How many of these myths do you still believe?

[charlie b]

A lot of issues with gun fight information is that nothing is very consistent. One perp will die on the spot and another shot in basically the same place with same or larger caliber will go on to kill a couple more people, or live long enough to get in surgery and be repaired. Same for the 'good guys'. Some people will 'give up' after being shot in a non-lethal location (eg, arm or leg muscle) while another will take hits to vital organs and go on fighting. And, it has less to do with caliber/bullet than it does the person.

Just read some Medal of Honor citations. People were shot multiple times, even having legs or arms severed, and they still manage to continue to fight.

There was a study done of shootings over several years and over a thousand incidents that described as best it could results of caliber (sorry I can't find my link to it). About the only conclusion it made was that shotguns and rifles are better than pistols and pistols less than .380 were marginal (many failures to stop). The problem with the data is the lack of data. There just are not that many cases of someone being shot with a .44Mag for example. So, if one person being shot with a certain caliber weapon and not stopped mean much or was it just because the shot was not placed properly? And much of the data was not very complete, ie, was the shot recorded in the ER the only shot fired or was it one of 20 and that one just happened to hit the person?

I do agree that, everything else being equal, a bigger (and maybe faster) bullet MAY be better than a smaller one. But, is a brain shot with a .380 going to make the person less dead than a brain shot with 00 buckshot? Will a 9mm that severs the aorta be less effective than a .44 that does the same thing?

In my mind the larger, faster bullets make a difference when non-CNS organs are hit. The possibility that the person will react more to a larger, faster projectile is more likely. OTOH, I know of two people who were 'blown off their feet' (their words, not mine) by .38 snub nose revolvers using ball ammo. One was hit in the upper arm, the other in the thigh (no arteries severed).

So, cherry picking an incident to make a case does not seem worthy of making a general conclusion. It is valid as a cautionary tale, that your .500 S&W may not cause the victim to immediately flop over on his back and die.

I do like to bring a gun to a gun fight, since I am not skilled with knife fighting. Which gun? I have several and any one may serve me well if I shoot it accurately. And, yes, I do carry extra ammo

[Wag]

A lot of issues with gun fight information is that nothing is very consistent. One perp will die on the spot and another shot in basically the same place with same or larger caliber will go on to kill a couple more people, or live long enough to get in surgery and be repaired. Same for the 'good guys'. Some people will 'give up' after being shot in a non-lethal location (eg, arm or leg muscle) while another will take hits to vital organs and go on fighting. And, it has less to do with caliber/bullet than it does the person.

Just read some Medal of Honor citations. People were shot multiple times, even having legs or arms severed, and they still manage to continue to fight.

There was a study done of shootings over several years and over a thousand incidents that described as best it could results of caliber (sorry I can't find my link to it). About the only conclusion it made was that shotguns and rifles are better than pistols and pistols less than .380 were marginal (many failures to stop). The problem with the data is the lack of data. There just are not that many cases of someone being shot with a .44Mag for example. So, if one person being shot with a certain caliber weapon and not stopped mean much or was it just because the shot was not placed properly? And much of the data was not very complete, ie, was the shot recorded in the ER the only shot fired or was it one of 20 and that one just happened to hit the person?

I do agree that, everything else being equal, a bigger (and maybe faster) bullet MAY be better than a smaller one. But, is a brain shot with a .380 going to make the person less dead than a brain shot with 00 buckshot? Will a 9mm that severs the aorta be less effective than a .44 that does the same thing?

In my mind the larger, faster bullets make a difference when non-CNS organs are hit. The possibility that the person will react more to a larger, faster projectile is more likely. OTOH, I know of two people who were 'blown off their feet' (their words, not mine) by .38 snub nose revolvers using ball ammo. One was hit in the upper arm, the other in the thigh (no arteries severed).

So, cherry picking an incident to make a case does not seem worthy of making a general conclusion. It is valid as a cautionary tale, that your .500 S&W may not cause the victim to immediately flop over on his back and die.

