1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is a spin off from HP for SD.

Most Hollowpoints, do a very good job of killing, (depeands a lot on caliber).
Most Hardball (FMJ), do a better job of wounding.

Anyway they both "Stop the Bad Guy" and that is what most of us want to do, IF we have to.

In the military, you are NOT allowed to carry Hollowpoint Ammo, WHY?

And now that the U.S. has changed to the 9x19mm, all of NATO uses the same 9x19mm FMJ in their side arms. The 9x19mm FMJ will wound a soldier well enough to take him out of action and is now the most widely used "Military" handgun cartridge in the world.

BUT it also wounds better, and that is all it has to do, wound one soldier - you have taken out one or more to care for the wounded and that's now 2 or more out of action.

In LE, you need to wound the "Bad Guy" (not kill him) so as to be able to have him stand trial and hopefuly spend time in jail. The Police Officer is not to be the Judge, Jury or Execitoner.

In Self-Defense, we are looking at a Life and Death Ordeal. It is your life or family that is in danger and the Police are not yet there to help you. Your ammo HAS to do the job it was made for - "Stopping the Bad Guy" and in most cases that means to kill him.

If you shoot someone in Self-Defense you will have a lot of qustions to answer. And some DA may make you out to be the "Bad Guy" with the "Custom Made Pistol" loaded with your own home made "Killer Bulliets."

For this reason I feel it is better to use a "Stock Pistol" loaded with "Off the Shelf" Ammo. If my life or that of a Famliy Members will depeand on what I have - It will be the best Pistol I can buy, loaded with the best Ammo to do the job.

And what about being Sued by the guy you shot, that was in your house UNINVITED, You know what about HIS Civil Rights? And this has happened!

Wounding vs. Killing? I don't ever want to have to shoot anyone, let alone kill them. But I will do whatever it takes to STOP them.


------------------
Molon Labe!

[This message has been edited by Frank Sottile (edited 06-18-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Hey guys, I am going to move this to Tactics & Personal Defense. It might be a little better suited for that forum.

Thanks.

------------------
"Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
Originally posted by Frank Sottile:
.

In the military, you are NOT allowed to carry Hollowpoint Ammo, WHY?

BUT it also wounds better, and that is all it has to do, wound one soldier - you have taken out one or more to care for the wounded and that's now 2 or more out of action.

In LE, you need to wound the "Bad Guy" (not kill him) so as to be able to have him stand trial and hopefuly spend time in jail. The Police Officer is not to be the Judge, Jury or Execitoner.

In Self-Defense, we are looking at a Life and Death Ordeal.

If you shoot someone in Self-Defense you will have a lot of qustions to answer. And some DA may make you out to be the "Bad Guy" with the "Custom Made Pistol" loaded with your own home made "Killer Bulliets."

And what about being Sued by the guy you shot, that was in your house UNINVITED, You know what about HIS Civil Rights? And this has happened!

Wounding vs. Killing? I don't ever want to have to shoot anyone, let alone kill them. But I will do whatever it takes to STOP them.

Frank to answer your first question soldiers carry FMJ’s because the United States “is a signatory to the Hague Convention.” It’s a throw back to when war was supposed to be civilized. With the old 1 in 12 twist M-16 who cared anyhow. The second the bullet hit it key holed and kept tumbling. It was very unstable.

I spent many years in the military and we never taught any concept about wounding to tie up enemy soldiers to carry the wounded off the field. We taught shooting, bayoneting, stabbing, blowing up, burning, napeing, Willie Peteing, and when all else failed call the “Zoomies” to nuke em until they glow. (Tactical tip, it makes low light target identification much easier.)

I can also tell you from direct empirical observation that the wounded and the dead lay right where they fall to the ground until the immediate exchange of political philosophies are concluded. If I wasn’t too busy tending to my own abrasions and on one occasion attempting to do something about a puncture wound through both my legs, or wasn’t trying to reorganize my somewhat scattered folks back into a semblance of order in preparation for another discussion with Mr. Charles or his big brother NVA, I might tend to the wounded. I will concede that I saw more than one medic earn his pay by going out and retrieving a badly wounded soldier but the medic was part of my TO&E and that was his job.

