thinking out loud
- Thread starter croc4
- Start date
One thing has changed. Our diet is better, and we are consequently bigger and stronger. Now you may look at the average person and say they don't seem stronger that people of antiquity, but you'd likely be wrong. Many of us don't get enough exercise, but those of us who do (because of our line of work or our natural habits) are pretty strong.
And it isn't the average person you should be thinking about. You should be thinking about the average thug. The stereotypical large-framed intimidating thug of today has all the same benefits of diet and medical care as the rest of us, and they are consequently harder to stop than the comparable stereotypical thug 100 years ago. So does the wiry thug or any other body type you want to single out.
And it isn't the average person you should be thinking about. You should be thinking about the average thug. The stereotypical large-framed intimidating thug of today has all the same benefits of diet and medical care as the rest of us, and they are consequently harder to stop than the comparable stereotypical thug 100 years ago. So does the wiry thug or any other body type you want to single out.
I won't make any bones about it, . . . if I could carry a 13+1, double stack, 12 gauge pistol, . . . and shoot it as effective as my Browning buckmark .22 or my RIA 1911, . . . you can bet that 12 gauge behemoth would find an IWB and be my carry piece.
Can't you just see that carjacker's eyes
Bigger may not be better, . . . but it sure beats whatever the devil is in second place.
But again, . . . placement is key, . . . thank you Larry.
May God bless,
Dwight
Can't you just see that carjacker's eyes
Bigger may not be better, . . . but it sure beats whatever the devil is in second place.
But again, . . . placement is key, . . . thank you Larry.
May God bless,
Dwight
Well, we are bigger than we used to be, generally
and I know I am, personally.
A century ago, 250lb men were uncommon, heights above 6 ft were uncommon. Today, they are a lot closer to being common, especially in the US. Diet, vitamins, medical care, all have been improving the physical condition of our species, so, it is quite possible that overall, in the US, we are more difficult to stop than our forefathers.
However, since we never meet the general overall in a defense situation, the point is moot. What we meet is an individual, as likely to be under average as over average.
Each encounter is an individual, and while generalities apply, they cannot be depended on as relative to any individual situation. Except for one. Shot placement over rides all consideration of caliber. Period.
A flesh wound with a .44 (or a 12ga) is not as effective (physically) as a CNS hit with a small caliber.
The military's criteria for a "proper" caliber are not the same as what a private citizen should use. Recent trends (in the last half century) to small caliber arms is based more on the capability to carry more ammo, and thus increase the hit probability. The Military mindset is about stopping the enemy from being able to continue combat. Killing them does this, but so does sufficient wounding. The ability of the round to protect the shooter in a self defense situation is not the paramount criteria. The mission is.
After the failure to perform satisfactorily during the Moro campaign led to doubts about the "small bore" .38 Colt, ultimately the creation and adoption of the .45 ACP, a round duplicating the ballisitics of a round still trusted by the military. The US found something that worked acceptably, and kept is for over 70 years.
Virtually everthing works when it goes in the right place. And all the different calibers and pistol designs are attempts to find a perfect balance between people's ability to use the gun effectively and their needs for portability/concealability.
My personal experience is in my sig line.
and I know I am, personally.
A century ago, 250lb men were uncommon, heights above 6 ft were uncommon. Today, they are a lot closer to being common, especially in the US. Diet, vitamins, medical care, all have been improving the physical condition of our species, so, it is quite possible that overall, in the US, we are more difficult to stop than our forefathers.
However, since we never meet the general overall in a defense situation, the point is moot. What we meet is an individual, as likely to be under average as over average.
Each encounter is an individual, and while generalities apply, they cannot be depended on as relative to any individual situation. Except for one. Shot placement over rides all consideration of caliber. Period.
A flesh wound with a .44 (or a 12ga) is not as effective (physically) as a CNS hit with a small caliber.
The military's criteria for a "proper" caliber are not the same as what a private citizen should use. Recent trends (in the last half century) to small caliber arms is based more on the capability to carry more ammo, and thus increase the hit probability. The Military mindset is about stopping the enemy from being able to continue combat. Killing them does this, but so does sufficient wounding. The ability of the round to protect the shooter in a self defense situation is not the paramount criteria. The mission is.
After the failure to perform satisfactorily during the Moro campaign led to doubts about the "small bore" .38 Colt, ultimately the creation and adoption of the .45 ACP, a round duplicating the ballisitics of a round still trusted by the military. The US found something that worked acceptably, and kept is for over 70 years.
Virtually everthing works when it goes in the right place. And all the different calibers and pistol designs are attempts to find a perfect balance between people's ability to use the gun effectively and their needs for portability/concealability.
My personal experience is in my sig line.
