You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is Big Bullet Technology Dead?
- Thread starter Zorro
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Nope & with a name like .44AMP - I would expect a high level of recoil tolerance...I guess I'm not "most people".
Oh, I don't know. Possibly because I see it that way...YMMV - - but - -t hat's my impression of the way things always shake out.Why wouldanyone on Earth come to that conclusion?
LOL! Very naive viewpoint.That would be expected from someone trying to market it, by that's not the way that crucial decision-making with a lot at stake is approached.
I believe the best possible example I can think of is the movie Pentagon Wars.
That movie sums up so many similar situations I've been through in life it's almost like they scripted it from experiences I've had!
Any time you get more than three people involved in a decision, it goes downhill fast.
Double Naught Spy
New member
So the debate remains, possibly more smaller holes or fewer possibly bigger holes.
Yep.
Looking at the dimensions, which do you think would have a greater likelihood of hitting something critical?
So if the debate is more smaller holes versus fewer larger holes, then I would have to go with the more smaller holes as having a greater likelihood of hitting something critical.
Of course, I have heard the argument from people who carry .22s about how they can make 10 well placed shots so easily and I always wonder we we don't see more gunfights where the people with .22s are making 10 well placed shots.
So the question is then one of whether or not the person shooting is really likely to score more smaller holes. A LOT of shootings involve on hit or less. So for a LOT of shootings, the bigger caliber would have an advantage.
Carry what you will and be very proficient with it. You don't get to change your mind after the shooting starts.
OldMarksman
Staff
Do you have a basis for that statement?A LOT of shootings involve on hit or less. So for a LOT of shootings, the bigger caliber would have an advantage.
For fewer than one hit, the question is moot. No injury is sustained.
But how about one?
One reason that it sounds counter-intuitive to me is that police training calls for the immediate, rapid firing of several shots, and that is consistent with the teachings of civilian self defense trainers. S the fusion becomes one of how many incidents actually do involve a single hit.
Another is that to stop firing willfully after one shot, the defender would have to have reason to believe that his or her first shot had been sufficient, and in a short range incident with a violent attacker closing rapidly, it would seem extremely risky to make and act on such an assumption.
In the chapter on wounding mechanics In Defense of Self and Others... Issues, Facts, and Fallacies: The Realities of Law Enforcement's Use of Deadly Forceby Urey Patrick and John C. Hall, the authors state that a common reaction to a person being stuck by a bullet is--nothing--no immediate reaction. The authors go on to describe why police training prescribes the shooting of several very rapid shots at the outset.
This discussion has nothing at all to do with caliber selection or such things. Rather, it is based on numerous real world observations framed in a discussion of what lawfully constitutes reasonable force in self defense, as it pertains to Fourth Amendment cases--42 USC 1983 litigation (civil claims for a deprivation of rights under color of authority.
Specific to the subject of the thread, however, the authors do describe what is necessary to effect a physical stop. The do take the time to discuss why, in their opinion, a single wound from a .45 would be somewhat preferable to a single hit from a 9MM.
But they go on to explain that reliance on a single hit would not be at all prudent, and to extoll the advantages of "more, deeper, bigger holes."
I recommend the book.
, the authors state that a common reaction to a person being stuck by a bullet is--nothing--no immediate reaction. The authors go on to describe why police training prescribes the shooting of several very rapid shots at the outset.
The bold is important not just to police, but to anyone willing to use deadly force in SD. If they're worth shooting once, they're worth shooting 3 or 4 times so fast that you don't have time to evaluate the effects of your fire.
The rest of the statement is unconfirmed and even the authors can only use anecdotal evidence. Without getting in a pee pee match I've seen several shootings that folded an individual very quickly after the first volley of shoots, some of those individuals ultimately lived. Quickly as in dropping like a sack of potatoez. On the other end, there are guys who took 5 rounds of 357 magnum to the chest and got a shot off with a 22 after that killed the cop who launched those 357 rounds. The effects of that 1 22 round on that cop were pretty immediate as well. At any rate, in our current culture of cell phone videos there is more evidence than ever. And a lot of individuals who take 2 to 3 rounds usually stop the fight very quickly.
Of a ton of shootings I have seen either training videos on or investigated, very few involved even 7-8 rounds, much less more. That would seem to suggest that the oft-touted capacity advantage of 9mm is rarely needed. Then we go back to what is better, 7 rounds of 45 or 7 of 9mm.
OldMarksman
Staff
The bold is important not just to police, but to anyone willing to use deadly force in SD. If they're worth shooting once, they're worth shooting 3 or 4 times so fast that you don't have time to evaluate the effects of your fire.
It is based on analysis of numerous reports--specific case studies.The rest of the statement is unconfirmed and even the authors can only use anecdotal evidence.
