Old_Grouch
Member
Like what, 2 shot stops?
But then, what do I know? I'm ill informed. I carry a .38 J Frame.
But then, what do I know? I'm ill informed. I carry a .38 J Frame.
I have to say my response would have to be, "The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to a rifle."The bullet penetrated Platt's upper arm at an angle, going through approximately 4" of muscle tissue before it made an unshored exit. It then re-entered the torso already expanded and penetrated another 8" or so, stopping just short of the heart.
So, given that performance, what would the equivalent penetration be in clothed gelatin--without the unshored exit and re-entry into the torso with the bullet already expanded--and how would that equivalent penetration compare to the FBI's current penetration requirement?
As nearly as I can tell, it would have easily met the current penetration requirements. Since the bullet penetrated enough to meet the current penetration requirements, it doesn't really make sense to blame the bullet for not penetrating enough, does it?
That aside, let's say I gave you the following information:
Then I gave you this analysis: The primary reason for the negative outcome was one bullet that should have penetrated 12.5 or 13" but only penetrated 12" or 12.5.
- A gunfight involving 10 people took place.
- Approximately 150 rounds were fired, four people were killed and 5 more were injured.
- One person lost their sidearm and never fired a shot.
- One person was armed with a long gun and fired about a third of the total rounds expended, accounting for half of the deaths and all of the injuries.
- One person expended all six rounds in his revolver early in the fight and was incapacitated while attempting to reload with an injured hand.
- One person lost his primary sidearm and only fired a compact backup handgun during the fight.
- Everyone on the scene had the option of being armed with a long gun similar to what was used by the most effective person in the firefight, but most chose to rely only on sidearms in spite of the fact that they knew long guns would most likely be employed by some of the participants.
What would you say?
I'm curious to know of you have evidence to the contrary?
Seems a bit silly to note the absence of study or data to support a position when one has produced none of their own.
Did you not see the attached articles?!
First, "stopping effect" would have to be defined. Second, there would have to be agreement on measures of merit for evaluating "stopping effect". Third, a compilation of data on those measures would have to be made. Then it would have to be analyzed. analyzed.
I suggest that the data necessary for the third cannot be found or verified.
This would be a fool's errand.
One can, on the other hand, ask for reports on observations from the field. Those would , of course, be more subjective, and they would necessarily combine "stopping effect" with other factors.
No, not at all--not for self defense.a bigger hole equates to a larger surface area of blood vessel damage and therefore faster blood lose, resulting in faster incapacitation. That does seem logical to you, doesn't it?
No, not at all--not for self defense.
If a violent criminal actor starts from a nominal distance of seven yards and the defender draws and fires at a much closer distance at the attacker, who is moving at probably 180 inches per second, the attacker will not be stopped timely by loss of blood.
So. how much faster? Enough to end the problem?But from my perspective, a bigger hole equates to a larger surface area of blood vessel damage and therefore faster blood lose, resulting in faster incapacitation.
That's beyond my knowledge of forensic medicines, but I am pretty sure that the difference will not be material.If the attacker is running directly at you. What if they're shooting at you from cover?
Come now! Attackers are routinely stopped without having their spines severed.Reality is, neither cartridge will incapacitate an attacker unless the spine is severed.
I agree with that.That bigger hole doesn't mean squat.
I encourage you to research it, honestly, it was and is fascinating...
Here, I'll give you some starters:
https://sofrep.com/gear/the-reasons-why-fbi-went-to-back-to-9mm/
https://www.policemag.com/341954/9mm-vs-40-caliber
So. how much faster? Enough to end the problem?
Reality is, neither cartridge will incapacitate an attacker unless the spine is severed. That bigger hole doesn't mean squat.
That's beyond my knowledge of forensic medicines, but I am pretty sure that the difference will not be material.
Disappointing the same things I've been reading for many years.
I was hoping for some actual evidence. Datasets by cartridge, timing first hit to incapacitation. Or datasets by cartridge, giving average number of hits to incapacitation cross-reference by datasets allowing for average split times per cartridge.
But it's the same merry-go-round that doesn't actually prove anything. Oh well.
Read Post # 96, and try to understand it.I was hoping for some actual evidence. Datasets by cartridge, timing first hit to incapacitation. Or datasets by cartridge, giving average number of hits to incapacitation cross-reference by datasets allowing for average split times per cartridge
And that's the other thing. Excellent point.There are way too many variables. Where the bullet hit, penetration of the bullet, was the bad guy on drugs, what kind of drugs, alcohol, physical fitness of the bad guy, overall health of the bad guy, mental state of the bad guy, number of shots fired, different bullets hitting the same person... so on and so on.
If we studied 10 shootings, 5 with a 22lr and 5 with a 44 magnum... the 22lr could very easily come out showing to be the better "stopper" depending on the above factors. We all know that isn't the case.
Read Post # 96, and try to understand it.
Just how do you think those 'datasets' might have been compiled, and by whom?
Or are you joking?
You'll never get that. There are way too many variables. Where the bullet hit, penetration of the bullet, was the bad guy on drugs, what kind of drugs, alcohol, physical fitness of the bad guy, overall health of the bad guy, mental state of the bad guy, number of shots fired, different bullets hitting the same person... so on and so on.
If we studied 10 shootings, 5 with a 22lr and 5 with a 44 magnum... the 22lr could very easily come out showing to be the better "stopper" depending on the above factors. We all know that isn't the case.
