terminal performance

I'm confused:confused:


.40S&W fired from 20 feet failed to penetrate more than 1" and the lesson learned at the end is that the .40 ammo didn't fail? What am I missing here?


"Range between subject and officers: 20 feet.
• Subject had a t-shirt on under his jacket."

"Officers fired on the subject and hit him in the left arm, completely shattering the bone. He was
also hit five times in the chest and abdomen. All rounds penetrated less than 1". All of the rounds
expanded fully but did not cause incapacitation due to the lack of penetration. According to the
Medical Examiner, none of the rounds caused any life threatening injuries. The subject also
received one round into the front of his throat, it penetrated less than 1" as well. The Medical
Examiner stated that the recovered rounds were in pristine condition (still had rifling marks on
them)."


"The .40 S&W ammunition did not fail in this
incident."

I'm not necessarily bashing the .40 here but if this isn't failure, what is?
 
I think what you quoted was from the "incorrect" coroners report. In the Facts and Lessons Learned sections, it talks about how .40 rounds cannot fully expand at 1" like noted by the coroner, and that even all the M4 TAP rounds didnt incapacitate the subject. Overall they said the .40 rounds performed as expected, and the non-incapacitation was caused by poor shot placement.
Thats what I got from it...
 
Well, if the .40's hit something first THEN hit the BG I could see them not penetrating more than an inch...

I didn't see any solid COM hits, so yes, I'd say shot placement is key.
 
Interesting note:

Officers fired AT LEAST 107 rounds with 17 hits: 16% hit rate.


There seems to be a lot of information missing. A total of 133 rounds fired from a distance of 20 feet and it lasted 3.5 minutes? Unless there was 3 minutes between the initial officer being hit and the others showing up, I don't see how that's possible.
 
Determined individuals can sustain many
gunshot wounds in areas that produce great
pain and continue to fight a long time, even
without the aid of drugs or alcohol.
Shot placement is everything in a gunfight
and always the key to stopping a threat
effectively.
Click to expand...

That right there is the smartest thing in that entire report.
 
Interesting note:

Officers fired AT LEAST 107 rounds with 17 hits: 16% hit rate.


There seems to be a lot of information missing. A total of 133 rounds fired from a distance of 20 feet and it lasted 3.5 minutes? Unless there was 3 minutes between the initial officer being hit and the others showing up, I don't see how that's possible.
Click to expand...

It's fun trying to guess what happened when not included specifically in the report, isn't it? 3 cops, of which only 2 delivered sustained fire on the target for 3.5 minutes at twenty feet for an ammo count of 107 and a hit percentage of 16%. It says it was an ambush in the report, so the guy with the M-4 probably arrived in a second cruiser (just guessing) with all three responding to a "guy with a gun call?" I dunno. Any LEO's on the forum have some insight into this?
 
I'm not necessarily bashing the .40 here but if this isn't failure, what is?
Click to expand...

Me neither, but I agree with you. What would constitute "failure" to those evaluating this? Inability to penetrate a layer of cotton clothing? Are we then better off with ball ammo and better shot placement? Anyone? I carry a .40 with that exact ammo. Should I carry ball ammo? This is really weird.
 
This makes no sense.

"All of the rounds expanded fully"


"Examiner stated that the recovered rounds were in pristine condition (still had rifling marks on them)"

Huh? I think that there is a literacy problem of some kind. Either the examiner isn't able to put on paper a coherent report or whoever wrote this powerpoint isn't able to accurately interpret what he is reading.

Having read many official reports like this, often times, people attempt to write in a manner that imparts both their ability and the seriousness of the subject. Most often, they look silly.

When reading this report, remember, one government bureaucrat wrote it, another transcribed it, and yet another tried to incorporate it into a presentation. It is highly unlikely that meaning or accuracy survived.
 
Another inconsistency

From Page 6:
"Subject received approximately sixteen .223 rounds, thirteen of these rounds went completely through."
So, hit by sixteen .223 rounds.

On Page 9, the arm x-ray, I see a broken arm, I don't see a .40 round, so that is one .40 that penetrated more than one inch, and exited. I don't think this guy's arm is only one inch thick, so, where's the bullet?

Then, after the pictures (Page 18):
"Assailant was shot seventeen times with eleven rounds exiting the body."
So far, sixteen .223 rounds, seventeen total, so that means one .40. There's a little problem of consistency, as earlier they said thirteen rounds of .223 exited, but now only eleven, probably a typo.

