The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 21, 2013, 09:07 PM   #26
horselips
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Posts: 134
Figure don't lie, liars can figure, and blah, blah, blah. Do your homework and you'll discover that in the real world of real people being shot by real bullets, it doesn't matter much what they're hit with. Maybe your odds of a one or two shot stop are a little better with a big bore heavy bullet, or super fast mid size magnum, but the inconvenient fact is that an astounding percentage of people shot once with a .22 are either killed or quickly incapacitated. Don't shoot the messenger. Thanks.

Velocity, foot pounds, penetration and expansion are like sports stats. We have all seen a football game where the team with the least time in possession, the least yards rushed and passed, even suffered the most turnovers and penalties, still beat the team that maxed out the stats. They just managed to score more points. Happens all the time.

If your bullet hits just right, you win. It doesn't matter much what caliber it is, jacketed or hollow point, wad cutter or round nose. So, what's the deciding factor here? Accuracy, or bullet placement, followed by luck. Luck? Yep. Maybe while you were shooting at your probably moving target he moved just right, aligned his skeleton just so, that when your bullet entered his body it went to the right place. Or it didn't, and despite the quality of your ammunition, you needed multiple shots to get the job done.

No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy and in CQB there is no nuclear option. So, you practice, practice and practice some more, equip yourself as best you can given your finances, physique, overall health and wardrobe requirements, and if the poo-poo hits the oscillating blades, you do what you can and hope for the best.

Each day I venture forth, armed with my NAA Mini Revolver, .22WMR, with the long, way out there, 1 5/8" barrel. At self-defense range-7 yards or thereabouts, I can put 5 rounds in a 3" circle well inside of 5 seconds. Taking my time, I can shave a half inch off of that. Yeah, I practice quite a bit. Do I feel under gunned? Well, for an across the parking lot shoot out, yes. Against a lunatic armed with a modern sporting rifle? Sure, unless I'm behind him when I open fire. Am I the guy to stop a bank robbery? Nope. But for my intended purpose, I feel well armed and confident. The stats be damned.
horselips is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 03:42 AM   #27
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,709
Carry the biggest, most powerful gun you shoot well and can conceal. Most days it is my customized Glock 27 Converted to 357 Sig) and 14 rounds on board. Some days it is my Performance center 629, or it could be the 1911.

Moral of the story: Friends don't let friends carry mouse guns.
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 05:47 AM   #28
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
...the inconvenient fact is that an astounding percentage of people shot once with a .22 are either killed or quickly incapacitated...
That would be wonderful if true...even better if you had any evidence to prove where you got that " astounding percentage ".
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 08:02 AM   #29
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,209
Quote:
Originally posted by dahermit:

That would be wonderful if true...even better if you had any evidence to prove where you got that " astounding percentage ".
He may be referencing the article in the recent issue of "Handgunner" magazine concerning stopping power where they show .22(short, long or LR) had a one shot percentage of 60%. Of course they could just be makin' it up too.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 10:33 AM   #30
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
He may be referencing the article in the recent issue of "Handgunner" magazine concerning stopping power where they show .22(short, long or LR) had a one shot percentage of 60%. Of course they could just be makin' it up too.
That means out of 10 assailants, 6 "stopped", 4 did not...not my definition of "astounding". Furthermore, he did not define what "stopping power" in the case of .22 rim-fire meant. Did it mean that they were incapacitated or just that the left the scene after being shot, which would imply that the .22's "stopping power", was due more to psychological effect (Oh my God!!! I've been shot!), than in actual ballistic performance (Uhhhh, thud.)...just ask'en.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 03:22 PM   #31
idek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2009
Posts: 611
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by idek
...In the Ellifritz link I posted, his results showed 61% one-shot incapacitation with .22lr, 72% with .32 caliber cartridges, 62% with .380 ACP.

Meanwhile, 9mm Luger and .45 ACP results show 47% and 51% one-shot incapacitation respectively.

According to this particular study, even the "larger holes are better than smaller holes" statement would go out the window.

Something seems wrong when .32 ACP/.32 Long looks like the clear winner in a comparison of handgun cartridges. If that means I'm "bashing" Ellifrizt's work, then I guess I'm bashing it.
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
What it means is that you didn't understand Ellifitz's analysis of the data.
I work with numbers for a profession, and I think I know how to interpret data. I also know about study bias, which seems to be occurring in this case, even if it's not done so deliberately. The data (and graph) you are referring to is failure to incapacitate. I was referring to his data on one-hit incapacitation. Two different categories with two different results. This charts show what I'm referring to...

And this chart can also be misleading...

