Why isn't there better information about the performance of 9mm FMJ in combat?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most of the muscles and tendons within reach don't intersect with major arteries. The fingers are very vulnerable. You aren't going to die if you lose a finger. The arteries lay on the insides of the arms and legs, which are generally not easy targets for a striking weapon.

Obviously if you chop a limb completely off the person could bleed to death, but that's unlikely in combat, unless the person is on the ground in a surrender posture.

So your plan is to hack someone in the extremities just enough to incapacitate the limb but not enough to cause significant bleeding? Im sorry, I didnt realize you were an experienced sword fighter.

Question through.... what if the attacker does something completely insane, like moves, during your sword swing?
 
So your plan is to hack someone in the extremities just enough to incapacitate the limb but not enough to cause significant bleeding? Im sorry, I didnt realize you were an experienced sword fighter.

Question through.... what if the attacker does something completely insane, like moves, during your sword swing?
No, but it's a far more realistic possibility with an edged weapon with a pistol.
 
If you shoot someone in the chest or head with a firearm, you are doing the exact same thing as a hunter killing a deer.

1.) The deer is not attacking you. (Attack means unprovoked violence upon another, in the context of self-defense.) 2.)You are not going to eat your human attacker. (I hope.) 3.)If you shoot a deer and fail to kill and collect it, most States can charge you with "wanton waste" or some such. If you gut shoot a human attacker and he ceases the attack, you either disarm him and render aid or hold him if he still has the gun, and watch him bleed out, I guess. I never want to be in that situation myself, and practice other things as much as possible to avoid it. 4.) If you are equating the emotional context of shooting a deer vs. shooting a human, it goes against human nature to want to kill another human, and for many, a deer, too. Read On Combat, by LTC Dave Grossman; it explains this tendency to avoid killing another human very well.

Why do rifles exist if you only have to worry about shooting 3-5 yards?

Do you carry a rifle as you go about your day? Handguns are a compromise. Some can shoot them farther more accurately than others, but speed and accuracy are a continuum that changes with range.

Does rescuing a hostage somehow make you shoot more accurately?

No. This is why cops are trained to keep the situation static until the professionals that train for such occasions show up. (SWAT, CIRT, whatever you want to call them.)
I actually DO have some training in door kicking, and I still would not want to attempt it.

So if you're not trying to rescue a hostage, your plan is to just spray and pray?

No; we all (hopefully) train to be as accurate as possible as fast as possible. As the range decreases, speed becomes more important, precision less so. Cops train to distract the hostage taker while the SWAT team sets up to do what they do.

While in ROTC, I participated in a 'hostage situation' scenario. As freshmen, we were the hostage takers, the sophomores were the hostages, and juniors and seniors were the anti-terrorist unit. (we were supposed to be terrorists; a domestic hostage situation is handled differently.)
As one of the 'terrorists' assigned to watch the hostages, both the hostages and the other 'terrorists' were horrified that when the attack on us was initiated, and entry was made in the building, I turned and 'executed' (by firing blanks at the wall over their heads) all of the hostages. The officer in charge of the scenario later asked me why I did that. I answered "Because that is what they are trained to do. They do not expect to survive-they view themselves as martyrs"
I had a little (very little) training in door kicking, and it is a skill that requires precision and speed. very few can do it, and while I did it OK then, it's a perishable skill, one I'd not want to attempt now.

No, but it's a far more realistic possibility with an edged weapon with a pistol.

This tells me you have had no realistic training with guns or edged weapons.

I just speak normal English, sorry.

It's not your speaking (writing in this case) of English, it's the comprehension.
 
If you gut shoot a human attacker and he ceases the attack, you either disarm him and render aid or hold him if he still has the gun

You put a bullet in his head and prepare for the next attacker.

