Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by Texasgrillchef, Sep 27, 2019.
I found humans to be more like farm animals.
If you really believe that "shock and stun eefect" are the drivers, ask why your hand is not seriously injured by the equal and opposite reaction.
That may be how you interpreted the effect, but had a bullet actually knocked a large animal off its feet, the gun would have knocked the shooter down, hard.
In the shooting of a human, five out of six persons who are shot with handguns survive. The lawful objective is to stop.
Need? Maybe not. But you sure could learn a lot.
You have grossly mischaracterized the body of research that led to the conclusions in the report.
That would, of course, be the best information, were there sufficient data to account for all of the important variables.
But no one ever measures the time. There are other things to do.
No, not physics. It's just you not having the presence of mind to consider a shooter is in a shooting stance, braced and ready for the recoil and the animal is caught unaware and not expecting the impact.
You can bump another man off his feet without falling yourself, and it doesn't break the laws of physics.
I am assuming you mean the lawful objective is to stop the threat? If so, yes. After the fact wound channel analysis is of no use. The only data of use for self defense is whether the threat was neutralized and if it was neutralized sufficiently fast enough.
I'll regret ignoring it the day I'm attacked by block of gelatin, but until then I'll take the risk.
The only way I could possibly have done that is if the report is based on actual live observations of the shootings; which it isn't.
Expect folks who hunt and who do not want to track a wounded animal for miles. They tend to make sure they make a 'drop shot'.
That reminds me of a story told in Horn of the Hunter where the author shoots at a Cape buffalo with a .470 Nitro Express. If I understand right, both barrels fired, knocking him and the buffalo flat. Harry Selby is described as surveying the scene before he drawls, "Really, one of you ought to get up."
I'm pretty sure it wasn't the buffalo telling the story. What's more, not only can you knock a man down with your fist without knocking yourself flat, you can also knock him clean out. I can't attest to the statistical probabilities of doing that with a center-of-mass hit with any given handgun. Researchers and hunters both have observed that knock-outs from the bullet's shockwave disrupting the CNS without a direct hit on it occur with apparent thresholds for velocity in proportion to caliber, and that those thresholds are above handgun velocities. But shockwaves aren't the only way to knock a person unconscious and they certainly aren't the only way to knock them down.
The author of that first anecdote I mentioned titled one of his books, "Use Enough Gun." There's a story behind that too, but the advice in the title suffices for now. I used to bow hunt. I've lost game (one), and I've had clean kills that took too long -- double lung shots with exits that I had to finish with a shot that broke the skull. In my mind, carrying a "light" gun for your comfort is stupid. Not only does it improperly respect your quarry, which in itself will most certainly have a consequence, but it makes it more likely you'll be tracking wounded quarry and carrying that half-weight gun twice as far. I use a gun that will anchor game with one shot. It's a foolish plan to use a gun you know will need more shots than you can be certain you will get.
The "shock and stun effect of the bullets from you gun neither "knocked down" nor killed you large game.
That happened because internal body parts were cut and crushed.
Find someone who can help you do the math.
Under the right circumstances of comparative balance, yes, but the bump won't kill him.
Recognized experts in the filed of forensic ballistics tall us otherwise.
That's the desired result, but there are no data from which to draw meaningful conclusions about terminal ballistics from time alone.
Your flippant and argumentative comments are not pleading your case.
You are making statements that are not supported by science, and they illustrate the limitations in your knowledge and understanding.
True, but irrelevant.
This discussion of terminal ballistics has moved well outside of the subject of comparing revolvers vs semi-autos for EDC.. Should anyone want to discuss the subject of handgun wounding mechanics, please start another thread
Video tests a Shield vs. a SW 638 (looks like), Basically, both ran under pocket lint conditions. However, if both were shaken up in a lot of dirt (from the ground), the semi and revolver jammed. The former could get going with some oil. The revolver would need a disassembly. Now, how many folks will fall into a pile of dirt and drop the gun in it? Few, so just FYI.
What's more likely to be the case and point of failure between a revolver and semiauto? Falling into the dirt and shaken up , and then having time to add oil vs all the other much, much, much more rational things that can go wrong with a semiauto than with a revolver during a self defense encounter.
