If you can't kill it with a 9mm, you need a rifle - Page 8

Warp · 11-27-2012, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCmasterblaster

Because the NYPD had a highly-publicized shooting where they fired dozens of rounds and accidentally shot nine innocent bystander civilians.

You do realize that they didn't really shoot nine innocent bystanders, right?

Dogbite · 11-27-2012, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by HKLovingIT

I own .38 Special, 9mm, .40s, .45 ACP and .357 SIG.

I carry 9mm almost exclusively in an urban environment. Here is why it makes sense for me in that situation:

1. I'm carrying Speer factory 124 gr Gold Dot +p which has a proven street and lab record. There is nothing boutique about it and if it is ever a legal question I can point to several major metropolitan departments with thousands of officers that carry the same load.

2. The wolves travel in ever larger packs these days. For a given size firearm I want the most on tap within that platform that I can have, before a reload is required.

3. Given the above point and that I tend to carry smaller pistols because of my personal logistics, the 9mm meets that requirement better for me. Yeah, I know it's usually only a round or two difference in most cases but I'll take it. Shot placement is king but in a dynamic situation with less than ideal shot placement I'll take the cumulative effect of two less than ideal hits with a 9mm over one less than ideal hit with a larger caliber. (Except 10mm which is known to lift the assailant clean off their feet with even a thumb hit, but it violates the Geneva conventions

)

4. I'm a civilian and I don't work in and around vehicles all day so the heavier caliber's auto glass performance is not a factor for me.

5. I can shoot 9mm fast and accurate. In a me vs me comparison I will always outperform myself using 9mm versus another service caliber. Now I might shoot .40 or .45 faster and more accurate than another guy shoots 9mm but I can always out shoot me vs me using 9mm. I could shoot all year with a G27 and be damned good but at the end of that year I would still shoot a G26 that much better.

6. The firearms that I carry most often were all originally designed around the 9mm. I have a gut feel belief that carrying a firearm in the caliber it was originally designed for gives the best reliability and lessens the chance of a freak parts breakage at a bad time.

Do I think the .40 and .45 ACP are more effective by a degree or two? Yup. But given my above perceived personal requirements and situations I think the 9mm is my best choice for most of my carry situations. I think .357 SIG smokes them all in the common service calibers and if I was going to ditch the 9mm for everyday use (I'm not) I would go that route because it somewhat duplicates the famed 125gr .357 Magnum but in a platform that would work for me from a practical carry perspective.

I do carry other calibers in more rural settings but then I usually do have a shotgun or rifle right there so it's moot.

Good discussion.

Great post. It's very reasonable, and well thought out.

uz2bUSMC · 11-27-2012, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp

You do realize that they didn't really shoot nine innocent bystanders, right?

What were the details? Vid looked bad. I thought 9, as well.

WilliamDahl · 11-27-2012, 20:28

Warp · 11-27-2012, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC

What were the details? Vid looked bad. I thought 9, as well.

I'd first like to give SCmasterblaster a chance to explain, since he brought it up, and seemed very matter-of-fact in his assertion.

WilliamDahl · 11-27-2012, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC

What were the details? Vid looked bad. I thought 9, as well.

This here, perhaps?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25...olice-gunfire/

Warp · 11-27-2012, 20:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

This here, perhaps?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25...olice-gunfire/

"Police have determined that three people were struck by whole bullets -- two of which were removed from victims at the hospital -- and the rest were grazed "by fragments of some sort," Kelly said."

WilliamDahl · 11-27-2012, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp

"Police have determined that three people were struck by whole bullets -- two of which were removed from victims at the hospital -- and the rest were grazed "by fragments of some sort," Kelly said."

In other words, what comes out your barrel has to end up somewhere. Bullets don't just magically turn to dust and stop when they hit a wall or the street. They can fragment and those fragments might end up in a place that it might be preferred that they not end up. We like to say that you should be sure of your target and your backstop when you are shooting at something, but sometimes, all the choices available to you are not good. If the cops didn't shoot, they're in danger of being shot by the guy who quickly turned around and pointed the handgun towards them. There's also the chance that anyone behind the cops could have been shot. Now, an argument could be made that the cops posed more danger to the surrounding people than the original assailant did due to the larger number of round that they carried and subsequently shot, but no one in their right mind is going to let the other guy get the first shot in a situation like this before returning fire.

OK, technically, if the other person hasn't already shot, I guess it's not returning fire...

Warp · 11-27-2012, 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

In other words, what comes out your barrel has to end up somewhere. Bullets don't just magically turn to dust and stop when they hit a wall or the street. They can fragment and those fragments might end up in a place that it might be preferred that they not end up. We like to say that you should be sure of your target and your backstop when you are shooting at something, but sometimes, all the choices available to you are not good. If the cops didn't shoot, they're in danger of being shot by the guy who quickly turned around and pointed the handgun towards them. There's also the chance that anyone behind the cops could have been shot. Now, an argument could be made that the cops posed more danger to the surrounding people than the original assailant did due to the larger number of round that they carried and subsequently shot, but no one in their right mind is going to let the other guy get the first shot in a situation like this before returning fire.

