When Absolutely Have to Stop Bad Guy, What Auto Cartridge?
- Thread starter Higgins
- Start date
- Status
TheeBadOne
Member
12 Ga. Super Black Eagle 2 3/4 " high brass OO buck 
You did say auto
You did say auto
Schuey2002
Member
What auto cartridge? 10mm.
Out of which handgun? A Glock 20.
Out of which handgun? A Glock 20.
Quartus, you could actually figure it out for yourself if you weren't so focused on the opinions of so called "experts."
First off, let's flesh out "absolutely" a bit. A cyanide dipped BB will kill a BG -- eventually. It won't be of much help if the BG is armed, adrenaline stoked, and charging you from 7 yards, though. The context of the premise is that "absolutely" means "immediately" as in "drop the charging BG within 21 feet."
Here are a few things for you to think about:
1. Any hit is better than a miss, even though there are very few places you can hit a BG with a handgun that will "absolutely" stop him. Sure, a COM hit with a small gun eventually causes the BG to die in many cases, and that happens way too often with large guns as well.
2. The only places you can hit a BG to effectively ensure he's "absolutely" stopped are in the upper spinal column, brain stem, or brain. The problem in hitting the spinal column with a COM shot is all the stuff in front of it like clothes, fat, muscle, organs, etc., that tend to deflect and slow down the bullet so even if the flight trajectory was perfect, the bullet may not have any effect on the spinal column.
3. "Expert" instructors teach COM shooting because (a) almost anybody can hit a BG COM from 7 yards, (b) any hit is better than a miss, and (c) the student develops more confidence in his skills under that syllabus.
4. If the actual "absolutely" stopping areas were marked on the target and the instructor taught that if one of them is not hit, the student would be dead, then the student would get another instructor so he could feel better about his inadequate skills.
5. It's a good idea when relying on any gun to think that you're using a single shot weapon. The odds of getting a second shot are considerably less than the first for MANY reasons that have nothing to do with the gun's reliability. They include the BG's attack, second shot recovery, and a host of other things. Regarding semi-autos, has ANYBODY had a jam on the first round that's already in the pipe...?
First off, let's flesh out "absolutely" a bit. A cyanide dipped BB will kill a BG -- eventually. It won't be of much help if the BG is armed, adrenaline stoked, and charging you from 7 yards, though. The context of the premise is that "absolutely" means "immediately" as in "drop the charging BG within 21 feet."
Here are a few things for you to think about:
1. Any hit is better than a miss, even though there are very few places you can hit a BG with a handgun that will "absolutely" stop him. Sure, a COM hit with a small gun eventually causes the BG to die in many cases, and that happens way too often with large guns as well.
2. The only places you can hit a BG to effectively ensure he's "absolutely" stopped are in the upper spinal column, brain stem, or brain. The problem in hitting the spinal column with a COM shot is all the stuff in front of it like clothes, fat, muscle, organs, etc., that tend to deflect and slow down the bullet so even if the flight trajectory was perfect, the bullet may not have any effect on the spinal column.
3. "Expert" instructors teach COM shooting because (a) almost anybody can hit a BG COM from 7 yards, (b) any hit is better than a miss, and (c) the student develops more confidence in his skills under that syllabus.
4. If the actual "absolutely" stopping areas were marked on the target and the instructor taught that if one of them is not hit, the student would be dead, then the student would get another instructor so he could feel better about his inadequate skills.
5. It's a good idea when relying on any gun to think that you're using a single shot weapon. The odds of getting a second shot are considerably less than the first for MANY reasons that have nothing to do with the gun's reliability. They include the BG's attack, second shot recovery, and a host of other things. Regarding semi-autos, has ANYBODY had a jam on the first round that's already in the pipe...?
Blackhawk, as explained, the sniper had very little room for error due to the positioning of the female hostage and other's in the room. A 168gr .308 bullet would seem quite capable of penetrating the assailant and the hostage, or prehaps another innocent close by, which is obviously not what they want. This situation allowed a very limited window for a safe shot, and as originally mentioned, shot placement was not "ideal".
