- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,346
- Reaction score
- 5,566
I'm sorry- posted before I saw this one. I retract my previous post.
Low Handgun Lethality Rates?
- Thread starter Handgun Hunter
- Start date
I'm sorry- posted before I saw this one. I retract my previous post.
Mainsail
Member
I'm going to vote for environment. A person shot by another person in self defense is not typically grazing, mating, or rubbing his head against a tree. In a SD shooting, the antagonist almost always knows the victim is there and has the business end of a gun oriented in their direction; not so with a hog or deer.
Shooting someone who is actively trying to make you miss is going to give different results than shooting something that is completely unaware of your presence or intentions.
Shooting someone who is actively trying to make you miss is going to give different results than shooting something that is completely unaware of your presence or intentions.
Kronos
Member
You can get that hunting,ask my pal who's been on bear hunts with dogs-even seen a bear hopped up on adrenaline? his first he used my rifle which was a bloody .375 H&H,Mr.Bear took a round of that and six .44 magnums to the face before he stopped!
If you hunt you kinda know what a lethal force encounter is as you may have had one already! I believe I've had at least one in the backwoods tangling with critters who were stalking me,fun it is not.
As to the question-yes handguns are I think way more lethal then most make it out to be.
Is that what this is all about?
Interesting thread, if a little contentious. We all might want to lighten up a little bit and be a bit more open to differences in opinion.
-----
A few thoughts in no particular order.
1) In my investigator days I knew a chest cutter (thoracic surgeon) who had spend a decade or so in South Africa and had experience with about 1500 bullet wounds. He was pretty clear that when it came to pistol rounds, the number of bullet wounds is what increased lethality. The more holes you put in a person, the more systems get compromised, the faster the person bleeds out and the harder it is to repair all the damage. In other words hitting someone 10 times in the torso with 40 gr LRN .22 LR bullets is probably more likely to be lethal than hitting them twice in the torso with .45 ACP hollow points. The difference is the .45 ACP may be more effective in getting immediate incapacitation, while the .22 LR hits probably won't. They'll kill but it will probably be over a period of minutes, hours or days to late to do much good in a defensive situation.
2) There are exceptions of course. a class mate of mine got ahold of a parent's .22 revolver and tried spinning it on his finger (he was never the brightest kid in the class). It went off, passed through the living room window and struck a kid across the street in the head, killing him instantly. Not just negligence on couple levels, but really bad luck on a couple different levels.
3) Ever had buck fever? For about 96% of the population, unless they have a fair amount of combat experience, buck fever will have nothing on what happens when they start receiving fire.
If you watch reasonably good shooters on a casual target range, and then watch the same shooter in his or her first tactical pistol match you'll wonder what the hell happened to them. A little bit to time pressure and the potential for looking bad will cause a lot of people to shoot well below their level of training. Exchange the potential to look bad with the potential to end up dead and what do you think happens?
4) Consistent with what has been noted in previous posts, I'm a responsible hunter and I choose my shots carefully, and I do so after confirming my rifle or handgun is shooting to the expected point of aim and after confirming the performance of my ammo over the expected effective range of the round. In short, I work hard to eliminate or reduce as many variables as possible so that I have a very high percentage of placing the shot in the vitals to ensure a clean kill.
Even then a fatal shot isn't usually instantly fatal. If you hit a deer in the neck or spine ahead of the front legs and severe the spinal cord, it will be instantly anchored, and while it may not die immediately it is very much incapacitated. That's equivalent to a CNS hit in a human assailant.
If you hit a mule deer in the upper chambers of the heart, or the large vessels over the heart, it will be pretty much dead right there. If it's unaware of where the threat is at it, won't run at all and if it is aware of the threat, it will run but won't get far with zero blood pressure to the brain. It will have about 10-15 seconds of usable consciousness before it goes down. That's analogous to a cardio pulmonary hit in a human assailant, where you hit the heart or the large arteries above the heart. But you also still have an assailant with perhaps 10-15 seconds of usable consciousness and that's more than enough time to kill you.
However hit a deer just a few inches lower in the more muscular chambers of the heart and it will run 50-100 yards before the blood loss is sufficient to drop the blood pressure below a critical level. Same thing applies to an assailant shot with a pistol bullet - it'll take a little longer to get the necessary loss of blood pressure.
