Shot Placement!!! Blah, Blah, Blah

[Marshall]

I'm with MCgunner on this to the point of his sarcasm making a joke of all the "this is most important" comments.

Heck, it's all of them. Be armed with a decent caliber, shoot quality defensive ammo and actually hit the BG somewhere from the crotch up. If for any reason he keeps posing a threat and doesn't go down, smack him until he does regardless of what you're shooting. You'll be good to go.

Too much rocket scientist stuff going on, people make this too complicated and hard in my opinion.

 

[30-06 lover]

Two things are needed to kill quickly. One-you have to hit what you are aiming at. Two-have to put a big enough hole with as mush damage as possible. Cut and dry. Many think that you can have one or the other. Nope, you need both. On that note, I have seen police training videos of individuals being shot by officers. The quickest to die were ones with a 357 mag, but the officers shooting a 357 had the lowest number of hits. The 45 was a close second, but there are still people that can take 3 hits to center mass from a 45 and keep going. Officers shooting a 45 shot okay, but could have been better. The 9mm was the worst at dropping people where they stood with the highest amount of hits from the officers. Because the officer hit most with the 9mm the people die the most, but not quickly. Having a family full of LEOs and from the trainng I have had as a non-sworn, it takes power and placement to kill quickly. One word...practice!

 

[P-35/53]

From gbran-Sure, but why assume the other caliber can't achieve shot placement?


I for one do not - shoot what you shoot best. I just have a problem with the people that follow it up with but the 45 acp is best. This discounts the 357 or the 357 Sig or the any other caliber . Over a 20 year period I saw the results of a fair amount of shootings and people died from 22, 25's , 32 , 38's and lot of them was dead on the scene from well placed shots and people wounded in the arms with bigger calibers lived . i carreid over the years a 38 with 158 gr, lead , a 357 with 125 jhp and a 45 with ball and a 9mm with jhps I felt safe with any of them -if I proved to myself I could hit what I aimed at.

 

[LooseGrouper]

Okay, here's my philosophy:

1) All else being equal, bigger (more energy, larger caliber...however you define it) is better.

2) All else is never equal. There are millions and billions of tiny little possible variations in a scenario. One one day, a half-hearted knife-wielding purse snatcher could soak up 10 hits of .44 magnum to COM and walk himself to the emergency room. On another day, a Moro warrior doped up on PCP, mescaline, and caffiene could get hit in the upper thigh by a .22 short, which then riccochets up into his brain stem, dropping him instantly.

3) Incapacitation happens in one of three ways: a) shock/psycological, b) central nervouse system damage, or c) loss of blood leads to loss of consciousness/death. A and B happen almost instantly, but A is pretty much out of your control. C usually takes some time...maybe somewhat less time if the projectile has done more damage.

4) So if you want to ensure an instant stop, hit them in the CNS (brain or spinal cord) with something powerful enough to destroy it (this includes every modern caliber I can think of, but per para 2 bigger is better, of course). Then hope/pray that it's not one of those Murphy's Law days (see para 2).

 

[brickeyee]

"Sure, but why assume the other caliber can't achieve shot placement?"

What was the follow up speed with that .30-06?
You are the only one assuming anything.

 

[RyanM]

Argh. Just shoot the biggest thing you can control, but don't sacrifice accuracy and speed of shooting for hole size.

Shot placement can make up for inadequate hole size. A .22 can kill someone in 10 seconds on an aorta shot, or drop them like a ragdoll on a brain or spinal cord hit.

But hole size cannot make up for shot placement. An 18" cannon that blows off a guy's hand won't have much more of an effect than a .45 that shatters the wrist bones and severs a bunch of arteries and veins.

Hole size and shot placement are both great, but shot placement is better.

 

[Biker]

Ah, but when you combine accurate shot placement with a bigger hole, things get even better.
Biker

 

[RyanM]

Which is why the first and last sentences are there. If you can only shoot a 9mm quickly and accurately, use the 9mm. If you can only shoot a .22 quickly and accurately, that beats the heck out of a .45 you can't hit anything with. If you can shoot well with a Desert Eagle and can conceal it comfortably, there's no reason not to carry one of those either.

Put another way. It's acceptable to sacrifice hole size if that will improve shot placement, but it's not acceptable to sacrifice shot placement for the sake of hole size.

 

[Shootcraps]

+1.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Lord I apolagize...and be with the pygmees down there in New Guinea........

My original response was loaded with sarcasm. Sorry! Even if I did mean it!!!

Shot placement versus caliber is one of those topics...
much a-kin to 9mm vs. 45 & semi auto vs. revolver & 1911 vs. Glock etc. etc. etc.

Point being , bigger is only better if you can competently use it, meaning putting the rounds where they count & consistently, Period!