, I believe he is still a member here. He has answered any questions asked of him in the past. You can also reach him through backwoodshome.com, his blog.
I still say every situation is different. I have seen with my own eyes a guy who was shot in Colombia, 5 times with a 45, and unless he lifted his shirt and showed you the scars, you would never know it. It appeared to be ball ammo, but I wasn't going to ask him too much about it.
He had come to my apt 30 yrs ago, with a girlfriend of mine and his wife, and it just came up as he had a few too many drinks. She knew the guy for some time, needless to say I never saw him again, but the holes were there, they just missed every vital organ, like a "pulp fiction moment". All were in the torso. I believe the rapper 50 cents was shot 5 or 6 times with a 9mm also, he fully recovered, so it's more to do with where you get hit, than anything else.

CZguy
June 6, 2012, 12:55 PM
I've skipped over some portions of this thread, but I think a couple of things got missed.

You might want to read the thread. ;)

marcclarke
June 7, 2012, 12:49 AM
Of course not. But how do they relate? If no relation, why would we even bother using gel?
Calibrated ballistic gelatin replicates human muscle tissue for measuring expansion and penetration. Col. Martin Fackler, MD, a US Army Vietnam combat surgeon, was looking for better ways to treat bullet wounds. He first determined (experimentally) that pig muscle replicated human tissue as far as bullet wounds were concerned. (Note: not deer muscle, not cow muscle, not clay, not horse muscle, etc.)

He then shot a bunch of pigs and measured the wound tracks.

He and other International Wound Ballistics Association members, including Duncan MacPherson, then worked out the correct concentration of gelatin, the correct temperature, and the correct viscosity and density corrections (using a BB fired at a known velocity) to match the characteristics of porcine muscle tissue. (Note: muscle, not organs.)

Loosedhorse
June 7, 2012, 09:10 AM
^^I agree with your post entirely. However, we shouldn't overlook the limitations of gel tests.

First: as you said, gel simulates pig muscle. How well it simulates hits into human fat, lung and abdomen is an open question.

Second, I don't believe anyone has come up with a "calibrated" bone simulant (meaning, we know it behaves similarly to human bone when struck by bullets), and so we do guesstimates of how bone hits (ribs) would lessen or increase the penetration of bullets.

Finally, gel is only capable of helping us estimate penetration, not effectiveness at stopping an attacker. Stopping an attacker is what most of us are looking for.

Fremmer
June 7, 2012, 10:10 PM
Lol then you can't rely on the penetration stats for your preferred non - penetrating (?) Round.
But I guess its a good argument.

Virg461
June 7, 2012, 11:37 PM
Interesting how almost this entire discussion centered on handguns. Yes, you can certainly be assaulted while out and about. My main concern, however, is the protection of my family. At home, I follow this logic:

.45 ACP: muzzle energy 500-600 ft/lbs (with the right ammo)
12 gauge buckshot: 1600 ft/lbs divided into 9 round lead balls.

At "across the room" distances, buckshot hits like the hammer of Thor and does not "overpenetrate". Those little rounds lead balls would deliver nearly 100% of the muzzle energy into any attacker.

I understand that concealed carry requires a handgun (unless one is a fan of trenchcoats :D). But at home, my 870 is the defense weapon of choice.

CZguy
June 8, 2012, 12:29 AM
But at home, my 870 is the defense weapon of choice.

Yep me too. 12 ga is a one shot stopper.

jrdolall
June 8, 2012, 09:58 AM
Has there ever been a confirmed case where a person was shot CM at 25 feet or less with a 12 g buckshot round and kept moving?
I am still looking for a CCW that holds 5 rounds of 12 g and fits in my jeans pocket. One of you engineer types should be able to design one and us sales types will be able to sell it.

gym
June 8, 2012, 12:24 PM
The problem with a shotgun is tranversing an apartment or house without hitting a wall with the stock of the gun when you need to fire quickly, or having a relative in close proximity to the perp. You can't get a clean shot unless you get him alone in a room large enough to manuver your weapon.
Also I frown on keeping a shotgun next to my bed, as that would freak my family out, and taking it out at night will get old fast.
You may keep one in a closet in your bedroom and use your 45 to get to it, if necessary, just not going from room to room, unless you have a backup team with you. it's hard to swing a shotgun around the house and not hit something. If someone were in a bathroom, you could easily get off balance trying to look in holding a long gun.
If you just stay in your bedroom and wait for police, then it is a workable process.

seeker_two
June 9, 2012, 09:40 AM
One of the positives of a SxS coach gun is its short overall length....great for small spaces.