Hit a deer in the lungs or even in the paunch and it'll still be dead, but it will take longer as the blood fills the lungs or abdomen and you may have to track it a bit. If you're smart you'll stay put so it won't run more than 50-100 yards before going to ground, and once down for a few minutes it'll never get back up again. That's not really an option with an assailant intent of killing you, so a hit in the torso that isn't a CNS hit or a cardio pulmonary hit won't get the job done - at least not in time to prevent your own death.
5) Simply put there's a big difference between "lethal" and "rapid incapacitation", and in a self defense situation you want the latter. Consequently, if your life is truly threatened, you're going to shoot and keep shooting until the assailant is down AND is no longer a threat.
Then you'll probably discover about 10 minutes later that your knees are shaking so hard you can't even stand, and about that time you'll throw up as the adrenaline wears off and the enormity of the event sinks in.
6) Terminal ballistics are what they are regardless of the target, but there is absolutely no comparison between the conditions and psychological effects of taking a shot while hunting and a self defense shoot where you are literally fighting for your life or the life of a family member.
-----
A few thoughts in no particular order.
1) In my investigator days I knew a chest cutter (thoracic surgeon) who had spend a decade or so in South Africa and had experience with about 1500 bullet wounds. He was pretty clear that when it came to pistol rounds, the number of bullet wounds is what increased lethality. The more holes you put in a person, the more systems get compromised, the faster the person bleeds out and the harder it is to repair all the damage. In other words hitting someone 10 times in the torso with 40 gr LRN .22 LR bullets is probably more likely to be lethal than hitting them twice in the torso with .45 ACP hollow points. The difference is the .45 ACP may be more effective in getting immediate incapacitation, while the .22 LR hits probably won't. They'll kill but it will probably be over a period of minutes, hours or days to late to do much good in a defensive situation.
2) There are exceptions of course. a class mate of mine got ahold of a parent's .22 revolver and tried spinning it on his finger (he was never the brightest kid in the class). It went off, passed through the living room window and struck a kid across the street in the head, killing him instantly. Not just negligence on couple levels, but really bad luck on a couple different levels.
3) Ever had buck fever? For about 96% of the population, unless they have a fair amount of combat experience, buck fever will have nothing on what happens when they start receiving fire.
If you watch reasonably good shooters on a casual target range, and then watch the same shooter in his or her first tactical pistol match you'll wonder what the hell happened to them. A little bit to time pressure and the potential for looking bad will cause a lot of people to shoot well below their level of training. Exchange the potential to look bad with the potential to end up dead and what do you think happens?
4) Consistent with what has been noted in previous posts, I'm a responsible hunter and I choose my shots carefully, and I do so after confirming my rifle or handgun is shooting to the expected point of aim and after confirming the performance of my ammo over the expected effective range of the round. In short, I work hard to eliminate or reduce as many variables as possible so that I have a very high percentage of placing the shot in the vitals to ensure a clean kill.
Even then a fatal shot isn't usually instantly fatal. If you hit a deer in the neck or spine ahead of the front legs and severe the spinal cord, it will be instantly anchored, and while it may not die immediately it is very much incapacitated. That's equivalent to a CNS hit in a human assailant.
If you hit a mule deer in the upper chambers of the heart, or the large vessels over the heart, it will be pretty much dead right there. If it's unaware of where the threat is at it, won't run at all and if it is aware of the threat, it will run but won't get far with zero blood pressure to the brain. It will have about 10-15 seconds of usable consciousness before it goes down. That's analogous to a cardio pulmonary hit in a human assailant, where you hit the heart or the large arteries above the heart. But you also still have an assailant with perhaps 10-15 seconds of usable consciousness and that's more than enough time to kill you.
However hit a deer just a few inches lower in the more muscular chambers of the heart and it will run 50-100 yards before the blood loss is sufficient to drop the blood pressure below a critical level. Same thing applies to an assailant shot with a pistol bullet - it'll take a little longer to get the necessary loss of blood pressure.
Hit a deer in the lungs or even in the paunch and it'll still be dead, but it will take longer as the blood fills the lungs or abdomen and you may have to track it a bit. If you're smart you'll stay put so it won't run more than 50-100 yards before going to ground, and once down for a few minutes it'll never get back up again. That's not really an option with an assailant intent of killing you, so a hit in the torso that isn't a CNS hit or a cardio pulmonary hit won't get the job done - at least not in time to prevent your own death.
