Elkins45
Member
I'm not even remotely understanding what this has to do with the topic under discussion???
Can someone save me the trouble of doing my own research and tell me what ammo the FBI report recommended?
Why is the FBI's choice of gun...
- Thread starter jim in Anchorage
- Start date
- Status
I'm not even remotely understanding what this has to do with the topic under discussion???
Can someone save me the trouble of doing my own research and tell me what ammo the FBI report recommended?
Actually that whole topic started on the 2nd post.
Basically it goes to how the FBI has changed their weapons and ammo over the last 30 years after the shootout which LEAD to their testing.
As for the ammo the FBI uses, try the FBI website.
Different ammo for different calibers.
Do you own research and draw your own conclusions.
Basically it goes to how the FBI has changed their weapons and ammo over the last 30 years after the shootout which LEAD to their testing.
As for the ammo the FBI uses, try the FBI website.
Different ammo for different calibers.
Do you own research and draw your own conclusions.
Officers'Wife
Member
If I may - Federal, state and local police use many criteria in such selections. Including economy of scale which the average citizen does not have. Is the FBI flavor of the moment "better" than my 38 Super? Possibly for the average agent it is. For me? Probably not, my skill set, useage and training regimen are completely different than the average agent as well as my ROI.
The whole argument reminds me too much of my dearly missed departed grandfather - Don't worry about the neighbor's pasture when you have your own acreage to plow.
Posted by BSA1:
That's true even it were possible to find more than one human who had been shot with the same projectile in the same place at the same angle when the postures of the humans were identical. ....which, of course, it is not.
And, of course, no one times the shots or how quickly the target decides to give it up.
Absolutely!
That's true even it were possible to find more than one human who had been shot with the same projectile in the same place at the same angle when the postures of the humans were identical. ....which, of course, it is not.
And, of course, no one times the shots or how quickly the target decides to give it up.
While I agree with that statement there is basic science that comes into play. The whole point of shooting someone is to incapacitate them. The best way to incapacitate someone is to kill them. The main purpose of firing a gun is to kill as ugly as that may seem. The best way to kill someone is to take out the CNS. The CNS being destroyed does not take in factors such as physical build, psychological make-up, drugs / alcohol, fight or flight attitude or reaction to being shot. No CNS, no life= total incapacitation. There are two ways to do that. Destroy the brain and or spinal cord high enough or lower BP until there is no blood flow to the brain.(bleed out) A direct good hit to the heart will stop or destroy it, no BP= total incapacitation.
As not to come across as rude, the real world isn't "Lethal Weapon" - "I'll just shoot them in leg" If I have made a decision to shoot you I'm pretty much shooting to kill. I practice "The Mozambique Drill" regularly and that is my shooting technique when it comes to handguns. A rifle would be a different story. My point is I want a gun/ammo combination that will accomplish the task. The FBI also does not shoot to wound. Agents are trained to shoot to kill as are all federal agencies. TV has jaded the public as to the real purpose of firing on someone. Basically I don't care how hopped up, crazy or your reaction is. If your brain or heart is destroyed you are dead and totally incapacitated.
If anyone has reservations about killing someone then they probably should not be armed with a gun. Chances are they will be killed by it because the other guy has no reservations. He who hesitates is dead.
As not to come across as rude, the real world isn't "Lethal Weapon" - "I'll just shoot them in leg" If I have made a decision to shoot you I'm pretty much shooting to kill. I practice "The Mozambique Drill" regularly and that is my shooting technique when it comes to handguns. A rifle would be a different story. My point is I want a gun/ammo combination that will accomplish the task. The FBI also does not shoot to wound. Agents are trained to shoot to kill as are all federal agencies. TV has jaded the public as to the real purpose of firing on someone. Basically I don't care how hopped up, crazy or your reaction is. If your brain or heart is destroyed you are dead and totally incapacitated.
If anyone has reservations about killing someone then they probably should not be armed with a gun. Chances are they will be killed by it because the other guy has no reservations. He who hesitates is dead.
No...not really.
They are trained to "shoot to kill"? You sure?
Perhaps so.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Maybe we should do what professional sports teams do, and only hire people who can actually play the game.
JohnBiltz
Member
It seems to me that a command of get your shotguns ready we are going for the stop would have prevented this. Then they would not be laying uselessly in the back seat. Because one man could not get buckshot through the car does not mean that another shotgun firing from another angle could not get buckshot through the car. You see the shotgun laying in the back seat as an excuse not to use it. I see it as lack of preparation for what happened. The fact it was laying in the back seat was an indictment of incompetence not an excuse. I just do not understand how you can leave your most effective weapons behind.
If you were reading a book or watching a movie where that many agents managed to lose their firearms and another loses their glasses because he is their best shot. No one would believe it. It was so improbable it border on the ridiculous.
Posted by IL Guns:
One of the issues in a defense of justification after a few of fires incident i.e. the question of whether the actor willfully used no more force than had been immediately necessary to defend himself. Any indication hat he had intentionally tried to kill another person could destroy his defense.
