Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/12/21 11:57:28
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
That's obvious, its the relatively killing potential between 7.62 and high velocity 5.56 that I don't know about.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
2013/12/21 12:08:49
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Palindrome wrote: That's obvious, its the relatively killing potential between 7.62 and high velocity 5.56 that I don't know about.
As I mentioned, it comes down to an agrument between scientific fact, and anecdotes on which is better. It's one that has never been conclusively decided, and probably never will be. But, just to be nice, here's some links to discussions on the topic.
Kilkrazy wrote: I remember passages in "Black Hawk Down" (the book) where the riflemen regret the loss of the 7.62mm round, because they see opponents getting hit with 5.56mm bullets and scrambling away apparently not seriously hurt.
That is the point, or at least one of the points, to the introduction of the 5.56 round, its designed to wound rather than kill as this is reckoned to remove a lot more manpower due to casualty extraction, medical requirements etc. I don't know how true this actually is but it is 'common knowledge' within the medical services.
It takes two guys to pull a wounded man from the battle. Wounding one person neutralizes three. Killing one person neutralizes one.
But it still takes at least two people to remove a casualty (dead or not) from immediate danger. Just because someone dies doesn't mean you just leave them there and forget about them. Even if they get blown to pieces and their legs are fifty feet from their body, you're still responsible for getting that casualty out of there.
I see your argument, of course, I'm just nitpicking. If your buddy gets nailed by a big round and he hits the deck and doesn't get up, your attention isn't going to be getting him out of there. Seeing someone alive screaming and freaking out is much more distracting.
2013/12/21 13:16:54
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
But it still takes at least two people to remove a casualty (dead or not) from immediate danger. Just because someone dies doesn't mean you just leave them there and forget about them. Even if they get blown to pieces and their legs are fifty feet from their body, you're still responsible for getting that casualty out of there
The difference is timescale. If someone is dead they are dead, they can be left as they are. If someone is injured they will probably need immediate aid. Obviously both will need attention at some point.
Interestingly Afghans put more emphasis on evacuating their dead than their wounded.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
2013/12/21 14:16:10
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
But it still takes at least two people to remove a casualty (dead or not) from immediate danger. Just because someone dies doesn't mean you just leave them there and forget about them. Even if they get blown to pieces and their legs are fifty feet from their body, you're still responsible for getting that casualty out of there.
That greatly depends. I know we Western militaries have that whole "never leave a man behind" thing that we do. Other nations, not so much. Quite a few of the Iraqis that I had the "pleasure" meeting with my M-4 tended to be more than willing to leave their buddy behind when we opened up with a 240 or larger.
2013/12/21 19:23:40
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Andrew1975 wrote: Even with high caliber weapons and explosives studies have shown its all about time to treatment. You might still be messed up, but you will be alive.
If you watch the video, high calibre weapons aren't what cause the massive damage. It's rifle shots. Apparently pistols might just as well be squirt guns.
Also if you watch the video, high calibre rounds are more lethal (even handguns) simply because they have a better chance to damage critical organ structures simply due to projectile size.
It actually has more to do with the velocity of the round. Velocity actually causes much more damage than caliber. Mass x velocity squared and all.
Less velocity is actually better. Over-penetration is a significant problem with rifle rounds and intermediate cartridges. Depends on who you are blasting as well.
The ballistic gel tests and the doctor's comments seem to implicate that over penetration is only a problem for the guy behind the target. The target itself gets fragged up pretty good thanks to the high velocity of the round.
