PDA

View Full Version : Uh-oh Another discussion of the 9 mm


njtrigger
November 26, 2006, 01:50 PM
Im not sure which forum I should put this in, but this incident just recently happened and it seems to demand a thread up here on thefiringline.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15889445/

The NYPD uses 9mm Glocks with those heavy 12.5 lb triggers which comes to the issue of shot placement. Honestly, I think they just sprayed the car with bullets and didnt really do much aiming.

In the article, one man was hit with 11 shots and another with 4 while another man died. If the officers had carried .40s, 357 Sigs or .45s would those two men have lived?

If you hit a man 11 times and he is still living, then something is obviously wrong. Of course, Im not sure what type of 9mm the officer was using (147, 124, 115, +p, +p+, etc), but still, 11 times and the guy comes out alive.

I cant find that many articles on the internet where officers used .45, .40s or 357 sigs and the perpetrators are shot multiple times and live to tell the tale. Maybe Im not typing the write words into google, but I just cant find these incidents.

Captain38
November 26, 2006, 02:12 PM
My best information is that the NYPD uses the 8 pound "+1" trigger on their Glocks rather than the 12.5 pound "+2" trigger mentioned in the previous post. That's PROBABLY why they call the "+1" the "New York Trigger". Their current issue 9mm round is the Speer Gold-Dot 124 gr. +P hollow-point.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!

marlboroman84
November 26, 2006, 02:51 PM
Look up the article on trooper Mark Coates. He shot his assailant 5 or 6 times with a .357 I believe it was. The BG lived and trooper Coates was killed by a single .25 or .32 that went into his heart.

When is enough gonna be enough? Bullets are small and the human body is generally very large. There are plenty of places for a bullet to go in a body and do no major damage. Unless it hits something vital you will only die from blood loss and that can take awhile.

Honestly why not just drop it? People carry what they wanna carry what does it matter if its a 9mm or not?? It's like there is some personal quest to convert everyone to .45 on this board.

I got an idea all you guys that think 9mm's and below suck get together and chip in and buy everybody that is in need of a "better" :rolleyes: gun a .45 acp. Or heck even better make mine a .44 magnum.

Dear God this is sad...

The Canuck
November 26, 2006, 03:04 PM
Yeah, read my signature line.:p

Odd Job
November 26, 2006, 03:44 PM
Don't forget also, that medical personnel are generally not the best people to ask how many times someone got shot. There are various reasons why they are frequently wrong:

1) Counting any skin breach as an individual projectile entrance/exit.
2) Counting any skin breach as a 'shot.'
3) Failing to recognise complex trajectories such as combined perforation and penetration.
4) Failing to recognise secondary metallic projectiles as being pieces of car bodywork rather than pieces of bullet.

If an experienced trauma surgeon (a guy who has seen a lot of gunshots and has studied them) tells me that someone was hit 11 times I may take stock of that. But even then there may be mistakes based upon erroneous interpretation of radiographs, or failure to accurately plot the terminal trajectory in the live patient, where invasive investigation is not possible.

mete
November 26, 2006, 05:23 PM
Statistics from the NYPD - Officers hit the target about 10% of the time in actual shoot outs.[It used to be higher with revolvers.] This means that TRAINING is the most important ,something departments are reluctant to do. They'd rather spend it on PR.That shootout will destroy a years worth of PR !!!! Those figures also mean that cartridge choice is a moot point , a miss is a miss whatever is used !!:rolleyes:

Captain38
November 26, 2006, 08:48 PM
"Firearms Discharge Report", the NYPD annual report of shots fired by their officers, makes for interesting reading. A high percentage of their total line of duty shots last year involved shooting at dogs and accidental discharges.

I'm amazed that some the accidental discharges reported involved a revolver and in one such incident two or more shots were fired accidentally by an officer using a revolver.

Pardon my French but we used to say, "any fool can have an accidental discharge with a semi-automatic but it takes a DAMNED fool to have one (let alone two) with a revolver"!

