Interesting article on disabling ability of firearms.

[PavePusher]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power

"I've been interested in firearm stopping power for a very long time. I remember reading Handguns magazine back in the late 1980s when Evan Marshall was writing articles about his stopping power studies. When Marshall's first book came out in 1992, I ordered it immediately, despite the fact that I was a college student and really couldn't afford its $39 price tag. Over the years I bought all of the rest of Marshall's books as well as anything else I could find on the subject. I even have a first edition of Gunshot Injuries by Louis Lagarde published in 1915.


Are any of these better than another? Every source I read has different recommendations. Some say Marshall's data is genius. Some say it is statistically impossible. Some like big heavy bullets. Some like lighter, faster bullets. There isn't any consensus. The more I read, the more confused I get.

One thing I remember reading that made a lot of sense to me was an article by Massad Ayoob. He came out with his own stopping power data around the time Marshall published Handgun Stopping Power. In the article, Ayoob took his critics to task. He suggested that if people didn't believe his data, they should collect their own and do their own analysis. That made sense to me. So that's just what I did. I always had a slight problem with the methodology of Marshall and Sanow's work. For consistency purposes, they ONLY included hits to the torso and ONLY included cases where the person was hit with just a single round. Multiple hits screwed up their data, so they excluded them. This lead to an unrealistically high stopping power percentage, because it factored out many of the cases where a person didn't stop! I wanted to look at hits anywhere on the body and get a realistic idea of actual stopping power, no matter how many hits it took to get it. So I started collecting data."


More at link.

[onehandle]

1. Firearms disabled Congresswoman Giffords real good.

They did indeed.

[PavePusher]

2. Not sure what your point is there.

Care to elaborate?

[jpak]

114. You'll never get it

yup

[SteveM]

7. Firearms disabled Mussolini real good.

[Euromutt]

33. And Anastasio Somoza Debayle

[oneshooter]

124. Don't forget the Romanov family. n/t

[iverglas]

3. the disability ability of firearms

I found a couple of articles I find more interesting.


http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

FIREARM INJURY IN THE U.S.

NONFATAL INJURIES: MORBIDITY AND DISABILITY
For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, at least two others are shot and survive. However, these numbers vary widely based on intent, with self-inflicted injuries much more likely to be fatal. On average, there were more than 100,000 firearm injuries per year between 1993 and 1998.

Average Annual Number of Firearm Injuries--U.S., 1993-98
Interpersonal
fatal 15,371
non-fatal 50,067
total 65,438

...

• In 2002, there were approximately 90,000 fatalities and non-fatal injuries associated with firearms (Figure 13). On average, 60% of those surviving long enough to be taken to emergency departments require hospitalization. The average length of hospital stay for mild to moderate firearm injuries is 10-13 days.
• The establishment and growth of trauma centers and trauma response systems may partially account for the decline in the nation’s homicide rate in the late 1990s. There is some evidence that a part of the downward trend seen in firearm homicide is due to expert clinical care provided in trauma systems.
• The most serious disabilities for firearm injury survivors result from amputation, and brain and spinal cord injuries. Nationally, 16.5% of spinal cord injuries are caused by gunshot injuries.

Interesting little side note to tuck away there: The establishment and growth of trauma centers and trauma response systems may partially account for the decline in the nation’s homicide rate in the late 1990s.

Loads more to read in that one.


http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Security/citizensecurity/eeuu/documents/shooting.pdf

Shooting In The Dark: Estimating The Cost Of Firearm Injuries

Abstract: The cost of firearm injuries in the United States in 1990 was an estimated $20.4 billion. This includes $1.4 billion for direct expenditures for health care and related goods, $1.6 billion in lost productivity resulting from injury-related illness and disability, and $17.4 billion in lost productivity from premature death. While these are the best available national estimates, it is likely that they underestimate the economic impact of firearm injuries because they are based on relatively old data and on many assumptions necessitated by data gaps. The need for better data and improved estimates, and their policy relevance, arc discussed.

... Years of potential life lost. Firearm injuries resulted in 1.4 million years of potential life lost in 198.5 (Exhibit 6). Most of these losses are attributable to premature death (1.2 million). However, 187,000 years of productivity were lost because of persons hospitalized from firearm injuries; even nonhospitalized injuries accounted for the loss of 1,350 years. Fatally injured males lost an average of 34.6 years each, and females lost 41.0 years, reflecting the fact that typical victims are relatively young. The per person losses for hospitalized males (2.2 years) and females (7.4 years) indicate the substantial disability that a firearm injury can cause.

Yes, the disabling ability of a firearm is certain something to stop and think about.

[ileus]

5. 17.4b in wages assumes they were productive in the first place.

[iverglas]

12. you do have a mouse, can I assume?

And you know how to click it?

Maybe you're just smarter and better than all the people who actually study these things.

Hmmm ...

Mortality cost - the value of forgone productivity due to early death - is estimated as the product of firearm injury deaths and the present value of future earnings. Lifetime earnings for each age and sex take into account life expectancy at each age, labor-force participation, average annual earnings, discounting of future earnings, and wage supplements such as employer contributions for social insurance, pensions, and welfare funds. An estimate also is included for the value of household production, based on a regression analysis of hours of household labor as a function of family structure, education, income, and race. These hours were then valued on the basis of wage rates by activity.

... Morbidity costs represent forgone productivity due to days lost from work or household production. Losses during the first year were estimated by subtracting the earnings (both market and imputed housekeeping services) of the injured person from those of a healthy person of the same age and sex. Losses after the first year were estimated by assuming that persons not working four years after an injury would remain unemployed.