I never said ALL data seemed inaccurate but some seemed questionable. And I don't think it's necessarily wise to accept certain results (even from reputable sources) as gospel.

By the way, the whole permanent cavity issue you keep posting over and over, Massad Ayoob argues the other way in some of his handgun combat books. So who's to say Ellifritz is right and Ayoob is wrong? There are plenty of "experts" out there. Who can say which experts are most expert?

Last edited by idek; July 22, 2013 at 03:47 PM.
idek is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 04:09 PM   #32
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
My opinion? This notion of "one shot incapacitation" is a fable and exactly the wrong animal to be dissecting. Does it happen? Certainly. Can it be measured in an accurate, repeatable fashion producing predictable results? Not that I've seen. Every shooting poses its own unique circumstances that defy easy categorization, which is why these accumulations of shooting data (to my mind at least) produce less and less valid results the more "macro" they become.

For example, most don't seem to exclude (or make any allowance for) the firearm(s) used in the shooting. Many cartridges, including the beloved .22LR, are commonly chambered in both rifles and handguns. You would expect a .22LR round fired out of a 20" barreled rifle to have markedly improved performance compared to one fired from a 2" barreled revolver - but the studies don't make any distinction between the two.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 05:13 PM   #33
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by idek
I work with numbers for a profession, and I think I know how to interpret data. I also know about study bias, which seems to be occurring in this case, even if it's not done so deliberately. The data (and graph) you are referring to is failure to incapacitate. I was referring to his data on one-hit incapacitation. Two different categories with two different results...
  1. I'm a lawyer, and I know something about interpreting data as well. I also know about evidence, the meaning of evidence and how to prove things.

  2. And yes, there are two sets of data: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.

    1. Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.

    2. Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.

    3. If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.

    4. A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understanding the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.

  3. The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.

    1. One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.

    2. The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.

  4. And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.

    1. From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by idek
...By the way, the whole permanent cavity issue you keep posting over and over, there's another guy with a lot of street experience who would argues against that in some of his books. He's named Massad Ayoob. Perhaps you've heard of him....
Well yes, I have heard of Massad Ayoob.
  • In October of 2008, I took his class, LFI-1 (now called MAG-40).

  • In 2010, I was an assistant instructor at his MAG-40 class in Sierra Vista, Arizona (see my article).

  • He quoted me in his column in the August, 2010 edition of Combat Handguns.

  • We still keep in touch (albeit very intermittently).

Quote:
Originally Posted by idek
...By the way, the whole permanent cavity issue you keep posting over and over, Massad Ayoob argues the other way in some of his handgun combat books. So who's to say Ellifritz is right and Ayoob is wrong? There are plenty of "experts" out there. Who can say which experts are most expert?
The core difference of opinion there really is only about how the wounding causes potentially incapacitating physiological damage.

The body is a machine, and it can be made to stop working in only certain ways: enough blood loss; enough damage to the central nervous system; or enough damage to key skeletal structures. And if you make a big hole in something the amount of direct damage will be based on how big the hole is.

The real debate, which might never be completely settled is where the velocity threshold is above which a bullet's passage will have a significant enough shock effect to meaningfully contribute to the tissue damage causing physiological incapacitation. But there are still two stopping mechanisms: psychological and physiological.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 05:53 PM   #34
idek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2009
Posts: 611
My primary point was/is that one needs to be careful of how they look at data. In many cases, including firearms, statistics can't tell the whole story. I think we'd agree on that. Apparently, we're aren't reading some data quite the same way (or focusing on the same aspects), and that's okay.

By the way, I rephrased some of my original wording in post #31 shortly after submitted it, because I realized it sounded snarky, but I see it was included in your quote before I changed it. My apologies for that.

Last edited by idek; July 22, 2013 at 06:16 PM.
idek is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 07:32 PM   #35
horselips
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Posts: 134
Quote from Nanuk: > Moral of the story: Friends don't let friends carry mouse guns.

NONSENSE! Mouse guns, because of their small size and light weight, are supremely adaptable to any wardrobe not even needing a belt and sometimes not even a holster. And because of that, they are the only guns that have a chance of never, ever being left at home. A CCW gun left at home might as well be on the moon.

Truth be told, most (not all) people who carry anything larger than a mouse gun, will confess that at some time, for some reason, they decided against carrying. Don't panic - "Te absolvo a peccatis tuis..." For your penance, repent, and don't let it ever happen again. Rule No.1 - "Have a gun!" Not most of the time, not when it's easy to carry because of what you're wearing - but all the time, every time, with no exceptions. For the vast majority of us, to meet that requirement, only a mouse gun will do.