5) Simply put there's a big difference between "lethal" and "rapid incapacitation", and in a self defense situation you want the latter. Consequently, if your life is truly threatened, you're going to shoot and keep shooting until the assailant is down AND is no longer a threat.
Then you'll probably discover about 10 minutes later that your knees are shaking so hard you can't even stand, and about that time you'll throw up as the adrenaline wears off and the enormity of the event sinks in.
6) Terminal ballistics are what they are regardless of the target, but there is absolutely no comparison between the conditions and psychological effects of taking a shot while hunting and a self defense shoot where you are literally fighting for your life or the life of a family member.
Now, the to OP's original questions:
1) Most self defense shoots - about 95%- are over in 5 rounds or less in 5 seconds or less, so a high capacity magazine isn't normally needed. In fact the FBI studied 12 years of agency involved shoots and determined that 75% of them ended with 3 shots or less fired at ranges of 3 yards or less.
2) Where a spare magazine comes into play is 1) in the other 5% that may involve multiple assailants and or that may occur in low light and/or at longer engagement ranges - although the longer the range the harder it'll be to justify that deadly force was needed - and 2) in certain malfunctions where a simple tap, rack, bang won't clear it. In that case, dropping the magazine and clearing the action is generally the fasted way to resolve a malfunction and get your pistol back in the fight.
For that reason alone I always recommend a person carrying a semi-auto pistol always carry a spare magazine.
Carry two or three 15 round magazines? Nope. It's not necessary at all and is just (pardon the pun) overkill for a civilian concealed carry permit holder looking to defend him or her self. If you're an LEO walking into dark and scary places looking from trouble, then yes having 46 rounds with you might be prudent, and if you're dumb enough to do that without backup, you need what little prudent you have left.
3) All handgun calibers are inadequate when it comes to "stopping power". As noted in my previous post, you need a CNS or cardio pulmonary hit to get rapid incapacitation, regardless of what you are shooting. Built placement is king, and the shooter who can score the first critical hit will probably prevail. It takes speed, accuracy, and at least a minimum degree of penetration and all three are important.
4) Most LEOS are not "gun people" and most don't shoot more than they have to in order to qualify - and that may be as little as 50 rounds once or twice a year under conditions that don't generalize well to real world conditions. As a result hit percentages are in the 25% range in good light at 7 yards or less. In low light or at longer ranges the hit percentage falls to around 12-15%. Worse, those are not effective, incapacitating hits, those are just plain old hits that might not be enough to get the job done. And meanwhile all those misses are skipping around the neighborhood looking for innocent bystanders to tag.
5) About half the "stops" that are made in a gun fight are psychological stops where the shooter thinks "Damn..I've been shot! Getting shot sucks! I don't want to get shot any more!" and thus drops his or her weapon and surrenders, or just falls down. In those cases, all that's needed is a caliber large enough to make the assailant aware he or she has been shot. The .22LR and .25 ACP don't do that real well. Everything else pretty much has it covered. It's probably worth noting here that game animals don't react that way ever - it's fight or flight 24/7 and they expect no quarter to be given.
1) Most self defense shoots - about 95%- are over in 5 rounds or less in 5 seconds or less, so a high capacity magazine isn't normally needed. In fact the FBI studied 12 years of agency involved shoots and determined that 75% of them ended with 3 shots or less fired at ranges of 3 yards or less.
2) Where a spare magazine comes into play is 1) in the other 5% that may involve multiple assailants and or that may occur in low light and/or at longer engagement ranges - although the longer the range the harder it'll be to justify that deadly force was needed - and 2) in certain malfunctions where a simple tap, rack, bang won't clear it. In that case, dropping the magazine and clearing the action is generally the fasted way to resolve a malfunction and get your pistol back in the fight.
For that reason alone I always recommend a person carrying a semi-auto pistol always carry a spare magazine.
Carry two or three 15 round magazines? Nope. It's not necessary at all and is just (pardon the pun) overkill for a civilian concealed carry permit holder looking to defend him or her self. If you're an LEO walking into dark and scary places looking from trouble, then yes having 46 rounds with you might be prudent, and if you're dumb enough to do that without backup, you need what little prudent you have left.