Hospitalized injuries. The number of persons hospitalized for firearm injuries was developed in two steps. First, data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) were used to estimate the number of injured persons. Three years of data (1984-1986) were analyzed to increase the reliability of the 1985 estimates. The NHDS includes discharges, rather than injured persons. Therefore, this data set might overestimate the number of injured persons, because of transfers and readmissions. The number of transfers is less than 2 percent. An adjustment was made for readmissions based on data from Maryland and New Zealand. Unfortunately, the NHDS does not code the external cause of injury. Therefore, the percentage of injuries resulting from firearms was assumed to be the same as the percentage known to occur in Maryland, based on analysis of three years of Maryland hospital discharge data in which almost 60 percent of the discharges include the external cause of injury, This distribution includes the percentage of each nature and severity of injury (for example, thoracic injury with an Abbreviated Injury Severity score of 3) that resulted from firearms.

... Morbidity costs represent forgone productivity due to days lost from work or household production. Losses during the first year were estimated by subtracting the earnings (both market and imputed housekeeping services) of the injured person from those of a healthy person of the same age and sex. Losses after the first year were estimated by assuming that persons not working four years after an injury would remain unemployed.

Nonhospitalized injuries. Data on nonhospitalized injuries are sorely lacking. The estimates of incidence in this DataWatch were developed from an analysis of 1984-1986 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Injuries resulting in medical attention without hospitalization or in one or more days of restricted activity are included. The NHIS does not include data on external cause of injury (except for motor vehicle injuries). Therefore, it was necessary to distribute injuries by cause by using the NHIS supplement conducted in 1972, the most recent year for which detailed information on the cause of injury for a national sample was obtained. This yielded an estimate of the number of nonhospitalized firearm injuries broken down by age, sex, and nature of injury.

The direct cost of nonhospitalized firearm injuries was estimated using NHIS utilization data and NMCUES cost data. Lifetime cost was estimated based on the percentage of cost incurred in later years from the analysis of the NCCI data. The morbidity cost of nonhospitalized firearm injury consists of forgone productivity due to days lost from usual activity. Days of restricted activity were calculated from the NHIS for employed persons, persons keeping house, and persons involved in some other activity. Lost days then were multiplied by average daily earnings, an imputed value for housekeeping services, or a weighted average of the two, for the three groups, respectively.

Maybe the bum you're talking out of can do better. Will you ask it for us?

[ileus]

39. I believe the bulk of those shot aren't real pharmacists...

and shouldn't have salaries calculated as such...

[iverglas]

44. what are you smoking?

Nothing the real pharmacists sell, I think.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. That isn't what the OP is talking about.

When gunnies talk about "stopping power" they mean the ability of a cartridge/gun combination to immediately incapacitate an attacker so the he is physically unable to continue his aggression. Whether he lives or dies, or how much it costs is irrelevant to the discussion. The issue is complicated by shot placement, multiple shots, fitness of the attacker, mental state of the attacker and a host of other factors.

Gunnies were taught to shoot twice in rapid succession aimed at center torso to maximize the stopping power. In the last few year some schools have started teaching the Mozambique Drill - two rapid shots to center torso and a rapid third shot to the brain.

[iverglas]

13. of course not

"Gunnies" don't actually want to talk about the actual disabilities caused by firearms, do they?

:eyes:


Gunnies were taught to shoot twice in rapid succession aimed at center torso to maximize the stopping power. In the last few year some schools have started teaching the Mozambique Drill - two rapid shots to center torso and a rapid third shot to the brain.

And long years of common law, and codified law in so many civilized places, actually requires that people who use force in self-defence not intend to kill.

"Gunnies" shouldn't even wait a split second to see whether those two rapid shots to centre torso were effective before trying to blow somebody's brains out.

Oh well, eh?

[Blown330]

19. Oh this is too funny.

And long years of common law, and codified law in so many civilized places, actually requires that people who use force in self-defence not intend to kill.


The requirement has always been to incapacitate which includes aiming for center-mass. The point being is that center-mass hits generally have the best chance of incapacitation (and are also likely to be fatal) with the least room for a miss. "Gunnies", as you so ignorantly put it, are not trained to double-tap. That is a strictly military and law enforcement drill and is NOT doctrine in any CCW course. People who have taken CCW courses are told specifically that they are to shoot to incapacitate or until there is no longer an immediate threat. Only in your make-believe world can that be construed to the intent of killing. Of course, you have nothing to say about cops who are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped. No two-shot drills there.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. There are different schools of thought.

I did use "gunnies" as a shorthand for those of us who study the martial art of gun-fighting.

Many schools do teach to fire and keep firing until the threat is obviously neutralized. However, I see a drawback to that. How you train is how you fight. Blasting one guy, rapid fire, tends to focus attention to that one threat and may cause other threats not to be seen and engaged promptly. The Mozambique drill will almost always take down the first threat, can be done rapidly, and allows prompt engagement of other threats.

If you know that you have only one threat then shooting until he is neutralized is the superior tactic.

[iverglas]

28. sorry, but as I said, schools of shooting / schools of thought are not my concern

Human rights and the laws that protect the exercise of them are.

Apart from that ... I'm just always gobsmacked when I see that people actually spend so much time thinking about / planning for / talking about "engagement of threats" and all the rest of it.

Life is war, war is hell, life's a drag and then you die. Whatever.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. My first concern is my survival. What happens to the attacker is much further down the list.

Further, it doesn't really matter to me what your concerns are.

[iverglas]

50. then here's a suggestion for you

it doesn't really matter to me what your concerns are.

Stop fucking replying to my posts, or someone might get the impression it does.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. You are the one who jumped into a conversation that wasn't addressed to you.

Blown330 posted #19, I responded to him in post #26, you jumped in with post #28. Take your own advice.

[Hoopla Phil]

30. My instructor taught the "boarding house rules" as he called it.

Everyone gets served up once before going back for seconds. But being an old IPSC shooter the "double-tap" is too ingrained into me to do otherwise.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. Most of that derivies from English concept of minimum force required to repel

A specious concept since it often assumes super powers of the person defending themselves and ignores the available methods of self defense are not a continuous curve but a series of discrete steps. Fortunately the US is moving away from that flawed concept to Castle Doctrine and No Retreat, superior doctrines for the current day.

[iverglas]

51. what is that supposed to mean?

