Terminal ballistic question

[Shawn Dodson]

The 9mm silvertip worked as it was designed to.

Its inadequate performance was realized that day.

The 9mm Silvertip was designed to reliably expand. When it expanded it penetrated a little more than 8 inches. When Dove's bullet passed thorugh Platt's biceps muscle the wound path through the arm was about 4-5 inches, which left very little remaining penetration after it exited the arm and entered the thoracic cavity.

The fact that one agent emptied his gun from almost contact distance without scoring a hit is scary.

I'm unware of any circumstances that match your description.

Agent Dove probably fired the most shots (20) and is creditied with two hits on Platt. Agent Grogan fired 9 shots and achieved the first hit, on Matix. Agent McNeill achieved two hits on Matix right after he was hit by Grogan.

Dove's gun was hit by a .223 bullet. Exactly when during the gunfight this happened I don't know. But I suspect Dove and Grogan were preoccupied, which allowed Platt to approach their position unseen. Grogan may have been assisting Dove with his disabled pistol.

The lessons that I took from this were, know your equipment, carry lots of ammo and be the best with your weapons that you can be.

Exactly. Carry the best equipment you can. It may mean the difference between life and death.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Agent McNeill achieved two hits on Matix right after he was hit by Grogan.

This was discussed in detail in Dr. Andersen's book. In fact Gordon McNeill (now deceased) felt great guilt for years because he too thought he had missed completely and let down his men. In fact, his shot to Matix's head took him completely out of the fight and Matix never fired another round.

Platt executed standard squad infantry tactics of fire and manuever. Laying down suppressive fire and then moving to contact. Of course when he did so he was already mortally wounded by an unsurvivable wound. Either Orrantiz or Risner yelled at Dove/Grogan "He's coming around!" but they didn't hear him.

Their tactics and marksmanship sucked.

The kill shot Dove made on Platt was later described as a "million dollar" shot by Edmundo Mireles and I think showed VERY good marksmanship. As to the tactics, I rest my case on prior posts and believe the agents were reasonable to do what they did.

 

[JohnKSa]

The kill shot Dove made on Platt was later described as a "million dollar" shot by Edmundo Mireles and I think showed VERY good marksmanship

This was one shot out of how many fired by the FBI agents? Dove alone fired 20 rounds.

It still seems odd to me that in a firefight where over 100 rounds were fired there are still people arguing that the real lesson to be learned is based on only one of the rounds fired.

The real lesson is that when a man armed with a pistol takes on a man armed with a long gun the man armed with the pistol dies, all else being reasonably equal.

It's far easier to put a lot of lead on target in a hurry with a shoulder fired weapon than it is with a pistol, and that advantage is increased dramatically when the ranges begin to stretch out past 10 yards.

Take the same point of entry on a human chest. Shoot that target point with a .22LR, and then the same target with a .44 mag. Chances are the .44 mag will do more damage than the .22

The fallacy in that argument is that no one is interested in discussing the differences in terminal ballistics between a rimfire and a magnum because it's obvious to all that there's a huge difference in performance. An order of magnitude more bullet weight, an order of magnitude more muzzle energy and roughly double the bullet diameter.

What everyone's interested in is trying to determine the differences between calibers that are far closer together in performance--where muzzle energy, bullet diameter and bullet weight differ by far less than in your example.

 

[heyduke]

no one is interested in discussing the differences in terminal ballistics between a rimfire and a magnum because it's obvious to all that there's a huge difference in performance

Agreed, however another point (which I didn't state, my fault) was that with a well place shot (say to the head) with a rimfire, that it's effects can be just as devestating as a misplaced shot with a "magnum".

What everyone's interested in is trying to determine the differences between calibers that are far closer together in performance--where muzzle energy, bullet diameter and bullet weight differ by far less than in your example

For myself, it's pretty simple. Bigger AND faster is always better, or big and slow is better than light and fast. Could I be wrong, yes. Just my opinion from presonal experience.

The real lesson is that when a man armed with a pistol takes on a man armed with a long gun the man armed with the pistol dies, all else being reasonably equal.

