Warning Shots??? Shooting to Wound???

[Don P]

He shot his arrow into the air, where it landed he did not care

[briandg]

On a side note, you've all seen the crazies in the middle east pouring rounds into the air? A video, pretty well confirmed, showed some pinhead shooting at a wedding, then he put the gun down on a table, still loaded and ready to fire. A kid picked it up, and fired a round into his abdomen at near contact range.

It struck me at the time that if he was a clod who would fire into the air, he'd engage in other recklessness.

It continually surprises me as to how few people are struck by errant bullets; populations are dense in places. I can only assume that a lot of those air rounds wind up on rooftops, maybe on average almost a quarter of occupied land has a barrier of some sort, and most normal situations have some space between people.

A number of years ago, there was a running gunfight here in town that resulted in maybe a few dozen pistol rounds fired, all but two missed the peep.

Nobody injured, even though it was downtown. Low population density, lots of brick buildings and cars.

[MosinNOUGAT]

This is kind of off topic, but this is why the 5.56x45 round was developed. It does easily kill, but was more to wound the enemy so instead of taking one guy out of the fight, it takes down that one guy +1-3 others who have to take care of him so there are less enemies to fight against in battle. At least, this is what I've heard.

[TXAZ]

Shoot to "STOP THE THREAT". PERIOD.

[PlatinumCore16]

Someone on the first page mentioned a police officer NOT shooting a suspect because they were worried about backlash. Had to go look it up and it just grinds my gears something fierce: http://www.dailywire.com/news/9780/c...-aaron-bandler

I agree that police officers should be held accountable, but attempting to hamstring them with unnecessary and potentially dangerous policies will not help anything. Especially the public at large that police officers are sworn to defend and protect.

[MosinNOUGAT]

Shoot to "STOP THE THREAT". PERIOD.

Does this have something to do with a .50 BMG?

[OldMarksman]

This is kind of off topic, but this is why the 5.56x45 round was developed.

You know that somehow?

[MosinNOUGAT]

You know that somehow?

I heard it from somewhere, but I can't recall where. . .

[TXAZ]

MosinNugant queried:

TXAZ stated:

Does this have something to do with a .50 BMG?

Only if that is the only weapon nearby.

[Danoobie]

1.Warning Shots- fine in the country, but in a city, with urban crowding, and hard surfaces everywhere?

2. Shooting to wound-the only worse idea I've ever heard of is what glock
fobs off on customers as a "safety".

3. Tasing people-sounds great, right? Right, up till the point where you tase
someone with a weak heart, or some other medical issue, and they
go belly-up on you.

[CWO4USCGRET]

Stupid stuff. A warning shot? Shoot to wound? Oh hell no.

I would put the 250+ Customs and Border Protection Officers I used to work with as far better then most LE Agencies when it comes to using the pistol. We qualified quarterly and each range session included other shooting drills, all designed to make us as proficient as we could be. Most local LE Agencies shoot either annually or semi-annually for qualification.

On the warning shot idea? Bad idea for all the above reasons. As some have said, the more rounds fired the more the odds of hitting innocent bystanders.

WRT Shoot to wound? No thank you; I'll stick with "shoot to stop the threat" - a wounded animal is more dangerous then one that isn't wounded.

[PlatinumCore16]

CWO, I'd love to hear about your experiences in and with the Border Patrol.
(obviously in a different thread/sub)

[MosinNOUGAT]

Only if that is the only weapon nearby.

Ok, well the 50 sure would "Stop the Threat!"

CWO, I'd love to hear about your experiences in and with the Border Patrol.

Me too!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The shooting to wound mantra is an urban legend in the gun world. It was mentioned that a wounded soldier would need a certain amount of folks to deal with the person and that would be a resource drain. However, there is no evidence in real gun design or military training that shooting to wound was a doctrine.

It was not the purpose of the round.

[TXAZ]

Mosin surmised:

Ok, well the 50 sure would "Stop the Threat!"

