357 Sig Over Penetration? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : 357 Sig Over Penetration?


Police Marksman
10-18-2010, 16:52
One of our local LEOs was executing a search warrant, and was forced to shoot a bad guy. Our LEO was armed with a 357 Sig with 125 grain Speer Gold Dot ammo.

The bad guy took six rounds in the chest before stopping. All six rounds penetrated the bad guy, went through a couple of walls and exited the house almost striking an officer outside. I don't believe any of the rounds expanded.

Something you might want to consider if you chose the 357 Sig for self defense.

Clem Eastwood
10-18-2010, 17:02
Interesting. :popcorn:

cowboy1964
10-18-2010, 17:45
The same will happen to some degree with any of the major calibers, just maybe worse with .357 Sig because of the velocity (OTOH it's light so...). A non-expanded JHP is just like a FMJ and will exceed 24" in gel.

I wonder what the guy was wearing that would have clogged 6 JHPs in a row. Is there any news story on this online?

Glockbuster
10-18-2010, 17:49
Do you know what clothing the bad guy was wearing ?

what is the LE agency´s veredict as to the round´s failure ?

do you have any links or evidence to support your posting ?

frank_drebin
10-18-2010, 18:16
I was in a now closed (ATF shut them down) local gun shop on the Mcdonough Square last year looking at holsters for my G33. The elderly man that runs the shop asked me what I carried and I told him it was a Glock 33. He said "If you don't mind me giving you a little advice, get a 40S&W barrel for it and lose the 357sig barrel". At first I took it as a basic "my caliber is better than your caliber" comment and just kind of ignored it. He then proceeded to tell me that he shot someone in the store last year with a Glock 32 in 357 sig with 125gr Gold Dots. That got my attention real quick. He said that the round went in the man's chest on the right and exited his lower back without any expansion. The man that was shot survived and he stated that it was a very close in shot (around 7 feet). After I left the shop I called an LEO friend in the city and asked him about the incident. He recounted the story (which is a whole different post for sometime) and said the same thing in regards to the 357 sig. He said that the 125gr Gold Dot 357 sig round had a history of that in their experience and that several cases over the years had shown "full through and through penetration" when the 357sig round encountered no bone. The man that was shot was leaning over at an angle when struck (and was an innocent store employee that spooked the older man).

Police Marksman
10-18-2010, 18:42
Do you know what clothing the bad guy was wearing ?

what is the LE agency´s veredict as to the round´s failure ?

do you have any links or evidence to support your posting ?

It occurred during the summer in Texas, so I assume the suspect was wearing only a light shirt. I was told by my source that the department is considering going to the 45 ACP, although I would not say the round was a complete failure. The bad guy was stopped very rapidly before he could fire again. I don't have any links the shooting is still under investigation so I can't get to detailed, sorry.

Jeff82
10-18-2010, 18:48
BUT, but what about the ballistic pressure wave??!!

hahaha

Glockbuster
10-18-2010, 18:48
Wow, it would be really important to get all the details and facts on this if possible. I don't see how a different but similar bullet like a 9 mm going 200 fps slower would have made a difference though. And then there is the issue of weight where supposedly the heavier bullets penetrate more.

Go figure.

cowboy1964
10-18-2010, 19:06
To the OP, you should post this story in the GATE Self-Defense forum. I'd be interested in Ayoob's opinion.

Snowman92D
10-18-2010, 19:17
Impossible. Calibrated gell-o testing shows the .357 Sig doesn't perform any different than the 9mm 147-grain subsonic with regard to expansion and penetration. :supergrin:

Merkavaboy
10-18-2010, 20:01
Impossible. Calibrated gell-o testing shows the .357 Sig doesn't perform any different than the 9mm 147-grain subsonic with regard to expansion and penetration. :supergrin:

And there's a lot of documented history about just how successful the 147JHP subsonics worked in the real world, right Snowman? :thumbsup:

I guess BGs haven't learned how to act like blocks of jello yet.

Haymarket
10-18-2010, 20:11
If none of those rounds expanded, i would think it is a Gold Dot design problem, not a 357 sig problem.

NAC
10-18-2010, 20:24
Nothing personal Marksman but without the facts of the case your statement can't be substantiated and is in the same class as "I knew a guy that said". I can give a case right now with attached PowerPoint of a BG shot 17 times at a distance of 20 feet. 15 of those hits were 180gr .40 and 2 were 5.56 75gr. The three officers on scene had to fight with the guy to get cuffs on him. He later died.

Adrenaline and the survival instinct trump all small arm calibers short of 25mm.

Police Marksman
10-18-2010, 21:32
If none of those rounds expanded, i would think it is a Gold Dot design problem, not a 357 sig problem.

Haymarket
Your right, its just the Speer Gold dot is probably the most popular law enforcement round in that caliber. I am just suggesting you might consider another round if carrying the 357 Sig.

Glockbuster
10-18-2010, 21:37
I might consider it but I wont do it. For one case that is for now hearsay there are many others that work just fine. We have to make decisions based on a more ample point of view.

Police Marksman
10-18-2010, 21:41
Nothing personal Marksman but without the facts of the case your statement can't be substantiated and is in the same class as "I knew a guy that said". I can give a case right now with attached PowerPoint of a BG shot 17 times at a distance of 20 feet. 15 of those hits were 180gr .40 and 2 were 5.56 75gr. The three officers on scene had to fight with the guy to get cuffs on him. He later died.

Adrenaline and the survival instinct trump all small arm calibers short of 25mm.

NAC
I understand where you are coming from. There are no links that talk about the effects of the officers 357 Sig, or even how many times the bad guy was shot or what with.

At this time there is possibility of a pending law suit, and I cannot get too detailed. I did get this information from a investigator from the department, so I believe the information to be very reliable.

cowboy1964
10-18-2010, 21:45
Perhaps a non-bonded would be the best choice with .357 Sig. Ranger or HST. Is Golden Saber available in .357 Sig? Or how about the Federal EFMJ. Pretty much guaranteed expansion on that from what I can tell.

fredj338
10-19-2010, 00:49
One of our local LEOs was executing a search warrant, and was forced to shoot a bad guy. Our LEO was armed with a 357 Sig with 125 grain Speer Gold Dot ammo.

The bad guy took six rounds in the chest before stopping. All six rounds penetrated the bad guy, went through a couple of walls and exited the house almost striking an officer outside. I don't believe any of the rounds expanded.

Something you might want to consider if you chose the 357 Sig for self defense.

I would say antecdotal evidence. Many depts have had many shootings w/ spectacular results. You are probably just as likely to overpenetrate w/ some of the 9mm or 40 heavies.:dunno:
Perhaps a non-bonded would be the best choice with .357 Sig. Ranger or HST. Is Golden Saber available in .357 Sig? Or how about the Federal EFMJ. Pretty much guaranteed expansion on that from what I can tell.
Other rounds are available: RangerT & RemGSB are both good rounds. At least in my backyard denim wetpack test, they all perform about the same. My LEO buddy, that got me into the 357sig, has shot dozens of deer w/ his duty GoldDot load & the few shootings they have had, they had no such extreme issues of non expansion. Really, what JHP doesn't have at least one horror story of a multiple round, non stop failure?

Trigger Finger
10-19-2010, 01:02
Head shot!!!

If you have to shoot someone more than twice then go for the head. I know, easier said than done, that's why you practice.

ABNAK
10-19-2010, 08:33
If none of those rounds expanded, i would think it is a Gold Dot design problem, not a 357 sig problem.

This.

Cor Bon 125gr Sierra JHP would quite likely NOT overpenetrate. Chrono'd some myself at around 1375fps average from a Glock 32. It would likely fragment. Now, some here will say that is not good but it is the closest simulation of the effects of the vaunted 125gr .357 Magnum round out there. Just sayin'......

Haymarket
10-19-2010, 11:55
Haymarket
Your right, its just the Speer Gold dot is probably the most popular law enforcement round in that caliber. I am just suggesting you might consider another round if carrying the 357 Sig.

...I carry Gold Dots and thought they had a great reputation in .357, so this was a little surprising if none of the 6 expanded. I thought GDs were what the VA state troopers and city of Richmond guys carried and have had good results.

What .357 round do the fed agencies (Air Marshalls, Secret Service) carry?

cowboy1964
10-19-2010, 12:09
I never understood the choice of .357 Sigs for air marshalls. I know it's a myth that a bullet sized hole with bring down an airliner but still, the dangers of overpenetration in an airplane go beyond that (other people in close proximity, damage to flight systems, etc).

Clem Eastwood
10-19-2010, 12:14
I wonder if there could have been a bad lot of gold dot bullets?

BadAndy
10-19-2010, 15:48
I never understood the choice of .357 Sigs for air marshalls. I know it's a myth that a bullet sized hole with bring down an airliner but still, the dangers of overpenetration in an airplane go beyond that (other people in close proximity, damage to flight systems, etc).

What if they have to shoot through a person in a seat to get to the bad guy behind them that's trying to blow up the plane?

novaDAK
10-19-2010, 16:49
I'd be interested in which version of the .357sig gold dot it was.

In the LE 50rd boxes there are two different bullet designs with two different velocities. The original one has 6 "petals" in the nose and moves at 1375fps. The reduced penetration load has 5 petals in the nose and is rated at 1350fps. The "reduced penetration" load is the only one offered in the 20rd boxes for the commercial market.

Odds are, these examples of overpenetration were likely the original load. Speer must have had complaints or a reason to develop the so-called reduced penetration version....

interesting.

1canvas
10-19-2010, 19:38
my speer gd are 5 petal 125grn rated at 1375 [125grn LE item#54234].

Brucev
10-19-2010, 20:02
One of our local LEOs was executing a search warrant, and was forced to shoot a bad guy. Our LEO was armed with a 357 Sig with 125 grain Speer Gold Dot ammo.

The bad guy took six rounds in the chest before stopping. All six rounds penetrated the bad guy, went through a couple of walls and exited the house almost striking an officer outside. I don't believe any of the rounds expanded.

Something you might want to consider if you chose the 357 Sig for self defense.

There is a answer to this continuing problem. Up caliber! That's right! Move on up to the .40 S&W! That will give you what you want... power and penetration sufficient to turn bad guys into quivering Jello! The .45 ACP would be just as good. The be all to end all would be the .44 S&W Magnum. Just load it up with that special lite load preferred by Lt. Callahan. Or... accept the fact that no typical handgun is going to always produce one shot stops when fired by any officer into any felon. Accept the fact that a second shot is cheap insurance against a first shot failure and that further shots may be needed if you happen to be dealing with a bullet/felon combination that is an exception to the rule.

ABNAK
10-22-2010, 11:41
Got some Buffalo Bore 357Sig ammo today. Looks like they use the 6 petal "over-penetrator". :faint:

1canvas
10-22-2010, 13:10
One of our local LEOs was executing a search warrant, and was forced to shoot a bad guy. Our LEO was armed with a 357 Sig with 125 grain Speer Gold Dot ammo.

The bad guy took six rounds in the chest before stopping. All six rounds penetrated the bad guy, went through a couple of walls and exited the house almost striking an officer outside. I don't believe any of the rounds expanded.

Something you might want to consider if you chose the 357 Sig for self defense.


sounds like the ultimate bullet failure, six bullets to stop the bad guy, overpenetrates bad guy, wall, and theatens the safety of someone outside the house. all six also:whistling:

BlutoBlutarsky
10-22-2010, 20:45
I've tested a few .357 sig loads in wetpack jugs and the only one that failed to expand (5 times from one box) was the 6 petal Speer Gold Dot fired through cotton T shirt. The Gold dots fired directly into the jugs expanded every time. The most consistent bullet was the Hornady 125XTP, it expanded and penetrated 3-3.5 jugs through 4 layer cotton T shirt and hooded sweatshirt every time. Results were same when fired without clothing in front of the jugs. Expansion was always caliber and a half and retained weight was 107 to 112 grains. My only complaint with the Hornady Custom loading is the number of rounds that clocked under 1300 fps. from the G33. I haven't tested the newest Ranger-T yet or the Fed HST.

Snowman92D
10-23-2010, 10:13
Nothing personal Marksman but without the facts of the case your statement can't be substantiated and is in the same class as "I knew a guy that said".

Agreed. I don't buy into a story like that on any OIS until I've called the involved agency and talked to them personally. There are just some people who have an agenda against the .357 Sig or other popular calibers and loads.

greyeyezz
10-23-2010, 18:32
Agreed. I don't buy into a story like that on any OIS until I've called the involved agency and talked to them personally. There are just some people who have an agenda against the .357 Sig or other popular calibers and loads.

I just read an identical story from a LEO in Indiana. All the rounds penetrated and went into a house. What a coincidence. :upeyes:

glock031
10-23-2010, 19:41
Yea i say BS. Just read a simular thread on another site. There it was 3 officers who fired 2 shots each 357sig at the drugged crazed perp. Supossibly all shots fired center mass exited body went through 2 interior walls then exterior wall and into the next house and through one of its inside walls and almost killed a innocent bystander.....And the perp survived.....yea right!

Your're absolutley right about agenda's.

