GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2012, 14:49   #226
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southswede View Post
I did not doge it. Your question was invalid, therefor needed no attempt at answering nonsense.
It's a simple question, not nosense. You still haven't answered it. I'll repeat it:

What is the downside of using a bullet like a Gold Dot or Ranger T etc in defensive use? How is a bullet that expands and penetrates barriers somehow worse than one that expands and doesn't penetrate barriers, like a bicep?

You don't have to answer it, you can huff and puff and insult your way around it, but that will be an answer as well.
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline  
Old 04-26-2012, 18:29   #227
Southswede
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
It's a simple question, not nosense. You still haven't answered it. I'll repeat it:

What is the downside of using a bullet like a Gold Dot or Ranger T etc in defensive use? How is a bullet that expands and penetrates barriers somehow worse than one that expands and doesn't penetrate barriers, like a bicep?

You don't have to answer it, you can huff and puff and insult your way around it, but that will be an answer as well.
In the context originally asked, it was a non issue as the bullet did not exist in 1986-get it?

In 2012, there is no downside-get it?
Southswede is offline  
Old 04-26-2012, 18:49   #228
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southswede View Post
In the context originally asked, it was a non issue as the bullet did not exist in 1986-get it?

In 2012, there is no downside-get it?
The point, which you try to hide by acting stupid, is that a better bullet would have helped by penetrating the heart. That better bullet exists today. Even you agree that a modern, well constructed bullet is better and since they exist today, there is no point in us not now using them. That's all I was trying to say. The a 2012 Corvette performs better than the 1986 Corvette. And since we have a choice of either one, we should use the 2012.

The point isn't to criticize whoever it was at FBI that selected lightweight, fast moving, fragile bullets. They did what they thought was best at the time. At that time, the prevailing theories were that light, fast, fragile bullets worked best. But, now we know better. And to keep advocating the use of a bullet that has been rendered obsolete over 20 years ago is silly.
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline  
Old 04-26-2012, 18:59   #229
Southswede
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
The point, which you try to hide by acting stupid, is that a better bullet would have helped by penetrating the heart. That better bullet exists today. Even you agree that a modern, well constructed bullet is better and since they exist today, there is no point in us not now using them. That's all I was trying to say. The a 2012 Corvette performs better than the 1986 Corvette. And since we have a choice of either one, we should use the 2012.

The point isn't to criticize whoever it was at FBI that selected lightweight, fast moving, fragile bullets. They did what they thought was best at the time. At that time, the prevailing theories were that light, fast, fragile bullets worked best. But, now we know better. And to keep advocating the use of a bullet that has been rendered obsolete over 20 years ago is silly.
Please show me ANYWHERE I did what you say I did. Talk about looking silly with a total lack of reading comprehension skills!!!

I see you clearly don't get it.

Last edited by Southswede; 04-26-2012 at 19:01..
Southswede is offline  
Old 04-26-2012, 19:07   #230
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southswede View Post
Please show me ANYWHERE I did what you say I did. Talk about looking silly with a total lack of reading comprehension skills!!!

I see you clearly don't get it.
Exactly! You haven't said a ****ing thing other than to be contrary to my posts! Now I finally got something out of you, that light weight, fast moving, fragile bullets are a bad choice in light of that fact that there are better bullets out there, which was my point! You were so busy just being contrary (troll) that you didn't even notice that when you finally actually had a position, it supported my argument. I don't expect you to understand any of this and you're too pigheaded to admit it if you did, but others will see it.

Thanks for being an advocate for controlled expansion and deep penetration
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline  
Old 04-26-2012, 19:18   #231
Southswede
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
Exactly! You haven't said a ****ing thing other than to be contrary to my posts! Now I finally got something out of you, that light weight, fast moving, fragile bullets are a bad choice in light of that fact that there are better bullets out there, which was my point! You were so busy just being contrary (troll) that you didn't even notice that when you finally actually had a position, it supported my argument. I don't expect you to understand any of this and you're too pigheaded to admit it if you did, but others will see it.

Thanks for being an advocate for controlled expansion and deep penetration
I have only commented on what actually happened on April 11, 1986.
I am not an advocate for any bullet type. Shot placement is far more important to me.