They are trained to use necessary force when it is immediately necessary, and no more.
Or to otherwise stop or prevent their wrongdoing when it is immediately necessary to do so. Psychological impact can be as useful as physical incapacitation.
Where did you get that idea? One can kill someone without stopping him sufficiently quickly to stop him timely. On the other hand, it is not necessary for wound to result in death to effectively stop someone.
The are many people who believe that. Among them are those who want firearms banned. But they are misinformed.
Destroying the CNS works, but what the attacker is rushing the defender at close range and is closing at five meters per second, the defender cannot rely on that strategy.
The problem with that idea is the fact that a shot in the heart will not reduce the level of oxygen in the brain quickly enough to prevent the attacker from aiming and firing a gum.
I advise everyone against making such statements in a public forum where they can be discovered and used as an indication of sate of mind.
One of the issues in a defense of justification after a few of fires incident i.e. the question of whether the actor willfully used no more force than had been immediately necessary to defend himself. Any indication hat he had intentionally tried to kill another person could destroy his defense.
True.
No, they are not!
They are trained to use necessary force when it is immediately necessary, and no more.
Elkins45
Member
Another thing that is consistent is that some people want to cast veiled aspersions of femininity and/or communism on anyone who carries something different than they carry themselves.
I carry a 10mm (full power, not FBI lite) so I must be uber confident. I win both the muzzle energy and penetration contests hands-down.
Posted by valnar:
I grew up in an era in which the terminal ballistics performance of the .45 ACP--and of the .41 Magnum, for that matter--was unquestioned. The false legend of the Moros, Elmer Keith, the obvious one-shot effectiveness of Marshal Dillon's SAA leaded with blanks, and naturally confusing the blast and kick at the muzzle with wounding effectiveness had me convinced.
And I started out knowing nothing at all about defensive shooting. I had been shooting at the square range for decades, but that had not prepared me at all for shooting at an attacker closing at a speed of about five meters per second--where hitting something vital is essential, no matter what handgun is involved.
My mind was opened by two things:
Those factors, subsequent training courses, and the realization of the extreme importance of the rate of controlled fire for hitting something vital in moving target led to the retirement of the .45, the sale of my compact lightweight 9MM, and the selection of a pistol with which I could hit targets very quickly.
They may well be--until they learn better.
I grew up in an era in which the terminal ballistics performance of the .45 ACP--and of the .41 Magnum, for that matter--was unquestioned. The false legend of the Moros, Elmer Keith, the obvious one-shot effectiveness of Marshal Dillon's SAA leaded with blanks, and naturally confusing the blast and kick at the muzzle with wounding effectiveness had me convinced.
And I started out knowing nothing at all about defensive shooting. I had been shooting at the square range for decades, but that had not prepared me at all for shooting at an attacker closing at a speed of about five meters per second--where hitting something vital is essential, no matter what handgun is involved.
My mind was opened by two things:
- Someone posted some recent wound channel test pics showing the performance of the lastest 9MM, .40, and .45 aCP ammo in ballistic gelatin. There was nowhere near the difference that I had expected.
- I took a high performance defensive pistol training course. The recommended equipment was a full size service pistol, but I wanted to train with my carry weapon, a steel Commander lenght steel .45. The first exercise was to become proficiant at rapid fire at steel plates, before going into El Presidente drills. The audible evidence was telling. The sounds of 45, .40, and 9mm projectiles hitting the plates indicated the very obvious and consistent differences in the rates of controlled fire.
Those factors, subsequent training courses, and the realization of the extreme importance of the rate of controlled fire for hitting something vital in moving target led to the retirement of the .45, the sale of my compact lightweight 9MM, and the selection of a pistol with which I could hit targets very quickly.
Sorry Kleanbore but I disagree.
If I have made a decision to shoot it is not for "Psychological impact"
The best way to neutralize a threat is death.
Where did I get that idea? The military.
The main purpose of firing a gun at someone is to kill them.
This is not an anti 2nd amendment thing as much as people would like to believe. I believe that every citizen has a right to defend themselves, to keep and bear arms. If faced by a deadly threat you don't play Hello Kitty.
In a self defense situation anything can happen so I'll give you that one.
I saw a friend take a 7.62 round through the heart, his eyes rolled up and he died before he hit the ground.
If I have made the decision to use deadly force then I have a reason for that decision. That means stopping the threat. The quickest way is to kill OR I risk the chance of being killed. If deadly force is justified be quick or be dead.
We agree on the next one.
Federal agencies are trained in the use of deadly force. One agency that does mess around is the Border Patrol. If they shoot at you, they are shooting to kill because god knows what could happen if they didn't.
Just so you know I don't want kill anyone. I don't run around with that mindset. If deadly force is warranted I will take the steps needed to defend myself or others.
If I have made a decision to shoot it is not for "Psychological impact"
The best way to neutralize a threat is death.
Where did I get that idea? The military.
The main purpose of firing a gun at someone is to kill them.
This is not an anti 2nd amendment thing as much as people would like to believe. I believe that every citizen has a right to defend themselves, to keep and bear arms. If faced by a deadly threat you don't play Hello Kitty.
