• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Do we really need all of that performance??

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Platt was on an operating table with a team of surgeons ready to go, and then was shot exactly how Dove shot him he still would not have survived
The above was your assertion
The autopsy opinion was based on no intervention... MAJOR difference
Such wounds could have been easily dealt with in an operating room environment
In fact such wounds are dealt with regularly today by Paramedics in the field... and survivable

Dove's shot was 100% lethal
Only if there was no intervention

it just didn't incapacitate Platt
False
He was clearly incapacitated
Due to both nerve damage in his arm and loss of blood volume over time

So again, all of your initial assertions were false
 
The above was your assertion
The autopsy opinion was based on no intervention... MAJOR difference
Such wounds could have been easily dealt with in an operating room environment
In fact such wounds are dealt with regularly today by Paramedics in the field... and survivable


Only if there was no intervention


False
He was clearly incapacitated
Due to both nerve damage in his arm and loss of blood volume over time

So again, all of your initial assertions were false

So your definition of "incapacitated" is that someone can keep shooting in a firefight and wound people? Uh huh, got it. You realize he kept shooting after the arm/chest injury? SA Moralez came and talked to us about the gunfight and he likely has a different definition of "incapacitation."

And as for the wound, when we talked with various forensic pathologists, that was their assertion, not mine. Even with intervention he was doomed...Medical Doctor's opinion, not mine.
 
I think the more fundamental problem was that the FBI agents brought pistols to a rifle fight and got their asses kicked because of it.
That, and when what you're trying to shoot isn't afraid of you, disciplined, skilled, and shooting back, your scores tend to drop. That isn't the fault of the round you're shooting if you're not helping in making it work.
 
If I recall correctly 9mm was what failed in the 1986 Miami shootout. .38 from a J frame was the fight ender even if it was at point blank range. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
The first round fired, hit the villain PLATT from the left side, high on the body (left armpit). That shot - from a 9mm pistol - tore off the top of PLATT's lungs and was a 'non-survivable' wound. He died from that single wound. Not immediately, to our sorrow.

The reason for the result of the 'encounter' was the FBI agents were on hand to arrest any violators of the law. They were ready to do so and they bravely acted under fire. PLATT and MATIX were prepared to kill anyone in their way. However, that is difficult to train; to be ready and able to kill at need and at the same time not be desirous of doing so. Much easier for the agency to blame equipment and change guns.
 
I should have phrased my first post in this thread differently. I honestly believe the tactics of the agents involved in this encounter probably had more to do with the outcome than the caliber of weapons they used. I haven't read the whole thing in a long time but there were some major mistakes that they paid dearly for.
 
Magnum handgun cartridges, such as .357 Magnum, extend the effective range of the truly portable handgun, by flattening the trajectory, and delivering effective kinetic energy at longer distances. Not all gunfights happen in built-up areas, and, of course, hunting is not normally done at urban gunfight distances.
 
The .38 Special was used by law enforcement and citizens for over five decades and still longer for many citizens. All the failures - attributable to the cartridge used (not poor shots) - was credited to the 158 grain, RNL bullet load of around 750 fps.

These days I regularly carry a .38 Special. Not with the standard 'disservice' load, by the way. I am quite content with the 158 grain SWC HP at about 900 fps. This and any suitable load with any handgun or rifle requires proper, solid hits. I trust no one is really surprised by that statement or demand.

Returning to the question posed by the OP: Do we need the performance? My first thought was 'what performance'? We need enough 'power' from the cartridge used to effect an incapacitation. We do not need the power of a .44 Magnum (full load). I do desire the performance of precision. Each shot should have the (shooter dependent of course) ability to dependably strike within a certain size zone. My own criteria is head shots at 25 yards. Your individual criteria may be different, and I am unaware of any agency having such a criteria.
 
Last edited:
So your definition of "incapacitated" is that someone can keep shooting in a firefight and wound people? Uh huh, got it.
I use the actual definition, period

You realize he kept shooting after the arm/chest injury?
Where did I say he didn't?


SA Moralez came and talked to us about the gunfight and he likely has a different definition of "incapacitation."
And as for the wound, when we talked with various forensic pathologists, that was their assertion, not mine. Even with intervention he was doomed...Medical Doctor's opinion, not mine.
Both were your assertions, both are false
You can try and "name drop" to try and make your assertions seem more valid...
But facts are facts and your assertions are easily proven as false
 
Last edited:
This and any suitable load with any handgun or rifle requires proper, solid hits. I trust no one is really surprised by that statement or demand.
With handguns, it requires hits that damage important internal, critical body parts that cannot be seen or deliberately targeted by the shooter.
 
Pretty much all the books and personal interviews I've read and several autopsy reports. The result of roughly fifty years of study on the subject. I will not argue the matter.
Name of book that asserts such...?
Is it sourced...?
 
Last edited:
I use the actual definition, period


Where did I say he didn't?



