Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Fight Stopper ??

It's true that, in order to survive, you have to react as soon as a gun is seen in the hands of a dangerous looking person, or it will be too late to react, but consider this. I read a case where a retired man in his late sixties lived nextdoor to his second home that he was renting out. One night he saw three men dressed all in black, with black masks, breaking into his rental property. He grabbed his pistol and his cell phone. Pistol in one hand and cell phone in the other, he was pleading with the police to send a squad car, which they said they would, and that he should stay on the phone and inside his house. One of the men in black noticed him through the sliding glass door the old man was standing near (he was watching them as they were breaking in) and all three "burglars" drew weapons and opened fire, killing the property owner by shooting through the glass door, which was just a few yards from where they were working.
<br>
<br>Now, the proper thing for the victim to have done (other than running for cover, if he had time), was to return fire as soon as he saw them raising their weapons, but had he done that and won, I assure you, he would have been placed in prison for murdering three federal agents who were investigating a forgery case. No charges were pressed against the agents, because they said that they behaved reasonably, and that for all they knew, this guy was going to shoot them. "If you wait and see, you could be too late," one of them said. Now do you think that legal defense would have worked if the old man had successfully dispatched all three agents and lived to tell the tale? I think he'd probably get the chair. Interesting how those things only work one way, i.e., when the reasonable mistake involves dead federal agents, but not when the reasonable mistake involves mere dead civilians. I guess we civilians are expendable. Perhaps federal agents shouldn't be snooping around people's houses in the middle of the night dressed as cat burglars. Just a thought. Seems like a sure formula for disaster in a nation of riflemen.
<br>
<br>I think it's high time for legislation requiring federal agents to be accompanied by local UNIFORMED police officers or deputy sheriffs whenever they have to trespass on private property during an investigation. Too many civilians are getting killed or roughed up by these jack booted thugs in black, just because they behaved reasonably and grabbed a gun when these hooded creeps entered onto private property unannounced. Might be a good idea to outlaw "no knock" searches and siezures while we're at it. This is not the Soviet Union, after all.
<br>
<br>P.S., Just want to clarify that I have nothing against the ordinary FBI Special Agent. Most of these guys are just doing a job and a public service investigating crimes. My criticism is for the commandoes calling themselves law enforcement professionals. These guys are more military than cop, and have no place in dealing with the civilian population during the course of an ordinary investigation. If a police officer has a warrent to search, they should knock on the door during the day, and present the warrent wearing a business suit or a policeman's or deputy's uniform. There is no place for helmets, shields and ninja suits when the federal government interacts with the civilian population in the ordinary course of an investigation (unless we have a clock tower sniper or some such similar situation ALREADY IN PROGRESS).
<br>
<br>This was exactly what the founders feared in allowing a federal standing army, and is exactly why they established a system of local law enforcement. If a federal investigator must come in contact with a civilian in the course of a criminal investigation, he should be wearing a business suit and be accompanied by local police officer or deputy sheriff.

As far as "reacting as soon as a gun is seen in the hand of a dangerous looking person",I'm of the opinion that the optimum time for reaction was reached at some time prior to that.Pulling out a gun against a guy who has his in his hand does not seem the best course of action.Taking cover or running seem better choices.
<br>
<br>Anyhow,the question was about consensous of opinion.The link posted by Montana Marine[ Happy Birthday,Semper Fi] was worth the thread.

I enjoyed Montana Marine's link as well, I've seen most of it before, but that is the first time I've seen them all in one spot.
<br>
<br>Most telling statistic I find is that like any shootist will tell you, you only use a pistol to fight your way back to your rifle/shotgun. Notice the stopping stats on the shotgun and rifles versus almost all the pistol loads. Carry a 15 and you have range, accuracy, stopping power, and firepower on them. Which is the reason, I make it a CAR-15 my car carry gun of choice.
<br>
<br>And, like the information at the bottom of the page mentions, these are the results of torso hits, they disclaim any HEAD or NECK shots since they proclaim the incapacitation or deaths resulting from them to be due to BULLET PLACEMENT. 'NUFF SAID.

