User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 10:00:33 PM EDT
[#1]
Tag for future reading. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 10:09:46 PM EDT
[#2]
good read... long but good
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 10:26:55 PM EDT
[#3]
The author is a .357 mag fan.
 An old FFL I used to use was a retired Richmond, CA cop. He had great stories about the .357 mag. Accurate and effective.
Will read the rest later, thanks for the link. "So let me give a few thoughts here. First, as you've pretty well guessed by now, I'm a big fan of the .40 and .45 for personal defense, and for the same reasons. They're both big, slow-moving bullets." Oh, oh, some people won't like to hear good things about the .40 S&W.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 11:13:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Not that I disagree with what is said, but how do we know this author is who he says he is?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2009 11:40:58 PM EDT
[#5]
I can't get the link to work for me, but if this is the same guy that posted a big long line of stuff on the S&W forum as well, his credibility seems to be in serious doubt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 12:12:37 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
I can't get the link to work for me, but if this is the same guy that posted a big long line of stuff on the S&W forum as well, his credibility seems to be in serious doubt. Yeah, I was kinda thinking that. All of his conclusions are really cliche'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 5:31:53 AM EDT
[#7]
it reads like 20 rambling posts here on arfcom jumbled together.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 5:49:17 AM EDT
[#8]
Basic end results back up other tests. He says the heavier bullets are best, ballistic gel is not true human body reflection, no bones for deflection. Same results for windshield tests, heaviest bullet , 230gr., least deflection from POA, 180gr. next and 147gr. w/ most deflection in test that I saw. Reading between the lines on the 9mm, I bet most of the ammo he's seen was 115 or 124's. 147's would probably do better. Would like to have had living victims results also but he said his findings were limited and didn't elaborate on anything he hasn't seen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 5:53:09 AM EDT
[#9]
Fairbairne & Sykes were questioning the validity of the "big and slow" concepts 80 years ago. I'm willing to bet they saw more gunfights and GSW victims than the alleged ME.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 7:47:31 AM EDT
[#10]
the ramblings of an internet commando, nothing more.
its pretty funny how he "despises" the 9mm for its low bullet weight (124gr) but loves the .357 mag (125gr). dumbass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 8:14:34 AM EDT
[#11]
Not that I agree or dis-agree with what was in the link, nor do I hang out with a bunch of ME's, but that just did not sound like ME or MD talk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 8:16:29 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Tag for future reading. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 10:21:59 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
the ramblings of an internet commando, nothing more. its pretty funny how he "despises" the 9mm for its low bullet weight (124gr) but loves the .357 mag (125gr). dumbass. Dumbass, eh? I'm talking mainly about the .40 and .45 here, but a few words about the 9mm and .380 are in order. Since the weight of the bullet is a major factor in reaching the vital organs, why penalize yourself with 125 grains of 9mm when you can have 230 grains of .45? In other words, why start out light and have the bullet only get lighter as it passes through the body when you can start out heavy to begin with. Again, I know of the well-deserved reputation of the .357 Magnum with the 125-grain bullet, but I think this is probably more a function of velocity overcoming the limitations of a smaller bullet weight. But I have limited experience with the .357 so I may admittedly be off base here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 10:28:12 AM EDT
[#14]
He never sees the non-fatal injuries, if he is what he says he is. Hard to draw conclusions with only part of the equation and no real data, just "gee that thar 45 kills em deader". Really no information on bullet weight or construction. And he admits that he's drawing serious conclusions about 357 Mag 125gr based on very little real data and a lot of hearsay.
Here's a peer-reviewed scientific test comparing morgue results with ballistic gelatin results. http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf FWIW I'm carrying a 45 right now, but carry 9mm very often. Hollowpoints are really hard to get a handle on. From my experience, the limiting factor on the effectiveness of a hollowpoint is that the cavity can and often does get packed full of something besides tissue prior to entering the body, and this can inhibit expansion. Sheet rock is about the worst although heavy clothing can be a problem also. Once you cram the cavity full of anything but tissue, you've essentially got hardball. But then that's not necessarily bad either. With full expansion of a hollowpoint you've got to worry about the jacket separating from the core as well as weight retention. It's largely weight retention that allows the bullet to continue to blast through bone and reach those deep vital organs that will end the fight in a hurry, and hardball is well known for maintaining its weight at autopsy. Once a hollowpoint does what it's supposed to, it begins to lose weight, albeit in varying amounts depending on the construction of the bullet and what it hits along the way. Some retain weight well and others lose it rapidly as can be seen in the lead "snowstorm" often seen during x-ray. Some hollowpoints expand so rapidly and lose weight so quickly that they haul up short of reaching the vital organs.
