Submachineguns

[JasonC]

Yes I know what he was saying, I am saying it is transparent balderdash. The city mice he doesn't like are not namby-pambys. The country mice he likes are not ogres. It is just prejudice. And you can shoot anybody you like with pistol caliber ammo (especially from automatics that tend to hit several times) and he will probably discover more important things to do.

[Mr. Tittles]

Actually the city mice are probably larger than the siberian mice. Has nothing to do with size but rather sheer physical toughness. Its like shooting at a pony or a mule.

[JasonC]

No, it is like shooting a human being or a human being. If you hit one in a lung or the aorta, it really doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether his hands are rough or smooth. It is balderdash.

[Tank Ace]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

While the Thompson was generally a good weapon, the muzzle had a very strong tendency to climb. This is frequently a problem with all hand-held automatic weapons, but due to the rather more extreme location of the Thompson's stock in relation to the barrel's axis, it was worse than most.

Michael

Actually its enormous weight reduced the muzzle climb.

[Mr. Tittles]

But in terms of the mechanisms of wound dynamics, rifle bullets and pistol bullets are both bullets, and function in pretty much the same way. The stopping power of pistol loads and the killing power of rifle loads are both based on a combination of the temporary stretch cavity and the permanent crush cavity produced by the bullet as it traverses the target. Any theory that ignores either of these factors will give erroneous results. Ignore the temporary stretch cavity and your results will favor big caliber bullets. Ignore the crush cavity and your results will favor high velocity, nearly explosive bullets. Both results will be incorrect.

\

http://www.chuckhawks.com/beginners_stopping_power.htm

Stretching? crushing? Sounds like that meat needs to be tender.

[JasonC]

Colonel R.E. Sullivan, USMC, 1943-1967, retired, commenting on the M-1 carbine -

"One thing about bullets, impact, weight, muzzle velocity etc. that afficionados of weapons take so seriously: My experience, on many battlefields, is that if you get a head shot or a penetrating wound to the body cavity, it takes the spirit of the bayonet plumb out of the individual you're shooting at."

In other words, all the minutae of wound dynamics - let alone of imaginary personnel differences - didn't matter a tinker's damn. The only thing that matters is whether a bullet hits you, and if so where. Carbine or not, SMG or not, country mouse or not. A sucking chest wound is nature's way of telling you to slow down.

[Mr. Tittles]

M1 Carbine is not a SMG round but even that quote shows that penetrating is a factor.

So a 16 year old Berlin schoolboy that weighs 138 pounds is the same as a 170 pound man that has a laborers build?

I just read a report on self inflicted wounds that remarked on how an army boot (leather) reduced the wounding from pistol ammo.

This is not a matter of city people being inferior to country folk. Its a matter of the human target not being the same for people in different physical condition. For head wounds, it does not make that much of a difference. For Body hits, it does. If the outer layers of skin and muscle are tougher/thicker, then penetrating internal damage is reduced.

I suspect JasonC is from a city and therefore is compelled to deflate this. What city was recently named number 1 in out of shape citizens in the US? (my city was named number 1 in fit citizens by the way).

[JasonC]

I'm a marathoner and I weigh 180 lbs. Do I therefore work on a farm in Iowa? No. It is ridiculous prejudiced nonsense and I can't believe anyone with the least pretence of an engineer's attitude is still trying to defend it. I will leave you to it.

[Mr. Tittles]

Just because JasonC may be in shape does not make the fact that the typical person from Chicago is not a porker. The exception does not counter-act the data.

On another note; The Windy-City nick name comes from not the weather in Chicago, but the long windedness about the Chicagoan while talking.

But anyway, I do not hear JasonC continue to back up his 'human-targets are human-targets no matter what' theory.

An interesting fact is body builders (those that train so to exagerate muscles for posing), have a physical liability when subjected to battle damage. Not only are they a liability on long marches (they need so much food/energy) but when hit, they can experience a wierd reaction that depletes their bodies of electrolytes. They then go into shock and croak. This is from wounds that would not be fatal if given routine battlefield attention.

The ideal body form is not too tall, tough like a mule without excessive bulk/muscle, high tolerance for pain/exertion, quickness and fast recuperation from exertion. If the weather is hot, men will quickly develop this bodyform.

Pistol ammunition at battlefield ranges (50-100 meters) is comparitively less lethal than rifle bullets. Heavy clothing, ammunition carried, web gear, etc. reduce the effectiveness and so does thicker/tougher muscle. Its a physical fact, I will not get caught up in JasonC's deflections.

I can accept that the vast majority of siberian troops from rural areas were physically tougher than troops from russian cities (don't the russians have a butter festival or something like that?). Its not all that farfetched or politically incorrect. Its not saying that some workers from the cities were not blacksmiths, carpenters, etc. But when trawling in units from schools, etc. you will land some puddinpops.

[stikkypixie]

Jeez, a bullet will put you out of action. The effect will vary from person to person, but you will be out of action. There is a comparison made between a SMG hit and being hit with a sledgehammer.

[Mr. Tittles]

Soon is not soon enough in a close firefight. Men are pumped during close combat and many do not notice wounds till later.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Soon is not soon enough in a close firefight. Men are pumped during close combat and many do not notice wounds till later.

Are you seriously telling me that i wouldn't notice a 7.62mm in my body (at least were it enters)??? You may not notice that you are hit at first, but the second you try to do something, you'll know it for sure.

[JasonC]

Tittles should peddle his "people from rural hot climates don't care if they are shot, so long as it is a pistol" horsefeathers in the Congo, the other place on earth you will find idiots who still think some human beings are magically immune to bullets. Since he likes ad hominums, perhaps he'd volunteer to be shot in the chest by a .22. No? Why not? Tiny muzzle energy, should shrug it right off, no?

[Mr. Tittles]

22 short or long? As long as I get to shoot back with a Garand or throw a grenade, maybe I am game.

Again, the real issue is 'Are all human targets the same?'. The answer is 'Depends on what the projectile is and what physical shape the human is in'. Given the proximity a SMG entails, and the pistol ammunition it fires, it is a real issue.

JasonC can cry foul if he wants, but I will stick to the real issue.

I have been in physical altercations where I did not even notice a broken bone. Another altercation where I had a severe laceration was noticed when it squirted at me. I was once in a car wreck and did not notice a severe cut to my body till it was pointed out. If you have ever been pumped on adrenaline you would know.

