I advise to start running like a cheetah.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Thanks for adding another important dimension to the discussion.johnson0317 wrote:Excaliber wrote: If you add "or until the threat has ended" you've got an easy to remember rule of thumb for the nonmilitary environment.![]()
After 17 years in the ER, I can add a little insight to this conversation.
First off, center mass take-down is not always a myth, but you have to be sure to hit the right place with the right round. How can you be sure? Simply put, you can not. A hollow point to the aorta or heart will put someone down within seconds as the oxygen supply starts to fail. However, the body does have a reserve supply that can keep the adrenaline/drug fueled zombie walking long after they should be down and out. I think most people, not running on synthetic additives, have the decency to realize they are in big trouble after the first shot, and want to call off the engagement and get medical help.
A head shot sounds great on paper, but not as easy as it sounds. Someone coming at you is not standing still, with their head held in one place so you can get a decent sight picture or point shot off. You, yourself, are also pumping plenty of adrenaline at that moment. Your hands are shaking and you are just wanting to get the shot off. It might be dark. There may be a target-rich environment which is making it hard to focus. You could expend a whole magazine at a target closing on you, and never hit. Have I ever seen a head shot that walked away? I remember a gentleman that was caught cheating on his wife, by his wife. She placed a .38 right between his eyes, literally. I was there that night, this is not second hand. I figured he was well and truly scrambled with a very neat hole in his head. He walked out of the hospital about two weeks later. Not sure what neurological deficits he sustained, but he motored under his own power.
I said all of that to say this...Two and one, two and one. Two to center mass. Slow them down, make sure they are going to pay some significant price. Then, one to the head (at least). Excessive force? Heck no, and there is plenty of evidence to back up the practice, as long as you can prove you had the need to shoot in the first place.
Mas Ayoob has good advice, and I sometimes see this ridiculed on the forums...but it is medically sound advice. He advocates putting a round into the pelvis. I have admitted and consulted on hundreds on broken hips and pelvises. Interesting fact: many people with broken hips actually sustained the fracture and fell, and not the other way around. In other words, the bone broke and they hit the deck. Back to Mr. Ayoob's point, with that knowledge in mind...once you lose the integrity and stability of the pelvic girdle, you go down, and you go down right then, and you go down fast. Chances are that your attacker will live through that, with prompt medical attention, but it will stop the attack.
The above scenario becomes problematic in several ways. First off, it is not the way we are taught, but then neither is two and one. My range does not allow head shots on the targets (because of the possibility of richochets, or so they say). We are taught, and graded on, center mass shots...and not necessarily good center mass shooting (you need to nail the cardiac triangle!). You are going to instinctively go to center mass, and I have no real problem with this. My only advice is that if the BG does not immediately go down, or cease and desist, that you take that head shot, or pelvic shot.
What ever you do, if the time comes that you actually have to do what we train to do, keep shooting until there is a neutral environment. This does not mean you shoot all four bad guys. It means you shoot until your advantage is equal, or greater. Perhaps that means having to shoot two out of four BGs so that the disparity of force does not exist. Perhaps it means having to reload because none of the four is going to stop until your head is on a stake.
It sounds so easy discussing it in here. I pray none of us ever face anything like this, but this is actually what we are preparing for. It is going to happen to one us sometime. I pray that, if it does, that you are wise, that you are well-prepared, that you have no mercy, and that you are thoroughly compassionate. I leave it to you to figure out that last sentence.
Thanks,
RJ
Two 1911s and goodness knows what else Jim has on him at any time.kragluver wrote:You've got to respect the fact that the guy appears to carry two full size 1911's concealed. I guess that's what you do when you own more than one:)
I was wondering the exact same thing.Two 1911s and goodness knows what else Jim has on him at any time.
Excaliber wrote:The focus should be on carrying what it takes to stop a fight, not on trying to figure out how to stop a fight with something so small and light it's no trouble at all to carry.
So he believes the 9MM is less than 1/2 as effective as a .45 Cal?Referenced Article wrote:
2-3 hits with a .45
4-6 with a .40
5-8 with a 9mm
The gist I got was this was a compilation of anecdotal data which in this application is not conclusive but as valid as any other. When I was trying to decide my main carry weapon I was looking at ballistic data and ballistics gelatin impact studies. For instance I found that mid range energy delivered, penetration depth and expansion were comparable in .40 180gr and .45 200gr (nothing dumped as many foot pounds than the 250 gr. .45). During my considerations a 400# attacker was stopped by a .40, single, center mass hit. Anecdotal is what won me over.Liberty wrote:So he believes the 9MM is less than 1/2 as effective as a .45 Cal?Referenced Article wrote:
2-3 hits with a .45
4-6 with a .40
5-8 with a 9mm
Wonder where he came up with this.
I would assume form his article it is based on shootings since he says he has "studied the field for a number of decades" and "I have accumulated confirmed incidents...".Liberty wrote:So he believes the 9MM is less than 1/2 as effective as a .45 Cal?Referenced Article wrote:
2-3 hits with a .45
4-6 with a .40
5-8 with a 9mm
Wonder where he came up with this.
I would have assumed that he knew what he was talking about until he claims that 2 each 9mm direct hits aren't as effective as on direct .45. hit. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it just doesn't make sense to me. I might almost buy into it if he was talking about jacketed ball ammunition, but he did tell us, what we all know, that we should be using premium jacketed hollow points.mrvmax wrote: I would assume form his article it is based on shootings since he says he has "studied the field for a number of decades" and "I have accumulated confirmed incidents...".
You can also go to this link http://www.rangemaster.com/rm_staff.html and see his qualifications (he is the second one down).
I took the statement to mean that, on overall average across many shootings, 9mm requires more hits for a stop than .45. That doesn't mean in an individual case a specific 9mm round couldn't be as or more effective than a specific .45 round. Within the law of averages, there is a wide range of individual data points.Liberty wrote:I would have assumed that he knew what he was talking about until he claims that 2 each 9mm direct hits aren't as effective as on direct .45. hit. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it just doesn't make sense to me. I might almost buy into it if he was talking about jacketed ball ammunition, but he did tell us, what we all know, that we should be using premium jacketed hollow points.mrvmax wrote: I would assume form his article it is based on shootings since he says he has "studied the field for a number of decades" and "I have accumulated confirmed incidents...".
You can also go to this link http://www.rangemaster.com/rm_staff.html and see his qualifications (he is the second one down).
I own more than one, but I don't carry all three of them at the same time, let alone two of them—and I could use my 3" as a BUG for one or both of my 5" 1911s. That's just too much weight to carry around......not to mention the extra magazines for the guns. I would need suspenders made of steel strapping.kragluver wrote:You've got to respect the fact that the guy appears to carry two full size 1911's concealed. I guess that's what you do when you own more than one:)
I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you, TAM, but I think we all tend to be too finicky when it comes to picking what calibers constitute "large." I tend to categorize pistol calibers into two slots: 1) End The Fight Calibers, and 2) Get Away From The Threat Calibers.The Annoyed Man wrote: We can cherry pick the data all we want to justify what we carry, but that is exactly what it is—"justifying" or "rationalizing." If you don't cherry pick, you'll see a very clear bias toward the effectiveness of larger calibers. And if you can't make it larger, then make it fast and make it powerful enough to throw a bullet of sufficient mass. That is the rationalization for the 9mm as the minimum for me.