This quote tells me everything I need to know about when this was written and the knowledge base of the author, which are, respectively, quite a while ago, and not much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 11:47:23 AM EDT
[#15]
Well...My dad told me stories of when he was working at Cook County Hospital in Illinois during his residency he had to do ER rotations. Aside from the amusing stories of how there's a shockingly large number of people coming in with things stuck in their asses he told me lots of stories about the local bangers that they'd fix up only to have back later that month. At the time he wasn't a gun guy at all, and it can even be said that today he's not, nor is he familiar with different calibers and ballistics tests to the same extent as me, but he did say that a lot of times they'd get these guys with mostly 22LR or other mouse guns bullets lodged in them. They'd fix them up and usually see them back later on that month or sooner sometimes. When they'd get a banger who was in critical condition it was usually because Chicago's finest shot them up with a bigger caliber that actually did the job. Back then it was probably 38/357 or 45, he couldn't tell me for sure and I'm only guessing but if anyone knows what Chicago's PD was issued back in the late 70's and early 80's it was that. So his experience with ballistics is really limited to those that survive and those who come in and are pretty much DOA or shortly there after.
I personally carry a 9mm right now, I don't feel under gunned with it and I'm aware of it's limitations. The bottom line is that if I ever have to get into a shooting I'm going to shoot till the BG isn't a threat anymore be it 1 shot or all 13 reload and the next 13. That said I really want to build a nice officer/commander sized 1911 to use as my carry gun. I also carry a 5 shot 38 as a BUG, figure it's better than a mouse gun in 380 or smaller and a BUG to me is always a revolver |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 11:59:15 AM EDT
[#16]
"They buy commercially-available ammo and, occasionally, add some personal touches they've read about in the latest issue of Gangbanger Magazine, such as filling the cavity of the hollowpoint with mercury (Yes, I've seen it. Worked just like hardball.)"
Last time I checked mercury was a liquid at room temp... Very interesting read but he doesn't come off as an ME in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 12:03:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
the ramblings of an internet commando, nothing more. its pretty funny how he "despises" the 9mm for its low bullet weight (124gr) but loves the .357 mag (125gr). dumbass. Dumbass, eh? I'm talking mainly about the .40 and .45 here, but a few words about the 9mm and .380 are in order. Since the weight of the bullet is a major factor in reaching the vital organs, why penalize yourself with 125 grains of 9mm when you can have 230 grains of .45? In other words, why start out light and have the bullet only get lighter as it passes through the body when you can start out heavy to begin with. Again, I know of the well-deserved reputation of the .357 Magnum with the 125-grain bullet, but I think this is probably more a function of velocity overcoming the limitations of a smaller bullet weight. But I have limited experience with the .357 so I may admittedly be off base here. yes, he is a dumbass. bullet "weight" has nothing to do with penetration. the factors that affect penetration are sectional density, bullet construction, frontal area, and velocity. this is not conjecture, this is a proven fact. 9mm usually penetrates farther than .45, not the other way around, but it depends far more on bullet construction and type than it does "weight". whoever wrote this is just spouting the same tired internet/gunshow commando myths and is full of shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 12:04:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Very interesting read but he doesn't come off as an ME in my opinion. thats because whoever wrote this clearly is not an ME or any other medical professional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 1:20:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Very interesting read but he doesn't come off as an ME in my opinion. thats because whoever wrote this clearly is not an ME or any other medical professional. Agreed. But did he sleep in a Holiday Inn Express before writing that Blog? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 1:35:38 PM EDT
[#20]
I read that years ago. He stresses the .40 and .45 because the heavier weight tends to smash through bone better with less chance of deflection. While with the .357 magnum he beleives its a matter of velocity.
I thought it made for good reading although it got old when people started asking the same questions only to get the same answers. Take care y'all |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 2:04:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
it reads like 20 rambling posts here on arfcom jumbled together. I think it is just a ongoing collection of thoughts from him. Many are responses to specific questions from readers on mouseguns.com ETA: For what it is worth: if the guy is only drawing conclusions from what he sees, how can he be wrong? Assuming this is not just some elaborate hoax(which seems like a big waste of time) how much information seems legit? Are there any other Medical examiner posts someone can provide? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 2:15:48 PM EDT
[#22]
He also seems to like birdshot in scatterguns.