My "comfort" weapon is the Marlin 45 70 you used to kill the hog,CAT. it fits real nicely with the butt against the back seat and the forearm resting on the console right beside me.No need for concealment.Back when I traveled a lot out of state,it raised a few eyebrows when I would check into a hotel with it under my arm.It might have been illegal in some instances but no one ever questioned me.Come to think of it,I've never had the urge to question a guy with a 45 70,either!
<br>

Rather than flogging a dead horse, read the conclusions of Sanow and Marshall in their books on handgun stopping power. No speculation, just a hard, cold recital of actual shootings broken down by caliber and bullet weight. In almost all cases the .357 with a 125 gr. bullet won for effectiveness,}93% if I recall correctly. My ox was gored when I found out my 10mm is less effective than the .40 SW, go figure. Still trying to puzzle that out, but these are actual shootings and don't allow emotions to cloud the issue.
<br>batch

Batch, it's true that the 125 grain .357 Magnum from a four inch barrel is the best fight stopper statistically, however that one consideration is not the only relevant consideration. The .45 ACP (using Plus P 230 grain JHPs) scores only one or two percentage points below the .357 Magnum with 125 grain JHPs, but the .45 ACP is a lot easier to shoot because it has less felt recoil and is a single action semi-auto. That more than makes up the difference of one or two percentage points of recorded one shot stops. Sometimes a quick follow up is needed, and that can be done much easier with a .45 ACP auto pistol than with a four inch service revolver. And forget about one of those lightweight 2" .357 Magnums. A quick follow up would be very hard to do with one of those. So you have to take other factors into consideration in selecting a defensive carry weapon.
<br>
<br>Also, the .357 Magnum will destroy your eardrums in an enclosed space. The .45 will not.

KH,
<br>
<br> Cavitation is the path of cellular disruption along the bullet path, due to hydraulic pressure. Cells are comprised mostly of fluid contained in thin, membraneous tissue bound together to form organs, muscle, flesh, etc. Hydraulic pressure "pops" the cell walls along the bullet's path , forms the wound channel and causes hemorrageing along that channel.
<br> Crush cavities, both temporary and permanent, are formed when a bullet expands rapidly, multiplying resistance and hydraulic pressure, and stops rather abruptly by dissapating it's kinetic energy guickly.
<br>
<br> Wound channels are usually rather small in diameter, typically two to three times the bullet diameter. A permanent crush cavity is the massive, nearly complete destruction of cell tissue around the area where the bullet abruptly stopped, and may be as much as four to six times the bullet diameter. The temporary crush cavity is the area of lesser disruption that gets progressively lighter, expanding away from the permanent crush cavity. It can be as much as ten to fifteen times the bullet diameter!
<br>
<br> The origional theory behind developement of hollow point projectiles was to cause rapid expansion, terminal release of kinetic energy, and massive internal crush cavities that could not be formed if the bullet performed as a hole punch.
<br>
<br> The new Quik Shok .22 LR ammo was developed to stop small game more efficiently, by fragmenting into it's origional three pieces and "dumping" all it's energy without exiting the body. the result was .22 magnum performance and shock trauma with a more efficient bullet design. A standard .22LR and a .22 Mag would typically passed on through, traveled many more yards and wasted energy in sustained flight.
<br>
<br> A rather crude similie comes to mind: Which would cause the most damage and desired effect, a bazooka round that passed through a house and exploded in the back yard of a neighbor, or one that terminated explosively inside the house aimed at?

Hawkeye, have you ever actually fired a .45 and a .357 indoors? I have - and I am convinced that *either* round will cause immediate hearing damage if fired indoors (or outdoors next to concrete walls) without protection.
<br>
<br>Even a .22lr from a concealable pistol will damage hearing - especially indoors.
<br>
<br>No one walks away from a gunfight unscathed. My vote goes to the tactics that pre-empt the fight altogether.
<br>
<br>-FreeMe
<br>
<br>

FreeMe:
<br>
<br>Am I missing something here, most deadly force laws and concealed carry permits require you to be sure that the use of deadly force is justified, and if it is, what tactics do you propose that allow you to NOT fire your weapon indoors if an assailant/robber/rapist/psycho has a weapon and is threatening you or yours and is in your house? Say, "Hold it for a second, while I put these earmuffs on."? Hell, survival beats better hearing just like 3 aces beats a pair of deuces. Shoot the SOB and worry about the decibels later.

