Originally posted by Mas Ayoob
"You covered a good bit of waterfront there, Brooks. Responding more or less in order to your points:
Certainly any bullet, if it was just a peripheral hit or if it passed through lung and intercostal spaces on an anorexic junkie, could exit. However, no responsible manufacturer lists "shooting all the way through the bad" guy as a design parameter, since for reasons I've already described, that would be irresponsible.
However, it's obvious that since over-penetration is a well-known side effect of using certain ammunition, it could certainly be construed that use of that ammunition constituted deliberate indifference.
Since you yourself admit that the opponent could be a flyweight or a heavyweight, it seems impossible to design a bullet/load that will "always" exit, but without power to cause the corollary death of a bystander. Using a load that meets FBI/general modern law enforcement standards seems to show good care and due diligence.
Good luck with that "magic bullet" you've been looking for. Don't feel bad; none of the rest of us have found it either.
I don't address hypotheticals like the one you bring up, here, partly because they tend to infinite "what ifs" and partly because, frankly, my work keeps me busy enough analyzing real gunfights. However, since auto body/window glass penetration is one of the parameters of the FBI protocols, I remain comfortable carrying defensive ammunition which fits that profile.
Brooks, you may recall when our host Eric opened the GATE section, clearly outlining its purpose and parameters in its opening post, here: http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1189556
You know that the GATE section is geared to giving the original poster a quick answer, since the whole rest of Glock Talk is open to multiple-poster debate. You posted "good idea" when Eric explained that in the post linked immediately above. (Post #29 on 9-13-10.)
You and I have violated that rule with the above dialogue, so I'm going to close the thread here. We've both explained our positions and disagreements, and it's starting to go 'round and 'round, the exact sort of thing GATE was intended to prevent. However, if you feel it needs more discussion than it has already had here and elsewhere in Glock Talk over the years, you're more than welcome to open a new thread in Carry Issues or Caliber Corner. PM me when and if you do, and I'll be happy to participate.
Sorry, Mas, my mistake on the rules. And sorry if i wasn't clear enough in my writing and gave you the wrong impression of what i was trying to say. I'm not trying to go round and round with your or otherwise be a pain in the rear. I'm trying to discuss this so that we all learn something and advance the science and make a better world. And i thank you for your wisdom in this discussion as it is an honor to discuss it with you. It was a great honor to meet you, shake your hand, and have a good laugh. It was also an honor to have you shoot a 3/4" group with that Kahr PM40 with my "AGrip" on it. I figure i should tell you that now while i have the chance. My point is that i respect you and i respect your opinion and i want you to know that. There are several gun writers and gun mag editors i have very little if any respect for... and some of them know who they are. You might have noticed, i don't advertise in any gun magazines anymore and i don't go out of my way to smooze the writers to write about my products. That said...
I agree with your statement:
"...no responsible manufacturer lists "shooting all the way through the bad" guy as a design parameter, since for reasons I've already described, that would be irresponsible.
However, it's obvious that since over-penetration is a well-known side effect of using certain ammunition, it could certainly be construed that use of that ammunition constituted deliberate indifference."
I guess i should have better clarified that i do not and was not trying to advocate the intentional use of a bullet/load that will "always" exit.
What i do advocate is a bullet/load design that "gets the job done in a properly effective way". That doesn't mean the bullet always has to penetrate all the way through every time, etc. Form follows function, and always pick the right tool for the job. I understand that there are now bullet/loads that are designed to not over penetrate bad guys, but that also are able to potentially penetrate a car door or car window and still be effective on a bad guy and not overpenetrate the bad guy. I think that's great. It's a great accomplishment.
Those bullets/loads were designed for what they were designed for, BUT, my big point is that while those bullet/loads may be ideal for a wide range of law enforcement or "typical" personal defense use, it doesn't mean those bullets/loads are ideal for the personal defense use of people like myself who are out in the woods a LOT and so have to deal with possible defense against attacks by wild animals like black bear, 150 lb wolves, cougar, etc., as well as attacks by people who might be spun up on meth, etc., and in areas that have a LOT of homes and people around.
My point is that a bullet/load that is designed specifically to stay in the body of an attacker every time is not likely to also work well on the bear or wolf and so is not likely to be a persons best choice for a regular carry load.
My opinion, is that the load should be powerful enough to expand, cut, and penetrate far enough in a black bear and still have the weight, energy, and what i call "umph" to knock the crap out of the spine and drop that animal. And a load like that is likely to have the potential penetrate all the way through a human front to back if it misses all the bone. And if it does miss all the bone and also the vitals for "stopping", it really helps if the bullet exits and helps facilitate massive drop in blood pressure. If that bullet can be "caught" in the bad guys clothes on the way out, awesome... and, as i said before, the "talons" on a "Black Talon" type bullet help facilitate that. And, like i also said, it is more then likely that after exiting, that bullet/load is not likely to have enough potential to really hurt any "innocent" it might it. And, sometimes, a situation might call for a person to have to take a chance on injury of an innocent in order to take out an attacker bent on killing a bunch of people in a theater, shopping mall, school, etc.
No, it would not be the best choice for use in an airliner, but, it maybe the ideal choice for use in the situations i and others encounter on a regular everyday basis. "Deliberate indifference" has nothing to do with it. "The reality of what it actually takes to save the children" does. And the issue of deliberate indifference really shouldn't even come up unless a bullet that passed all the way through an attacker and still hurt or killed an innocent person. If i am the one that fires the bullet, i am the one that has to answer for what it does... and i am willing to do that... i am willing to take that responsibility... just like if i missed an attacker and hit a innocent directly. And if i get accused of deliberate indifference because of the way i acted, that is what i will have to face. But i would like to think i would have someone like YOU, Mas, in my corner to help defend me as there are so few people in the world that actually understand this stuff.
As for shooting situation that you called a "hypothetical"; that was not a hypothetical, it was a real gun fight that really happened, and i was in it, and i won it. And i was basically asking you to analyze it based on what we are talking about here because it fit in exactly with what we are talking about. I would not give you a hypothetical to respond to. I think hypotheticals are stupid except for imagination purposes, etc.
Thanks again, Mas, hope you had a great Thanksgiving.