A specious concept since it often assumes super powers of the person defending themselves

It plainly doesn't mean anything, but feel free to try again.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. Actually it does, but since it does not fit your world view, that you find it incomprehensible is

not surprising.

[gejohnston]

43. which military is this?

special forces maybe. The garden variety, unless things changed, is center mass. From a military stand point, it is better to wound than to kill. The theory is you take more enemies off the battlefield and you put more demands on their medical/logistical elements.

[Euromutt]

49. There are other considerations as well

Most of the restrictions on methods of warfare are predicated on the idea that the combatants are agents of their state, and don't deserve to be harmed more than it takes to put them hors de combat. The unstated assumption there, though, is that a combatant will cease fighting when wounded, and not continue until he's completely physically incapacitated. This is not an entirely realistic assumption when you're dealing with a conflict in which one or both sides are motivated by fanatical ideology.

[Starboard Tack]

63. Absolute bullshit

In the UK, the rule for LE whether using a gun or a truncheon is to disable with minimum injury. Excessive force, like breaking a bone, or aiming for center mass or head would result in criminal prosecution. That's why they use marksmen who usually aim for the leg. And that's why they are rarely armed, because the gun's sole purpose is to stop a perp not as self defense for the cop.

[TheWraith]

71. Then the UK is doing something stupid that's likely to get their cops killed.

A shot to the leg is in NO WAY non-lethal. That's Hollywood bullshit. You hit one of those big arteries, the target is dead within minutes. All you're doing is vastly increasing the odds of missing, which puts your own life in danger if the perp is armed.

That said, I think that this statement is bullshit. I seem to remember a brown-skinned fellow from a few years ago, who was rushing to catch a subway when the police decided he was a suicide bomber and riddled him with dozens of bullets.

[Starboard Tack]

74. A shot to the leg may or may not be lethal. The intention is the point.

You are absolutely correct about the Brazilian who was shot and killed. This was an aberration and the cop paid for his mistake. He was way off base thinking the guy was a terrorist. Shit like that happens once in the UK and everyone remembers it. Here it happens daily and nobody gives a shit, especially if the victim isn't white.

In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections concerning armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed. The arming of police in the United Kingdom is a perennial topic of debate.

Most officers are instead issued with other items for personal defense, such as Speedcuffs, Extendable "ASP" Baton, and incapacitant sprays such as PAVA or CS spray. While not a firearm, CS spray is subject to some of the same rules and regulations as a projectile firing firearm under Section 5 (b) of the Firearms Act 1968.<1>
In the year 2007-08, there were 6,780 Authorised Firearms Officers, 21,181 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales and 7 incidents where conventional firearms were used.<2[br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

Note that- 7 incidents with police using conventional firearms in a year. The following year it went down to 4 incidents
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100419081706/http:/www.police.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/Police-firearms-2008-09.html

[Euromutt]

76. Actually, the Metropolitan Police Service had firearms from its inception

Robert Peel authorized the purchase of flintlock pocket pistols in 1829, and these were replaced during the 1860s with Beaumont-Adams revolvers from army stocks. Patrolmen didn't routinely carry either, but the weapons were kept at police stations, available for "exceptional circumstances" (particularly for responding to "house breakings" i.e. burglaries). From 1883 onwards, patrol officers were authorized to carry a revolver at their own discretion; to fill the demand, the Met purchased a large quantity of Webley "British Bull Dog" revolvers, replacing the Beaumont-Adams guns. The authorization to carry a revolver (or one of the Webley & Scott M1906 self-loading pistols that replaced the Bull Dogs between 1911 and 1914) remained in place until 1936, though by that time few officers still availed themselves of that option.

That means, incidentally, that as of 1884, there were 6,325 "authorised firearms officers" (i.e. all of them) in the Met's outer districts alone, compared to 6,780 in the entire United Kingdom in 2008.

Shit like that happens once in the UK and everyone remembers it.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK, isn't it? Let's not pretend "the province" hasn't seen its share of extrajudicial killings by British security forces over the past 40 years, and other places in connection to the "Troubles," like that Provo Active Service Unit who got waxed by the SAS in Gibraltar in 1988 and were subsequently found to have been unarmed. These sorts of incidents only cause a stink when they occur too publicly.

Here it happens daily and nobody gives a shit, especially if the victim isn't white.

Really? How many incidents can you find in which two American cops held a suspect down while a third emptied half a magazine into his head? The closest you're going to find is the shooting of Oscar Grant at Fruitvale BART station in Oakland in 2009, and the officer in question was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter (on the basis, supported by available evidence, that he'd meant to tase Grant, but mistakenly drew his handgun instead of his taser) and is still looking at a federal civil rights charge.

And does the name "Amadou Diallo" ring a bell at all? Both Grant and Diallo were black, by the way. "Nobody gives a shit"... You seriously need to check yourself for confirmation bias before you make bullshit assertions like that.

[gejohnston]

73. sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom#Specialist_weapons_.28SFO.29

Besides the major arteries, getting shot in the leg or anywhere else with a .308 does not meet my definition of minimum injury.

[Euromutt]

77. If that's British firearms protocol, it is indeed "absolute bullshit"

I base myself partly on Dutch army's "violence instruction" for guarding military facilities in peacetime (in which I was instructed during my stint in the RNLA) when I say that western European governments have a highly ambivalent attitude towards use of lethal force which leads to such unrealistic notions as "shooting to wound" as distinct from "shooting to kill." My fellow conscripts and I were instructed that we could only shoot at an intruder if he was suspected to be in the process of stealing firearms, ammunition or classified material, in which case we were to "aim for the legs" to prevent flight, or in the event of self-defense against an imminent threat to our persons, in which case we could "shoot to kill" at center mass. Not that we ever trained at the range how to shoot someone anywhere but center mass, I might note...