It's far easier to put a lot of lead on target in a hurry with a shoulder fired weapon than it is with a pistol, and that advantage is increased dramatically when the ranges begin to stretch out past 10 yards.
Quote:

Very well said. However, one lesson that I take from this situation is that suspects were VERY determined. The saying "it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog" comes to mind. I also gather that the lesson the FBI took from this situation is that the 9mm needed to be replaced, which while I agree with your opinion (as far as the lesson being learned, I differ with the goverments opinion). Ironic that it's still the M9 for the military.

I did find it interesting that from T.G's second link, that it was agent Grogan who was the acclaimed "best shot" out of the agents involved, however that he (Grogan) was nearly blind, and could not aquire his targets without his glasses from the start of the gun battle (apparently knocked off during the crash).

Also interesting that the agents following the suspects (at the time) took the three consecutive right turns while following those suspects ("tipping" the suspects off that they were being followed, and perhaps giving them time to prepare).

Interesting as well that Patt and Matix did not already have the mini 14 already loaded in the car, however, at that point in time (when the suspects were loading the rifle) that the agents didn't realize that they were bringing pistols to a rifle shoot (apparently the agents did prepare by unholstering their sidearms in their vehicle, but this seems to of caused more issues then to of helped). On that note, due to the prior crimes committed by the suspects, I'm surprised that the agents involved in finding these men didn't keep "more firepower" with them in their vehicles (which may or may not of been their decision, I realize).

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

This was one shot out of how many fired by the FBI agents? Dove alone fired 20 rounds.

No, this was the best shot he made. He also hit Platt in the thigh as he rolled out of his car. All in all Platt had 12 projectile wounds in the fight. Matix had 6gunshot wounds one of which was caused by Grogan without his glasses. The FBI fired a total of 70 shots.

The real lesson is that when a man armed with a pistol takes on a man armed with a long gun the man armed with the pistol dies,

Not always, another good article :http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_152_25/ai_72293265/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

However, it is always better to have a rifle in almost all gunfights I agree. However, at that time most LEOs didn't routinely carry rifles and that may even be true today.

I did find it interesting that from T.G's second link, that it was agent Grogan who was the acclaimed "best shot" out of the agents involved, however that he (Grogan) was nearly blind, and could not aquire his targets without his glasses from the start of the gun battle (apparently knocked off during the crash).

See post above. Grogan without glasses scored one of the first hits on the BGs (Matix thru the shooting wrist) I don't think poor eyesight was such a big issue there. Also, remember Dove's guns was hit by the Mini-14 and disabled after Dove fired 20 rounds.

On that note, due to the prior crimes committed by the suspects, I'm surprised that the agents involved in finding these men didn't keep "more firepower" with them in their vehicles (which may or may not of been their decision, I realize).

Actually other FBI agents had submachineguns with them but were patrolling elsewhere at the time.

This went down fairly quickly. I really don't think the agents planned to take the two out in the open with a big gunfight. Probably they wished to follow them and take them down at a time of their choosing. Once made by the BGs, the agents lost their biggest tactical advantage; surprise. It was huge.

Source: Forensic Analysis of the April 11, 1986, FBI Firefight by W. French Anderson, MD.

 

[David Armstrong]

I also gather that the lesson the FBI took from this situation is that the 9mm needed to be replaced,....

I think I said this before, and it needs repeating. The FBI did not decide the 9mm needed to be replaced. The FBI decided that the 9mm ammo they were using needed to be replaced. Quite a bit of difference there. Even after they decided to go with the 10mm, the 9mm was still avaible to them and used by a number of agents. In fact, the 9mm Sig was the issue weapon from the early 1990s through 1998 when they changed to the Glock .40 S&W, IIRC.

 

[heyduke]

The FBI did not decide the 9mm needed to be replaced

Apologies Mr Armstrong, some other people were trying to convince me otherwise, which is what I had "on my brain" when I wrote my comment.

I do stand corrected.

Once made by the BGs, the agents lost their biggest tactical advantage; surprise. It was huge.

Agreed.

 

[katana8869]

If Platt had been hit with .38 Special 158gr LSWCHP +P instead it probably would've passed completely through his heart and he probably would have been stopped much sooner.

