147 grain 9mm smack down

I agree with whoever previously said it....some of you guys worry way too much about this type of stuff. I guarantee that whatever you put in your 9mm is gonna hurt and do damage when it hits its target.
I prefer to carry 127g +P+ but right now I don't have any, so my Sig 226, my Glock 19, and my 709 Slim (never carry +P in this one anyway) all have 147g flat nose Federal in them. Doesn't bother me in the least to have that in there, it's never malfunctioned in any of them, it's an accurate round, and I also can see the size of the hole it puts in the paper/cardboard compared to standard 115 or 124g rounds.
 
It amazes me how much lack of knowledge there is about terminal ballistics.

If you hit them in the CNS, you are effective. If you don't, they will have minimum several minutes to do what they want to you and your family. Very likely, a surgeon will remove that super ultra hollow point and they will live a long and healthy life.

Period. End of discussion. Everything else is an incremental improvement in bleed out time or the chances of nicking something important as you miss. If you don't miss, a .380 FMJ will do just fine.
 
ScotchMan,

You're correct, with regard to terminal effect. 1/7 handgun incidents prove fatal, but most end somewhere between "missed the CNS, but hit" and "bleed to death". With the stated goal of stopping a threat as quickly as possible, as opposed to killing the threat, round selection does come into play a little more.

Ultimately, we need our round to be capable of stopping the threat...
A) through terminal effect (worst case)
-or-
B) by sending a clear signal to the brain that the body has been damaged

"Equipment" is certainly not as important as mindset, training, or skill, but it is still a worthwhile consideration. If it weren't, we would be sending our troops into the field with better training, funded with the money saved by arming them with single shot .22 rifles.
 
Terminal ballistics, by definition, refers to what happens when a bullet strikes a body. Not to be confused with internal ballistics (the bullets travel through the gun) or external ballistics (the bullets travel through space). The word terminal does not refer to killing, here.


My post is in reference to stopping a threat, not killing someone. Unless you get a psychological stop, there is rarely a distinction between the two. I stand by what I said.

A soldier fighting a war has a different mission than you and I. We don't have to kill to win, just stop a threat. However, I would take a well trained 22 over a poorly trained 308. Fortunately, we can have both, which is why we don't use your extreme example.

However, much more emphasis is put on equipment than should be, because its easier than being good at something.
 
As far as I'm concerned it's all about shot placement - a solid hit (or several) is far and away better than a loud miss. If one can shoot thier round of choice quickly and accurately the effectiveness of the round becomes secondary. Many thousands of people have been killed with all sorts of bullet designs; I'm sure they'd still be dead whether they new the round that got them was less effective than another one.
 
57K, of course we train for center mass, or center of available mass / best target.

However, unlike at the range, human targets are not so likely to stay still. They tend to move; they tend to do things such as point guns at us, too. Both combine to make a shot through the arm a fairly likely scenario. (This was something that happened, you may recall, in Miami in the Platt-Matix FBI incident.)

And no, every combat professional does not only teach COM. Some teach failure drills; some teach pelvic shots; some run drills where only small parts of the target are exposed.

I am not sure where you get your ideas.

Because of one well publicized event you're considering this to be "a fairly likely scenario"? I'm probably as well versed on the "Miami Shootout" as anyone on this forum. First and foremost, it has been proven time and again to be an ammunition failure due to the agents use of a 115 gr. Winchester SilverTip known for its rapid expansion capability and it stopped short of the heart but was later deemed as an NON Survivable wound, so you guys that believe in the "Bleed-Out" scenario, might want to do a little thinking on that one. If I remember correctly, the 115 gr. SiverTip at that time used a Bi-Metal jacket composed of Aluminum and Zinc. It was an excellent expander, but a poor penetrator. Because of the "Miami Shootout" the FBI consulted Martin Fackler and his theories on stopping power through ballistic gel testing. It led the FBI and many large LE agencies to adopt the 147 gr. Sub-Sonic JHP loads that worked inversely proportional to the 115 gr. SilverTip. They over-penetrated and expanded little or poorly. Innocent bystanders were struck by over-penetrating bullets. Fackler and the FBI abandoned that idea in favor of the 10mm "Lite" that behaved similarly, except that it wasn't quite as bad as far as over-penetration. It was, however, a POOR expander. Next up, the "medium velocity" 165 gr. JHP in .40 S&W. Good penetration, poor expansion. All I can say to you guys that buy the bleed-out myth is that we'll see you in Valhalla. And while the FBI and other LE agencies dropped the 147 gr. Sub-Sonic JHP like a hot potato, others did research to see what was necessary to make a 147 gr. JHP expand and NOT over-penetrate. Cor-Bon was first with the introduction of a 147 gr. +P JHP that performed well. That was reinforced by the Texas DPS' finding that outside of the 125 gr. JHP in .357 SIG, the only other round to pass ALL tests was a 147 gr. JHP in 9mm rated +P+.