I didn't realize how sensitive you are. I am sorry to have hurt your feelings. It was not my intent to upset you or cause you to resort to name calling and profanity. I do hope you will forgive me for not being clearer in my earlier posts.......
Southswede is offline  
Old 04-26-2012, 19:23   #232
unit1069
Senior Member
 
unit1069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: So. Central US
Posts: 8,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1canvas View Post
I see that often where speed is king and not many seem to concider bullet perfomance. people often compare expansion where one bullet expands to .80 and the other at .60 but not concidering the .80 is thin as a dime and can fall apart but the .60 has a good mushroom profile and penetrates well. I too agree that proper bullet perfomance is what is most important and speed being second.
I totally agree, and the conundrum is that sometimes there's needless disagreement or argument. What to do when the ammos being compared both meet the minimum FBI penetration protocol?

While I've never shot any 147-grain 9mm ammo in my 9mm pistols I do understand that the heavy-for-caliber bullets have vastly improved over time right along with the light-for-caliber bullets.

Anybody can evaluate things for themselves by watching tnoutdoors' backyard tests of the 115-grain Speer Gold Dot and the 147-grain HST videos, both rounds standard pressure 9mm loads.

The Gold Dot only expanded to .517 average but penetrated 17+ inches. (Penetration is king, right, with the added advantage of bonded/barrier penetration)

The HST expanded to .664 average while penetrating 13+ inches. (Larger wound track with FBI minimum penetration achieved)

So who's to judge which is better where there's no real world way to compare these two performing rounds except the individual him/herself?
__________________
Rocket Scientist
unit1069 is offline  
Old 04-26-2012, 19:38   #233
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit1069 View Post
I totally agree, and the conundrum is that sometimes there's needless disagreement or argument. What to do when the ammos being compared both meet the minimum FBI penetration protocol?
Honestly? Flip a coin. Or go by logistics. If the local store has Gold Dots at a good price and you can't find HST's anywhere, get the GD's. Still have some Ranger T's laying around from the days you got paid to shoot them? Go with the Rangers, assuming they don't have green mold growing on them.

There are some very slight differences in the current stuff. 147's leave short barrels at about the same speed as long barrels, so there is no velocity loss to speak of. 124 +P's penetrate as dep as the 147's but go faster out of longer barrels, so the extra 200 fps probably wouldn't be bad thing.
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline  
Old 04-26-2012, 23:43   #234
Tiro Fijo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southswede View Post
Please show me ANYWHERE I did what you say I did. Talk about looking silly with a total lack of reading comprehension skills!!!

I see you clearly don't get it.

Put him on your Ignore List and avoid his incoherent rambling.
Tiro Fijo is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 03:52   #235
Southswede
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
Put him on your Ignore List and avoid his incoherent rambling.
Southswede is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 04:37   #236
Merkavaboy
Code-7A KUZ769
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In The State Of Fruitloops (CA)
Posts: 5,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
Your body doesn't "run on adrenaline", it runs on blood. Blood that continued to be pumped by his heart which was not reached by the bullet, because it didn't penetrate as far as a modern bullet would. Face it, the guy was popped in the 10 ring, and lived on to kill because the bullet didn't go as far as it would if a better constructed bullet had been used. The funny thing is, had the same bullet been used at a higher velocity, it would have penetrated even less and things could have been worse. That same bullet at higher speed is the Winchester 115 +P+ that has great "street cred". Well here was a street, and that bullet was discredited.

You blame that on "tacitcs", but when the FBI increased it's tactical position by picking better ammo, you criticize that.
Perfected the craft of Divination, eh? Or have you been gifted by the gods with the art of being omniscient?

What you have posted is all mere personal opinion and speculation on your part. There is absolutely no way that anyone can intelligently proclaim with 100% certainty that ANY handgun bullet, be it different caliber, slower, faster, heavier, bonded etc., would have had any different results than that one single 115STHP, if it were fired from the exact same distance, angle, atmospheric conditions, etc.

You are dealing in mere speculation when you state that a "better constructed bullet" would have resulted in a different outcome. It may have made a difference, then again, it may not have. We don't (and will never) know.