3) All handgun calibers are inadequate when it comes to "stopping power". As noted in my previous post, you need a CNS or cardio pulmonary hit to get rapid incapacitation, regardless of what you are shooting. Built placement is king, and the shooter who can score the first critical hit will probably prevail. It takes speed, accuracy, and at least a minimum degree of penetration and all three are important.
4) Most LEOS are not "gun people" and most don't shoot more than they have to in order to qualify - and that may be as little as 50 rounds once or twice a year under conditions that don't generalize well to real world conditions. As a result hit percentages are in the 25% range in good light at 7 yards or less. In low light or at longer ranges the hit percentage falls to around 12-15%. Worse, those are not effective, incapacitating hits, those are just plain old hits that might not be enough to get the job done. And meanwhile all those misses are skipping around the neighborhood looking for innocent bystanders to tag.
5) About half the "stops" that are made in a gun fight are psychological stops where the shooter thinks "Damn..I've been shot! Getting shot sucks! I don't want to get shot any more!" and thus drops his or her weapon and surrenders, or just falls down. In those cases, all that's needed is a caliber large enough to make the assailant aware he or she has been shot. The .22LR and .25 ACP don't do that real well. Everything else pretty much has it covered. It's probably worth noting here that game animals don't react that way ever - it's fight or flight 24/7 and they expect no quarter to be given.
Last edited:
stykshooter
Member
There is an exception to every rule, regardless of how proficient you are and how much you practice.
Several years ago I was still carrying a model 66 loaded with Winchester .357 125 grain L.E. hollow Points and was shooting approximately 200 rounds per week in a P.P.C. league. I practiced and competed every chance that I had.
I had the opportunity to make the acquaintance of an individual that had already shot and killed four people that night. I ended up putting three rounds in his left side through his ribs, another one as a pass through in his left shoulder and one beneath his chin that exited his right eye socket. Four good solid hits that should have ended the fight and his life with outstanding ammunition for the time.
After his surgeries and trials, we put him to death by lethal injection eight years later.
Humans to deer and hogs is apples to oranges.
Human beings are ballistically difficult targets. We're very thin, which makes it tough to get a bullet that both penetrates our protective bones and muscle and fat and clothes, but also expands and dumps its energy into us. Bullets routinely skip off of bones; even the fabled headshot isn't a guarantee of effectiveness. And we've got a nasty habit of continuing to fight through mortal injury.
Hunting ammunition is built for a singular purpose, and selected for a specific environment and target. Defensive and duty ammunition is a fine compromise between capacity, recoil, practicality, and all considerations of efficacy (penetration, overpenetration, expansion, reliability, etc). Defensive ammunition cannot assume anything about the conditions it will be used in.
Defensive and duty handguns are another compromise. The duty handgun must consider size, weight, expense, reliability, accuracy, accessibility to a wide variety of shooters, capacity, and efficacy. The hunting handgun is purchased one time, by one individual. It can be modified to fit that individual. It is as large as it needs to be, as heavy as it needs to be, and rarely needs to consider effective rate of fire or capacity.
9mm is a perfectly effective cartridge for duty carry. So is .40 S&W, .45 ACP, 10mm, .357 Sig, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, and so on. But--they are all compromises, because they have to be. Each one is a representation of a time and place. .38 Special, for instance, was a really good choice back when factory automatics were unreliable as hell and there simply wasn't any good 9mm ammo available.
Although personally, I would prefer not to be hit with any of them.
PS -- Lethality is not the goal. Lethality is, I daresay, undesirable. Better to have the miscreant alive so that he can later talk. That allows him to contradict and incriminate himself. It's much easier to justify having to shoot the hulking, 6'10", 280-pound hospitalized thug, instead of the picture of the deceased at the age of 12 that will, invariably, be televised.
PPS -- If you think that the Bad Guys all fell down real quick back when LEO's all carried Magnum revolvers (they didn't, by the way), then you're sorely mistaken.
Human beings are ballistically difficult targets. We're very thin, which makes it tough to get a bullet that both penetrates our protective bones and muscle and fat and clothes, but also expands and dumps its energy into us. Bullets routinely skip off of bones; even the fabled headshot isn't a guarantee of effectiveness. And we've got a nasty habit of continuing to fight through mortal injury.