I think that JasonC might confuse his own opinions with some sort of data. Many people see pistol wounds that occur from crime scenes. These are nearly point blank wounds.

[Mr. Tittles]

Hello and thanks for stopping in. This site is

gun neutral.

W-A-R-N-I-N-G * * * * * * D-A-N-G-E-R

.................................................

.Guns can be deadly and must be used with care. .

. .

.Any user of the information on this site agrees.

.to be responsible for any and all results. .

. .

.If you do not agree to that, please E-X-I-T now.

.................................................

I found the following paper to be excellent.

..........

U.S. Department of Justice

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

Special Agent UREY W. PATRICK

Firearms Training Unit

FBI Academy

Quantico, Virginia

July 14, 1989

Forward

The selection of effective handgun ammunition

for law enforcement is a critical and complex

issue. It is critical because of that which is

at stake when an officer is required to use his

handgun to protect his own life or that of

another. It is complex because of the target,

a human being, is amazingly endurable and

capable of sustaining phenomenal punishment

while persisting in a determined course of

action. The issue is made even more complex by

the dearth of credible research and the wealth

of uninformed opinion regarding what is commonly

referred to as "stopping power".

In reality, few people have conducted relevant

research in this area, and fewer still have

produced credible information that is useful for

law enforcement agencies in making informed

decisions.

This article brings together what is believed to

be the most credible information regarding wound

ballistics. It cuts through the haze and

confusion, and provides common-sense,

scientifically supportable, principles by which

the effectiveness of law enforcement ammunition

may be measured. It is written clearly and

concisely. The content is credible and practical.

The information contained in this article is not

offered as the final word on wound ballistics.

It is, however, an important contribution to

what should be an ongoing discussion of this

most important of issues.

John C. Hall

Unit Chief

Firearms Training Unit

[Footnotes are shown as (1) (2)....]

------------

Introduction

The handgun is the primary weapon in law

enforcement. It is the one weapon any officer or

agent can be expected to have available whenever

needed. Its purpose is to apply deadly force to

not only protect the life of the officer and the

lives of others, but to prevent serious physical

harm to them as well.(1) When an officer shoots

a subject, it is done with the explicit

intention of immediately incapacitating that

subject in order to stop whatever threat to life

or physical safety is posed by the subject.

Immediate incapacitation is defined as the

sudden (2) physical or mental inability to pose

any further risk or injury to others.

The concept of immediate incapacitation is the

only goal of any law enforcement shooting and is

the underlying rationale for decisions regarding

weapons, ammunition, calibers and training.

While this concept is subject to conflicting

theories, widely held misconceptions, and varied

opinions generally distorted by personal

experiences, it is critical to the analysis and

selection of weapons, ammunition and calibers

for use by law enforcement officers.(3,4)

Tactical Realities

Shot placement is an important, and often cited,

consideration regarding the suitability of

weapons and ammunition. However, considerations

of caliber are equally important and cannot be

ignored. For example, a bullet through the

central nervous system with any caliber of

ammunition is likely to be immediately

incapacitating.(5) Even a .22 rimfire

penetrating the brain will cause immediate

incapacitation in most cases. Obviously, this

does not mean the law enforcement agency should

issue .22 rimfires and train for head shots as

the primary target. The realities of shooting

incidents prohibit such a solution.

Few, if any, shooting incidents will present the

officer with an opportunity to take a careful,

precisely aimed shot at the subjects head.

Rather, shootings are characterized by their

sudden, unexpected occurrence; by rapid and

unpredictable movement of both officer and

adversary; by limited and partial target

opportunities; by poor light and unforeseen

obstacles; and by the life or death stress of

sudden, close, personal violence. Training is

quite properly oriented towards "center of mass"

shooting. That is to say, the officer is trained

to shoot at the center of whatever is presented

for a target. Proper shot placement is a hit in

the center of that part of the adversary which

is presented, regardless of anatomy or angle.

A review of law enforcement shootings clearly

suggests that regardless of the number of rounds

fired in a shooting, most of the time only one

or two solid torso hits on the adversary can be

expected. This expectation is realistic because

of the nature of shooting incidents and the

extreme difficulty of shooting a handgun with

precision under such dire conditions. The

probability of multiple hits with a handgun is

not high. Experienced officers implicitly

recognize that fact, and when potential violence

is reasonably anticipated, their preparations

are characterized by obtaining as many shoulder

weapons as possible. Since most shootings are

not anticipated, the officer involved cannot be

prepared in advance with heavier armament. As a

corollary tactical principle, no law enforcement

officer should ever plan to meet an expected

attack armed only with a handgun.

The handgun is the primary weapon for defense

against unexpected attack. Nevertheless, a

majority of shootings occur in manners and

circumstances in which the officer either does

not have any other weapon available, or cannot

get to it. The handgun must be relied upon, and

must prevail. Given the idea that one or two

torso hits can be reasonably expected in a

handgun shooting incident, the ammunition used

must maximize the likelihood of immediate

incapacitation.

Mechanics of Projectile Wounding

In order to predict the likelihood of

incapacitation with any handgun round, an

understanding of the mechanics of wounding is

necessary. There are four components of

projectile wounding.(6) Not all of these

components relate to incapacitation, but each of

them must be considered. They are:

(1) Penetration. The tissue through which the

projectile passes, and which it disrupts or

destroys.

(2) Permanent Cavity. The volume of space once

occupied by tissue that has been destroyed by

the passage of the projectile. This is a

function of penetration and the frontal area of

the projectile. Quite simply, it is the hole

left by the passage of the bullet.

(3) Temporary Cavity. The expansion of the

permanent cavity by stretching due to the

transfer of kinetic energy during the

projectiles passage.

(4) Fragmentation. Projectile pieces or

secondary fragments of bone which are impelled

outward from the permanent cavity and may sever

muscle tissues, blood vessels, etc., apart from

the permanent cavity.(7,8) Fragmentation is not

necessarily present in every projectile wound.

It may, or may not, occur and can be considered

a secondary effect.(9)

Projectiles incapacitate by damaging or

destroying the central nervous system, or by

causing lethal blood loss. To the extent the

wound components cause or increase the effects

of these two mechanisms, the likelihood of

incapacitation increases. Because of the

impracticality of training for head shots, this

examination of handgun wounding relative to law

enforcement use is focused upon torso wounds and

the probable results.