This is also 45gap campaign week. You'll see it once a month around here.

X-ray 4N6
10-24-2010, 19:33
Need more information, specifically the terminal trajectory of each round.

Glockbuster
10-24-2010, 19:45
Too much FUD with the 357 Sig.

Don't buy into it.

X-ray 4N6
10-24-2010, 19:50
Here's my canned observation about these sorts of anecdotes:

After various threads along the lines of "This guy was hit x times with y ammo of z calibre and he still didn’t die" I have decided to tell you all what my perspective is on gunshot wounds and shot placement. To begin with let’s go over what we are told by all the experts as regards neutralising a threat by means of gunfire:

1) It is accepted that there are certain ’critical’ organs and structures within the human body which, if significantly damaged, will lead to the neutralisation of that individual’s ability to pose a threat.

2) It is also accepted that if we intend to damage those structures we must deliver a projectile that has the ability to penetrate deeply enough into the target to reach and damage those critical organs and structures.

3) Lastly we must have some exterior landmark to aim at, which will correspond to the position of the critical organ that we are aiming to damage.

And these three points are very difficult to satisfy in real-world shootings because of the variables involved. To illustrate this, let us pretend that every bad guy we ever encounter will always stand with his arms out sideways (as in Figure 1) and that there is a critical rectangular plate of known dimensions within his chest (as in Figure 2, 3 and 4). Let us also pretend that any bullet that can pass through that plate so that it damages any two parallel surfaces of the plate, will result in an instant incapacitation of that man.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/AP1.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/AP2.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/oblique1.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/axial1.jpg

If that is the case, then an ideal shot will be in the center of the chest, through the sternum and through the plate, as indicated by the red line trajectories in Figure 5 and 6:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/AP3.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/oblique2.jpg

Continued...

X-ray 4N6
10-24-2010, 19:54
(continued from previous post)

Of course, we cannot aim directly at that plate at the time of the shooting because we do not have X-ray vision, so we choose an overlying surface landmark instead. If we retain the red trajectory in Figure 6 but this time only mark where it enters the skin, we can make a blue aiming point on the man’s chest as in Figure 7:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/oblique3.jpg

This blue circle seems to be the ideal aiming point if we want to hit that critical red area within the chest. Okay, so let’s assume for now that everybody here can satisfy the following requirements:

1) Hit that blue circle ALL the time, 100% accuracy.

2) Deliver a projectile that cannot be deflected, fragmented or otherwise impeded by the target’s tissues. In other words, this will be a projectile that travels in a straight line like a laser beam, no matter what it hits.

3) The projectile has sufficient energy to penetrate the man’s chest and perforate the critical red area.

Even if the above points could be satisfied, we would still have variables to do with the position of the shooter relative to the position of the target. There are numerous combinations of these positions whereby even if the above three points are satisfied, the projectile fails to even touch the red critical area. Examples can be seen in Figures 8 to 11:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/composite1.jpg

Note that in the above trajectories the blue circle has been hit but not the red area within the chest. Now we must add another variable: the fact that the bad guy doesn’t want to stand there with his arms out sideways showing you his chest so you can pick a spot to hit. Have a look at these poses (in Figures 12-14) and try to imagine where that blue circle is in all of them. In those cases where you automatically dismiss the blue circle as a valid aiming point, try to work out where you would aim to hit the red area within the target:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/composite2.jpg

This is why we get told to aim for center of mass (COM). The reason being that we are likely to hit something of some ’value’ even if we don’t hit the ’magic red area.’
The target's profile and build is an added variable. A fat guy or a big-busted woman when standing sideways may appear to be offering quite a large COM, but in reality the critical area available to be struck is less than would be available if they stood facing the shooter. This is how you get COM hits that ’go right through the target’ but do not have the required effect, and that’s when we get blame put on the weapon/calibre/ammunition type. You only have to spend some time in the emergency room of a large trauma center to see perforating gunshot injuries that have failed to kill or even seriously injure the victim.

Note also that so far we have not even touched on the subject of projectile deflection or fragmentation within the clothing or tissues of the target. A projectile that may have been traveling straight towards the critical area as in Figure 7, may not reach the critical area if it is deflected by the sternum or an anterior rib end.

Also: here is no such thing as a nice geometric ’red critical area’ as I have drawn here. That was just a convenient way for me to demonstrate the trajectory variables involved. There are substantial variables in the size and position of vital structures such as the heart and great vessels within a person’s chest. Further surface variables exist such as muscle content, fat, clothes, bone mineralisation etc. This means that you cannot guarantee that a bad guy will go down even if you are fortunate or skilled enough to place that shot exactly where you intend it to go. Even head shots are not a guarantee to instantly incapacitate somebody.

Eyescream
10-24-2010, 22:57
What an awesome post. Thanks man.

pag23
10-25-2010, 18:56
That's why I use Ranger T's...instead of the Gold Dot's:supergrin:

Mrs_Esterhouse
10-29-2010, 21:44
One of our local LEOs was executing a search warrant, and was forced to shoot a bad guy. Our LEO was armed with a 357 Sig with 125 grain Speer Gold Dot ammo.

The bad guy took six rounds in the chest before stopping. All six rounds penetrated the bad guy, went through a couple of walls and exited the house almost striking an officer outside. I don't believe any of the rounds expanded.

Something you might want to consider if you chose the 357 Sig for self defense.
Fail. Something I might consider if shooting Gold Dots. :upeyes:

PghJim
10-30-2010, 20:44
One of our local LEOs was executing a search warrant, and was forced to shoot a bad guy. Our LEO was armed with a 357 Sig with 125 grain Speer Gold Dot ammo.

The bad guy took six rounds in the chest before stopping. All six rounds penetrated the bad guy, went through a couple of walls and exited the house almost striking an officer outside. I don't believe any of the rounds expanded.

Something you might want to consider if you chose the 357 Sig for self defense.


Unless they were defective GD's, I think that is virtually impossible. Although I do not carry them, I have shot thousands of 357sig GD rounds over the last 12 years. I ones shot into any living creature of any substantial size always expanded to some extent. With some relatively small animals like a badger the bullets did not always exit the animal.

BOGE
10-31-2010, 09:19
One of our local LEOs was executing a search warrant, and was forced to shoot a bad guy. Our LEO was armed with a 357 Sig with 125 grain Speer Gold Dot ammo.

The bad guy took six rounds in the chest before stopping. All six rounds penetrated the bad guy, went through a couple of walls and exited the house almost striking an officer outside. I don't believe any of the rounds expanded.

Something you might want to consider if you chose the 357 Sig for self defense.

It occurred during the summer in Texas, so I assume the suspect was wearing only a light shirt. I was told by my source that the department is considering going to the 45 ACP, although I would not say the round was a complete failure. The bad guy was stopped very rapidly before he could fire again. I don't have any links the shooting is still under investigation so I can't get to detailed, sorry.

Please tell us what city or town as we can dig a little deeper. Something just doesn`t seem right that ALL the bullets would fail to expand. Tell us WHERE this happened, please.

G21FAN
10-31-2010, 10:18
If none of those rounds expanded, i would think it is a Gold Dot design problem, not a 357 sig problem.

I agree. the gold dots have barely a dimple they call a hollow point. no wonder it didn't expand. the other gold dot calibers are a bit deeper, but not much except for the short barrel loads.

G21FAN
10-31-2010, 10:23
Perhaps a non-bonded would be the best choice with .357 Sig. Ranger or HST. Is Golden Saber available in .357 Sig? Or how about the Federal EFMJ. Pretty much guaranteed expansion on that from what I can tell.

I saw the bonded version on the Remington L.E. site.

PghJim
10-31-2010, 11:24
I agree. the gold dots have barely a dimple they call a hollow point. no wonder it didn't expand. the other gold dot calibers are a bit deeper, but not much except for the short barrel loads.

The GD 357sig bullet design is the same as the GD 357Mag 125gr., they are designed for higher velocity than the 124gr 9mm bullet. When Corbon first got into the 357sig ammo, they loaded the 124gr 9mm bullet, but quickly found that the velocity was too great for that bullet, at least the velocity that Corbon loaded it to. I think the 357sig GD bullet performs better over 1,400fps, but even factory loads always seem to expand to some degree. I have a collection of fired bullets from 1,375fps to 1,510fps shot through light clothing into ballistic gel. The difference in 135fps is pretty astounding. At 1,375, 0.63", at 1,431, 0.69", at 1,473, 0.77", at 1,510 (the highest velocity I can get), 0.93". These were not chronographed at the time of shooting, but the average of 10 shots each, so there could be variation in velocity stated. The 1,375fps round went a little over 16", the 1,510 only penetrated 10". I believe the best range for this bullet is 1,425 to 1,475fps. I do not think I would carry my G33 with factory loading, however with buffalo bore I can get over 1,425 in the G33.

G21FAN
10-31-2010, 12:31
The GD 357sig bullet design is the same as the GD 357Mag 125gr., they are designed for higher velocity than the 124gr 9mm bullet. When Corbon first got into the 357sig ammo, they loaded the 124gr 9mm bullet, but quickly found that the velocity was too great for that bullet, at least the velocity that Corbon loaded it to. I think the 357sig GD bullet performs better over 1,400fps, but even factory loads always seem to expand to some degree. I have a collection of fired bullets from 1,375fps to 1,510fps shot through light clothing into ballistic gel. The difference in 135fps is pretty astounding. At 1,375, 0.63", at 1,431, 0.69", at 1,473, 0.77", at 1,510 (the highest velocity I can get), 0.93". These were not chronographed at the time of shooting, but the average of 10 shots each, so there could be variation in velocity stated. The 1,375fps round went a little over 16", the 1,510 only penetrated 10". I believe the best range for this bullet is 1,425 to 1,475fps. I do not think I would carry my G33 with factory loading, however with buffalo bore I can get over 1,425 in the G33.

I would like those loadings if I could get factory duty rounds at that speed. Could the Glock 31 and P-226 SIGs handle them?

PghJim
10-31-2010, 14:45
I would like those loadings if I could get factory duty rounds at that speed. Could the Glock 31 and P-226 SIGs handle them?

My current carry setup is a G32 with a Lone Wolf 4.5 inch barrel. I have shot about 300 round of BB at 1,510fps with no issues. I never tried loading that high. The highest I have loaded to was the 1,477fps out of the 4.5 inch barrel. DT is selling Sierra 125JPH 357sig rounds that average 1,480 to 1,505 out of the 4.5" barrel. Actually I am carrying that load now. I get no high pressure signs, although there are those on here that will tell you that you cannot see pressure signs on a handgun rounds. However, if the firing pin strike has disappered on a Glock the pressure is probably at it max. I have also found out when I am close to max that the fired shells are harder to insert and pull out of the barrel. Neither of these signs are on the ammo mentioned about, except my handload at 1,477 was probably near max pressure.

G31
11-01-2010, 12:42
I would not fault the round at all. It goes faster, so it will penetrate more, but ANY standard handgun round from 9mm up will do the same, if the HP fails to expand (frequent problem when it hits hard objects, like bone, where the cavity is cushed in). Another aspect to look at is the tissue that is hit. Hitting a muscular area filled with bones is a lot different than hitting flesh and air, with little muscle. I could see a lung shot going all the way through.

Overpenetration never hurts, but underpenetration does. The only downfall to overpenetration is liability for where the bullet goes. Ballistically, it doesn't hurt anything.

It's typical for a PD to have a knee-jerk reaction without analyzing the problem with a level head. I've seen too many BS reasons for caliber "upgrades" over the years by PDs that really don't do anything but blame the caliber, or want new equipment for the sake of it.

PersonOfInterest
11-02-2010, 02:26
Please tell us what city or town as we can dig a little deeper. Something just doesn`t seem right that ALL the bullets would fail to expand. Tell us WHERE this happened, please.
Yep im calling Bs until i see something offical too.

cowboy1964
11-02-2010, 08:31
Overpenetration never hurts

Except when it doesn't stop the BG fast enough and except when it injures/kills other people (and don't say it's never happened - it has).

Glockbuster
11-02-2010, 09:35
Yep im calling Bs until i see something offical too.

+1

We´ll probably never hear any concrete details because I strongly suspect this whole thing is BOGUS.

Glockbuster
11-02-2010, 09:43
I agree. the gold dots have barely a dimple they call a hollow point. no wonder it didn't expand. the other gold dot calibers are a bit deeper, but not much except for the short barrel loads.


As simple as that ? all of a sudden bullet design is so easy and Speer´s research and development so stupid ?

I wouldn´t have a simplistic view like that.

G31
11-02-2010, 19:32
Except when it doesn't stop the BG fast enough and except when it injures/kills other people (and don't say it's never happened - it has).

Continue to read the rest of the statement before posting something like that. I addressed liability.

Besides that, overpenetration does not have any less of a ballistic effect than a JHP that stays in...I'm sorry.

Natty
11-04-2010, 10:35
Impossible. Calibrated gell-o testing shows the .357 Sig doesn't perform any different than the 9mm 147-grain subsonic with regard to expansion and penetration. :supergrin:

But the .357 Sig has more to offer.

