Structure damage, CNS incapacitation, blood out, air in. Those are the 4 factors that will stop a threat with a handgun. You are correct, hydrostatic shock does not occur with handgun rounds. Somewhere around 2200 fps is the threshold to cause disruption with hydrostatic shock effect, and even then not totally reliable.
Can this 9mm claim be true?
- Thread starter br1dge
- Start date
Structure damage, CNS incapacitation, blood out, air in. Those are the 4 factors that will stop a threat with a handgun. You are correct, hydrostatic shock does not occur with handgun rounds. Somewhere around 2200 fps is the threshold to cause disruption with hydrostatic shock effect, and even then not totally reliable.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Just another flavor in the gimmick of the week...
So at no time in the history of firearms has an innocent bystander been wounded or killed by a bullet that over penetrated it's intended target? And the shooter never got sued because of it?
Good to know!
If it happened once, it's once too many.
A well designed well tested self defense hollow point that penetrates 8 to 10 inches and dumps it's entire load force into the target verses a solid that penetrates 22 to 24 inches. I'll take the first, thanks. But like I said, I'm no expert, and neither is 99.9% of the people reading this.
No. I don't think Ayoob is God. I have a brain of my own. The shot I take will be as safe to others as it can be made. Bottom line is if my family or friends lives are in danger, I will shoot. It takes zero effort to get a different angle on a BG if need be.
Oh, and he didn't give an example of it ever happening either!
Oh, and he didn't give an example of it ever happening either!
When people in the firearms community, devoid of any data, plant fear, innuendo, and their unsupported opinions into the mainstream, they are possibly creating peril where none previously existed.
Sure, the use of deadly weapons requires proficiency, and the selection of products that, for you hold the greatest chance of stopping the threat and preventing your harm or death. Is there a potential for an over-penetrating bullet striking an innocent? Yes, only and idiot would say no. However, should you then limit yourself to products which have no risk of over-penetration? Certainly not.
What is one of the cardinal rules of shooting? Know your target and beyond. Plays out equally on the range and the street. You have the obligation to prevent harm to innocent life. If you carry a weapon to do that, then there are a LOT of factors that must be weighed against each other. Getting off the X, controlling distance and angles of fire are all tactical tools that you should train and be prepared to use.
As a court endorsed ballistics and reconstruction expert, I would more critically scrutinize your tactics than your bullet selection. Realize attorneys do not testify in court, witnesses testify. While I respect much of Ayoob's work, in some areas, I do not agree with his singular focus on a topic having pivotal importance in a legal proceeding.
Sure, the use of deadly weapons requires proficiency, and the selection of products that, for you hold the greatest chance of stopping the threat and preventing your harm or death. Is there a potential for an over-penetrating bullet striking an innocent? Yes, only and idiot would say no. However, should you then limit yourself to products which have no risk of over-penetration? Certainly not.
What is one of the cardinal rules of shooting? Know your target and beyond. Plays out equally on the range and the street. You have the obligation to prevent harm to innocent life. If you carry a weapon to do that, then there are a LOT of factors that must be weighed against each other. Getting off the X, controlling distance and angles of fire are all tactical tools that you should train and be prepared to use.
As a court endorsed ballistics and reconstruction expert, I would more critically scrutinize your tactics than your bullet selection. Realize attorneys do not testify in court, witnesses testify. While I respect much of Ayoob's work, in some areas, I do not agree with his singular focus on a topic having pivotal importance in a legal proceeding.
Any bullet can over penetrate, follow your logic and you would never use your firearm incase you hit an innocent bystander. As others have said, and there are examples of people missing their intended target and hitting innocent bystanders, much more likely than a bullet passing through and hitting someone.
The safety of others should be a major concern..."
Certainly, but not the only concern; one's own safety is still paramount, and anyone who is a danger to you is also a danger to others.
In other than a life or death self defense situation, overpenetration of a bullet stop would be bad and would almost certainly lead to charges if anyone were killed or injured.
In this area there was a case in which a man was firing a gun from a motel balcony; a deputy saw that if he fired and missed or the bullet overpentrated, innocent persons could have been endangered. So the deputy spent several minutes maneuvering himself into a position where he could fire a shot without danger to anyone other than the shooter, and he stopped the shooting by wounding the gunman. Good for him, but if the situation had been different and the shooter was firing and killed people during those several minutes, his caution would have been poor judgment.
Jim
Certainly, but not the only concern; one's own safety is still paramount, and anyone who is a danger to you is also a danger to others.
In other than a life or death self defense situation, overpenetration of a bullet stop would be bad and would almost certainly lead to charges if anyone were killed or injured.
In this area there was a case in which a man was firing a gun from a motel balcony; a deputy saw that if he fired and missed or the bullet overpentrated, innocent persons could have been endangered. So the deputy spent several minutes maneuvering himself into a position where he could fire a shot without danger to anyone other than the shooter, and he stopped the shooting by wounding the gunman. Good for him, but if the situation had been different and the shooter was firing and killed people during those several minutes, his caution would have been poor judgment.
