Ignorance behind "Shot placement is key" fallacy.

Status
Not open for further replies.
JRWhit said:
Name a defense round that does not give sufficient penatration and then their May be an argument to be had here.
Click to expand...

It is not so much what commonly used self-defence round does not give sufficient penetration, it is about what particular loadings of don't give sufficient penetration. An extreme example would be the difference between a .380 FMJ and a .380 Glasser. There is a good case to be made that the Glasser will fail to have sufficient penetration in some situations that would never be a problem for the FMJ. Another example would be hollowpoint bullets with fragile jackets that easily fragment on contact causing so much reduction in mass and consequently sectional density that they fail to penetrate sufficiently.
 
Last edited:
By 45_auto:
Even though a psychological stop makes up the majority of cases, you have no control over it. It's the attacker's option whether to stop or not...
Click to expand...

Actually we do have control over it: By selecting ammo that does more damage.

Otherwise, how do you explain non-CNS,non-blood loss induced loss of consciousness stops occurring more with JHP?
 
Last edited:
This is obviously false because not only did instant stops that does not involve CNS hit nor blood loss induced unconsciousness occurred countless times, it takes up majority of the case of stops.
Click to expand...

Otherwise, how do you explain non-CNS,non-blood loss induced loss of consciousness stops occurring more with JHP?
Click to expand...
Where are you getting this from? Can you cite something that supports your position? A study, FBI stats, DOJ, anything?
 
Where are you getting this from? Can you cite something that supports your position? A study, FBI stats, DOJ, anything?
Click to expand...

Mostly from individual shooting incident info I have read. I don't have them all gathered together to give you an exact percentage number.

Then again, even IWBA articles, yes I have read them, believe it or not, does not say out of all instant stop incidents, CNS hits constitute majority of the instant stops. And, blood loss induced loss of consciousness cannot be the major cause of instant stops for obvious reason.
 
Last edited:
Because shot placement is everything,

A 50cal to the foot or a .22 to the foot is still just a foot shot and doesn't stop the attacker. Or maybe a gut/intestine only shot is a better example but it's really the same thing if it doesn't stop the attacker right now who cares if he slowly becomes incapacitated over the next hour or two? Is one hour better than two? of course not because the fighting will all be over in minutes if not seconds.

At the same time I do fell that larger round leave more room for error, a 44mag lehigh defense round expands to 1.65in so if your off your ideal shot placement by .82 you will still just tic it where with something like a .22 you get a whole .1 worth of error before you miss.
 
testpilot said:
Otherwise, how do you explain non-CNS,non-blood loss induced loss of consciousness stops occurring more with JHP?
Click to expand...

Can you supply some references where an attacker loses consciousness with no blood loss?

Do your references show that they faint more frequently from the sight of a JHP up the defenders barrel than from the sight of a FMJ? Or is the sound of a JHP missing them somehow more terrifying than the sound of a FMJ going by?

Wouldn't that make a revolver a much more effective defensive weapon than a semi-auto since it's much easier for an attacker to see what kind of bullets are in a revolver pointed at them? :rolleyes:
 
Can you supply some references where an attacker loses consciousness with no blood loss?
Click to expand...
I never said "loses consciousness with no blood loss." I said stops.

Do your references show that they faint more frequently from the sight of a JHP up the defenders barrel than from the sight of a FMJ? Or is the sound of a JHP missing them somehow more terrifying than the sound of a FMJ going by?

Wouldn't that make a revolver a much more effective defensive weapon than a semi-auto since it's much easier for an attacker to see what kind of bullets
Click to expand...
Due to preciousness of my time, serious response is only limited to post with signs of intelligence.
 
it all depends!!!

Being a medic for many years I saw some shots that you would think cause INSTANT incapacity.They didn't .
I saw a .22 shot to the brain that left the patient still awake and moving. In another instance I saw a 38 caliber to the heart.(later it was confirmed that the bullet lodged in the pericardial sack that surrounds the heart. Had to use the Mast pants and l had to do a lot of work to get that one stable but we got them all to the hospital and they all survived. Luck?, Maybe, but having personally seen some of the results of what are considered killing shots, They are Not always that!
Another time I dealt with a large caliber shot to the femoral artery, No way did that cause instant incapacity.
In my own CC situations I carry a heavy caliber and rely on the brute power of the hit, wherever it is!
 
