Shooting out tires

F

Full Metal Jacket

New member
Is shooting out a tire so that the bullet punctures it, flattens it, and renders it useless as easy as it seems?

Can the average tire be shot out with 1 bullet?
Do heavier bullets do the job better, or lighter, faster ones?

just wondering. :)
 
Is shooting out a tire easy? :rolleyes: Well if I walk up to a car sitting still and pop a couple off into it, yes. If I am chasing someone in my car at 80 mph and trying to hit a tire then hell no.

Now lets see if you hook a big one
 
It's easier on the sidewall. Don't even think of trying to shoot out tires of an airliner unless you have a 50BMG, they are very heavily constructed. Automobile tires can be punctured with a 22LR on the sidewall but don't expect instant deflation.Bigger caliber does a better job -faster deflation,a tougher bullet does a better job. If you're thinking of doing it on a moving car remember the consequences of the driver loses control and hits someone. Also a car can be driven on the rims for a great distance as those cop shows show.
 
I went with a friend, fellow officer, once to see what happens. We bought some cheap truck tires (used, beat up ones from tire repair shop). Filled up with air at about 25 yards...9mm penetrated, didn't exit, 40's exited...my 44 mag went through the tire and the old refrigerator holding them up, plus you could smell the burnt rubber, we were afraid to use 22, 32, thinking they might "bounce" back. Made for fun plinking and somewhat informative.
 
On our dept. this is authorized only if Garner VS. Tennessee applies (deadly force/fleeing felon law), but in general, firing at a moving vehicle is strongly discouraged. In the event that it does become necessary to shoot out tires, the recommendation is the dept. shotgun /w 00 buck.
 
On our dept. this is authorized only if Garner VS. Tennessee applies (deadly force/fleeing felon law),
Click to expand...

Interesting factoid (not to nitpick): TN V. Garner was a civil case, not criminal. You may get fired in MI for violation of department policy for shooting a fleeing felon who poses no immediate threat, but you can't be prosecuted under state law, and I've never seen anyone prosecuted under federal law in MI for shooting a fleeing felon. Same goes for civilians. I wouldn't want to pay the civil suit for shooting an unarmed 15 year-old who was running away after trying to break into your car, but you won't be prosecuted by the state. Many in MI think it's against "the law" to shoot a fleeing felon who doesn't pose an immediate threat to their life. It isn't. It's just not a wise thing to do for many reasons. Laws in other states may vary. Just thought you might find Michigan's take on it to be interesting.
 
shooting tires

IMHO this can not be a good idea, basically you have a 6" target widthwise, you are probabaly not going to be parked when you touch it off,in fact probably travelling in excess of 50mph, and where is that round going to travel after the probable miss. If that round happens to miss the tire and strikes one of the occupants, who is possibly a joyrider of a very young age, man it just aint worth the consequences, thats where spike belts come in, always remember you can't outrun a radio.....
 
What if you're chasing him like Charlie suggested, where deadly force is justified? Would you rather blow out a tire on a low population density road, or chase him into a crash in the middle of a elementary school and chance having to shoot it out with him there?
 
Interesting, Frank. I never knew Garner vs TN was a civil case. None the less, it is the milestone case for the use of deadly force in law enforcement. Basically it provides for the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon if and only if he presents an immediate threat to your life or the lives of others in the area, and for deadly force if that person's continuing freedom will present a threat to the lives of others in the future. (Forgive my wording, I'm on a laptop at home and still working on my 1st cuppa joe). Each case would be judged on it's own merits, of course.

Spike strips. They work great IF you can anticipate a suspect's route of travel, and if you can flood the area with cruisers. They're perfect for limited access highways, but in an urban area with a lot of crisscrossing streets, it's hit or miss. LAPD or NYPD can put dozens of cruisers in the area, along with aerial surveillance, but most depts. don't have the luxury of all that.

Another interesting thing is that the use of a firearm to take out a tire is not considered deadly force, but the use of a PIT maneuver is.
 
Interesting, Frank. I never knew Garner vs TN was a civil case. None the less, it is the milestone case for the use of deadly force in law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Check this out:

Laws, rules keep cops from removal

Charges can't be brought if suspected felon is shot
May 17, 2000

















BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
and JOE SWICKARD
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS



Sometimes, laws and regulations thwart officials when they try to get rid of a cop for a questionable shooting.