I do like to bring a gun to a gun fight, since I am not skilled with knife fighting. Which gun? I have several and any one may serve me well if I shoot it accurately. And, yes, I do carry extra ammo

Very well stated, Charlie.

Myths or facts in this case are more likely than not, based on anecdotal evidence. Just because a plated bullet passed through three people in one scenario doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to always use plated bullets.

In many instances, we also have to beware of outdated information. Referencing another post, it used to be true that .380 ammo should be selected based on the type of clothing people are likely to be wearing but with new ammo technologies, that's a lot less true and we can more reliably use hollow point .380 ammo these days.

Still, the remains as it always was: Risk management. How we make our decisions factors in as many of our perceptions of reality as anything. We're just weighing likelihoods of events. We're minimizing the risks of where we go and when we go there. We're deciding how much ammo we prefer to carry vs. the caliber we use. We decide if we're going to anticipate multiple attackers or not.

Each of these are mere possibilities with the clear understanding that we're never going to encounter the situation we prepared for, regardless. We can hope that we've prepared enough so that if we're ever dumped into an untenable situation, we'll be able to adapt more readily than if we never did prepare at all.

--Wag--

[reddog81]

There is no doubt in my mind that innocent people have been killed by over penetrating bullets. I would bet that more have been killed by stay bullets.

Rifle bullets have the energy to take out 2 people. 9mm rounds might hit someone in the arm and then go onto hit someone else and be fatal, but I have a hard time believing a 9mm bullet is going pass through someone's torso and then have enough energy to pass through another torso and then go into another person deep enough to be fatal as stated in the original article.

[Drm50]

I agree, there is only a tiny chance of that happening. Dwelling on a few odd cases is fruitless. What if, stuff is endless but not practical to worry about.

[M-Tecs]

We have historical data that addresses the maximum penetration. Before the gas chambers the German death camps would line the people up and shoot them. They used both rifles and handguns. Depending on size for the rifle they would shoot 7 or more. For the handgun it was at least three. I have watched some of these on the History Channel and I never could understand why the people never rushed the executioners since the knew with 100% certainty that they would be shot if they did nothing.

[gwpercle]

I still believe in Santa Claus

[Mr_Sheesh]

I know of a case where someone has such horrid arthritis that they hurt from shooting a .22LR pistol (and they're a criminal defense lawyer...) Shot placement and accurate shooting count for a lot too. Misses don't stop your opponent from hurting you.

[charlie b]

One other comment on bigger calibers. Maybe there is someone out there who said, 'I wish I had carried my 9mm instead of the 10mm.' Why might they say that? Maybe that person could have fired off that third shot with a 9mm (two shots to torso, one to the head) but the recoil of the 10mm meant only two shots were fired and the victim was able to recover and fire back.

Yep, training might have made a difference, and it may not.

Or the smaller caliber may have meant more rounds available and one more may make a difference. Or a larger caliber may mean a center torso shot takes out the spine and you don't need another shot.

If it was just a matter of bigger is best then every combatant out there would carry a .500

So many variables to consider.

These are not simple questions with simple answers.

[NWPilgrim]

Very good discussion, several points I had not considered much. Real life scenarios are complicated that is for sure. I was thinking over my defenses ammo last month and although I have shot at least 200 rds of my current bonded HP through each carry pistol to verify reliability I still have a concern niggling at the back of my mind.

I shoot a few thousand rds every year but 99% are FMJ or LTC/LRN. So I am 1000% confident in that ammo since I shoot it so often and under so many different conditions. I do not have a LEA budget nor get huge discounts on Fed HST so I can not afford to practice often with my bonded HP ammo like some police depts do. Regardless of the relative effectiveness of FMJ/lead versus premium HP, the bullet construction won’t matter if it does not feed or eject properly one out of a thousand times and that just happens to be the one I really need.