OK, technically, if the other person hasn't already shot, I guess it's not returning fire...

Absolutely.

Especially the part in bold.

Andy W · 11-27-2012, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

In other words, what comes out your barrel has to end up somewhere. Bullets don't just magically turn to dust and stop when they hit a wall or the street. They can fragment and those fragments might end up in a place that it might be preferred that they not end up. We like to say that you should be sure of your target and your backstop when you are shooting at something, but sometimes, all the choices available to you are not good. If the cops didn't shoot, they're in danger of being shot by the guy who quickly turned around and pointed the handgun towards them. There's also the chance that anyone behind the cops could have been shot. Now, an argument could be made that the cops posed more danger to the surrounding people than the original assailant did due to the larger number of round that they carried and subsequently shot, but no one in their right mind is going to let the other guy get the first shot in a situation like this before returning fire.

OK, technically, if the other person hasn't already shot, I guess it's not returning fire...

Just to play devils advocate, couldn't we make the argument that the police choosing to take the suspect down in a crowded area as they did actually posed more danger to the public than did the original shooting? If I remember correctly, the guy was only there to shoot a couple of people with whom he had a dispute, not to go on a shooting spree and harm the general public. After he shot the two people he was after, he would have left. However, the police showed up and engaged in a gunfight with the suspect in a crowded street outside the Empire State Building, which greatly increased the amount of bullets flying through the air and as a result also increased very significanly the danger to the general public. Of course, The responding officers most certainly would not have known what the suspect's intentions were and therefore thought it best to try and neutralize the suspect immediately. After all, he had just shot two people. However, I think the shootout between the police and suspect undeniably had the result of placing the people in the area in greater danger than the original shooting did. The police could not possibly have known this at the time and therefore could not be expected to have considered it, but that's what happened.

Just putting that out there.

Warp · 11-27-2012, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W

The responding officers most certainly would not have known what the suspect's intentions were and therefore thought it best to try and neutralize the suspect immediately.

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W

After all, he had just shot two people. However, I think the shootout between the police and suspect undeniably had the result of placing the people in the area in greater danger than the original shooting did. The police could not possibly have known this at the time and therefore could not be expected to have considered it, but that's what happened.

Just putting that out there.

Yes.

Andy W · 11-28-2012, 23:32

Back to shot placement. Is it possible that not all head shots have the effect of immediate incapacitation? I'm not talking about a shot that glances off the skull or goes through the jaw and misses the brain. What I mean is can a bullet go through certain parts of the brain and not immediately kill or incapacitate someone. I've seen diagrams and targets where there is a triangle That goes roughly from just above the eye sockets and tapers down, ending around the base of the nose. Does this mean you can hit them in the brain but outside this area they may not go down immediately and therefore continue to fight for a time?

countrygun · 11-29-2012, 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W

Just to play devils advocate, couldn't we make the argument that the police choosing to take the suspect down in a crowded area as they did actually posed more danger to the public than did the original shooting? If I remember correctly, the guy was only there to shoot a couple of people with whom he had a dispute, not to go on a shooting spree and harm the general public. After he shot the two people he was after, he would have left. However, the police showed up and engaged in a gunfight with the suspect in a crowded street outside the Empire State Building, which greatly increased the amount of bullets flying through the air and as a result also increased very significanly the danger to the general public. Of course, The responding officers most certainly would not have known what the suspect's intentions were and therefore thought it best to try and neutralize the suspect immediately. After all, he had just shot two people. However, I think the shootout between the police and suspect undeniably had the result of placing the people in the area in greater danger than the original shooting did. The police could not possibly have known this at the time and therefore could not be expected to have considered it, but that's what happened.

Just putting that out there.

Nice to have the luxury of being able to call the play on Monday morning.

and if the suspect had taken a hostage, ot wasn't done yet?

If the guy had killed one more person after the police had him spotted then they would be getting blamed for NOT taking him immediately

Society asks these people to do things most people are unwilling and unable to do. on a good day, when everything goes perfectly, they still end up with at least 25% of the armchair experts telling them that they should have done it differently. I think we should be grateful that we have people still willing to make thosed decisions at all.

"Success has many step-fathers, but failure is an orphan"

tcruse · 11-29-2012, 06:54

I agree that the police have some really difficult decisions to make with out much timeor all of the facts. Now, I also ink that police should be held to a higher standard than these two demonstrated. I think that the difference between 'stop' and 'kill' is lost far too many times. I agree that in many cases the outcome is the same but shooting until you run out of ammo even if the bg is down is not acceptable.

WilliamDahl · 11-29-2012, 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy W

Back to shot placement. Is it possible that not all head shots have the effect of immediate incapacitation? I'm not talking about a shot that glances off the skull or goes through the jaw and misses the brain. What I mean is can a bullet go through certain parts of the brain and not immediately kill or incapacitate someone. I've seen diagrams and targets where there is a triangle That goes roughly from just above the eye sockets and tapers down, ending around the base of the nose. Does this mean you can hit them in the brain but outside this area they may not go down immediately and therefore continue to fight for a time?