Actually, over penetration is the shooter's problem; if the the cavitation and expansion of the projectile don't happen inside the target's body cavity then it is very probable that the target won't be immediately incapacitated. "Angle of strike" is also a large factor in over penetration as the doctor explains in the video. However this entire line of discussion only applies to rifle calibres. Handgun calibres lack the mass and velocity to cause significant damage with the secondary cavity (as explained in the video), and must directly damage critical organs to cause immediately life threatening injuries. Velocity helps in this regard because these organs are almost entirely located lbehind very strong bones (Sternum, ribs, skull) or are located posteriorly in the body (the spine). Hitting the heart, nervous system or liver via a frontal strike requires good penetration and shot placement (this is known as hitting the 3 inch strip). This is why (in handguns at least) a larger caliber is more efficient; they have enough mass to give penetration and reduce deflection, while the larger surface area increases the chance of directly damaging a critical organ structure.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/12/21 19:27:43
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
2013/12/22 05:47:35
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Lordhat wrote: This is why (in handguns at least) a larger caliber is more efficient; they have enough mass to give penetration and reduce deflection, while the larger surface area increases the chance of directly damaging a critical organ structure.
I was with you up until this.
2013/12/22 05:56:28
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Well...this only strengthens my conviction that if I ever need to pull a weapon on somebody I will continue firing into them until the magazine is empty...then I might load another one just to be sure.
Also: Fun fact, you're more likely to get a self defense verdict to stick if you apply the entire magazine, because if you only fired a couple shots it's obvious that you weren't panicked, so obviously you didn't need to draw the gun and shoot them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/22 05:57:57
Like watching other people play video games (badly) while blathering about nothing in particular? Check out my Youtube channel: joemamaUSA!
BrianDavion wrote: Between the two of us... I think GW is assuming we the players are not complete idiots.
Rapidly on path to becoming the world's youngest bitter old man.
2013/12/22 06:41:12
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
dementedwombat wrote: Well...this only strengthens my conviction that if I ever need to pull a weapon on somebody I will continue firing into them until the magazine is empty...then I might load another one just to be sure.
Also: Fun fact, you're more likely to get a self defense verdict to stick if you apply the entire magazine, because if you only fired a couple shots it's obvious that you weren't panicked, so obviously you didn't need to draw the gun and shoot them.
Part of Zimmerman's defense was that he only fired one round, instead of emptying the clip.
ZIMMERMANED!!!!
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/12/22 09:18:42
Subject: Re:Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Lordhat wrote: This is why (in handguns at least) a larger caliber is more efficient; they have enough mass to give penetration and reduce deflection, while the larger surface area increases the chance of directly damaging a critical organ structure.
I was with you up until this.
What about this statement is incorrect? Let me be clear; this is exactly the position given by the doctor in the video I posted.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
2013/12/22 09:26:49
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Lordhat wrote: This is why (in handguns at least) a larger caliber is more efficient; they have enough mass to give penetration and reduce deflection, while the larger surface area increases the chance of directly damaging a critical organ structure.
I was with you up until this.
What about this statement is incorrect? Let me be clear; this is exactly the position given by the doctor in the video I posted.
Long video, but this one shows how the type of bullet has more impact then the size of the bullet.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/12/22 09:28:52
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Lordhat wrote: What about this statement is incorrect? Let me be clear; this is exactly the position given by the doctor in the video I posted.
We're not dealing with a terribly wide gulf in expanded diameter with modern hollowpoints.
The overwhelming majority of people shoot 9mm better than they shoot .40 or .45. Quick, accurate shot placement trumps an additional tenth of an inch any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
2013/12/22 09:39:19
Subject: Re:Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Where the bullet hits is also extremely important. If a rifle round shatters a bone, that's a whole world of hurt. Hits a major artery the person has a better chance of bleeding out before help arrives. But yes, time frame of medical attention is crucial. In Iraq I saw an insurgent that had been hit seven times by 5.56 and lived. And sometimes one round is all it takes. Caliber is much less important than I previously thought. I carry 9mm and don't feel underarmed.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2013/12/22 09:47:49
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Lordhat wrote: What about this statement is incorrect? Let me be clear; this is exactly the position given by the doctor in the video I posted.
We're not dealing with a terribly wide gulf in expanded diameter with modern hollowpoints.
The overwhelming majority of people shoot 9mm better than they shoot .40 or .45. Quick, accurate shot placement trumps an additional tenth of an inch any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
I see. Your point is completely accurate and true. Shot placement is critical. This however does not invalidate my statement. All other factors being equal, a larger bore just increases the chance that your bullet will strike a major organ system with said shot placement. The video has an x-ray (16:44) where a .40 cal bullet successfully penetrated the sternum and stopped "a few millimeters" short of the aortic artery, due to hollow point expansion. IMO a .45 or .44 would have a better chance of travelling those few extra MM's due to mass, whereas a 9MM or .357 also would, due to increased velocity, though deflection might pose a problem with the smaller calibres.
