Stopping power vs. Lethality - caught on camera

[Certaindeaf]

There is absolutely no need to go +P in 9mm (except for special applications). A modern round like Federal HST or Winchester RA9T drills a 13+ inch hole in ballistic gel (which exceeds FBI standards), very controllable with mild recoil, no wear on the gun and excellent suppression in 147gr.

If you have a reason to use +P (for example, if you shoot through windshields for a living) you might as well go .40 which was designed for police to begin with.

Uh, no. What is closer to the conceded one shot stopper (the 125gr hollow point .357 magnum)?.. a standard pressure 9mm or a +P+ driving a premium 115gr HP or so? Which one is more very similar in ballistics to the .357? That was a rhetorical question.

 

[U201491]

You're right CoastRange57, right on the money. I never had to do entry duty, but knew a lot of guys that ditched their M9s and rolled in with Benelli shotguns instead. I think this has a great deal to do with the Corps decision to go back to the 1911 next year. Colt already has the contract with the Corps. Semper Fi

About time. The 1911 is the only sidearm to go with. Going to a 9mm was a dumb move.

 

[taylor]

Wild Bill Hickok was quoted as saying he always shot for a spot just below the navel or below the center, he said they immediately dropped in agony and it took the fight out of them and severed nerves of motor control to the hands. He seemed to have made a science out of shooting people in the Civil War and after and a lot of it was done with a .36 cap and ball equal to todays .38 Special.

 

[simon99]

About time. The 1911 is the only sidearm to go with. Going to a 9mm was a dumb move.

I have mixed feelings about it to be honest. I carried the M9 ( Beretta 92) while I was in the Marine Corps. I love that gun, I even own one now. Does it have the stopping power of a 1911? No. But it has more capacity. On the other hand, the last thing any soldier wants is to get into a firefight with a pistol in your hand, hence the term " fight your way to a rifle".....As someone who had to carry a full loadout in 125* weather in the middle east, packing more ammo for your 45 to have a higher surplus would really suck. Most of the SF guys over there are carrying HK's, Sigs, even Glocks in 45ACP that are smaller and lighter than a 1911, but with higher capacity in the same package.

 

[Certaindeaf]

If the military had a brain, they'd use these in 9mm.. terminal performance and unparalleled armor penetration. Yea, they cost money but what is money for and look at all the absolute government waste for nothing. Fire 9/10 of government and make our own stuff to make up the balance.

 

[Stomper]

I carried the 1911A1 all over/in Latin American jungles back in the 80's and never felt "naked"... of course I was also carrying one of nine M60's my platoon (three per squad) was assigned.

I MUCH prefer the .45ACP over the 9mm and carry a Gock-30 as my EDC. I may get a Glock-21, but I can always just slap G21 mags in my G30 too.

 

[F2CMaDMaXX]

Dear Lord, that accent was thick, scared the bubblegum out of me with those rounds though

Also, really needs to cut his nails

 

[F2CMaDMaXX]

I think even previous posts stated we weren't talking about .22's here, they're not in the same class at all.

And yes, anything multi-layered, especially sound deadening stuff, will stop projectiles much faster.

 

[taylor]

If it was up to me I'd issue the whole US Military Desert Eagle's .44 Magnums as sidearms.

 

[Misterbill]

If it was up to me I'd issue the whole US Military Desert Eagle's .44 Magnums as sidearms.

Unless the military actually starts teaching pistol shooting in a serious way, it doesn't matter what they issue. My training with a pistol was a joke, even by the standards of the time. Most of the guys I talk to recently out tell me this hasn't much changed with the exception of a VERY few MOS's. -Besides, for most military uses, if you're using a pistol, you're having an INCREDIBLY bad day. -Because your rifle stopped working or is out of ammo. For military CQB there are a lot of choices I'd make before I ever got to a pistol, of any kind or caliber.

 

[wichaka]

But as I said, ballistics don't lie. Yes, we'll KNOW if the "perp" was running away. Really, we will. Yes, we'll also know if the "perp" was facing full-front to you when shot. And yes, chances are, we'll even have a pretty good idea of where his arms were WHEN you shot. Modern forensics are THAT good.

If you shoot an unarmed man, forensics are going to be your very good friend (Zimmerman) or your very bad enemy. In very few cases are they going to be truly ambiguous.

You do realize that its lawful for LE to shoot people in the back, in some circumstances under both Federal and WA. State law.


Under Tenn v. Garner. The 2nd prong of this case law (471 U.S. 1 (1985));


2 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force to capture or seize a dangerous suspect when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm, and there in no reasonably safe means of preventing the suspect's escape.

Important points of this prong;

- Capture or Seize

- Inflicted or threatened serious bodily harm

- No reasonable safe means

I will give a quick & easy example of "threatened infliction of serious bodily harm"

Subject passes a note to a bank teller stating they have a gun and will use
it if x amount of money is not given. There is no requirement for an actual weapon to be seen.

WA. State Law RCW 9A.16.040 closely follows Tenn V Garner above.