More flash
More bang
More recoil
And it costs more.

:rofl:

cowboy1964
11-04-2010, 10:55
Besides that, overpenetration does not have any less of a ballistic effect than a JHP that stays in...I'm sorry.

What is "ballistic effect"? The effectiveness of the round in terms of stopping power?

AWESOMO 4000
11-06-2010, 15:31
Cor Bon 125gr Sierra JHP would quite likely NOT overpenetrate. Chrono'd some myself at around 1375fps average from a Glock 32. It would likely fragment. Now, some here will say that is not good but it is the closest simulation of the effects of the vaunted 125gr .357 Magnum round out there. Just sayin'......


This.

Many seem to think if you don't have the latest and greatest bonded, 8-petal, perfect-on-the-box musroom-fired-into-water-jugs LEO load offering you're better off just chucking the gun at a baddie. CorBon makes very effective loads, has for years, and their .357SIG load is as close to a .357 Magnum 125gr load - which was the SIG's original intent as you are going to get to from a factory load.

ABNAK
11-06-2010, 18:25
This.

Many seem to think if you don't have the latest and greatest bonded, 8-petal, perfect-on-the-box musroom-fired-into-water-jugs LEO load offering you're better off just chucking the gun at a baddie. CorBon makes very effective loads, has for years, and their .357SIG load is as close to a .357 Magnum 125gr load - which was the SIG's original intent as you are going to get to from a factory load.


Thanks. That was exactly the point I was trying to make.

I see the 357Sig as a "niche" load. It was designed for exactly the reason you state: to simulate, in a semi-auto, the .357 Magnum. It's muzzle blast and recoil are NOT necessary to achieve a .70 expansion with 14" of penetration. These days there are quite a few non-357Sig rounds that live in that neighborhood: Ranger, HST, etc. You can get the same effect without the blast and recoil of the 357Sig.

However......make the most of that blast and recoil and go with a round designed to duplicate the original "Big Mac": Cor Bon's 125gr Sierra loads.

PghJim
11-06-2010, 20:14
I have been carrying CorBon 125 Sierra JHP for years. The last batch did not reach the velocity of the previous rounds, so I hung onto enough of the old rounds to carry. These go about 1,440 fps from a 4.5 inch barrel. I do not know if you know it or not but Double Tap has started loading the Sierra 125 gr JHP 357sig rounds. Usually I am a little disappointed by the actual velocities with DT. But he says 1,500 fps in a 4.5" barrel and that is just about what I am getting. Susposed to be 1,450 fps from a 4" barrel, but I have not tried. As a bonus they are more accurate than CorBon, at least in my gun.

Double Tap also loads a Nosler 115gr JHP in 357sig, and I was getting almost 1,600 fps with those. They actually penetrate a little more than the 125gr Sierra. But they seem about the same energy wise >600fpe.

I am now carrying the DT 125gr load.

PghJim
11-06-2010, 20:31
But the .357 Sig has more to offer.

More flash
More bang
More recoil
And it costs more.

:rofl:

Maybe more flash and bang, but the recoil is less than any full 45 ACP round, or the 155 & 165gr 40's, it is about the same as the 180gr 40's. Here you can calculate it:

http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

And for the cost issue for practice rounds:

http://georgia-arms.com/357sig.aspx

RedHaze
11-06-2010, 21:10
I'm sure 357 sig sucks to buy... thats where reloading comes into play. Now its way cheap to shoot.

uz2bUSMC
11-06-2010, 21:32
I'll say it like this, the .357 sig might have failed to expand in this case (gold dot) and it may have overpentrated, but it didn't fail to stop... although it took 6 rounds. As has been said, there is little information on the OIS. The perp coulda been a 120lb crack head not offering much resistance to the HP cavity, who knows. What I do know is that Police Marksman is consistant in sky lighting all caliber failures to console himself in his choice of 9mm. The 9 may be fine, I don't know, but some people like him have to dig for justification and hope to gain support by being a caliber failure drama queen.

uz2bUSMC
11-06-2010, 21:35
BUT, but what about the ballistic pressure wave??!!

hahaha

That would kinda require some expansion from the gold dots in question. Course you would actually have to have some understanding of that theory in which you make jest to know that, huh, chief.

glock20c10mm
11-07-2010, 01:59
What I do know is that Police Marksman is consistant in sky lighting all caliber failures to console himself in his choice of 9mm. Some people like him have to dig for justification and hope to gain support by being a caliber failure drama queen.

+1 :perfect10: Amen to that brotha! How anyone can believe something so backward in light of various contradicting fact, not to mention common sense, is far beyond my own comprehension.


Good Shooting,
Craig :cheers:

unit1069
11-07-2010, 08:05
I see the 357Sig as a "niche" load. It was designed for exactly the reason you state: to simulate, in a semi-auto, the .357 Magnum. It's muzzle blast and recoil are NOT necessary to achieve a .70 expansion with 14" of penetration. These days there are quite a few non-357Sig rounds that live in that neighborhood: Ranger, HST, etc. You can get the same effect without the blast and recoil of the 357Sig.

I don't have the picture to link but no doubt you've seen the photo of the various popular LEO caliber rounds where the wound track/volume is dyed red.

Assuming that you're implying the very popular 9mm 147-grain round, it had the lowest total wound volume of all rounds shown, including the 124-grain 9mm round.

Final expansion and penetration for me don't tell the entire story. I put total wound volume on the same level of importance.

PghJim
11-07-2010, 11:02
Thanks. That was exactly
I see the 357Sig as a "niche" load. It was designed for exactly the reason you state: to simulate, in a semi-auto, the .357 Magnum. It's muzzle blast and recoil are NOT necessary to achieve a .70 expansion with 14" of penetration. These days there are quite a few non-357Sig rounds that live in that neighborhood: Ranger, HST, etc. You can get the same effect without the blast and recoil of the 357Sig.

However......make the most of that blast and recoil and go with a round designed to duplicate the original "Big Mac": Cor Bon's 125gr Sierra loads.

I do not know where the thought that the 357sig has more recoil came from. More than a 9mm, but less than a 155 or 165gr 40, or any 45ACP that if fully loaded. Sound does not mean recoil. The 357sig is an easy round to shoot considering the energy generated. Plug in your numbers:

http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

glock20c10mm
11-07-2010, 12:02
I don't have the picture to link but no doubt you've seen the photo of the various popular LEO caliber rounds where the wound track/volume is dyed red.

Assuming that you're implying the very popular 9mm 147-grain round, it had the lowest total wound volume of all rounds shown, including the 124-grain 9mm round.

Final expansion and penetration for me don't tell the entire story. I put total wound volume on the same level of importance.
I agree. The 147gr bullet weight in 9mm is pretty much what I would call the worst of "OK" choices within the realm of relatively common SD carry loads. Pretty much inline with the average 158gr 38spcl load. Not worth it, unless all other options have been depleted.


Craig

glock20c10mm
11-07-2010, 12:13
I do not know where the thought that the 357sig has more recoil came from. More than a 9mm, but less than a 155 or 165gr 40, or any 45ACP that if fully loaded. Sound does not mean recoil. The 357sig is an easy round to shoot considering the energy generated. Plug in your numbers:

http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

+1!!! I'm not saying the recoil from a G33 doesn't get a tad toward the snappy side with any 357SIG load worth its salt. At the same time, from a G32 or G31, it's more than an acceptable SD choice, and only second in my own opinion to a Glock chambered in 10mm, FOR ME.


Good Shooting,
Craig

G26man
11-07-2010, 12:17
What made the original 125gr 357mag load the most effective at stopping criminals? Regardless of penetration, expansion and any other physical measurement this round performed the best and the 357SIG is the closest thing to that we have for a service caliber semi auto handgun. I've heard that its own record of actual shootings is also very impressive. I don't agree with the FBI, Fackler, etc. who say it's all about permanent wound channel. I'd rather put my trust in actual results.

Handgun stops are most often psychological. Unless you hit CNS the BG will still have plenty of time to kill you if motivated enough. I believe there may be something about a high velocity round generating a large temporary cavity that convinces people that it's a good idea to stop what they are doing.

DocKWL
11-07-2010, 13:22
What made the original 125gr 357mag load the most effective at stopping criminals? Regardless of penetration, expansion and any other physical measurement this round performed the best and the 357SIG is the closest thing to that we have for a service caliber semi auto handgun. I've heard that its own record of actual shootings is also very impressive. I don't agree with the FBI, Fackler, etc. who say it's all about permanent wound channel. I'd rather put my trust in actual results.

Handgun stops are most often psychological. Unless you hit CNS the BG will still have plenty of time to kill you if motivated enough. I believe there may be something about a high velocity round generating a large temporary cavity that convinces people that it's a good idea to stop what they are doing.

There are many glaring errors and inconsistency throughout your post - particularly with a screen name such as yours.

The most glaring (and the one I'll elaborate on) is your comment, "...the FBI, Fackler, etc. who say it's all about permanent wound channel".

The FBI, Fackler, et al, are in agreement that the temporary cavity is an erratic and unpredictable wounding mechanism.

G26man
11-07-2010, 14:00
There are many glaring errors and inconsistency throughout your post - particularly with a screen name such as yours.

The most glaring (and the one I'll elaborate on) is your comment, "...the FBI, Fackler, etc. who say it's all about permanent wound channel".

The FBI, Fackler, et al, are in agreement that the temporary cavity is an erratic and unpredictable wounding mechanism.

As far as FBI, Fackler, et al, I stated I was not in agreement with them so sorry but your attempt to chastise me because of their opinions is probably not going to be successful. :rofl: I also clearly stated "I believe there may be something" to the temporary cavity. I did not say that I knew there was. I stated I put my trust in results. It's also my understanding that regarding the temporary cavity they were referring to the physical effects, I clearly stated I was referring to psychological effects as in what the person feels may have an impact on his decision to continue or stop, not whether or not his ability to continue is directly affected. Got it?

Oh esteemed expert I am waiting to be enlightened as to the remaining myriad of glaring errors and inconsistencies. :upeyes: I'd also love to hear what my screen name has to do with this discussion.

cowboy1964
11-07-2010, 15:07
I agree. The 147gr bullet weight in 9mm is pretty much what I would call the worst of "OK" choices within the realm of relatively common SD carry loads. Pretty much inline with the average 158gr 38spcl load. Not worth it, unless all other options have been depleted.

Using Hornady as an example, a 9mm 147gr moving at 975 fps or a .38 Special 158gr at 800 fps. Common sense says the 9mm will be more effective.

I will always choose 147 9mm over any .38 Special any day of the week. But I think mid-weight 9s are the best.

cowboy1964
11-07-2010, 15:17
Final expansion and penetration for me don't tell the entire story. I put total wound volume on the same level of importance.

Read this: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf. Temporary cavity has no reliable wounding effect in elastic tissue. If you want a larger permanent cavity go to a larger caliber.

Penetration is always #2, after shot placement. If those two things aren't achieved nothing else matters. If those two things ARE achieved there is going to be little practical difference between the major calibers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power

cowboy1964
11-07-2010, 15:24
Maybe more flash and bang, but the recoil is less than any full 45 ACP round, or the 155 & 165gr 40's, it is about the same as the 180gr 40's.

A typical 180gr .40 S&W has less "free recoil" than a 230 .45 ACP but to me the .45 is milder shooting because it doesn't have the pop of the .40.

Flash/bang is a consideration, IMO. Unless night vision impairment and temporary/permanent hearing loss aren't important factors.

uz2bUSMC
11-07-2010, 15:31
As far as I know "total wound volume" (whatever that is exactly - permanent, temporary?) isn't a part of any formal ballistic testing in terms of evaluating whether or not a round meets minimum effectiveness requirements.

Penetration is always #1. If that isn't sufficient nothing else matters.

Then why bother making a round expand? Why not just use a .22 of some variety, as long as it penetrates sufficiently, that should be all that matters, right? I mean, if wound volume doesn't matter, any cartridge should do as long as it penetrates "sufficiently".

ABNAK
11-08-2010, 13:28
I don't have the picture to link but no doubt you've seen the photo of the various popular LEO caliber rounds where the wound track/volume is dyed red.

Assuming that you're implying the very popular 9mm 147-grain round, it had the lowest total wound volume of all rounds shown, including the 124-grain 9mm round.

Final expansion and penetration for me don't tell the entire story. I put total wound volume on the same level of importance.


Where you really see the temporary cavities "shine"---or at least theoretically be involved in tearing and permanent damage---is with rifle or rifle velocity rounds. Even the 357Sig at 1400-1500fps isn't anywhere near rifle speed. My point was if your sole desire is to have (as an example) .70 expansion and driven to 14" deep, you don't have to use a 357Sig nowadays to do it. Yes, the 147gr HST +P's I carry in my Glock 19 are pretty close to those results in jello, and it is a relatively mild-shooting round. Not claiming it's an "Uber Bullet" or anything, but you see my point.

The reason (for me anyhow) to have a 357Sig option is to duplicate the terminal ballistics as much as possible of the .357 Magnum 125gr SJHP. That's why it originally came into being. Much to the chagrin of many here, that involves *some* fragments producing limited secondary wound paths while turning the remainder of the bullet damn near inside-out!

