Handgun stopping power

Most of us train to double tap when shooting an assilant. Trained individuals tend to use the bigger calibers while less trained use the smaller calibers.

Trained individuals would ,it would seem, have more hits in fewer shots total shots fired. An inexperienced individual would have fewer hits with more rounds shot.
Click to expand...

I am not sure who "most of us" are. In the CCW community, training rarely goes beyond whatever is needed to quality for a CCW permit. Of those that get permits, only a limited percentage actually carries daily.

If comparing the average trained cop with the average CCW holder hit percentage, I believe you will find the CCW folks actually have a higher hit percentage than the cops. Depending on the study made and departments studied, cop hit rates usually fall between about 20% and 35%.

Depending on the source, non-LEO shootings range between about 2.2 to 3.2 shots fired by non-LEOs. This study has it as 2.2 shots on average.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=388514

I don't know of any study that looks at the number of shots fired by non-LEO civilians and the number of times they hit their targets. However, based on the number of shots fired, it looks like civilians are able to be successful with less shots than fired by cops.

Cops tend to fire more shots on average. This study of the NYPD's shootings put the average at 4.4 per shooter. LA data had the average shots fired by their cops as 3.59 per officer when only one officer was involved. With 2 officers, the average per officer went up nearly 4 and when more than 2 were involved, nearly 6.5 shots per officer. This study did indicate a fairly high hit rate of 51% for single officers with that number dropping significantly as more officers were involved.
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

The reason for the high LA percentage of hits may not be due to superior officer training, however. Why? Because the study only tabulated hit percentage in shootings where the officer(s) hit the suspect. The incidents where officers fired on suspects and missed were not used to calculate hit percentage. How convenient. When you throw out the data that looks bad, then the result looks better than it really is. Using this method of caculation, officers could miss suspects countless times except for a single officer who fired only one shot and hit the suspect and the hit percentage would be 100%.

So you have to wonder that given your premise that trained shooters (cops in this case) carry larger caliber guns and shoot more accurately, then why do their average number of shots turn out to be higher than non-cops who aren't as likely to be so well trained?

25s do to their inherent inaccuracy, tend to be fired at close range and in panic mode.
Click to expand...
.25s are not inherently inaccurate. Many of the .25 acp guns are very small and hence are difficult to hold properly and have an extremely short sight radius which can make accurate shooting more difficult, but the caliber itself and most of the platforms from which it is fired are not inherently inaccurate and certainly not at typical self defense distances.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/174635-25-acp-accuracy-test.html
 
I do think a big hole all the way through is the best solution as it creates a big blood drain. Blood loss may not be immediately incapacitating , but it is always fatal. Anything that bleeds, if it bleeds enough, it will die.
Click to expand...
Anyone involved in a shooting of another person, if the shooter's primary intent is to kill, is committing a criminal act, no matter what the circumstances. If the intent is to STOP, then self defense makes the act justifiable, even if death is the ultimate result.

This is black-letter law in every state in the union. If your intent in self defense is to stop, your are justified. If your intent in self defense is to kill, you are by definition, guilty of homicide. We are (in most states) entitled to use deadly force in self defense. We are not (in any state) entitled to use execution in self defense. It just so happens that criminals die occasionally when victims defend themselves, but that is just bad luck.

If you don't believe what I have written, you woud be well advised to hire your OWN lawyer for an hour's consult.

Now, if you are talking about a bear, that falls under a completely different set of statutes.

Lost Sheep
 
I agree with above, too. You use the handgun to defend yourself - not to kill anyone. Hopefully just pointing it at somebody will do the trick. Even if you are 100% in the right, the police will take your gun and arrest you if you're the one who fires the gun. They will let the courts decide whether you are innocent or not.

There are lots of variables in these scenarios, may be too many to really reach any conclusion. It's pretty obvious that a .45 acp beats a .22 LR but that assumes the rounds hit in the same place. For most people, putting 2-3 rounds in the same place is a lot easier with a .22 than a 45. And putting that first round where you want it is easier, too.

As to police firing more rounds, I would think that is a combination of 1) the nature of who they are shooting, 2) why they are shooting, 3) the situation / area in which they are shooting and 4) their training - they shoot until the threat is obviously stopped. They do not want any nasty surprises. The odd civilian generally is not shooting anyone in the same circumstances. The reaction of the person being shot plus the shooters own reaction at having pulled the trigger may limit the number of shots. Of sourse there are those who lose it and feel the need to unload the gun - probably a bad choice since someone's bound to question what they were thinking and why. is someone really still a threat after a couple of rounds? Where did all the otehr rounds end up if you aren't hitting the target? Lots of potentail for serious legal action.
 