To me the priorities seem to be:
- highest level of reliable feeding, firing, and ejection
- reliable penetration, and who knows how much is needed in an unknown circumstance
- affordable to allow frequent practice at various ranges and conditions and likely in multiple pistols
- best possible bullet expansion under various conditions: clothing, barriers, lack of same, frontal entry in body, sideways, arm in the way, etc.
- reduce legal risks if jury trial

I have not changed what I carry yet (Win PDX and Speer GD) but I am finding it more convincing to carry what I practice with all the time. It doesn’t feel right to just shoot a couple hundred rounds initially then maybe a box or two a year afterward to reconfirm reliability. Thoughts?

[FergusonTO35]

I'm with your line of thinking, practice with what you carry. Flat point boolits are dirt cheap, accurate, and function great in all my pistols. A wide flat point will expand some and does more damage than a round nose or a JHP that fails to expand.

[charlie b]

I do put expensive stuff in my carry guns, these days Hornady Defense ammo. I do not practice with it. I do run several magazines to make sure it will function in autoloaders. My experience has been if it will function well after a few mags it will be good when I need it.

I practice with cheap plated bullets or cast bullets loaded to similar power level (hits at same POI).

After 40 years of reloading and shooting the only times I have had cartridge combinations with feeding/cycling problems, those problems showed up almost immediately.

PS I picked the Hornady stuff because it is designed to meet the FBI performance standards for penetration and expansion.

[FergusonTO35]

An addendum: most of the time I am carrying a "marginal" cartridge, either .380 Auto or .38 Special. I don't believe that either of these cartridges fired from a short barrel are going to gain much if any advantage with a premium expanding bullet unless the velocity and pressure are raised significantly. A 90-100 grain .380 doesn't have much more sectional density than a round ball. That is not to say it can't work well, but expansion is probably going to come at the expense of alot of penetration. The typical 150 grain+ .38 Special has the sectional density, but most of these loads only get 600-700 fps out of a snubnose. The bullet really needs to be moving at least 850 fps to get decent expansion. Which means, more pressure and recoil or a lighter bullet. The latter, of course, turns the .38 Special into a slightly heavier .380 Auto and we find ourselves in the same quandary of expanding bullet with low sectional density.

[Idaho45guy]

I do put expensive stuff in my carry guns, these days Hornady Defense ammo. I do not practice with it. I do run several magazines to make sure it will function in autoloaders. My experience has been if it will function well after a few mags it will be good when I need it.

As did I until I actually did accuracy testing with it and discovered that my particular carry gun, although reliable with it, was not at all accurate. In fact, with reloads it would do 2" groups at 25yds, and with the Hornady Critical Defense, it would barely do 8" at 25yds. With a rest. NOT acceptable accuracy for me.

So I now carry my own reloads fine-tuned to meet power levels of the factory defense ammo and using either Speer Gold Dots or Hornady XTP bullets. They are much more accurate and a fraction of the cost.

Yes, I know the arguments against using reloads for self-defense. Mas is very much against the practice. I am comfortable with the statistics.

[FergusonTO35]

If you are at least a competent reloader using factory bullets in new brass, how is anybody going to tell the difference? You are pretty much using factory ammo in kit form: some assembly required!

[charlie b]

The Hornady ammo has been just fine for me. 9mm HK VP9, Python and 9mmMak.

Check out .380 and .38spl ammo. Hornady ammo is specifically made to work at the velocities of the cartridge, ie, the .380 bullet is not the same as the 9mm bullet and the .38spl bullet is not the same as the .357mag bullets.

[Tom W.]

We have historical data that addresses the maximum penetration. Before the gas chambers the German death camps would line the people up and shoot them. They used both rifles and handguns. Depending on size for the rifle the would shoot 7 or more. For the handgun it was at least three. I have watched some of these on the History Channel and I never could understand why the people never rushed the executioners since the knew with 100% certainty that they would be shot if they did nothing.

