Single stack vs single stack?

Discussion of handguns

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby jshuberg on Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:11 pm

MNGunGuy wrote:That's a good read but you have to keep in mind the report is 24 years old. Rounds have come a long way in that time and I'd guess a lot of ground has been covered to get rounds to reliably expand since then.

Do you have a more recent source that comes to a different conclusion? Everything I've read concerning ballistics reinforces these conclusions.

I'm sure ammo manufacturers would like people to believe that their bullets perform flawlessly, but it's not true. There are just way too many factors that can cause a bullet to fail to expand. If they compensate for one condition, they'll likely introduce another. Everything is a trade off and there are no "magic bullets", forgive the pun. If a bullet strikes bone and deforms, or if there is insufficient tissue depth to cause expansion before the round enters a lung, or if the channel is clogged or blocked preventing tissue from entering, its simply not going to expand - it's just physics.
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Personal Protection In The Home Instructor
NRA Life Member
MCPPA Certified Instructor
Gulf War Veteran
User avatar
jshuberg
 
Posts: 1983 [View]
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:35 pm

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby FJ540 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:48 am

This is in no way an endorsement of the technical qualities of either round, but the first few minutes of this is concurrent with my own experimentation:



It's funny, he mentions "for those still watching" and then makes it too boring to continue. As such, I have no idea what he did for the last 7 minutes. :lol:
User avatar
FJ540
 
Posts: 6836 [View]
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:44 pm
Location: Rock Ridge

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby XDM45 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:07 am

goalie wrote:
XDM45 wrote:
goalie wrote:You guys crack me up.

The military doesn't field handguns as offensive weapons. They are what they are: something to help you fight to a rifle.


Is it legal to carry an long rifle in MN in public? Last I checked, it wasn't. I have a feeling it if was legal, you'd see some mighty odd people with limps walking abound as they tried to CC their AR-15, because OCing is evil dontyaknow. ;)

Seriously though, chances are MUCH better that I'll have access to a pistol before I have access to a rifle unless I were to never leave the house. Now maybe some people on here drive around with an AR-15 in their vehicle, or maybe they are agoraphobic, and while both are odd in my book, bot to each their own.


The post was in reply to a comment about the MILITARY'S choice of handgun.

In the military, handguns are what they are: something to help you fight to a rifle.


I'm not in the military, thus it's not relevant to me directly, and I can't legally carry a long rifle in public in MN, but I can a pistol. That was my point.
Gnothi Seauton
User avatar
XDM45
 
Posts: 2904 [View]
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:01 am
Location: Minneapolis/Saint Paul, MN

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby XDM45 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:11 am

jshuberg wrote:
MasonK wrote:I have yet to see any JHPs of any caliber fail to expand inside ballistics gel through denim and there is only one YouTube video I've ever seen where a JHP failed to expand when shot at a pig cadaver; oddly enough, that round was the Hornaday Critical Defence.

Ballistic gelatin is actually a very poor analog to the human body. The body contains bones, cartilage, varying densities and concentrations of fluid, and air cavities - all things that gelatin does not. A pig carcass is a much better analog to the human body, but still not perfect. The reality is that hollow point rounds fail to expand in human tissue 30-40% of the time.

FBI: Handgun wounding factors and effectiveness wrote: Handgun bullets expand in the human target only 60-70% of the time at best. Damage to the hollow point by hitting bone, glass, or other intervening obstacles can prevent expansion. Clothing fibers can wrap the nose of the bullet in a cocoon like manner and prevent expansion. Insufficient impact velocity caused by short barrels and/or longer range will prevent expansion, as will simple manufacturing variations. Expansion must never be the basis for bullet selection, but considered a bonus when, and if, it occurs. Bullet selection should be determined based on penetration first, and the unexpanded diameter of the bullet second, as that is all the shooter can reliably expect.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

If a pig carcass were a perfect analog of the human body, and shot placement in the carcass performed the same as an upper center mass hit, you would expect to see a 30-40% rate of failure to expand.

Also, the reason that denim is used by bullet manufacturers in testing is that bullets tend to go through denim like a hot knife through butter. I'm not exactly sure why, probably because of the size of the cotton fibers, how they're wove together, etc. Almost all hollow point bullets can penetrate denim with very little loss of penetration, and then exhibit proper expansion in gel. A Navy pea coat behaves the opposite way, it tends to prevent expansion in gel more often than not as the fibers clog the bullet channel. Natural vs. man-made fibers, how they're wove, leather or suede, the thickness, etc. are all going to have different effects on a bullet that passes through it.