ISP2605
November 26, 2006, 09:07 PM
If you hit a man 11 times and he is still living, then something is obviously wrong. Of course, Im not sure what type of 9mm the officer was using (147, 124, 115, +p, +p+, etc), but still, 11 times and the guy comes out alive.
Since you seem to think something is wrong then tell us just exactly where on the body and what path thru the body did all of these 11 rds hit?

JohnKSa
November 26, 2006, 09:40 PM
...we used to say, "any fool can have an accidental discharge with a semi-automatic but it takes a DAMNED fool to have one (let alone two) with a revolver"!Based on a poll I did sometime back, the vast majority of unintentional discharges happen when the person INTENTIONALLY pulls the trigger but thinks the gun won't fire for one reason or another.

If you take that bit of information into account, it becomes more obvious that preventing an unintentional discharge has little to do with the type of gun and a LOT to do with the person holding it.If you hit a man 11 times and he is still living, then something is obviously wrong. Of course, Im not sure what type of 9mm the officer was using (147, 124, 115, +p, +p+, etc), but still, 11 times and the guy comes out alive. You should have stopped at the first period. A person who is shot 11 times with a handgun in the general self-defense class of calibers and survives owes his survival to the poor marksmanship of the shooter (or shooters)--focusing on the caliber/bullet as the determining factor is really missing the point.

Recon7
November 26, 2006, 11:16 PM
here's a different angle, since nypd are all horrible shots, they need all the capacity possible. the 9mm is perfect. :)

hydrashok407
November 27, 2006, 01:54 AM
There are many good points made here. To summarize the good points:
Shot placement is key.
Training, training, training! Improves shot placement.
Caliber really has no bearing on whether BGs live or die.

This thread could quickly turn into a .45 vs 9mm or Revolver vs. Semi-Auto debate... or both. What it comes down to is training is key. Training, training, training!

Wow... my second post, and I'm already stirring up $#!^ :)

Socrates
November 27, 2006, 02:32 AM
If it's true that the majority of shootings involve dogs, then the poor accuracy is somewhat understandable. Dogs are NOT easy targets, least of all if they are coming at you. Certain breds can dog and feint, as they close distance, with their head, before nailing you where they want.

Finally, if I had a gun with an 8 pound plus trigger, I'd have a hard time shooting myself, much less a target...
;)

S

Donovan655
November 27, 2006, 12:32 PM
The article doesn't state where Guzman was hit in those 11 instances.

I'm sure that if he was hit 11 times in a critical organ or in the head then he would'nt survive.

And if someone was shot 11 times in the leg, foot, arm, etc... with a .50 then they'd probably live too.

if someone is concerned with a single or two shots being lethal then they should look into RPGs as their carry weapon.

some of these threads you get the impression that many people believe that the 9mm is slightly more effective than a BB gun.

Captain38
November 27, 2006, 01:08 PM
Socrates,

I said "a high percentage of their total line of duty shots last year involved shooting at dogs and accidental discharges".

We're actually talking about 26% and 19.5% respectively, for a combined total between the two categories of 45.5%. While just under an actual "majority", that's still a high percentage. Contrary to what some may believe, shooting a dog proved to be less difficult than some other targets, with an average of almost three shots per dead dog resulting in a 62% hit ratio.

If you're more interested in viewing the BIG picture, when NYPD officers fired at human targets but were not being fired upon, they used an average of 17.3 rounds per incident resulting in a 30% hit ratio but when they were getting incoming fire the hits dropped to 8%.

The bad guys had a higher hit ratio (19%) than the NYPD, probably because they got off their shots first and weren't on the move at the beginning of the action but they ended up getting off fewer rounds (4.5), possibly because they were HIT first.

Makes sense to me!

45RackerTracker
November 27, 2006, 01:14 PM
Where do I sign up for a .50BMG?:rolleyes: 9mm is as lethal as any other good defense cartridge, as long as you hit what you aim at. You can die from a wound to the leg, if a major artery is hit. It's not a good idea to be on the receiving end of a bullet in any part of the body, any caliber, any load. Got any volunteers to be shot with a .22 short out there? I didn't think so.:D

dawg23
November 27, 2006, 02:25 PM
Quote from njtrigger: "I cant find that many articles on the internet where officers used .45, .40s or 357 sigs and the perpetrators are shot multiple times and live to tell the tale. Maybe Im not typing the write words into google, but I just cant find these incidents.