One thing a large temporary cavity *might* do better at (and I'd be interested in seeing any info you may have regarding this) is a "shock effect" to the perp's system. Not permanent damage like tearing, but the "whallop" as it smacks home. For instance a torso shot near, but not into, the liver with a high-velocity impact *should* in theory rattle it pretty good. That is a major organ and one can debate the shock to the system sustained by such a wave of pressure. Question is twofold though: is it a valid theory and can those waves be generated by handgun bullets from a handgun-length barrel?

APD
11-08-2010, 13:41
Nothing personal Marksman but without the facts of the case your statement can't be substantiated and is in the same class as "I knew a guy that said". I can give a case right now with attached PowerPoint of a BG shot 17 times at a distance of 20 feet. 15 of those hits were 180gr .40 and 2 were 5.56 75gr. The three officers on scene had to fight with the guy to get cuffs on him. He later died.

Adrenaline and the survival instinct trump all small arm calibers short of 25mm.


Heck yeah, this is why they are indeed called SMALL arms. If they were big and bad they would be called BIG BADASS arms.:supergrin:

No pistol shot is guaranteed to immediately incapacitate on a torso shot. Some may flop on the ground from a .22lr and others may take 6 rounds from a .357 Sig before stopping their actions.
SHoot em repeatedly until they stop doing bad things.

G26man
11-08-2010, 14:35
Where you really see the temporary cavities "shine"---or at least theoretically be involved in tearing and permanent damage---is with rifle or rifle velocity rounds. Even the 357Sig at 1400-1500fps isn't anywhere near rifle speed. My point was if your sole desire is to have (as an example) .70 expansion and driven to 14" deep, you don't have to use a 357Sig nowadays to do it. Yes, the 147gr HST +P's I carry in my Glock 19 are pretty close to those results in jello, and it is a relatively mild-shooting round. Not claiming it's an "Uber Bullet" or anything, but you see my point.

The reason (for me anyhow) to have a 357Sig option is to duplicate the terminal ballistics as much as possible of the .357 Magnum 125gr SJHP. That's why it originally came into being. Much to the chagrin of many here, that involves *some* fragments producing limited secondary wound paths while turning the remainder of the bullet damn near inside-out!

One thing a large temporary cavity *might* do better at (and I'd be interested in seeing any info you may have regarding this) is a "shock effect" to the perp's system. Not permanent damage like tearing, but the "whallop" as it smacks home. For instance a torso shot near, but not into, the liver with a high-velocity impact *should* in theory rattle it pretty good. That is a major organ and one can debate the shock to the system sustained by such a wave of pressure. Question is twofold though: is it a valid theory and can those waves be generated by handgun bullets from a handgun-length barrel?

Be careful the Faklerites don't like people talking hydrostatic shock. Something made the .357 so successful. There is something to the high velocity rounds that doesn't show up in wound ballistics. It might only be the sensation of being hit harder, who knows but I believe there is something there that terminal wound experts like Fackler either don't understand or won't admit.

Get yourself a Glock 20 and a 9x25 Dillon barrel and you can break into the >2000fps domain of centerfire rifles with a concealable handgun. I'd like to see some real world defensive data on those!

BOGE
11-08-2010, 16:02
...Something made the .357 so successful. There is something to the high velocity rounds that doesn't show up in wound ballistics...


Ditto.

unit1069
11-08-2010, 18:35
Where you really see the temporary cavities "shine"---or at least theoretically be involved in tearing and permanent damage---is with rifle or rifle velocity rounds.

Of course, but even with handgun calibers there's a total wound channel; and even though much of it is temporary the stretching and rupturing of vessel walls aids in dropping blood pressure. That's why I referenced the oft-posted photo of the various service caliber wound volumes.

The reason (for me anyhow) to have a 357Sig option is to duplicate the terminal ballistics as much as possible of the .357 Magnum 125gr SJHP. That's why it originally came into being. Much to the chagrin of many here, that involves *some* fragments producing limited secondary wound paths while turning the remainder of the bullet damn near inside-out!

The ballistics of .357sig is one reason I bought a G-32; the other is that with a small tweak or two the recoil isn't much more than the Steyr M9-A1 I have; and besides, I am more accurate with the Glock than I am with the Steyr although both are great pistols. I think .357sig is inherently more accurate than 9mm and many gun writers have said the same thing. It would be nice to know of a .357sig round that duplicates the fragmenting .357 Magnum.

One thing a large temporary cavity *might* do better at (and I'd be interested in seeing any info you may have regarding this) is a "shock effect" to the perp's system. Not permanent damage like tearing, but the "whallop" as it smacks home. For instance a torso shot near, but not into, the liver with a high-velocity impact *should* in theory rattle it pretty good. That is a major organ and one can debate the shock to the system sustained by such a wave of pressure. Question is twofold though: is it a valid theory and can those waves be generated by handgun bullets from a handgun-length barrel?

Well, we'd better steer away from any sacrilege since this forum has a pretty good start. There's gospel and there's heresy. Talking about "hydrostatic shock", "ballistic pressure wave", or whatever will tip this thread into "heresy" and bring out the high priests in charge of that topic.

G31
11-08-2010, 20:28
The temp. wound cavity causes damage to capillaries and other weaker vascular tissue. It doesn't do much to add to stopping a person, if the psychology of being shot doesn't stop them. Basically, it makes a huge bruise. Instant blood pressure increases do exist, but rarely act in a way to be the cause of incapacitation. I have never seen a case of a handgun round causing blood vessel damage away from the site of injury...that's something that will show up under CT or other radiographic methods, if the damage was significant enough. I've not personally seen it, but have heard it can be present in large, powerful rifle wounds (like a .50BMG). In a pistol wound, no. I've seen studies that relate this "shock" to some slight brain injury, but nothing significant, unless the subject is shot in the head. Even then, some with direct hits to the head can walk and talk their way to the hospital. The "hydrostatic shock" people are so fond of is a function of velocity, but I've not seen it incapacitate anyone in any report...anywhere. Show me an example and I'll eat my words...;)

The mechanisms of injury of gunshot wounds are pretty much limited to the actual tissue damaged, rather than the temp. stretch from an impact. The other issue is the ballistics gel does not mirror the result in human muscle tissue, reinforced with bone. The cavity is less pronounced. often, the exit wound, if there is one, is similar in size to the entry wound (no grapefruit hole in the back.)

In reality, shot placement and penetration are it. Everything else is totally unreliable. The claims that .357 or .45 are the best man stoppers of all time were made before medical technology could catch-up and disprove them. These days, these rounds, even in "older" JHP loadings, have been shown to act the same as 9mm, .40, etc. A funny thing about those legendary claims are that they have no real backing, and no one really knows the origin; they're perpetuated because it's been said for so long, people believe them.

PghJim
11-08-2010, 20:55
In reality, shot placement and penetration are it. Everything else is totally unreliable. The claims that .357 or .45 are the best man stoppers of all time were made before medical technology could catch-up and disprove them. These days, these rounds, even in "older" JHP loadings, have been shown to act the same as 9mm, .40, etc. A funny thing about those legendary claims are that they have no real backing, and no one really knows the origin; they're perpetuated because it's been said for so long, people believe them.

What!! I do not think they needed medical techonolgy to see that the 125gr 357 magnum was a good to great manstopper. They saw that with their own eyes. If you will just accept that it is as good as today's wonder penetrating
bullets, then how do you explain the success with fragmentation and 60% weight penetrating 10". Now if you are a flackerite this link will not mean much to you, but those of us old enough to have worked in the revolver era do. Just tell me that the 147gr 9mm that came from your thinking was a step forward. Some of us know a person or two that has been shot back then and I believe they would argue with you about the localized brusing. The guy I know who was shot in the abdomine was bruised on the outside from his armpits to his waist.

http://www.handloads.org/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=5&Weight=All

I am not arguing about shot placement.

Snowman92D
11-09-2010, 07:15
The claims that .357 or .45 are the best man stoppers of all time were made before medical technology could catch-up and disprove them. These days, these rounds, even in "older" JHP loadings, have been shown to act the same as 9mm, .40, etc. A funny thing about those legendary claims are that they have no real backing, and no one really knows the origin; they're perpetuated because it's been said for so long, people believe them.

Well, shot placement and adequate penetration have always been the basic foundation of putting someone out of the fight. The only people who ever said differently was a U.S. gov't sponsored group of "scientists" who created the Computer Man Model of ballistic tripe, circa 1975, in which they "scientifically" proved that we should use shallow-penetrating handgun ammo. The rest of us knew from experience that you needed enough penetration to hit vital organs and the load-bearing structures of the body if you wanted to terminate a fight. That all went down the drain in 1986 when several FBI agents were killed or injured in Miami after a violent felon was shot with a shallow-penetrating U.S. gov't sanctioned "scientific" 9mm, at least that's what the federal AAR said.

So don't lecture the rest of us about "placement and penetration". We already knew that.

When you say that "medical tachology" caught up with "claims" that some loads and calibers work better than others, I'm forced to ask you which medical technologists were shooting enough people with enough different calibers that enabled you to make that statement. If you're making your assertion based on what you think medical technologists said, then you're regurgitating stuff you've read. The closest "medical technologists" come to the subject is treating people after the gunfight occurred, or at autopsy after the gunfight occurred. The only pronouncement they can make is limited to what they see after the fight was long over.

Since defensive shooters are interested in what puts a homicidal attacker out of the fight ASAP, your medical technology sources aren't telling us everything we need to know. All they can tell us is limited to what put someone in the ER or on a slab...not out of the fight. Unless, as I said before, medical technologists are now shooting lots of people that I don't know about, with lots of different calibers. Please note that what "medical technology" learns in treating GSW's, or at autopsies, is very useful...it just doesn't tell us everything we need to know about what happens when gunfire hits people.

Your contention that all rounds act the same might be true if you're shooting gell-o, but we're not talking about shooting gell-o. Gel-testing is a useful method for preliminary testing of ammunition...but there is no one-to-one relationship between shooting gell-o and shooting people. So again, it doesn't tell us everything we need to know. To assert that there is no real "backing" that some calibers work better than others, and that nobody knows the "origin" of these "legends" is probably the silliest thing you said. It's okay if you don't like shooting some calibers, for one reason or another, but you need to do a fuller investigation of the subject before making silly statements.

That, or let us see some of those shootings that medical technologists are getting into with all those different calibers.

G26man
11-09-2010, 08:00
In reality, shot placement and penetration are it. Everything else is totally unreliable.
What, expansion (i.e. wound channel size) doesn't matter? Regardless, what you are saying is that unless CNS is hit or possibly the heart, we have to wait for the perp to bleed out because that is what this kine of thinking is based on, more tissue disruption = more blood loss. In reality many many people drop right then and there without a CNS hit. Yes blood loss is "reliable". When blood pressure drops below a certain level the person will eventually but reliably stop, but not after he's had a good deal more time to kill you. Although I admit I don't know for certain, I expect blood loss itself is a small percentage of actual handgun stops.

The claims that .357 or .45 are the best man stoppers of all time were made before medical technology could catch-up and disprove them. These days, these rounds, even in "older" JHP loadings, have been shown to act the same as 9mm, .40, etc. A funny thing about those legendary claims are that they have no real backing, and no one really knows the origin; they're perpetuated because it's been said for so long, people believe them.
The 125gr .357 Magnum was used widespread by LEO for a long time, there is a lot of data to back up their effectiveness. If modern terminal ballistic tests don't bear that out then I put my money on the field results and say the testing is flawed. Again, it's my belief that there is something to this and other high velocity rounds (.357SIG, etc) that must make people stop, something other than what these tests are measuring.

PghJim
11-09-2010, 09:27
The rest of us knew from experience that you needed enough penetration to hit vital organs and the load-bearing structures of the body if you wanted to terminate a fight. That all went down the drain in 1986 when several FBI agents were killed or injured in Miami after a violent felon was shot with a shallow-penetrating U.S. gov't sanctioned "scientific" 9mm, at least that's what the federal AAR said.



Only if that damn 9mm silver tip had gone another inch after passing through the bicep and entering the side of the chest, how our world would be different now. I am not saying it is a round I would carry, but blaming a bullet instead of poor tactics and equipment at least caused my world to change.

ABNAK
11-09-2010, 11:09
The temp. wound cavity causes damage to capillaries and other weaker vascular tissue. It doesn't do much to add to stopping a person, if the psychology of being shot doesn't stop them. Basically, it makes a huge bruise.



Interesting analogy. Hadn't thought of it that way.

ABNAK
11-09-2010, 11:14
It would be nice to know of a .357sig round that duplicates the fragmenting .357 Magnum.