Read On Combat, by LTC Dave Grossman

I have, and I agree with much of it despite the outcry against his influence in modern police circles. However, I think genetics and ancestry play a large role in this. Some populations of people intrinsically lack significant psychological barriers to violence. There are countries where the kindly farmer down the road won't think twice about literally decapitating you if you steal one of his chickens. The same phenomenon is observed in other primates. Chimpanzees and bonobos, for example, are essentially the same species, but whereas the former are extremely violent, the latter are almost ignorant of violence.

Do you carry a rifle as you go about your day?

No. I carry pistols and train to maintain proficiency with them out to 100 yards. I only own three rifles currently and I never use them because I never require their accuracy or power. I can kill any animal in the northeastern woods with only Glocks and generally don't even have to put any effort into closing the distance, especially moose, because they don't even run away.


As the range decreases, speed becomes more important, precision less so.

I don't agree. The closer the threat is, the easier it is for them to harm you, so it is all the more important to land a shot that will result in immediate incapacitation. The cranium is the most valuable target for a firearm, and humans have very large craniums that are not particularly animated even during fighting maneuvers. Shooting someone in the lung tissue can only stop someone who didn't have a strong resolve to harm you to begin with, reason being that there is no physiological reason why someone cannot continue to function with these types of wounds, slightly decreased functionality of the pectoral muscles aside. You cannot rely on this type of shooting to stop a serious threat, though it may prove fatal over several minutes or hours in the absence of medical intervention. The police mainly shoot depressed people and drug addicts who are having an emotional outburst, which is why this type of shooting works for them very often.

This tells me you have had no realistic training with guns or edged weapons.

I'll double down. I think it would be vastly easier to inflict an incapacitating, yet non-life threatening injury to a person with an edged weapon than with a pistol. I have had severed tendons before, and what surprised me was how little the injury bled. I drove myself to hospital and was fine, though I couldn't walk normally for a month.

It's not your speaking (writing in this case) of English, it's the comprehension.

What didn't I comprehend?
 
No thanks. Those people change their doctrines every ten years.

That's a good thing. We might have learned a few things over the last 20 years of war. Here in the US tactics/doctrines constantly change due to more experience and changes in technology. North Hollywood bank robbery changed tactics/doctrines when it came to police long guns and Columbine changed tactics/doctrines when it comes to response to active shooters. Tactics/doctrines changed with the semi autos taking over as the main defensive handgun. Tactics/doctrines changed when high power flashlights became more portable. Tactics/doctrines changed when handgun lights became a common thing. Tactics/doctrines are currently changing with the rise of pistol mounted optics.

If the tactics/doctrines taught arent changing over time, then that is someone you shouldn't listen to.
 
That's called murder.

Can we ban this guy yet?
That's called surviving reality. I've been physically assaulted numerous times in my life, and most of the time I was outnumbered significantly. If I have to defend my life again, I'm not giving anyone a chance to get up. Your politically correct notion in this case can go screw itself.
 
The closer the threat is, the easier it is for them to harm you,
True.
so it is all the more important to land a shot that will result in immediate incapacitation.
Which requires firing very rapidly at a moving target that is opaque, and who critical elements are hidden.
The cranium is the most valuable target for a firearm, and humans have very large craniums that are not particularly animated even during fighting maneuvers.
No knowledgeable experts advise trying head shots in such a situation. and but the way, the cranium is not the best target even if one could hit it. The cerebral cortex represents a very small part of the head.
 
That's called surviving reality. I've been physically assaulted numerous times in my life, and most of the time I was outnumbered significantly. If I have to defend my life again, I'm not giving anyone a chance to get up. Your politically correct notion in this case can go screw itself.

Seriously, anyone reading this... dont listen to this guy. He has no idea what he is talking about and is giving really really bad advise.
 
That's called surviving reality. I've been physically assaulted numerous times in my life, and most of the time I was outnumbered significantly. If I have to defend my life again, I'm not giving anyone a chance to get up. Your politically correct notion in this case can go screw itself.

Quite frankly, it sounds to me like you need to really work on improving your social skills because nobody gets assaulted for no reason whatsoever. Once I can buy. Numerous times? You need to rethink the way that you interact with other people. Seriously.
 