 

[powermad]

Several years ago I watched a clip of a traffic stop that went wrong.
The suspect was a large black guy, way bigger than the cop.
They wound up in a scuffle, cop wound up emptying the mag on his .40 with the barrel against his t-shirt.
Guy takes gun from the cop and starts beating his azz up and down the street with it before other cops showed up and took him down. The guy survived and his tox screen was clean.
Just one mean SOB

That would have to be the mother of Holy s**t moments, getting beaten with your own gun after doing a mag dump into the dude.

 

[Netspirit]

Uh, no. What is closer to the conceded one shot stopper (the 125gr hollow point .357 magnum)?.. a standard pressure 9mm or a +P+ driving a premium 115gr HP or so? Which one is more very similar in ballistics to the .357? That was a rhetorical question.

I'll still answer it.

There is no such thing as a "one shot stopper" when it comes to pistol rounds. You have to hit the brain or spine to stop your target instantly. The rest depends on your placement as you rely on messing up their vitals or causing them to bleed out.

The ballistics of .357 are not impressive at all, by the way, if you consider that you get some more oomph (which is not really necessary for self-defense after you exceed FBI standards) at the expense of harsher recoil and hearing damage.

 

[Netspirit]

For 9mm every "expert" I've ever talked to, including Mas Ayoob unless he's changed his stance went with +Ps or better for 9mm.

It is possible that they made their choices years ago after the Miami shootout when 9mm Luger was found underpowered and .40 S&W was the answer. However, multiple decades have passed and modern 9mm rounds (like this one: 9mm 147gr Winchester Ranger T Ballistic Gel Test - YouTube) provide sufficient penetration, reliable expansion, and come with a lot of "residual tissue damage" (which, unless we are talking rifles, is much less important than shot placement).

Obviously +P will fly faster, and +P+ faster still (having TWICE the pressure of .45 ACP, basically .357 SIG) but that crusade for velocity stops making sense at some point. People choose 9mm over .40 because it is cheap and controllable while *sufficient* for all self-defense situations; with +P you basically give those advantages up and get a hot round that costs and shoots ".40-ish".

The faster and bigger is not always the better. There exists the optimum balance, otherwise you would be forced to choose .40 +P+ over "just" .40. From what I have heard (and correct me if I am wrong, please) for us ordinary civilians defending against burglars the optimum is 9mm proper, for police officers that are supposed to have better recoil management and sometimes go offense (shoot through obstacles, etc.) the optimum is 9mm +P, or .40 S&W.

 

[wichaka]

Ayoob??? :nuts:


Has anyone here you ever met Ayoob? I have many times, and has been said on other forums, and I couldn't agree more...He's the fossil-poster boy of "say one thing when you're paid to, another when you're not"

I'm really surprised that ANYONE listens to anything that comes out of Ayoobs mouth anymore. I'm not sure he was relevant back in the 80's let alone today. I honestly believe that he tries to scare citizens away from carrying a firearm with all of his drivel...again, people don't know, what they don't know.

Oh, and he can't shoot for crap either. Been on the range with him a time or two.

The best advice I can give everyone reading this, toss all your Ayoob books...or better yet, find some unknowing person to buy them from you.

 

[Fast Eddie]

police officers that are supposed to have better recoil management

It's a common mis perception, that police officers are better shots than the rest of us. Some are, some aren't. God help you if you're in a situation that puts you in proximity with the bad guy, and the lower half of the bell curve is on duty.

 

[wichaka]

It's a common mis perception, that police officers are better shots than the rest of us. Some are, some aren't. God help you if you're in a situation that puts you in proximity with the bad guy, and the lower half of the bell curve is on duty.

Amen brother!

 

[Nomad1911]

I have a buddy who is on a swat team in San Jose,he tells me if i ever have to shoot someone that I should aim for the lungs then aim for the heart or head,I've been practicing that way for awhile now on silhouette targets.I'm taking his word for it since he has put down a few bad guys.

 

[Misterbill]

You do realize that its lawful for LE to shoot people in the back, in some circumstances under both Federal and WA. State law.


Under Tenn v. Garner. The 2nd prong of this case law (471 U.S. 1 (1985));


2 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force to capture or seize a dangerous suspect when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm, and there in no reasonably safe means of preventing the suspect's escape.

Important points of this prong;

- Capture or Seize

- Inflicted or threatened serious bodily harm

- No reasonable safe means

I will give a quick & easy example of "threatened infliction of serious bodily harm"

Subject passes a note to a bank teller stating they have a gun and will use
it if x amount of money is not given. There is no requirement for an actual weapon to be seen.

WA. State Law RCW 9A.16.040 closely follows Tenn V Garner above.

Yes, it's perfectly legal in many circumstances for ANYONE to shoot someone in the back. But you're going to have to answer a lot more questions about it. And it muddies the waters. The point wasn't about shooting someone in the back, it was about shooting someone when you haven't yet seen a gun that they may not even have. And yes, the advance of the BG in this case, after repeated warnings, with the hand clearly hiding something? Yes, I'd have probably shot him before the gun came out. -Though you can never know. Maybe the freeze would have lasted as long with me as it did with the cop in the video. You know, the part of your brain screaming: "This is not happening!"

 

[wichaka]

You know, the part of your brain screaming: "This is not happening!"

That's the awful part of such incidents.