The truth is, Dove's first bullet was perfectly placed for the angle, and in truth, the 9mm did fail in that scenario, there is no way around that....it was the cartridge, not Dove, that failed that day. Again, this is not the first time a 9mm has failed to penetrate and stop attackers.
One round hitting out of 15 at a range of maybe 10 yards is not the fault of the round. Hitting a target with a ratio of 0.6667% is pathetic. Hitting Platt 11, 13 or 15 times would certainly have ended his run. You cannot say that one round failed and that is why the day was a tragedy, simply because no LEO with any sense would rely on the impact of only one round to end a threat. You keep shooting until the threat stops. Platt hadn't stopped, and the Agent missed at least 13 of the 15 shots fired. That in no way can be blamed on a single 9mm round.
The truth is, handgun rounds are poor rounds, low in power, weight, and sectional density....
I agree, but it is very hard to conceal an M1 Garand under a baggy Rolling Stones t-shirt.
Shot placement is an easy thing to tout in perfect circumstances, but in real life sometimes you need enough penetration, enough power, enough bullet, to get through enough tissue and obstacle to get the job done.
Pirelli tires has slogan that fits this argument: Power is nothing without control. Shot placement IS everything because there is a grand jury and civil lawyer attached to EVERY bullet you fire at another human. If you can't have accuracy, they you are spraying and praying and that will put you in prison or the poor house. Additionally, countless LEO's have performed very well in shootouts, hitting their target in far less than 'ideal circumstances'...it is called training to the point of reflexive muscle memory. Blowing holes through a wall or car door is no substitute for being able to hit what you have to hit. Besides, I'd be careful about advising folks to shoot through things you can't see through...that's be a good way to lose a civil case when asked "Did you actually see what you were shooting at?" A civil jury only needs to be pushed over the 51% point of ‘preponderance of the evidence’ to find you in the wrong. With those scary odds, the shooter has better be able to say he saw and could identify what he was shooting at.
The whole 22 vs. 44 magnum is ridiculous, as the 44 can stop an attacker behind more obstacle, punch through bones and tissue in real life shots that have to be made that the 22 would fail at.
It is not ridiculous. Both can kill, and many folks carry lighter rounds because it makes for a lighter pistol. However, I never said a .22 was better than a .44. What I said was it didn't matter which you carried if you couldn't hit your target.
That being said, the 110 treasury round is a complete joke, considering that there are vastly superior rounds available. The round chronically under penetrates in a revolver that under penetrates.
First off, I'm betting that if you got shot in the gut with that Treasury Load, you would certainly not be laughing and calling it a joke. As others on this board with far more personal experience in gunfights than you or I put together will ever have, it has stopped and stopped effectively. Yes, there are better rounds available now, but it wasn’t a bad round back in the day in certain circumstances. Just because a 2014 Corvette Stingray is mind bendingly fast now doesn't mean a 1995 Corvette ZR-1 is obsolete and suddenly slow. Last on this point...what exactly is a "revolver that under penetrates" ?
The treasury load was the representation of a fad, and now the round's only legitimate place in the world is to be discussed on forums such as this.
No, I think if it were used in a gut to gut shooting, the recipient would stop with extreme expedience. However, if the shooter resorted to shooting one round at a time to see if it penetrated enough to stop the bad guy, then yeah that’s a problem. In self defense or police work, when faced with a threat of imminent deadly force, you shoot until the threat stops. Five rounds of Treasury Load through the chest area will certainly end any fight. Other rounds might be more effective, but again that doesn't make this load retroactively useless.
The range queens will always claim that any real life failures are ALWAYS the fault of poor marksmanship, no matter how difficult the situation, no matter what circumstance. No matter what happens, the range queens will always claim that a little more time on the range and taking 20 more seconds to make the shot would have saved the day and it is all your fault, and never the weapon or cartridge.
No, I didn't say that. I said that in the priorities of gun fighting, I believed that Shot Placement was #1, effective and safe tactics were #2. A shooter has to be proficient in shooting first, the equipment is of secondary nature. If not, how could guys like Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill Hickok and Dallas Stoudenmire have killed so effectively with equipment that is outrageously outdated and ineffective compared to today's offerings? Shot placement and tactics.
Then they get up and proclaim that the lighter rounds are always superior in every case, because they are easier to shoot, and reason that a cartridge that treats them well on a leisurely range day must be the best cartridge to take into the fray.
Again, no. Lighter, faster rounds like the old Trooper 125 gr 357 Magnum and today's 125 gr 357Sig are actually harder to shoot faster, because of their violent velocities. They inarguably work very well, but also require a greater level of skill to shoot fast and accurate. In fact, the jello junkies favorite 9mm, the weak-knee 147 gr, is a much softer, easier delight to shoot; rapid fire is like popping off .38 Special wadcutters. With outstanding shot placement and good tactics, it can kill, but history has shown that compared to the aforementioned rounds, it doesn't produce the quick sudden 'stops' LEO’s really like.