Mechanics of Handgun Wounding

All handgun wounds will combine the

components of penetration, permanent cavity, and

temporary cavity to a greater or lesser degree.

Fragmentation, on the other hand, does not

reliably occur in handgun wounds due to the

relatively low velocities of handgun bullets.

Fragmentation occurs reliably in high velocity

projectile wounds (impact velocity in excess of

2000 feet per second) inflicted by soft or

hollow point bullets.(10) In such a case, the

permanent cavity is stretched so far, and so

fast, that tearing and rupturing can occur in

tissues surrounding the wound channel which were

weakened by fragmentation damage.(11,12) It can

significantly increase damage(13) in rifle

bullet wounds.

Since the highest handgun velocities generally

do not exceed 1400-1500 feet per second (fps) at

the muzzle, reliable fragmentation could only be

achieved by constructing a bullet so frangible

as to eliminate any reasonable penetration.

Unfortunately, such a bullet will break up too

fast to penetrate to vital organs. The best

example is the Glaser Safety Slug, a projectile

designed to break up on impact and generate a

large but shallow temporary cavity. Fackler,

when asked to estimate the survival time of

someone shot in the front mid-abdomen with a

Glaser slug, responded, "About three days, and

the cause of death would be peritonitis."(14)

In cases where some fragmentation has occurred

in handgun wounds, the bullet fragments are

generally found within one centimeter of the

permanent cavity. "The velocity of pistol

bullets, even of the new high-velocity loadings,

is insufficient to cause the shedding of lead

fragments seen with rifle bullets." (15) It is

obvious that any additional wounding effect

caused by such fragmentation in a handgun wound

is inconsequential.

Of the remaining factors, temporary cavity is

frequently, and grossly, overrated as a wounding

factor when analyzing wounds.(16) Nevertheless,

historically it has been used in some cases as

the primary means of assessing the wounding

effectiveness of bullets.

The most notable example is the Relative

Incapacitation Index (RII) which resulted from a

study of handgun effectiveness sponsored by the

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA).

In this study, the assumption was made that the

greater the temporary cavity, the greater the

wounding effect of the round. This assumption

was based on a prior assumption that the tissue

bounded by the temporary cavity was damaged or

destroyed.(17)

In the LEAA study, virtually every handgun round

available to law enforcement was tested. The

temporary cavity was measured, and the rounds

were ranked based on the results. The depth of

penetration and the permanent cavity were

ignored. The result according to the RII is that

a bullet which causes a large but shallow

temporary cavity is a better incapacitator than

a bullet which causes a smaller temporary cavity

with deep penetration.

Such conclusions ignore the factors of

penetration and permanent cavity. Since vital

organs are located deep within the body, it

should be obvious that to ignore penetration and

permanent cavity is to ignore the only proven

means of damaging or disrupting vital organs.

Further, the temporary cavity is caused by the

tissue being stretched away from the permanent

cavity, not being destroyed. By definition, a

cavity is a space (18) in which nothing exists.

A temporary cavity is only a temporary space

caused by tissue being pushed aside. That same

space then disappears when the tissue returns to

its original configuration.

Frequently, forensic pathologists cannot

distinguish the wound track caused by a hollow

point bullet (large temporary cavity) from that

caused by a solid bullet (very small temporary

cavity). There may be no physical difference in

the wounds. If there is no fragmentation, remote

damage due to temporary cavitation may be minor

even with high velocity rifle projectiles.(19)

Even those who have espoused the significance of

temporary cavity agree that it is not a factor

in handgun wounds:

"In the case of low-velocity missiles, e.g.,

pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct

path of destruction with very little lateral

extension within the surrounding tissues. Only

a small temporary cavity is produced. To cause

significant injuries to a structure, a pistol

bullet must strike that structure directly. The

amount of kinetic energy lost in tissue by a

pistol bullet is insufficient to cause remote

injuries produced by a high velocity rifle

bullet."(20)

The reason is that most tissue in the human

target is elastic in nature. Muscle, blood

vessels, lung, bowels, all are capable of

substantial stretching with minimal damage.

Studies have shown that the outward velocity of

the tissues in which the temporary cavity forms

is no more than one tenth of the velocity of the

projectile.(21) This is well within the

elasticity limits of tissue such as muscle,

blood vessels, and lungs. Only inelastic tissue

like liver, or the extremely fragile tissues of

the brain, would show significant damage due to

temporary cavitation.(22)

The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet

is limited to two mechanisms. The first, or

crush mechanism is the hole the bullet makes

passing through the tissue. The second, or

stretch mechanism is the temporary cavity formed

by the tissues being driven outward in a radial

direction away from the path of the bullet. Of

the two, the crush mechanism, the result of

penetration and permanent cavity, is the only

handgun wounding mechanism which damages tissue.

(23) To cause significant injuries to a

structure within the body using a handgun, the

bullet must penetrate the structure. Temporary

cavity has no reliable wounding effect in

elastic body tissues. Temporary cavitation is

nothing more than a stretch of the tissues,

generally no larger than 10 times the bullet

diameter (in handgun calibers), and elastic

tissues sustain little, if any, residual damage.

(24,25,26)

The Human Target

With the exceptions of hits to the brain or

upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and

reproducible immediate incapacitation of the

human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a

myth.(27)

The human target is a complex and durable one.

A wide variety of psychological, physical, and

physiological factors exist, all of them

pertinent to the probability of incapacitation.

However, except for the location of the wound

and the amount of tissue destroyed, none of the

factors are within the control of the law

enforcement officer.

Physiologically, a determined adversary can be

stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot

that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord.

Failing a hit to the central nervous system,

massive bleeding from holes in the heart or

major blood vessels of the torso causing

circulatory collapse is the only other way to

force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this

takes time. For example, there is sufficient

oxygen within the brain to support full,

voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the

heart has been destroyed.(28)

In fact, physiological factors may actually play

a relatively minor role in achieving rapid

incapacitation. Barring central nervous system

hits, there is no physiological reason for an

individual to be incapacitated by even a fatal

wound, until blood loss is sufficient to drop

blood pressure and/or the brain is deprived of

oxygen. The effects of pain, which could

contribute greatly to incapacitation, are

commonly delayed in the aftermath of serious

injury such as a gunshot wound. The body engages

survival patterns, the well known "fight or

flight" syndrome.