The same could be said of the lowly 9mm FMJ in this case. This is one of the rare instances where FMJ would probably have been more effective than the "premium" ammo that was in the agents guns.

 

[JohnKSa]

For myself, it's pretty simple. Bigger AND faster is always better, or big and slow is better than light and fast. Could I be wrong, yes. Just my opinion from presonal experience.

You can't make a decision in a vacuum and hope to come up with an accurate conclusion.

If there were absolutely no other factors affecting the outcome of a shootout other than terminal ballistics then your approach would be reasonable. However nothing could be farther from the truth.
One quick example from this situation: Gordon McNeill might very well have ended the fight before any agents were killed had he posessed a gun with a few more rounds of capacity. He expended all the ammunition in his revolver, tried to reload it with a badly injured hand and ended up being shot at close range & paralyzed before he got it back in action. Clearly capacity can sometimes play an important role in surviving gunfights.

Yes, if big & fast can be had without trading ANYTHING else that might be useful or make a significant difference in a self-defense situation then go for it. Unfortunately that's not the real world. You can't isolate a single factor and pretend that it's the only one that matters.

No, this was the best shot he made. He also hit Platt in the thigh as he rolled out of his car. All in all Platt had 12 projectile wounds in the fight. Matix had 6gunshot wounds one of which was caused by Grogan without his glasses. The FBI fired a total of 70 shots.

The point is that if you fire 70 shots and the analysis says that things went bad primarily as a result of only one of those shots then the analysis is ignoring a LOT.

Dove fired 20 rounds. Had he connected with a 6 or 7 shots (a third of his rounds instead of only about a tenth of them) I think it's quite reasonable to assume that the outcome would have been quite different. So is it really logical to say that the problem was one round that supposedly "underpenetrated"? Or would it be more logical to say that the problem was the other 18 rounds he shot that missed entirely?

Not always, another good article...

Of course, not always. But you won't get poor betting on the guy with the long gun. In fact you'll rarely lose a bet.

 

[heyduke]

If there were absolutely no other factors affecting the outcome of a shootout other than terminal ballistics then your approach would be reasonable. However nothing could be farther from the truth

I realize that the word life is made up of "if". We are certain of nothing in this world, other than the fact that we will all die given time.

I did not draw my conclusion of "bigger and faster is always better" speciffically for this gun battle, but as a general statement overal pertaining to bullets, and the effect they would have.

That said, I can't help but think that if the exact same location were hit on living tissue with the same type of bullet, increasing both the bullet weight and velocity of the bullet, would cause more tissue damage. Would I be incorrect in this opinion?

Gordon McNeill might very well have ended the fight before any agents were killed had he posessed a gun with a few more rounds of capacity.

Likewise, I'm sure it could be argued there were many other variables and "unforseens" which played out either for or against the agents in question who conducted the felony stop on Platt and Matix.

Yes, if big & fast can be had without trading ANYTHING else that might be useful or make a significant difference in a self-defense situation then go for it

For the record, I probably carry my 9 or .380 just as often as I carry a .45 or 10mm for self defense against two legged animals.

But you won't get poor betting on the guy with the long gun. In fact you'll rarely lose a bet.

Agree. It was mentioned that other agents not involved in this shootout, but who were on the highway looking for the same men (Matix and Platt) were armed with submachine guns. Just curious as to why the agents who did the stop were not (armed with submachine guns)?

As mentioned, it was brought to my attention by more than a couple of people (not on this forum) that it was this gun battle that was the deciding factor of determining that the 9mm was just plain "weak".

 

[David Armstrong]

That said, I can't help but think that if the exact same location were hit on living tissue with the same type of bullet, increasing both the bullet weight and velocity of the bullet, would cause more tissue damage. Would I be incorrect in this opinion?

Maybe. This is getting into some esoteric ballistics stuff, but after a certain point, the faster you drive a bullet the quicker it expands and the less it penetrates, thus doing less damage, as just one example.

It was mentioned that other agents not involved in this shootout, but who were on the highway looking for the same men (Matix and Platt) were armed with submachine guns.