Now, as far as law enforcement goes when I pull my weapon and shoot a suspect I am doing it under exactly the same circumstances you are when you defend your life. I may not be judge, jury, and executioner but I want to live and I do not care one iota if the bad guy survives my shooting him. I use the most powerful and effective gun and ammunition combination allowed by my department.

If the suspect survives that’s fine but when I am being shot at I am not going to be a “decent chap” and try and wound the poor misguided soul, I am going to shoot where I know I have the best change of putting my man down right now. My review of most shootings where the officer has hit where he/she is trained to shoot has resulted in the death of the perpetrator.

Last but not least. If you are sued for defending your life and family try to remember that you are alive to stand trial. The alternative for your survivors is even less pleasant.




[This message has been edited by Patrickl (edited 06-18-2001).]
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,611 Posts
Frank,
I don't know of ANY LE department that teaches their officers or agents to shoot to wound. That is unheard of and I don't believe happens in any certified academy.

As has happened in the past, there are certain instances where a police sniper may be authorized to shoot to wound or shoot to remove a weapon from a subjects hand. But even in those instances, it is usually only authorized when the subject is only threatening himself and not someone else.

If you want to see a quasi-LE officer shoot to wound, it would be best to tune into some Lone Ranger reruns. Now that guy was darn good!

I also have to say that NEVER in my time in the Army was I ever taught to shoot to wound! You see, if someone is shot and only wounded, he/she may still pose a very serious threat. There is only one reason to ever shoot someone (except in a very specific case) and that is because deadly force is needed to STOP a subject from further action. Period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
>>It will be the best Pistol I can buy, loaded with the best Ammo to do the job.<<

Sounds like a good aurgument before the jury for a custom pistol and custom ammo to me.
To do otherwise, would be to increase the likelyhood of errant shots screaming out into the community to harm innocents, would it not?
So, by having a "Special Combat Government" loaded w/ your own special handloads, you were actually trying to be a more responsible defender of innocent life


I think that aurgument works both ways.

Elsworth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
One view might be;
If you are military, whoever gets hit by your bullet is not going to sue.
If you are a LEO, whoever you shoot is unlikely to sue and would not stand much chance of a successful civil action anyway.

If you are merely a citizen defending the life of yourself and those around you, you will face a civil lawsuit if the BG lives. It would therefore be better, disregarding the morals of valuing human life, if he dies when you shoot him. As someone pointed out to me before, the family might still bring a lawsuit against you, but a cripple in a wheelchair makes a much better case against you.

I'm not sure i'd place much real significance on the above though; the Hague convention (amongst others) is where the utilisation of military small arms and ammunition are controlled - i.e the ban on the use of 'dum-dum' bullets. However, police, anti-terrorist units and civilians are permitted (or not dissallowed anyhow) to use hollow pointed ammunition - the convention only covers military engagements, as far as my knowledge goes. As to why PD's don't make use of their exemption? Perhaps as you suggest; they want their suspects alive.

[This message has been edited by simion_levi (edited 06-18-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Heard this in a old movie that had Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart in it. Yes it was a movie but then it makes sense.
"A man worth shooting is a man worth killing".
My understanding after having shot a deer with a 175gr Silvertip HP/.41 mag, is that they are not guranteed to open any ways.(small hole in and small hole out on that animal).
I think a better round in our hand guns would be a soft point or ballistic type round.

------------------
IceCreamSoldier............... what else is so easy to attack........

[This message has been edited by ICS (edited 06-18-2001).]
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,611 Posts
Originally posted by simion_levi:
As to why PD's don't make use of their exemption? Perhaps as you suggest; they want their suspects alive.

[This message has been edited by simion_levi (edited 06-18-2001).]
Most PDs in the US use hollow point ammo. I have no idea about England.

As to whether a subject remains alive after a shooting or not is irrelevant to the matter.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,611 Posts
Originally posted by ICS:
I think a better round in our hand guns would be a soft point or ballistic type round.

Say again, over?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
Originally posted by simion_levi:
As to why PD's don't make use of their exemption? Perhaps as you suggest; they want their suspects alive.

[This message has been edited by simion_levi (edited 06-18-2001).]
Simon,

I can't speak for England but I can speak for the U.S. and I can assure you that we know we are not bound by the Hague Convention and we do not restrict our people to hard ball.