The jest of the example is that even high powered rifles can fail to instantly incapacitate with less than ideal shot placement, even though they are capable of inflicting much more severe damage. With that noted, what then should realistically be expected from a service caliber handgun, particularly with peripheral hits? At rifle velocities shock can occurr due to stretch cavities far greater in size, allowing tissues outside the immediate path of the bullet to be damaged, at pistol velocities this does not happen. At rifle velocities a bullet that yaws or fragments is also of course capable of producing more trauma, two factors not commonly associated with handgun wounding effectiveness.
Given that the wounding mechanism's associated with rifles can't be duplicated using an underpowered service caliber handgun, shot placement would seem even more critical. Regarding handguns, bigger bullets simply crush more tissue, another reason bullets that expand and become larger (jhp's) are desireable, irrespective of the caliber selected. Caliber debates aside, it is quite simple really, one should choose the caliber that they are most proficient with, select a top tier jhp design, then train to continually improve their skill level.
It always amazes me when I go to the range, and see folks of all shapes and sizes struggling to accurately place their shots simply because they can't handle the gun they are shooting. If one can't handle their weapon well at the range, how will they be able to manage it under stress, wether on the street or in their home?
Best, jnb01
The jest of the example is that even high powered rifles can fail to instantly incapacitate with less than ideal shot placement, even though they are capable of inflicting much more severe damage. With that noted, what then should realistically be expected from a service caliber handgun, particularly with peripheral hits? At rifle velocities shock can occurr due to stretch cavities far greater in size, allowing tissues outside the immediate path of the bullet to be damaged, at pistol velocities this does not happen. At rifle velocities a bullet that yaws or fragments is also of course capable of producing more trauma, two factors not commonly associated with handgun wounding effectiveness.
Given that the wounding mechanism's associated with rifles can't be duplicated using an underpowered service caliber handgun, shot placement would seem even more critical. Regarding handguns, bigger bullets simply crush more tissue, another reason bullets that expand and become larger (jhp's) are desireable, irrespective of the caliber selected. Caliber debates aside, it is quite simple really, one should choose the caliber that they are most proficient with, select a top tier jhp design, then train to continually improve their skill level.
It always amazes me when I go to the range, and see folks of all shapes and sizes struggling to accurately place their shots simply because they can't handle the gun they are shooting. If one can't handle their weapon well at the range, how will they be able to manage it under stress, wether on the street or in their home?
Best, jnb01
All good points, jnb01. I wasn't trying to be flippant by summarizing the incident by saying the sniper missed, but it could seem that way. The fact probably is that the sniper had to "miss" the ideal placement for the reasons you mentioned. However, the shot was effective and tactically correct. When a hostage is so restrained, there simply may not be a way to resolve the situation without accelerating the potential harm to the hostage. Some situations require that hostages be considered "dead anyway" if action isn't taken, and the anecdote you related seems like one of them.
You're exactly right about the ballistic effects of various bullets. Placement is everything!
You're also exactly right about people trying to use guns that they really can't handle.
You're exactly right about the ballistic effects of various bullets. Placement is everything!
You're also exactly right about people trying to use guns that they really can't handle.
Moparmike, I agree with you 100% about the battleships. If old Ironsides is still in commission, why can't they keep an Iowa class too? They are just too darn cool...
Anyway, the 16 incher should give you the stopping power you'll need, even if the bad guy has body armor
If it has to be from a handgun, bigger is better, .50 AE would be good. But really, anything .380 ACP or better sould be okay, as long as you hit what you aim at.
I carry a 9mm Makarov, and as long as I do my part, it will stop the bad guy...
Anyway, the 16 incher should give you the stopping power you'll need, even if the bad guy has body armor
If it has to be from a handgun, bigger is better, .50 AE would be good. But really, anything .380 ACP or better sould be okay, as long as you hit what you aim at.
I carry a 9mm Makarov, and as long as I do my part, it will stop the bad guy...
Jeff Timm
Member
Loaded unloaded:
Second the opinion.
