Just some simple ballistic facts to share.

My question is, why are some of us so concerned about these differences? It appears that folks are interested in the amount of damage done if forced to defend one's self. In a court, one is likely to be questioned about intent. It seems anything more than keeping someone from injuring you, places one in a questionable legal position. I try to use hollow points in my defense guns to help keep the projectile from bouncing all over the place.

My favorite defense pistols are a HK p7, 9mm. And, a Shield .45ACP. I'm not concerned which one I carry, or have by the bedside.
 
My interest in the differences is not academic. I am only interested in the amount of damage as it relates to stopping an attack. I carry a handgun to stop a lethal attack on myself and those in my charge. The only reliable way of doing that is immediate incapacitation of the attacker(s). That is my intent. Carefully considering the best choice of handgun and ammunition to do this is our responsibility.
 
Last edited:
K_Mac I understand and agree with the principal of your statement, but if anything should be taken from the the above pages of posts and tens of thousands of pages of studies conducted on the subject it is that "immediate incapacitation" of an attacker with a shot or even shots fired from a handgun is just not very likely.

Unless you train for 100% head shots on range with bobbing, weaving, swinging cantaloupes. I just don't think you expectation of immediate incapacitation are realistic. Perhaps you should look into techniques like the "zipper" where you shoot your way up COM until the attacker stops. Or the "Mozambique" which is two quick shots COM followed by one to the head if I remember correctly. Whatever you choose please do not expect a round or rounds from your handgun to knock an attacker to the ground immediately incapacitated that only happens in the movies/TV.
 
John in jax it is true that single shot stops with a handgun happen more often in the movies than reality. It is also true that incapacitation is the only predictable way of stopping a lethal attack. Because of this, it is absolutely critical to be able to quickly and accurately put multiple rounds on target. This is the reason I choose 9 mm most of the time and advocate its use when asked. It gives me, and most others the best chance of doing that.

For the record, while I do practice double-tap head shots, three rounds center mass is always going to be first choice.

If incapacitation to stop the lethal attack is not your goal, what is?
 
In the 1963 edition of Gun Digest, John Maynard authored an article entitled "Ballistic Bull" which I found to be an interesting read when it comes to what has changed over the last half century (mostly bullet design and construction imo) and what hasn't (basic physics). Although the answers he had in the subject of his treatise are not especially relevant to the ongoing discussion we are having, I thought the debates over "stopping power" to not be so much different in his day as they are in our day.

As most in this thread acknowledge, Mr. Maynard ridiculed any notion of "knock-down" power and went on to disparage some conventional thought of the day: "...Something like (Madison Avenue hot air) is happening in our numbers about power-which is to say bullet speed and energy in regard to centerfire rifle and pistol ammunition. If we couple public ignorance of the facts of ballistic life with the blind public belief that printed ballistic tables are near biblical-truth, there exists a golden opportunity for ballistic bamboozlement. That opportunity, it seems, is hardly being let slip by!
"...It is admittedly unfortunate that the shooting public so blindly accepts the standardized ballistic figures, so naively believes that whatever is printed must be right, must apply to all kinds of use of the caliber. But since it is obvious that all the gun writers and independent chronographers in the country, working in relays, could never educate the great mass of shooters into all the intricacies of ballistic variation, it seems to this writer even more unfortunate that the publishers of the tables, the makers of the ammunition and the guns should, whether by intent or accident, lead that shooting public into further misunderstanding...".
Mr. Maynard, I want to introduce you to the internet! :D
 
....if anything should be taken from the the above pages of posts and tens of thousands of pages of studies conducted on the subject it is that "immediate incapacitation" of an attacker with a shot or even shots fired from a handgun is just not very likely.
Click to expand...
That depends upon what one means by "immediate incapacitation".

I suggest that several shots fired into the upper chest of a violent criminal actor is likely to prevent his further aggression.

The stoppage will likely not be iimmediate, as in "split-second"--if the attacker has reached arms length with a contact weapon before before he is hit, the defender is likely to be in a world of hurt, unless he himself is able to move effectively.

We do not need to digest tens of thousands of pages of studies to confuse that. serenity camera, dash cameras, body cameras, and eye witness testimony tell us that.

Unless you train for 100% head shots on range with bobbing, weaving, swinging cantaloupes...
Click to expand...
That is generally considered a high risk, low return investment.
 
And a few larger ones wont?
Click to expand...

Larger than what mavracer? It is a good bet that any service caliber will work just fine. It is also a good bet that it can be done more quickly, and probably more accurately with a 9mm.
 
Last edited:
Larger as opposed to smaller.
Click to expand...

No argument from me, everything else being equal. Of course, the very nature of ballistics makes "everything else being equal" impossible. Size can matter, be it smaller or bigger. That conceded, I'm still in mavracer's camp.
 
k mac said:
If incapacitation to stop the lethal attack is not your goal, what is?
Click to expand...

Stopping the lethal attack is my goal. Incapacitation has nothing to do with it.

If the attacker sees my gun and stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

If my first shot completely misses and the attacker stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

If my first shot puts a hole in his shirt sleeve and the attacker stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

If my first shot nicks the fingernail on his pinky and the attacker stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

If my first shot blows his ear off and the attacker stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

If I put three in his chest and the attacker stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

To put it simply, I keep shooting him until he stops. He may be incapacitated, he may not. But my goal is to stop the attack, not try to do enough damage with my pistol to incapacitate him. That's most likely going to take shooting him a lot more times than I'm legally justified in doing so.
 
I completely agree 45_auto that stopping the attack is the goal. Everyone of the scenarios you mention is possible, but I will not bet my life on it. The only predictable way of stopping the attack is incapacitation. That is the reason I choose center mass as a target, and not any of the other body parts you list. Yes, I will stop shooting when the attack stops, but I do not assume one shot will stop the attack. My training is 3 shots center mass. If less are needed that is a good thing.

What is your target when shooting to stop the attack 45_auto? How many shots do you fire before you evaluate whether the assailant(s) are done trying to kill you?

Edit: For the record I define incapacitated as unable to continue the attack.
 
45 Auto, your submission on the use of deadly force is so well put, I've taken the liberty of reprinting it. That said, and should deadly force be necessary, I go along with Mavracer's argument that bigger is usually better, so long as you can handle the recoil vs. follow-up shot (if needed), consequences of your choice. Well said .45 Auto & Mav. Kudos to you both. Regards, Rod

Stopping the lethal attack is my goal. Incapacitation has nothing to do with it.

If the attacker sees my gun and stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

If my first shot completely misses and the attacker stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

If my first shot puts a hole in his shirt sleeve and the attacker stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

If my first shot nicks the fingernail on his pinky and the attacker stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

If my first shot blows his ear off and the attacker stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

If I put three in his chest and the attacker stops, I have no legal standing to keep shooting to incapacitate him.

To put it simply, I keep shooting him until he stops. He may be incapacitated, he may not. But my goal is to stop the attack, not try to do enough damage with my pistol to incapacitate him. That's most likely going to take shooting him a lot more times than I'm legally justified in doing so.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top