Pain is irrelevant to survival and is commonly

suppressed until some time later. In order to be

a factor, pain must first be perceived, and

second must cause an emotional response. In many

individuals, pain is ignored even when perceived,

or the response is anger and increased

resistance, not surrender.

Psychological factors are probably the most

important relative to achieving rapid

incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the

torso. Awareness of the injury (often delayed by

the suppression of pain); fear of injury, death,

blood, or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the

act of being shot; preconceived notions of what

people do when they are shot; or the simple

desire to quit can all lead to rapid

incapacitation even from minor wounds. However,

psychological factors are also the primary cause

of incapacitation failures.

The individual may be unaware of the wound and

thus has no stimuli to force a reaction. Strong

will, survival instinct, or sheer emotion such

as rage or hate can keep a grievously injured

individual fighting, as is common on the

battlefield and in the street. The effects of

chemicals can be powerful stimuli preventing

incapacitation. Adrenaline alone can be

sufficient to keep a mortally wounded adversary

functioning. Stimulants, anesthetics, pain

killers, or tranquilizers can all prevent

incapacitation by suppressing pain, awareness of

the injury, or eliminating any concerns over the

injury. Drugs such as cocaine, PCP, and heroin

are disassociative in nature. One of their

effects is that the individual "exists" outside

of his body. He sees and experiences what

happens to his body, but as an outside observer

who can be unaffected by it yet continue to use

the body as a tool for fighting or resisting.

Psychological factors such as energy deposit,

momentum transfer, size of temporary cavity or

calculations such as the RII are irrelevant or

erroneous. The impact of the bullet upon the

body is no more than the recoil of the weapon.

The ratio of bullet mass to target mass is too

extreme.

The often referred to "knock-down power" implies

the ability of a bullet to move its target. This

is nothing more than momentum of the bullet. It

is the transfer of momentum that will cause a

target to move in response to the blow received.

"Isaac Newton proved this to be the case

mathematically in the 17th Century, and Benjamin

Robins verified it experimentally through the

invention and use of the ballistic pendulum to

determine muzzle velocity by measurement of the

pendulum motion."(29)

Goddard amply proves the fallacy of "knock-down

power" by calculating the heights (and resultant

velocities) from which a one pound weight and a

ten pound weight must be dropped to equal the

momentum of 9mm and .45ACP projectiles at muzzle

velocities, respectively. The results are

revealing. In order to equal the impact of a 9mm

bullet at its muzzle velocity, a one pound

weight must be dropped from a height of 5.96

feet, achieving a velocity of 19.6 fps. To equal

the impact of a .45ACP bullet, the one pound

weight needs a velocity of 27.1 fps and must be

dropped from a height of 11.4 feet. A ten pound

weight equals the impact of a 9mm bullet when

dropped from a height of 0.72 inches (velocity

attained is 1.96 fps), and equals the impact of

a .45 when dropped from 1.37 inches (achieving a

velocity of 2.71 fps).(30)

A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it

had the energy to do so, then equal energy would

be applied against the shooter and he too would

be knocked down. This is simple physics, and has

been known for hundreds of years.(31) The amount

of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is

approximately equivalent to being hit with a

baseball.(32) Tissue damage is the only physical

link to incapacitation within the desired time

frame, i.e., instantaneously.

The human target can be reliably incapacitated

only by disrupting or destroying the brain or

upper spinal cord. Absent that, incapacitation

is subject to a host of variables, the most

important of which are beyond the control of the

shooter. Incapacitation becomes an eventual

event, not necessarily an immediate one. If the

psychological factors which can contribute to

incapacitation are present, even a minor wound

can be immediately incapacitating. If they are

not present, incapacitation can be significantly

delayed even with major, unsurvivable wounds.

Field results are a collection of

individualistic reactions on the part of each

person shot which can be analyzed and reported

as percentages. However, no individual responds

as a percentage, but as an all or none

phenomenon which the officer cannot possibly

predict, and which may provide misleading data

upon which to predict ammunition performance.

Ammunition Selection Criteria

The critical wounding components for handgun

ammunition, in order of importance, are

penetration and permanent cavity.(33) The bullet

must penetrate sufficiently to pass through

vital organs and be able to do so from less than

optimal angles. For example, a shot from the

side through an arm must penetrate at least

10-12 inches to pass through the heart. A bullet

fired from the front through the abdomen must

penetrate about 7 inches in a slender adult just

to reach the major blood vessels in the back of

the abdominal cavity. Penetration must be

sufficiently deep to reach and pass through

vital organs, and the permanent cavity must be

large enough to maximize tissue destruction and

consequent hemorrhaging.

Several design approaches have been made in

handgun ammunition which are intended to

increase the wounding effectiveness of the

bullet. Most notable of these is the use of a

hollow point bullet designed to expand on impact.

Expansion accomplishes several things. On the

positive side, it increases the frontal area of

the bullet and thereby increases the amount of

tissue disintegrated in the bullets path. On the

negative side, expansion limits penetration. It

can prevent the bullet from penetrating to vital

organs, especially if the projectile is of

relatively light mass and the penetration must

be through several inches of fat, muscle, or

clothing.(34)

Increased bullet mass will increase penetration.

Increased velocity will increase penetration but

only until the bullet begins to deform, at which

point increased velocity decreases penetration.

Permanent cavity can be increased by the use of

expanding bullets, and/or larger diameter

bullets, which have adequate penetration.

However, in no case should selection of a bullet

be made where bullet expansion is necessary to

achieve desired performance.(35) 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.

It is essential to bear in mind that the single

most critical factor remains penetration. While

penetration up to 18 inches is preferable, a

handgun bullet MUST reliably penetrate 12 inches

of soft body tissue at a minimum, regardless of

whether it expands or not. If the bullet does

not reliably penetrate to these depths, it is

not an effective bullet for law enforcement use.

(36)

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.

An issue that must be addressed is the fear of

over penetration widely expressed on the part of

law enforcement. The concern that a bullet would

pass through the body of a subject and injure an

innocent bystander is clearly exaggerated. Any

review of law enforcement shootings will reveal

that the great majority of shots fired by

officers do not hit any subjects at all. It

should be obvious that the relatively few shots

that do hit a subject are not somehow more

dangerous to bystanders than the shots that miss

the subject entirely.