I think the change in medical care has changed the dynamic quit a bit. Wasn't too long ago that a gunshot wound almost always resulted in a nasty if not fatal infection. As such, brandishing was probably a very effective deterrent, therby making the caliber less of a priority.
or not....
or not....
Medical tech is one issue. It's also quite possible that "bodybuilding" as a fad among the "thug set" is more common, and aided by better diet (maybe!).
But another issue is, we're hearing more details about more shootings, and we (as lawful shooters) are more aware that some people just plain die hard.
We hear stories like the Miami86 shooting. Most police ammo today (esp. the 40S&W) was designed literally around the actions of Platt after he was mortally wounded yet continued to kill.
Monsters like that DO exist. They're rare as hell but they exist.
For that reason, and the fact that I really only have six shots, I load "heavy", close to 800ft/lbs energy, up near where the 10mm lives which was the FBI's FIRST reaction to the '86 shooting 'cept they couldn't handle it (nor could their first-gen S&W autoloaders in 10mm).
Over 90% of all *shootings*, that level of power isn't necessary. And that's the cases that actually go to shots fired, most incidents don't go that far (at least 90% again!)
But then again, I gain another advantage from huge power: huge *noise* at a level not usually seen (well, heard) on the street. If I'm up against a mob and I set off a full-house 357 at one of 'em, the rest are going to go "whoa, what the hell?" The sound is actually worse than the 44Maggie.
Psychological warfare does matter.
But another issue is, we're hearing more details about more shootings, and we (as lawful shooters) are more aware that some people just plain die hard.
We hear stories like the Miami86 shooting. Most police ammo today (esp. the 40S&W) was designed literally around the actions of Platt after he was mortally wounded yet continued to kill.
Monsters like that DO exist. They're rare as hell but they exist.
For that reason, and the fact that I really only have six shots, I load "heavy", close to 800ft/lbs energy, up near where the 10mm lives which was the FBI's FIRST reaction to the '86 shooting 'cept they couldn't handle it (nor could their first-gen S&W autoloaders in 10mm).
Over 90% of all *shootings*, that level of power isn't necessary. And that's the cases that actually go to shots fired, most incidents don't go that far (at least 90% again!)
But then again, I gain another advantage from huge power: huge *noise* at a level not usually seen (well, heard) on the street. If I'm up against a mob and I set off a full-house 357 at one of 'em, the rest are going to go "whoa, what the hell?" The sound is actually worse than the 44Maggie.
Psychological warfare does matter.
Lilorfnannie
Inactive
I'm not an expert by any means, but I thought it was the drugs? More BGs on harder stuff that makes them insensible to pain (and to reality). It takes more to put down someone on (insert current slang term for whatever freakish drug is popular at the moment) than for what was available in prior decades. That was my understanding anyways.
RamSlammer
New member
By and large, in western nations, humans are bigger critters than 50 years ago on average.
I played college football 25 years ago as a 6',2", 220 lb. middle linebacker and was considered a lummox then. Today I'd be a shrimp not big or fast enough to play cornerback or strong safety. My dad played in the late 40's as a 5', 9" 175 lb. guard. That's about half the weight of today's players at that position. Guys in the first half of the twentieth century averaged 5', 7" and 165 lbs. or thereabouts. Quite different today.
Track the common police calibers through the 1900's and you'll find a steady progression upward from .32 caliber revolvers to .40 Caliber Semi-Autos. There's a reason for this and it's warranted.
I played college football 25 years ago as a 6',2", 220 lb. middle linebacker and was considered a lummox then. Today I'd be a shrimp not big or fast enough to play cornerback or strong safety. My dad played in the late 40's as a 5', 9" 175 lb. guard. That's about half the weight of today's players at that position. Guys in the first half of the twentieth century averaged 5', 7" and 165 lbs. or thereabouts. Quite different today.
Track the common police calibers through the 1900's and you'll find a steady progression upward from .32 caliber revolvers to .40 Caliber Semi-Autos. There's a reason for this and it's warranted.
Visit a museum that features clothing and furniture. The first thing you'll notice is that the clothes were smaller, the shoes were smaller, the hats were smaller and the furniture was made for smaller statures.
The soldiers of the American Civil War were shrimps by todays standards. Really look at the photos from the Civil War, World War 1, World War 2and Vietnam. You'll notice that the soldiers are getting taller and broader. Even the short guys have more breadth to their shoulders.
Yes we've gotten fatter but we've also gotten bigger. Alot bigger. When I was a kid in the 70's Arnold was competing in body building and he was considered to be a freak of nature.Didn't seem possible that a Human being could be so muscular. When I saw Conan the Barbarian for the first time in 1982 we kept talking about his size. He looked like a mountain with a sword.