The root of the problem, in my opinion, is that there are situations in which the governments in question tacitly acknowledge that the only available option to stop a suspect is lethal force, but they don't want to be seen to authorize lethal force for such situations, particularly if there's no immediate demonstrable threat to human life (but only a potential future threat, such as that a stolen firearm will be used in a homicide at a later date). So they come up with unrealistic rules of engagement which boil down to "shoot if there's nothing else you can do to stop the suspect, but if the suspect dies, we'll blame you." And if he gets away because you refused to shoot, we'll blame you too.

The American rule is far more clear-cut: use of a firearm always constitutes lethal force, and in any given situation, lethal force was either legally justified or it wasn't. If you are justified in having resorted to lethal force to stop a suspect (or assailant or whatever), you are ipso facto justified in having killed him if he dies as a result. (Note that the justification is for taking the risk of killing the suspect; you are never justified in deliberately and intentionally killing the suspect.) But conversely, if you can't justify risking the suspect's life to stop him, you aren't justified in using lethal force at all. There's no shooting someone "a little bit" in the American criminal justice system.

[rl6214]

23. You'd better stop or I'll shoot you in the leg to slow you down

:rofl:

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Immediate incapacitation is different from disability.

If I am being attacked with such severity that I must use deadly force to stop the attack then my ONLY concern is with surviving the attack with minimum injury to myself. I don't care what happens to the attacker, whether he lives, dies, or has life-long disability is all the same to me. I want his attack stopped.

Pausing to evaluate the effect of my shots is a good way to lose a gun fight.

[spin]

29. When you have a valid reason to employ "lethal" force ...

the attack should be serious enough that you believe that using such force will quite possibly result in serious injury or death. The main reason you are justified in using such force is that otherwise you, or another person, would face serious injury or possibly death from the attacker.

Many people who carry concealed, chose to conceal a very light compact firearm which are usually chambered to fire a marginal round for self defense. I carry an S&W.38+P snub nosed revolver. My son in law carries a .380 auto Ruger LCP. My daughter carries a S&W S&W 351PD revolver in .22 magnum. My weapon holds 5 rounds, my son in law's holds 6 rounds in the magazine and 1 in the chamber, my daughter's revolver has 7 rounds in the cylinder. None of these handguns are considered to be effective at one shot stopping power. They are however easy to carry and conceal and while we do not expect to be attacked, we carry because there is nothing wrong with being prepared for any eventuality as long as you complying with the law.

In a real life or death situation, we could easy hit an attacker with every round in our weapons and still not stop his attack. Hopefully we can, at the worst, slow him up enough to escape his attack.

We could chose to carry a handgun with far better documented stopping results with one shot, but it's hard to effectively conceal such weapons in the Florida heat. Such weapons are often heavy and uncomfortable and require taking time to use belt or shoulder holsters and consequently are often left behind in their gun safes when their owner is merely shopping locally.

You state:

"Gunnies" shouldn't even wait a split second to see whether those two rapid shots to centre torso were effective before trying to blow somebody's brains out.

Oh well, eh?

It might amaze you but I actually agree with you.

Let's look at the origins of the Mozambique Drill under discussion.

Mozambique Drill

The Mozambique Drill, also known as the Failure to Stop Drill, or Failure Drill, is a close-quarter shooting technique in which the shooter fires twice into the torso of a target (known as a double tap to the center of mass), momentarily assesses the hits, then follows them up with a carefully aimed shot to the head of the target.

The third shot should be aimed to destroy the brain or brain stem, killing the target and preventing the target from retaliating.

History

Rhodesian Mike Rousseau was serving as a mercenary in the Mozambican War of Independence. While engaged in fighting at the airport of Lourenco Marques (modern-day Maputo), Rousseau was armed with only a Browning HP35 pistol. As he turned a corner, he bumped into a FRELIMO guerrilla armed with an AK-47. Rousseau immediately performed a "double tap" maneuver, a controlled shooting technique in which the shooter makes two quick shots at the target's torso. Rousseau hit the target on either side of the sternum, usually enough to incapacitate or kill a target outright. Seeing that the guerrilla was still advancing, Rosseau made a clumsy attempt at a head shot that hit the guerrilla through the base of his neck, severing the spinal cord.emphasis added

Rousseau later related the story to an acquaintance, shootist Jeff Cooper. Cooper later incorporated the "triple tap" maneuver (two quick shots to the torso and one quick-aimed shot to the head) into his practical shooting technique. Rousseau was later killed in action in the Rhodesian War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill

While I consider myself experienced with shooting, I also realize that any attempt to hit a person's head in real life is difficult and if I miss, I may well endanger innocent people. I would be reluctant to attempt such a shot unless I was absolutely sure I could make it. It is also my desire to stop any attack and hopefully not to kill the attacker. Many people suggest shooting for the legs of an attacker or the hand that holds his weapon. Such shots are even more difficult than shots to center body mass and once again misses endanger innocent bystanders.

Jeff Cooper had abilities with shooting far beyond any I will every achieve as do many of the people who practice the Mozambique_Drill. They are often competitive shooters. Comparing me to such people is like comparing a good amateur golfer to a professional golfer, It's always wise to realize your limitations.

In a previous post you mentioned the cost that is incurred from non fatal injuries caused by shootings. I agree that it is indeed expensive but I would point out that if it is a choice between me or a member of my family ending up in a hospital or six feet under, I will choose to use my handgun in legitimate self defense as defined under the laws of the state I live in.

I am fully aware that such actions may not be successful or may well result in major legal or psychological problems that will negatively effect my future life. That is why I have absolutely no intentions of ever using my firearm for self defense unless there is No other choice.

You also say:

And long years of common law, and codified law in so many civilized places, actually requires that people who use force in self-defence not intend to kill.

If you carefully read my post you will see that I have no intentions of killing an attacker. I merely intend to stop his attack. Unfortunately, the attacker might end up seriously injured or dead and I will do everything within my power to avoid finding myself in a situation where I have to use my firearm for legitimate self defense. Also in the United States which you may not feel is civilized, our laws do not permit shooting a person without good reason whether or not death results.

edited to better clarify.

[ileus]

40. I recommend not wasting time aiming at a small target like the head...instead

plant a third or fourth (5th, 6th, or 7th) center mass.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Most defensive fights are at contact range and leave powder burns.