They did the same thing at Andersonville prison during the civil war, but the prisoners were tied together. As hard as they had it there it was probably a blessing.

[Bigslug]

I think I've been getting a STRONGER belief in "Myth" #5 as time goes on.

Yes, there was the 1980's fad of the light-for-caliber hollowpoint that pancaked on impact and failed to penetrate worth a ****, but when you get right down to it, there seems to be a lot of lily-gilding.

I find it amusing that Ayoob is citing the Hickock/Tutt shooting right before addressing this. If ever there was a case to be made for your choice of gun and ammo not really mattering all that much, it is this shooting. With his .36 caliber, 1851 Navy Colt stoked with round ball, Hickock achieved a 70-yard, 1-shot stop with what amounted to a non-expanding .380 ACP. No pretty mushroom, no jacket expanding outward with fangs, just penetration to something probably within the FBI's currently-desired 12"-18" if gel test results of the classic blackpowder wheelguns are to be believed.

I find it interesting that he's still wringing his hands about over-penetration of bad guys as a leading threat to bystanders, when something like 70-80% of all rounds fired by cops MISS, creating the greater hazard of strays that aren't being slowed down by ANYTHING. Modern duty loads arrived on the scene because the stuff of the past often didn't penetrate ENOUGH. Yes, it's cool that the modern stuff is often stopped by the skin or clothing on the far side, but if a round has enough "juice" to make it through an upper arm on a side shot and still reach the vitals, it by is going to have enough "juice" to punch through both sides of a malnourished meth-head. I also find it odd that after beating Cardinal Firearms Safety Rule #4 (be sure of your target's surroundings and backstop) into everyone's heads in training, we seem to utterly disregard it as soon as we start talking about terminal ballistics.

He also, STILL, as of the 2016 writing, appears to be hung up on the concept of "stopping power", impact energy, call it what you will. Bad guys don't feel any more "impact" on the receiving end than your firing hand gets from recoil. Newton, folks - look him up.

What it's down to is placement, penetration, and maybe diameter, if you can get it without sacrificing the first two. We can generally place rounds much better if they aren't beating the **** out of us; penetration is almost purely a factor of tuning bullet design rather than the cartridge that launches it; and diameter isn't going to vary more than a few tenths of an inch with any gun we'd likely carry. If getting that diameter gives you a harder to control pistol that is either placing your rounds MULTIPLE inches from your intended point of aim, or it slows you down to where you can only drill ONE hole to effective depth instead of two or even three, what does the extra couple tenths actually DO for you?

So while NO, I won't be taking along a Walther PPK full of ball ammo to Alaska for my final defense against Kodiak bears, I no longer regard the concept as suicidally insane as I would have 30 years ago.

[Ozark mike]

I don't think they even feel as much force as the recoil because the face of the boolit has Less surface area compared to the grip

[Ozark mike]

As far as stopping power I carry a bfr 4570 and a 1895gs when I'm in the wilderness battling my way thru grizzly territory but when I go in town i feel my 58 remmie is all I need. I imagine c&b revolvers stopped more men in the war than most of these modern million Rd a min autos. so that's all I carry because i like it and is accurate

[bmortell]

Bad guys don't feel any more "impact" on the receiving end than your firing hand gets from recoil. Newton, folks - look him up

bad guys don't get the luxury of a metal block that weighs 80 times more than the projectile to slow down its force. likewise if you were gonna get hit by a train with the same amount of force as a 50 bmg you wont receive equal and opposite forces, you'll just die of old age waiting for the train to arrive.


the original article, I have a hard time taking seriously as soon as I seen them use wild bill kickok as proof that getting shot at first don't have a negative effect. possibly the most obvious case of cherry picking data I've ever seen. whoever wrote it must have been more concerned about hearing their point than passing any scrutiny, so Id say it don't have value other than one persons opinion.

that's enough disagreeing for one morning