Easily, but:
.
You're putting all your neighbors downrange within 3 miles at risk
.
You're blowing out every eardrum in the room (including yours)
.
A flesh-wound on the bad guy will become a serious, rapid exsanguination problem for them, your carpet and the walls, and momma ain't gonna like that
.
A CoM or head shot is going to have the morgue / forensic team picking up 'pieces' for weeks, and you (and the neighbors) will still find 'reminders' years later
.
You're blowing out windows in the room (your responsibility to replace)
.
You're spending $5 a round to stop someone that a couple of $0.25 rounds will do well
.
But you're also presenting the business end of a 30lb+ club, something the bad guy likely hasn't every seen before, and may likely induce immediate (non-lethal) compliance
.
In the civil suit that follows, you're probably going to get nailed for excessive force or something like that.

Use the 9mm or 12Ga with birdshot, not the BMG

[MosinNOUGAT]

You're spending $5 a round to stop someone that a couple of $0.25 rounds will do well

Wow, you're paying way too much for 50 BMG!

Here's some online stuff for as cheap as $2.33:

https://www.ammograb.com/50-bmg/

[TXAZ]

When informed a BMG round for home defense would run $5 (or more) Mosin queried:

Wow, you're paying way too much for 50 BMG!

Here's some online stuff for as cheap as $2.33:

https://www.ammograb.com/50-bmg/

Because if I'm defending my family I don't want to take a chance on thick primers from Brazil or other countries that may or may not fire on the first hit, or they are reloads and are inconsistent.
(But that ammo is great for plinking.)

(FYI There is some for under $2)

[44 AMP]

but this is why the 5.56x45 round was developed. It does easily kill, but was more to wound the enemy so instead of taking one guy out of the fight, it takes down that one guy +1-3 others who have to take care of him so there are less enemies to fight against in battle. At least, this is what I've heard.

I've no doubt you've heard that, I've heard it too. It's one of those "facts" that, while incorrect, contains a plausible nugget of truth, and so continues to flourish.

The wounding capacity of the 5.56mm round was NOT the reason it was designed. A little research into the history of the round and the M16 clearly shows this. The 5.56mm was the result of departmental infighting. The "whiz kids" in the MacNamara defense dept. were pushing the AR rifle to become the new standard infantry rifle. Elements in the Army resisted the idea, and set a specification for energy/range that the AR and its existing round (.222 Rem) could not meet. The idea, apparently was to kill the idea of using the AR rifle.

The 5.56mm was designed so it could meet that Army spec, AND fit in the AR rifle. There was no spec for, nor consideration of its "wounding capacity". having played their trump card, and lost, the Army got the M16 and the 5.56mm round.

The "wound one guy, take 3 out of action" is the plausibly believable nugget in the mix. Sure, it makes sense, right?? And it does, BUT it doesn't always work that way in combat.

First off, the concept of 1 wounded means 2 (or more) out of action to care for him only works when the people you are fighting have the resources to do that, AND the believe in doing it. Works when you are fighting gentlemen warriors, signatories to various (European) treaties. Doesn't work as well when fighting the rest of the world.

However the 1 takes out 3 was the "unofficial /everybody knows" explanation given by the brass to the troops as to why the new .22 rifle round was a win/win. Kill the enemy = win. Wound one, take 3 out of action = also win.

And, since the new .22 was lighter, you could carry twice as much ammo, so another win there, some said twice as much!

Real world performance proved these expectations to have been somewhat overly optimistic.

I'd also say relying on a warning shot would also be overly optimistic...

When a chess player attacks his opponent's king, he is required by the rules to announce it. "Check!" I know of no such rule when it comes to personal defense.

Again, I say, it comes down to the specific situation in detail. A warning shot is to scare off the bad guy(s), so you won't HAVE to shoot them. Everybody gets that, BUT the law may read differently. Many places it boils down to this,
shooting = deadly force. If you are not justified in using deadly force, you are not justified in shooting (at all).

In places like that a warning shot is a legal liability.

10 miles out of town in farm country where people shoot all the time and there is no issue with discharging a firearm within city limits (etc) then a warning shot becomes a simple tactical matter.

[Auriemma]

I recently took a Firearms Safety Course run by our local Sheriff's office.

The question was asked about shooting to wound instead of kill.
The officer's reply was very clear...
You want to stop the threat to you IMMEDIATELY. Shoot to stop it.