Because humans don't stand still while you're shooting at them is precisely why people are trained to shoot COM. I never said that this is the only thing they teach. That is only your attempt to skew the facts from a poor argument. 1. Shot Placement is always the most important consideration. Anyone that can't precisely place shots with the more effective +P 9mm is probably relatively inexperienced and it's doubtful they have any experience shooting Magnum revolvers that will teach you what handgun recoil is really about. 2. Center of Mass because it's the largest part of the human body and well placed shots have the potential to hit the spinal column that will rapidly end a shooting confrontation. Next most vital area is the Thoracic Chest Cavity (Heart/Lung area) and where this gets skewed by the IWBA is because they intentionally ignore what 500+ Ft/lb loads like the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum will do as far as how energy actually works. And, good trainers like Massod Ayoob do teach things like shooting to the pelvic area in the event that COM shots do no put down an assailant who could be wearing a Ballistic Vest of some form. But, show me any trainer who doesn't teach COM right after shot placement. 3. You can join the Navy and if you're up to the challenge, you can become a SEAL where there's no limit to the amount of practice you can get and tactical conditioning that's possible with the credo of 2 in the chest, 1 in the head.

Where do I get my ideas? from real-world events and studying the arguments for 35 years from a background in design which includes designing for engineering firms in areas that exceed their experience or expertise and unlike some, this isn't my first rodeo, pardner.

I commented that Roberts and others had referenced rounds recovered from real events looking like rounds pulled out of gel. What does dentistry or Fackler have to do with rounds recovered from an actual event? Where did I reference Roberts or his work in any other way?

Everything that Roberts believes, as well as Duncan MacPherson, are theories based in Martin Fackler philosophy. Fackler, Roberts and MacPherson have little training in Physics except that MacPherson had to study it at least at an elementary level in order to get his engineering degree. And comments you've made like "missed the CNS, but hit" and "bleed to death" sound like they're coming directly from the IWBA textbook. Instead of improving his rational on wounding, Fackler instead chose to go on a smear campaign on a simple reporting of facts by Marshall & Sanow who repeatedly state that the "one-shot-stop IS NOT a tactical philosophy, but rather, a mere reporting of events where it did occur with LE officers across the country". More autopsies have been studied related to those events in comparison to the number of autopsies studied by Fackler & Associates. Where the one-shot-data autopsies are based on the performance of a single round, the autopsies studied by Fackler & Associates has almost always been from events where the victim was shot multiple times yet they are trying to draw conclusions from what a single bullet will do in ballistic gelatin and comparing that to victims shot multiple times. Does that even sound logical? M&S have also done fairly extensive gel testing to compare results directly to victims shot once by the same bullet and the best rounds that have the highest one-shot-stop percentages usually tend to also be the best performers in their gel tests except in the case of the 125 gr. JHP in .357 Magnum that in many cases did not penetrate to the "magical" depth of 12" minimum.

Now, enter the PHd degreed physicists at:http://www.btgresearch.org/wb.htm and by Physicists that are referenced by BTG in conducting real world physics into the application of wound ballistics before Martin Fackler and which he chose to IGNORE. You'll find all of this information at the posted link. There have been over 30 autopsies much more recently observed by BTG where the victim was shot with a round that put 500 Ft/Lbs or more directly into the Thoracic Cavity and gives the only plausible explanation in why that 125 gr. JHP .357 Magnum was so effective in the real world. Numerous tests have been conducted by implanting PiezoElectric transducers into animals shot with 500 Ft/Lb JHP loads. Animals like dogs, goats, pigs and whitetail deer who are considered to be the closest anatomically to the average human male. The results are eye opening to say the least, so now, Fackler & Associates have turned their smear campaign against BTG Research and PHd Michael Courtney because a good bit of his research concurs closer to the reporting of M&S than it does the theories of the IWBA. You might want to check on the number of PHd physicists in the IWBA. It is mostly made up of Physicians with little to no education in physics, and engineers that don't have even half the education in physics in comparison to physicists who've earned PHd's. ;)
 
