Effectivness of Handgun vs Rifle
- Thread starter Noel
- Start date
In the real world, sh*t happens, and you gotta deal with it. It doesn't matter whether
you're carrying the "Cpl Ed Sanow #1 pistol bullet" or a rifle (which you seem to think is dangerous). You've gotta hit your opponent fast, and some times often, to knock him
flat. Maybe, just maybe, you win
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EXACTLY what I said. I thank you for your support. Bullets are not that big of a deal in the outcome. In ANY caliber.
+++++++++++++++++++
Most of what Americans currently have for their 7.62x39mm rifles is Soviet HP that has been described as extremely fragmentary by SOF.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SOF? Now there is a scientific source if I ever saw one.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Dodson and I share much of the same information. Reminds me of folks that claim they won't drive a Ford so they buy a Mercury.
you're carrying the "Cpl Ed Sanow #1 pistol bullet" or a rifle (which you seem to think is dangerous). You've gotta hit your opponent fast, and some times often, to knock him
flat. Maybe, just maybe, you win
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EXACTLY what I said. I thank you for your support. Bullets are not that big of a deal in the outcome. In ANY caliber.
+++++++++++++++++++
Most of what Americans currently have for their 7.62x39mm rifles is Soviet HP that has been described as extremely fragmentary by SOF.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SOF? Now there is a scientific source if I ever saw one.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Dodson and I share much of the same information. Reminds me of folks that claim they won't drive a Ford so they buy a Mercury.
as for level III body armour (ceramic) , i've seen vests that have stopped .223, 7.62x39 and 308... and i've seen the same vests NOT stop the 308 and 7.62x39...
seems like it all up to distance from the shooter and wear of the plates (age, "abuse" in the field etc.)
as for taking a round, you don't fight back for a good few seconds afterwards (if you stay concious)in wich case you're probably dead unless you have a team or a partner backing you up (wich i don't belive was the scenario in this thread)
in any case, not recomended at all as things break, not just the ceramic plate
i've heard of people saying that if the round dosen't go through they'll just keep fighting, but from what i've seen it about as viable as winning an ispc-cup while getting kicked in the nuts hard before the buzzer sounds...
a jokish comparison, i know, but it covers the point...
seems like it all up to distance from the shooter and wear of the plates (age, "abuse" in the field etc.)
as for taking a round, you don't fight back for a good few seconds afterwards (if you stay concious)in wich case you're probably dead unless you have a team or a partner backing you up (wich i don't belive was the scenario in this thread)
in any case, not recomended at all as things break, not just the ceramic plate
i've heard of people saying that if the round dosen't go through they'll just keep fighting, but from what i've seen it about as viable as winning an ispc-cup while getting kicked in the nuts hard before the buzzer sounds...
a jokish comparison, i know, but it covers the point...
plusp,
I am sorry if I was unclear, or if you did not understand the point I was trying to make. I wanted to see the data that you based the statement of a rifle being only 3% more effective than a pistol on. I do not doubt that such a statement exists, I just want to know the context that it is put in.
The articles you quoted originally indicated that AW wounds looked more like pistol wounds than rifle wounds. So my question was what are they calling an AW? What do you call a rifle round? I wanted the data from the IWBA so I could tell what the totality of scientific basis the report was not just the sound bite.
Please note that in my summary bullet placement is #1. The weapon to make bulllet placement most precise is #2.
I don't remember anyone recommending a stategy of missing the targtet with 30 rounds of .223 or 7.62x39.
Just so I am clear let me restate a couple of my questions:
Is the bullet fragmentation and yaw mentioned by Fackler for rifles (no mention of this or a similar phenomena for pistol bullets, and we all know that HP performance and expansion is not reliable at pistol velocites, don't we) an insignificant point in wounding or not?
Is a similarly placed bullet from a .38+p and a .308 really expected to have similar results at all realistic ranges, or not? I know that there is no magic bullet. But I also know that these bullets are not the same and any scientific theory that would predict the same behavior for these two different devices is in error. This is NOT saying that the .308 is magic (you seem to consistently indicate I say things that I do not say in your unresponsive answers to my posts). You indicate only a 3% difference. This seems to be a fallacious piece of data. I do not ignore scientific evidence, I do however question the validity of data that supports questionable statements.
Is the general scientific opinion of the community of people engaged in the study of self-defense shooting agreed that at realistic ranges the typical handgun is equally effective as the typical rifle, or not?
Are all the people who use handguns and rifles, and have trained thousands of others to use handguns and rifles, so wrong in both their own experience and the experience of all the people they interact with that they do not understand that handguns and rifles are nearly equivalent, or not?