At that range one shoots using point-shoot (sometimes called snap-shoot) technique instead of traditional aiming. At five feet the head isn't a hard target.

[ileus]

59. I worry about shooting myself in the leg practicing a drill like that.

LOL....

up close and personal are one of the reasons I'm thinking a revolver (instead of a G36) should be me next carry gun.


I know it's pretty easy to knock my 380,45, or 9's out of battery if they come in contact with anything.

[GreenStormCloud]

68. And a revolver can be fired from inside a pocket.

Airsoft guns make excellent, cheap, close range practice, and they don't kill or seriously injure anybody if a face mask is worn.

[Euromutt]

103. You might consider an XD

The guide rod intentionally protrudes some distance precisely to prevent the slide being pushed out of battery. The Croatian manufacturer even patented it.

[Blown330]

16. Another wall of words...

...that has nothing to do with the topic. If you are going to accuse others of not staying on topic then you should at least be able to do so yourself. Not even original either, so little effort on your part. I guess none here should expect you to do any real heavy lifting anyway. Pitiful.

[iverglas]

22. "disabling ability of firearms": can you read?

That was the topic.

You really don't accomplish anything by insulting whatever or whomever you don't happen to like.

You just look silly.

So little effort on my part ... yeah, I actually read and comprehended those papers. Something nobody hereabouts bothered to do.

:eyes:

[rl6214]

24. Pot, Kettle, Black

"You really don't accomplish anything by insulting whatever or whomever you don't happen to like."

[iverglas]

27. I know; this is your sandbox

and you'll pee in it if you wanna.

[Blown330]

34. Pee can be dealt with...

...you shitting in it, copiously, is more of a concern. You really stink up the place.

[rl6214]

41. I'm not the one that posted this, you are

"You really don't accomplish anything by insulting whatever or whomever you don't happen to like."

I'm just reminding you of your own post. Every one of your posts has some sort of insult in it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. Actually it is not clear that you do

[iverglas]

85. "disabling ability of firearms" -- how much clearer could it be?

Anybody hereabouts just want to pretend to be in deep denial about that ability and those disabilities?

[SteveM]

61. Sounds like Phil Specter's Wall of Sound! nt

[Ragrum]

4. Good Data ...

I hope you never have to use a pistol against an attack.

Carry if you fear you might be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If you do, carry what you can train and that is more than punching paper.

[ileus]

6. Long guns are king in stopping power...excellent link

[oneshooter]

32. A handgun is used to get to a real gun, your rifle. n/t

[rrneck]

8. Interesting.

Pretty much confirms what I've always thought. (Which is always fun.)

It matters less less what sort of equipment you have than your ability to operate it. Training is much important than smart shopping.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. According to the data, the best handgun to have is a .32

:shrug:

[ileus]

10. people with a 32 are old turds that know how to shoot.

[Hoopla Phil]

17. LOL, you may be on to something there. What was that adage?

Don't pick a fight with an old guy - he may just shoot ya.

But on a serious note, based on muzzle energy, a .32 is a very poor choice for defense.

[DWC]

20. Well, I am an old turd who knows how to shoot but

I constant carry a .380

It is light weight and easy to conceal but pretty useless except when up close and personal. Beyond that range I believe in situational awareness and avoidance.

Semper Fi,

[ileus]

38. add me to the list of old turds packing a 380 most of the time.

[oneshooter]

45. Put me in the 45cal slot.

If I need to put holes is somebody, I want them to be as large as possable.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

37. Not quite

There's a lot of factors to consider, and one of them is the percentage of people who were not incapacitated; for the .32 ACP, that's 40%--the worst result of the rounds examined--which compares very unfavorably to the rounds generally accepted to be adequate for self-defense (.380 and up), which have "failure to stop" rates ranging from 9% to 17%.

[gejohnston]

72. I am guessing that

was part of the reason German (and maybe Dutch) police departments dumped .32s in the 70s? I remember there was a small flood of used Walther PPs when HK P7,IIRC was introduced.

[Euromutt]

75. That was probably a large part of it, yes

In the late 1970s, the Dutch police finally got rid of the 7.65mm FN Browning 1910/22s they'd been using since before World War II and adopted the Walther P5 in 9mm. Issues cited with the 7.65mm (.32 ACP) round was both insufficient consistency in incapacitating the target, and overpenetration with the FMJ rounds issued. The P5, incidentally, is finally due to be replaced over the coming two years with the SIG-Sauer PPNL (Politiepistool Nederland, "Police Pistol Netherlands"), a modified P250.

Though the adoption of a 9x19mm round in the P5 was supposed to resolve concerns regarding duty ammunition, the Dutch government fucked about for another 16 years with FMJ rounds and the "Action 1" round, neither of which performed as desired, before finally adopting the "Action 3." The PPNL will be accompanied by the introduction of the "Action 4." The "Action"-series of rounds are an attempt to manufacture a round that performs a more efficient transference of kinetic energy to the target than an FMJ while still complying with the letter of the Declaration (III) additional to the Convention of The Hague of 1899 (for no readily apparent reason, since the Declaration "is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them"); they resemble hollowpoints in that that the tip of the bullet is designed to expand upon impact, but no further than the total width of the bullet. Studies of police shootings showed that the "Action 1" still tended to overpenetrate in 73-83% of cases, which explains why they're already on the Mk. 4.

[azureblue]

14. Long ago i had a conversation

with a person who knows, about handguns for personal defense, the point being what size produces the desired result- stopping an attacker. The topics revolved around caliber and muzzle velocity, and practicality. that is, for instance, a .357 would make great physical damage, but the slug would also probably keep going, and maybe cause damage to others or property. Similar for a high power low caliber. So what about a low muzzle velocity handgun with a large slug, the idea being knock down, not kill power? He made a good point for an old black powder type Colt, but the real decision is do you want to kill an attacker, or just stop them? I wound up with a .380, mostly because I didn't want any of my shots to go much further than the walls of the room, or at least, once they went trough the wall, most of the velocity was spent.