1. Try this: www.2theadvocate.com/news/2572586.html?showAll=y&c=y

Summary - motorist attacks Baton Rouge police officer and attempts to take officer's pistol (Glock 22, .40 caliber). Cop shoots assailant in abdomen. Assailant has cop pinned to the ground, and after being shot continues to beat him, and continues to try to take cop's weapon.

Good Samaritan walks out of store, sees struggle and hears officer's cry for help. G/S walks to his truck, pulls out 1911, (.45 ACP) and commences to shout "Stop" and shoot BG in chest. BG doesn't stop, so G/S shouts "stop" again and shoots BG in chest again.

G/S's third shot (total of four in BG) hits him in chest and G/S's fourth shot (total of five hits) goes into BG's neck.

At this point BG is still beating cop and still attempting to take his weapon. G/S fires another round (total of 6), striking BG is head and stopping the fight. BG is DRT when backup units arrive.

2. You might consider studying terminal performance of handgun ammo before continuing to post (troll ?) regarding the ineffectiveness of 9mm ammo.

3. All handgun rounds are relatively weak (compared to shotguns and rifles). Shot placement is key with in any self defense shooting.

4. There are several relatively new 9mm rounds that compare quite well, in terms of penetration and expansion, with .40 and .45 caliber self defense ammo. Check out Winchester Ranger T ("LEO" ammo) and Cor-Bon DPX. You'll find several tests comparing their terminal performance with that of quality .40 and .45 ammo, that show no significant differences.

63Belair
November 27, 2006, 02:55 PM
I've read a bunch of the posts that have been showing up discussing how effective certain calibers are versus others.

As far as comparing different situations, no conclusive answer can be reached. There are too many variables involved: shots fired, distance, build of BG, shot placement, what the BG is wearing, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.

The best way to compare 9mm vs 40 vs 45 or whatever you want to compare is think back to basic physics.

Force = Mass x Acceleration

You can find the mass of the bullets that are being discussed along with the velocities they travel at. So take those numbers and plug them into the formula to find out how much force they exert on their targets.

edit: I am not saying this is the end all and say all of this discussion, but might help by providing more data for discussion.

markj
November 27, 2006, 04:19 PM
What a sad thing to post, the guy that died was set to be married the next day.

I for one would not wish to be shot by any caliber. I feel confident in my
9mms as I do in my .45s too. Heck, I killed more creatures with a .22 than any other round in my possesion.

Rugged
November 27, 2006, 04:59 PM
It's not a good idea to be on the receiving end of a bullet in any part of the body, any caliber, any load. Got any volunteers to be shot with a .22 short out there? I didn't think so.

Under certain circumstances, i would volunteer to be that volunteer. : )

Freetacos
November 27, 2006, 06:38 PM
Maybe some people think it's too easy to stop a bg with a .45 so they choose a 9mm for the challenge.

njtrigger
November 27, 2006, 07:49 PM
I think the original issue of the FBI was simply penetration. There is one diagram of the BG who they shot in the report where the 9mm went through the mans arm and then into his side just missing the heart.

My opinion is that the FBI wanted a bullet that would go completely through a human being no matter if the BG puts his arms up in the air or if it goes through a windshield or car door.

Its to note that this wasnt the FBIs first problem with a bullet that didnt penetrate. Thats why they created the 357 Magnum. However, eventually the FBI figured out that the stout kickback and flash-bang wasnt going to do as a self-defense firearm so they started using the "FBI load". Interesting how history repeated itself with the 10mm-.40.

I believe the FBI's greatest mistake was not the 9mm in Miami. The agents were armed with handguns and shotguns and not wearing body armor. The BGs were known to use rifles and 6-inch 357 magnum revolvers. They also knew the BGs were serious and brazen enough to hold up armor cars. So why would you take pistols and a few shotguns without body armor to a fight with two military trained BGs armed with assault rifles? A few of the agents even lost their pistols during the fight.