Also, a bullet that completely penetrates a

subject will give up a great deal of energy

doing so. The skin on the exit side of the body

is tough and flexible. Experiments have shown

that it has the same resistance to bullet

passage as approximately four inches of muscle

tissue.(37)

Choosing a bullet because of relatively shallow

penetration will seriously compromise weapon

effectiveness, and needlessly endanger the lives

of the law enforcement officers using it. No law

enforcement officer has lost his life because a

bullet over penetrated his adversary, and

virtually none have ever been sued for hitting

an innocent bystander through an adversary. On

the other hand, tragically large numbers of

officers have been killed because their bullets

did not penetrate deeply enough.

END OF PART 1

Hello and thanks for stopping in. This site is

gun neutral.

W-A-R-N-I-N-G * * * * * * D-A-N-G-E-R

.................................................

.Guns can be deadly and must be used with care. .

. .

.Any user of the information on this site agrees.

.to be responsible for any and all results. .

. .

.If you do not agree to that, please E-X-I-T now.

.................................................

Start of Part 2

The Allure of Shooting Incident Analyses

There is no valid, scientific analysis of actual

shooting results in existence, or being pursued

to date. It is an unfortunate vacuum because a

wealth of data exists, and new data is being

sadly generated every day. There are some well

publicized, so called analyses of shooting

incidents being promoted, however, they are

greatly flawed. Conclusions are reached based

on samples so small that they are meaningless.

The author of one, for example, extols the

virtues of his favorite cartridge because he has

collected ten cases of one shot stops with it.

(38)

Preconceived notions are made the basic

assumptions on which shootings are categorized.

Shooting incidents are selectively added to the

"data base" with no indication of how many may

have been passed over or why. There is no

correlation between hits, results, and the

location of the hits upon vital organs.

It would be interesting to trace a life-sized

anatomical drawing on the back of a target, fire

20 rounds at the "center of mass" of the front,

then count how many of these optimal, center of

mass hits actually struck the heart, aorta, vena

cava, or liver. (39) It is rapid hemorrhage

from these organs that will best increase the

likelihood of incapacitation. Yet nowhere in the

popular press extolling these studies of real

shootings are we told what the bullets hit.

These so called studies are further promoted as

being somehow better and more valid than the

work being done by trained researchers, surgeons

and forensic labs. They disparage laboratory

stuff, claiming that the "street" is the real

laboratory and their collection of results from

the street is the real measure of caliber

effectiveness, as interpreted by them, of course.

Yet their data from the street is collected

haphazardly, lacking scientific method and

controls, with no noticeable attempt to verify

the less than reliable accounts of the

participants with actual investigative or

forensic reports. Cases are subjectively

selected (how many are not included because they

do not fit the assumptions made?). The numbers

of cases cited are statistically meaningless,

and the underlying assumptions upon which the

collection of information and its interpretation

are based are themselves based on myths such as

knock-down power, energy transfer, hydrostatic

shock, or the temporary cavity methodology of

flawed work such as RII.

Further, it appears that many people are

predisposed to fall down when shot. This

phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or

hit location, and is beyond the control of the

shooter. It can only be proven in the act, not

predicted. It requires only two factors to be

effected: a shot and cognition of being shot by

the target. Lacking either one, people are not

at all predisposed to fall down and don't. Given

this predisposition, the choice of caliber and

bullet is essentially irrelevant. People largely

fall down when shot, and the apparent

predisposition to do so exists with equal force

among the good guys as among the bad. The

causative factors are most likely psychological

in origin. Thousands of books, movies and

television shows have educated the general

population that when shot, one is supposed to

fall down.

The problem, and the reason for seeking a better

cartridge for incapacitation, is that individual

who is not predisposed to fall down. Or the one

who is simply unaware of having been shot by

virtue of alcohol, adrenaline, narcotics, or the

simple fact that in most cases of grievous injury

the body suppresses pain for a period of time.

Lacking pain, there may be no physiological

effect of being shot that can make one aware of

the wound. Thus the real problem: if such an

individual is threatening ones life, how best to

compel him to stop by shooting him?

The factors governing incapacitation of the

human target are many, and variable. The actual

destruction caused by any small arms projectile

is too small in magnitude relative to the mass

and complexity of the target. If a bullet

destroys about 2 ounces of tissue in its passage

through the body, that represents 0.07 of one

percent of the mass of a 180 pound man. Unless

the tissue destroyed is located within the

critical areas of the central nervous system, it

is physiologically insufficient to force

incapacitation upon the unwilling target. It may

certainly prove to be lethal, but a body count

is no evidence of incapacitation.

Probably more people in this country have been

killed by .22 rimfire's than all other calibers

combined, which, based on body count, would

compel the use of .22's for self-defense. The

more important question, which is sadly seldom

asked, is what did the individual do when hit?

There is a problem in trying to assess calibers

by small numbers of shootings. For example, as

has been done, if a number of shootings were

collected in which only one hit was attained and

the percentage of one shot stops was then

calculated, it would appear to be a valid system.

However, if a large number of people are

predisposed to fall down, the actual caliber and

bullet are irrelevant. What percentage of those

stops were thus preordained by the target? How

many of those targets were not at all disposed

to fall down? How many multiple shot failures to

stop occurred? What is the definition of a stop?

What did the successful bullets hit and what did

the unsuccessful bullets hit?

How many failures were in the vital organs, and

how many were not? How many of the successes?

What is the number of the sample? How were the

cases collected? What verifications were made

to validate the information? How can the

verifications bechecked by independent

investigation?

Because of the extreme number of variables

within the human target, and within shooting

situations in general, even a hundred shootings

is statistically insignificant. If anything can

happen, then anything will happen, and it is

just as likely to occur in your ten shootings as

in ten shootings spread over a thousand

incidents. Large sample populations are

absolutely necessary.

Here is an example that illustrates how

erroneous small samples can be. I flipped a

penny 20 times. It came up heads five times.

A nickel flipped 20 times showed heads 8 times.

A dime came up heads 10 times and a quarter 15

times. That means if heads is the desired result,

a penny will give it to you 25% of the time, and

nickel 40% of the time, a dime 50% of the time

and a quarter 75% of the time. If you want heads,

flip a quarter. If you want tails, flip a penny.

