|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 21, 2016, 01:11 PM | #276 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2014
Posts: 329
|
Here is a dirty, dark secret of 'stopping the threat': that means killing someone. If they stop before you kill them, huzzah. But, law enforcement doesn't shoot at someone (ie use LETHAL force) unless they are in a lethal, as in deadly, engagement. Should the situation resolve before the other party is killed, gravy.
The military has no such qualms, and just kills people. The private citizen is not bound by the same policies and public scrutiny that LE is, but also does not operate outside of the CONUS, in a time of war as does the military. Either case, I can't tell you what makes a man quit. I can, however, say that if you pass a high velocity projectile through his media stinum or mid/lower brain, he typically quits in a real hurry. And yes, penetration was taken for granted in my listing of characteristics. The round must be able to penetrate far enough into its target to actually strike something vital. Luckily, modern bonded JHP rounds can be had that go plenty deep and also expand such as to make penetration less of an issue. |
July 21, 2016, 01:37 PM | #277 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
The majority of persons shot with handguns these days survive. |
|
July 21, 2016, 02:06 PM | #278 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Quote:
While I acknowledge that the force I would use is lethal and may result in death it was not my intention and I would only use that level of force if given no other option. I greatly prefer that the attacker live. |
|
July 21, 2016, 03:35 PM | #279 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2009
Posts: 568
|
Any experience with actual wounds from the new (very expensive) solid copper bullets with the odd shapes scouped out of the front? For a while, I thought they were probably nothing but hype, but several independent testers I've seen seem to be duly impressed. Underwood sells some that he says have about twice the "permanent wound cavity" that conventional lead-core JHP's, with the same energy, have. I assume that means a permanent cavity that remains in ballistic gelatin. And from some of the posts on this thread, it sounds like those cavities that remain in gelatin don't (usually) show up in real tissue wounds. I'm guessing that those copper bullets are so new that there isn't any actual wound experience with them.
|
July 21, 2016, 06:49 PM | #280 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 1,321
|
Barnes / Corbon DPX copper bullet 160 gr. 45:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyAh-sIHhW0
__________________
Strive to carry the handgun you would want anywhere, everywhere; forget that good area bullcrap. "Wouldn't want to / Nobody volunteer to" get shot by _____ is not indicative of quickly incapacitating. |
July 21, 2016, 11:58 PM | #281 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,990
|
Quote:
It seems to count in terms of letting the shootee know that they've been hit which speaks directly to psychological stops. That's clearly important since psychological stops make up the majority of stops. It seems to only rarely count in terms of doing any real physical damage. Which is why the experts recommend that you not trade away too much penetration for expansion. You still need a good chance of damaging something really important, and that part of the equation is based very heavily on where the bullet goes and how deep it goes, and (in the context of comparing service pistol calibers) very little on bullet size or the degree of expansion. Quote:
Quote:
Stopping the threat means stopping the threat. Sometimes the attacker dies as a result, but in the vast majority of cases, the attacker is not killed and isn't even seriously injured. I'm not saying that we should bank on the attacker giving up as easily as the statistics suggest is common, but it's worthwhile to understand the reality of the situation. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||
July 22, 2016, 01:41 PM | #282 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2014
Posts: 329
|
Quote:
I don't bank on the incompetence of others (ie their lack of accuracy and skill as a gunfighter under stress) to determine the outcome of a deadly force encounter. If you are justified in using deadly force, you are justified in using a lot of it, and you are justified in ending the other person's life. If you aren't justified in doing so, then you shouldn't be using deadly force. If the situation resolves itself before that, then everyone wins. But, I wouldn't train with the expectation that the outcome will be roses and daisies and sunshine. When it comes to a discussion on the performance of projectiles, we are talking about terminal ballistics, and the effectiveness at a given round of causing a 'stop'. My point, as already elucidated in my first post in this hilarious mess, was that the placement of those shots matters most: hit vital structures in the circulatory, respiratory, and central nervous systems. These are the kinds of hits that 'stop' someone. They are also lethal. If we discussing the effectiveness of a given round on flesh, tissue, humans or animals, we are discussing that round's ability to achieve its end. You can call it 'stopping the threat' if you want to. This discussion has been based on the maximum expansion, the depth of penetration, frangibility, kinetic energy, sectional density, etc. of a given round, all of which are factors in determining if that round will do what it is designed to do: crush / destroy tissue, preferably vital tissue. If you are going to frame a discussion on 'effectiveness' in a given round, then you are talking about that round's ability to destroy things. |
|
July 23, 2016, 06:03 AM | #283 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,990
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you are justified in using deadly force, you are justified in using only as much as you need to stop the attacker. The attacker may die as a RESULT of the application of deadly force, but if the attack stops and the attacker is still alive, or even uninjured, then killing him would be murder. The goal is not to kill the attacker but it is understood that it is a possible outcome. This is a basic concept in the justifiable use of deadly force. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal...-overview.html Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense. Quote:
Again, that's not to say that we should EXPECT the attacker to give up easily, but it would be foolish to pretend that's not a common outcome because it is. Quote:
Quote:
Justifiable deadly force in the civilian world is about self-defense. It is about stopping attacks and about preventing the death or serious injury of innocents. The death of the attacker may be a consequence of the justifiable use of deadly force, but it is not the goal. The goal is achieved when the attack is stopped; regardless of the medical status of the attacker.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||||
July 23, 2016, 07:51 AM | #284 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 22, 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,623
|
Quote:
Several years ago, I attended one of Front Sight's excellent 4-day Defensive Handgun courses. While eating lunch each day, one of their instructors made the statement that in the event that we had to actually use a handgun for self defense, our lives would irrevocably change. He stressed that the legal implications alone are daunting: possible criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation with the attendant enormous legal fees. And there is also the distinct possibility of psychological trauma. A consequence that's often overlooked by those who haven't engaged in combat... Best regards for a great post. Rod
__________________
Cherish our flag, honor it, defend it in word and deed, or get the hell out. Our Bill of Rights has been paid for by heros in uniform and shall not be diluted by misguided governmental social experiments. We owe this to our children, anything less is cowardice. USAF FAC, 5th Spl Forces, Vietnam Vet '69-'73. Last edited by rodfac; July 23, 2016 at 08:03 AM. |
|
July 26, 2016, 11:48 AM | #285 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: The Great American Desert
Posts: 501
|
|
July 26, 2016, 09:49 PM | #286 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 1,149
|
^^^^^^^
How many people do you really think would observe small differences (0.36" vs 0.45 in) during a tense standoff? Not many. They just know that A barrel is pointed at them. Perhaps if you had a giant .500 Mag revolver and they could actually see the rounds in the cylinder, there would be an intimidation aspect if standing close to you.
__________________
Mauser Werke, Schmidt-Rubin, Colt, Walther, HK, Weatherby, Sig Sauer, Browning, Ruger, Beretta, etc, etc....a few friends of mine |
August 3, 2016, 07:55 PM | #287 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2007
Posts: 250
|
I liked the original post. I shoot the Remington Bonded 230g Golden Sabers in my Springfield Pro, cause it was kind of what the gun was made for and it's a laser with them. In my Springfield V16 Long Slide I shoot the 45 Super Buffalo Bore 255g hard cast, but that's for bears not two legged creatures.
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g...psihqht4sw.png http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g...pskt5kwv9g.jpg |
|
|