AFAIK, this is an urban myth perpetuated in no small part by some rather lurid fiction. Nothing I've seen officially indicates that any FBI agent in Miami had a submachine with him that day, and there are no records of any of the subguns at the office being checked out.

 

[csmsss]

To me, the critical failure in Miami was the agents' decision to engage Platt and Matix while woefully underarmed. They knew that these two were using long arms in their robberies; there was every reason for the agents to make sure they had equivalent (preferably superior) firepower before making a felony stop. They were specifically looking for these two, and knew they had used long arms in their crimes in the past. They entered into this encounter criminally underarmed for what was to follow.

 

[heyduke]

Maybe. This is getting into some esoteric ballistics stuff, but after a certain point, the faster you drive a bullet the quicker it expands and the less it penetrates, thus doing less damage, as just one example.

I can see your point, however please keep in mind I mentioned

but as a general statement

Take two .400 180gr JHP bullets. One going over 200 fps faster than the other.

Which one do we "assume" will do more damage to a human being if shot placement is in the exact same location in the chest area?

I guess the question I now have is what is considered the "optimal" speed for a JHP bullet to do the most tissue damage?

Or say, we take a 180gr .400 JHP bullet and a 200gr .400 JHP bullet. Both traveling at the same speed. Which would do the most damage, again if both hit the same location on tissue? (at the same distance) I could be wrong, but I'd guess the 200gr would do more damge.

Keep in mind, I realize the question is moot if you can't hit your target, and I realize a lot of "what ifs"

AFAIK, this is an urban myth perpetuated in no small part by some rather lurid fiction. Nothing I've seen officially indicates that any FBI agent in Miami had a submachine with him that day, and there are no records of any of the subguns at the office being checked out.

Interesting, I think you could now blame the internet for a lot of "facts" that people take for granted.
Read it on the internet, and it must be true!

I can't even remember the dewey decimal system now

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The point is that if you fire 70 shots and the analysis says that things went bad primarily as a result of only one of those shots then the analysis is ignoring a LOT.

I am not sure who is making that analysis but it is not me. I think things went bad for a number of reasons most importantly Platt's determination to continue the fight. 9 out of 10 people of more would have a) Surrendered b) Gave up and died after receiving the wound Platt got from Dove early in the fight.

Dove fired 20 rounds. Had he connected with a 6 or 7 shots (a third of his rounds instead of only about a tenth of them) I think it's quite reasonable to assume that the outcome would have been quite different. So is it really logical to say that the problem was one round that supposedly "underpenetrated"? Or would it be more logical to say that the problem was the other 18 rounds he shot that missed entirely?

I am not one of those that get too worked up about the underperformance of the 9mm in that fight. Sure the ammo today is better and that is good but the 9mm effectively killed a lot of folk prior to 1986.

Now, I am not an expert in civilian firefights and perhaps you are John, but considering the conditions (agents were in bright sunlight, dust and BGs were in shadows) adrenline high lots of movement and cover I think Dove did pretty well considering until a lucky shot put his gun out of commission.

Do you think poor marksmanship was the cause? Maybe, but I don't think so.

AFAIK, this is an urban myth perpetuated in no small part by some rather lurid fiction. Nothing I've seen officially indicates that any FBI agent in Miami had a submachine with him that day, and there are no records of any of the subguns at the office being checked out.

This statement is not completely true.

The lurid fiction David talks about is urban legend and I will not repeat it.

However, if you read the letter to SAIC Gordon McNeillby from SA Edmundo Mireles on page 3 he mentions that there were agents that day that were not able to respond to the firefight that had both MP5s and a full auto M-16.
Reference page 122 Forensic Analysis of the April 11, 1986, FBI Firefight by W. French Anderson, MD.

Of course, not always. But you won't get poor betting on the guy with the long gun. In fact you'll rarely lose a bet.

Can't argue with that, but again I don't think the agents planned for or wanted that type of encounter. The real tragedy IMHO was that the next day a request for driver license photos requested by the FBI (with Matix' picture) arrived and with the ID of the second quarry victim who survived they would have taken these guys at home with no loss of life. The pictures came by mail! What irony.