I think one thing we can ALL agree upon is that the Win 115STHP, in the '86 FBI incident, was a One Shot Stop failure. But come on, who really believes in OSS's? Those who blame the 9mm 115gr Silvertip Hollow Point for its "failure" to stop Platt with one single bullet.
__________________
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze....attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Barack Obama
One Bad Ass Mistake America
Merkavaboy is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 05:10   #237
Merkavaboy
Code-7A KUZ769
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In The State Of Fruitloops (CA)
Posts: 5,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3000fps View Post
Everyone also seems to forget the mass amounts of cattle that were lined up and shot with various calibers.

The cows that died the fastest were shot with .45

That is why the 45 ACP was chose.

It sounds cruel, but that is cold hard facts.

The cows that were shot with 9mm had to be killed with a hammer.
Let us not forget that cows are not human beings, and human beings are not cows!

And in case if no one told you, the purpose for the use of a firearm for legitimate SD is NOT to KILL one's attacker, but to immediately STOP the attacker from causing great bodily harm or death, with the least amount of shots fired and with ammo that is least likely to overpenetrate and cause harm to innocents who may be downrange of your gun muzzle.

The Thompson-LaGarde tests of 1904 were conducted for military purposes and has nothing to do with modern bullet designs for LE or civilian SD use.
__________________
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze....attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Barack Obama
One Bad Ass Mistake America
Merkavaboy is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 05:47   #238
Merkavaboy
Code-7A KUZ769
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In The State Of Fruitloops (CA)
Posts: 5,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
But it DID go through his arm. That's the point. Because things like that happen and are maybe even likely, it is smart to have ammunition that is up to the job.

So, if the FBI had been using say a Golden Sabre, Ranger T etc and the shot had not hit the arm, what would have been the downside? There would have been an expanded bullet at high velocity tearing through his heart either way.
Let me ask you, if that one single 115STHP had not hit the arm, what would have been the downside?

The answer would be: "There would have been an expanded bullet at high velocity tearing through his heart either way."

But guess what; neither of those bullet designs were in existance back in 1986.

Completely moot argument on your part.
__________________
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze....attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Barack Obama
One Bad Ass Mistake America

Last edited by Merkavaboy; 04-27-2012 at 05:53..
Merkavaboy is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 05:50   #239
PersonOfInterest
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&P Shooter View Post
You guys are killing me with these stories
Right so a credible article with pictures from a crime scene is just a story - but a video showing guys shooting plywood is so much more credible? oh lets not forget the video you made a thread out of some fat guys (who look the type of guys im sure you got most of your ballistic knowledge from who are on leave from the special forces and fill in time at your local gun shop talking war stories) shooting up mud in tubs with a .45 to somehow show its more effective than the 9mm - somehow these 2 videos are gospel to you and you just wont believe that its possible that a human being can survive taking bullets from a .45 and continue fighting?
Ok - just clarifying that and summing up what ive read from you in the past, honestly your off with the fairies.
But once again thanks for the laugh.
PersonOfInterest is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 08:00   #240
M&P Shooter
Metal Member
 
M&P Shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 10,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonOfInterest View Post
But once again thanks for the laugh.
No thank you, for the abs
__________________
I walk through the valley of the shadow of death but it's cool because my Glock 23 is loaded with 180gr HST!

Last edited by M&P Shooter; 04-27-2012 at 08:03..
M&P Shooter is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 10:47   #241
James Dean
Senior Member
 
James Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 2,056
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
The point, which you try to hide by acting stupid, is that a better bullet would have helped by penetrating the heart. That better bullet exists today. Even you agree that a modern, well constructed bullet is better and since they exist today, there is no point in us not now using them. That's all I was trying to say. The a 2012 Corvette performs better than the 1986 Corvette. And since we have a choice of either one, we should use the 2012.

The point isn't to criticize whoever it was at FBI that selected lightweight, fast moving, fragile bullets. They did what they thought was best at the time. At that time, the prevailing theories were that light, fast, fragile bullets worked best. But, now we know better. And to keep advocating the use of a bullet that has been rendered obsolete over 20 years ago is silly.
The 1968/ 1969 L-88 Corvette. Now thats a bad *** Corvette.
__________________
N.R.A
G.S.S.F
Certified Glock Armorer
James Dean is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 17:13   #242
Southswede
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkavaboy View Post
Let me ask you, if that one single 115STHP had not hit the arm, what would have been the downside?