[oneshooter]

47. The best tested round for a 357Mag. is the 125gr JHP

It expands violently and creates a large amount of hydrostatic shock. It also does not tend to over penetrate. That is why the Texas Ranges and the Texas DPS(State troopers) use the 357 SIG cartridge.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

15. interesting

Before I get to the details, I must give a warning. I don't have any dog in this fight!

Trying to find more about this Greg Ellifritz ... like the original publication of this article. Presumably he doesn't object to it being published in full at the Buckeye Firearms Association site -- home of some of the rightest-wing shitheads on the globe.

A link here which is presumably intended to be about him:

http://www.guns.com/firearms-stopping-power-by-greg-ellifritz-or-which-bullets-work.html

goes to a dead page here:

http://tdiohio.com/cqpc.htm
"Tactical Defense Institute
Firearms and Physical Self Defence Training"

Yeah ... no dog in the race of the whole WE NEED GUNS EVERY MINUTE OF EVER DAY IN EVERY PLACE AND EVERY WAY agenda.

http://tdiohio.com/about-us/

For people for whom paintball just doesn't do it.


Well, anyhow. Let us know when the peer review is complete. Assuming he's submitted it somewhere where things like peer review count.

[gejohnston]

36. If there are professional journals for

ballistics, sure.

[PavePusher]

48. Facsinating how every anti- that screams for better training....

then screams about people who show interest in that very same better training.

Jello.

[Euromutt]

55. You're not supposed to *get* better training!

The training requirement is supposed to be an insurmountable obstacle to you getting to possess, let alone carry, a firearm. Geez, don't you know anything?! :P

[PavePusher]

66. Damnit, I missed another memo or meeting, didn't I? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Like those that blather on about "well-regulated militas", but don't actually *want* them.

I've even asked some of them if they were willing to help set up a Swiss-style militia, and have never gotten an answer.

They just want to invoke the 'militia' bit in order to prevent people from getting guns.



Same thing with the "Goldilocks" training requirements:


If you don't get formal training, you're an irresponsible idiot who will end up accidently killing a relative or some kid

playing on the lawn next door.


If you do get formal training, you're preparing to kill someone (and probably plotting a massacre).


The prohibitionists want it both ways, and think we don't notice....

[iverglas]

56. do you imagine

that the training that is then being called for amounts to learning the most effective way to kill someone quickly?

:puke:

[PavePusher]

64. Do you imagine... I-dunno-what-the-fuck.....

that learning how to stop someone from attacking you might result in their death? Whether intentional or not?

[iverglas]

78. do you imgine

that what you have said addresses what I said?

Gun World is a very strange place to visit, but I would not want to live there.

learning how to stop someone from attacking you might result in their death? Whether intentional or not?

Beg the question much?

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. Even widely taught unarmed self-defense techniques might be lethal to the attacker.

They probably won't be, mind you- but the heel of the hand to the bridge of the nose-fingers, keys, or pen in the eye- or

ruptured testicles have been known to be fatal- "socially correct" or not....

[iverglas]

82. deleted

double posted the danged thing

[Blown330]

18. As for stopping power...

....largely a myth. Specifics on cartridges aside, there are far too many variables dealing with physiological and psychological characteristics in people to say anything definitive on the subject. Shot placement is more important than caliber but both pale in comparison with the constitution of the person being shot.

[ileus]

42. You mean people don't go flying backwards in the air like the movies...LOL

[Kennah]

46. I would say yes and no

Shot placement is critical, but once the shots land there is a lot to be said for making sure one has "enough" gun and "potent enough" ammo. FBI in Miami 1986 comes to mind.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

57. This thead has opened my eyes....I'm seriously considering a G36 as my next carry pistol.

Thanks again for posting this here, it's not often we get well researched objective SD articles around here.

[Euromutt]

60. You must be joking

Who wants to deal with H&K's crappy customer service? Have you considered a Serbu Super-Shorty?
Sure, it's an NFA item, but only an AOW.

[ileus]

67. No thanks on pistol grip shotguns....

My wrists are old. LOL

[SteveM]

62. Strange, the .44 Special is not considered...

Perhaps because it has fallen out of favor as a self-defense round. I believe Cooper said (some 50 yrs. ago) that the .44 Spl was on a par with the .45 ACP as a combat round due to similar performance characteristics. It also has a reputation for being accurate at moderately long ranges, and as a mild kicker.

[PavePusher]

65. The only problem with it that I can think of...

is that every gun I've seen that can fire it, is also capable of firing the Magnum, and thus is a large, heavy, long-barreled revolver, not generally conducive to legal concealment, and not really even very comfortable for daily open carry.

[DissedByBush]

70. Other way around

A pistol chambered in .44 Magnum can also fire a .44 Special.

Technically a .44 Magnum could have been created with the same size case as a .44 Special, but they lengthened the case so that a Magnum wouldn't fit in a gun chambered for the Special, because the higher pressures would blow a Special pistol apart.

Now as far as .44 special pistols, here is one good concealed carry, Charter Arms Bulldog, with hand for comparison:



Warning: For a few years back when, these were made very cheaply. Research before buying. New ones are OK, so are older, original ones.

[SteveM]

79. This is true, although S&W manufactures a .44 Spl only revolver.

[iverglas]

83. I'm so confused

If someone had posted an article detailing Michael Vick's relationship with dogs, I think most DU members would have responded with words amounting to "this is sick shit".

I respond to an article about how to shoot people with the same comment, and ... well, I don't get to do that.

The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this.

I have an opinion about this kind of material and the people who write it.

It's sick shit, and they're sick pieces of it.

Apart altogether from the fact that it's a piece of junk that doesn't rise to the level of junk science.

And I think I DO get to say that at Democratic Underground.

[iverglas]

84. and I'd like to elaborate

This is what the rules for this place say:

Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum.

Personal-interest discussion about guns and weaponry should be posted in the Outdoor Life Group. By "personal interest" I mean, any discussion that is unrelated to public policy ...