Hunting ammunition is built for a singular purpose, and selected for a specific environment and target. Defensive and duty ammunition is a fine compromise between capacity, recoil, practicality, and all considerations of efficacy (penetration, overpenetration, expansion, reliability, etc). Defensive ammunition cannot assume anything about the conditions it will be used in.
Defensive and duty handguns are another compromise. The duty handgun must consider size, weight, expense, reliability, accuracy, accessibility to a wide variety of shooters, capacity, and efficacy. The hunting handgun is purchased one time, by one individual. It can be modified to fit that individual. It is as large as it needs to be, as heavy as it needs to be, and rarely needs to consider effective rate of fire or capacity.
9mm is a perfectly effective cartridge for duty carry. So is .40 S&W, .45 ACP, 10mm, .357 Sig, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, and so on. But--they are all compromises, because they have to be. Each one is a representation of a time and place. .38 Special, for instance, was a really good choice back when factory automatics were unreliable as hell and there simply wasn't any good 9mm ammo available.
Although personally, I would prefer not to be hit with any of them.
PS -- Lethality is not the goal. Lethality is, I daresay, undesirable. Better to have the miscreant alive so that he can later talk. That allows him to contradict and incriminate himself. It's much easier to justify having to shoot the hulking, 6'10", 280-pound hospitalized thug, instead of the picture of the deceased at the age of 12 that will, invariably, be televised.
PPS -- If you think that the Bad Guys all fell down real quick back when LEO's all carried Magnum revolvers (they didn't, by the way), then you're sorely mistaken.
roscoepc
Member
I like this post... I really do!!!! I don't quite agree with one point but that's OK!! Many Kudos to you Sir!! You hit the nail on the head I believe!!!!!!
kthom
Member
And a very great many of those cops can't shoot their under powered handguns well enough to qualify with the lowered qualification requirements and annual or semi-annual qualifications. Not nearly enough money is allocated for practice ammo and they won't spend their personal money or time to learn to shoot. Not all, of course, but many. If you can't hit what you want to hit, it doesn't much matter what you are shooting with. Loud noises may cause butt stains, but not much else in the way of harm is done. Even with under powered ammo, a few good hits in the right place will have a good chance of getting the desired results, especially if the target isn't totally spaced on stuff that short circuits the brain.
And while I'm at it, I've personally seen folks go hunting after buying a rifle and a box of shells and having the scope boresighted in the store and they figure they are good to go. It takes all kinds. But I can tell you I shoot a great deal better and get better quality hits and more of them when I'm not being shot at! You don't get experience at handling those kinds of situations on any range anywhere that I'm aware of. Yes, good training helps, but till you've heard a bullet buzzing past your ear, how you will "perform under pressure" is just speculation!
I will take and prefer the weapon and round that I can handle and shoot the best. Yes, I will practice to develop skill with the "best" ammo I can find, but if I can't hit well with it, I won't carry it. The same goes for the weapon platform I carry. It's gotta fit my hand. Your hand is different from mine. Cops don't usually get much of a choice about what they carry, weapon or ammo provided for it. So ... it's usually a **** shoot!
Rick_A
Member
In a dynamic scenario you don't have the luxury of picking that perfect shot.
This I've learned through years of Nerf battles.
Most folks that hunt will bring what is often the best tool for the job.
Those that carry for defense will often carry what they're willing to carry at the time.
This I've learned through years of Nerf battles.
Most folks that hunt will bring what is often the best tool for the job.
Those that carry for defense will often carry what they're willing to carry at the time.
I like this post... I really do!!!! I don't quite agree with one point but that's OK!! Many Kudos to you Sir!! You hit the nail on the head I believe!!!!!!
Thank you, sir.
I shoot quite a bit, and on a well-lit range I'm tough to beat.
But I think that if someone was trying to cut my head off or cave in my skull on the sidewalk, I would be quite pleased to get a snubbie out of my pocket in time.
"Speed is fine, but accuracy is final," yes (I'm a big believer in that). But gun handling matters. Fine motor control is the first thing you lose.
It's funny. I've heard an instructor talk about "reverting to training" and such, but then recommend DA/SA pistols with external safeties, and carrying them on an empty chamber for safety.
Simplicity! Point and shoot! Small-frame sixguns for CCW, Glocks or some other pistol without a manual safety if you must have a pistol.