Do Clint Smith, Gabe Suarez, John Farnam, Jeff Cooper, Chuck Taylor, Chris Carraci, and all the others who disagree with your assessment of rifle effectiveness (and who have actually used rifles quite a bit) only worry about gun rag hype, or not?
Does your derisive response to Spectre about SOF determining that new types of 7.62x39 bullets (that are NOT discussed in the scientific article by Fackler) fragment more than the older styles actually contain any scientifically based information, or not?
Does someone who purports basing his stand on scientific data have a responsibility to provide a sound, reasoned and logically consistent background to his claims that would allow intelligent evaluation by people who have parallel interests; but who do not share that same conclusions, or not? (Whew, that is one tortured sentence!!)
I am sorry about my tragic inability to let go of this totally tortured topic (notice the alliteration). However, I would like to conclude it with some clarity.
I have also testified as an expert in legal matters and, in my limited experience, found that I had to answer the questions presented. I did not attempt a bombastic and obfuscating tactic of saying things in confusing and contradictory ways and basing my conclusions on specially selected studies. Do you think I should have, or not?
I really do like the information you present on your website. The lessons are well done. You make many salient points.
Many of the photos at your site deal with very close range contact wounds and I note that the head wound from the .30-.30 looks nothing like the 7 head wounds from pages 1,3,4 and 8 caused by handguns.
Thanks for your consideration,
Noel
I am sorry if I was unclear, or if you did not understand the point I was trying to make. I wanted to see the data that you based the statement of a rifle being only 3% more effective than a pistol on. I do not doubt that such a statement exists, I just want to know the context that it is put in.
The articles you quoted originally indicated that AW wounds looked more like pistol wounds than rifle wounds. So my question was what are they calling an AW? What do you call a rifle round? I wanted the data from the IWBA so I could tell what the totality of scientific basis the report was not just the sound bite.
Please note that in my summary bullet placement is #1. The weapon to make bulllet placement most precise is #2.
I don't remember anyone recommending a stategy of missing the targtet with 30 rounds of .223 or 7.62x39.
Just so I am clear let me restate a couple of my questions:
Is the bullet fragmentation and yaw mentioned by Fackler for rifles (no mention of this or a similar phenomena for pistol bullets, and we all know that HP performance and expansion is not reliable at pistol velocites, don't we) an insignificant point in wounding or not?
Is a similarly placed bullet from a .38+p and a .308 really expected to have similar results at all realistic ranges, or not? I know that there is no magic bullet. But I also know that these bullets are not the same and any scientific theory that would predict the same behavior for these two different devices is in error. This is NOT saying that the .308 is magic (you seem to consistently indicate I say things that I do not say in your unresponsive answers to my posts). You indicate only a 3% difference. This seems to be a fallacious piece of data. I do not ignore scientific evidence, I do however question the validity of data that supports questionable statements.
Is the general scientific opinion of the community of people engaged in the study of self-defense shooting agreed that at realistic ranges the typical handgun is equally effective as the typical rifle, or not?
Are all the people who use handguns and rifles, and have trained thousands of others to use handguns and rifles, so wrong in both their own experience and the experience of all the people they interact with that they do not understand that handguns and rifles are nearly equivalent, or not?
Do Clint Smith, Gabe Suarez, John Farnam, Jeff Cooper, Chuck Taylor, Chris Carraci, and all the others who disagree with your assessment of rifle effectiveness (and who have actually used rifles quite a bit) only worry about gun rag hype, or not?
Does your derisive response to Spectre about SOF determining that new types of 7.62x39 bullets (that are NOT discussed in the scientific article by Fackler) fragment more than the older styles actually contain any scientifically based information, or not?
Does someone who purports basing his stand on scientific data have a responsibility to provide a sound, reasoned and logically consistent background to his claims that would allow intelligent evaluation by people who have parallel interests; but who do not share that same conclusions, or not? (Whew, that is one tortured sentence!!)
I am sorry about my tragic inability to let go of this totally tortured topic (notice the alliteration). However, I would like to conclude it with some clarity.
I have also testified as an expert in legal matters and, in my limited experience, found that I had to answer the questions presented. I did not attempt a bombastic and obfuscating tactic of saying things in confusing and contradictory ways and basing my conclusions on specially selected studies. Do you think I should have, or not?
I really do like the information you present on your website. The lessons are well done. You make many salient points.
Many of the photos at your site deal with very close range contact wounds and I note that the head wound from the .30-.30 looks nothing like the 7 head wounds from pages 1,3,4 and 8 caused by handguns.
