TexasCHLforum.com

Another thread viewtopic.php?f=108&t=46693 got me thinking.

There have been lots of threads about stopping power but I haven't seen one that documented a stopping power failure for a citizen/CHL. To qualify as an answer to this question, what I was hoping for was

- a specific situation where a citizen failed to stop a BG by shooting him and ended up shot or dead as a result.
- a case where the citizen fired first, not as a response to a BG who had already shot him or her. I'm assuming that the citizen in these cases may be partially disabled and not able to mount an able bodied response. I do understand that it is always possible to be shot first but I'm discounting those situations in this discussion.

I'd like to limit the discussion to non-LEO shootings. I do realize that if LEO shootings were involved, there is no shortage of examples. I'm coming to believe that the average distance where a LEO might have to engage and shoot is longer to significantly longer than for a CHL. My expectation is that the longer the distance away, the more likely it is that there are options besides shooting for the CHL that may not be available to a LEO. I also wouldn't expect an LEO to carry any kind of a mouse gun except as a BUG.

Let me be clear. "The Armed Citizen" has a load of stories where often unprepared, regular folks successfully defend themselves against BGs. That does not mean that I'm not going to prepare or practice and hope for the best when an emergency arises. I also understand that the larger the caliber, the better the stopping power. That is why a mouse gun is NOT my EDC. But there are stories of people successfully using .380s. What I'm looking for is the balance to those situations - where the BG was shot with a .380 or similar gun and continued an attack, to the determent of mouse gun shooter.

Examples? Errors in my thinking?

Chas

Not exactly what you are looking for, but apparently the lawyer is shot a few times with a mouse gun and walks away. Does not mention caliber either so for all I know, it could have been a .22lr

http://dba-oracle.blogspot.com/2011/06/ ... ndgun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the link. I remember seeing this incident. I searched the topic and exercised all the links that the search provided but never found anything but the facts that there were two guns on the shooter when he was taken into custody and they were both apparently revolvers. I was trying to judge the caliber by looking for recoil. I think that I can see when the shots actually fire because the shooter is extending the gun towards the victim each time. There appears to be no recoil.

Like you, I'd guess it is a .22LR but it also looks like a fair sized gun for that caliber. The victim is lucky that nothing vital was hit.

For that matter, we can find stories of people shot with 9mm, 40mm, .45, etc that lived. Living after being hit with a "mousegun" does not prove it would have a different outcome with a larger caliber. I carry a Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 and do not feel underpowered. Someone asked "But if you KNEW you were going to be in a fight, would you carry it?" My response is "No, I'd bring a long gun." Clint Smith, Tom Gresham and others say that all handguns are underpowered period. That it's about tradeoff. And Clint carries a 1911.

wgoforth wrote:For that matter, we can find stories of people shot with 9mm, 40mm, .45, etc that lived. Living after being hit with a "mousegun" does not prove it would have a different outcome with a larger caliber. I carry a Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 and do not feel underpowered. Someone asked "But if you KNEW you were going to be in a fight, would you carry it?" My response is "No, I'd bring a long gun." Clint Smith, Tom Gresham and others say that all handguns are underpowered period. That it's about tradeoff. And Clint carries a 1911.

There was the ND video on one of the threads the other day where the guy took a .45 in the leg so I understand that none of the handgun calibers always do the predicted damage. I was just curious to see if there was a situation where someone, like the customer in the barbershop news report, had tried and failed to take out a BG. I completely understand that even if there is such an example, the problem could have been shot placement versus caliber.

chasfm11 wrote:

wgoforth wrote:For that matter, we can find stories of people shot with 9mm, 40mm, .45, etc that lived. Living after being hit with a "mousegun" does not prove it would have a different outcome with a larger caliber. I carry a Smith and Wesson Bodyguard .380 and do not feel underpowered. Someone asked "But if you KNEW you were going to be in a fight, would you carry it?" My response is "No, I'd bring a long gun." Clint Smith, Tom Gresham and others say that all handguns are underpowered period. That it's about tradeoff. And Clint carries a 1911.

There was the ND video on one of the threads the other day where the guy took a .45 in the leg so I understand that none of the handgun calibers always do the predicted damage. I was just curious to see if there was a situation where someone, like the customer in the barbershop news report, had tried and failed to take out a BG. I completely understand that even if there is such an example, the problem could have been shot placement versus caliber.

Not just shot placement. Even COM one shot from a .45 might or might not kill....instantly. God made the human body to live. It's actually pretty hard to kill one. That's why we do double taps. Head, heart, neck shot maybe with one shot. I certainly agree bigger is better in the caliber war. There's also stories of people being killed with a .22, .25, etc.