Since you can't technically load the SJHP that revolvers use in a semi-auto, about the closest you're gonna get is the Sierra 125gr JHP as loaded by Cor Bon (or DT as another poster mentioned). Maybe a Nosler would work too. Basically any "old fashioned", non-bonded cup-and-core JHP should suffice. I would have to lean towards the Sierra as the HP opening is usually pretty large for caliber and would contribute to the greatest likelihood of fragmentation.

cowboy1964
11-09-2010, 11:24
I'm a big believer in higher velocities for the lighter .3xx caliber rounds but the good old .45 ACP has a stopping record roughly equal to the .357 Magnum, despite the 45 producing a smaller temporary cavity. Of course the .45's permanent cavity is larger. There could very well be something to hydrostatic shock but it's a pretty big unknown and can't be relied upon. Shot placement shot placement shot placement, penetration penetration penetration. Then start worrying about caliber, expansion, energy, phase of the moon, etc.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=0

Snowman92D
11-09-2010, 12:10
Interesting analogy. Hadn't thought of it that way.

Maybe you would have if all you saw were the injuries long after the fight was over.

ABNAK
11-09-2010, 16:22
Maybe you would have if all you saw were the injuries long after the fight was over.

Agreed, but I was actually seeing that statement in the context of a "bruise", while painful, is not incapacitating like organ tears or major vessel ruptures would be. I don't think that's how he meant it though.

The hydrostatic shock thing would, if it exists, register as a CNS disruption caused by a massive wave of pressure impacting and rattling a major organ. Not so much the damage to the organ itself but the CNS "power surge" involving localized innervation in the area and sent immediately on up the nerve chain.

Obviously it's very existence is in question as well as the ability of a handgun bullet at handgun velocities to deliver such a wave.

uz2bUSMC
11-09-2010, 16:47
Agreed, but I was actually seeing that statement in the context of a "bruise", while painful, is not incapacitating like organ tears or major vessel ruptures would be. I don't think that's how he meant it though.

The hydrostatic shock thing would, if it exists, register as a CNS disruption caused by a massive wave of pressure impacting and rattling a major organ. Not so much the damage to the organ itself but the CNS "power surge" involving localized innervation in the area and sent immediately on up the nerve chain.

Obviously it's very existence is in question as well as the ability of a handgun bullet at handgun velocities to deliver such a wave.

The "wave" in and of itself isn't sooo mysterious. Take water jug "A" and place beside and touching water jug "B". Shoot "A" and see what happens to "B".

A bruise can be more than painful. How many times have you bumped your ulnar nerve (funny bone) without leaving a mark, yet recieved numbness and that lovely tingling sensation?

I've shot a 9lb pork shoulder and had it jump up about 2 1/2 ' off of the stump it was resting on... there is defenitely a "wave".

ABNAK
11-09-2010, 17:29
The "wave" in and of itself isn't sooo mysterious. Take water jug "A" and place beside and touching water jug "B". Shoot "A" and see what happens to "B".

A bruise can be more than painful. How many times have you bumped your ulnar nerve (funny bone) without leaving a mark, yet recieved numbness and that lovely tingling sensation?

I've shot a 9lb pork shoulder and had it jump up about 2 1/2 ' off of the stump it was resting on... there is defenitely a "wave".

I should've been more clear: Yeah, you can't deny a wave is created when a fast-moving body impacts another. I was talking about it's CNS incapacitation potential. That is one of those issues I'm trying to avoid starting a firefight over as there are those who will vociferously defend both sides of the argument here.

BTW, what the hell did you shoot a 9lb piece of meat with that made it jump 2 1/2 feet? Did you recover the bullet? One of these days I may splurge and try it; maybe some outdated, past the "sell by" date stuff for a cheaper price. :supergrin: I'd like to try that Cor Bon load I was referring to as well as the BB GD load I clocked at ~1500fps.

G31
11-09-2010, 17:37
Yeah, snowman92D. We all know you have more knowledge and expertise than a medical doctor. You are the be-all, end-all when it comes to wound ballistics. I'm sorry, what are your qualifications again? Oh, I see...you are a retired LEO. I guess that means you know it all. Guess I should have spent more time with my firearms instructor, who was convinced the .40 S&W was able to drop a bear in 1-2 shots. :rofl:

To think a bunch of MDs, nurses, PAs, and other medical staff who do trauma services have no idea how or when the human body reacts to injury is stupid to say the least. These people know FAR more than anyone else on the matter, including any LEO out there.

Please show me something credible to back anything you say. I highly doubt you can produce even a shred of credible info.

Sorry, but I'm going to continue to "lecture you on placement and penetration," as it's the only reliable stopping mechanism.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol when you made your post.:rofl: Your post shows everybody how ignorant you are to the facts.

BTW, there was a state trooper in SC who would argue to the effectiveness of a full 6 rounds of .357 Mag dumped into a person only feet away. He did not even phase the BG. He was killed by a single .22 LR round while the BG sat there like nothing happened. How did that go wrong, if the .357 will blow you out of your boots? Nonsense.

uz2bUSMC
11-09-2010, 17:40
I should've been more clear: Yeah, you can't deny a wave is created when a fast-moving body impacts another. I was talking about it's CNS incapacitation potential. That is one of those issues I'm trying to avoid starting a firefight over as there are those who will vociferously defend both sides of the argument here.

BTW, what the hell did you shoot a 9lb piece of meat with that made it jump 2 1/2 feet? Did you recover the bullet? One of these days I may splurge and try it; maybe some outdated, past the "sell by" date stuff for a cheaper price. :supergrin: I'd like to try that Cor Bon load I was referring to as well as the BB GD load I clocked at ~1500fps.

Understood, on the first part.

Shot it with 135grn DT and 155GD from DT, both 10mm outta 6" LWD bbl. Yes, I recovered what was left of the bullets, have pics and vids too.

G31
11-09-2010, 17:42
So you can't change your post, here it is:

Well, shot placement and adequate penetration have always been the basic foundation of putting someone out of the fight. The only people who ever said differently was a U.S. gov't sponsored group of "scientists" who created the Computer Man Model of ballistic tripe, circa 1975, in which they "scientifically" proved that we should use shallow-penetrating handgun ammo. The rest of us knew from experience that you needed enough penetration to hit vital organs and the load-bearing structures of the body if you wanted to terminate a fight. That all went down the drain in 1986 when several FBI agents were killed or injured in Miami after a violent felon was shot with a shallow-penetrating U.S. gov't sanctioned "scientific" 9mm, at least that's what the federal AAR said.

So don't lecture the rest of us about "placement and penetration". We already knew that.

When you say that "medical tachology" caught up with "claims" that some loads and calibers work better than others, I'm forced to ask you which medical technologists were shooting enough people with enough different calibers that enabled you to make that statement. If you're making your assertion based on what you think medical technologists said, then you're regurgitating stuff you've read. The closest "medical technologists" come to the subject is treating people after the gunfight occurred, or at autopsy after the gunfight occurred. The only pronouncement they can make is limited to what they see after the fight was long over.

Since defensive shooters are interested in what puts a homicidal attacker out of the fight ASAP, your medical technology sources aren't telling us everything we need to know. All they can tell us is limited to what put someone in the ER or on a slab...not out of the fight. Unless, as I said before, medical technologists are now shooting lots of people that I don't know about, with lots of different calibers. Please note that what "medical technology" learns in treating GSW's, or at autopsies, is very useful...it just doesn't tell us everything we need to know about what happens when gunfire hits people.

Your contention that all rounds act the same might be true if you're shooting gell-o, but we're not talking about shooting gell-o. Gel-testing is a useful method for preliminary testing of ammunition...but there is no one-to-one relationship between shooting gell-o and shooting people. So again, it doesn't tell us everything we need to know. To assert that there is no real "backing" that some calibers work better than others, and that nobody knows the "origin" of these "legends" is probably the silliest thing you said. It's okay if you don't like shooting some calibers, for one reason or another, but you need to do a fuller investigation of the subject before making silly statements.

That, or let us see some of those shootings that medical technologists are getting into with all those different calibers.

uz2bUSMC
11-09-2010, 17:45
Yeah, snowman92D. We all know you have more knowledge and expertise than a medical doctor. You are the be-all, end-all when it comes to wound ballistics. I'm sorry, what are your qualifications again?

To think a bunch of MDs, nurses, PAs, and other medical staff who do trauma services have no idea how or when the human body reacts to injury is stupid to say the least. These people know FAR more than anyone else on the matter, including any LEO out there.

Please show me something credible to back anything you say. I highly doubt you can produce even a shred of credible info.

Sorry, but I'm going to continue to "lecture you on placement and penetration," as it's the only reliable stopping mechanism.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol when you made your post.:rofl: Your post shows everybody how ignorant you are to the facts.

Riiiight, cause there are soo many outstanding doctors out there, right? How do YOU know what these people supposedly know?

I don't even think you understand what he wrote...

G31
11-09-2010, 17:54
Riiiight, cause there are soo many outstanding doctors out there, right? How do YOU know what these people supposedly know?

I don't even think you understand what he wrote...

It's called a community. The opinion of one MD is not what I presented. There is plenty of peer-reviewed info. out there if you care to look it up. This means there is a consensus on the subject by multiple professionals across the globe.

If you care to actually learn about this, a few basic human anatomy and physiology will take you a long way toward understanding the subject. It's not rocket science, there's no special voodoo magic...

BTW, I know what he said, as the post is quoted above. I was merely responding to the argument that medical professionals only know the after-effects, rather than what truly works on the streets. To think any LEO, mercenary, shooting instructor, etc. knows anything more about mechanisms of injury than a medical professional is silly. Do you know what he said?

I must ask, what do you think happens when a bullet impacts flesh, specifically? Please, be very detailed in your answer...what is the mechanism of injury??? If you are so sure I'm wrong, please educate me and clear it up for the rest of us.

BOGE
11-09-2010, 18:14
The hook with a medical opinion is that they are ex post facto. In other words, they did not see the actual shooting. Sort of like asking a car body shop repairman about car accidents. He can tell you the results only.

uz2bUSMC
11-09-2010, 18:28
It's called a community. The opinion of one MD is not what I presented. There is plenty of peer-reviewed info. out there if you care to look it up. This means there is a consensus on the subject by multiple professionals across the globe.

If you care to actually learn about this, a few basic human anatomy and physiology will take you a long way toward understanding the subject. It's not rocket science, there's no special voodoo magic...

BTW, I know what he said, as the post is quoted above. I was merely responding to the argument that medical professionals only know the after-effects, rather than what truly works on the streets. To think any LEO, mercenary, shooting instructor, etc. knows anything more about mechanisms of injury than a medical professional is silly. Do you know what he said?

That's funny, some years ago I had broken a rib. I knew it was broke, you could feel that it was broken but yet Doc said it wasn't. The location of the break made it difficult to tell by x-ray. Another Doc, some time later, felt the area and said it was broken without batting an eye. You're right, it's not rocket science, a bone sticking up where it shouldn't be is probably broken but this was too complicated for the first "DOCTOR".

I must ask, what do you think happens when a bullet impacts flesh, specifically? Please, be very detailed in your answer...what is the mechanism of injury??? If you are so sure I'm wrong, please educate me and clear it up for the rest of us.

It's pretty complicated, but everything is wrong in your question from the get-go. The mechanism of an injury is one thing, what that injury does is another. A ME, for example, would look for COD - the "mechanism" would tell him/her that but that is not all that is needed to be known - that is what Snowman was stating. Your medical proffessionals don't know what works on the street, they only know what got them on the slab.

There is more than just penetration and shot placement but I don't think you're ready for all that.

uz2bUSMC
11-09-2010, 18:29
The hook with a medical opinion is that they are ex post facto. In other words, they did not see the actual shooting. Sort of like asking a car body shop repairman about car accidents. He can tell you the results only.

That's a really good way to put that, actually.

G31
11-09-2010, 18:50
Boge, it gets much more involved than that; it is oversimplifying to say the opinion is less valid because they weren't on scene. The thing medical professionals bring to the table is a working knowledge of the body. A person with this knowledge can tell you what types of injuries affect which systems and how they are affected. They also are the ones who tell the people on the front lines (LEO, etc.) what ended up stopping the fight, whether it caused the incapacitation, death, or some other serious injury. When a LEO gets into a gunfight and makes 17 COM shots from a Glock 22 loaded with 165 gr. Ranger-Ts without stopping the subject (reference Pete Soulis of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office in FL), the medical professional is the one who determines why it went down that way, and which round made the stop. No one else can do this. The only thing we can't account for is psychology.

A medical professional can account for damage done by all variables of bullet impact to flesh. For example, when a person comes into the ER with a gunshot wound, they are met by a trauma team, which assesses the patient for injuries. In this assessment, ultrasound is first used to track the bullet, if it is still in the body. CT/MRI is also used to create very detailed images of the inside of the body, and you can often see the bullet path well. With these and other tools, the medical team can reliably determine how the bullet affected the person who was hit. This does not mean it will work the same way for every single person, therefore one can't tell you what definitely works, but we do know what doesn't work. Shock wave and temporary cavity does not work. You can hit within an inch of a vital organ and not destroy it with temp. expansion...it doesn't work. There is nothing in the world I've seen outside the realm of theory to support it. I would love to see something...believe me!