Last edited:
ScotchMan,

I think we're missing each other a bit. I don't disagree that software > hardware. In fact, I agree emphatically. I got the impression from your first post that you were basically saying, "you either stop them instantly, or they have a few minutes to do what they want", which would imply that psychological stops weren't considered, and "don't worry at all about round selection, worry only about training". Often when people ask hardware questions on this hardware subforum (as opposed to the Training type subforums), people start to give responses that indicate that they read hardware questions as, "Hi. I don't believe in training. Instead, I seek a magic bullet/firearm to do everything for me."

If I misread where you were coming from, my bad. I'm generally a smart guy, but I am prone to moments of potato.


57K,

Sir, please TURN OFF the lectures on Fackler, Roberts, etc. They are completely irrelevant with regard to anything that I have said.

AGAIN:
"Roberts... [and others]... have commented that [some of these rounds] recovered from real world incidents look like they came from promotional material."

Nothing about Roberts' theories, Fackler's work, etc. Nothing.


Here's a story that didn't come from a dentist, a physicist, a physician, or a pizza delivery guy:

An officer I know related a specific incident to me. In a nutshell, he was surprised by a shooter who saw the uniform, and assumed he was about to be arrested. There was no warning.

The officer was caught flat-footed, with no available cover or concealment. In the moment, he planted his feet, drew, and fired a few rounds. After seeing no indication that he was hitting, he remembered to get on his front sight, which he had neglected to do with his first shots. Moments later, the shooter dropped his weapon, turned, and began trying to run away. He made it a couple of blocks, and sat down on the sidewalk. He was still alive when responders showed up.

It was later determined that the officer fired 7 times, hitting 4 times. He believes that he missed his first 3, hit on his last 4, but recognizes that he may have landed an earlier hit.

The shooter did not die.

No theory there. No Fackler, no Roberts, no IWBA, no ballistic gel.

He did not hit the CNS. Blood loss was a factor. The event ended with a psychological stop. Had the responders not done good work, the shooter would likely have died from his wounds, as a result of blood loss.

Some of those remarks may sound like they "came from the IWBA playbook", but they actually came from the real world. I make comments like, "missed ____, but hit", because that stuff happens.
 
57K,

Sir, please TURN OFF the lectures on Fackler, Roberts, etc. They are completely irrelevant with regard to anything that I have said.

Well, maybe not irrelevant for some others. And bleed-out resulted in a psychological stop because the perp realized he was bleeding? I like that one! Maybe it will also result in the officer training/learning to shoot a little better.

There are, however, a good number of shooters that believe in bleed-out as a dominant factor in terminal ballistics when in fact many times a perp has been fatally shot and goes on to kill others while bleed-out is occurring, as in the case of the "Miami Shootout" that was brought up. There are any number of factors that can result in a psychological stop and all shooting events are totally unpredictable. That's why we train to shoot until the fight is over whereas some LE agencies may have a mandate to stop shooting as soon as the officer determines the perp has given up the fight. LE shootings are always subject to a review board that determines whether or not a LE officer followed his/her departments policies on shooting incidents. In some cases, that has happened as reported in the One-Shot-Stop data from Marshall & Sanow where their definition of a One-Shot-Stop is where the perp was killed, gave up the fight after being shot, or collapsed and did not move over 10' from his shooting position. And they were criticized for including those events.

Different states have different laws regarding the use of deadly force and anyone that carries a handgun for defense should be well versed in his state's laws. Some of this is covered during concealed carry licensing training. To what extent varies from state to state so ultimately the burden in familiarization of deadly force law is incumbent on the individual carrying or defending their home. In Texas for example, if someone invades your home, they have signed their own death warrant. For that reason I train to shoot till death do us part. I'll let God sort out the details at his convenience. What I don't do is practice shooting for some eventuality or hypothetical situation. If I have to shoot someone, I won't stop shooting until I know they've collapsed and are definitely incapable of continuing any form of aggressive behavior. Period. ;)
 
It always amazed me when people say things like, "When I shoot, I shoot for CNS, I don't need a JHP; FMJ works fine for me!"