TestPilot said:
...One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body....
Click to expand...

To claim all ammo has equal capacity to cause a psychological surrender appears bogus to me.
Click to expand...
Who cares how something appears to you -- unless you have data and documentation to back it up? I provided data and documentation in post 22.

TestPilot said:
Where are you getting this from? Can you cite something that supports your position? A study, FBI stats, DOJ, anything?
Click to expand...

Mostly from individual shooting incident info I have read. I don't have them all gathered together to give you an exact percentage number...
Click to expand...
I pretty much figured you were pulling this out of thin air. I sure don't see from this why there's any reason anyone should pay any attention to your opinion. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
 
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin:
Originally Posted by TestPilot
...One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body....
Click to expand...
To claim all ammo has equal capacity to cause a psychological surrender appears bogus to me.
Click to expand...
Who cares how something appears to you
Click to expand...
You, apparently.

-- unless you have data and documentation to back it up? I provided data and documentation in post 22.
Click to expand...

Your post does not contain any "data" that shows all bullets have equal capacity to cause psychological stops, just declarative statements.

Declarative statement, no matter how authoritative person making it ma be, does not constitute data or document of proof in and of itself.

So, I guess that makes us even in regards to not using emperical data

I pretty much figured you were pulling this out of thin air. I sure don't see from this why there's any reason anyone should pay any attention to your opinion.
Click to expand...
Then don't . Problem solved.

You can disagree, which I have no problem with. But, individual invident info is not "thin air."
 
Last edited:
TestPilot said:
Actually we do have control over it: By selecting ammo that does more damage.
Click to expand...

Done much competitive shooting? Taken part in any of the gun games: USPSA, IDPA, Glock games, etc.? In those venues, your only REAL opponent is you and the clock. No real danger, no risks. But it's still very easy to screw up. In those games the targets aren't shooting back, your life is not at risk, but it's still easy to lose focus, to not hit what you thought you surely hit dead center, and to make an array of mental errors that leave you feeling bad. Happily, the only casualty is your eqo...

Take that same skill set and level of mastery to a different part of the world where you don't get a warning beep, know nothing about the course of fire, where you realize that the target MAY be shooting at you (or running at you from 15-20 feet away with a baseball bat or long knife in hand), where he may have picked the "battlefield" and has already gotten there "firstest with the mostest." I'd argue that is what some here are implicitly talking about when they say CHANCE plays a role.

If it were as simple, as clear cut, and not open to question as many here think, we wouldn't be having this discussion -- it would have been resolved long ago, etched in stone, and made into truisms that nobody could contest. It hasn't.
 
Last edited:
testpilot post #52 said:
Otherwise, how do you explain non-CNS,non-blood loss induced loss of consciousness stops occurring more with JHP?
Click to expand...

testpilot post #58 said:
I never said "loses consciousness with no blood loss." I said stops.
Click to expand...

Actually, you said "Non-blood loss induced loss of consciousness stops".

"Non-blood loss induced loss of consciousness" means something different to you than "loses consciousness with no blood loss"?

This is one hilarious thread, too bad I don't see it lasting much longer!
 
Hit with a 9BPLE, somewhere, anywhere, and it will be catastrophic.
Click to expand...
Perfect example of a logical fallacy....and one that is repeated endlessly, here and everywhere else.

Repeat after me...There is no such thing as a magic bullet.

Placement is important, but cannot be counted upon.
Penetration is important, but cannot be counted upon.
Expansion is important, but cannot...

see where this is going?
 
By 45_auto:
Actually, you said "Non-blood loss induced loss of consciousness stops".

"Non-blood loss induced loss of consciousness" means something different to you than "loses consciousness with no blood loss"?

This is one hilarious thread, too bad I don't see it lasting much longer!
Click to expand...

You cannot tell the difference between , "Non-blood loss induced loss of consciousness stops" and "an attacker loses consciousness with no blood loss"?

For your sake, you should not find this hilarious.
 
How can one get shot, and not loose blood?
If your a good shot, take out each knee of your attacker, that shoold do it!
Man this thread is dumb! And I just added to the stupidity:)
 
In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....
Click to expand...