Audit any 100 gunshot cases and you will see they all differ, even with similar hits from similar rounds. From one case to the next, you can find some who dropped with one shot COM and others who take more than 10 to the same area and not drop. There is almost nothing that will give instant incapacitation 100% of the time, regardless of caliber, energy, etc. In fact, it has been shown with this unreliable nature of wounding that the caliber of your gun means little to nothing when trying to stop someone. Most of the time, no one can differentiate one caliber's track from the next until the bullet is examined and weighed. This includes the infamous .357 Magnum and .45 ACP...they do not have any more ability to stop than the other comparable self-defense rounds. Again, there is nothing outside of theory and conjecture to back the claim.

Look at it more this way; people are thin-skinned animals, and generally very easy to damage. An exaggerated analogy to shooting someone with a 9mm or .357 Magnum is like shooting a small deer with a .300 Win Mag vs. a 7mm Rem Mag. Both the 7mm and .300 are more than enough to get the job done. Both can penetrate more than enough, and both will make similar wounds. With that, can you really say one is better for the job than the other? If the caliber exaggeration is too much, how about .30-06 vs. .308 for a small deer? It's splitting hairs, and the difference will be unnoticed nearly all the time.

G31
11-09-2010, 19:06
Putting on my LE hat...

I have extensive training on how to shoot to stop, as well as dealing with stress, weapons handling, etc. I can shoot someone 1 time or 100...I will not be able to tell you it was because of my .40 S&W hand cannon, or that I hit the left ventricle of the heart and demolished it, or that the guy simply folded-up and quit psychologically. I also cannot tell you that a 9mm would have had any less of an effect, all shots the exact same. That is the real fallacy....thinking anyone in LEO capacity can make the determination of what works. The only thing the LEO knows is the 5 shots to the chest made a stop. Was it shot #1 or shot #5? They will never know without a medical professional's help.

My Sgt. said it like it is...we are nothing more than a glorified secretary with a gun most days.

uz2bUSMC
11-09-2010, 19:24
Boge, it gets much more involved than that; it is oversimplifying to say the opinion is less valid because they weren't on scene. The thing medical professionals bring to the table is a working knowledge of the body. A person with this knowledge can tell you what types of injuries affect which systems and how they are affected. They also are the ones who tell the people on the front lines (LEO, etc.) what ended up stopping the fight, whether it caused the incapacitation, death, or some other serious injury. When a LEO gets into a gunfight and makes 17 COM shots from a Glock 22 loaded with 165 gr. Ranger-Ts without stopping the subject (reference Pete Soulis of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office in FL), the medical professional is the one who determines why it went down that way, and which round made the stop. No one else can do this. The only thing we can't account for is psychology.
No. They don't tell what ended up stopping the fight. They show cause of death. If it's CNS, then it's safe to say that was COD and stoppage otherwise.... your outta your mind.

Is this Police Marksman under a different screen name? You sure do send the very same BS just aswell. You two post with the same fervent redicoulousness as a latenight infomercial host.

G31
11-09-2010, 20:01
Not all doctors are medical examiners. I'm not outta my mind, but can see you're acting like a moron. Try explaining how gunshots work then. Just like someone like you to result to insults when you can't back up the garbage you speak.

You want to insult but cant answer a simple question...well come on.

Snowman92D
11-09-2010, 22:12
That is the real fallacy....thinking anyone in LEO capacity can make the determination of what works.

Do you include our military people in that group, or did you just get a speeding ticket on the way home...? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

G31
11-10-2010, 06:04
That depends...most of the military folks do not become medics, so I can't imagine they have a ton of training or experience with the effects. For those that just know how to shoot a gun in combat or fix a tank, I say yes..they are included.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. I know you must feel embarrassed for being called out on this forum, so you want to avoid answering it.

I'm also waiting for someone to tell me which part of the equation I have wrong. Please cite something other than "my gradpappy told me this a long time ago, and he was in WWII," or "I read it on Glock Talk, TFL, or some other internet forum, and the person sounded smart, so I believed them." If you're gonna call someone else stupid, a nutcase, or just totally wrong, you better be able to back it up.

I could not give a rat's butt whether someone disagrees with the facts I've presented. If a good argument can be made without resorting to comments like "you're out of your mind", the discussion would be healthy. I do think anyone who will come back with wiseass commentary and such 'certainty' that I'm wrong can pull credible info to prove me wrong. Being ex-LEO or a rifleman in the military does not give anyone even the slightest bit of expertise in this issue by defualt.

Who am I kidding...this is the internet...the only place where an 18-yo Wal-Mart cashier can come and argue something they know jack about.

The funny thing to me is I know what is going to happen from this point forward...either you folks will go silent and ignore my questions/challenges, or you will continue to post BS and insults without even attempting to give a credible answer to my claims. It happens all the time...I just add you to the group of poeple who like to sound smart, but don't really know what you're talking about. Maybe you were picked on in high school and feel this is your chance to get back at society? Who knows. Point is you will NEVER come back with a mature, credible rebuttal to the info. I took time out to present in an effort to help.

ABNAK
11-10-2010, 07:47
If you want to find out how a particular bullet performs terminally (no pun intended) then autopsy-recovered evidence is fascinating. A number of years ago I saw pics of rounds removed during autopsies (IIRC it was in Marshall & Sanow's first book) and they didn't always look pretty as though pulled from gelatin. Also saw fragments with some, but this was before the days of bonded bullets. The findings on autopsy as far as what the bullet did internally are also very important.

Not trying to be a mediator here but I think that autopsy results AND real-time shooting feedback are equally important. While the verbal articulation by the shooter of what happened *can* be somewhat subjective and not necessarily quantitative, it usually gives a general idea of the time it took for the threat to be neutralized. That is a critical element to determining whether a particular round did it's job sufficiently. The autopsy results (if a fatal shooting) will conect the dots as to whether the shooter did his part as far as specific placement and then further spell out the damage caused by the bullet. Tying the "incapacitation" time and shot placement together can give a better idea of how well a particular bullet performs. Shooter feedback and autopsy results both provide critical feedback in this regard.

Of course, in the world of human beings and the plethora of variables that could be involved, you may just have a situation where placement was near perfect and bullet performance the same but the individual just didn't stop his tirade fast enough for comfort. Reference the Miami shootout: the 115gr Silvertip perforated the upper arm and into the thorax of the perp, dropping a lung but stopping just short of the heart/aorta area. It expanded nicely by all accounts. While not ideal shot placement (hell, in the heat of a dynamic shootout with perps moving and shooting back I ain't gonna criticize) the bullet did penetrate *decently* for it's weight and expanded well. The shot would have eventually been fatal (as determined by autopsy), but not fast enough to stop the aggression before more casualties were sustained by the FBI. Of course this erroneously prompted the "heavy and slow" bullet choices that continue to this day in a majority of LEO agencies. Not that "heavy and slow" is necessarily bad, but this one shooting was considered confirmation of it's soundness as a choice. So you can see where combining actual autopsy results and the shooter's account can be helpful. In this case the bullet (as confirmed by autopsy) actually didn't perform too bad and was a fatal shot, but shot placement was less-than-ideal (upper arm being first impact point) and the subsequent feedback from the FBI about this dude not stopping fast enough to prevent further casualties.

G31
11-10-2010, 12:31
ABNAK, I agree.

One thing you siad really stood out, and that was the fact there are more variables between people than can EVER be considered. No two people will react the same with equally placed shots from the same gun.

I recently saw someone who was shot in the chest at close range by a .54 cal black powder rifle. This person is doing very well. I also recently saw someone with a knife stuck in the apex of the heart and they were walking and talking like nothing happened only two days later. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I've seen people with .22 and .25 auto wounds to important, but nonvital-to-life, areas of their body pass away from the wounds. You will never be able to say "this" or "that" will end a fight, especially with adrenaline pumping (it can make you not even notice extreme pain, like a contusion from a gunshot wound).

The big thing to take away is the only thing you can rely on is hitting something important enough that most anyone would stop within minutes or seconds. All of this energy, shock wave, super premium bonded JHP, etc. talk is highly anecdotal at best. I agree these are present, but they have never been shown to have any notable effect on anyone, nor have they ever been shown to be notably different from one caliber to the next when talking about the major players in defensive handgun rounds (they all act the same from 9mm to .45 ACP).

In speaking of modern advancements in medical technology, such as CT/MRI, which is always evolving, or other new testing methods, these ancillary effects (shock wave damage, etc.) would be measurable if they made a significant enough difference in incapacitation. The fact that we can see even speckles of blood out of place, or micro-sized bone fragments, or nonfunctional sections of organs using methods readily available today, but we can't pinpoint anything of significance as a result of these effects speaks for itself...they are not that big of a deal.

The biggest unmeasurables that can affect a subject's reaction to injury are:

mental status
ability to deal with pain
body habitus
drug/alcohol use
willpower to survive
emotional state
physical disorders
attitude in general

I am 100% certain this list is not all-inclusive. We could make a small thread just to cover the variables!

These unmeasurables will go a long way in how the firefight plays out (what you see in the street). This is where the people in the field (LEOs, 1st responders, etc.) will chime in with their analysis, which is valid. They can tell us how long it took to stop the BG, how many rounds, etc. In seeing data like this during my LE career, I can say it has no rhyme or reason to it at all. There are no conclusions that can be made, other than those about shot placement and environmental factors.

The biggest joke of all time was placing "legendary manstopper" behind any caliber without even knowing the facts. When people speak of 9mm coming around in recent years due to better HP technology, it's not only that bullet technology got better, but some of these long-standing myths were disproven.

Snowman92D
11-10-2010, 12:31
BTW, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. I know you must feel embarrassed for being called out on this forum, so you want to avoid answering it.

The funny thing to me is I know what is going to happen from this point forward...either you folks will go silent and ignore my questions/challenges, or you will continue to post BS and insults without even attempting to give a credible answer to my claims. It happens all the time...I just add you to the group of poeple who like to sound smart, but don't really know what you're talking about. Maybe you were picked on in high school and feel this is your chance to get back at society? Who knows. Point is you will NEVER come back with a mature, credible rebuttal to the info. I took time out to present in an effort to help.

Mean, mean, so mean. I'm still betting you got a speeding ticket as you were coming home from Starbuck's earlier this week. That, or your girlfriend dropped you for somebody in the military. It's hard to give a credible answer to your claims when your claims themselves aren't credible. So there's not much to rebutt.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my original question about the number of medical technologists who have been shooting lots of homicidal attackers with lots of different handgun calibers so they can speak with authority on what happens in a gunfight. Dont bother me with your canned challenges until you answer my question first.

You seem to be stuck on dividing the world up into people who are "credible" in your view, and those who have no "credibility", again in your view. You appear also to reserve the right to decide for the rest of us the standard by which "credible" is judged. Sorry...the world doesn't work that way, except perhaps in that Kool Aid Kingdom you seem to live in.

As ABNAK pointed out, and as I noted previously in my posts, you need a totality of information from all sources to get the best information. Only an immature child would think otherwise. You're attempts to shut out any information, except that which comes from medical professionals and ballistic theorists, results in a stunted view of reality. That may be enough for you, but end-users can't afford to ignore other useful info just because you don't understand what they're looking for and object to it.

BOGE made an excellent point, far better than I could, with his analogy of car accidents. He's quite correct. When you're investigating the dynamics of traffic crashes, you have to go to the scene, take measurements, make careful note of lighting, road-and-weather conditions, carefully interview participants and witnesses and then do a post-incident examination of the damage to the car. Your contention that, in effect, we should trust the input of only the auto-body repairman and shout down any and all input from the scene is, again, at best just silly.

The operative part of the term "gunfight" isn't "gun", it's "fight", but you steadfastly reject that, pouting like a little kid when the adults aren't agreeing with you. How can you expect any of us to take you as "credible" and, by extension, your "medical technology" supremacy theory?

Your smug insistence that we ignore the first-hand experience of law enforcement and military fighters is laughable and likely to simply turn people off from anything you might have to say that could be useful. Being a horse's ass isn't the way to win friends and influence people. Neither is trying to force-feed BS to people when they know better.

I think most people want to get the best information they can acquire, based on a totality of available info, rather than be limited to narrowly focused "peer-reviewed" data that is, by its nature, stunted in its scope. I'm sure it is more comforting to screen out all those pesky variables and view things from a nicely sanitized laboratory viewpoint. It's just that end-users don't have the luxury of screening out any variables when someone is trying to rip them from collarbone to crotch with a chain-saw. It all boils down to "What works best"?, and not just in gel-testing, but for real.

Finally, I have to say that I worked with forensic pathologists, and other forensic "medical technologists" full-time for 9 years, and pretty routinely for a lot longer than that in a metropolitan setting. Not once did I ever hear any of them talk the silly stuff you do. The knew full well they only had part of the puzzle nailed down, and they always were respectful of others who had something to contribute.

I'm sure this will set you off in a 5-alarm pout, but I don't know what else to say. Except perhaps suggest that you slow down a bit when coming home from Starbuck's. :supergrin:

G31
11-10-2010, 13:06
Haha....just as I predicted. Good job fitting the stereotype, 92D.

BTW, I didn't leave the "street results" stone unturned. See my post above.