I will concede that the almost universal standard police round in the U.S. was once the 200 grain RNL .38 special but this was not because of the Hague Convention. Why that particular round seemed to be used by every PD in the U.S. is a not known to me. Perhaps it was just a case of plain lack of ballistics understanding. I do know this. Because the 200 RNL was such a miserable stopper it was finally pushed out until today you will find a very broad spectrum of gun and ammunition combinations.

There are only a few agencies that require actual hardball to my knowledge. Here in California we were hit very hard with military base closures. Numerous Air Force, Navy, Marine, and Army facilities were closed. The bases and the attendant facilities were or are in the process of being turned over to civilian use. There is some sort of civilian contract PD or PD’s that are supplying law enforcement services during the transition and those employee’s are required to use HB as a contract agreement between the PD and the government.
 

·
In Memoriam
Joined
·
683 Posts
Shoot to Kill/Shoot to Wound? Neither one. I would Shoot to Stop. I don't want to kill anyone, or even wound anyone, but if someone is trying to kill me, you can bet I want them to stop doing that!

In any case, using a firearm is DEADLY FORCE!
If you shoot someone, that person may very well die, even if you don't get a center of
mass or cranio-ocular (head) hit. There are veins and arteries in the shoulders, arms, and legs which, if damaged, can cause the person to bleed to death in just a few minutes.

------------------
Roger Shambaugh
Ottawa, Kansas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,480 Posts
Frank, that is some bizarre reasoning.

First of all, if you shoot anyone and regardless if you kill them or not, the first question LE will determine is whether or not lethal force was justified. It it was, then it won't matter what you shot the person with or the type of ammo so long as neither are illegal. "Shooting to wound" or using ball instead of hollowpoint does not somehow change the fact that you are using lethal force.

Next, I haven't seen numbers crunched by anyone that clearly deliniate ball versus hollowpoint and that they have comparable 'stopping power.' I also don't know exactly what you meant my stopping someone. This is an ambiguous term used by a lot of people. Are you using it in the sense of incapacitating the person or just precluding them from moving? Given my druthers, I would rather the guy be stopped dead with little or no chance of getting back up agian or even moving a finger, period. Some people who are "stopped" have a nasty habit of getting up again.

As far as being sued, that is a civil matter and sure enough, bad guys have sued good guys. Nothing is going to stop that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
I said it simple enough!
Why wouldnt you agree that a softpoint would expand better.I shot that deer at 85yds and the hollow point never opened, least not according to exit wound.
Patrickl, you trying to be funny?

Would a hollow point do better against hard surfaces than this type of round?
[This message has been edited by ICS (edited 06-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by ICS (edited 06-18-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Originally posted by Patrickl:
Originally posted by simion_levi:
As to why PD's don't make use of their exemption? Perhaps as you suggest; they want their suspects alive.


Simon,

I can't speak for England but I can speak for the U.S. and I can assure you that we know we are not bound by the Hague Convention and we do not restrict our people to hard ball.
Patrick, maybe you misunderstood my point - the 1899 Hague convention (often confused with the Geneva convention) made illegal the use of expanding ammunition for the armed forces of all signatory nations acting in a war situation between them, which included the US and Britain - they were the only two disenting votes, but they both signed in the end. When the current policy was actually ratified i do not know, but i am pretty certain that it still stands, under whatever heading you may wish to apply.

The convention (and any ratifications) does not cover civil use in any way, shape or form - PD's may use hollow point to their hearts content, as may any person not actively engaging in an act of war. I just got the impression from Frank that he thought PD's didn't use hollow point either - they have nothing to stop them legally, nor do specialist military teams acting in an antiterrorist role (i.e. effectively policing their nation).


This is a report from the American ambassador at the 1899 treaty.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague99/hag99-05.htm


And this gentleman says that it is the understanding that 'unnecessary suffering should not be caused' since the Hauge and other treaties which have lead the US military (and practically all other Western countries' armies) to use only ball ammunition - as i have said, I am not aware of the exact agreement under which this currently falls, but it still stands that most military forces do not use hollow point ammo.

http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-hague.html


Feel free to contradict anything I've said, I'm certainly not infallable and I'm always happy to learn from my mistakes.