But then I flipped the quarter another 20 times

and it showed heads 9 times - 45% of the time.

Now this "study" would tell you that perhaps a

dime was better for flipping heads. The whole

thing is obviously wrong, but shows how small

numbers lead to statistical lies. We know the

odds of getting a head or tail are 50%, and

larger numbers tend to prove it. Calculating

the results for all 100 flips regardless of the

coin used shows heads came up 48% of the time.

The greater the number and complexity of the

variables, the greater the sample needed to give

meaningful information, and a coin toss has only

one simple variable it can land heads or it can

land tails. The coin population is not

complicated by a predisposition to fall one way

or the other, by chemical stimuli, psychological

factors, shot placement, bone or obstructive

obstacles, etc.; all of which require even

larger numbers to evidence real differences in

effects.

Although no cartridge is certain to work all the

time, surely some will work more often than

others, and any edge is desirable in one's self

defense. This is simple logic. The incidence of

failure to incapacitate will vary with the

severity of the wound inflicted.(40) It is safe

to assume that if a target is always 100%

destroyed, then incapacitation will also occur

100% of the time. If 50% of the target is

destroyed, incapacitation will occur less

reliably. Failure to incapacitate is rare in

such a case, but it can happen, and in fact has

happened on the battlefield.

Incapacitation is still less rare if 25% of the

target is destroyed. Now the magnitude of bullet

destruction is far less (less than 1% of the

target) but the relationship is unavoidable.

The round which destroys 0.07% of the target

willincapacitate more often than the one which

destroys 0.04%. However, only very large numbers

of shooting incidents will prove it. The

difference may be only 10 out of a thousand, but

that difference is an edge, and that edge should

be on the officers side because one of those ten

may be the subject trying to kill him.

To judge a caliber's effectiveness, consider how

many people hit with it failed to fall down and

look at where they were hit. Of the successes

and failures, analyze how many were hit in vital

organs, rather than how many were killed or not,

and correlate that with an account of exactly

what they did when they were hit.

Did they fall down, or did they run, fight,

shoot, hide, crawl, stare, shrug, give up and

surrender? ONLY falling down is good. All other

reactions are failures to incapacitate,

evidencing the ability to act with volition, and

thus able to choose to continue to try to

inflict harm.

Those who disparage science and laboratory

methods are either too short sighted or too

bound by preconceived (or perhaps proprietary)

notions to see the truth. The labs and

scientists do not offer sure things. They offer

a means of indexing the damage done by a bullet,

understanding of the mechanics of damage caused

by bullets and the actual effects on the body,

and the basis for making an informed choice

based on objective criteria and significant

statistics.

The differences between bullets may be small,

but science can give us the means of identifying

that difference. The result is the edge all of

law enforcement should be looking for. It is

true that the streets are the proving ground,

but give me an idea of what you want to prove

and I will give you ten shootings from the

street to prove it. That is both easy, and

irrelevant. If it can happen, it will happen.

Any shooting incident is a unique event,

unconstrained by any natural law or physical

order to follow a predetermined sequence of

events or end in predetermined results. What is

needed is an edge that makes the good result

more probable than the bad.

Science will quantify the information needed to

make the choice to gain that edge. Large numbers

(thousands or more) from the street will provide

the answer to the question "How much of an

edge?".(41) Even if that edge is only 1%, it is

not insignificant because the guy trying to kill

you could be in that 1%, and you won't know it

until it is too late.

Conclusions

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain

to incapacitate any individual unless the brain

is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be

incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds.

Those individuals who are stimulated by fear,

adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will

and survival determination may not be

incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

The will to survive and to fight despite

horrific damage to the body is commonplace on

the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a

hit to the brain, the only way to force

incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss

that the subject can no longer function, and

that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly

destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the

brain to support full and complete voluntary

action for 10-15 seconds.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity

does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of

bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power

is a myth. The critical element is penetration.

The bullet must pass through the large, blood

bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to

promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12

inches is too little, and, in the words of two

of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics

Workshop, "too little penetration will get you

killed."(42,43)

Given desirable and reliable penetration, the

only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to

increase the severity of the wound by

increasing the size of hole made by the bullet.

Any bullet which will not penetrate through

vital organs from less than optimal angles is

not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate,

the edge is always with the bigger bullet. (44)

References/Endnotes

1 FBI Deadly Force Policy.

2 Ideally, immediate incapacitation occurs

instantaneously.

3 Fackler, M.L., MD: "What's Wrong with the

Wound Ballistics Literature, and Why", Letterman

Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San

Francisco, CA, Report No. 239, July, 1987.

4 Fackler, M.L., M.D., Director, Wound

Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman Army Institute

of Research, Presidio of San Francisco, CA,

letter: "Bullet Performance Misconceptions",

International Defense Review 3; 369-370, 1987.

5 Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto",

FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, September, 1987.

Conclusion of the Workshop.

6 Josselson, A., MD, Armed Forces Institute of

Pathology, Walter Reed Army Medical Center,

Washington, D.C., lecture series to FBI National

Academy students, 1982-1983.

7 DiMaio, V.J.M.: Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier

Science Publishing Company, New York, NY, 1987:

Chapter 3, Wound Ballistics: 41-49.

8 Fackler, M.L., Malinowski, J.A.: "The Wound

Profile: A Visual Method for Quantifying Gunshot

Wound Components", Journal of Trauma 25, 522-529,

1985.

9 Fackler, M.L., MD: "Missile Caused Wounds",

Letterman Army Institute of Research, Presidio

of San Francisco, CA, Report No. 231, April 1987.

10 Josselson, A., MD, Armed Forces Institute of

Pathology, Walter Reed Army Medical Center,

Washington, D.C., lecture series to FBI National

Academy students, 1982-1983.

11 Fackler, M.L., MD: "Ballistic Injury", Annals

of Emergency Medicine 15: 12 December 1986.

12 Fackler, M.L., Surinchak, J.S., Malinowski,

J.A.; et.al.: "Bullet Fragmentation: A Major

Cause of Tissue Disruption", Journal of Trauma

24: 35-39, 1984.

13 Fragmenting rifle bullets in some of

Fackler's experiments have caused damage 9

centimeters from the permanent cavity. Such

remote damage is not found in handgun wounds.