The 38 Special LSWCHP once favored by the FBI* was probably not in the "more powerful" category back in it's day. Yet it was deemed sufficient for many years. Absent the semi auto, one wonders if the agency would still be shooting that much venerated round today?


* Ed Lovette in The Snubby Revolver
 
TestPilot said:
..Your post does not contain any "data" that shows all bullets have equal capacity to cause psychological stops, just declarative statements....
Click to expand...
Bosh! My post refers to, links to, and incorporates by reference the Ellifritz study and the data and analysis set out therein.
 
I love these discussions; basically some combination of angels fitting on a pin head, and the most effective way to drain a paper bag full of water (almost literally those two)

"I refer back to Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail on this one. If a shot were to literally remove the left arm of an attacker then until that wound causes a person to bleed out or go into shock they are still coming at you with both feet, teeth, and right arm. It's merely a flesh wound."
What we need is some new kind of bullet that will reliably remove all four limbs simultaneously, thus eliminating the need for follow-up shots or any defense action after the defender's first trigger pull. I submit some type of super-velocity round with a temporary stretch cavity approximately the diameter of the average male torso. That should do it.

TCB
 
By Frank Ettin:Bosh! My post refers to, links to, and incorporates by reference the Ellifritz study and the data and analysis set out therein.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't find Mr. Ellifritz's work to be sound.

For example, in his fail to stop data graph on your post, he did not have a separate data for each bullet typrs, and lumped FMJ and JHP together. The viewer cannot know if all calibers in the graph have the same bullet type composition, which makes the "data" meaningless.
 
TestPilot said:
...in his fail to stop data graph on your post, he did not have a separate data for each bullet typrs, and lumped FMJ and JHP together. The viewer cannot know if all calibers in the graph have the same bullet type composition, which makes the "data" meaningless.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't make his data meaningless. It merely makes it limited, but one may still draw meaningful conclusions from the available data subject to its limitations.

Ellifritz makes no claim to distinguishing the performance of FMJ and JHP bullets. Most likely sample sizes were too small to permit a worthwhile comparison. And, looking at the failure to incapacitate chart, because of the limited sample sizes the differences among .380, .38 Special, 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP and .44 Magnum probably are not significant and really wouldn't allow a meaningful ranking of those cartridges. However, the chart shows a clear and marked difference between those cartridges, on one hand, and .22, .25 ACP and .32s on the other hand. Basically, the .22/.25/.32 groups showed a a reasonably consistent and comparable failure rate, as did the .380/.38/9mm/40/45/44 group; and the former was notably less favorable than the latter.

The data is there, meaningful and useful as long as one understands what it tell us and what it doesn't tell us.
 
I agree with sergei mosin, post #30. excellent analysis.
 
testpilot said:
For example, in his fail to stop data graph on your post, he did not have a separate data for each bullet typrs, and lumped FMJ and JHP together. The viewer cannot know if all calibers in the graph have the same bullet type composition, which makes the "data" meaningless.
Click to expand...

testpilot said:
Otherwise, how do you explain non-CNS,non-blood loss induced loss of consciousness stops occurring more with JHP?
Click to expand...

You obviously have a secret source of JHP vs FMJ shooting data that you're not sharing with the world. If you would share your data, rather than just proclaiming "because I said so", perhaps (although not very likely) your claims would not appear so preposterous.
 
TestPilot said:
Sorry, but I don't find Mr. Ellifritz's work to be sound.

.
Click to expand...

grayblue... I mean TestPilot, you're providing very little (zero?) factual basis to support your argument but yet you hold others to a higher standard of proof. :scrutiny:

Then you discount what proof is presented as not being sound.... but all you have done is given an unsupported opinion. :scrutiny:

I think you'll have better success arguing "Thumb lever type manual firing inhibitor" is the right term to use. :barf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
"Shot placement"
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Fred Fuller
F
B
  • Locked
Define Shot Placement
Replies
19
Views
2K
junyo
J
mljdeckard
  • Locked
I have a problem with "Shot placement is key" and "Overpenetration"
2 3 4 5
Replies
115
Views
6K
gym
G
T
  • Locked
Shot placement.
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Bezoar
B
O
  • Locked
Rate of fire vs. caliber. IE 9mm 6 quick vs. .45 2 Slow
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
halvey
H
Back
Top