IIFID - All I meant to point out was that I do not believe the .45 has any practical advantage over the .357 for my hearing. Rest assured that if the situation calls for shooting, my hearing will not even be on my mind...
<br>
<br>"Hell, survival beats better hearing just like 3 aces beats a pair of deuces."
<br>
<br>I agree 100%.
<br>
<br>But we were talking about fight stoppers, and as I said before - "My vote goes to the tactics that pre-empt the fight altogether."
<br>
<br>What I mean by that is the tactics employed *before* the fight becomes eminent. I'm talking about prevention or pre-emption. It's my bad, since the original point of this thread was a comparison of calibers - but it does serve the point that I think many of us worry too much about caliber/gun choice and not enough about prevention/tactics.
<br>
<br>-FreeMe

So many words, so wide of the mark, so devoid of logic!
<br>
<br>The bazooka round is in no way analagous to the statement that I still question (" ... if the bullet exits the primary target,the rest of it's energy is expended on travel, rather than changing a situation"). That statement implies -- using a true simile -- that a Bobcat that shoves its blade halfway through a house, then poops out behind the debris pile in front of it, is more effective than a D-9 that pushes that debris pile on out into the back yard. THIS simile illustrates my point -- that damage (DAMAGE, I said, NOT a silly little bullet-diameter "wound channel") that continues clear on through the body -- and OUT -- has to be more effective than damage done only half-way through.
<br>
<br>That may not be what you meant for it to imply, but that's what it does imply, and what many unthinking people have taken and repeated it to mean. As they say south of the Rio, "El perico dice lo que sabe pero no sabe lo que dice." [The parrot says what he knows but doesn't know what he says.]
<br>
<br>I've been into the wound channels, cavities, and guts of enough game animals, big and small, to have a good bit more and better than a merely academic or theoretical idea of what makes bullet damage deadly. In the real world, the matter is subject to too many wildly unpredictable variables to let it be definitively subject to simplified theories. In 1956, a 180-grain Remington Bronze-point that came spittin' 'n' gittin' out of my '03 sporter (an '06 Ackley) poked a wound channel right on through a spike bull up on lower Tin Cup, from fifty yards or less. He ran fifty yards or less, piled-up, and couldn't get up. My four-inch S&W finished him, but he was already dying before it came out of the holster. The next year, I shot and finished a six-pointer that my partner had shot through the spine just above the lungs three days earlier. Despite the massive tissue damage done by his 220-grain Core-Lokt -- including a smashed vertebra -- that original wound had already begun to knit itself back together, and when I tracked and shot him, the bull was browsing as though no one had ever put a bullet into him.

Ken, what you are talking about requires more energy, i.e., two bullets having the same destructive effect on tissue per inch of travel, but one remaining inside, while the other exiting. Can't be done unless the exiting round had more energy to start with. If we assume identical foot pounds energy, either the energy is used up in deep penetration and flying out the back or in making a big ugly wound channel (ideally penetrating far enough to damage organs). There is no free lunch. In order for it to fly out the back at all, some of the potentially destructive energy is being wasted in travelling through the air behind the target. Best possible scenario would be for the fully expanded bullet to pop out the back and the then fall straight to the ground, having used up all of its energy in destroying tissue and bone. It's possible I'm missing something here, but I don't think so.