There are lots of variables in these scenarios, may be too many to really reach any conclusion. It's pretty obvious that a .45 acp beats a .22 LR but that assumes the rounds hit in the same place. For most people, putting 2-3 rounds in the same place is a lot easier with a .22 than a 45. And putting that first round where you want it is easier, too.
Click to expand...

For those that don't understand anatomy and terminal ballistics, you don't want to put multiple rounds in the same place. Sure, it looks really cool when you are practicing against the paper silhouette target to have a nice, clean target except for a tight little cluster in the center of the chest, but that is just a paper target.

On a body, the result does not compound. That is because following shots are simply going to damage already damaged tissues. There really isn't much in the way of net gain of additional damaged tissue in comparison with firing two shots about 4" apart from on another where each has its own trajectory track, its on temporary cavity, and its own permanent cavity.

And sure, you can shoot a .22 more easily than a .45 and dump more rounds. That assumes, of course, that will get a chance to fire multiple rounds. If you only get a chance to fire one time, would you rather it be from a .22 or a .45?

Another way to look at it is this way. Let's say you are going to be in a gun fight and you get to choose which caliber the opposition gets to use and you know you will be hit at least one time. Which gun would you rather your opposition had...a .22 or a .45?

Anyone involved in a shooting of another person, if the shooter's primary intent is to kill, is committing a criminal act, no matter what the circumstances. If the intent is to STOP, then self defense makes the act justifiable, even if death is the ultimate result.
Click to expand...

Actually in most states, it is a criminal act regardless of the intent. Last I checked, homicide and attempted homicide were illegal in all 50 states. I don't know of a single state that has laws stipulating that during an act of self defense where lethal force was legal to use that it can only be used if the intent is to stop; that lethal force used in a situation where lethal force would be legal unless the intent was to to kill. The justification to use lethal force is not predicated on the intent of application, but on the circumstances making it necessary.

However, Lost Sheep, if you can cite some specific state codes that stiputlate what you are saying, that would be very informative.

I guess it is lucky this Montana cop wanted successful..."I wanted to kill him."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-aGDaZtldc
 
On a body, the result does not compound. That is because following shots are simply going to damage already damaged tissues. There really isn't much in the way of net gain of additional damaged tissue in comparison with firing two shots about 4" apart from on another where each has its own trajectory track, its on temporary cavity, and its own permanent cavity.
Click to expand...

That is a very interesting thought that I have never considered. Perhaps instead of practicing double taps, I should practice the Mozambique (?)
IIRC, the Mozambique is a DT to the center mass and the muzzle is quickly depressed to check response, and then a 3rd round to the pelvic region if needed.
 
Spread em out some. Good concept.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, I don't think that in a real fight you will have to work to spread out your shots. Chances are that both you and the target will be in motion and try as you might, you aren't likely to hit the same spot twice with the same shot trajectory...but if you have a chance to make a shot in the same place, don't. ;)
 
but if you have a chance to make a shot in the same place, don't.
Click to expand...

I would disagree to some extent. Yes, a repeat shot is likely to do more damage if placed in fresh tissue, but in a life-or-death scenario, take any shot presented.

I've shot deer in the same place twice when they didn't drop on the first shot, and the affects of the 2nd shot have been obvious...every time.

Daryl
 
I would disagree to some extent. Yes, a repeat shot is likely to do more damage if placed in fresh tissue, but in a life-or-death scenario, take any shot presented.

I've shot deer in the same place twice when they didn't drop on the first shot, and the affects of the 2nd shot have been obvious...every time.

Daryl
Click to expand...

Right, if the only shot available to you is the same postage stamp-sized location you have already shot previously and the person is still a threat, then by golly shoot that postage-stamp sized spot again.

Chances are as with Daryl's deer, that isn't going to be the only place available to you. A hunter's goal is to preserve meat, so I understand the inclination to try to hit the same spot, but of course the deer isn't trying to kill you or a loved at the time.
 
I'm in very poor health. I had a neighbor who would become inebriated and threaten to kill me... cursing racist remarks, etc. One night he came over to my property with a crow bar in his hand doing his same old thing threatening to bash my skull in. I can't fight nor run anymore so I pulled my P-11 aiming it in the air. This just made him angrier. His girlfriend stepped in to try and reason with him. He backed down and apologized the next day. I told him he'd done similar things on numerous occasions. He just said, "Oh.", and walked away.

Had his girlfriend not stepped in I hate to think what could have happened.
 
Mike1234, that was about the stupidest thing I ever heard.... If it was worth drawing the gun then it is worth pointing it directly at the person. Pointing it in the air is just asking to get yourself injured or killed.

Don't bring a gun into the situation unless you believe you have sufficient justification to point it, preferably not unless you are ready to shoot.
 
arentol... I hear you. But the guy was drunk as a skunk. Even with my poor health I felt I could keep him at bay with my weak hand for at least a few moments. I didn't want to kill the SOB... just stop him. Between me and his girlfriend... we did that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top