Since when would we not use the (proven) best tool for the job, especially when our lives are in the balance? It's not about killing, it's about stopping.

I agree (:eek:) with 57k here. Many people who "die" from a defensive shooting wound go on to kill other while they're dying. Going off mortality rate to determine which round to use is senseless and dangerous. A round that does well in "controlled" gel testing AND has a proven street record is you best bet for picking a round. As 57k correctly pointed out, gel testing is only part of the story, and is the reason the FBI chose three very poor performing rounds in a row.

Let's also try to remove anecdote from this discussion as well. Practically everyone can find an anecdotal story to "disprove" someone's position. I can probably find dozens of stories where someone was stopped effectively with a .22LR. I can also probably find stories of people using .357 Mag 125gr JHPs (a proven effective stopper), where they fired and hit several times without the BG stopping.

There are so many factors in play from the moment the bullet leaves the barrel, until it gets to it's final location that can affect what happens to the target. A perfect CNS shot with practically any round will most likely stop an attacker. But CNS shots are tough when you're not on a square range. A good JHP round designed for self defense, though admittedly doesn't work every time, will give you the best chance to stop your attacker, and prevent over-penetration, while conferring very few drawbacks.

If I have to shoot someone, I won't stop shooting until I know they've collapsed and are definitely incapable of continuing any form of aggressive behavior. Period.

I couldn't have said it better myself.
 
57K,

"...bleed-out resulted in a psychological stop because the perp realized he was bleeding? I like that one!"

No.

3 separate sentances.

"(1) He did not hit the CNS. (2) Blood loss was a factor [...in the event]. (3)The event ended with a psychological stop."

This is not the same as saying that the psychological stop was the result of the shooter realizing that he was bleeding. I can see where it could be read that way, but it should also be evident that those sentances could have been intended to be independent statements.

In this case, the officer fired until the threat stopped. The threat stopped by dropping his weapon, and turning to attempt to flee.

*****

I see that you say: "If I have to shoot someone, I won't stop shooting until I know they've collapsed and are definitely incapable of continuing any form of aggressive behavior. Period."

In Oregon, that's a ticket to jail.

There are 3 things required for a defensive shoot to be justified, here: Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. If I am shooting, and the threat drops a weapon, and turns to flee, I can't keep shooting until he collapses, because my life is no longer in jeopardy. While he is still technically capable of continuing some form of aggressive behavior, he has dropped his means of presenting lethal force. Ability and jeopardy are out of the equation, and my continued use of lethal force would no longer be warranted.

To clarify: If the threat stops shooting, but continues to face me, he still has Ability, and I am still in Jeopardy. In this case, continued use of lethal force is justified.


Garaek,

Going off a combination of gel testing and street performance is exactly what I do, for exactly the reasons that you highlighted.

As far as "shooting for the CNS" goes... I think the majority of us train to aim for CoM. When I've referenced the CNS in this thread, it has basically been to highlight how rarely CNS hits come into play. The clear majority of stops are psychological stops, or the rate of handgun deaths would be considerably higher than 1/7. We're on the same page there, as well.
 
57K, Miami was not the only example, it is simply a well-known one.

There have been numerous reports from Force on Force training classes of disproportionate percentages of hits to the adversary's shooting arm, due to fixation on thhe threat (the gun) by shooters.

I have heard the same reports from people who study gunfight results, and from people who teach military and LE. This makes perfect sense to me, since I see people react the same way in martial arts classes, when weapons are introduced. Typical training scenario starts with technoque vs a static grab, then same technique vs a dynamic grab, then same technique vs a straight punch, then a hook punch. People get a bit more tense when fists start coming in.

They really get tense, and fixated, when clubs and training knives replace thhe fists. Their feet don't move right, and their hands naturally seem to go toward the other guy's weapon.

Meanwhile, your example of the Silvertip inflicting a non-survivable wound involved, IIRC, tearing the brachial artery. This amounted to luck, as much as placement.