No--just incredibly naive.I think, you think, that I'm an idiot.
But you have not accepted the reality.I perfectly understand what you said.
Gel tests are not the basis for the conclusions. They are used in the design and testing of ammunition.Here's my issue. I don't believe the 9mm is "just as effective" at stopping a threat as other service cartridges, based on gel test and shooting qualification results.
I characterize years of field results as evidence....I won't believe it until there's some evidence.
Do you imagine that LEO shootings are recorded from multiple angles, with sound and timers, with persons noting the specific entry point and angle and location and the apparent impact of each successive hit, measuring times and distances accurately along the way, and analyzing the results? Well, they don't. There is no reason to do so. The ammunition they use works.As far as the collection and collation of data sets, it seems like the FBI could easily do this if they wanted to, based on LEO shootings alone
Yes. That is very well known.Although, the question could be ask as to whether it was ever inferior to any of the other service cartridges?
Second question first: issues with penetration, projectiles holding together, and expansion. Answering the first question: bullet performance. That has been publicly known for many years.And if so, why, and in what way.
Over a large enough sample pool, and making obvious exclusions to exceptional cases, the variables would become far less significant.
I characterize years of field results as evidence.
Second question first: issues with penetration, projectiles holding together, and expansion. Answering the first question: bullet performance. That has been publicly known for many years.
Not really though. What things do we exclude and what cases are considered good? Does a 21 year old suspect get lumped in with a 75 year old suspect? What about drugs and alcohol? A large percentage, if not the majority, of suspects shot by citizens and police are on drugs and/or alcohol. So is someone whose been up all night smoking meth and PCP lumped in with other people? Those things are really going to change a person's reaction to pain and can completely distort their reality.
How do you quantify the person's being shot willingness to continue after being hit? Some guys fight through fatal wounds until they are physically incapable to fight due to injuries. Others pass out immediately after "minor" gunshot wounds.
Does a shot straight center chest that destroys the heart a severs the spine count the same as a round to the same spot at a didn't angle that misses the heart and just perforates the lung?
Officers are involved in shootings every cay. The police reports and forensic data are recorded and analyzed. If you are looking for a compendium, you won't find it.So where are these field results then?
For ME? Thanks. Do you really think you have explained why current premium grade bonded 9mm bullets are working, and the early JHPs did not?There. I just solved the problem of penetration and bullet integrity with the 9mm for you.
Don't worry about what I have said. There are all kinds of experts who have weigh ed in on his, with a lot of data, and their reports have been peer reviews.Right? Or does it not? I can't remember if you said it did or it didn't when you were arguing that the increase bullet size and expansion of the .40 and .45 we're not important.
No. No one is going to start trying to collect the data. They have far more important things to do. And there's no need: notwithstanding your personal skepticism, their ammunition is working.Would you like me to create all the parameters for the study right this moment for you?
Bullet performance didn't evolve at different times for each caliber all handgun bullets in the 80s were basic cup and core, the technology that has made 9mm bullets better has also made 40 bullets better.Second question first: issues with penetration, projectiles holding together, and expansion. Answering the first question: bullet performance. That has been publicly known for many years.
Officers are involved in shootings every cay. The police reports and forensic data are recorded and analyzed. If you are looking for a compendium, you won't find it.
For ME? Thanks. Do you really think you have explained why current premium grade bonded 9mm bullets are working, and the early JHPs did not?
Don't worry about what I have said. There are all kinds of experts who have weigh ed in on his, with a lot of data, and their reports have been peer reviews.
No. No one is going to start trying to collect the data. They have far more important things to do. And there's no need: notwithstanding your personal skepticism, their ammunition is working.
I agree with this.....IMO, there are way too many variables for them to be considered less significant even in a larger sample pool.Not really though. What things do we exclude and what cases are considered good? Does a 21 year old suspect get lumped in with a 75 year old suspect? What about drugs and alcohol? A large percentage, if not the majority, of suspects shot by citizens and police are on drugs and/or alcohol. So is someone whose been up all night smoking meth and PCP lumped in with other people? Those things are really going to change a person's reaction to pain and can completely distort their reality.
How do you quantify the person's being shot willingness to continue after being hit? Some guys fight through fatal wounds until they are physically incapable to fight due to injuries. Others pass out immediately after "minor" gunshot wounds.
Does a shot straight center chest that destroys the heart a severs the spine count the same as a round to the same spot at a didn't angle that misses the heart and just perforates the lung?
“So, stopping a threat really does not come down to caliber, it is shot placement.”
https://www.policemag.com/374542/a-trauma-surgeon-talks-about-wound-ballistics-and-stopping-power
Fackler is a good read….
We were talking about .40 vs .35 caliber, were we not?Some reason other than making a bigger hole?
So the problem I have with this type of article is that it basically says handgun bullets are worthless unless you hit the CNS. Yet common doctrine is to shoot for the thoracic cavity, and keep shooting til the threat is down. Shot placement is important. But wounding isn't, because wounds don't stop a threat unless you hit the CNS. But don't shoot for the brain, because it's too small a target. Stick to center mass, but blood lose isn't immediately incapacitating so the lungs aren't actually effective targets. Apparently the heart and major arteries are....but not fast enough, and a bigger bullet won't help you hit those. And a temporary cavity isn't big enough to hit those either (ignore the larger temporary cavities from the .357 Mag and Sig). Keep shooting for center mass and hope for a CNS hit....in the spine?
Do handguns even work?!
Do handguns even work?!