Detroit police executives and prosecutors agreed in 1995, for instance, that a rookie cop was wrong when he shot an unarmed teenager who was tampering with a car. But they couldn't kick him off the force or put him on trial.


"We fired him," Police Chief Benny Napoleon said. "The arbitrator gave him his job back."


The officer, Archie Arp, declined to comment.


On the night of Aug. 23, 1995, Arp was off duty and dropped in to visit his girlfriend at a bar on Joy Road near West Parkway. Arp, 45, had been a cop for a year.


Arp was in the bar a few minutes, police and court records show, when he was asked to check out the parking lot because a kid was seen messing with a car.


Moments later, gunshots were heard and 14-year-old Charles Clay lay dying on the street. Clay was about 90 feet from Arp, and a screwdriver with a 4-inch blade was near the youth's body.


Arp told investigators the youth ran but suddenly turned on him with a shiny object that Arp believed was a weapon. It was the screwdriver.


The autopsy showed that Clay had been shot in the middle of the back. The bullet's path through his body indicated that he may have been running when hit.


Even so, Sgt. Arlie Lovier of the special assignment squad, who was the officer in charge of the homicide investigation, said it was "a good shooting," with no violations of criminal law or department regulations.


The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office wanted to charge Arp, but couldn't. The office determined that a criminal case was impossible because a Michigan Supreme Court ruling said it was legal for anyone -- civilian or police officer -- to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon. Assistant prosecutor Michael King said he regretted that he could not bring state charges, "but I feel bound" by the Supreme Court ruling.


However, prosecutors issued a news release indicating that the shooting could be a "civil violation of the deceased's federal rights to be free of unreasonable arrest."


In a September 1995 letter to the police department, county prosecutors said Arp's story wasn't supported by facts, and his use of deadly force appeared to violate department policy.


The police department held hearings and fired Arp, but the dismissal was overturned on appeal in 1998. Arp was suspended for six months, and is still with the department.


Clay's family sued in Wayne County Circuit Court in 1995. The city settled the case for $1 million a year later.
Click to expand...
 
It seems to me that the usual TV cop show scenario has the cop (usually with a 2" barrel .38), leaning out the window shooting at the car being driven by a fleeing felon. He hits the tire and the bad guy's car stops. Arrest follows and roll the credits and commercial.

This really does work. If the script writer is on your side. Otherwise, it is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense that can get innocent people killed, either by the bullets or by one of the cars going out of control.

Jim
 
My experience:

5 yards, as measured by paces:

.38SPL, 2" S&W 60 - Through and through.
9mm, Glock 34 - Through and through.
.45ACP - Through and through.
5.56 - Through and through.

20 yards, as measured by paces:

.38SPL, 2" S&W 60 - Entered, no exit.
9mm, Glock 34 - Through and through.
.45ACP - Through and through.
5.56 - Through and through.

Ammo was all PMC FMJ except for 5.56 which was Winchester Q3131A.
Tires were all 15" on a steel rim, inflated to 30 psi.
 
I think the 12 guage would be the weapon of choice here. I recall a video from Texas from the chase car of a deputy stopping a pursuit this way.

I have a feeling it will give you a much higher chance of success then a handgun.
 
Well, shooting at a static tire is useful info gathering - yet, actually what happens to bullet activity at the instant it hits (a) a tread; (b) a sidewall, when it is rotating at "n" amount of RPM relative to tire size and vehicle speed???

I often wondered if a tread hit at speed(?) while pursuing would possibly spin the round upward and not penetrate at all, or maybe bounce around hitting a gas tank. Maybe the 5.56, pointed as it is would penetrate (if it didn't fragment. But hanging an AR out a window at speed - odds aren't good.

-AndyB
 
At the range I am now going to, there are several dozen 18 wheeler tires stacked up on a hill for a backstop. While I was setting up targets, I noticed a bullet, what looked to be a .45ACP, stuck in the tire, and it wasnt even 1/2 way in. I guess it hit one of the steel support wires in the tires (the sides of the tires are the easiest to penetrate).

I was shooting it with a .22LR and 12 guage shotgun and all seemed to penetrate. However, I would think that most any bullet would be stopped if it hit in the right (or wrong) place.

BTW I no longer shoot at the tires becuase of the risks involved. Now I just shoot at a large dirt hill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top