Jim
Magnum Wheel Man
New member
I'm still on the fence ( where is the popcorn eating smilie )
I quit carrying my 380, because of concerns about lack of penitration... so I could possibly see this if they penitrate more than a typical FMJ ( I have shot multiple critters with my TCP over the years I carried it...mostly Raccoons ) I can't think of one instance where the bullet had an exit wound just shooting them COM... then I had to put my life long little buddy down ( our 16 year old Bichon ) I definately wanted a humane kill, I used a FMJ as I didn't want to behead him, & put the muzzle between his front shoulder blades placing the bullet in a place to sever his spine... he died instantly as was my desire, but even from point blank range, a Winchester FMJ did not exit the little dog... at that point, I was convinced that it was not an ecceptable cartridge for self defence, if it couldn't penitrate 8" of dog, from point blank range, what would it do on a human with even a denim jacket on???
I'm kind of agreeing on the over penitration of the bigger calibers... but because of the wound channel, it could definately have hunting uses with the bigger cartridges...
OK... that's my thoughts... I'm back to my pop corn
I quit carrying my 380, because of concerns about lack of penitration... so I could possibly see this if they penitrate more than a typical FMJ ( I have shot multiple critters with my TCP over the years I carried it...mostly Raccoons ) I can't think of one instance where the bullet had an exit wound just shooting them COM... then I had to put my life long little buddy down ( our 16 year old Bichon ) I definately wanted a humane kill, I used a FMJ as I didn't want to behead him, & put the muzzle between his front shoulder blades placing the bullet in a place to sever his spine... he died instantly as was my desire, but even from point blank range, a Winchester FMJ did not exit the little dog... at that point, I was convinced that it was not an ecceptable cartridge for self defence, if it couldn't penitrate 8" of dog, from point blank range, what would it do on a human with even a denim jacket on???
I'm kind of agreeing on the over penitration of the bigger calibers... but because of the wound channel, it could definately have hunting uses with the bigger cartridges...
OK... that's my thoughts... I'm back to my pop corn
I have been looking at the Lehigh for my Ruger LCP as I don't think hollow points by and large function well out of short-barrel pocket pistols of that type. In .380 the Lehigh looks like a good proposition and I have seen some promising test results on it. Currently I am using the Polycase Interceptor.
In 9mm though I am using Hornaday Critical Defense and see no reason to change.
In 9mm though I am using Hornaday Critical Defense and see no reason to change.
mike38 said:
So how many did you find? You don't seem to mention the number in your post.
Do a search on "innocent bystanders wounded" or "innocent bystanders killed" and compare the number of incidents you find with those wounded or killed by over penetration.
Then make your own decision on how much to worry about each.
mike38 said:
It's just as valid as any concerns you may have over something like getting hit by a falling meteor, and you should take equal precautions in preparing for either one.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ussia-meteorite-ann-hodges-science-space-hit/
NYC 1995-1996
69 Innocents/Police Officers unintentionally hit by 9mm police gunfire
23 of them hit by bullets that had passed through other people
1 out of every 3 people unintentionally hit by 9mm police gun fire during that period in NYC were struck by rounds that had passed through another person.
source
And would .38 Special +P+ or .357 Magnum NOT over penetrate?
Some years ago, a writer named Robert Sherrill advocated disarming everyone, but starting with the police, whom he considered both stupid and incompetent. It almost seems that we are going in that direction.
FWIW, in the world of gun control lalaland, the British have long argued that their crime rate is low because their police are not armed. According to this theory, criminals are sporting and won't carry guns if the police don't, since that would give them an unfair advantage over the cops. Hmmm!
Jim
Some years ago, a writer named Robert Sherrill advocated disarming everyone, but starting with the police, whom he considered both stupid and incompetent. It almost seems that we are going in that direction.
FWIW, in the world of gun control lalaland, the British have long argued that their crime rate is low because their police are not armed. According to this theory, criminals are sporting and won't carry guns if the police don't, since that would give them an unfair advantage over the cops. Hmmm!
Jim
atw525 said:
You're citing a report written by the NY police department that adds 21 + 2 + 17 and somehow gets 44:
As a deputy sheriff for 8 years, I'm not surprised that any cop would claim that any bullet they fired that hit an innocent would have also passed through the bad guy first. How is anyone going to prove differently?
My experience has been more along the line of former Border Patrolman Ed Head in this article on over penetration:
http://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2014/7/16/overpenetration/
Not that big of a deal. But if you see it as a problem, it's always easy to change to lower powered ammo or a smaller caliber weapon (maybe .380 instead of 9mm).
I have often suspected that once a bullet passes through a human body, it becomes even more effective, based on what I have read.
Regarding police in the U.K., many are indeed not only armed but heavily armed and with submachine guns. Can you imagine the public outcry if your local police were armed with submachine guns? However, the reason there is less firearms crime there is because there aren't gun shops everywhere like there are here. Instead, there's probably a pub.
Regarding police in the U.K., many are indeed not only armed but heavily armed and with submachine guns. Can you imagine the public outcry if your local police were armed with submachine guns? However, the reason there is less firearms crime there is because there aren't gun shops everywhere like there are here. Instead, there's probably a pub.