TexasCHLforum.com

If the 2-3 rds of quality 9mm JHP hitting center mass does not stop the BG, you are in deep trouble cause you are fighting an Alien from another Galaxy, not a mere mortal humans.

I advise to start running like a cheetah.

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

Thanks for adding another important dimension to the discussion.

Mercy and compassion apply after the deadly threat is ended. Before then, they will get you killed because they will be one sided and will create a greater opportunity for your adversary with no reduction in his onslaught.

Good article, and definitely gives one cause to think. One thing to remember though is if the enemy is is immobilized and you have a good escape, then you have won. Sticking around to put more holes in them might not be the best plan. LEO often doesn't have the same options, their duty is to bring the BG in. Our duty is to return home in one piece.

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:)

Two 1911s and goodness knows what else Jim has on him at any time.

Two 1911s and goodness knows what else Jim has on him at any time.

I was wondering the exact same thing.

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.

A shotgun or rifle is a much better fight stopper than a pistol, but people carry pistols because they're more convenient. It's true that a combat shotgun or urban carbine is not as small and light as a 1911 or M9, but the difference in stopping power is significant enough that people should focus more on how to carry what it takes to stop a fight.

Referenced Article wrote:
2-3 hits with a .45
4-6 with a .40
5-8 with a 9mm

So he believes the 9MM is less than 1/2 as effective as a .45 Cal?
Wonder where he came up with this.

I have treated several (hundreds) of gunshot wounds. I ran on one that took a .45 to the right ventricle, conscious all the way and recovered. I have run on one where the young man left a fist sized chunk of brain on the sidewalk only to be back on the street conducting himself in the same behavior that got him shot in the first place. I have seen a man dead from a .25 to the abdomen and even a one shot kill where the guy took a .22 to the right glute, ran about twenty feet and collapsed face first, dead before ground.

Assuredly, larger bores and expanding projectiles are better and more certain, but years ago Ayoob wrote an article on the "Best Defense Gun" and concluded that the best defense gun is the one you WILL carry. Some, for back or other strength problems, have to carry small or they don't carry.

It was a good article though.

Added in Edit:

Liberty wrote:

Referenced Article wrote:
2-3 hits with a .45
4-6 with a .40
5-8 with a 9mm

So he believes the 9MM is less than 1/2 as effective as a .45 Cal?
Wonder where he came up with this.

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:

Referenced Article wrote:
2-3 hits with a .45
4-6 with a .40
5-8 with a 9mm

So he believes the 9MM is less than 1/2 as effective as a .45 Cal?
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...".

You can also go to this link http://www.rangemaster.com/rm_staff.html and see his qualifications (he is the second one down).

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 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.

Liberty wrote:

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 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.

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.

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 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.

I am a big believer in .45 ACP and I like my 1911s a lot, but most of this summer my EDC was a pocket 9mm. I actually would have preferred to carry my 3" 1911. The problem is that it does not make a very good pocket gun, and on most days it is just too painful to carry anything on my hip because of my back issues. When the weather gets cooler and layered clothing becomes more appropriate, I'll carry a 1911 again in a shoulder holster.

Before my back had degraded to this point where a belt holster of any kind just hurts too much, I have long advocated carrying a .45, and if others are able to do so, I will still continue that advocacy. I'm kind of out of the gun-buying business for a little while due to financial pressures, but when I'm able, my next firearm purchase will likely be either a Kahr PM45 or a CW45.

I know that all sounds like I'm derailing the thread, but there is a point to it...... Lots of people, such as myself, would love to carry as big a caliber as they can (which translates as .45 ACP), but there are extenuating circumstances for why they can't. If this state had Open Carry, I would carry a .45 at all times in a shoulder holster, and not worry so much about it being seen; but I can't, so I make do. I agree with Excaliber when he says that you HAVE to consider how many "real world" hits it will take to disable an assailant in your choice of carry caliber. I also have felt all summer long like my choice to go with a pocket 9mm was pretty marginal. I don't feel this way because I think that 9mm is an insufficient caliber. I feel this way because my pocket gun only carries 6+1 rounds of it, and the backup magazine is a 7 rounder. What makes it "marginal" for me is capacity. I actually shoot the gun reasonably well (if you've never tried shooting a pocket 9mm from Kahr, jump at the chance if it presents because they are really nifty little guns that shoot surprisingly well), but I just can't manage a reload as quickly as I can with any of my larger guns. It's a matter of tiny gun, tiny magazine, big fat hands.