 

[David Armstrong]

To me, the critical failure in Miami was the agents' decision to engage Platt and Matix while woefully underarmed.

You have to understand what was going on that day to really get the right picture. Nobody was planning on encountering Platt and Mattix. Agents were all over the place looking for the suspect vehicle, but there were no plans to try to engage them. The normal FBI tactics for this stuff were to just follow along, hopefully not get made, and wait until the BGs went home, where a perimeter would be set up and they'd bring in all the other agents, uniformed police, and so on. Just as an example, going back to Heyduke's "agents with submachine guns" thing, there were a few agents with them but none from that office. I may have the home office locations wrong, but the (Miami?) teams didn't have anything but their normal guns because they planned on just getting the subguns and such if they saw the guys and then got them barricaded up. A visiting team (Orlando?) had brought their stuff with them, but they weren't anywhere close to the action.
Everybody needs to keep in mind this was 20 years ago, it was a very different time, and the agents, just like LE everywhere, were trained to do things very different than we train them today. The agents didn't decide to engage the BG's, they they were forced into the altercation and were trying to make the best of a situation they didn't want and hadn't planned for.

 

[David Armstrong]

Which one do we "assume" will do more damage to a human being if shot placement is in the exact same location in the chest area?

Don't know. That extra 200 fps might cause the bullet to fly apart and not penetrate more than about 6 inches if you exceed the design spec. Thats my point. You really can't generalize with a lot of this stuff. With a number of designs, faster can mean a shorter wound track, slower can mean greater depth of wounding.

I could be wrong, but I'd guess the 200gr would do more damge.

Again, maybe or maybe not. Modern ammo designs just don't work that way.

Interesting, I think you could now blame the internet for a lot of "facts" that people take for granted.

The internet does its part to spread nonsense, but before it there were books, TV, and movies. The internet just made it easier to pretend to know what you are talking about when you don't.

 

[heyduke]

Modern ammo designs just don't work that way

No sarcasim intended, but how does modern ammo work? I'm guessing to cause the most tissue damage possible with both penetration and expansion?

Kind of reminds me of the argument that the 5.56 round was designed to cause serious injury and not to kill, because an injured soldier cost more to take care of to his country (again, no sarcasim intended).

All I know is no matter what the bullet weight, type or velocity, I wouldn't want to be hit with it.

but the 9mm effectively killed a lot of folk prior to 1986.

Agree 100%

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Tennessee Gentleman writes:

Now, I am not an expert in civilian firefights and perhaps you are John, but considering the conditions (agents were in bright sunlight, dust and BGs were in shadows)

I doubt there's any significance to shadow/sunlight theory. I live in FL so I have an appreciation for bright sunlight. I often take a couple of breaks during my workday to take a short walk. The tree that Platt/Matix collided with was a bottlebrush tree. Anyone familiar with the bottlebrush tree knows it's pretty scraggly. It doesn't provide much shade.

While walking and looking at the bottlebrush trees on the grounds of where I work, I sometimes think about the FBI shootout. On sunny, bright days I notice that, while Platt and Matix were technically in a shadow, they were also backlit by sunlight on the other side of the shade.

This is different than looking into an open garage (or aircraft hanger in my case) when there's bright sunlight. The garage is an enclosed cavern of darkness in which it can be difficult to see what's inside.

Compare a garage with a carport. The difference is startling. The bright sunlight/shadow effect encountered by the agents that day would have been more like a carport than an enclosed garage.

Cheers!

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I doubt there's any significance to shadow/sunlight theory.

This was brought up in Dr. Anderson's book as well on page 15. Looking at the color photos of the crime scene show quite a bit of shadows (taking into account the sun was at a different angle during the firefight) I would contend that shadows/light could make a difference. But the photos I saw weren't conclusive.

PS I see you live in Titusville. I lived at Patrick AFB while attending Florida Tech about 20 years ago. Loved going there to get that fresh OJ!

 

[JohnKSa]

Tennessee Gentleman,

I think you and I are mostly in agreement.

I believe that the Miami fiasco was the result of a confluence of circumstances. Fiascos generally are. I believe it's a mistake to try to focus the "blame" narrowly onto one or two aspects of the situation.