If you want *immediate* incapacitation, you need to sever the brain stem. "Immediate" as in it is not possible for the person to even pull the trigger if they have a cocked gun to the head of a hostage. Having grown up on a ranch, periodically, we might have to put down a cow due to illness or whatever. It is entirely possible to accomplish this with a .22LR at extremely close range by aiming between the eyes and towards the back of the skull where the brain connects to the spinal column. It is like turning off a light switch. At worst, you get a slight shudder and then the head drops.

Just poking a hole through the brain does not stop a person. There have been people who have walked into the emergency room at a hospital after having shot themselves with a nail gun. There are parts of the brain that do not control motor functions and putting a hole through those parts of the brain will not necessarily kill a person or even stop them from doing whatever they are doing.

http://www.inquisitr.com/184504/man-...ng-to-hospital

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2...-in-mans-brain

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3685791.stm

http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles...ain-injury.htm

uz2bUSMC · 11-29-2012, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcruse

I agree that the police have some really difficult decisions to make with out much timeor all of the facts. Now, I also ink that police should be held to a higher standard than these two demonstrated. I think that the difference between 'stop' and 'kill' is lost far too many times. I agree that in many cases the outcome is the same but shooting until you run out of ammo even if the bg is down is not acceptable.

Have you seen the video?

WilliamDahl · 11-29-2012, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by uz2bUSMC

Have you seen the video?

Would you care to post a link to it?

uz2bUSMC · 11-29-2012, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

Would you care to post a link to it?

Sure.

Graphic video shows police killing ESB gunman - CBS News Video

4949shooter · 12-01-2012, 05:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcruse

I agree that the police have some really difficult decisions to make with out much timeor all of the facts. Now, I also ink that police should be held to a higher standard than these two demonstrated. I think that the difference between 'stop' and 'kill' is lost far too many times. I agree that in many cases the outcome is the same but shooting until you run out of ammo even if the bg is down is not acceptable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

Would you care to post a link to it?

The innocents hit in that video were struck with fragments from ricochet rounds. It is very unfortunate, but is a fact of life in the big city where there is a lot of concrete and asphalt. The LEO's on scene did a good job stopping the threat. Was it perfect? I say "no," but show me how many shooters could have done better under the circumstances. I am not talking about Monday morning quarterbacks either, I am talking about real shootings under the duress of life and death situations, with tens or maybe hundreds of innocents in the area. This changes the perspective on things a bit, doesn't it?

BTW, those NYPD cops were working overtime in that area, and were from one of the busier precincts.

WilliamDahl · 12-01-2012, 07:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4949shooter

The innocents hit in that video were struck with fragments from ricochet rounds. It is very unfortunate, but is a fact of life in the big city where there is a lot of concrete and asphalt. The LEO's on scene did a good job stopping the threat. Was it perfect? I say "no," but show me how many shooters could have done better under the circumstances. I am not talking about Monday morning quarterbacks either, I am talking about real shootings under the duress of life and death situations, with tens or maybe hundreds of innocents in the area. This changes the perspective on things a bit, doesn't it?

BTW, those NYPD cops were working overtime in that area, and were from one of the busier precincts.

I'm not one of those people who blindly believe everything that cops say or support everything that they do. I've met too many cops over the years who are just on a power trip and have no business being an officer. That said, I cannot really find any fault in the actions of the officers in this incident. It was a crappy situation and they made the best of it with minimum collateral damage.

4949shooter · 12-01-2012, 08:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

I'm not one of those people who blindly believe everything that cops say or support everything that they do. I've met too many cops over the years who are just on a power trip and have no business being an officer. That said, I cannot really find any fault in the actions of the officers in this incident. It was a crappy situation and they made the best of it with minimum collateral damage.

And I'm not saying cops do everything perfectly, either. It's just that the factors in the incident in question were blown out of proportion by the media.

WilliamDahl · 12-01-2012, 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4949shooter

And I'm not saying cops do everything perfectly, either. It's just that the factors in the incident in question were blown out of proportion by the media.

Which is not that different than anything else addressed by the liberal media. Sensationalism sells... The *truth* just gets in the way of a good story... :(

SCmasterblaster · 12-01-2012, 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp

You do realize that they didn't really shoot nine innocent bystanders, right?

The story said that nine bystanders were wounded by police gunfire. Or did I read it wrong?

cajun_chooter · 12-02-2012, 09:57

I think shot placement is more important than caliber... to an extent... if you cannot hit the broad side of a barn.. even a cannon won't suffice..

WilliamDahl · 12-02-2012, 11:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajun_chooter

I think shot placement is more important than caliber... to an extent... if you cannot hit the broad side of a barn.. even a cannon won't suffice..

Or as we used to say, "Close only counts in horse shoes, hand grenades, and nuclear depth charges"...

Now, if you can't hit the broad side of a barn, then you need to just up your caliber a bit... A 16 incher like from the New Jersey (BB-62) would be the perfect thing for you... During Vietnam, a single HC round fired into the jungle would create a helicopter LZ that was 200 yds in diameter and would defoliate trees for an additional 300 yds after that. One might argue that you only would need to get *close to* a barn with one of those rounds...