His preference is shotgun > rifle > handgun While shotguns definitely have their place, give me a rifle first any day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 2:59:57 PM EDT
[#23]
This was a very good read. Thanks.
RLTW |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 4:18:16 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
it reads like 20 rambling posts here on arfcom jumbled together. I think it is just a ongoing collection of thoughts from him. Many are responses to specific questions from readers on mouseguns.com ETA: For what it is worth: if the guy is only drawing conclusions from what he sees, how can he be wrong? Assuming this is not just some elaborate hoax(which seems like a big waste of time) how much information seems legit? Are there any other Medical examiner posts someone can provide? First off, he's not a ME. So what he reports may not be what he actually sees. Second, he's not seeing the whole picture: he only sees bodies. He doesn't see injuries, and he doesn't know whether that 125gr .357 caliber bullet was fired from a .38 Special 1 7/8" barrel snubnose or a 357 Mag 8" barrel. The link I posted above is an article which has lots of confirmed factual data. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 4:18:54 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the ramblings of an internet commando, nothing more. its pretty funny how he "despises" the 9mm for its low bullet weight (124gr) but loves the .357 mag (125gr). dumbass. Dumbass, eh? I'm talking mainly about the .40 and .45 here, but a few words about the 9mm and .380 are in order. Since the weight of the bullet is a major factor in reaching the vital organs, why penalize yourself with 125 grains of 9mm when you can have 230 grains of .45? In other words, why start out light and have the bullet only get lighter as it passes through the body when you can start out heavy to begin with. Again, I know of the well-deserved reputation of the .357 Magnum with the 125-grain bullet, but I think this is probably more a function of velocity overcoming the limitations of a smaller bullet weight. But I have limited experience with the .357 so I may admittedly be off base here. yes, he is a dumbass. bullet "weight" has nothing to do with penetration. the factors that affect penetration are sectional density, bullet construction, frontal area, and velocity. this is not conjecture, this is a proven fact. 9mm usually penetrates farther than .45, not the other way around, but it depends far more on bullet construction and type than it does "weight". whoever wrote this is just spouting the same tired internet/gunshow commando myths and is full of shit. Sectional density is a function of what? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 7:15:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
I read that years ago. He stresses the .40 and .45 because the heavier weight tends to smash through bone better with less chance of deflection. Which has been known for centuries.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 7:40:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the ramblings of an internet commando, nothing more. its pretty funny how he "despises" the 9mm for its low bullet weight (124gr) but loves the .357 mag (125gr). dumbass. Dumbass, eh? I'm talking mainly about the .40 and .45 here, but a few words about the 9mm and .380 are in order. Since the weight of the bullet is a major factor in reaching the vital organs, why penalize yourself with 125 grains of 9mm when you can have 230 grains of .45? In other words, why start out light and have the bullet only get lighter as it passes through the body when you can start out heavy to begin with. Again, I know of the well-deserved reputation of the .357 Magnum with the 125-grain bullet, but I think this is probably more a function of velocity overcoming the limitations of a smaller bullet weight. But I have limited experience with the .357 so I may admittedly be off base here. yes, he is a dumbass. bullet "weight" has nothing to do with penetration. the factors that affect penetration are sectional density, bullet construction, frontal area, and velocity. this is not conjecture, this is a proven fact. 9mm usually penetrates farther than .45, not the other way around, but it depends far more on bullet construction and type than it does "weight". whoever wrote this is just spouting the same tired internet/gunshow commando myths and is full of shit. It's a compilation of his posts. I bet if we compiled all your posts on a page we could find some pretty silly stuff. I've seen you get smacked down more than once around here by people who know what they're talking about in that particular subject. But generally you are correct. And he wasn't talking about penetration in that first quoted post; he was talking about incapacitation effectiveness. And he even admits he might be off base. That's far from being the dogmatic dumbass you paint him to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 8:08:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Not that I disagree with what is said, but how do we know this author is who he says he is? Well I'm an astronaut, I would post pics but I have door gunner duty tonight, standing ready to blast space junk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 8:15:47 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I read that years ago. He stresses the .40 and .45 because the heavier weight tends to smash through bone better with less chance of deflection. Which has been known for centuries.
Yeah that 40 cal round sure did a number on the Spaniards at San Juan Hill, after all that's what .30-40 Krag means 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 9:12:22 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not that I disagree with what is said, but how do we know this author is who he says he is? Well I'm an astronaut, I would post pics but I have door gunner duty tonight, standing ready to blast space junk. I'm a Chinese Cosmonaut door gunner and my orders are to shadow him tonight. The author of that comparison pulled far more out of his butt than we just did. It's pure early 80's hearsay and gun store assumptions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 10:21:06 PM EDT
[#31]
"Another subject was trying to run over an Officer. The Officer fired several rounds of .40 through the windshield. One round hit him in the face and stunned him (a little) He had to be wrestled out of the car. At the hospital, he spit the bullet out of his mouth. "
This is proof they are a bunch of fucking animals, all of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2009 11:14:12 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
"Another subject was trying to run over an Officer. The Officer fired several rounds of .40 through the windshield. One round hit him in the face and stunned him (a little) He had to be wrestled out of the car. At the hospital, he spit the bullet out of his mouth. "
This is proof they are a bunch of fucking animals, all of them. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 6:40:26 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the ramblings of an internet commando, nothing more. its pretty funny how he "despises" the 9mm for its low bullet weight (124gr) but loves the .357 mag (125gr). dumbass. Dumbass, eh? I'm talking mainly about the .40 and .45 here, but a few words about the 9mm and .380 are in order. Since the weight of the bullet is a major factor in reaching the vital organs, why penalize yourself with 125 grains of 9mm when you can have 230 grains of .45? In other words, why start out light and have the bullet only get lighter as it passes through the body when you can start out heavy to begin with. Again, I know of the well-deserved reputation of the .357 Magnum with the 125-grain bullet, but I think this is probably more a function of velocity overcoming the limitations of a smaller bullet weight. But I have limited experience with the .357 so I may admittedly be off base here. yes, he is a dumbass. bullet "weight" has nothing to do with penetration. the factors that affect penetration are sectional density, bullet construction, frontal area, and velocity. this is not conjecture, this is a proven fact. 9mm usually penetrates farther than .45, not the other way around, but it depends far more on bullet construction and type than it does "weight". whoever wrote this is just spouting the same tired internet/gunshow commando myths and is full of shit. Sectional density is a function of what? if you are implying that sectional density is proportional to mass you are wrong. sectional density is mass/frontal area. a 147gr 9mm projo has a higher sectional density than a 230gr .45" diameter projo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 6:49:27 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
It's a compilation of his posts. I bet if we compiled all your posts on a page we could find some pretty silly stuff. I've seen you get smacked down more than once around here by people who know what they're talking about in that particular subject. But generally you are correct. And he wasn't talking about penetration in that first quoted post; he was talking about incapacitation effectiveness. And he even admits he might be off base. That's far from being the dogmatic dumbass you paint him to be. The only real point he makes in the whole mess is that he doesn't like light bullets and you can never predict what a bullet will do in flesh. If you give that up it is just incoherent rambling, probably most or all of which was made up. The "silly" stuff I post always has verifiable data to back it. I get "smacked down" because it usually refutes silly myths and often repeated bullshit, which gets certain caliber and brand worshipers all worked up. And I lack tact. But at least I don't post the same tired made up bullshit over and over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:06:42 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the ramblings of an internet commando, nothing more. its pretty funny how he "despises" the 9mm for its low bullet weight (124gr) but loves the .357 mag (125gr). dumbass. Dumbass, eh? I'm talking mainly about the .40 and .45 here, but a few words about the 9mm and .380 are in order. Since the weight of the bullet is a major factor in reaching the vital organs, why penalize yourself with 125 grains of 9mm when you can have 230 grains of .45? In other words, why start out light and have the bullet only get lighter as it passes through the body when you can start out heavy to begin with. Again, I know of the well-deserved reputation of the .357 Magnum with the 125-grain bullet, but I think this is probably more a function of velocity overcoming the limitations of a smaller bullet weight. But I have limited experience with the .357 so I may admittedly be off base here. yes, he is a dumbass. bullet "weight" has nothing to do with penetration. the factors that affect penetration are sectional density, bullet construction, frontal area, and velocity. this is not conjecture, this is a proven fact. 9mm usually penetrates farther than .45, not the other way around, but it depends far more on bullet construction and type than it does "weight". whoever wrote this is just spouting the same tired internet/gunshow commando myths and is full of shit. Sectional density is a function of what? if you are implying that sectional density is proportional to mass you are wrong. sectional density is mass/frontal area. a 147gr 9mm projo has a higher sectional density than a 230gr .45" diameter projo. Mass (weight) is involved in the calculation of SD is it not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:10:47 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the ramblings of an internet commando, nothing more. its pretty funny how he "despises" the 9mm for its low bullet weight (124gr) but loves the .357 mag (125gr). dumbass. Dumbass, eh? I'm talking mainly about the .40 and .45 here, but a few words about the 9mm and .380 are in order. Since the weight of the bullet is a major factor in reaching the vital organs, why penalize yourself with 125 grains of 9mm when you can have 230 grains of .45? In other words, why start out light and have the bullet only get lighter as it passes through the body when you can start out heavy to begin with. Again, I know of the well-deserved reputation of the .357 Magnum with the 125-grain bullet, but I think this is probably more a function of velocity overcoming the limitations of a smaller bullet weight. But I have limited experience with the .357 so I may admittedly be off base here. yes, he is a dumbass. bullet "weight" has nothing to do with penetration. the factors that affect penetration are sectional density, bullet construction, frontal area, and velocity. this is not conjecture, this is a proven fact. 9mm usually penetrates farther than .45, not the other way around, but it depends far more on bullet construction and type than it does "weight". whoever wrote this is just spouting the same tired internet/gunshow commando myths and is full of shit. Sectional density is a function of what? if you are implying that sectional density is proportional to mass you are wrong. sectional density is mass/frontal area. a 147gr 9mm projo has a higher sectional density than a 230gr .45" diameter projo. Mass (weight) is involved in the calculation of SD is it not? did you read the formula I posted or is your question rhetorical? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:19:04 AM EDT
[#37]
I noticed something he said about shotguns and the shot used:
Now for rifles and shotguns. I'll say first that whenever possible use a shotgun. Doesn't matter if you're using 7.5 shot or 00 buck, use a shotgun! Trust me on this one! A spray of birdshot to the 'nads or the eyes can end a fight really quickly, and if the range is short enough a high concentration of even very small shot can make a really, really big hole. Also, you'd be surprised at how deeply small shot can penetrate at relatively long distances. And even if the distance is such that small shot will be ineffective, most BGs aren't willing to chance closing the distance to get a better shot once they know a shotgun is in use.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:23:25 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
I noticed something he said about shotguns and the shot used: Now for rifles and shotguns. I'll say first that whenever possible use a shotgun. Doesn't matter if you're using 7.5 shot or 00 buck, use a shotgun! Trust me on this one! A spray of birdshot to the 'nads or the eyes can end a fight really quickly, and if the range is short enough a high concentration of even very small shot can make a really, really big hole. Also, you'd be surprised at how deeply small shot can penetrate at relatively long distances. And even if the distance is such that small shot will be ineffective, most BGs aren't willing to chance closing the distance to get a better shot once they know a shotgun is in use.
I know what you're trying to say
But if he works in a morgue, what does he know about the mindset of a bad guy in a gunfight? edit: And that didn't really work for the FBI agent with the shotgun in the Miami gunfight, did it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:27:37 AM EDT
[#39]
I think he said he was a cop for a while. Maybe he got hurt on the job and they retrained him to be a ME assistant? This way he sees all the ballistic goodness without any responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:29:14 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
I think he said he was a cop for a while. Maybe he got hurt on the job and they retrained him to be a ME assistant? This way he sees all the ballistic goodness without any responsibility. Ah, ok. I missed that part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:31:04 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I noticed something he said about shotguns and the shot used: Now for rifles and shotguns. I'll say first that whenever possible use a shotgun. Doesn't matter if you're using 7.5 shot or 00 buck, use a shotgun! Trust me on this one! A spray of birdshot to the 'nads or the eyes can end a fight really quickly, and if the range is short enough a high concentration of even very small shot can make a really, really big hole. Also, you'd be surprised at how deeply small shot can penetrate at relatively long distances. And even if the distance is such that small shot will be ineffective, most BGs aren't willing to chance closing the distance to get a better shot once they know a shotgun is in use.
I know what you're trying to say
And what would that be? But if he works in a morgue, what does he know about the mindset of a bad guy in a gunfight? I don't know, maybe he can talk to the dead? 
edit: And that didn't really work for the FBI agent with the shotgun in the Miami gunfight, did it? You mean where the bad guys had multiple gunshot wounds, including several fatal wounds, but kept on fighting and killing FBI agents? Where the FBI agent was racking an 870 with one good arm, the other shot to shit? And he finally finished them off with 38 Spl +P Federal 158 grain bullets to the head of each of the bad guys? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:44:30 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I noticed something he said about shotguns and the shot used: Now for rifles and shotguns. I'll say first that whenever possible use a shotgun. Doesn't matter if you're using 7.5 shot or 00 buck, use a shotgun! Trust me on this one! A spray of birdshot to the 'nads or the eyes can end a fight really quickly, and if the range is short enough a high concentration of even very small shot can make a really, really big hole. Also, you'd be surprised at how deeply small shot can penetrate at relatively long distances. And even if the distance is such that small shot will be ineffective, most BGs aren't willing to chance closing the distance to get a better shot once they know a shotgun is in use.
I know what you're trying to say
And what would that be? But if he works in a morgue, what does he know about the mindset of a bad guy in a gunfight? I don't know, maybe he can talk to the dead?
edit: And that didn't really work for the FBI agent with the shotgun in the Miami gunfight, did it? You mean where the bad guys had multiple gunshot wounds, including several fatal wounds, but kept on fighting and killing FBI agents? Where the FBI agent was racking an 870 with one good arm, the other shot to shit? And he finally finished them off with 38 Spl +P Federal 158 grain bullets to the head of each of the bad guys? You're trying to say that shotguns kill people deader. And they do! With the right load, nothing compares to a shotgun. That doesn't mean that a shotgun is the best weapon to have in a firefight. Other factors need to be taken into consideration. A fatal wound that is not immediately fatal is not yet a fatal wound, is it? And only 1 BG did any fighting and killing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:47:45 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I read that years ago. He stresses the .40 and .45 because the heavier weight tends to smash through bone better with less chance of deflection. Which has been known for centuries.
But not here. According to the conventional wisdom of many who post here; 180 grains of .40 S&W sucks while 127 grains from a 9mm is king.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:50:18 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
You're trying to say that shotguns kill people deader. Not hardly. My truck will kill someone dead enough if I want to use it for that. And they do! With the right load, nothing compares to a shotgun. If you have one. That doesn't mean that a shotgun is the best weapon to have in a firefight. Other factors need to be taken into consideration. Things like range, number of opponents, whether you are alone or not? Never would have thought of that.
A fatal wound that is not immediately fatal is not yet a fatal wound, is it? I think the bad guys who killed the FBI agents after suffering several mortal wounds are evidence of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 7:52:38 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
According to the conventional wisdom of many who post here; 180 grains of .40 S&W sucks while 127 grains from a 9mm is king.
What works, works. It's not so much what is used, but who is using it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 8:02:51 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I read that years ago. He stresses the .40 and .45 because the heavier weight tends to smash through bone better with less chance of deflection. Which has been known for centuries.
But not here. According to the conventional wisdom of many who post here; 180 grains of .40 S&W sucks while 127 grains from a 9mm is king.
I don't believe anyone has said that here. I think that with the right ammunition 9mm and 40 deliver nearly identical performance in everything except auto glass. So is more recoil and fewer rounds worth it? Not to me, not unless I'm carrying a .45. Would 40 be a better choice if mags were limited to 10 rounds again? Yeah, though it'd still have more recoil, and I'd still stick with 9mm and 45. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 8:22:37 AM EDT
[#47]
Everybody is missing the point. The guy is stating observations of bullets vs. bones and overall penetration. If the .40 and .45 penetrate better through auto glass and maybe a couple of other barriers(don't feel like looking that shit up), would it not be POSSIBLE that they would penetrate(deflect less) better through bone? Everybody is posting gel and tissue tests w/o bones involved. Somebody prove otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 8:26:26 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Everybody is missing the point. The guy is stating observations of bullets vs. bones and overall penetration. If the .40 and .45 penetrate better through auto glass and maybe a couple of other barriers(don't feel like looking that shit up), would it not be POSSIBLE that they would penetrate(deflect less) better through bone? Everybody is posting gel and tissue tests w/o bones involved. Somebody prove otherwise. I'd say bullet construction is a much better indicator of this than caliber. A .45 bullet that comes apart early won't penetrate as much as a 9mm bonded bullet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 8:29:03 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Everybody is missing the point. The guy is stating observations of bullets vs. bones and overall penetration. If the .40 and .45 penetrate better through auto glass and maybe a couple of other barriers(don't feel like looking that shit up), would it not be POSSIBLE that they would penetrate(deflect less) better through bone? Everybody is posting gel and tissue tests w/o bones involved. Somebody prove otherwise. I'd say bullet construction is a much better indicator of this than caliber. Not in the windshield test, same bullet construction, 230gr. 45 wins every time, 180gr. 40, then the 147 9mm. Weight and maybe diameter? You'd "say bullet construction" , show me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2009 8:29:36 AM EDT
[#50]
Atlanta Morgue
Busy guy |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