As the FBI recommends, bullet selection should be based on penetration first, diameter second, and only then should the expanding quality of a round be considered. All of the ballistic tests done by bullet manufacturers that demonstrate a large permanent wound cavity in gel should be taken with a grain of salt, as there is a very good chance that the bullet will simply fail to expand properly in human tissue. Also, the size of the permanent wound cavity only has an effect on the amount of blood loss, which is *not* a factor in the rounds ability to immediately stop the threat.

Take the case of MSG Roy Benavidez, in a single 6 hour incident in Vietnam he was shot 37 times, took grenade fragments to his back, was clubbed in the face with the butt of a rifle, and bayoneted across the abdomen. Not only was he able to survive these wounds while continuing to engage the enemy, but actually carried other team members while in this condition to an evac helocopter while holding his intestines in with his other hand. When his unit discovered years later that he had survived his wounds, he was nominated for and awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Reagan. While extremely unusual, this shows that a persons body can suffer considerable tissue damage and loss of blood and still remain in the fight for a significant period of time.
http://www.psywarrior.com/benavidez.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oUtJxE4sjs

All the experts agree that the ability to stop a threat with a handgun round is more about placement of the round than any other factors, including caliber or expansion.


Then I think it's time to forget about center of mass and start training for headshots ala "The Walking Dead".
Gnothi Seauton
User avatar
XDM45
 
Posts: 2904 [View]
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:01 am
Location: Minneapolis/Saint Paul, MN

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby darkwolf45 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:24 am

At which point the prosecution will hit you hard on the fact that you were shooting to kill, not to stop the threat.
darkwolf45
Banned
 
Posts: 257 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:07 pm

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby Evad on Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:51 am

darkwolf45 wrote:At which point the prosecution will hit you hard on the fact that you were shooting to kill, not to stop the threat.



Zombies are already dead, moot point.
Evad
 
Posts: 1054 [View]
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:21 am

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby MasonK on Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:08 am

darkwolf45 wrote:At which point the prosecution will hit you hard on the fact that you were shooting to kill, not to stop the threat.


I don't think that XD45 is off base. This interview with Sgt. Bob Stasch (CPD) reinforces that idea. He trained for head shots after he and his partner hit a man about 37 times at point-blank with everything from .38 to .44 Magnum and he still nearly killed his partner.

100% hit ratio, most on vital organs. After that, they trained for head shots.

http://proarmspodcast.com/2010/05/23/052-interview-with-bob-stasch-of-the-chicago-police-department/
MasonK
 
Posts: 273 [View]
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby darkwolf45 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:18 am

MasonK wrote:
darkwolf45 wrote:At which point the prosecution will hit you hard on the fact that you were shooting to kill, not to stop the threat.


I don't think that XD45 is off base. This interview with Sgt. Bob Stasch (CPD) reinforces that idea. He trained for head shots after he and his partner hit a man about 37 times at point-blank with everything from .38 to .44 Magnum and he still nearly killed his partner.

100% hit ratio, most on vital organs. After that, they trained for head shots.

http://proarmspodcast.com/2010/05/23/052-interview-with-bob-stasch-of-the-chicago-police-department/


Believe it or not, I actually agree. However, I seriously doubt the prosecution will let it go at that. They will simply push an appeal of emotion to the jury that you obviously only meant to kill the person, not stop the threat because you went immediately for the head shot. Situaional awareness is more than an immediate survey of the person trying to do you harm. You also need to be fully aware of everything that can go wrong when it comes time to defend yourself in court.

Me personally, inintend to at least try to shoot center mass if the need arises and train for that. Each sucessive shot will move up though if the attacker keeps coming.
darkwolf45
Banned
 
Posts: 257 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:07 pm

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby Tronster on Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:20 am

In SD the only shots that count are hits.

The only hits that count are accurate hits.

If im more accurate and faster with a 9 than a 45 in a given pistol size then im going with the 9 regardless of any perceived notions about its effectiveness.
Tronster
 
Posts: 552 [View]
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:07 pm
Location: Rochester

Single stack vs single stack?

Postby jshuberg on Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:37 am

darkwolf45 wrote:At which point the prosecution will hit you hard on the fact that you were shooting to kill, not to stop the threat.

I've heard this stated many times, but I don't think it's true. If a person is legally authorized to defend themself with lethal force, why would shooting to destroy the brain be any different than shooting to destroy the heart or other internal organs? If lethal force is authorized, then lethal force is authorized. Does anyone know of any court cases anywhere in the country where this argument was actually made?

The reason the head is considered a secondary target is that it is smaller, and potentially a more moving target than center mass. If you miss center mass, you're likely to hit a shoulder, belly etc. where if you miss the head you hit poor little Sally on her tricycle.

Many law enforcement agencies train on the Mozambique Drill, or failure to stop drill. This is to place 2 shots to upper center mass, assess, and then place 1 head shot if the threat remains. This would be very difficult to do under stress, and requires training, but I don't believe that it would expose a person to additional legal risks considering the technique has/is taught to law enforcement as a way of stopping a threat.