Your references to an engineering background and your rodeo experience probably meant something to you, but they did not translate well. Could you clarify what you were trying to say?

Your reference to shot placement always being most important undermines your argument that the 147 is ineffective. If the 115 and 124 are so much better, why does placement trump? (I agree that placement trumps; I don't think most people are that good at hitting moving targets with precision, particularly when those moving targets shoot back. Hit percentages and rounds per stop in LE and military shootouts would bear out that idea.)
 
Originally posted by MLeake
Your reference to shot placement always being most important undermines your argument that the 147 is ineffective. If the 115 and 124 are so much better, why does placement trump? (I agree that placement trumps; I don't think most people are that good at hitting moving targets with precision, particularly when those moving targets shoot back. Hit percentages and rounds per stop in LE and military shootouts would bear out that idea.)

Not at all. My point being that a 147 gr. +P JHP in 9mm is more likely to expand while it penetrates than a standard pressure sub-sonic 147 gr. JHP load that will penetrate well but usually doesn't expand as well as the better 124 gr. +P loads. If you look at the gel test in Robert's articles like the one here: http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#9mm not only is the 124 gr. +P providing a better defined wound channel with about 5 cents worth of lower penetration, it doesn't even take a +P rating to achieve 1181 FPS with a 124 and better loads like the SPEER 124 gr. +P Gold Dot or the Ranger-T 127 gr. +P+ leave a 4" barrel at around 1220 FPS and perform even better. The 147 gr. Sub-Sonic load he shows at 1032 FPS is atypical of actual performance because I don't know of one single standard pressure, Sub-Sonic load that's rated over 1000 FPS from a 4" barrel and most of us know that what the factory rates velocity at is most often higher than what you can actually expect from your pistol with the same barrel length. Just another example of Robert's flawed reporting methods and you notice he didn't test a 147 gr. +P because the higher velocity/energy load would tend to disprove some of his incorrect theories. He and others advocate the use of sub-sonic 147 gr. JHPs in 9mm based more on lower recoil and depth of penetration while at the same time they ignore the performance of a 147 gr. +P.

Shot placement is key as I said, and COM is taught over any other potentiality. Even with a well placed shot COM, how likely do you think it is that someone will actually get a hit to the spinal column? I'd be willing to bet that the percentage is 5% of the time, or less. So what does that mean? Your well placed shot that didn't hit the spinal column is still very likely to hit the Thoracic Chest Cavity and there is enough evidence to prove that a JHP delivering 500 Ft/Lbs of KE into the Thoracic cavity is much more likely to rapidly incapacitate than a load like a 147 gr. Sub-Sonic JHP in 9mm with a muzzle velocity more likely in the real-world to be around 975 FPS and providing a pretty sedate KE of 310 Ft/Lbs of KE. For that reason, I personally want a load that I know will penetrate sufficiently with as much energy as possible without exceeding 600 Ft/Lbs where KE can begin to counteract on a JHP causing it to fold in rather than fold out essentially making it an FMJ. That has been proven over the years by Harry Callahan LE types carrying Full-Power .41 and .44 Magnum loads on the job, that because of the excessive KE, their rounds went completely through perps with very little to NO expansion. I choose to hedge all bets with a load like the 185 gr. +P Golden Saber in .45 ACP, or a handload with the same bullet and performance level. For my new Ruger SR9 and it's 4.14" barrel, I will be developing a load to provide a minimum of 1150 FPS with a KE of 432 Ft/Lbs and it will be a STANDARD PRESSURE load. NOT +P or +P+. It can be done and the smaller ammo makers are making very similar loads, except that because of the shorter OACLs they have to use for varying chamber dimensions with the different brands of 9mm pistols, it is necessary to rate them +P. But even Winchester and Federal make +P 147 gr. JHP loads that I would recommend any day of the week and twice on Sunday over a Sub-Sonic load.

The whole premise in advising shooters to use standard pressure 9mm is for lower recoil to aid shot placement and be more capable of putting more shots on target in the shortest amount of time. But what does that really end up doing? Ever heard the term, "Spray and Pray". The ages old gunfighter's creed is, "Shoot slow, as fast as you can." This means making every shot deliberate with the best shot placement you're capable of. This is why I will advise new shooters to start with standard pressure 9mm until they can place their shots accurately, then when they've proved that capability, it is time to move up to better +P defense loads. If a shooter can't tolerate recoil at 9mm +P levels, he probably does need to stick to standard pressure loads. IMO, there's no excuse for that because an aversion to recoil can be overcome through practice. I started out shooting Magnum revolvers and continue to shoot them, so some may think I have a bias against lower recoiling loads in 9mm and that's just not the case. My bias is in the fact that I know that the higher velocity/momentum/energy loads are the most effective in 9mm.

The problem with your reasoning in relating inaccuracy among the majority of LE and military shooters is that there is a simple explanation for that as well. Most of them are NOT active shooters with some having absolutely NO experience until they become LE officers or join the military. Even then, the ones that will go on to become to become proficient are those who put in the necessary time shooting/training. In the military, that's not likely to be the case until a trooper advances to a special operations branch like Army Special Forces, Delta Force, Marine Force Recon and Detachment 1 or Navy SEALs. As far as LE, only a minority will become proficient and active shooters and those are the facts. ;)
 
Last edited:
Pretty interesting info so far.

Because of the low velocity and often failing to expand traits of the
earlier 147s.

I've never used anything but the old Pro-Load 147 gr. 9mm and then the
Double Tap 147 gr. +P Gold Dot (Bonded Defense series)
gt3.jpg

1217121972.jpg



That extra 100 fps or so really counts in my book for use in my smaller 9mms
with shorter barrels like the Baby Glocks and CZ 2075 RAMIs.

They also shoot very well from a P-01 or PCR and 75B.


However, I'd now feel confident with the 147 HST or PDX/Ranger loads if I
had to use them.

Otherwise, I'll stick with the much faster, non-bonded 115 grain BARNES
TAC-XPs..

as loaded by Double Tap and Cor-Bon, and a few others these days.

DT-147-155-2012_zps0a13c4ac.jpg
 
RBid,
I agree that it is not an irrelevant discussion, but its importance compared to the other three things in my signature (which I saw you referenced) is minute.

An analogy would be spending a lot of time arguing about whether I get better gas mileage from Shell gasoline or Mobil gasoline, while paying no attention to the fact that I drive an F-250 like a race car while you drive a Honda Fit like a grandma. Sure, maybe someone's gas is better, and by all means, use that gas. But if you want significant results, that is not where you will get them.

I am of the opinion that any of the top end bullet designs (Gold Dot, HST, PDX-1, Critical D___, etc) perform so similarly that it is like comparing gasoline companies. I choose to use 147gr because they seem to have less recoil, and I believe get a little better performance out of short barrels because they spend more time in the barrel due to their weight. And I don't want to use +P if I can help it when there is no reason to. I would not lose any peace of mind carrying 115gr or 124gr. I would prefer however, to use JHPs, as I believe there is a substantial benefit in doing so vs. FMJ.

So I realize we are in the hardware forum, but I do think a large majority of the people in this thread, arguing for one or the other, believe it matters, when it really doesn't when taking a realistic view of the situation.
 
I see that you say: "If I have to shoot someone, I won't stop shooting until I know they've collapsed and are definitely incapable of continuing any form of aggressive behavior. Period."

In Oregon, that's a ticket to jail.

There are 3 things required for a defensive shoot to be justified, here: Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. If I am shooting, and the threat drops a weapon, and turns to flee, I can't keep shooting until he collapses, because my life is no longer in jeopardy. While he is still technically capable of continuing some form of aggressive behavior, he has dropped his means of presenting lethal force. Ability and jeopardy are out of the equation, and my continued use of lethal force would no longer be warranted.

To clarify: If the threat stops shooting, but continues to face me, he still has Ability, and I am still in Jeopardy. In this case, continued use of lethal force is justified.

I won't speak for 57k here, but I imagine that he didn't mean he would shoot until the person stopped moving, regardless of the situation. It's shoot until your threat is no longer a threat. If that means he runs away, you stop. If that means him falling to the ground is what stops him being a threat, then you stop. In any state, shooting a person who is withdrawing from the confrontation, regardless if you were initially justified is a jail sentence waiting to happen. 57k can clarify his own statement if he'd like...that's how I read it when he wrote it anyway.