Next page:
"Six .40 S&W rounds, five of which expanded, were recovered on autopsy."
So, hit by at least six .40s, that's at least 19 gunshot wounds, nine of which did not exit.

Conclusion: The examiner, the report writer, and anyone who gives this report the slightest semblance of credulity or credibility is a nincompoop.
 
Conclusion: The examiner, the report writer, and anyone who gives this report the slightest semblance of credulity or credibility is a nincompoop.
Click to expand...

A true professional's summation if I've ever heard one. ROFL
 
If you read through the entire report, you'll note that at the end, the FBI determined that the initial medical examiner's report of 1 inch of penetration and fully expanded rounds is impossible, and thus incorrect.
 
You may want to warn people about the link- it may be a little graphic for some of the younger ones lurking here.

I have to wonder if the bullets were recovered 1" from inside the body- that they penetrated then stopped at the back of the body. And I also have to wonder if the suspect was behind cover/concealment. This was a gunfight lasting 3.5 minutes with the suspect stopping to reload the magazine with rounds out of a box. :confused: He about had to be behind something.

The tattoo is fitting isn't it? "Live by the gun. Die by the gun." He asked for it. His choice.
 
If you read through the entire report, you'll note that at the end, the FBI determined that the initial medical examiner's report of 1 inch of penetration and fully expanded rounds is impossible, and thus incorrect.
Click to expand...

NRAhab, looks like you were the only one to read the report beyond the gruesome photos. I went back and read the Facts and Lessons Learned sections and you were right. Thanks for being thorough!
 
KLRANGL caught that, too, the part of the report that the rounds could not have penetrated just one inch and not expanded. I saw it, but there had to be some reason for the rumors. I'm thinking more than one expert did an examination or that some of the rounds did not penetrate very far.

For example, the one in the neck wasn't expanded and was still there. It could be that it hit something that slowed it down.
 
NRAhab, looks like you were the only one to read the report beyond the gruesome photos. I went back and read the Facts and Lessons Learned sections and you were right. Thanks for being thorough!
Click to expand...


I noticed it right along side the dozen or so other unexplained discrepancies. Was the medical examiner an idiot? There is too much missing detail. There also appears to be missing pieces of the slide show because the section containing the "blog" is cut-off and not continued. I, for one, don't put much faith in any part if this report, the initial findings or the "facts" at the end.
 
I noticed it right along side the dozen or so other unexplained discrepancies.
Click to expand...

I'll bet you would get mad when the teacher was handing out gold stars and skipped you.

There is too much missing detail. There also appears to be missing pieces of the slide show because the section containing the "blog" is cut-off and not continued.
Click to expand...

Peet, try editing the zoom percentage to about 50%, then you can see the whole blog. If that doesn't work, try a ctrl+a, copy, paste in notepad and you should be able to read the rest of it. I think this power point slide is intended for an audience of LEO's not civilians. It probably went along with a lecture that went into more detail. If you did indeed bother to read the Facts and Lessons Learned sections, then you will see they indeed concluded that the medical examiner's findings were incorrect. The point to the presentation was there WERE discrepancies and they were pointed out in the presentation. The fact that you found them as well is good, because they were all laid out for you. I think you may be confused as to the purpose of the entire thing.
 
Last edited:
Apone, you're correct

I understand what you are saying, and you are correct. The point of this powerpoint is to correct inaccurate blogs, written based on the inaccurate report of the examiner. Unfortunately, in trying to correct this, he creates an even more confusing document.

In trying to correct the inaccurate information, the author doesn't take the time to present an accurate narrative of the event. In failing to do that, he adds to the confusion that he is attempting to correct. Instead of just saying that the coroner was incorrect, he should explain what actually happened. To not give that narrative, he defeats his whole purpose. So did the bullets penetrate or not? Did they expand or not? The .223s failed, but how? How many times was the perp hit? Were the .40s successful? How was the shot placement and how did it affect the outcome.

If you are going to attempt to correct inaccurate information, you are obligated to present accurate information. Knowing how government works,
I could easily conclude that this guy is just trying to cover the butts of those who have a vested interest in the .40 being a success. Look at my sig, I'm a .40 fan, but remember the primary function of bureaucrats is to not be blamed and keep cashing their paychecks.
 
Remember, just because it wasnt in the powerpoint doesnt mean it wasnt in the presentation. a good presentation has a few main facts on the slides, and lots of info in the speech...
assuming of course this was a presentation...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top