Fackler stated at the Workshop that when a

handgun bullet does fragment the pieces

typically are found within one centimeter of the

wound track.

14 Fackler, M.L., M.D., Director, Wound

Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman Army Institute

of Research, Presidio of San Francisco, CA,

letter: "Bullet Performance Misconceptions",

International Defense Review 3; 369-370, 1987.

15 DiMaio, V.J.M.: Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier

Science Publishing Company, New York, NY 1987,

page 47.

16 Lindsay, Douglas, MD: "The Idolatry of

Velocity, or Lies, Damn Lies, and Ballistics",

Journal of Trauma 20: 1068-1069, 1980.

17 Bruchey, W.J., Frank, D.E.: Police Handgun

Ammunition Incapacitation Effects, National

Institute of Justice Report 100-83. Washington,

D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984, Vol.

1: Evaluation.

18 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,

Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield MA, 1986: "An

unfilled space within a mass."

19 Fackler, M.L., Surinchak, J.S., Malinowski,

J.A.; et.al.: "Bullet Fragmentation: A Major

Cause of Tissue Disruption", Journal of Trauma

24: 35-39, 1984.

20 DiMaio, V.J.M.: Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier

Science Publishing Company, New York, NY 1987,

page 42.

21 Fackler, M.L., Surinchak, J.S., Malinowski,

J.A.; et.al.: "Bullet Fragmentation: A Major

Cause of Tissue Disruption", Journal of Trauma

24: 35-39, 1984.

22 Fackler, M.L., MD: "Ballistic Injury", Annals

of Emergency Medicine 15: 12 December 1986.

23 Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto",

FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, September, 1987.

Conclusion of the Workshop.

24 Fackler, M.L., MD: "Ballistic Injury", Annals

of Emergency Medicine 15: 12 December 1986.

25 Fackler, M.L., Malinowski, J.A.: "The Wound

Profile: A Visual Method for Quantifying Gunshot

Wound Components", Journal of Trauma 25: 522-529,

1985.

26 Lindsay, Douglas, MD: "The Idolatry of

Velocity, or Lies, Damn Lies, and Ballistics",

Journal of Trauma 20: 1068-1069, 1980.

27 Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto",

FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, September 1987.

Conclusion of the Workshop.

28 Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto",

FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, September 1987.

Conclusion of the Workshop.

29 Goddard, Stanley: "Some Issues for

Consideration in Choosing Between 9mm and .45ACP

Handguns", Battelle Labs, Ballistic Sciences,

Ordnance Systems and Technology Section,

Columbus, OH, presented to the FBI Academy,

2/16/88, pages 3-4.

30 Goddard, Stanley: "Some Issues for

Consideration in Choosing Between 9mm and .45ACP

Handguns", Battelle Labs, Ballistic Sciences,

Ordnance Systems and Technology Section,

Columbus, OH, presented to the FBI Academy,

2/16/88, pages 3-4.

31 Newton, Sir Isaac, Principia Mathematica,

1687, in which are stated Newton's Laws of

Motion. The Second Law of Motion states that a

body will accelerate, or change its speed, at a

rate that is proportional to the force acting

upon it. In simpler terms, for every action

there is an equal but opposite reaction. The

acceleration will of course be in inverse

proportion to the mass of the body. For example,

the same force acting upon a body of twice the

mass will produce exactly half the acceleration.

32 Lindsay, Douglas, MD, presentation to the

Wound Ballistics Workshop, Quantico, VA, 1987.

33 Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto",

FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, September, 1987.

Conclusion of the Workshop.

34 Jones, J.A.: Police Handgun Ammunition.

Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences at

Dallas, 523D Medical Center Drive, Dallas, TX,

1985.

35 Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto",

FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, September, 1987.

Conclusion of the Workshop.

36 Wound Ballistic Workshop: "9mm vs. .45 Auto",

FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, September 1987.

Conclusion of the Workshop.

37 Fackler, M.L., M.D., Director, Wound

Ballistics Laboratory, Letterman Army Institute

of Research, Presidio of San Francisco, CA,

letter: "Bullet Performance Misconceptions",

International Defense Review 3; 369-370, 1987.

38 He defines a one shot stop as one in which

the subject dropped, gave up, or did not run

more than 10 feet.

39 This exercise was suggested by Dr. Martin L.

Fackler, U.S. Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory,

Letterman Army Institute of Research, San

Francisco, California, as a way to demonstrate

the problematical results of even the best

results sought in training, i.e., shots to the

center of mass of a target. It illustrates the

very small actually critical areas within the

relatively vast mass of the human target.

40 Severity is a function of location, depth,

and amount of tissue destroyed.

41 The numbers can be held down to reasonable

limits by a scientific approach that collects

objective information from investigative and

forensic sources and sorts it by vital organs

struck and target reactions to being hit. The

critical questions are what damage was done and

what was the reaction of the adversary.

42 Fackler, M.L., MD, presentation to the Wound

Ballistics Workshop, Quantico, VA, 1987.

43 Smith, O’Brien C., MD, presentation to the

Wound Ballistics Workshop, Quantico, VA, 1987.

44 Fackler, M.L., MD, presentation to the Wound

Ballistics Workshop, Quantico, VA, 1987.

END OF PART 2

[ January 30, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

22 short or long? As long as I get to shoot back with a Garand or throw a grenade, maybe I am game.

Again, the real issue is 'Are all human targets the same?'. The answer is 'Depends on what the projectile is and what physical shape the human is in'. Given the proximity a SMG entails, and the pistol ammunition it fires, it is a real issue.

JasonC can cry foul if he wants, but I will stick to the real issue.

I have been in physical altercations where I did not even notice a broken bone. Another altercation where I had a severe laceration was noticed when it squirted at me. I was once in a car wreck and did not notice a severe cut to my body till it was pointed out. If you have ever been pumped on adrenaline you would know.

I think that JasonC might confuse his own opinions with some sort of data. Many people see pistol wounds that occur from crime scenes. These are nearly point blank wounds.

Yes and i've played football with a broken toe. Your point? Because as big as my ego is, i don't think i react very well to bullets. The human body can be very tough, but if you hit certain locations the consequence are catastrophical, no matter who it is.

Maybe after being shot, you manage to pull the trigger once or twice, but that is where it ends, i don't believe that you will still be combat effective.

There are also different kinds of wounds, and the body reacts differently to each kind. Blunt injuries may take a while to hurt, but sharp pains like are registered really quickly.

Not to mention the detrimental effects of being shot on moral.

I don't claim to be an expert on this, just using my common sense.

[Mr. Tittles]

Perhaps you should read the long-winded cut n paste above.

Note: High velocity weapons (rifles/MGs) have greater instantaneous incapacitation probability. They not only get a head wound instant-KO, but the larger-faster cavitation pinches and crushes organs. It also blows out the back easier.

Ever shot a deer? I am pretty sure deer do not have a psychological reaction. But why do they drop? Its because of the effect on the nervous system usually. The HV round just compresses the internals against the spinal cord and the animal drops. There is not enough momentum in any hunting rifle to knock down a deer. Its this internal trauma that does it. Ive seen battle footage of this. People just collapse like bags of wet cement.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Perhaps you should read the long-winded cut n paste above.

Note: High velocity weapons (rifles/MGs) have greater instantaneous incapacitation probability. They not only get a head wound instant-KO, but the larger-faster cavitation pinches and crushes organs. It also blows out the back easier.

Ever shot a deer? I am pretty sure deer do not have a psychological reaction. But why do they drop? Its because of the effect on the nervous system usually. The HV round just compresses the internals against the spinal cord and the animal drops. There is not enough momentum in any hunting rifle to knock down a deer. Its this internal trauma that does it. Ive seen battle footage of this. People just collapse like bags of wet cement.

I'm sorry, i'm lost, what do you mean by that post?

[Jim Boggs]

I thought I read that the reason the US military went with the .45 pistol was due to experiences in the Philippines in which there were instances that someone would empty his revolver into one of the guerillas (1900 era) and they would keep on coming.

The .45 was designed to "knock back" the individual as well as kill him.

Disclaimer- I am not a grog, but I do recall reading something to that effect.

[Mr. Tittles]

Sticky:

The very long post above is addressing pistol ammo vs. human targets. Please read through it.

My short post after addresses high velocity (rifle/MG) against human targets. I added it just for reference.

The main point is that penetration is such a great factor, that large chested people (I have a 46 inch chest) that are physically tough, are harder targets. Funny that JasonC cited a source that confirms this.

.45

Thats the legend. But the physics is that the 'knock-down' is no greater than the kick felt by the firer. That is, the momentum transferred to teh target is no greater than the momentum felt by the firer. If pistol ammo had real knock down power, they would knock down the firer (or break his wrist).

[exSpecForSgt]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

.45

Thats the legend. But the physics is that the 'knock-down' is no greater than the kick felt by the firer. That is, the momentum transferred to teh target is no greater than the momentum felt by the firer. If pistol ammo had real knock down power, they would knock down the firer (or break his wrist).

You know, OTOH, I'm amazed you people are still flogging this =very= 'dead horse'. OTOH, however, I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised, because you guys are still throwing 'theories' and 'it stands to reason' around like it really matters or something.

I, myself, have said in so many words - and I believe one or two others have, also - that thus-n-such is what happened when I, myself, have actually, for-real-ly, had to use these weapons firing these rounds at other people in the heat of battle. Not 'theory', not 'it stands to reason', but shoot the other SOB before he shoots you! I shot him and lived to have nightmares about it - he didn't and got 'recycled'.

Yet evidently that doesn't mean a damn thing to you guys, 'cause you're still arguing over .. well, to be honest, I'm really not sure just =what= you're arguing over at this point! At =this= point, quite frankly, you're beginning to sound like little kids in a sand-box - "did, too" "did not" "did, too" "uh-uh" "well, neener-neener" .. and on and on.......

Have =you= shot someone and =know= what you're talking about? Then, don't tell me that what I =did= and the effect =I= =saw= is all a figment of my imagination, or worse, that I'm obviously *lying* to yo'all. Geez, Louise, you guys, just what kind of 'clue' does it take?! :mad: If nothing else, go argue about something else! At this point, you're just embarrassing yourselves.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by exSpecForSgt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

.45

Thats the legend. But the physics is that the 'knock-down' is no greater than the kick felt by the firer. That is, the momentum transferred to teh target is no greater than the momentum felt by the firer. If pistol ammo had real knock down power, they would knock down the firer (or break his wrist).

You know, OTOH, I'm amazed you people are still flogging this =very= 'dead horse'. OTOH, however, I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised, because you guys are still throwing 'theories' and 'it stands to reason' around like it really matters or something.

I, myself, have said in so many words - and I believe one or two others have, also - that thus-n-such is what happened when I, myself, have actually, for-real-ly, had to use these weapons firing these rounds at other people in the heat of battle. Not 'theory', not 'it stands to reason', but shoot the other SOB before he shoots you! I shot him and lived to have nightmares about it - he didn't and got 'recycled'.

Yet evidently that doesn't mean a damn thing to you guys, 'cause you're still arguing over .. well, to be honest, I'm really not sure just =what= you're arguing over at this point! At =this= point, quite frankly, you're beginning to sound like little kids in a sand-box - "did, too" "did not" "did, too" "uh-uh" "well, neener-neener" .. and on and on.......

Have =you= shot someone and =know= what you're talking about? Then, don't tell me that what I =did= and the effect =I= =saw= is all a figment of my imagination, or worse, that I'm obviously *lying* to yo'all. Geez, Louise, you guys, just what kind of 'clue' does it take?! :mad: If nothing else, go argue about something else! At this point, you're just embarrassing yourselves. </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

Yes battle must have psychologically lasting effects but thats beyond the scope of a thread about SMGs. Uh, thanks Spec4. Get some counseling.

[exSpecForSgt]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Uh, thanks Spec4. Get some counseling.

1) Since you don't seem to 'read' too well, let me make it a bit clearer for you. It's not "SpecFour", kid, it's "EX-SPECial FORces SerGeanT", okay?

2) I =have= had "some counseling", thank you very much. May I recommend the same? Unless, of course, you're beyond the need for such things...

[Mr. Tittles]

OK Pops. Spare me the chip-on-the-shoulder vet crap. This is a technical discussion about things that go bang. Get over yourself one of these decades huh?

Are you like that guy 'strawberry' in the cheech 'n chong movies?