I agree with you to a point - right ump until the word "Glock".
Shooters revert to their lowest level of mastered training when under stress, so sufficient mastery is important.
The 1911 and Browning Hi Power (as examples os SA pistols with a manual safety) were designed to be carried in Condition 1 (cocked and locked with a round in the chamber. Carrying one any other way is farm animal stupid, and it's not overly hard to train someone to draw, point it down range and take it off safe as it comes up to your line of sight - and with some practice that level of training is fairly simple to master.
The rest of the training revolves around putting it back on safe and getting it back in the holster after the shooting is over. With both the 1911 and the GP35, the finger needs to come out of the trigger guard and the thumb should come back over the hammer. On a 1911 this activates the grip safety and on the GP35 it will prevent the hammer from falling if you forget and leave the booger hook in the trigger guard.
DA revolvers and pistols are arguably even easier to master as it's pretty much aim and pull the trigger - and the trigger pull on both is both long and comparatively heavy, making negligent discharges under stress less likely.
The DA pistol only adds the need to de-cock it after action and you can train a monkey to do that. The DA revolver and a hammer fired DA pistol (with or without out a de-cocking lever) should both be re-holstered with the finger out of the trigger guard and the thumb over the back of the hammer. This enables the shooter to feel the hammer coming back in the event something obstructs the trigger - like the trigger finger - as the handgun is re-holstered.
The real training problem comes in to play with some examples of striker fired pistols that also happen to have all the safety mechanisms tied to the trigger.
The striker fired pistols described above are about 90% cocked after the round is chambered and the last bit is done by the trigger, so the trigger pull is lighter and a lot shorter than a DA revolver or pistol. The safety that locks the striker is also deactivated as soon as the lever on the trigger is depressed. So under stress if the shooter gets his finger on the trigger too soon, and starts pulling the first round will go into his leg, his foot or the ground in front of his foot.
That's aggravated by a few holster designs that use a release button on the side of the holster. That basically trains the finger to start pressing to draw the pistol and under extreme stress it keeps right on pressing it's way onto the trigger.
Not to mention any specific pistols, but "Glock Leg" is used to describe the results of what happens when a poorly trained officer gets excited.
Putting a striker fired handgun like a Glock away has similar perils as if the now excited shooter forgets and keeps his trigger finger in the trigger guard, when the handgun goes in the holster, the holster presses the finger, which presses the trigger, which makes loud noises and often very interesting work for the ER staff and trauma surgeons.
The Glock in particular came very popular with law enforcement agencies who saw it as a semi-auto that required very little conversion training for officers familiar with DA revolvers. Unfortunately, it's a fallacy to think that way.
A DA revolver has a long, heavy trigger pull that adds a large measure of safety, and it also allows you to cross check yourself and feel the hammer coming back if something is obstructing the hammer, so it will forgive a momentary lapse in trigger discipline under extreme stress. A handgun with an operating system like the Glock will not tolerate ANY lapse in trigger discipline EVER.
Also, the Glock was designed as a duty handgun to be carried in an OWB duty holster, where the pistol would be more likely to be clear of obstructions and can more easily be visually observed going into the holster.
It adds a whole new level of risk and training to mitigate that risk when you decide to conceal carry a Glock. You're now re-holstering it in an IWB holsters where intruding clothing, zipper pulls, jacket cord fobs, etc can all create an obstruction, as can a poorly designed soft leather holster.
If you're going to conceal carry a Glock (or similar design) use a holster with a belt clip, so that the whole holster can be easily removed to allow you to insert the pistol in the holster out in front of you where you can see it and keep it pointed in a safer direction - then re-insert the holster and pistol in your waistband as a unit with the trigger fully protected by the holster.
Lots of speculation, arm chair theories and what ifs. But the bottom
line is that it's the reponsibility of the owner to know how to handle
the specific model of gun he or she chooses to carry. Reholstering is
something that really shouldn't be an issue with CC guns. But if you
are so inept that you need to depend on a holster design and or some
particular model of gun to keep you from shooting yourself while
reholstering then you probably shouldn't be carrying.
line is that it's the reponsibility of the owner to know how to handle
the specific model of gun he or she chooses to carry. Reholstering is
something that really shouldn't be an issue with CC guns. But if you
are so inept that you need to depend on a holster design and or some
particular model of gun to keep you from shooting yourself while
reholstering then you probably shouldn't be carrying.