[This message has been edited by simion_levi (edited 06-18-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
ICS,


What velocity was that load at ?? On the assumption that was fired from a handgun, it could be that at 85 yards there was not enough velocity remaining to cause the expansion you were expecting. That's reaching out there pretty far even for the .41 .

Many reasons for the failure of expansion in hollow point bullets, as has been discussed in the past at great length..........


laters

gr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Patrickl
Sorry, I was refering to a round that is used in sabot loads for black powder(basically most sabots are pistol bullets). Also you have seen them in rifle loads Im sure. "Balistic tip"/synthetic point, is what I should have said. I was wondering why no bullet company has offered such a load in a commercial hand gun load. They are supposed to mushroom and have better accuracy than standard rounds.

Kahana,
Thats a valid point on the range vs velocity. It was my understanding that this was a light bullet and a favorite defense load for that caliber. I should have been using 200gr minimum. The 9pt went down less than 25 yds from where he was hit however. I remember expecting to see this masive exit wound and I didnt.
I have to keep in mind that handguns are not rifles. But I would take that shot over again today if I had to.

------------------
IceCreamSoldier............... what else is so easy to attack........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
If you don't have the right to kill them you don't have the right to wound them. If they need shooting they must need killing. Any other reason is not enough to shoot some one.
Besides if they survive it is their word against your and it is always better to only have your side of the story to explain.

------------------
I won't be lied to, be insulted, or have hands laid on me, I don't do these things to others, and I expect the same from them.

Stupidity should be painful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
As far as a lawyer screaming about your custom pistol and your "killer" bullets, he could probably just as easily go the other way.

"Your honor, in addition to using a high-powered, military-style 1911 pistol, the defendant was also using military-style ball ammunition. This ammunition is so dangerous that even local police departments stopped carrying it, because it doesn't always stop after it hits a target. This person has a careless and reckless disregard for human life by using rounds that can shear through walls and kill little Timmy in the neighbor's yard!"

Basically, if you shoot someone, you're going to get sued in a civil case. I don't care if the guy knocked down a steel security door, kicked open your front door, shot your dog, cut your phone lines, tied up your wife and raped her, strangled your kids, and then came after you...if you shoot the MF dead (or hurt him), his family will come up with some bullspit theory about how he had a bad childhood, or he was a member of an underprivileged class or race, or he was actually hungry and needed food, or "you had no idea that he was going to harm you." (all of these reasons pulled from anti-gunners on the Yahoo Gun Control board!)

However, like Patrick said - I would much rather be alive and defending myself against a joke civil suit in the courtroom than perhaps ALL of us dead because I wasn't able to kill an offender. And even if I lost the civil suit - at least I won against the goblin.

As far as "shooting to wound", evidence shows that attackers can continue to function for quite a bit even with lethal wounds (a heart shot can allow an attacker to live, continue attacking, whatever - for an average of 14 seconds - if they've got a gun, that's a lot of rounds they can send you/your family's way).

At least in LAPD and Simi Valley PD, officers are taught to shoot to kill if the situation warrants it. Most officers, though, due to inexperience, inadequate training, adrenaline, personal reasons, or otherwise, don't follow that particular pattern. (and don't jump my butt - I've never been in a shooting - I'm repeating what I've been told by someone who's been in a sh*tload of shootings).

In some cases, it's incredibly hard to down a goblin even if you ARE shooting to kill - imagine what would happen if you were only shooting to wound? I've heard stories of guys that are pumped FULL of lead that continue fighting, shooting, running at an officer, etc. Now if they'd only been "wounded" (i.e., winged in the leg or the Hollywood favorite, "The Non-Lethal Shoulder Wound"), think of how much damage they could do.

There is pretty much only one "wound" shot that will down a goblin instantly - a shot thorugh his pelvis that prevents him from standing up. But even that's iffy, because you're dealing with the celiac artery and various bits and pieces of digestive organs. And if he's got a gun in his hands...well, I've shot from the prone position. Pretty stable, actually. Also, as KSLawman noted, damn near anywhere you hit someone with a .45 unless it's the hands or feet can cause them to bleed out in the time it takes for an ambulance to get to the location.

Okay, I'm done now. Long rant. (KL sits back, waits for Patrick to "jab" her. I'm a-ready!)

[This message has been edited by KimberLady (edited 06-18-2001).]
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top