The answer would be: "There would have been an expanded bullet at high velocity tearing through his heart either way."

But guess what; neither of those bullet designs were in existance back in 1986.

Completely moot argument on your part.
Careful...you'll be called a troll!
Southswede is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 18:25   #243
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkavaboy View Post
Let me ask you, if that one single 115STHP had not hit the arm, what would have been the downside?

The answer would be: "There would have been an expanded bullet at high velocity tearing through his heart either way."

But guess what; neither of those bullet designs were in existance back in 1986.

Completely moot argument on your part.
No, it's not. I'm not saying the FBI should have had different ammo, I'm saying that better ammo would have yielded better results.

What is moot is your question about what if the bullet didn't hit the arm. It is moot because the bullet DID hit the arm and it is not like it is some kind of freak circumstances, things like that happen often.

So, to be better prepared for future events, the feds, and nearly all LE, use better bullets that some on here object to.
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 18:27   #244
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Dean View Post
The 1968/ 1969 L-88 Corvette. Now thats a bad *** Corvette.
Cough...cough...Hemi..cough..cough...
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 18:37   #245
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkavaboy View Post
Perfected the craft of Divination, eh? Or have you been gifted by the gods with the art of being omniscient?

What you have posted is all mere personal opinion and speculation on your part. There is absolutely no way that anyone can intelligently proclaim with 100% certainty that ANY handgun bullet, be it different caliber, slower, faster, heavier, bonded etc., would have had any different results than that one single 115STHP, if it were fired from the exact same distance, angle, atmospheric conditions, etc.

You are dealing in mere speculation when you state that a "better constructed bullet" would have resulted in a different outcome. It may have made a difference, then again, it may not have. We don't (and will never) know.

I think one thing we can ALL agree upon is that the Win 115STHP, in the '86 FBI incident, was a One Shot Stop failure. But come on, who really believes in OSS's? Those who blame the 9mm 115gr Silvertip Hollow Point for its "failure" to stop Platt with one single bullet.

There are so many straw men in there I don't know where to start. What you call speculation could be applied to anything we do. How do you know your body armor is going to stop a bullet, so why wear it? How do you know the primers in your ammo are going to work ( better disassemble each primer and test the compound inside it)? How do you know Bernoulli's Principle will be in effect when your plane finishes it's take off roll, maybe you shouldn't rotate the nose at the end of the runway?

You use the appropriate gear and rely on science as best you can. The better bullets penetrate further. The FBi, and others looked at the exact shot in question and figured out how much penetration would have solved the Miami problem. That ammo was developed, has been in use for over 20 years, and it simply would have reached the heart just like the wing on your airplane will provide lift.


Skip the OSS nonsense since I clearly stated earlier that I find nothing credible about the people that published that "data".
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 18:39   #246
fredj338
Senior Member
 
fredj338's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: so.cal.
Posts: 21,140
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
What is moot is your question about what if the bullet didn't hit the arm. It is moot because the bullet DID hit the arm and it is not like it is some kind of freak circumstances, things like that happen often.

So, to be better prepared for future events, the feds, and nearly all LE, use better bullets that some on here object to.
I agree, that kind of is the point. If you never encounter intermediate barriers, then yo ucan get by w/ much less penetration. That is not realistic though is it. So having more penetration is better. having more penetration w/ some larger forntal are is better still. When choosing a 9mm for SSD, it better get you both if you both if you want the fight to end soioner than later IMO.
__________________
"Given adequate penetration, a larger diameter bullet will have an edge in wounding effectiveness. It will damage a blood vessel the smaller projectile barely misses. The larger permanent cavity may lead to faster blood loss. Although such an edge clearly exists, its significance cannot be quantified".
fredj338 is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 18:46   #247
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiro Fijo View Post
Put him on your Ignore List and avoid his incoherent rambling.
Please do.
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 19:02   #248
Merkavaboy
Code-7A KUZ769
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In The State Of Fruitloops (CA)
Posts: 5,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
No, it's not. I'm not saying the FBI should have had different ammo, I'm saying that better ammo would have yielded better results.