Both were your assertions, both are false
You can try and "name drop" to try and make your assertions seem more valid...
But facts are facts and your assertions are easily proven as false


Definition of incapacitated
: deprived of capacity or natural power : made incapable of or unfit for normal functioning

He was functioning aggressively.

Was not name dropping, just letting you know I heard it from someone who was actually at the event. I don’t know you, your background, or if you were there in 1986.

You obviously have strong opinions. But they are just that, opinions, not facts. You won’t change my mind regardless of declaring victory. I simply disagree with you, and have heard more than my share from people who have studied this or were there.

Enjoy your evening.
 
I think that the gun community has been sold on the idea that we need +p, +p+, etc for all of our beloved old time calibers. I've read so many articles that declare the 22 LR ineffective, the 25 ACP ineffective, the 32 ACP ineffective and the 380 is even kind of lite for personal defense. Heck, the 38 special will bounce off car windows according to Harry Callahan.

All that is a bunch of bunk in order to get us to spend more money on ammo, more money on guns, more money on reloading data when I think that there is over 100 years of historical records where those calibers were effective in their original form.

Of course you'll always find a situation where a 38 was ineffective (Miami). I would say that any pistol caliber may not have gotten the job done in some of those situations.

Buying more guns and ammo is always a great idea as long as we understand the truth of the situation.

What do ya'll think?
I think if you've convinced yourself now nobody else cares.
 
I think that the gun community has been sold on the idea that we need +p, +p+, etc for all of our beloved old time calibers. I've read so many articles that declare the 22 LR ineffective, the 25 ACP ineffective, the 32 ACP ineffective and the 380 is even kind of lite for personal defense. Heck, the 38 special will bounce off car windows according to Harry Callahan.

All that is a bunch of bunk in order to get us to spend more money on ammo, more money on guns, more money on reloading data when I think that there is over 100 years of historical records where those calibers were effective in their original form.

Of course you'll always find a situation where a 38 was ineffective (Miami). I would say that any pistol caliber may not have gotten the job done in some of those situations.

Buying more guns and ammo is always a great idea as long as we understand the truth of the situation.

What do ya'll think?
I agree with most of this. Not sure it's all a bunch of bunk but a healthy dose of skepticism should always be aimed at things that are heavily marketed and advertised.
 
My carry gun is a 9mm shield. I use US made HP ammunition and I don't get concerned with what that ammo does to jello because I won't be shooting jello with it. Given the size and weight that the shield has, using a less powerful caliber in a pistol that isn't much more concealable, with no price decrease in feeding it doesn't make sense to me. There's lots of pistols of different designs and manufacturers available nowadays that have similar characteristics to the shield- some with significantly higher mag capacities, so choices abound. That's what I carry and why. Others can carry what they want- whether its a 22 derringer or a dirty Harry magnum. Whatever someone else chooses is their business and they can justify it however they want. Hope those people can effectively use whatever they choose and it all works out.
 
I think the more fundamental problem was that the FBI agents brought pistols to a rifle fight and got their asses kicked because of it.
I'm with you, if I know I'm going to get into a fight or even think that I might, my 9M's and .45's can be back up, but I'm carrying a Colt LE 6920 as a primary.
 
One of the reasons why .22, .32, an other small calibers were popular back in the day was due to the fact that they were being used in a world without antibiotics. Even a hit to non-vital organs could prove fatal due to infection. This was sometimes enough to get an attacker to decide that he didn't want to be shot.
 
In the context of self defense the point is to stop the assailant quickly -- before he can hurt you (or another innocent). If your assailant is able to complete his attack, even though shot, and leave you maimed or dead, it will be a small comfort to you and your loved ones that the assailant ultimately died from his .22 lr wound.

We have data, and there are studies, and we have a good deal of knowledge about wound physiology which generally show, with regard to self defense, the following:

  1. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times succeeded at quickly stopping an assailant.

  2. Pretty much every cartridge ever made has at times failed at quickly stopping an assailant.

  3. Considering ballistic gelatin performance, data available on real world incidents, an understanding of wound physiology and psychology, certain cartridges with certain bullets are more likely to be more effective more of the time.

  4. For defensive use in a handgun the 9mm Luger, .38 Special +P, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 Magnum, and other, similar cartridges when of high quality manufacture, and loaded with expanding bullets appropriately designed for their respective velocities to both expand and penetrate adequately, are reasonably good choices.

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

  • The goal is to stop the assailant.

  • There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:

    • psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."

    • massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function

    • breaking major skeletal support structures

    • damaging the central nervous system.

    Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.

    Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.

    Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.

    The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.

    So as a rule of thumb --

    • More holes are better than fewer holes.

    • Larger holes are better than smaller holes.

    • Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.

    • Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.

    • There are no magic bullets.

    • There are no guarantees.