Truth is , none of the commonly casrried defense/police handguns are clear "stoppers" against humans.
<br>
<br> That's why serious handgun training is heavily weighted with shooting drills that include doubletaps, hammers, sighted pairs, failure drills, reverse failure drills, etc.
<br>
<br>MM
<br>
<br>

I think anybody who has killed more than half a dozen head of larger game knows exactly what Ken is talking about. My 22 250 with a particular bullet will not exit a deer's body if shot thru the rib cage.It will kill the deer but it will have traveled some distance before expiring.
<br>
<br>My 338 RUM and 416 RIGBY and 45 70 and 7 RUM will exit every time on the same size animal.The deer will not travel far if at all.
<br>
<br>There is no question which is the better stopper of these catagories.
<br>
<br>I load my 257 AI and 257 WBY from the same box of 117 gr hornadies. One at 2800 fps and the other at 3280 fps.There is a range where the Ackley bullet will barely drop out the other side of the deer.At that range,the WBY bullet will still exit with enough remaining velocity to discourage a feller from wanting to be standing on the other side.I understand Ken's point to be that the WBY deer is going to be in poorer health than the Ackley deer.
<br>
<br>If that ain't his point,then it is mine.

Gene, I'm with you. A .45-70 is going to knock an animal down faster than a .22-250, but that's because the bullet is bigger, heavier, and carries more energy and momentum. Let's compare a 150 grain full metal jacket .30-06 with a soft point spitzer of the same caliber and weight, travelling at the same speed. The FMJ is highly likely to make two holes, while the soft point is less likely to. Which do you think will put the animal down faster? The reason is, the soft point dumped its energy where it counts, in the animal. Translated, the soft point bullet did more damage going through. If the bullet does more damage, it is less likely to have the extra energy it takes to make it out the other side, because it spent all its energy on destroying tissue and bone. The ideal, then, is a fully mushroomed bullet just under the skin on the far side. That indicates that all the energy was used up destroying tissue, and there was none left for anything else.
<br>
<br>There is a hunting advantage to making two holes, i.e., two blood trails, but that has little to do with stopping power. It does help you find the animal, though.

I won't get in the nit picking about through and throughs on defensive shootings. One thing to mind though is if the bullet is still winging its merry way after exiting the body then you have to worry about where it is going to wind up. You sure don't want to tag Aunt Nellie down the street or some kid in the next room. You launched the bullet and you are responsible for it until it comes to rest. Just something to think about.
<br>
<br>BCR

Sho 'nuff pardner, Unless you have a sure back stop you don't want bullets flying around after they did their intended job. I prefere the ones the "splat" for humans, and the bigger the better. It's just not the same as hunting game animals in the woods.
<br>
<br>I might mention an old saying from my Army days though.
<br>"There is no such thing as overkill, just a generous margin of safety!"

Considering what is behind the bad guy is something for the cops to consider as I see it. For a citizen to be justified in using deadly force,all that is "out the window"in my book.It has to be a "kill or be killed" situation and the bad guy is responsible for any collateral damage resulting from my use of a 41 mag.The law in Texas seems to recognize that since - assuming the shooting is held to be justified - I am not responsible as long as the bullet passes thru the bad guy before hitting someone else.
<br>
<br>My real point is that if I have an option "not to shoot" because of fear of hitting someone else,I'm not justified in shooting at all.The one time I was in a shooting situation,I was constrained by fear of punishment.That was clearly a situation where - although I could probably have gotten off - killing was not justified.As a result of that,I have confidence in my judgement.
<br>
<br>I think Col. Cooper was right on the mark in his comments,but I think we all have a threshold inborn in us that serves us well in a stressful situation.

gene,
<br>
<br>In Indiana the law is not simple but if you follow the guidelines:
<br>Use lethal force only when you believe you are in danger of death or serious bodily harm or a third party is in danger of death or serious bodily harm.
<br>
<br>That wisdom applies in public as well in privage. In your home which includes the old English common law curtiledge (spelling is probably wrong) which also includes the area directly around hour house--exactly how big is somewhat vague but if you have a detached garage the area between the garage and the house would be included.
<br>
<br>I use Glaser Safety Slug ammo in revolvers to keep the overpenetration from being a problem. And they work for the primary purpose too.
<br>
<br>In autos I go with Cor-Bon which performs well without over penetration.
<br>
<br>Norm

In Texas we have a more liberal interpretation for domicile for rural areas.Rural areas,AFTER DARK,trespassers are pretty much paid for.They don't have to be threatening,stealing,or anything else besides "being there". Their prescence alone is enough to justify lethal force.
<br>
<br>If you run out of gas,wait 'til daylight to go ask to use the phone!