The same people who proclaimed that law enforcement only needed 32 Long, and then said 38 special was terrific, even after the learned failures of the Maori uprisings and other imperial battles that showed the superiority of larger rounds. The same people argue to this day that you need to shoot lighter loads, smaller calibers, and still ignore real life results.
Real life results is looking at street data and back engineering rounds to match those that work. Again, no one with any sense or experience can argue that the 357 Magnum round of yesteryear isn't' the all time Street King of lightening stops. Loading 9mm's, 10mm's, 357 Sigs or even 40's to replicate the 357 Magnum’s performance makes sense, and it works.
I sense your annoyance comes from my not mentioning larger caliber rounds earlier, such as the .44 or .45. Well, I didn't exclude those from my diatribe above out of some bias against them, it fact my argument had nothing to do with lighter calibers per se. The most effective .45 ACP I ever saw tested was a Remington 185 gr +P running around 1200 fps out of a 3rd Gen S&W 4506 and it almost blew the water tank apart. The energy in that round was colossally devastating, and no witness to its effectiveness would argue that a slow poke 230 gr ball or Ranger SXT could be its equal. Properly loaded, I'd love to carry a circa-1985 Lew Horton custom S&W M657 .41 Magnum, but I'm unaware of any factory loads that would meet the criteria I look for. And using hand loads is a one-way ticket to the crossbar motel. And with proper tuning, I'm sure .45LC or .44 Specials can be created that would light up the sky, but I'm unaware of any that I'd be willing to be my life on and again, haven’
Oh, and in using the example of the New Zealand Maori wars from over 150 years ago to reinforce your point, you actually reinforced my point; that which worked years ago can still work today, even in the face of advancing technology. You say that the revolvers of that period worked against the foes of that day. To extend your point, are you saying that a .44 Beaumont Adams percussion revolver is an advisable carry piece in 2014? I'll answer for you...maybe, because with great shot placement and good tactics it could work, just as it did in 1870. Just as it stopped threats back in it's day, a .38 loaded with 110 gr +P+ putting 5 quick ones in a target's gut in 1977 could do the same trick. But again ONLY if the shooter could hit what they're shooting at consistently. Once more, and thanks for supporting me on this, the hardware (technology and equipment) is not near as critical as is the software (thinking, training and skill level).
If I'm going on to long its because I'm getting a little tired of every poor bullet, poor load, or smaller caliber being defended by the same, tired, worn out lines about how its always the shooter's fault, go ahead and carry 22 shorts in a derringer because its all the same.
Not at all. I would never suggest that and I didn't before. But an excellent shooter trained very well who can hit the target where it needs to be hit using a mediocre round/pistol combo will rule the day every time over an average shooter who can't hit reliably even when carrying his Duke Nukem Limited Edition Viking forged 88mm hand cannon loaded with radioactive, nuclear charged demon killing hollow point boulders. Or simply put, a good hit with a .22 beats a miss with a .44 any day of the week.
People take a lot of time and energy to take real life results and rationalize reasons to ignore them to believe what they wish to believe, and to many people defend what they would like to shoot instead of what they should shoot. The 158 lswchp won out for a reason, and the 110 disappeared for a reason.
No one is ignoring anything. Both rounds are still being made and being shot. Both can stop and both can kill. And I never said that the 110 was the end all, be all of .38 loads. I simply said that in a gut to gut shooting, pouring five of those quickly and accurately into your target would end the fight. They are lethal. They may not be AS effective as you would like, but they ARE lethal. They certainly would ruin your or my day if we got popped with one in the sternum, much less five really quickly.
The treasury load should remain a lesson in junk science, poor design, and left as a memory of the 1980's.
I'd rather carry the 110 than a jello-specific designed round. Now THAT is junk science. The idea that because a bullet of any stripe can plow through 20" of gelatin makes it a man stopper is laugh out loud silly. Is gelatin useful? To a point. But the dynamics that have been on display in the street over the last 20 years have clearly shown when the following are used:
#1 Shot Placement is quick and accurate, where it needs to be
#2 Effective and intelligent tactics are employed
#3 Powerful, energy-delivering rounds traveling at Warp Speed are used multiple times in quick follow up succession on the target....
....then the bad guy falls over with a bad case of deaditis.
The thing is though, you can substitute less effective rounds for #3 and still come out on top. 20th Century gunfighting heroes like Jelly Bryce, Jim Cirillo and Walter Walsh didn't have the gee whiz tech we have, but they 'saw the elephant' numerous times and came out on top because of #1 and #2 far more than #3. It is software first, hardware second. When the software is running right, you can use a variety of loads, even Treasury Loads, to win the day.
Just one old Irishman's opinion; your mileage will almost definitely vary.
Have a good night.