Discussions of the various law and policy related aspects of "self-defence", yup.

Instructions on how to use a gun to shoot people? How does that fall within the parameters outlined above?


typo fixed

[PavePusher]

102. Jello. n/t

[krispos42]

86. Michael Vick doesn't have anything to do with armed self-defense

If you had, on the other hand, posted an article detailing how to gut and cook a squirrel or raccoon or deer, that would fall under the "kinda gross but might be necessary for survival" heading.

[ileus]

87. Hopefully Vick has another good year...be nice to see him in the Super Bowl

[iverglas]

90. it would have been nice to see him living in his car

[krispos42]

93. Amen, sister.

An immobile 1985 Monte Carlo full of junk.

[iverglas]

89. and

If you had, on the other hand, posted an article detailing how to gut and cook a squirrel or raccoon or deer, that would fall under the "kinda gross but might be necessary for survival" heading.

it would not fall under the "appropriate for posting in the Guns forum at Democratic Underground" heading.


Michael Vick doesn't have anything to do with armed self-defense

Are you insinuating that I said he did?

I'm saying that instructions for how to shoot someone in the head do not have anything to do with public policy. You did read the bit I quoted from the rules?

When something is posted at Democratic Underground, it is posted FOR COMMENT.

My comment is that what was posted is sick shit. Just like pretty much everyone would have said and has said about a lot of things posted at Democratic Underground.



omitted word fixed

[krispos42]

91. Well

gutting and cooking a squirrel doesn't have to do with armed self-defense, unless that was one honkin' rodent.

Figuring out what works best in armed self-defense is a valid topic of the Gungeon.


As to Michael Vick, hey, you brought him up as an analogy, not me.

[iverglas]

94. why?

Figuring out what works best in armed self-defense is a valid topic of the Gungeon.

When the rules clearly state that discussions that are not about PUBLIC POLICY do not belong here?

[krispos42]

95. To quote the Admins:

"Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum."

[iverglas]

98. which I already did

I just didn't pretend that a partial quotation is a proper tactic.

Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum.

Personal-interest discussion about guns and weaponry should be posted in the Outdoor Life Group. By "personal interest" I mean, any discussion that is unrelated to public policy ...

How to kill people strikes me as a personal-interest discussion.

[krispos42]

101. So, it's contradictory then?

Since "personal interest" is broad and "use of firearms for self-defense" is specific, I'm going with Gungeon.


The ATA forum is open for you to ask for clarification, of course.

[iverglas]

104. not as far as I can see

"By 'personal interest' I mean, any discussion that is unrelated to public policy ..."

What's unspecific about that? "Any discussion that is unrelated to public policy".

There are aspects of "the use of firearms for self-defence" that are plainly related to public policy. They're discussed here all the time.

[krispos42]

118. Well, the Admins and Mods seem inclined to leave these sorts of things here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x3810

Since most gun politics revolved around crime and armed self-defense.

[iverglas]

120. "Since most gun politics revolved around crime and armed self-defense."

Or since the vast majority of members of DU wouldn't stomach them anywhere else.

We can all speculate. ;)

[krispos42]

121. It's called the "Gungeon" for a very good reason.

Although, honestly, it's nice to be able to debate the polar opposite side of something instead of variations of a theme. :D

[RSillsbee]

88. Why is this sick?

"How is this discussion “sick”? Stopping power is a legitimate concern when purchasing a weapon for self defense. Having been shot, I can tell you that one .38 stopped me. So I would fell completely confident in using a .38 for self defense although my preference is for .40 S&W

Having shot another human being (2 human beings actually) I can tell you that one of them was still on his feet after the second 3 round burst on 5.56 NATO. Hence, I would never use 5.56mm ball ammunition for self defense.

The purpose of my self defense gun is to stop a person that is intent on killing me or doing me grievous bodily harm from doing so. If and when that happens I want to know that I’ve made the best selection of ammunition available.

Is it “sick’ when Armies and police forces do the exact same thing? They are usually the ones who commission these studies

[iverglas]

92. why are you putting words in my mouth?

In the hope of getting my comment deleted?

I didn't say "this discussion" is sick.

I said the material linked to in the opening post is sick shit.

My opinion!


Is it “sick’ when Armies and police forces do the exact same thing? They are usually the ones who commission these studies

They do not do "the exact same thing".

And nobody commissioned this "study".

[RSillsbee]

97. They do not do "the exact same thing".

Oh, yes they do

The U.S. Army went to the .45 APC specifically because the .38 special wasn't reliably stopping the Moro tribesmen in the Phillipines.

One of the things that they did before deciding on the .45 ACP round was to shoot pigs, goats and cadavers and study the wounds the various rounds made.

[iverglas]

99. I didn't even bother to try to figure out what "the exact same thing" was ...

Your post was incoherent. So is this one. What is the same as what else? I garner no clue.

I don't give a good goddamn what anybody's army does. If someone wants to discuss that subject, perhaps they'll find an appropriate forum for it.

[PavePusher]

113. It's Jello. Don't waste your time. n/t

[oneshooter]

96. She seems to believe that nothing ill will happen to anybody. If they are her followers. n/t

[iverglas]

100. how many times am I going to have to report your posts

and those of your fellow travellers, and how many of them have to be deleted, before you get it?

If you want to use the juvenile "on ignore" tactic, here's what you do: you IGNORE.

If anybody needs a definition of that word, I'll be happy to supply it.

[Hoyt]

105. I agree. People obsessed with carrying special "loads" ought to be prohibited from carrying.

Their mind ain't in the right place.

[DonP]

115. That must include disarming the police too, I assume?

Since "hollow points' are standard issue to most forces now with the exception of the military. But I don't know if asking a cop if they have a "special load" is such a good idea

Or did you mean Carolyn McCarthy style exploding or heat seeking bullets as "special loads"?

Oh wait, never mind, you really have no freakin idea what a special load is, do you?