  • With regard to the issue of psychological stops see

    • this study, entitled "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power" by Greg Ellifritz. And take special notice of his data on failure to incapacitate rates set out in the table headed "Here are the results."

      As Ellifritz notes in his discussion of his "failure to incapacitate" data (emphasis added):
      Greg Ellifritz said:
      ...Take a look at two numbers: the percentage of people who did not stop (no matter how many rounds were fired into them) and the one-shot-stop percentage. The lower caliber rounds (.22, .25, .32) had a failure rate that was roughly double that of the higher caliber rounds. The one-shot-stop percentage (where I considered all hits, anywhere on the body) trended generally higher as the round gets more powerful. This tells us a couple of things...

      In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. These people are likely NOT physically incapacitated by the bullet. They just don't want to be shot anymore and give up! Call it a psychological stop if you will. Any bullet or caliber combination will likely yield similar results in those cases. And fortunately for us, there are a lot of these "psychological stops" occurring. The problem we have is when we don't get a psychological stop. If our attacker fights through the pain and continues to victimize us, we might want a round that causes the most damage possible. In essence, we are relying on a "physical stop" rather than a "psychological" one. In order to physically force someone to stop their violent actions we need to either hit him in the Central Nervous System (brain or upper spine) or cause enough bleeding that he becomes unconscious. The more powerful rounds look to be better at doing this....

      • There are two sets of data in the Ellifritz study: incapacitation and failure to incapacitate. They present some contradictions.

        • Considering the physiology of wounding, the data showing high incapacitation rates for light cartridges seems anomalous.

        • Furthermore, those same light cartridges which show high rates of incapacitation also show high rates of failures to incapacitate. In addition, heavier cartridges which show incapacitation rates comparable to the lighter cartridges nonetheless show lower failure to incapacitate rates.

        • And note that the failure to incapacitate rates of the 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and .44 Magnum were comparable to each other.

        • If the point of the exercise is to help choose cartridges best suited to self defense application, it would be helpful to resolve those contradictions.

        • A way to try to resolve those contradictions is to better understand the mechanism(s) by which someone who has been shot is caused to stop what he is doing.

      • The two data sets and the apparent contradiction between them (and as Ellifritz wrote) thus strongly suggest that there are two mechanisms by which someone who has been shot will be caused to stop what he is doing.

        • One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.

        • The other mechanism is physiological. If the body suffers sufficient damage, the person will be forced to stop what he is doing because he will be physiologically incapable of continuing. Heavier cartridges with large bullets making bigger holes are more likely to cause more damage to the body than lighter cartridges. Therefore, if the stopping mechanism is physiological, lighter cartridges are more likely to fail to incapacitate.

      • And in looking at any population of persons who were shot and therefore stopped what they were doing, we could expect that some stopped for psychological reasons. We could also expect others would not be stopped psychologically and would not stop until they were forced to because their bodies became physiologically incapable of continuing.

      • From that perspective, the failure to incapacitate data is probably more important. That essentially tells us that when Plan A (a psychological stop) fails, we must rely on Plan B (a physiological stop) to save our bacon; and a heavier cartridge would have a lower [Plan B] failure rate.

    • Also see the FBI paper entitled "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", by Urey W. Patrick. Agent Patrick, for example, notes on page 8:
      ...Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury..., fear of injury, fear of death, blood or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation even from minor wounds. However, psychological factors are also the primary cause of incapacitation failures.

      The individual may be unaware of the wound and thus have no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such as rage or hate can keep a grievously wounded individual fighting....

    • And for some more insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":

      • Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83):
        In the case of low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissue. Only a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly. The amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue by a pistol bullet is insufficient to cause the remote injuries produced by a high-velocity rifle bullet.

      • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original):
        The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial direction away from the path of the bullet. Of the two, the crush mechanism is the only handgun wounding mechanism that damages tissue. To cause significant injuries to a structure within the body using a handgun, the bullet must penetrate the structure.

      • And further in In Defense of Self and Others... (pp. 95-96, emphasis in original):
        Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much-discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable....The critical element in wounding effectiveness is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large blood-bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding....Given durable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of the hole made by the bullet....

    And sometimes a .357 Magnum doesn't work all that well. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim who was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty. She was off duty and heading home after a softball game and a brief stop at the station to check her work assignment. According to the article I linked to:
    ... The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found....
 
Which is a rather ironic statement in this thread… as the .38 Super +P is a souped up .38 ACP. :)

Stay safe.
Haha, that's exactly right. Like how the .44 mag is a souped up .44 Special. 357 mag is just a souped up .38 special and so on.

They were derived to satisfy real needs that were not met by existing cartridges.
Oh I don't know if that's the case. Nobody was interested in the Magnums. I think they were the result of newer, faster powders coming out along with better metallurgy in revolvers. Keith and others put two and two together but they weren't exactly popular. It took Clint Eastwood to get the sales on the 44 mag going, almost 20 years after it's inception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top