As for you caliber queens out there, relax. No handgun is a "nuclear option" and to the confusion of some, and delight for the rest of us, the record of one shot stops and even kills by the diminutive .22LR is far better than anyone believed until the research was done and the results tabulated. A casual reading of the "Armed Citizen" column in The American Rifleman magazine (NRA) will reveal an astounding number of successful self defenses accomplished with it.

But don't worry about me -I'd never settle for a .22LR CCW gun. I like my bases covered, and for that, I carry a .22WMR. To quote Yosemite Sam, "Say yer prayers, varmint!"
horselips is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 08:00 PM   #36
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,709
Quote:
NONSENSE! Mouse guns, because of their small size and light weight, are supremely adaptable to any wardrobe not even needing a belt and sometimes not even a holster. And because of that, they are the only guns that have a chance of never, ever being left at home. A CCW gun left at home might as well be on the moon.

It depends on your commitment level. I always carry a fighting gun, have for almost 40 years and will continue to do so.
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old July 22, 2013, 09:30 PM   #37
horselips
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Posts: 134
Nanuk, I sooo agree with you about commitment to carry. But that's the problem. Commitment is very hard to find. One of my best friends went through the whole process of getting a CCW permit - even though it's unnecessary here in Arizona, and more often than not he leaves his gun in his car or in his house. GRRRR. I chew his butt regularly, to little avail.

Anyway, the nice thing about mouse guns is they require very little in the way of commitment. If only commitment was as easy to get as a gun. By asking for no accommodation in return, no sacrifice beyond practice and cleaning, a mouse gun is very easy to commit to. I'd rather see millions more people carrying mouse guns than the very few committed people who are carrying larger, heavier weapons today.

Thank you for your commitment. Good job.
horselips is offline  
Old July 23, 2013, 06:34 AM   #38
Tomac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Caldwell, Idaho
Posts: 444
Commitment is right. My ccw is a hybrid SIG P250sc 9mm (15+1) and I always carry at least 1 reload.
However, there are times when it's simply too big to carry w/the wardrobe of a special occasion. At those times I carry a Kahr CM9 holsterless w/a Covert Carrier combo grip/clip and 2 reloads in a Recluse back pocket mag carrier:

But I don't turn my nose up at someone who carries less than a 9mm just because it's below my personal comfort level.
Tomac
__________________
"Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Tomac is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 06:48 PM   #39
robert1811
Member
 
Join Date: November 10, 2012
Posts: 71
No shock?

"Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable"



Really? I always though if there was enough of a shock to system by a large temporary cavity it would send the body into shock or if its violent enough rupture soft organs like a heart or intestines even if the bullet doesnt directly come in contact with the organ.


Is this not true, some please pm on this if you can confirm or debunk this.
robert1811 is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 07:19 PM   #40
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert1811
"Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable"



Really? I always though if there was enough of a shock to system by a large temporary cavity it would send the body into shock or if its violent enough rupture soft organs like a heart or intestines even if the bullet doesnt directly come in contact with the organ.


Is this not true, some please pm on this if you can confirm or debunk this.
According to the sources I quoted in post 9, "shock" is not a factor at the velocity of the usual defensive handgun cartridges. See also the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 07:45 PM   #41
horselips
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Posts: 134
CONFIRMED. I have read of a case where a person wearing a bullet-proof vest was killed when he was shot with a magnum handgun - even though the vest was not penetrated, the shock to the body was sufficient to separate his aorta from his heart, killing him almost instantly. Merely shaking a baby can kill it. Of course a sufficient shock can kill.
horselips is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 08:39 PM   #42
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by horselips
CONFIRMED. I have read of a case where a person wearing a bullet-proof vest was killed when he was shot with a magnum handgun - even though the vest was not penetrated, the shock to the body was sufficient to separate his aorta from his heart, killing him almost instantly....
You read? Where? Provide documentation.

On one hand we have Urey Patrick and John Hall who are (from post 9):
Quote:
...[Patrick] was in the FBI for some 24 years, 12 of which were in the firearms training unit where he rose to the position of Assistant Unit Chief. John Hall is an attorney who spent 32 years in the FBI, including serving as a firearms instructor and a SWAT team member....
who in their book quote Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987). We also have the paper Patrick wrote for the FBI and to which I linked to, above.

On the other hand we have you, an anonymous denizen of cyberspace who read something from an unknown source.

So on that basis, why should we pay any attention to you unless you can back up what you claim with some solid evidence?