Some number of them are in the book for reading. Again, the purpose was not to create a data set to analyze shootings, but to evaluate police shootings that had led to the filing of civil rights lawsuits; the pertinent fusion was one of whether unreasonable force (too many rounds during the attack) or unnecessary force (rounds fired after the officer should have stopped firing) had been used.
I don't think the question revolves on capacity very much, if at all....I have seen either training videos on or investigated, very few involved even 7-8 rounds, much less more. That would seem to suggest that the oft-touted capacity advantage of 9mm is rarely needed. Then we go back to what is better, 7 rounds of 45 or 7 of 9mm.
Rather, it has to do with the time between controlled shots--or as has been said, whether "those few tenths might get an extra round into the bad guy (and hopefully stop him)... or it might not."
You do realize that's basically the definition of anecdotal evidence?It is based on analysis of numerous reports--specific case studies.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Do you have a basis for that statement?
For fewer than one hit, the question is moot. No injury is sustained.
But how about one?
Google is your friend here. You can google "shot once" or "shot once police" in the NEWS subsection and go through the articles. It isn't summary data, but raw data and there are a lot of them.
One reason that it sounds counter-intuitive to me is that police training calls for the immediate, rapid firing of several shots, and that is consistent with the teachings of civilian self defense trainers. S the fusion becomes one of how many incidents actually do involve a single hit.
You do realize that most people who are involved in shooting other people do not get police training and that most shootings in the US are not by the police, right? Even then, look at the number of times police only manage to hit the suspect once, despite being well trained and firing multiple shots, or despite their training, only firing once.
The bold is important not just to police, but to anyone willing to use deadly force in SD. If they're worth shooting once, they're worth shooting 3 or 4 times so fast that you don't have time to evaluate the effects of your fire.
Yes, in an ideal world that would be nice to be able to legally shoot a bad guy multiple times if the situation warranted it. You can't go Ersland on them. Unfortunately, bad guys are not the stationary silhouette targets people practicing shooting at the range. People are dynamic. Either they are shot and collapse in place (whereby more shots may not even be legal) or they go one the move and generally speaking, most people are truly pathetic at hitting moving targets and the more lateral the target is moving and the faster the target is moving, the more difficult it seems to be to be hit.
You do realize that's basically the definition of anecdotal evidence?
Exactly my point. At any rate, anecdotal evidence is all we will ever have to study the "wounding capacity" of any firearm cartridge. There are variables that simply cannot be controlled to do any kind of definitive scientific study. For every man who takes several rounds from a pistol and keeps fighting, there are likely 5 or more that stop instantly... regardless of caliber (I may would exclude 22). I'm not trying to say that this is always due to physical incapacity. In many cases it's the mental aspect of "I've been shot." Often it is from a physical incapacity though. Though very technically a human being can fight through even a wound to vital organs, it is somewhat rarer than many make it out to be.
Rather, it has to do with the time between controlled shots--or as has been said, whether "those few tenths might get an extra round into the bad guy (and hopefully stop him)... or it might not."
My split times often depend more on how well the particular firearm fits my hand than what caliber it is chambered in. Split time differences between a .45acp 1911 and a 9mm Glock 17 are not measured in tenths of seconds, but hundredths for me. And that .45acp 1911 usually wins out (I'm aware it is all steel whereas the Glock is not, but a Glock 17 has never been accused of hard recoiling). A CZ P07 in 9mm beats out both. For all the supposition that follow-up shots are always faster in 9mm, I wonder how many people have actually measured their times across more than just 1 or 2 platforms?
Last edited:
I've always heard it to be akin to taking a hard kick, punch, so forth. The effect and energy of taking a bullet I similar to a blow from a hammer. People in a gunfight are usually kind of distracted, and there will be about as much effect as a physical fight..sometimes a single hard sucker punch will flatten a guy in response, an mma boxer can go on.
Being hit once, no matter how well, is not predictably going to end hostilities. You can only predictably end hostilities by just hammering the naughty one enough times to send him into shock, tear apart a lot of tissues, or cause so much pain that he just can't continue.. being shot at might be enough all by itself and there are many people who will crumple just out of fear.
I don't think that there is much chance of predicting in advance who will go down in a single round, or why.
Try taking down a wired tweaker, full of rage, focused and distracted,blasted with adrenaline, probably numb or so wrapped up in events that he doesn't feel the hits and the pain of the injuries don't get through the fog. He won't drop until you physically put him down. There have been thousands of soldiers who took eventually lethal wounds and still functioned until they bled out.
Attack until the threat is entirely, visibly neutralized. Maybe a shot to the back if the head is wrong, but stomping on the gun hand with everything you have is reasonable.