200 gr. hollowpoints.
Geoff
Who doesn't much care what you use to launch 'um.
Second the opinion.
200 gr. hollowpoints.
Geoff
Who doesn't much care what you use to launch 'um.
Sludge
Member
Well, this is an arguement that will never be over. MY preference is the smaller caliber, and I will tell ya why. In a home environment, I dont want to over penetrate walls etc no more than I have to if I miss. Secondly, while I love the .45 and I carry one alot out of my affection for it, I can control the 9mm better at my current skill level. I can pump two 9mm bullets in a target in a controlled way much faster than I can do it with .45ACP, and in a much sloppier stance. Im sure that if the bullets are flying my stance is probably going to be less than perfect as well as my grip if im not careful. The 9mm is just more controllable. So, at the end of the day, rounds on target is the goal. 2 little rounds make a bigger wound channel than one big round. So, I guess im for the 9mm / .38spl camp. No lower though... penetration just isnt there in .32 etc.
Now, if I were in a less urban environment I start liking the .40 better. I think the .40 is a nice balance of speed and power. 357 SIG is a mean little rascal too. If I were an IDPA master class shooter, I would probably go for the .45ACP. Its all about what the shooter can control IMHO.
As far as stopping power goes, I think its worth mentioning that the mindset of the criminal will greatly effect the stopping power of the shot. For instance many ppl when they find they have even a flesh wound are incapacitated. The psychological impact of it just stops em. While some.. require bleeding out to stop. Does that make any sense?
Head shots? Nope, im gonna aim center mass on that mover and hope that my index and muscle memory carries me though. No heart and lungs.. fight is gonna be over soon..
Now, if I were in a less urban environment I start liking the .40 better. I think the .40 is a nice balance of speed and power. 357 SIG is a mean little rascal too. If I were an IDPA master class shooter, I would probably go for the .45ACP. Its all about what the shooter can control IMHO.
As far as stopping power goes, I think its worth mentioning that the mindset of the criminal will greatly effect the stopping power of the shot. For instance many ppl when they find they have even a flesh wound are incapacitated. The psychological impact of it just stops em. While some.. require bleeding out to stop. Does that make any sense?
Head shots? Nope, im gonna aim center mass on that mover and hope that my index and muscle memory carries me though. No heart and lungs.. fight is gonna be over soon..
CZ52GUY
Member
mozambique
.40s&w JHP...although I'd actually prefer 12ga or 7.62x39 in a "must stop" scenario...
Let's hope we never have to...
CZ52'
.40s&w JHP...although I'd actually prefer 12ga or 7.62x39 in a "must stop" scenario...
Let's hope we never have to...
CZ52'
Blackhaw, a sniper shot with a rifle is a VERY different thing from gun battle with a handgun. If the massive gulf between those two is not immediately obvious to you, well, that explains a lot.
And, lacking a significant amount of experience with handgun battles, myself, I'm much better off listening to those who make a living understanding and teaching it than some gun store commando who knows better than all of them and thinks he's so cool headed that he can make eyeball shots reliably in a gunfight.
But we agree (pretty much) in our assesment of Sludge's remarks. I happen to do very well with a .45, so that's MY choice. But I'm considering the 10mm and even (gasp!) the 357SIG when I can afford to properly evaluate them.
For now, I'm sticking with what I know.
And, lacking a significant amount of experience with handgun battles, myself, I'm much better off listening to those who make a living understanding and teaching it than some gun store commando who knows better than all of them and thinks he's so cool headed that he can make eyeball shots reliably in a gunfight.
But we agree (pretty much) in our assesment of Sludge's remarks. I happen to do very well with a .45, so that's MY choice. But I'm considering the 10mm and even (gasp!) the 357SIG when I can afford to properly evaluate them.
For now, I'm sticking with what I know.
clubsoda22
member
Well, if you want one shot stops regardless of any other concerns, just pick the biggest round out there, like .50AE or .475 wildey. Completely impractical, but it will sure stop a human, and just about any other thing on the planet, elephants, water buffalo....some older soviet tanks.