[ShootistPRS]

A bullet hitting mid chest is the best warning you can give.
A verbal warning always sounds like this: "I may have a gun but I don't want to use it."
The gun you are wearing should come as a surprise to the bad guy. If you want to warn him that you have a gun just stand up to him and then draw your gun and fire while he is watching with his gun in his hand. Sounds a little stupid to me. A LE friend was known to say, "go ahead move! I'm tired of shooting at paper targets."
The thing to remember is that you can't pull your weapon until you or someone else is in mortal danger. When you have to pull your gun you do so to end the threat as quickly as possible. It is up to you to decide if you have to pull your gun and then if you have to use it to stop the threat. If you decide that it is up to you to stop the threat then do so with all the speed and accuracy you can muster with your body flooded with adrenalin and your breathing stopped by the sub-conscious realization of the danger you face.

[DaleA]

this is why the 5.56x45 round was developed. It does easily kill, but was more to wound the enemy

Glenn E. Meyer
44 AMP

Thank you for (again) trying to put this dead horse in its grave. Even though you might get tired of refuting this I'm glad you continue to do so.

At this point maybe you have the text saved away some place so you just have to cut and paste the reply. If you did I sure wouldn't blame you.

Again, thanks.

[MosinNOUGAT]

Because if I'm defending my family I don't want to take a chance on thick primers from Brazil or other countries that may or may not fire on the first hit, or they are reloads and are inconsistent.

Ya not the Brazil stuff. There's some Federal on there for either $2.33 or $2.37 (I forgot). That stuff is supposed to be pretty good but I may be mistaken.

[MosinNOUGAT]

I've no doubt you've heard that, I've heard it too. It's one of those "facts" that, while incorrect, contains a plausible nugget of truth, and so continues to flourish.

I thought there was something "fishy" about that fact, too.

[Ruark]

Every time the subject of "shooting to wound" comes up, it gets buried in an outburst of huffy-puffy machismo: "eat flaming hot lead!!!"

I think it is indeed a valid subject. I can think of many scenarios where a wounding shot would stop a threat. For example, if a BG were walking towards me with verbal threats, but no visible weapon, or a knife or club, I can see shooting to wound IF the situation permits it (e.g. he's advancing slowly). Trust me, a .45 through the knee is going to put you down hard, and at close range I will NOT miss. Don't even ask about both knees.

Many instructors, however, say shooting to wound is a terrible idea, and to NEVER do it. One reason often given is, "if the threat wasn't serious enough to shoot to kill, maybe it wasn't serious enough to shoot (i.e. use deadly force) in the first place." A skilled prosecutor might be able to lead a jury down this road.

Another factor is your own ability. For example, I'm 66 years old, and not the firebreathing Five Fingers of Death I used to be. I've got arthritis in my joints, and of course half the muscle strength I had a couple of decades ago. So a 250 lb. musclebound 19 year old who is threatening me AND who is obviously unarmed is a serious threat, BUT one I could stop very easily without killing him.

And yet still, even in that scenario, I've heard experienced instructors (e.g. police trainers) draw back in horror and the mere suggestion of a non-fatal shot.

I think it would be interesting and beneficial to have some calm, rational discussion on this topic, if that's possible here.

[Don P]

Trust me, a .45 through the knee is going to put you down hard, and at close range I will NOT miss. Don't even ask about both knees.

You cannot guaranty that "you" will not miss.
"

if the threat wasn't serious enough to shoot to kill, maybe it wasn't serious enough to shoot

You shoot to stop the threat, not shoot to kill. Play on words , maybe, but look at the impact it has.

So a 250 lb. musclebound 19 year old who is threatening me AND who is obviously unarmed is a serious threat, BUT one I could stop very easily without killing him.

Again you shoot to stop the threat.Every class I have taken stress the point you shoot to stop the threat. Perhaps more of your background would be helpful with the claims that you are making about not missing and "you could stop the threat". I ask because I see folks at the range who will shoot out the bulls-eye of a target, then try their hand in competition and do so bad being a bit of stress that they never return for a second go at competing. Have you ever competed?