That said, by the time you use your pistol to fight your way to your shotgun, you may not have anyone left to fight....

sgtstryker
June 9, 2012, 11:03 AM
I tend to go with the shot placement is key crowd. Mr. Ayoob tells in Am. Handgunner of a Police Officer chasing a bad guy. He knew the bg was shooting at him but wasn't aware of the hits until the physical part of the capture took place. The bg had a G21, the Officer was hit at least three times, none were killers. Adrenalin, yes. Many things go into how a bullet reacts once it contacts the target. Wasn't Larry Flint shot with .44 mag ? He survived, tho crippled, to continue his pathetic existence.

Virg461
June 9, 2012, 09:32 PM
You can't get a clean shot unless you get him alone in a room large enough to manuver your weapon.

Not sure I agree with that. A pump shotgun with an 18 inch barrel is very maneuverable. And a WHOLE LOT more powerful stopper than a handgun.

Don't get me wrong, I like handguns. They're portable and concealable. But if I hear breaking glass at 3 am, I'm grabbing the 870, not a pistol.

ranydl
June 9, 2012, 09:59 PM
Don't really need to argue this. The FBI keeps a database of shootings by federal and any other participating LEO's. Until they stopped using them, the .357 with 125 gr hp loads had more (one shot) stops than any other handgun by many times over. High velocity + lightly constructed HP bullets = massive wounds.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm

Fremmer
June 10, 2012, 01:47 PM
That's not an effective round because it overpenetrates. :neener:

Loosedhorse
June 10, 2012, 02:08 PM
Actually the older (Federal "red box" and Remington SJHP) 125 gr HPs in .357 Mag were known for fragmenting, and so at least in one test (http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/357magnum.htm) didn't make the FBI min. penetration depth of 12 inches; their penetration is often listed deeper as 12-13 inches.

Quote (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_48/ai_82551648/pg_2/?tag=content;col1):Remington led the way on this more than a quarter century ago with a bullet that screamed out of a 4-inch barrel at as much as 1,450 fps. Its scallop-jacketed hollowpoint tended to open and shed fragments to the side like little razor blades while the still-expanding core of the bullet kept going. Federal's answer was to use a wider-mouth hollowpoint for super-fast expansion. In both cases, the rounds almost never over penetrate, and Indianapolis Police Department reported that in more than 200 shootings there was never an effective return of fire by a perpetrator after taking a solid hit with one.

BBQLS1
June 10, 2012, 04:15 PM
Of course not. But how do they relate? If no relation, why would we even bother using gel?

The FBI decided that 12 inches equals enough penetration in gel to consistently penetrate enough bad guy.

GunnerShotz
June 10, 2012, 05:06 PM
I know I said I would shut up my last post on this thread, but I can't help it...

The gel tests are only going to be indicative of the "ideal" IMHO. The penetration of any particular calibur round fired out of any particular gun is going to be effected by the resistance of the first thing it hits.

So, I'll go one step farther than I have in previous posts and say in summary: Shot placement is most definitely key AND overpenetration is definitely a concern that invokes (which I've already said twice before) Rule #4!

AntiSpin
June 24, 2012, 09:52 PM
Someone above asked for a morgue report. Here's a terrific one:

http://www.mouseguns.com/deadmeat.htm

Also, the formula for kinetic energy has been misstated above. It is not "mass times the square of the velocity." It is ONE-HALF the mass, times the square of the velocity.

Makes a big difference, and if it's energy you're after, it makes velocity king of the hill.

gym
June 25, 2012, 12:14 AM
Masaad did an article on this recentlly on his website grassroots.com. It explains it in detail. Small calibers large calibers, they will all kill you equally as well depending on where you are hit. But if you browse his site you can get it right from the experts mouth. The statistics are different than we percieve them to be. If you can shoot a 22 lr like, erp then that will work for you as well as nything else.
That doesn't mean that it's as effective in a non critical area. But it all depends on your proficiancy with the weapon.
A 45 or 10mm won't do much good if you can't hit the person in a spot that will stop them.

If you enjoyed reading about "I have a problem with "Shot placement is key" and "Overpenetration"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!