But today I watch that some movie and I compare him to the top bodybuilders that are currently out there. Arnold looks great, but he dosen't seem so massive.If you took 1980 Arnold and brought him into 2009 I don't think he would even place in a competition. Yes I know steroids play a part, but in the past thirty years people have gotten bigger.
Perhaps it's all the hormones that are in our milk and meat products?
The soldiers of the American Civil War were shrimps by todays standards. Really look at the photos from the Civil War, World War 1, World War 2and Vietnam. You'll notice that the soldiers are getting taller and broader. Even the short guys have more breadth to their shoulders.
Yes we've gotten fatter but we've also gotten bigger. Alot bigger. When I was a kid in the 70's Arnold was competing in body building and he was considered to be a freak of nature.Didn't seem possible that a Human being could be so muscular. When I saw Conan the Barbarian for the first time in 1982 we kept talking about his size. He looked like a mountain with a sword.
But today I watch that some movie and I compare him to the top bodybuilders that are currently out there. Arnold looks great, but he dosen't seem so massive.If you took 1980 Arnold and brought him into 2009 I don't think he would even place in a competition. Yes I know steroids play a part, but in the past thirty years people have gotten bigger.
Perhaps it's all the hormones that are in our milk and meat products?
I think the biggest difference is information. Lots of studies have been done, information gathered and it's all easily relayed on copper wire to nearly everyone's home. We have a much better understanding of what works and what doesn't. I have to wonder if there is not a psychological aspect in regards to medical care. A hundred years ago, any gunshot wound was serious. Nowadays, it's an entirely different story. Could be that that plays a minor role in criminal mindset and behavior, on a subconscious level. No evidence, just thinking out loud.
Smokeless powder has also had a great effect on the guns we can easily conceal as well as the impact they deliver. Blackpowder needs some barrel length to be effective, smokeless powders changed that. So your pocket .22 or .32 of yesterday is your Colt 1911 Officers model .45ACP or subcompact 9mm or .40S&W of today.
Smokeless powder has also had a great effect on the guns we can easily conceal as well as the impact they deliver. Blackpowder needs some barrel length to be effective, smokeless powders changed that. So your pocket .22 or .32 of yesterday is your Colt 1911 Officers model .45ACP or subcompact 9mm or .40S&W of today.
This is also a very good point. Going back even further, we all read about how tough they were on the battlefield but 5' 6" and 150lbs was huge for a Spartan. Health care is better, we are for the most part more well-fed, we know better how to care for our babies. Not to mention the steriods we hop up our domesticated livestock on. We're all just bigger.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
There is a lot of baloney in this thread. For example:
Know anything about body armor vs. handgun rounds? Sigh.
Same thing with folks spouting nonsense about the Moros, M16s and 7.62. Please be sure of your facts.
Thanks to our eagled eyed participants who correct such.
About fear of being shot - in the good old days - wounds caused major infections and killed you. That's why - hey - guess what - the first successful cartridge revolver in the USA was a 22S. Folks would avoid that.
I've sat through a slew of professional level talks and the consensus is that with modern 9mm, 40 and 45 (and even +P 38 SPL) - there is little variance in effectiveness with good hits. Recent Army marksmanship studies demonstrated the lack of stopping mantra came from folks who couldn't make a good hit.
An anecdote - at the Polite Society we faced John Hearne's reactive targets. I shot my reliable G19 with Winchester 9mm. I knocked each down with one shot. Later, I heard a gentleman say to Givens - I should have used a bigger round - DAMN! Tom said - they go down if you hit them in a place that counts. Same thing at the NTI - four reactive targets - 5 shots - placement.
Know anything about body armor vs. handgun rounds? Sigh.
Same thing with folks spouting nonsense about the Moros, M16s and 7.62. Please be sure of your facts.
Thanks to our eagled eyed participants who correct such.
About fear of being shot - in the good old days - wounds caused major infections and killed you. That's why - hey - guess what - the first successful cartridge revolver in the USA was a 22S. Folks would avoid that.
I've sat through a slew of professional level talks and the consensus is that with modern 9mm, 40 and 45 (and even +P 38 SPL) - there is little variance in effectiveness with good hits. Recent Army marksmanship studies demonstrated the lack of stopping mantra came from folks who couldn't make a good hit.
An anecdote - at the Polite Society we faced John Hearne's reactive targets. I shot my reliable G19 with Winchester 9mm. I knocked each down with one shot. Later, I heard a gentleman say to Givens - I should have used a bigger round - DAMN! Tom said - they go down if you hit them in a place that counts. Same thing at the NTI - four reactive targets - 5 shots - placement.