Well there was the Burger King robbery a couple of years back where the robber shot his .380 at a customer, and the customer shot his 9mm at the robber. Robber died, customer lived, though wounded.

Here's a post from this forum about it.

koolaid wrote:Well there was the Burger King robbery a couple of years back where the robber shot his .380 at a customer, and the customer shot his 9mm at the robber. Robber died, customer lived, though wounded.

Here's a post from this forum about it.

Though the roles are reversed, I'd certainly count this as an example. 9mm wins. The report does say that the GG was shot in the shoulder and arm in addition to his chest. I wouldn't expect any caliber to take out a BG immediately with just shooting limbs. It also doesn't say how many times the BG was shot with the 9mm. It could have been 3 hits versus 10 or more. Also, a Saturday night special is not a match for a Glock.

Anyway, thanks for remembering this situation.

For me, it all boils down to simple physics and biology.

First off, the bullet has to penetrate. Newton's law says an object in motion tends to stay in motion. Without going into the formulas, the heavier the object and the faster it is moving means more mass. The higher the mass, the more energy that object will have to keep moving and in turn penetrate. Now, there are combinations of light bullets and small calibers (like .225/5.56) that are traveling out of a rifle at a high velocity, but for this discussion lets just talk pistol ammo. So, a smaller powder charge and smaller bullet (.22 or.32, etc.) will not produce as much mass as say a heavier 9mm/.38 or .45 and a higher powder load and faster velocity.

Second, once that bullet penetrates, it must do damage. If it penetrates well and has energy left, then if it strikes bone or other hard material it will do more damage than a lighter weight/slower bullet that has had its energy depleted because of what it has had to travel through previously and expended the energy.

Now, basically, there are only about 4 ways that a person gets stopped from being shot:

1. Mental surrender, or they just give up because they realize they have been shot. This could happen from any size round, but if they feel it and it inflicts some type of pain or other stress, then they are more likely to surrender vs. keep fighting.

2. Trauma/shock to the central nervous system. If the bullet causes shock to the CNS, then the body will shut down and the person will no longer be able to fight. Again, more mass and energy means a better chance of the CNS being impacted and the BG no longer can fight.

3. Bleed out. Shot placement is critical to this, but assuming the bullet hits the same spot and penetrates the same, then a larger caliber hole would tend to let out more blood and the person will bleed out faster.

4. Striking bone and breaking it. Again, a femur, pelvis or other bone hit that would cause the person to no longer stand or be able to pursue you would be a good thing. Again, the more energy exerted by the mass of the bullet hitting it means the more chance that bone will break.

One thing to remember is in 3 & 4 the BG may still be capable of shooting at you, even if they are partially incapacitated.

So, bottom line, while a .380, .32 or .22 is better than nothing, I prefer go for something with lots of muzzle ft/lbs and a larger hole poking capability for self defense. I carry Cor-Bon "Pow'R Ball" 9mm because even though it is a 100 grain bullet, the charge behind it gives it a muzzle energy of 1475 fps and 483 ft-lbs of muzzle energy. That is close to .357 magnum specs. And, in other calibers, I look for the higher ballistics in +P or +P+ to get me the umpf behind the round.

Others may have different thoughts, but from the shooting that I used to do on old phone books and Sears catalogs, you would see the big difference in how big the hole was and how deep the round went on the higher muzzle energy rounds.

Keith B wrote:Without going into the formulas, the heavier the object and the faster it is moving means more mass. The higher the mass, the more energy that object will have to keep moving and in turn penetrate.

Sorry to nitpick ... the word your looking for is momentum. The heavier the object is, the more mass it has. The faster it is moving, the more velocity it has. Both increased velocity and/or increased mass equals an increase in momentum. It is the momentum that directly translates to imparted energy.

terryg wrote:

Keith B wrote:Without going into the formulas, the heavier the object and the faster it is moving means more mass. The higher the mass, the more energy that object will have to keep moving and in turn penetrate.

Sorry to nitpick ... the word your looking for is momentum. The heavier the object is, the more mass it has. The faster it is moving, the more velocity it has. Both increased velocity and/or increased mass equals an increase in momentum. It is the momentum that directly translates to imparted energy.

Or "kinetic Energy"

The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.

terryg wrote:

Keith B wrote:Without going into the formulas, the heavier the object and the faster it is moving means more mass. The higher the mass, the more energy that object will have to keep moving and in turn penetrate.

Sorry to nitpick ... the word your looking for is momentum. The heavier the object is, the more mass it has. The faster it is moving, the more velocity it has. Both increased velocity and/or increased mass equals an increase in momentum. It is the momentum that directly translates to imparted energy.

Nitpicking continued:

Momentum is the tendency of a moving object to continue moving at the same speed and in the same direction until it is influence by another force. Momentum is calculated by multiplying mass x velocity.