What is moot is your question about what if the bullet didn't hit the arm. It is moot because the bullet DID hit the arm and it is not like it is some kind of freak circumstances, things like that happen often.

So, to be better prepared for future events, the feds, and nearly all LE, use better bullets that some on here object to.
WiskyT, I was just using your own words against you, but you failed to realize that.

Let's pretend that the FBI had been using the .40/180JHP subsonic that faithful day. Would the same shot from the same distance and same angle, and striking Platt's arm at the same exact spot, cause a quicker incapacatation of Platt? Maybe, maybe not. It's all conjecture at this point. We can't call a "Mulligan" and do it over again.

There is absolutely no argument that bullet design has advanced in leaps and bounds in over 25 years since the FBI incident.

The problem remains that the FBI chose to make the 9mm caliber and the STHP in particular their Scapegoat for all that happened. Question is, if it had been the .45/185STHP or even the .40/180JHP (if it existed back in '86), and that one single shot had the exact same results, would the FBI had blamed that specific round too?

No handgun caliber/bullet/load choice is 100% reliable, especially when involving one single shot to the torso. Even multiple bullets on target is no guarantee to stop a determined attacker.
__________________
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze....attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Barack Obama
One Bad Ass Mistake America
Merkavaboy is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 19:09   #249
WiskyT
Malcontent
 
WiskyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkavaboy View Post
WiskyT, I was just using your own words against you, but you failed to realize that.

Let's pretend that the FBI had been using the .40/180JHP subsonic that faithful day. Would the same shot from the same distance and same angle, and striking Platt's arm at the same exact spot, cause a quicker incapacatation of Platt? Maybe, maybe not. It's all conjecture at this point. We can't call a "Mulligan" and do it over again.

There is absolutely no argument that bullet design has advanced in leaps and bounds in over 25 years since the FBI incident.

The problem remains that the FBI chose to make the 9mm caliber and the STHP in particular their Scapegoat for all that happened. Question is, if it had been the .45/185STHP or even the .40/180JHP (if it existed back in '86), and that one single shot had the exact same results, would the FBI had blamed that specific round too?

No handgun caliber/bullet/load choice is 100% reliable, especially when involving one single shot to the torso. Even multiple bullets on target is no guarantee to stop a determined attacker.
They didn't make the 9mm and 115STHP a scapegoat, they still use 9mm to this day. What they did was identify a shortcoming, determine a solution, and get the ammo companies to implement the fix. That is not scapegoating. OTHERS may have done some scapegoating, but I don't remember any being done by the FBI.
__________________
Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck.
Eric Cartman


"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."-General Curtis E. LeMay
WiskyT is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 19:10   #250
Southswede
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiskyT View Post
No, it's not. I'm not saying the FBI should have had different ammo, I'm saying that better ammo would have yielded better results.

What is moot is your question about what if the bullet didn't hit the arm. It is moot because the bullet DID hit the arm and it is not like it is some kind of freak circumstances, things like that happen often.

So, to be better prepared for future events, the feds, and nearly all LE, use better bullets that some on here object to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkavaboy View Post
WiskyT, I was just using your own words against you, but you failed to realize that.

Let's pretend that the FBI had been using the .40/180JHP subsonic that faithful day. Would the same shot from the same distance and same angle, and striking Platt's arm at the same exact spot, cause a quicker incapacatation of Platt? Maybe, maybe not. It's all conjecture at this point. We can't call a "Mulligan" and do it over again.

There is absolutely no argument that bullet design has advanced in leaps and bounds in over 25 years since the FBI incident.

The problem remains that the FBI chose to make the 9mm caliber and the STHP in particular their Scapegoat for all that happened. Question is, if it had been the .45/185STHP or even the .40/180JHP (if it existed back in '86), and that one single shot had the exact same results, would the FBI had blamed that specific round too?

No handgun caliber/bullet/load choice is 100% reliable, especially when involving one single shot to the torso. Even multiple bullets on target is no guarantee to stop a determined attacker.

And he will be back tomorrow to contradict himself again.
Southswede is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:20.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 740
203 Members
537 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42