I'm not a lawyer though, so blah blah blah....
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Personal Protection In The Home Instructor
NRA Life Member
MCPPA Certified Instructor
Gulf War Veteran
User avatar
jshuberg
 
Posts: 1983 [View]
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:35 pm

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby xd ED on Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:42 am

Tronster wrote:In SD the only shots that count are hits.

The only hits that count are accurate hits.

If im more accurate and faster with a 9 than a 45 in a given pistol size then im going with the 9 regardless of any perceived notions about its effectiveness.



If one listens to the above linked interview, the gunfight was stopped when the police officer, aiming for the pelvis- hit the badguy in the knee.
Not accurate, but ultimately effective.
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9195 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby MasonK on Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:48 am

Tronster wrote:In SD the only shots that count are hits.

The only hits that count are accurate hits.

If im more accurate and faster with a 9 than a 45 in a given pistol size then im going with the 9 regardless of any perceived notions about its effectiveness.


And this is why I went from .44 to 9mm.

While I was much more precise with my .44 Magnum, that was only on first shot; follow up shots got exponentially less accurate in stress/speed fire drills. With my 9mm, I don't get all rounds in the same hole, but they are all high center mass, in about half the time. If you can do that with a 1911, more power to you, but I personally find the opportunity cost of higher capacity to outweigh the bigger bullets, especially when carrying a compact firearm.
MasonK
 
Posts: 273 [View]
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby MasonK on Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:56 am

xd ED wrote:
Tronster wrote:In SD the only shots that count are hits.

The only hits that count are accurate hits.

If im more accurate and faster with a 9 than a 45 in a given pistol size then im going with the 9 regardless of any perceived notions about its effectiveness.



If one listens to the above linked interview, the gunfight was stopped when the police officer, aiming for the pelvis- hit the badguy in the knee.
Not accurate, but ultimately effective.


To me, the scariest part of that story was that the bad guy was NOT on drugs, and there was almost no alcohol in his system.

And yes, what ultimately stopped the threat was that he could not longer advance on the officers because he had been shot in the knee, but he was still very much alive for about two weeks after the shooting. That guy was a machine.
MasonK
 
Posts: 273 [View]
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby xd ED on Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:05 am

MasonK wrote:
xd ED wrote:
Tronster wrote:In SD the only shots that count are hits.

The only hits that count are accurate hits.

If im more accurate and faster with a 9 than a 45 in a given pistol size then im going with the 9 regardless of any perceived notions about its effectiveness.



If one listens to the above linked interview, the gunfight was stopped when the police officer, aiming for the pelvis- hit the badguy in the knee.
Not accurate, but ultimately effective.


To me, the scariest part of that story was that the bad guy was NOT on drugs, and there was almost no alcohol in his system.

And yes, what ultimately stopped the threat was that he could not longer advance on the officers because he had been shot in the knee, but he was still very much alive for about two weeks after the shooting. That guy was a machine.


Are you certain about the toxicology?
Not saying your wrong, I've been listening, somewhat inattentively, and apparently missed that. I assumed he was on heroine, pcp or some such thing.
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9195 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Single stack vs single stack?

Postby MNGunGuy on Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:24 am

jshuberg wrote:
MNGunGuy wrote:That's a good read but you have to keep in mind the report is 24 years old. Rounds have come a long way in that time and I'd guess a lot of ground has been covered to get rounds to reliably expand since then.

Do you have a more recent source that comes to a different conclusion? Everything I've read concerning ballistics reinforces these conclusions.

Nope, and I'm not disputing the facts from 24 years ago don't somehow still apply today. I'm simply saying you are quoting facts from 24 years ago that may be somewhat outdated.

I'm sure ammo manufacturers would like people to believe that their bullets perform flawlessly, but it's not true. There are just way too many factors that can cause a bullet to fail to expand. If they compensate for one condition, they'll likely introduce another. Everything is a trade off and there are no "magic bullets", forgive the pun. If a bullet strikes bone and deforms, or if there is insufficient tissue depth to cause expansion before the round enters a lung, or if the channel is clogged or blocked preventing tissue from entering, its simply not going to expand - it's just physics.

Physics is easily worked around. You see companies doing it all the time through advancements in materials, coatings and construction. I'm sure there's give and take with design changes, there is with most anything. My point remains that it's my opinion that technology in the last 2.5 decades has allowed ammunition manufactures to address some of those issues around expansion and penetration in less then ideal circumstances.
User avatar
MNGunGuy
 
Posts: 394 [View]
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:18 pm
Location: Woodbury, MN

PreviousNext

Return to Handguns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron