Game animals and humans, apples and oranges!
I found humans to be more like farm animals.
Game animals and humans, apples and oranges!
If you really believe that "shock and stun eefect" are the drivers, ask why your hand is not seriously injured by the equal and opposite reaction.Wrong.
That may be how you interpreted the effect, but had a bullet actually knocked a large animal off its feet, the gun would have knocked the shooter down, hard.I've seen well placed, large caliber, slow moving bullets knock animals off their feet.
In the shooting of a human, five out of six persons who are shot with handguns survive. The lawful objective is to stop.With a live, dangerous critter, be it of the two legged or four legged kind, that approach can get you killed fast. A wounded critter is a dangerous critter.
Need? Maybe not. But you sure could learn a lot.I don't need to read a thing.
You have grossly mischaracterized the body of research that led to the conclusions in the report.A suit sitting behind a desk compiling a document from a pile of anecdotal data isn't impressive, not matter what his title is.
That would, of course, be the best information, were there sufficient data to account for all of the important variables.Ihe only useful information for the event of a self defense shooting is if the assailant is incapacitated by the impact of the gunshot, and the time taken from impact to incapacitation.
That may be how you interpreted the effect, but had a bullet actually knocked a large animal off its feet, the gun would have knocked the shooter down, hard.
Simple physics.
In the shooting of a human, five out of six persons who are shot with handguns survive. The lawful objective is to stop.
Need? Maybe not. But you sure could learn a lot.
You have grossly mischaracterized the body of research that led to the conclusions in the report.
That would, of course, be the best information, were there sufficient data to account for all of the important variables.
But no one ever measures the time. There are other things to do.
That reminds me of a story told in Horn of the Hunter where the author shoots at a Cape buffalo with a .470 Nitro Express. If I understand right, both barrels fired, knocking him and the buffalo flat. Harry Selby is described as surveying the scene before he drawls, "Really, one of you ought to get up."No, not physics. It's just you not having the presence of mind to consider a shooter is in a shooting stance, braced and ready for the recoil and the animal is caught unaware and not expecting the impact.
You can bump another man off his feet without falling yourself, and it doesn't break the laws of physics.
Expect folks who hunt and who do not want to track a wounded animal for miles. They tend to make sure they make a 'drop shot'.
Physics.No, not physics. It's just you not having the presence of mind to consider a shooter is in a shooting stance, braced and ready for the recoil and the animal is caught unaware and not expecting the impact.
Under the right circumstances of comparative balance, yes, but the bump won't kill him.You can bump another man off his feet without falling yourself, and it doesn't break the laws of physics.
Recognized experts in the filed of forensic ballistics tall us otherwise.After the fact wound channel analysis is of no use.
That's the desired result, but there are no data from which to draw meaningful conclusions about terminal ballistics from time alone.The only data of use for self defense is whether the threat was neutralized and if it was neutralized sufficiently fast enough.
I'll regret ignoring it the day I'm attacked by block of gelatin, but until then I'll take the risk.
You are making statements that are not supported by science, and they illustrate the limitations in your knowledge and understanding.The only way I could possibly have done that is if the report is based on actual live observations of the shootings; which it isn't.
True, but irrelevant.Expect folks who hunt and who do not want to track a wounded animal for miles. They tend to make sure they make a 'drop shot'.
What's more likely to be the case and point of failure between a revolver and semiauto? Falling into the dirt and shaken up , and then having time to add oil vs all the other much, much, much more rational things that can go wrong with a semiauto than with a revolver during a self defense encounter.https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...s-why-revolvers-are-less-reliable-than-autos/
Video tests a Shield vs. a SW 638 (looks like), Basically, both ran under pocket lint conditions. However, if both were shaken up in a lot of dirt (from the ground), the semi and revolver jammed. The former could get going with some oil. The revolver would need a disassembly. Now, how many folks will fall into a pile of dirt and drop the gun in it? Few, so just FYI.
But one could also argue that the structure of shooting games are geared for semi autos...in that more than 5 rounds are fired. In a self-defense situation, it is the critical first 3 rounds that make the difference.Not sure I follow. Learning the fundamental operations of either action is not what I would call difficult. Although the revolver admittedly has a slightly simpler manual of arms you can learn how to operate either actions in a few short hours of instruction and be moderately proficient with basic operation and marksmanship of either system with a few sessions of practice. But being able to stand in the booth at the local indoor range, load and shoot your chosen handgun at a static target is IMHO far from being ready to EDC, both from a gun handling skills (the subject of this post) and all the other legal, situational awareness etc aspects of SD.
If we then take this shooters that has this minimal set of skills (ie the fundamental operation and basic marksmanship) and throw them into a self-defense training session or an IDPA or USPSA match the short comings of the revolver become glaringly obvious.
Throw that time pressure (whether training or competition) on there and suddenly that double action revolver trigger is brutal on the accuracy and thumbing the hammer become painfully slow. When you all too soon run the revolver dry the reloads that seem easy standing in the booth at the indoor range become a fumbling juggling act under the time pressure. Throw in some shooter moment, awkward shooting positions, and moving targets and this all get even worse. From watching new shooter learn these skills in these settings is why I assert that despite the revolver having the simple manual of arms the amount of time it takes to be proficient with the gun handling skills that really matter in the real world (self-defense carry or competition) take longer with a revolver.
Then the more proficient you become with both the revolver and semi-auto the more you also realize that ultimately no matter how much you practice with the revolver you will always be slower and less efficient than the semi-auto would be, with a similar amount of training invested. The double action trigger is always going to be slower on the follow up shots than a semi-auto trigger, especially a single action semi-auto trigger. The double action revolver trigger is always going to take more practice to be equally accurate. The capacity is always lower in the revolver for similar size/weight handguns. The revolver reloads are always slower, and require more fine motor skill to execute.
Everything you would do in a real gun fight with a revolver is at best equal and in many aspect slower, more difficult, and less efficient than a comparable semi-auto. There is a reason the revolver divisions have all but died in the practical pistol sports. Last I looked the Revolver division only made up ~2% of USPSA competitors and I suspect it's about the same in IDPA. Revolvers are harder to learn to run in the dynamic situations these sports provide and even when you master them you are still slower then the semi-autos. This knowledge/experience then carries over to what these competitors carry for self defense.
As much as I love revolvers and shooting revolver in USPSA and IDPA competition I am under no delusion that the revolver offers any meaningful advantage over a semi-auto in real world SD situation and that is true for the novice and the expert IMHO.
In a self-defense situation, it is the critical first 3 rounds that make the difference.
it is the critical first 3 rounds that make the difference..
Physics.
The "shock and stun effect of the bullets from you gun neither "knocked down" nor killed you large game.
That happened because internal body parts were cut and crushed.
Physics.
You are making statements that are not supported by science, and they illustrate the limitations in your knowledge and understanding.
This discussion of terminal ballistics has moved well outside of the subject of comparing revolvers vs semi-autos for EDC.. Should anyone want to discuss the subject of handgun wounding mechanics, please start another thread