The form of energy that a bullet carries and can transfer partially or fully to a target when a bullet strikes is called "Kinetic Energy."

The formula for that is: Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mass x velocity squared.

Details here.

If you simply look at the formula, you would quickly conclude that mass (bullet weight) doesn't matter much - just get it going faster to get better results because increasing mass only gives you half the value of the increase, while increasing velocity increases KE by the SQUARE of the value.

That's true to a certain point, but doesn't directly correlate with observed reality. The interaction of bullets with living flesh is a lot more complex than that, and that's why, although we've got simple formulas to describe the energies involved, the ideal composition, configuration, and velocity for the "perfect bullet" is the subject of endless debate.

terryg wrote:

Keith B wrote:Without going into the formulas, the heavier the object and the faster it is moving means more mass. The higher the mass, the more energy that object will have to keep moving and in turn penetrate.

Sorry to nitpick ... the word your looking for is momentum. The heavier the object is, the more mass it has. The faster it is moving, the more velocity it has. Both increased velocity and/or increased mass equals an increase in momentum. It is the momentum that directly translates to imparted energy.

What it REALLY translates to is the the stresses implied on the object by the transfer of energy by the bullet. And my statement was meant to imply that the heavier more massive) object, will have more energy to transfer than a smaller/lighter object with the same amount of acceleration. And, yes, momentum translates to kinetic energy and that energy transfers to the object being struck by the bullet.

Excaliber wrote:

terryg wrote:

Keith B wrote:Without going into the formulas, the heavier the object and the faster it is moving means more mass. The higher the mass, the more energy that object will have to keep moving and in turn penetrate.

Sorry to nitpick ... the word your looking for is momentum. The heavier the object is, the more mass it has. The faster it is moving, the more velocity it has. Both increased velocity and/or increased mass equals an increase in momentum. It is the momentum that directly translates to imparted energy.

Nitpicking continued:

Momentum is the tendency of a moving object to continue moving at the same speed and in the same direction until it is influence by another force. Momentum is calculated by multiplying mass x velocity.

The form of energy that a bullet carries and can transfer partially or fully to a target when a bullet strikes is called "Kinetic Energy."

The formula for that is: Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mass x velocity squared.

Details here.

If you simply look at the formula, you would quickly conclude that mass (bullet weight) doesn't matter much - just get it going faster to get better results because increasing mass only gives you half the value of the increase, while increasing velocity increases KE by the SQUARE of the value.

That's true to a certain point, but doesn't directly correlate with observed reality. The interaction of bullets with living flesh is a lot more complex than that, and that's why, although we've got simple formulas to describe the energies involved, the ideal composition, configuration, and velocity for the "perfect bullet" is the subject of endless debate.

Yeah, that is kinda what I related to in the rifle bullet at higher velocity. It may have the same amount of energy if you pus it to a higher velocity. However, as stated, the larger the hole, the more stuff that runs out of it. And, which would you rather get hit with at the same amount of energy; a bowling ball or a BB?

Keith B wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

terryg wrote:

Keith B wrote:Without going into the formulas, the heavier the object and the faster it is moving means more mass. The higher the mass, the more energy that object will have to keep moving and in turn penetrate.

Sorry to nitpick ... the word your looking for is momentum. The heavier the object is, the more mass it has. The faster it is moving, the more velocity it has. Both increased velocity and/or increased mass equals an increase in momentum. It is the momentum that directly translates to imparted energy.

Nitpicking continued:

Momentum is the tendency of a moving object to continue moving at the same speed and in the same direction until it is influence by another force. Momentum is calculated by multiplying mass x velocity.

The form of energy that a bullet carries and can transfer partially or fully to a target when a bullet strikes is called "Kinetic Energy."

The formula for that is: Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mass x velocity squared.

Details here.

If you simply look at the formula, you would quickly conclude that mass (bullet weight) doesn't matter much - just get it going faster to get better results because increasing mass only gives you half the value of the increase, while increasing velocity increases KE by the SQUARE of the value.

That's true to a certain point, but doesn't directly correlate with observed reality. The interaction of bullets with living flesh is a lot more complex than that, and that's why, although we've got simple formulas to describe the energies involved, the ideal composition, configuration, and velocity for the "perfect bullet" is the subject of endless debate.

Yeah, that is kinda what I related to in the rifle bullet at higher velocity. It may have the same amount of energy if you pus it to a higher velocity. However, as stated, the larger the hole, the more stuff that runs out of it. And, which would you rather get hit with at the same amount of energy; a bowling ball or a BB?

Or a BB that rapidly expands to the size of a bowling ball upon impact?

Questions like this are what keeps the debate alive.....