Going off a combination of gel testing and street performance is exactly what I do, for exactly the reasons that you highlighted.

As far as "shooting for the CNS" goes... I think the majority of us train to aim for CoM. When I've referenced the CNS in this thread, it has basically been to highlight how rarely CNS hits come into play. The clear majority of stops are psychological stops, or the rate of handgun deaths would be considerably higher than 1/7. We're on the same page there, as well.

I wasn't replying to you specifically, I don't think. If I was, it was maybe because I didn't understand fully what you had written. My statements, for the most part, were comments on many of the different posts, in this thread in general. Someone else had mentioned something along the lines of shot placement being the important thing, so FMJ was all he needed for a stop. That's where my CNS comments came from, for the most part.

Basically, my post was about 2 things. 1) Your choice of ammo should be ammo that is a proven defensive round, and has shown street effectiveness as well as laboratory effectiveness. Picking one type of data over the other is a recipe for disaster. And 2) individual anecdotal "evidence" of one type of round, working or another not working isn't helpful in a discussion like this. Practically any round can be effective, but some (and really, with modern ammo, it's less about an individual round, and more about caliber choice) have been proven to be more effective than others, and that's where we should keep the discussion.

I suppose I should have added a third point to my original post. In popular defensive calibers (.38 SPL, .357 Mag, 9mm, .40, .45, etc), the choice of round isn't that important, as long as you are using a JHP bullet, and the round is made by a well known manufacturer of defensive ammo. Performance, while not identical, is close enough that the end result isn't going to be much different.
 
ScotchMan,

I think we agree on just about everything, except how to deal with hardware posts. We're eye to eye on software, and even round selection. Working in a gun shop, I spend a lot of time referring people to training groups. I don't get kickbacks or any of that garbage for doing so, but I don't want to be That Guy who hands somebody a handgun and a box of rounds and days, "Now you're all set!"

I like your sig line, and I think it is a good reminder to have attached to every post.


57K,

147 standard pressure selection does NOT imply spray & pray. That is the same kind of leap as Piers Morgan saying, "you don't think we should outlaw AR 15s? Oh. So you think pregnant mothers should drive around in tanks, with grenade launchers?"

At this point, I am expecting you to quote this post, and explain how some physicist linked training to sectional density, based on maple bars and gas prices.

You are obviously a well read and analytical person. SLOW DOWN. Don't attack things that aren't involved in the discussion. You have a lot to offer, but you're losing people with some of these posts.
 
Garaek,

My comments about threat stop were in response to this quote from 57K:

"If I have to shoot someone, I won't stop shooting until I know they've collapsed and are definitely incapable of continuing any form of aggressive behavior. Period."

I acknowledge that I may be reading into it, but that choice of language leads me to believe that he is implying that the target is physically grounded.

Reading this post, I recognize that the wording sounds a bit formal. I know people sometimes read that as snarky. That's not where I'm at. Garaek, you generally conduct yourself well, here. I'm being a little formal and cautious to be clear, in the interest of being respectful to you. You seem like a good guy, and I appreciated the clarification in your last post.
 
Hey, no problem. Unfortunately, communication in an online forum can be difficult without visual and verbal clues. Things that sound one way in my head as I'm writing them may sound completely different in your head as you read them. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, typically, but sometimes, you really do need to read something literally. Reading 57k's post literally, it can easily be read as shoot until they're grounded, regardless of the situation.
 
Originally posted by Gaerek
I won't speak for 57k here, but I imagine that he didn't mean he would shoot until the person stopped moving, regardless of the situation. It's shoot until your threat is no longer a threat. If that means he runs away, you stop. If that means him falling to the ground is what stops him being a threat, then you stop. In any state, shooting a person who is withdrawing from the confrontation, regardless if you were initially justified is a jail sentence waiting to happen. 57k can clarify his own statement if he'd like...that's how I read it when he wrote it anyway.

Actually, you described it very well and I'll only add one thing: if you're shot placement is good with a good defense load that get's the job done, you're home invader isn't likely to be running anywhere and I believe I said shoot until the fight is over.

Pretty good for an Arizonan, but our Chili and Bar-B-que is still better than y'alls! LOL :D

CZF thanks for the pics, Kev. ;)
 
Back
Top