You heard it somewhere and thought it sounded cool and dangerous and keep repeating it as if it has some power to intimidate or frighten. The problem is most of us actually know what they are and that's why we kind of laugh every time you try and use that phrase. I use 30.06 "special loads" in my Springfield '03. But keep it up, we need the humor.

All those Georgia "toters", living on your block and surrounding you every time you go to the store, no wonder you spend most of your time in the basement.

It must be very stressful to be you.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

106. a "sick prize"

By extrapolation can it be said that the more death, injury and pain created, the "sicker" those involved become?


Who then gets the prize? FDR, Leslie Groves, Robert Oppenheimer or Albert Einstein?

[iverglas]

107. ah, a direct question

By extrapolation can it be said that the more death, injury and pain created, the "sicker" those involved become?

No.

Of course, you should have left out the "by extrapolation", since it loaded your question with a false premise: that you were in fact extrapolating from anything I said.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

108. Then why not? n/t

[iverglas]

109. just not how it works

If you want to claim that something is an extrapolation from something I said, you offer the demonstration.

(a) what I said
(b) what you are extrapolating from it
(c) how you did that

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

110. Hmmm...

A lawyer and/or math major I think. ;)

[iverglas]

111. close

Ex-lawyer and philosophy major.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

112. I kind of...

...enjoyed symbolic logic.

And you're in or at least from Canada.

I almost worked in Peterborough once. Have you been there?

[iverglas]

116. Yes indeed, I've been to Peterborough

First in the dead of winter 1970 for one of those radical student conference things.

Last time was when I was trying to make my way from point X to point Y via Peterborough, a virtually impossible undertaking, and spent a fair bit of time driving around Peterborough in circles ...

That was better than what google maps had told me to do, though. And I swear I am not making this up; it wouldn't have occurred to me to do that!

Google maps would not give me the route I wanted from point X to point Y, through Peterborough. It just kept giving me the longer boring one. So I decided to try first asking it to take me from point X to Peterborough, the easy and quite direct part. It was the Peterborough to point Y part I had trouble with. (Most people just decide you can't get there from here.)

So google maps started off taking me toward the border. Sigh, that was the route I did not want to take. But I followed along. Well, it didn't just take me toward the border, it took me over it. This seemed rather odd to me. Eventually it took me to Boston.

Oh, right; I realized it was taking me to Peterborough, Northamptonshire, England. Well, that's cool; I have ancestors from around there and a couple of distant cousins I'd met in 1994 when I was there, so what the heck. It was surely taking me to where I could get the cheapest and most direct flight to England.

But no. It took me to the edge of the Atlantic Ocean ... and then ...

It directed me to "swim the Atlantic ocean".

I am not making this up!

It took me to France: the shortest distance between two points on either side of the pond. Then it took me up the coast, having presumably procured a vehicle for me, to the narrowest part of the Channel, and directed me to swim that. Then I was to acquire another vehicle and drive north.

Cheapest, most direct ... but perhaps not the shortest time-wise.

Anyway. Trent University has got to be one of the most depressing places on earth in winter. The 1960s school of university architecture: bleak concrete bunkers.

I did once have a lunch date with a gunhead from Peterborough. He had found me at an on-line personals site (before the current co-vivant did, phew) and insisted we do lunch when he was in town despite my assurances he would be wasting his time, so I thought what the heck, how often do I get that chance? A specimen up close and personal. I was somewhat surprised that he had no clue whatsoever (this was in the mid-90s) what the public policies and concerns and facts & arguments that drove Canadian firearms policy were. I think he probably regretted his insistance, but maybe he learned something. ;)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

119. Peterborough, maps, gunheads

I've heard that Peterborough is rather pleasant but probably not in Winter. I've never been there as that contract was moving slower than Chicago, which is where I went. Chicago is okay to work in but avoid connecting through ORD at all costs during Winter.

If you really want a punishing drive, leave Woodbridge, VA at 2PM any Friday and drive to Philly. 171 miles, my worst time 7 hours 22 minutes. Yes, I was on an interstate.

"Swim the Atlantic Ocean" I've always found google maps to direct. Maybe not in its routing but in its instructions. ;)

Most of us gunheads have our own ideas but I suppose you think we "should be sealed in a case that reads 'break glass only in the event of war'."

Ya' think?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

123. My two cents:

This thread has become a bit long and I apologize for not having thoroughly read through it and for any of my comments that are redundant.

Information on the disabling effect of various rounds is important when considering a defensive firearm due to the objective being to halt an assault by an aggressor and the faster that happens, the better off you are.

rule #23. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

(IMHO maximizing the energy imparted will involve using higher caliber, unjacketed, hollow point lead ammo.)

rule #27. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4".

Here are a few principles from general biology and physics:

• Damage to an organism will generally be proportional to the energy imparted from the projectile.
  
• Mechanical energy of a projectile equals 1/2 the mass of the projectile times the square of the projectile velocity.
  
• Projectiles that pass completely through an organism clearly have not imparted all of their energy.

I tend to reject the idea of "Dirty Harry's" 44 magnum due to the inherent difficulty in reloading. On the other hand, a point to its favor is the fact that a revolver jams much less than a mag-fed pistol. Also, the ability to deliver as many rounds as it may take to disable an aggressor(s) is vital. A high capacity magazine and (at least) one spare should be planned.

The best weapons and ammo in the world will never be as beneficial as experience, training and preparedness.
Never underestimate the value of and your ability to effectively operate the safety features of your chosen firearm. More important than its disabling characteristics is your own ability to operate that weapon so as to deliver on target shots to your aggressors only and injure no friendlies.

Military rounds are generally less than ideal for personal self-defense. They tend to be, by international convention, fully jacketed and frequently designed for weapons that are chosen more for long term durability than for ideal accuracy.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

125. After some research...

...I have found that the best expert, now, in the field of terminal ballistics is Dr. Gary Roberts, former Navy Lt. Commander, who works in the San Francisco area. User "DocGKR" is he: DocGKR

Caution: the site linked above contains graphic information.