So do I, Quartus, so do I.
However, you're not actually doing that. You're sticking with what others say THEY know.
Your comments on the sniper shot are totally non-sequitur, but that's no surprise based on other comments you've made.
Next time you've got the time on a range trip, you might find it valuable to paste up a shadow target with the guaranteed "absolute" one shot instant stop vital areas of the CNS. Do fast draw single shot drills against them. Note how many times you would die out of 100 rounds since you missed one of those areas. Personally, I die much more often taking COM shots....
To paraphrase Bruce Lee, paper targets don't shoot back.
But I DO know how well I shoot. (It's not good enough yet.) And I've watched how well professionals shoot IDPA and IPSC. I have a hard time believing anyone who thinks he can shoot substantially better than that (There just aren't very many Enos's in the world.) , AND under the stress of combat. I know what that does to people, too. There's just not much reason to believe than anyone can reliably shoot someone in the eye with a handgun in combat. But it's not hard to show that most can train to hit reliably COM in combat.
And I know enough about anatomy and physiology to know from your comments that you know a great deal less than you think you do.
So, like I said, I'll stick with what I know. Which has been proven many times over.
BTW, the only reason I continue the discussion is for the sake of others who may be reading and might make the (possibly fatal) mistake of following your advice.
But I DO know how well I shoot. (It's not good enough yet.) And I've watched how well professionals shoot IDPA and IPSC. I have a hard time believing anyone who thinks he can shoot substantially better than that (There just aren't very many Enos's in the world.) , AND under the stress of combat. I know what that does to people, too. There's just not much reason to believe than anyone can reliably shoot someone in the eye with a handgun in combat. But it's not hard to show that most can train to hit reliably COM in combat.
And I know enough about anatomy and physiology to know from your comments that you know a great deal less than you think you do.
So, like I said, I'll stick with what I know. Which has been proven many times over.
BTW, the only reason I continue the discussion is for the sake of others who may be reading and might make the (possibly fatal) mistake of following your advice.
Quartus, I'm not giving anybody any advice except for training, and that advice I gave to you. You didn't follow it, and I'm not sure you even understand it.
You do what you think best as everybody else should, but don't get your thong jammed just because somebody else doesn't agree with what you think is best.
You keep referring to shooting a BG "in the eye," which I would never try to do. My SD instant stop BG target is the middle of the face. I have a chance of being high or low and maybe wide in addition to my chance of being right on target. A "miss" might end up "in the eye" or the mouth or even the nose. Acceptable. A vital zone miss within COM, and even a direct hit without adequate penetration is unacceptable under the need to "absolutely stop" the BG.
There are multiple vital zones in the head that will result in an instant stop. Since you seem to think there are several in the COM, what are they?
Instead of taking advice from dead actors, why not prove things out for yourself?
You do what you think best as everybody else should, but don't get your thong jammed just because somebody else doesn't agree with what you think is best.
You keep referring to shooting a BG "in the eye," which I would never try to do. My SD instant stop BG target is the middle of the face. I have a chance of being high or low and maybe wide in addition to my chance of being right on target. A "miss" might end up "in the eye" or the mouth or even the nose. Acceptable. A vital zone miss within COM, and even a direct hit without adequate penetration is unacceptable under the need to "absolutely stop" the BG.
There are multiple vital zones in the head that will result in an instant stop. Since you seem to think there are several in the COM, what are they?
Instead of taking advice from dead actors, why not prove things out for yourself?
1goodshot
Member
Im going to use my carry gun, Glock 22
Stevie-Ray
Member
I'd say 10mm, 180 gr hollowpoint. Next would be .45 ACP 230 gr HydraShok. But I'll probably have the .45 on hand.
That's from a statement you made over on TFL, that you could do so reliably. Maybe in target shooting you can, though I remain skeptical. (I assume we're not talking about stationary paper targets here. I can do pretty well on those, too.) Like I've said, I've seen what the top IPSC and IDPA guys can do. I have a hard time believing that you're that much better than them. And I know you think you are cool hand luke and won't get stressed in a real shooting situation. Mebbe so. There are a very few in the world who are that way, and mebbe you're one of them, but again, I remain skeptical.