I believe the way the agents approached this matter was more questionable then the 9mm pistols. Why wouldnt you be wearing body armor the entire time? Why not equip yourself with swat like weapons like an M-16 or MP5? Why would you follow so closely and attempt to engage them at such close range especially when you knew they had assault rifles and 6 inch magnums?

They knew those guys carried .223 rifles and magnums. They knew these guys were very brazen and well trained. I think the main reason the agents lost their lives was overzealousness and being unprepared for the situation. The FBI made the excuse that the 9mm was the cause. They didnt want to admit that the BGs were more prepared and better trained then their best guys. The BGS never lost control of their weapons in this incident.

My final question is why didnt they call local PD for backup before attempting to run the car off the road? I think they had six guys, but thats still not enough for two guys with assault rifles.

However, Im not going to defend myself with a 9mm. Ill go with the other calibers as my preference.

http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html

gvf
November 28, 2006, 03:29 AM
I was in NYC when the incident in the original post happened, and read the newspapers there. Apparntly an unmarked police van was hit by the suspect, who then threw his car into reverse and nearly killed a cop behind him. They then opened fire but it sounded like through the windshield, windows etc, which may make the intended shots deflect, slow down, ricochet, deform etc.; IE doesn't sound like the best situation to gather info about the caliber's efficacy.

The other thought I had was not a good one for the cops. Say it's you, and you're in a bar that is frequented by patrons who talk about drugs, as the undercover cop in the bar at the time stated he overheard, but I don't know if he identified the suspect as joining the conversation, or saying he was going to get drugs. Then you get in your car, knowing there's some drug stuff that could happen in retaionship to the bar you were just in, i.e, it's a dangerous place if you don't watch it.

Wham!, a van suddenly wheels around and blocks your car from the front. The van, as much as you can make out at night, seems to have a LOT of men in it. You believe you are in danger from people involved with drugs and they are stopping you to do god knows what. What do you do? You have no weapon, so you ram the van. You then either throw it in reverse to try and get out and by mistake hit a guy behind you. OR, you see behind you another man who appears behind your car as the van wheels in front of you. You're trapped! He may have a gun also! So, after ramming the van you throw it in reverse to get the guy who you believe will attack from behind.

That's the problem for the cops: the police van was unmarked,I believe the police in it undercover, and the cop behind the car was undercover, and I read nothing that any of them identified themselves as cops. If the info the papers gave that I read is correct, I think the cops made a big mistake in not making sure the suspect knew he was dealing with cops, and not BGs.

Yes, it would have been hard and dangerous for cops to do that with cars flying around etc. but they're paid to make sure no mistake is being made before they open up. Sounds like they made assumptions and panicked. My take anyway.

mete
November 28, 2006, 09:37 AM
The mayor has made stupid comments before the facts are in . The pond scum ,Sharpton,Doughtry etc have come out and are inflaming things . It's now an international story so it has a life of it's own !!:mad:

45RackerTracker
November 28, 2006, 05:17 PM
3..2..1...

KC135
November 29, 2006, 03:24 PM
I remember right, tne NY trigger was developed for the NYSP, not NYC.

To the best of my knowledge, NYPD uses GS 124+P, and have been well satisified with the round.

I do not know which trigger bar they have in their Glocks, but not all officers carry the Glock 19.

Homerboy
November 29, 2006, 07:24 PM
If you believe that three predicate felons were really fearing for their lives and could not identify cops in plainclothes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. You kight as well spraypaint POLICE on your unmarked vehicles in NYC. I guess they thought the white guy in jeans and a baseball jersey in an all black neighborhood was really a criminal trying to attack them. These cars were anything but victims. I have no doubt that they knew they were ramming cops.

gvf
November 30, 2006, 02:56 AM
Cops in plainclothes are supposed to indentify themselves. Because they're disguised as non-cops, that's the point.

And no, it is not easy to tell they have a disguise on in NYC, and it is not easy in the middle of the night to determine a van screeching up in front of you is a police van or any normal van.

Maybe they did indentify themselves, but if not, they should have. And that is what is correctly being investigated. I hope it turns out well for them, I like cops, especially NYC cops.