In a self defense situation anything can happen so I'll give you that one.
I saw a friend take a 7.62 round through the heart, his eyes rolled up and he died before he hit the ground.
If I have made the decision to use deadly force then I have a reason for that decision. That means stopping the threat. The quickest way is to kill OR I risk the chance of being killed. If deadly force is justified be quick or be dead.
We agree on the next one.
Federal agencies are trained in the use of deadly force. One agency that does mess around is the Border Patrol. If they shoot at you, they are shooting to kill because god knows what could happen if they didn't.
Just so you know I don't want kill anyone. I don't run around with that mindset. If deadly force is warranted I will take the steps needed to defend myself or others.
If deadly force isn't justified, it's not justified at all. If it is, the quickest and surest way to stop someone is to hit them in a place where they'll be dead in short order or immediately.
Sounds ugly to some people but that's what the army does, that's what the police does, and that's the most effective option available to the private citizen if the attacker doesn't stop at the sight of a gun.
Trying to pass off deadly force as "not so deadly really" isn't going to satisfy people who don't want to see guns in private hands.
At any rate, we digressed from the ongoing caliber war!
I agree - and trying to do turn this chaos into sold statistical data would be a nightmare. In the meantime, we have ballistic testing which is based on quite a rudimentary approximation (ballistic gel). Personally, I don't think the methodology is accurate enough to judge real world performance of two rounds or two calibers which are close enough. It's a sufficiently good method to discount really bad rounds, that's all.
Between the rounds and calibers which perform well, in the end it's a matter of personal preference, and nobody (yet! who knows what they'll be able to model on a computer in another decade or two) is able to actually prove that their choice is optimal.
For myself, if it ever comes to it, and I don't think it will, I'll be relying on the .45, but I got no beef about people picking 9mm or anything else they like. Hell, two world wars and countless small ones were fought using the 9mm in SMGs and handguns and it worked reasonably well - it's only going to be better with modern ammo. The .45 traces it's lineage to cap and ball days and the US civil war and there were people using Thompson SMGs in the war in 1991 in my country , and again, it's only going to be better with modern ammo.
I don't see the point of trying to cut it so finely to say which clearly adequate and proven handgun round is optimal, unless you're trying to sell something.
Sounds ugly to some people but that's what the army does, that's what the police does, and that's the most effective option available to the private citizen if the attacker doesn't stop at the sight of a gun.
Trying to pass off deadly force as "not so deadly really" isn't going to satisfy people who don't want to see guns in private hands.
At any rate, we digressed from the ongoing caliber war!
I agree - and trying to do turn this chaos into sold statistical data would be a nightmare. In the meantime, we have ballistic testing which is based on quite a rudimentary approximation (ballistic gel). Personally, I don't think the methodology is accurate enough to judge real world performance of two rounds or two calibers which are close enough. It's a sufficiently good method to discount really bad rounds, that's all.
Between the rounds and calibers which perform well, in the end it's a matter of personal preference, and nobody (yet! who knows what they'll be able to model on a computer in another decade or two) is able to actually prove that their choice is optimal.
For myself, if it ever comes to it, and I don't think it will, I'll be relying on the .45, but I got no beef about people picking 9mm or anything else they like. Hell, two world wars and countless small ones were fought using the 9mm in SMGs and handguns and it worked reasonably well - it's only going to be better with modern ammo. The .45 traces it's lineage to cap and ball days and the US civil war and there were people using Thompson SMGs in the war in 1991 in my country , and again, it's only going to be better with modern ammo.
I don't see the point of trying to cut it so finely to say which clearly adequate and proven handgun round is optimal, unless you're trying to sell something.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Looks to me like we're going in circles, so I'll call this one "asked and answered"....
The question has been asked and answered.
But there has been a tangent that shows a very serious misunderstanding.
The following statements are wrong--dead wrong:
This one is terribly misguided:
The following assumes that a defender has abilities that no one has:
All sworn officers and all properly trained civilian defenders are trained to shoot as effectively as possible when it is immediately necessary to stop a threat, and to cease and desist, as soon as possible, when the attacker stops. To believe that any shooter has the ability to shoot to kill a moving attacker is ludicrous. The attacker may expire at the time of the incident or at some later point, or he may not. Killing him willfully is not a lawful objective, and it is not necessarily an effective means of self defense.
Anyone who needs further clarification on this important point may start another thread.
But there has been a tangent that shows a very serious misunderstanding.
The following statements are wrong--dead wrong:
This one is terribly misguided:
The following assumes that a defender has abilities that no one has:
All sworn officers and all properly trained civilian defenders are trained to shoot as effectively as possible when it is immediately necessary to stop a threat, and to cease and desist, as soon as possible, when the attacker stops. To believe that any shooter has the ability to shoot to kill a moving attacker is ludicrous. The attacker may expire at the time of the incident or at some later point, or he may not. Killing him willfully is not a lawful objective, and it is not necessarily an effective means of self defense.
Anyone who needs further clarification on this important point may start another thread.
- Status