In any case, the sort of blunt force trauma is in no way comparable to a piercing injury by a projectile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horselips
...Merely shaking a baby can kill it...
Which is another matter entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horselips
...Of course a sufficient shock can kill.
Of course a sufficient shock can kill. The issue is whether, or at what velocity, the shock produced by a projectile piercing flesh is sufficient to cause an appreciable amount of tissue damage remote from the permanent wound channel. And the evidence shows that at velocities of less than about 2,000 fps, the shock is insufficient.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 09:59 PM   #43
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by horselips:
CONFIRMED. I have read of a case where a person wearing a bullet-proof vest was killed when he was shot with a magnum handgun - even though the vest was not penetrated, the shock to the body was sufficient to separate his aorta from his heart, killing him almost instantly....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin:
You read? Where? Provide documentation.
I'd really like to see that source, too if you'd please. I've been doing a lot of research on BABT (behind armor blunt trauma) and have yet to come across that incident.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 10:47 PM   #44
horselips
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Posts: 134
I have no idea. I read it in a gun mag 20 (or was it 30?) years ago, and just never forgot it. Just one of those things you read that leaves you "scarred for life."
horselips is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 10:53 PM   #45
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by horselips
I have no idea. I read it in a gun mag 20 (or was it 30?) years ago, and just never forgot it. Just one of those things you read that leaves you "scarred for life."
In other words, it's unverifiable information from an unknown source of unknown reliability. It's also old, and we have no way to know if you have even remembered what you read accurately.

So (1) it's worthless; and (2) your posting it tells us something about your credibility.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 12:49 AM   #46
horselips
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Posts: 134
Now, now. Relax. If you had a truly open mind, you would be intrigued, and you would feel compelled to strap on a bullet-proof vest and have someone fire a .44 magnum at your chest. Then you'd know for sure. That's what a true scientist would do. Or, you could just believe me. Or not. Or whatever.
horselips is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 01:08 AM   #47
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by horselips
Now, now. Relax. If you had a truly open mind, you would be intrigued, and you would feel compelled to strap on a bullet-proof vest and have someone fire a .44 magnum at your chest....
Nonsense --
  1. I am relaxed, but I really am not fond of people using unverifiable claims when discussing important matters.

  2. Having an open mind is not the same as being gullible. One may reject unsubstantiated claims without necessarily being closed minded. Having an open mind means essentially being willing to consider evidence of something -- not being willing to accept something without evidence.

  3. There is nothing to be intrigued about. Verifiable data can be intriguing. Myth and fable are not, at least when dealing with real life issues.

  4. No, I do not feel compelled to strap on a bullet-proof vest and have someone shoot me. However, I suspect that any number of people have been shot while wearing ballistic vests, and there is probably a body of actual data. That data would be interesting. Your myth is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horselips
...That's what a true scientist would do...
How would you know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by horselips
...Or, you could just believe me. Or not. Or whatever.
Why would I believe you? You've given me no reason to.

On the other hand, based on this discussion I would not accept anything you might claim without solid, verifiable evidence. As Carl Saga said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; August 1, 2013 at 01:14 AM. Reason: clarify
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 1, 2013, 03:12 AM   #48
Noreaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,346
Good post on this one. I'm torn as I have first hand experience that does not conform with some of the theories, but every situation and offender is different. Offenders motivated by deep core issues may react differently than one motivated by greed or fear when struck by a bullet. In my experience having enough bullets trumps the diameter of the bullet. Having a firearm with you trumps not having firearm with you, regardless of the magazine capacity or diameter of the bullet. More research needs to be done on time after hit and incapacitation, (they can cause much damage before they sucumb to their injuries.) The quality of defensive ammunition these days is truly amazing and I wouldn't feel inadequate with any appropriate defensive pistol caliber.
Noreaster is offline  
Old August 3, 2013, 05:41 AM   #49
Bezoar
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 578
Gel is only so good. To many variables to take into consideration.

Heres an example. A researcher did studies on blackpowder wounding. REAL cases were used. From the current time period. It was in the 90s. The ex rays discovered that a small round ball from a 1860 colt may not have much energy, at short ranges a hit to the head would fracture the entire skull and basically make it clobber the brain. No one survived the wounds.

Now you can find reports of 'intruder shot in head with 9mm, will be prosecuted"
Bezoar is offline  
Old August 3, 2013, 10:20 AM   #50
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezoar
Heres an example. A researcher did studies on blackpowder wounding. REAL cases were used. From the current time period. It was in the 90s....
Please provide documentation. Link the research or at least cite where it is published.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezoar
....Now you can find reports of 'intruder shot in head with 9mm, will be prosecuted"
If that's your claim, you need to find the reports and cite them or link them for us. It's your job to provide the evidence to support your claim, not ours.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; August 3, 2013 at 10:27 AM.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Reply

Tags
expansion , penetration

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14333 seconds with 7 queries