I am certainly not a lawyer or pathologist, but these things are pretty self evident, and any hunter probably follows that thought. That hunter won't let that trophy elk keep going. I don't know anyone who will drop a round into a grizzly bear and call it good, and wait until that bullet in his tuckas makes him sit down and cry.
Being hit once, no matter how well, is not predictably going to end hostilities. You can only predictably end hostilities by just hammering the naughty one enough times to send him into shock, tear apart a lot of tissues, or cause so much pain that he just can't continue.. being shot at might be enough all by itself and there are many people who will crumple just out of fear.
I don't think that there is much chance of predicting in advance who will go down in a single round, or why.
Try taking down a wired tweaker, full of rage, focused and distracted,blasted with adrenaline, probably numb or so wrapped up in events that he doesn't feel the hits and the pain of the injuries don't get through the fog. He won't drop until you physically put him down. There have been thousands of soldiers who took eventually lethal wounds and still functioned until they bled out.
Attack until the threat is entirely, visibly neutralized. Maybe a shot to the back if the head is wrong, but stomping on the gun hand with everything you have is reasonable.
I am certainly not a lawyer or pathologist, but these things are pretty self evident, and any hunter probably follows that thought. That hunter won't let that trophy elk keep going. I don't know anyone who will drop a round into a grizzly bear and call it good, and wait until that bullet in his tuckas makes him sit down and cry.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
What I have not been able to find is how the number of successful one shot stops compares to those involving multiple hits.Google is your friend here. You can google "shot once" or "shot once police" in the NEWS subsection and go through the articles. It isn't summary data, but raw data and there are a lot of them.
Some indication that there is a "lot" of the former would not be very useful at all for evaluating risk mitigation strategy. Even if more than half of the stops required only one shot, that would not be a prudent thing to bank on.
Shooting several times to stop an assailant may sometimes result from training, but there is a reason that officers and civilians who avail themselves of training are so trained. That reason is that multiple hits are often needed.You do realize that most people who are involved in shooting other people do not get police training and that most shootings in the US are not by the police, right?
How does that tell us anything about the likelihood of effecting a timely stop by firing one shot?Even then, look at the number of times police only manage to hit the suspect once, despite being well trained and firing multiple shots, or despite their training, only firing once.
The issue is that it may well be necessary, more times with not, in the real world.Yes, in an ideal world that would be nice to be able to legally shoot a bad guy multiple times if the situation warranted it.
Expert witnesses are often called upon to explain why one shot should rarely be sufficient, why a defender would likely not be able to tell if it had been sufficient, and why defenders cannot always be expected stop shooting immediately even when it might have been obvious in hindsight the whether the additional shots had been required.
In police shootings that is quite likely to happen of there are any indicaopnms that a case will lead to lawsuits under 42 USC 1983.
Of topic, but its is interesting---the authors discuss the fact that many of those who do fall so so because they are predisposed to do so, perhaps through exposure to screen fiction, and that many who do not fall after one shot were simply not so predisposed.People are dynamic. Either they are shot and collapse in place ... or they...
Of course, the one prerequisite for the first category is that the person realize that he or she has been shot, and screen fiction aside, that doesn't always happen.
In any event, we have a lot of evidence from multiple sources, including real world accounts of defensive incidnts, forensic analysis, and physiological studies of what it takes to effect a physical stop timely, that a single hit should not be something to rely upon than the stakes are high.
OldMarksman
Staff
The actual evidence is sparse.At any rate, anecdotal evidence is all we will ever have to study the "wounding capacity" of any firearm cartridge.
True fact.There are variables that simply cannot be controlled to do any kind of definitive scientific study.
The above comments pertain to terminal ballistics--to the effectiveness of a single round.
I most seriously doubt it. The authors of the work cited say otherwise. Training routines are based on the assumption that that is not the case.For every man who takes several rounds from a pistol and keeps fighting, there are likely 5 or more that stop instantly..
They are not. I would take a good Model 1911 over a "pocket" 9mm any and every day.For all the supposition that follow-up shots are always faster in 9mm,...
I do not measure my split times. I consider it a waste of time.I wonder how many people have actually measured their times across more than just 1 or 2 platforms?
For just about everyone, a .45 ACP requires more time between controlled shots than a 9MM with a similar weight and balance, bore axis, and grip. Basic physics.
Observe a line of shooters warming up for El Presidente drills by shooting at steel plates. That led to my realization that the shooters with the service size 9s where shooting faster than those with similar .40s, and that the few with .45s were still slower.
Read this article by a former .45 user:
Keep in mind that that's not just based on the author's shooting skill. Each year, Mr. Pincus and his instructors observe large numbers of people shooting for days on end with all kinds of deferent guns.