That said, I do think of 9mm as sort of the minimum standard for me. We can drill and drill and drill, and hone our skills to a razor's edge, but when "that day that we all dread" comes, that's a real live human being downrange, possibly amped up on PCP or something else, certainly desperate enough in life to choose to be an assaultive threat, or possibly insane, and possibly armed with a gun. Paper targets don't shoot back, not even when you're practicing a run and gun drill against them. They are not enraged, and they don't demand your money. A .380 makes the same diameter hole in that paper as a 9mm or a .38 Special or a .357 Magnum. But the target doesn't bleed. There is no hydrostatic shock. There is no temprorary or permanent wound cavity behind that little hole.

In a day and age when easily pocketable 9mm pistols that are easy to shoot can be found on the market at a reasonably affordable price, what can be the justification for carrying a .380? Yes, the .380 in your hand beats the 9mm you left at home; but when there is no practical difference in concealing the one over concealing the other, the 9mm in your hand more than beats the .380 you left at home. It used to be that you had to pay "Rorbaugh prices" to have that, but that is no longer true, and it hasn't been true for years now.

As I've posted before, I worked in the ER of a trauma center hospital for 5 or 6 years back in the 1980s, and I have helped to treat hundreds of gunshot patients. It is absolutely true that most of the patients I saw were shot with smaller calibers (mostly .22 LR), and it is equally true that most of those I saw shot dead were shot with those smaller calibers. But unless those bullets immediately turned off their lights by scrambling their brain, or rupturing their descending aorta, many of those gunshot people also performed various feats of strength and/or endurance before succumbing to their wounds. Those that were shot with calibers beginning in "4"? Not so much.

Whether the effect was psychological or physiological is academic. In the real world, large calibers tend to immediately take the fight out of the person shot, where smaller calibers have much less of an effect that way. WHY it happens is not nearly so relevant as is the fact that it does happen. The "why" is academic. The "does" is what you can take to the bank. Of course there are always exceptions. There will always be the story of some drug-crazed monster who absorbs countless hits of .45 ACP before succumbing; but those are the exception, rather than the rule. When you get down to the smaller calibers, it is the other way around......the gunshot person who succumbs immediately is the exception rather than the rule.

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.

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.

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.

1) End The Fight: Calibers that, statistically, can stop an attacker's threat with 5 or less hits. That's 45ACP, 40S&W, 9MM, 357SIG, and FN 5.7.
2) Get Away From The Fight: Calibers that, statistically, have a poor record of stopping an attacker, but will deter most attackers when struck or fired at: .380, 32ACP, .22LR, 22 Mag, and even tasers (should I add "slingshot" in here? )

A bad guy without the will to fight can be just as discouraged by a .22 as by a .45. Many perps don't want to have holes put in them that require a trip to the hospital, even if they have a chance of surviving.

The real problem is this: You don't know who you're dealing with until the fight is engaged. Therefore, Category 1 calibers should always be preferred (I have a Walther PP in .32ACP sitting in my safe (belonged to my father), I can't even imagine how it could penetrate two layers of clothing, much less a person)

Head shots may not be fatal either:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ArDRg5SkuT0[/youtube]

In February of 2005, I was an eyewitness to the Smith County Courthouse shooting. My wife and I both worked for the county at the time in offices overlooking the scene of the shooting. Standing in a window on the third floor, I watched the BG execute his ex-wife and wound his son with a high powered rifle. Then as he went back to his truck and reloaded, I watched a well known Tyler citizen named Mark Wilson sneak up on the opposite side of the perp's truck and when the BG noticed him, Mark emptied his 45 center mass from less than four feet away over the bed of the pick up, just as he had always been trained. I will never be able to erase from my memory the puzzled look on Mark's face when the rounds had no effect. The perp was wearing body armor. If Mark had shot two to center mass and one to the head, (or maybe a pelvis shot as has been suggested,) the fight would have been over. But, now, Mark was out of ammo and the BG shot him point blank in the shoulder with the rifle knocking him to the ground. He then walked around the truck and executed Mark with a shot to the head. As he fled to his vehicle in a rising hail of fire from inside our Courthouse, the BG sprayed the side of the building with gunfire. I "ducked and covered" as some of the shots struck just two feet below the window where I had been standing. After a brief car chase, the BG was killed by a rifle shot to the head from a SWAT member. BTW, this incident was what led to my wife and I both getting our CHLs. I don't want to ever feel that helpless again.