Seems like the mods are seeking out information and only acknowledging every con of revolvers no matter how far fetched all the while ignoring or minimizing the instances where semoautos fall short.
Both have their place depending on the situation. There still isn't any proof beyond hypothesizing and made up scenarios that all the civilians who carried revolvers in the past and present vs semiautos were any worse off in actual real world situations. Because of this fact, this discussion will just keep going around in hypothetical circles.
I agree both autos and revolvers can be disabled. Agent Dove's 9mm S&W 459 autoloader was disabled when it was hit with a .223 round. Agent McNeill's revolver was disabled when he could not reload it because of blood in the chambers. If these kinds of disablements were especially rare, they wouldn't have both happened in the same fight.
Remember also that Hanlon and Risner both went to their backup guns during the fight. Also, Platt used at least three guns during the fight. He had a revolver and dropped it when his arm was shot. He was wielding the Mini-14 with his weakside hand when he killed Grogan and Dove. He later drew Matix's Dan Wesson revolver and fired that. While Miami was atypical of a self-defense scenario, the ratio of combatants was only 1:4 which is not unheard of in civilian incidents. Recall also that Twinning and Davis both used multiple weapons in their two consecutive fights with a 1:1 ratio of combatants. When the revolvers they started the fight with ran out, they had a shotgun and .45 auto. When the .45 Auto jammed after one round, they had another. They later picked up additional weapons during the fight. On the other side, Alleyn went through two weapons, and Pence died needing a second.
But one could also argue that the structure of shooting games are geared for semi autos...in that more than 5 rounds are fired. In a self-defense situation, it is the critical first 3 rounds that make the difference.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I carry a semi auto. I am most confident with Glock 19 gen 5 or CZ pO1.
What do you base this statement on?
IMO, the first hits make the difference...
Try it with 3 targets... Shoot one shot at each, then repeat as wasting too much time on one isn't wise.
I would assume that who ever lands the first three shot would have the advantage. For me, the revolver is easier to immediately deploy..even without a secured grip. No chance of limpwristing. Also, no worries of creating space for reciprocating slide. (To put this in context, I'm envisioning an attacker at close range...with me injured so as to preclude a H2H solution.)
However, I have trained to overcome the weakness of the semi-auto and do like their advantages (I'm more accurate with it, can reload faster, more ammo on board to begin with)...that when all is said and done....I carry a G19. The semi auto, for me provides the greatest range of applications.
Here's another analysis of revolvers for EDC. https://revolverguy.com/the-trials-and-tribulations-of-the-revolverguy/
It's presented for info. I see some poster think that some moderators have a mission to denounce revolvers. No, I just present interesting info. I've mentioned that I've an empirical mindset and have trained and shot competitions with revolvers quite a bit. I just love my favorite SW 632. It's a perfect revolver for me, if I had to EDC a belt based revolver.
I watched Caleb Gidding's video on the "u-shaped curve".
I agree with just about everything in the first three minutes.
Beyond that, it would be much more useful to put a curve for the semi-auto and a curve for the revolver on the same graph. Where do the lines cross?
He considers weight and concealability together. I do not. My Kimber K6 is very concealable, but it is heavy, requiring a good holster. My 642 was no more concealable than my Ruger SR9c, and it was far less shootable.
He ignores capacity.
He focuses only on very small guns. It would be more useful to consider micro guns, compacts, and others separately, again showing semi-autos and revolvers on the same graphs.
My comments have nothing to do with my opinions of various firearms. I spent most of a forty-plus year career analyzing data and drawing conclusions from them, and I know how to present data and information effectively.
Wow, really? A bullet actually penetrates inside the body of the animals that are shot and damages internal organs? Amazing. I never knew that.
You know, I bet that’s why dad told me to aim for the lungs and the heart back in the day.
This from somebody with zero scientific or mathematical background, experience or education. Yeah, I’m just gutted.
And yet people try to continue...
Should anyone desire to discuss the Giddings video, do so in a new thread.
Separate names with a comma.