V0OBWxZS16
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2015
- Messages
- 504
- Reaction score
- 310
The legendary effectiveness of the .357 is just that: legend.
Scientific study of projectile wounding effects has shown that at handgun velocities there is not significant and reliable wounding effects due to the temporary cavity and the reliable damage is caused by tissue that is directly crushed by the projectile's passage. Effectiveness per shot is a function of shot placement > adequate penetration > reliable expansion > large expansion > bullet shape after expansion. As you can see in this chart increasing caliber only gains a small amount of additional damage.
As has been pointed out the circumstances between hunting and duty/self-defense shooting are significantly different. Controllability, including when firing from awkward positions or when wounded, and magazine capacity are more important than the small increase in wounding potential.
I usually don't comment on the mechanics of others. I'm a "you roll your way, I'll roll mine" kind of guy, but this is the goofiest advice I've heard in a while. EDIT: The part I quoted, as well as the rest of the post I didn't, displays a complete misunderstanding of the Glock platform. The poster would have us believe that no officer ever shot themselves in the leg before Glock. I watched Barney Fife do it about four times with a Colt revolver today on the Andy Griffith show reruns . . .
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,009
- Reaction score
- 7,080
All very interesting, but "lethality" is not what I seek in a defense round. I want "stopping power," defined as the ability to stop an adversary as quickly as possible. Whether the result is death is irrelevant to me.
You are thinking about this the wrong way.
1. You are the attacker.
2. You have chosen a gun with MORE than enough energy to humanely kill.
3. You attack without warning.
4. You choose when to fire with NO risk of attack back.
5. You are NOT afraid.
6. Again your weapon is NOT a compromise, it is full size, with excellent sites and accuracy.
Bluntly you are the predator and have EVERYTHING in your favor.
1. You are the attacker.
2. You have chosen a gun with MORE than enough energy to humanely kill.
3. You attack without warning.
4. You choose when to fire with NO risk of attack back.
5. You are NOT afraid.
6. Again your weapon is NOT a compromise, it is full size, with excellent sites and accuracy.
Bluntly you are the predator and have EVERYTHING in your favor.
I don't care about lethality. Decades ago, I was cornered by a bad guy. I pointed a .380 Auto at him, and he ran away. Mission accomplished.
If a bad guy is shot by a "lowly" .380 Auto or .38 Special will he want to continue to attack? I doubt it. I'm older, but could still outrun a bad guy who has bullet holes in him.
(The Police are required to capture a bad guy. Civilians only have to escape a bad guy.)
Last edited:
Hand Cannon
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2013
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 11
Lethality of truly portable handguns
ALL truly portable handguns and the rounds they shoot (.380, 9mm, 38 spcl, .357 Magnum, 45 ACP) are inherently underpowered for the role they are supposed to fulfill. To step up to a truly effective round, and what comes with it...a large, heavy hunk of steel that you'd decide wasn't worth carrying inside of 2 hours. I was a Deputy Sheriff in a Texas from 1983 to 2000. Carrying a heavy, unwieldy duty weapon isn't even considered for numerous reasons.
Carry handguns are for lethal force encounters you don't see coming.
If you know you will likely have to engage in a firefight leave the duty pistol/revolver in the holster and grab your shotgun or a rifle. The devastation done to the human body by a shotgun or a rifle is so much greater than the popular duty weapon calibers and concealed carry weapon calibers that they don't even really compare.
ALL truly portable handguns and the rounds they shoot (.380, 9mm, 38 spcl, .357 Magnum, 45 ACP) are inherently underpowered for the role they are supposed to fulfill. To step up to a truly effective round, and what comes with it...a large, heavy hunk of steel that you'd decide wasn't worth carrying inside of 2 hours. I was a Deputy Sheriff in a Texas from 1983 to 2000. Carrying a heavy, unwieldy duty weapon isn't even considered for numerous reasons.
Carry handguns are for lethal force encounters you don't see coming.
If you know you will likely have to engage in a firefight leave the duty pistol/revolver in the holster and grab your shotgun or a rifle. The devastation done to the human body by a shotgun or a rifle is so much greater than the popular duty weapon calibers and concealed carry weapon calibers that they don't even really compare.
Similar threads