I believe one of the latest studies of
handgun ammunition indicates that
at least two rounds are needed to
attain some sort of consistent
stopping power; that goes for
9mm, .38, .357, .44 mag, .45s.

Also each shooting is unique because
of human body variables, shot
placement, bullet penetration
variances even in same calibers,
etc.

A consensus seems to be that
bullet placement is most important
and therefore a shooter's
ability to handle a certain caliber
is extremely important, perhaps
paramount.
 
EDIT: Oh boy, in before the lock!

Exactly.

That's why I'm primarily interested in wounding potential. The only factor we have control of, other than shot placement, is the amount of permanent tissue displacement our bullets create. That is far easier to quantity than what will "stop" someone. A blank would stop alot of people out there.

Yes, but now you are measuring a proxy metric for the unmeasurable thing you actually want to know. And while permanent wound cavity is relatively more quantifiable, it is not the only factor in 'stopping' power. What is going on here is that people want to be able to predict what ammunition will work best if they need it. But there are too many factors there to say with certainty.
 
Last edited:
If you are shooting someone in the chest or head with a firearm, you are attempting to kill that person.

Then why not use a 22? I could carry my Buckmark and just shoot anyone who messes with me in the T zone out to 50 ft even if they are moving. Wouldn't be any harder than squirrel hunting.

The only way you could reliably stop someone without killing them using a firearm would be too shoot them in the kneecap, hip, scapula, etc (or maybe in the eyes with birdshot). If I were on jury duty for your case and knew that you intentionally shot someone in the heart/lung area or the head, I would consider you as guilty of manslaughter or murder. I would vote for your conviction.

A pistol is a lethal weapon, just like a bow, and when you use it, you are trying to kill your opponent, no matter what you might believe you are doing, and no matter what politically correct internet gun culture says. If you shoot someone in the chest or head with a firearm, you are doing the exact same thing as a hunter killing a deer.

If you don't want to kill people, use a different weapon, or develop enough skill to exclusively target large joints

You put a bullet in his head and prepare for the next attacker.

. I've been physically assaulted numerous times in my life,

Anyone else think something is going on here?
 
A pistol isn't like a machete. A pistol just makes small holes, and it's very difficult to aim them at targets that will incapacitate, but not kill, your opponent. Under stress, it is much more realistic to aim "center of mass", or at the cranium. These areas contain vital organs, so by aiming at them, you are carrying out a lethal attack, not a "stopping" attack. If your opponent stops, it is because you either killed them, or they lost the will to fight for reasons that cannot be quantified and factored into bullet design to any meaningful extent.
True.
A pistol is a lethal weapon, just like a bow, and when you use it, you are trying to kill your opponent, no matter what you might believe you are doing, and no matter what politically correct internet gun culture says.
Hogwash.
 
You put a bullet in his head and prepare for the next attacker.

Do that, and you get 3 hots, a cot and all the lovin' you can take from your 400 lb. cellmate, Bubba. It's called murder.


And I got it in before thread lock.:)

No. I carry pistols and train to maintain proficiency with them out to 100 yards. I only own three rifles currently and I never use them because I never require their accuracy or power. I can kill any animal in the northeastern woods with only Glocks and generally don't even have to put any effort into closing the distance, especially moose, because they don't even run away.

I think it would be vastly easier to inflict an incapacitating, yet non-life threatening injury to a person with an edged weapon than with a pistol.

Gecko 45 is back! :rofl:
 
Last edited:
Without slipping off into the troll aspects here,

probably the main reason there aren't tons of data on 9mm fmj "combat effectiveness" is that you would rarely engage with 9mm in a combat situation. Only relevant usage would have been submachine guns, which have been phased out due to decreased effectiveness in comparison to midsized rounds (30 carbine, then 556).


Like others have said- you react to stop the attacker, not specifically to kill him.
 
Well, it might be better than being in prison because you shot your mouth off on a public forum that you will commit murder if attcked. Murder and justifiable self defense are two different things, and you'd be smart to learn the difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top