You can look at my posts to other people all across this world of GT and see I do not shut out information when people actually want to have a discussion. I have admitted when I was incorrect about things, or made assumptions, just as soon as I was corrected, without my pride feeling hurt. I fully give credit for ideas, and regularly agree with opposing parts of opposing statements (see my post above...1st line). I will react the way I was treated, and you came out of the gate like an *******, therefore, you don't get a respectful answer. Simple as that. The "adults" in this thread don't come off like they're throwing a temper tantrum, as you did.

When a person posts something you don't like (provided they are not intentionally provoking a fight), you would be best to have a little more respect that saying this without provocation:
So don't lecture the rest of us about "placement and penetration".
along with other very kind remarks you made.:upeyes::upeyes:

Furthermore, coming up with stupid reasoning games does not make one look smarter. (Like saying "medical technologists" don't get in shootouts all the time, therefore they don't know what they're talking about.) It's a stupid, unreasonable correlation/question, and anyone reading this thread can see that.

OTOH, asking someone to explain a concept they seem to think is wrong is a very excellent question. If you know it's wrong, you should be able to type something the rest of us can verify somewhere. I'm not asking for citations, just the information so I can look it up.

Do you agree it is proper to ask for some info. from someone who blasts you as "incorrect"? Especially after you spent time writing about something you have experience with, then they come up out of the blue and (for all intensive purposes) tells you you're wrong?

It's like a sports heckler...they can curse you 'til the day ends, but they could never put on your (the player's) shoes and walk in them because they don't know what they're doing. To argue something so strongly and use a terrible attitude, and then know little to nothing about the subject makes you look like a total fool.

...and coroners don't play the same role as a trauma surgeon...sorry. It's like apples and oranges when treating living people vs. dissecting them post-mortem.

I'm not gonna say you're totally ingnorant to this topic, but you can't seem to "put up or shut up", so...

TBO
11-10-2010, 14:02
The temp. wound cavity causes damage to capillaries and other weaker vascular tissue. It doesn't do much to add to stopping a person, if the psychology of being shot doesn't stop them. Basically, it makes a huge bruise. Instant blood pressure increases do exist, but rarely act in a way to be the cause of incapacitation. I have never seen a case of a handgun round causing blood vessel damage away from the site of injury...that's something that will show up under CT or other radiographic methods, if the damage was significant enough. I've not personally seen it, but have heard it can be present in large, powerful rifle wounds (like a .50BMG). In a pistol wound, no. I've seen studies that relate this "shock" to some slight brain injury, but nothing significant, unless the subject is shot in the head. Even then, some with direct hits to the head can walk and talk their way to the hospital. The "hydrostatic shock" people are so fond of is a function of velocity, but I've not seen it incapacitate anyone in any report...anywhere. Show me an example and I'll eat my words...;)

The mechanisms of injury of gunshot wounds are pretty much limited to the actual tissue damaged, rather than the temp. stretch from an impact. The other issue is the ballistics gel does not mirror the result in human muscle tissue, reinforced with bone. The cavity is less pronounced. often, the exit wound, if there is one, is similar in size to the entry wound (no grapefruit hole in the back.)

In reality, shot placement and penetration are it. Everything else is totally unreliable. The claims that .357 or .45 are the best man stoppers of all time were made before medical technology could catch-up and disprove them. These days, these rounds, even in "older" JHP loadings, have been shown to act the same as 9mm, .40, etc. A funny thing about those legendary claims are that they have no real backing, and no one really knows the origin; they're perpetuated because it's been said for so long, people believe them.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/158160128X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Snowman92D
11-10-2010, 15:30
...and coroners don't play the same role as a trauma surgeon...sorry. It's like apples and oranges when treating living people vs. dissecting them post-mortem.

I'm not gonna say you're totally ingnorant to this topic, but you can't seem to "put up or shut up", so...

Glad to see you're now modifying your doctrinaire attitude that only medical technologists know anything about what it takes to prevail in a gunfight. There maybe hope for you yet. You get farther with people when you're more respectful of others and the contributions they might be able to make.

I read your previous posting and, while you're being somewhat less condescending, you still insist on, as you say, comparing apples to oranges and astonishingly seem unable to do otherwise. Especially considering that you put on your "LE hat" now and then while lecturing everybody. You should have left it on long enough to learn the issues before spouting off.

You posted above about people surviving GSW's from calibers like a .54 caliber projectile and yet dying from .25 ACP wounds. You seem to be stuck on the belief that whether or not someone ultimately survives, or dies from, a GSW somehow "proves" there is no performance difference between various calibers and loads. That's the fallacy of looking at things only from a "medical technology" viewpoint, and you amazingly seem unable to adapt to the fact that defensive shooters look at it from a different perspective.

One more time...

I don't care if a violent attacker recovers or dies from a GSW inflicted by a defensive shooter. The goal is to incapacitate him. I find it interesting to look over the damage done by defensive gunfire at the autopsy, but it doesn't tell me all I need to know about shooter and weapon performance. That's the fallacy of relying totally on gell-o tests and/or the speculation of ER docs and forensic pathologists. Again, real ER doctors and forensic pathologists have no trouble grasping that.

The standard of measure defensive shooters like LEO's use runs more like "If we get decent placement, are the violent actors able to return fire or otherwise stay in the fight?" If your weapon and ammo combo stops the attack with a decently-placed shot or two the overwhelming majority of the time, then that's about the best you can expect from your equipment. Stick with what you have and practice hard to improve your marksmanship skills. The fact that someone recovers from being shot, or dies, is outside the parameters of effective performance...and clearly some stuff works better than others.

You talk about "put up or shut up". I'm still waiting for your report about "medical technologists" shooting people with various calibers and loads. You know, the knowledge that makes them better qualified to pass judgement on what works and what doesn't during a homicidal assault than first-line LEO and military personnel.

G31
11-10-2010, 16:27
92D,
First of all, I don't know how you could possibly ask me to be respectful when I never caused a problem for you. I made a statement, and you came in and attacked it with attitude and insult. There would have never been any animosity on my part had you not done that. Take your own advice:
You get farther with people when you're more respectful of others and the contributions they might be able to make.



Prevailing in a gunfight is one thing. I would never tell anyone that a medical prof. has the answers to prevailing in a gunfight. You came out with that from nowhere, and the topic has nothing to do with that, and changing topics is not going to fly.

In case you don't know, the topic is about overpenetration and the 357 SIG. In discussing that, we are speaking of the bullets vs. human flesh. You are not staying in that realm anymore. Arguments don't work if you're on a totally different topic.

Also, please don't try to make statements like this on my behalf:
You seem to be stuck on the belief that whether or not someone ultimately survives, or dies from, a GSW somehow "proves" there is no performance difference between various calibers and loads.
Nowhere in any part of anything I said in that paragraph you referenced has anything to do with what you presumed. That was all qualifying information for the following statement:
"You will never be able to say "this" or "that" will end a fight..."
That statement is not to compare the .22, a knife, or a .54 BP, but to show how nothing is guaranteed. You misread and mixed up your story.

As for this:
Glad to see you're now modifying your doctrinaire attitude that only medical technologists know anything about what it takes to prevail in a gunfight.
I ask you to show me where any such nonsense was said. I am merely stating that a ME is not going to know the whole thing, nor is a surgeon on his/her own, but the different fields of medicine put together give a good idea (surgery, pathology, radiology, etc.). I was implying that working for a ME doesn't allow one to see other aspects of GSWs, like treatment and how it affects the guy minutes after. As someone said, they determine cause of death.

Oh, and in any good ER, the docs and nurses will get a full report as the victim is being transported. They will know everything as it went down from start to finish, and use it in treatment. It's about as good as being on scene.

I can't answer your "question", as I would have no place to start. I don't even know of a single way to sort that kind of info. out. That's your answer. Again, your question has no purpose in this discussion outside of trying to start trouble, and you know it. Are you able to answer me at all, or not? I just want to know why you say I'm wrong with my interpretation on wounding and the body. I am not discussing tactics, psychology, etc., just the part where the bullet hits the flesh. that's the only thing I've been talking about from the start. If we were discussing tactics, I would then be deferring to LEO experience and training, not medical. You have to understand the separation.

TBO:
I guess that's a source for the titles then.

As for M&S's data, it can be interpreted a million different ways, and because it has a statistical base, it is inherently flawed. I think it is great for what it was intended to do...show us statistically which rounds were able to perform a OSS under strict conditions. Of course it doesn't take into account any external influences or physiology of the particular victim, which is one reason we can never be sure how reliable the data is. I believe Marshall himself was quoted saying how he does not believe this information means much in a gunfight...it's just statistics.

I don't side with M&S, nor do I side fully with Fackler because they are not on the same playing field. Additionally, it is comparing apples and oranges again, as Fackler is merely explaining the mechanisms of injury of a gunshot, and M&S show stats based on particular cases, excluding the "why" of the equation. I honestly don't see why there is even a divide between the two camps.

Here are a few links to show how it can be tricky:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
http://greent.com/40Page/general/oss.htm

G31
11-10-2010, 16:47
For the record, I am not closed-minded on this topic. If anyone has any reliable information* to amend or even contradict anything I've said, I'd love to see it. We can then pick it apart, just as you can pick apart anything I've said. (Picking apart is not just calling BS without rationalizing it in some way, as some have done.)

*reliable is something that can be explained, not exclusively someone's opinion with no basis. There are a lot of "I think", "I assume", "I feel" statements out there with not a single explanation for it, and that would never suffice for any argument in the world.

uz2bUSMC
11-10-2010, 17:18
Oh, and in any good ER, the docs and nurses will get a full report as the victim is being transported. They will know everything as it went down from start to finish, and use it in treatment. It's about as good as being on scene.



A lot has transpired since I last checked and I don't have time to respond the way I would like tonight, but I just couldn't leave this ^^ one alone. You don't want anyone to tell you that you are outta your mind, G31, but you say rediculous things such as the above. I don't know what else to say about that statement, I truly wonder if you believe that.... wow....

I have second hand embarassment from seeing you write that.

G31
11-10-2010, 17:45
IOW, you have to figure out a way to keep the argument alive, so you need time to look something up. It's ok...at this point we all know you opened your mouth to make a comment and really didn't know what you were talking about.

Take all the time you need.

Snowman92D
11-10-2010, 22:40
Additionally, it is comparing apples and oranges again, as Fackler is merely explaining the mechanisms of injury of a gunshot, and M&S show stats based on particular cases, excluding the "why" of the equation. I honestly don't see why there is even a divide between the two camps.

Because some medical technologists believe that LE types are totally clueless about what works in stopping homicidal attacks? :rofl:

glock20c10mm
11-13-2010, 12:43
For the record, I am not closed-minded on this topic.
That is the biggest lie overall I've seen in this thread so far. Hands down, without equal!

There are a lot of "I think", "I assume", "I feel" statements out there with not a single explanation for it, and that would never suffice for any argument in the world.
Yea, and truck load of them came straight from your posts.

I was actually going to comment on a bunch of inaccuracies/assumptions/opinions you brought up as fact, and then I decided since so much of it has been brought up by others already, along with noting your incorrect/irresponsible/misguided/ignorant reations/responses to those, not only would I have to have written a book, but it would have also been a complete waste of my time.

You might ask why I bothered to post this? It's because getting you to see the light is obviously useless and a waste of time, not to mention I'ld hate for any newbies to think there's anything to your nonsensical posts. This is not opinion, it is fact, as I'm sure many others have already come to the conclusion of, or knew already.

Your middle name should be Adhominem Attack, if it's not. The only reason I read through the thread to this point was because I had hoped there was hope for you. In retrospect, hope failed me.


Good Shooting,
Craig

M&P Shooter
11-13-2010, 18:55
One of our local LEOs was executing a search warrant, and was forced to shoot a bad guy. Our LEO was armed with a 357 Sig with 125 grain Speer Gold Dot ammo.

The bad guy took six rounds in the chest before stopping. All six rounds penetrated the bad guy, went through a couple of walls and exited the house almost striking an officer outside. I don't believe any of the rounds expanded.

Something you might want to consider if you chose the 357 Sig for self defense.
One minute in the .357sig round is fired!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG7a2YbeDu4

glock20c10mm
11-13-2010, 19:08
One minute in the .357sig round is fired!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG7a2YbeDu4
That bullet must have had GPS tracking with afterboosters. Notice it was FMJ to boot. :supergrin:

glock20c10mm
11-13-2010, 19:17
Less than a minute of the 357SIG being demonstrated from a CZ TS from the CZ custom shop, plus chrono views. Looks easy enough to handle to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vXjbXd5SY0

G31
11-14-2010, 07:03
Well, G20c, why don't you skip the part about my "BS post" and tell us all how a .45 reacts differently in the body than a 9mm, or a .357 Mag reacts differenty than a 9mm. The only "fact" is that the difference is soooo small, it's not even worth worrying about. Anything I've posted not related to the actual wounding characteristics, other than the stuff about LE knowing more than the ER about what damage occurred, can vary from area to area, (such as report style given to your ER docs, etc.)