Thanks for your consideration,
Noel
EchoFiveMike
New member
Harlequin: The Class III vests I seen and used have either ceramic(normally alumina(Aluminum Oxide)) or steel plates and are supposedly proof against 308/147gn ball M80 circa 2600 fps. The class IV plates are almost all ceramic(again alumina, although silicon carbide would be better) The problem here is this: ceramics are very hard, which allows them to defeat AP rounds. They are also very brittle, which means they can and will break(shatter) from low velocity / low energy projectiles(rocks come to mind)The people who make vests know this and so normally coat the plate with a covering of some kind(rubber, nylon etc)Use can degrade the plate especially if you abuse it(throw it about) And then it does not perform to spec. Getting hit while wearing soft armour is often traumatic due to blunt trauma. Hard armour OTOH is very undramatic because the bullet does not have enough energy to displace the whole plate. The steel plates will sometimes deform, especially if thin and they have not been facehardened. Normally w/ lead core rounds the bullet either comes apart(if hit squarely) or glances off(maybe into the wearer CPD(Chicago) had problems with this) Seldom is a hit on hard armour anything other than startling(Jacket and fragments hurt!). The trauma plate is normally ony 8x10 or 10x12 so it is very possible that the bullet missed the plate and went right on through the soft portion of the armour, or caught the edge. That's happened too. FWIW, I have been told by a gentlemnan who makes armour plates for a living, that the high vel 5.56 M855 is much tougher to stop than the 7.62 M80 due to steel insert. It's a hardness issue.
For everybody else: For anyone who has seen people shot COM with a pistol round vs a rifle round there is very little arguement. Unless the rifle round is FMJ that does not strike bone, it makes a hash of things. I wacked a deer, several years back w 270Win/130 BT/3050fps in the lungs and it dropped like a stone. Entire lung was FUBAR, imagine it would work as well on a man. However, I will concede the importance of shot placement. Not much point in argueing that topic. Semper Fi
For everybody else: For anyone who has seen people shot COM with a pistol round vs a rifle round there is very little arguement. Unless the rifle round is FMJ that does not strike bone, it makes a hash of things. I wacked a deer, several years back w 270Win/130 BT/3050fps in the lungs and it dropped like a stone. Entire lung was FUBAR, imagine it would work as well on a man. However, I will concede the importance of shot placement. Not much point in argueing that topic. Semper Fi
plusp,
I am sorry if I was unclear, or if you did not understand the point I was trying to make. I wanted to see the data that you based the statement of a rifle being only 3% more effective than a pistol on. I do not doubt that such a statement exists, I just want to know the context that it is put in.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
There isn't room here for the entire context as it has to do with wound treatment. There is a NATO handbook on bullet wound management that carries the same information. It is not about "effective" the original statement was about lethality wich is a good indication of performance.
To assume anything is 100% or close to it is pretty silly. Reality tells us otherwise.
And the constant reference to animals shootings is sure a hoot. Apples and hand grenades.
A major factor in human wounds with rifles is if a bone is hit. Of importance in handgun bullets, but higher velocity does send the bone fragments flying and secondary damage can be impressive. But when it is just tissue this is seldom the case. Stop by a morgue and ask such questions. Nobody there bites.
Some can't.
I am sorry if I was unclear, or if you did not understand the point I was trying to make. I wanted to see the data that you based the statement of a rifle being only 3% more effective than a pistol on. I do not doubt that such a statement exists, I just want to know the context that it is put in.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
There isn't room here for the entire context as it has to do with wound treatment. There is a NATO handbook on bullet wound management that carries the same information. It is not about "effective" the original statement was about lethality wich is a good indication of performance.
To assume anything is 100% or close to it is pretty silly. Reality tells us otherwise.
And the constant reference to animals shootings is sure a hoot. Apples and hand grenades.
A major factor in human wounds with rifles is if a bone is hit. Of importance in handgun bullets, but higher velocity does send the bone fragments flying and secondary damage can be impressive. But when it is just tissue this is seldom the case. Stop by a morgue and ask such questions. Nobody there bites.
Some can't.
Keith Rogan
New member
>>>>EXACTLY what I said. I thank you for your support. Bullets are not that big of a deal in the outcome. In ANY caliber.<<<<<
PlusP,
I agree with your basic premise that mindset, training and accuracy beats hardware, BUT, you are stretching when you make statements like the one above. I can buy it when talking about handguns (I'll still choose handgun ammo carefully), but when speaking of rifles you are way out on a limb. You shoot somebody with a rifle and ammo appropriate for medium game and the fight is OVER, period.
>>>>>Most of what Americans currently have for their 7.62x39mm rifles is Soviet HP that has been described as extremely fragmentary by SOF<<<<<
Then they are choosing the wrong ammo and should immediately switch to a reputable soft-point/ballistic tip, etc. I really doubt most people would actually choose milspec ammo for a fight. I think they buy it for cheap practice and save their Federal or Winchester soft points for the real deal.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
PlusP,
I agree with your basic premise that mindset, training and accuracy beats hardware, BUT, you are stretching when you make statements like the one above. I can buy it when talking about handguns (I'll still choose handgun ammo carefully), but when speaking of rifles you are way out on a limb. You shoot somebody with a rifle and ammo appropriate for medium game and the fight is OVER, period.
>>>>>Most of what Americans currently have for their 7.62x39mm rifles is Soviet HP that has been described as extremely fragmentary by SOF<<<<<
Then they are choosing the wrong ammo and should immediately switch to a reputable soft-point/ballistic tip, etc. I really doubt most people would actually choose milspec ammo for a fight. I think they buy it for cheap practice and save their Federal or Winchester soft points for the real deal.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
Keith Rogan
New member
PlusP,
On a different but related subject. I don't think most criminals know much about ammo. I don't think most medical examiners REALLY know much about ammo.
Forensic reports I've read usually describe rounds in a very basic or even incorrect way. Its a ".30 caliber" round or an "AK-47" round - what are those?
Theres a hell of a lot of difference between shooting a living thing with a Russian MilSpec round and a Federal hunting round. I think you know this. I don't think ME's do and I don't think criminals do or they'd choose the better rounds.
Your website is the most interesting on the subject I've ever seen. Pretty graphic - pretty convincing, at least on handgun rounds.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
On a different but related subject. I don't think most criminals know much about ammo. I don't think most medical examiners REALLY know much about ammo.
Forensic reports I've read usually describe rounds in a very basic or even incorrect way. Its a ".30 caliber" round or an "AK-47" round - what are those?
Theres a hell of a lot of difference between shooting a living thing with a Russian MilSpec round and a Federal hunting round. I think you know this. I don't think ME's do and I don't think criminals do or they'd choose the better rounds.
Your website is the most interesting on the subject I've ever seen. Pretty graphic - pretty convincing, at least on handgun rounds.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
Chuck Ames
New member
I've read some of Dr. Fackler's stuff and if I remember correctly, he does favor a rifle round over a pistol round. .
Rifles at high velocity have one major benefit over pistols and that is tissue fragmentation. In a pistol round, the temporary cavity does not stretch far enough, fast enough to cause permanent damage (unless the non-elastic liver is struck). Most Rifle rounds however, being shot at higher velocities, stretch the tissue sufficiently to rip and tear, which produces increased bleeding and leads to quicker hemorraghic shock. Although the permanent cavity may not be bigger than a pistol round, the resultant damage is greater, provided it passes through suffient tissue to yaw and fragment. If a round passes through a leg, it may not travel through enough tissue to yaw, fragment, and cause secondary destruction of the tissue. In that case it could certainly leave a little hole.
The military sends its' surgeons to major city ER's to do internships (or whatever they call it in the Med field). A surgeon friend of minel, who was assigned to LA, told me that AK wounds were much worse than pistol wounds and said that the amount of tissue destruction was incredible. I know I'm not proving anything by that (we never do here ), but it verifies everything I've read by Dr Fackler and other wound ballistics researchers on rifle wounds.
Cheers,
Chuck
Rifles at high velocity have one major benefit over pistols and that is tissue fragmentation. In a pistol round, the temporary cavity does not stretch far enough, fast enough to cause permanent damage (unless the non-elastic liver is struck). Most Rifle rounds however, being shot at higher velocities, stretch the tissue sufficiently to rip and tear, which produces increased bleeding and leads to quicker hemorraghic shock. Although the permanent cavity may not be bigger than a pistol round, the resultant damage is greater, provided it passes through suffient tissue to yaw and fragment. If a round passes through a leg, it may not travel through enough tissue to yaw, fragment, and cause secondary destruction of the tissue. In that case it could certainly leave a little hole.
The military sends its' surgeons to major city ER's to do internships (or whatever they call it in the Med field). A surgeon friend of minel, who was assigned to LA, told me that AK wounds were much worse than pistol wounds and said that the amount of tissue destruction was incredible. I know I'm not proving anything by that (we never do here
), but it verifies everything I've read by Dr Fackler and other wound ballistics researchers on rifle wounds.Cheers,
Chuck
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
NATO was not the originator of requirements that only FMJ would be used. In 1899, the first International Peace Conference was held in The Hague, convened by Czar Nicholas II of Russia.
[/quote]
A fat lot of good that did him (or his family)! Placement, placement, placement
NATO was not the originator of requirements that only FMJ would be used. In 1899, the first International Peace Conference was held in The Hague, convened by Czar Nicholas II of Russia.
[/quote]
A fat lot of good that did him (or his family)! Placement, placement, placement