I do not measure my split times. I consider it a waste of time.
That depends on what you are trying to find out. For example; My split times and accuracy with my 3" model 13 are identical whether I am shooting full power magnums or 38 wadcutters.
To me that puts to rest the fallacy of the light load being faster on target.
What we seek is consistency, we had that in the 1980's with the 357 magnum. Everyone was quick to jump on the hi cap semi bandwagon. Having been a cop when 95% of cops carried revolvers I have not seen a much of a benefit to carrying a semi auto besides it is smaller and lighter. Look at the data from pre-FBI protocol days and today and tell me that people are consistently requiring less hits to go down, you can't.
What I have seen is guys tend to use what is available during the pucker factor.
Yo TXAZ (post #24).....When I carry my Mod 2 9mm I have 49 rds on me. That's two extra 16 rd mags with the 16+1. When I carry my Mod 2 .45 I have 50 rds on me. That's the 13+1 mag with two extra 13 rd mags and one 10 rd mag with base plate that allows that one extra rd there. And the .45 set up gets carried just as easily.
The only ways that could be possible is if you're shooting more slowly than you could with the 38s or if you have sufficient upper body/hand strength to completely overpower the recoil so that muzzle lift is essentially imperceptible even with the magnum loadings.That depends on what you are trying to find out. For example; My split times and accuracy with my 3" model 13 are identical whether I am shooting full power magnums or 38 wadcutters.
Even the top pros acknowledge that they shoot faster with lighter calibers/loadings. That is precisely the reason that the "practical" pistol sports classify pistols or alter scoring strategies based on scaled momentum figures.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/1911...+sissy+gun,+the+1911+in+9mm+is...-a0132840815
According to Rob Leatham: "...the 9mm's lighter recoil works to his advantage in those speed-based championships. The 9mm simply recovers from muzzle flip" faster than the .40 or the .45, even in the hands of the man many consider the world's best practical handgun shooter."
With an accuracy stipulation of both shots hitting a 6 inch circle at 6-7 yards
Shooting Glock 19/23/32 with defensive ammo (+P in the 19)
In my hands, the 19 was .04 (four hundredths) second quicker for averaged pairs, 2nd shot time.
Despite the difference in blast and recoil impulse it had no effect on 2nd shot time with the 23/32, equivalent.
In my hands, the difference in 2nd shot time between 9mm/357 Sig/40 was/is insignificant in same size pistol using defensive ammo.
Shooting Glock 19/23/32 with defensive ammo (+P in the 19)
In my hands, the 19 was .04 (four hundredths) second quicker for averaged pairs, 2nd shot time.
Despite the difference in blast and recoil impulse it had no effect on 2nd shot time with the 23/32, equivalent.
In my hands, the difference in 2nd shot time between 9mm/357 Sig/40 was/is insignificant in same size pistol using defensive ammo.
In other words, even working at fairly close range and using +P ammo in the 9mm, the 9mm still gave you faster split times.With an accuracy stipulation of both shots hitting a 6 inch circle at 6-7 yards
Shooting Glock 19/23/32 with defensive ammo (+P in the 19)
In my hands, the 19 was .04 (four hundredths) second quicker for averaged pairs, 2nd shot time.
Despite the difference in blast and recoil impulse it had no effect on 2nd shot time with the 23/32, equivalent.
In my hands, the difference in 2nd shot time between 9mm/357 Sig/40 was/is insignificant in same size pistol using defensive ammo.
Muzzle rise is really what makes the difference, not so much recoil impulse/felt recoil and certainly not the noise/blast.Despite the difference in blast and recoil impulse it had no effect on 2nd shot time with the 23/32, equivalent.
In other words, even working at fairly close range and using +P ammo in the 9mm, the 9mm still gave you faster split times.
Yes. A whole .04 second for several averaged pairs, consistent on multiple sessions.
At first I allowed the hundredths of a second to influence my choice, subsequently decided that .04 was insignificant compared to the approximate 1.5 second it takes to draw and get two shots on target, others may think different.
Muzzle rise is really what makes the difference, not so much recoil impulse/felt recoil and certainly not the noise/blast.
Yea, I know, but if I don't point out the blast of 357 Sig / difference in recoil impulse someone else will, preempted it.
Did any of that involve a comp?
No.
IMO most likely that people shoot 9mm with "range ammo" when doing split times or recoil comparisons, opinion it is.
Problem is, 9mm range ammo (FMJ) does not produce the same recoil as 9mm defensive ammo (+P) whereas 40 S&W 180 gr, FMJ produces the same recoil as 180 HP also true for 357 Sig; the only way to compare fairly is to use comparable ammo ex: HST for all three.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.