This is easy to answer and wont require a book. It will also allow you to qualify your response. Please don't limit it to the obvious .1" difference in size. Explain away....

I'm the only one in this thread that has provided anything more than "You're stupid....blah blah blah...." to back up my posts.

G31
11-14-2010, 07:11
And no, G20C, I'm not closed-minded. I do need something more than "you're stupid," or "your post is BS" to convince me. I've said it before, give me something I can verify and I'll listen. So far, no one has even tried.

...I ask and all I hear is crickets...

uz2bUSMC
11-14-2010, 07:24
G31

You fail to understand the basics. You first want me to explain what happens when a bullet strikes tissue then you want G20c to explain the diffrence between various calibers but yet somehow you think ER staff will understand the events of the gunfight with a good brief?? I don't think you rate anyones time for explanation because your real world understanding is flooded with fantasy.

On another note, you simplify "bruising" from a gunshot as simply a pain factor, yet how much pressure does it take to cause a massive bruise? How many damaged vessels were involved with the bruising? And most important, what vital component could have been affected by that same bruising? Pain or not, the pressure it took to make that bruise may be plenty to deaden a nerve path. An example, a shot to the lower back may have enough pressure to rattle the spinal cord around within the spinal column, taking away the assailant's legs. These are things you would fail to understand and is the reason it is selfish for you ask anyone of their time to explain things on a level in which you are not.

G26S239
11-14-2010, 08:36
To think a bunch of MDs, nurses, PAs, and other medical staff who do trauma services have no idea how or when the human body reacts to injury is stupid to say the least. These people know FAR more than anyone else on the matter, including any LEO out there.
I would prefer that Doctors who are not shooters stick to medicine and stay out of gun related discussions. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/5/3/23021.shtml

mikeflys1
11-14-2010, 09:11
Less than a minute of the 357SIG being demonstrated from a CZ TS from the CZ custom shop, plus chrono views. Looks easy enough to handle to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vXjbXd5SY0

1800+ fps? :wow: How in the hell....

G31
11-14-2010, 11:51
G31

You fail to understand the basics. You first want me to explain what happens when a bullet strikes tissue then you want G20c to explain the diffrence between various calibers but yet somehow you think ER staff will understand the events of the gunfight with a good brief?? I don't think you rate anyones time for explanation because your real world understanding is flooded with fantasy.

On another note, you simplify "bruising" from a gunshot as simply a pain factor, yet how much pressure does it take to cause a massive bruise? How many damaged vessels were involved with the bruising? And most important, what vital component could have been affected by that same bruising? Pain or not, the pressure it took to make that bruise may be plenty to deaden a nerve path. An example, a shot to the lower back may have enough pressure to rattle the spinal cord around within the spinal column, taking away the assailant's legs. These are things you would fail to understand and is the reason it is selfish for you ask anyone of their time to explain things on a level in which you are not.

I'll agree that a lot CAN happen, but that doesn't mean it will. Bruising itself is very painful, under most circumstances, but often during "fight or flight", major pain and injury can be totally unfelt until the event is over. Some will feel it and give up, but can you count on it to stop a fight? Not at all. More often than not, the proximity to the spineal column will have to be very close to cause damage to it. I've seen bullets lodged up against the vertebral body that did not cause paralysis to the degree it would require to stop them.

You need to keep in mind I'm speaking STRICTLY about the dynamics of bullet wounding, NOT TACTICS. Tactics are where MDs need to stay out of the argument...I agree.

I have to go now, but will visit the rest later.

Snowman92D
11-14-2010, 11:54
And no, G20C, I'm not closed-minded. I do need something more than "you're stupid," or "your post is BS" to convince me. I've said it before, give me something I can verify and I'll listen. So far, no one has even tried.

...I ask and all I hear is crickets...

I know...sort of like when I tried to get you to give me something to "verify" your assertion that medical technologists know more about what it takes to stop a homicidal assault than our LEO's and military fighters. That's what put you in the category of a buffoon. That and your child-like propensity to keep quibbling in an attempt to regain the upper hand long after you'd crashed and burned in what you thought was a "debate". Even when you know everyone knows you're a BS artist.

I thought the crickets had carried you off there for a bit, but I see you're back now. If you don't mind me asking, what sort of medical technology work do you do? When you aren't wearing your "LE hat", of course. :rofl:

Are you a trauma surgeon, or an ER nurse...EMT, maybe?

cowboy1964
11-14-2010, 12:30
1800+ fps? :wow: How in the hell....

Since they are showing a WWB box in that chrono shot are we to believe that is the ammo going 1800+ fps? I call 110% BS.

uz2bUSMC
11-14-2010, 14:47
I'll agree that a lot CAN happen, but that doesn't mean it will. Bruising itself is very painful, under most circumstances, but often during "fight or flight", major pain and injury can be totally unfelt until the event is over. Some will feel it and give up, but can you count on it to stop a fight? Not at all. More often than not, the proximity to the spineal column will have to be very close to cause damage to it. I've seen bullets lodged up against the vertebral body that did not cause paralysis to the degree it would require to stop them.

You need to keep in mind I'm speaking STRICTLY about the dynamics of bullet wounding, NOT TACTICS. Tactics are where MDs need to stay out of the argument...I agree.

I have to go now, but will visit the rest later.


You're a weird dude, G31, anywho...

One more time, I'm not talking about pain from the bruise. If you need me to bold that last sentence let me know.

And the bullet being lodged against the spinal column is irrelevant, it would just about have no gas left at that point.

Annnnd, the medical peops don't know tactics NOR do they know the dynamics of the gunfight NOR will they be explained the dynamics of the gunfight in a way they would be as informed as those on scene, period.

G31
11-14-2010, 15:40
Well, the discussion I started was this:
The temp. wound cavity causes damage to capillaries and other weaker vascular tissue. It doesn't do much to add to stopping a person, if the psychology of being shot doesn't stop them. Basically, it makes a huge bruise. Instant blood pressure increases do exist, but rarely act in a way to be the cause of incapacitation. I have never seen a case of a handgun round causing blood vessel damage away from the site of injury...that's something that will show up under CT or other radiographic methods, if the damage was significant enough. I've not personally seen it, but have heard it can be present in large, powerful rifle wounds (like a .50BMG). In a pistol wound, no. I've seen studies that relate this "shock" to some slight brain injury, but nothing significant, unless the subject is shot in the head. Even then, some with direct hits to the head can walk and talk their way to the hospital. The "hydrostatic shock" people are so fond of is a function of velocity, but I've not seen it incapacitate anyone in any report...anywhere. Show me an example and I'll eat my words...

The mechanisms of injury of gunshot wounds are pretty much limited to the actual tissue damaged, rather than the temp. stretch from an impact. The other issue is the ballistics gel does not mirror the result in human muscle tissue, reinforced with bone. The cavity is less pronounced. often, the exit wound, if there is one, is similar in size to the entry wound (no grapefruit hole in the back.)

In reality, shot placement and penetration are it. Everything else is totally unreliable. The claims that .357 or .45 are the best man stoppers of all time were made before medical technology could catch-up and disprove them. These days, these rounds, even in "older" JHP loadings, have been shown to act the same as 9mm, .40, etc. A funny thing about those legendary claims are that they have no real backing, and no one really knows the origin; they're perpetuated because it's been said for so long, people believe them.


Now, you tell me where any of this has anything to do with tactics. The things you folks are trying to say are well beyond the scope of dealing with the original topic, which is this:
One of our local LEOs was executing a search warrant, and was forced to shoot a bad guy. Our LEO was armed with a 357 Sig with 125 grain Speer Gold Dot ammo.

The bad guy took six rounds in the chest before stopping. All six rounds penetrated the bad guy, went through a couple of walls and exited the house almost striking an officer outside. I don't believe any of the rounds expanded.

Something you might want to consider if you chose the 357 Sig for self defense.


This is NOTHING to do with tactics. This topic is one you don't understand, obviously. Not every discussion is one where you can come in and preach tactics and training. It's like arguing about the weather when discussing the color blue.

I've agreed that tactics and ballistics are totally different animals, and that there are experts in one area or another. How on God's green Earth did you manage to mix what I said into a discussion about tactics?

G31
11-14-2010, 15:45
Ok, I see it. The temp. cavity does not affect other organs enough to destroy them in most cases. The temp. cavity barely does anything. There are some tissues that are destroyed by it, as there are some that are injured. There has never been a correlation between temp. cavity and incapacitation, as it is a totally unreliable injury mechanism. True, there may be someone disabled by it once in a while, but it is not the norm. The bruise is really the biggest result, and that will not incapacitate with reliability.

G31
11-14-2010, 15:47
Annnnd, the medical peops don't know tactics NOR do they know the dynamics of the gunfight NOR will they be explained the dynamics of the gunfight in a way they would be as informed as those on scene, period.


Not anything to do with any of my statements. This is your way of changing the scope of the topic to sound smart. it's not working. Review all the posted material and TRY to tell me this is part of the discussion of the original topic.

uz2bUSMC
11-14-2010, 15:48
YOU said tactics intially, bro, not me. I didn't mix in tactics at all. You somehow think that MDs can tell what happened in a gun fight by what they see on the table and that's ludacris (not to be confused with the rapper)!

uz2bUSMC
11-14-2010, 15:56
Not anything to do with any of my statements. This is your way of changing the scope of the topic to sound smart. it's not working. Review all the posted material and TRY to tell me this is part of the discussion of the original topic.

Well, you stated this.

Oh, and in any good ER, the docs and nurses will get a full report as the victim is being transported. They will know everything as it went down from start to finish, and use it in treatment. It's about as good as being on scene.



and this...

You need to keep in mind I'm speaking STRICTLY about the dynamics of bullet wounding, NOT TACTICS. Tactics are where MDs need to stay out of the argument...I agree.



That's why I said this...

Annnnd, the medical peops don't know tactics NOR do they know the dynamics of the gunfight NOR will they be explained the dynamics of the gunfight in a way they would be as informed as those on scene, period.

Got it? If reading is your problem, just say so... I'll help you comprehend.

G31
11-14-2010, 15:56
I know...sort of like when I tried to get you to give me something to "verify" your assertion that medical technologists know more about what it takes to stop a homicidal assault than our LEO's and military fighters. Honestly, man, please show me anything I've said to back that claim. The only thing I'm saying is LE/Mil is not gonna understand mechanisms of injury and/or treatment. Most anyone can stop an attacker, and I know the roles of LE/Mil in this respect. The argument is about wounding effects ONLYEven when you know everyone knows you're a BS artist.OK. Nothing I've said is very hard to verify via web, book, or experience. I have not made BS comments. I have not met a person who has hands-on experience in my years in LE or the medical fields who would call me a BS artist.



I appreciate your time, but I don't think you're willing to talk it out.

uz2bUSMC
11-14-2010, 15:59
Ok, I see it. The temp. cavity does not affect other organs enough to destroy them in most cases. The temp. cavity barely does anything. There are some tissues that are destroyed by it, as there are some that are injured. There has never been a correlation between temp. cavity and incapacitation, as it is a totally unreliable injury mechanism. True, there may be someone disabled by it once in a while, but it is not the norm. The bruise is really the biggest result, and that will not incapacitate with reliability.

Annnd where are you getting your info from, the MD's who see this afterwards? How do you know what affect the temp cavity has had in the gunfight? I can put a bruise on someone's chin with my fist and it can have a wonderful effect on the course of the fight...

G31
11-14-2010, 15:59
Reread this:
You need to keep in mind I'm speaking STRICTLY about the dynamics of bullet wounding, NOT TACTICS. Tactics are where MDs need to stay out of the argument...I agree.

Therefore your comment below is invalid.
Got it? If reading is your problem, just say so... I'll help you comprehend.

uz2bUSMC
11-14-2010, 16:04
Exactly, you brought in the word "tactics" and you don't understand that you did that, I get it. Now you're saying in a round about way that you don't really know what's going on here or really what you're talking about so you need a way out. It's cool, that happens to all you firearmstactical guys all the time. Just tuck your tail and run home.

G31
11-14-2010, 16:06
YOU said tactics intially, bro, not me. I didn't mix in tactics at all. You somehow think that MDs can tell what happened in a gun fight by what they see on the table and that's ludacris (not to be confused with the rapper)!

please point out the tactical discussion to me. If it is the one below, it is obvious I have said LE/Mil owns that role. Please stop confusing the facts.

As for the second part, the report is detailed enough to give the trauma team ample information to know exactly what transpired. The report often can include distance to target, etc. (not all the time).

I've been LE in two 500+ officer depts. in my area, and I have NEVER responded to the scene of a shooting, or an officer-involved shooting, where I was able to get much more info than the ER does that would be relevant to the wounding effect of the rounds fired. This is why iIsay the report is similar. Sure, I know details about other aspects of the incident no one else will, but none of that is relevant to the "bullets meeting the flesh."

Essentially, I am saying a trauma team member CAN very well tell what happened in a gunfight. To deny this is just crazy.

uz2bUSMC
11-14-2010, 16:09
Essentially, I am saying a trauma team member CAN very well tell what happened in a gunfight. To deny this is just crazy.


Yea,no.