But aside from the much increased chances of a clean miss when shooting for the head, it's not such a sure kill as you think. The sinus cavities are a pretty good bullet trap, and even a 10mm can bounce of a skull if it hits to the side where it's angled. A lot here depends on caliber and bullet choice of course. Hardball ain't your best bet.
Survivability is about reliability. Headshots are harder to hit reliably, and aren't nearly as certain to stop as multiple hits COM. And NOTHING from a handgun is a sure stop besides a shot to the brain stem. (Which is a tiny target and very difficult to get to from the front. From the back it's called murder.)
That's not my theory - that's what's been proven in hundreds of gun battles.
Not range sessions.
45R
Member
GUYS GUYS relax....we are all on the same team!!!!
Quartus, I do aim for and shoot targets "in the eye" at every opportunity. They're great aiming points! (Matter of fact, my favorite trick shot is "between the eyes" on a target from 50 feet -- with a KT P-32....) That's a lot different from shooting a "BG in the eye" as you say. A BG would be treated to COH (Center of Head) aka nose, if necessary.
I saw a movie titled "44 Minutes" or something like that last night. It was a reenactment of the BoA holdup in LA where the 2 robbers casually blasted civilians and LEOs with AK47s while absorbing numerous body hits from the police. They were wearing body armor. With their handguns, the police failed again and again to make any headshots despite knowing that their body hits were ineffective.
My old lament returned. "Why CAN'T the police make headshots when they KNOW that's what they need?" The answer's the same. They don't TRAIN to make headshots! If something's hard, train to do something harder to make the original problem much easier.
In a San Antonio restaurant a year or so ago, a muscle bound parolee beat up a couple of LEOs, used their guns to shoot them and a couple of other LEOs who answered the call, received multiple hits from the LEO who finally brought him down with a headshot. The parolee fell dead on the last LEO who had been shot multiple times himself. Glock .40 S&W. The last vignette had the felon and the LEO advancing toward each other shooting at close range! THAT BG was one who needed to be "absolutely" stopped, and it DID NOT happen until he took one in the face DESPITE multiple COM and other body hits.
Should the terrible situation occur where a BG intent on killing YOU has his FACE in front of your gun as big as a whole torso at 7 yards, I would certainly hope you would take the best opportunity of "absolutely" stopping, and I hope you would know what that is.
Shoot the eyes out of your targets at 25-50 feet just so you know you can. Then should the need arise, you'll be able to do what you need to do when a BG "absolutely" must be stopped.
I saw a movie titled "44 Minutes" or something like that last night. It was a reenactment of the BoA holdup in LA where the 2 robbers casually blasted civilians and LEOs with AK47s while absorbing numerous body hits from the police. They were wearing body armor. With their handguns, the police failed again and again to make any headshots despite knowing that their body hits were ineffective.
My old lament returned. "Why CAN'T the police make headshots when they KNOW that's what they need?" The answer's the same. They don't TRAIN to make headshots! If something's hard, train to do something harder to make the original problem much easier.
In a San Antonio restaurant a year or so ago, a muscle bound parolee beat up a couple of LEOs, used their guns to shoot them and a couple of other LEOs who answered the call, received multiple hits from the LEO who finally brought him down with a headshot. The parolee fell dead on the last LEO who had been shot multiple times himself. Glock .40 S&W. The last vignette had the felon and the LEO advancing toward each other shooting at close range! THAT BG was one who needed to be "absolutely" stopped, and it DID NOT happen until he took one in the face DESPITE multiple COM and other body hits.
Should the terrible situation occur where a BG intent on killing YOU has his FACE in front of your gun as big as a whole torso at 7 yards, I would certainly hope you would take the best opportunity of "absolutely" stopping, and I hope you would know what that is.
Shoot the eyes out of your targets at 25-50 feet just so you know you can. Then should the need arise, you'll be able to do what you need to do when a BG "absolutely" must be stopped.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