TLDR; It's best to use the largest calibre you can reliably shoot with accuracy.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
2013/12/22 09:48:35
Subject: Re:Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
MWHistorian wrote: Where the bullet hits is also extremely important. If a rifle round shatters a bone, that's a whole world of hurt. Hits a major artery the person has a better chance of bleeding out before help arrives. But yes, time frame of medical attention is crucial. In Iraq I saw an insurgent that had been hit seven times by 5.56 and lived. And sometimes one round is all it takes. Caliber is much less important than I previously thought. I carry 9mm and don't feel underarmed.
Yeah, I'll be buying my first handgun this upcoming year, and 9mm is what I'll be carrying. I was sold on the .45 before, until I schooled myself a bit more.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/12/22 09:53:14
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Lordhat wrote: I see. Your point is completely accurate and true. Shot placement is critical. This however does not invalidate my statement. All other factors being equal, a larger bore just increases the chance that your bullet will strike a major organ system with said shot placement. The video has an x-ray (16:44) where a .40 cal bullet successfully penetrated the sternum and stopped "a few millimeters" short of the aortic artery, due to hollow point expansion. IMO a .45 or .44 would have a better chance of travelling those few extra MM's due to mass, whereas a 9MM or .357 also would, due to increased velocity, though deflection might pose a problem with the smaller calibres.
TLDR; It's best to use the largest calibre you can reliably shoot with accuracy.
I'd say it's best to use the service caliber you can shoot best, with 'best' being a combination of quickness and accuracy. Again, for most people, that's 9mm, though they may not know it - how many guys actually train with an eye on their split times, after all?
And sure, a .45 might have gotten through that dude's sternum. It also might've bounced. There are examples out there of guys getting shot in the head with a .45 and the bullet failing to penetrate the skull. There are examples of 9mm going through several inches of bone. Different loads, different bullets - Gold Dots or Hornady bonded? etc. - different circumstances.
We can say, though, that generally speaking, you're right; .45 will be slightly bigger and do slightly better through bone. My point is that the differences are so marginal they should never guide caliber choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Yeah, I'll be buying my first handgun this upcoming year, and 9mm is what I'll be carrying. I was sold on the .45 before, until I schooled myself a bit more.
I just swapped back to .45. The girlfriend became a victim of the cult of the 1911, and I generally carry what she carries, in case we ever get into a Mr. & Mrs. Smith situation involving ninjas. Interchangeable mags, y'know.
I'm much slower but slightly more accurate with it, the latter of which I attribute entirely to the difference between a Glock trigger and a 1911 trigger. She is both faster and more accurate than she was with the 9mm, which I can't fething figure out to save my life.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/22 10:10:10
2013/12/22 10:14:31
Subject: Re:Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
djones520 wrote: Yeah, I'll be buying my first handgun this upcoming year, and 9mm is what I'll be carrying. I was sold on the .45 before, until I schooled myself a bit more.
I like to shoot the 45, but I definitely can appreciate the superior concealability and ammunition capacity of the 9mm. If I could do it over again, I might have gone with 9. I guess I still can, though, no reason I only need one handgun.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2013/12/22 10:26:46
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
I'll buy a 1911 eventually as well, because I just don't feel like a true gun loving American if I don't.
But PDW first. Since I'm moving to Tennessee/Kentucky this spring (Ft. Campbell here I come!), both states reciprocate Michigans CPL, so I can finally go about getting that.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/12/22 10:29:29
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
djones520 wrote: I'll buy a 1911 eventually as well, because I just don't feel like a true gun loving American if I don't.
But PDW first. Since I'm moving to Tennessee/Kentucky this spring (Ft. Campbell here I come!), both states reciprocate Michigans CPL, so I can finally go about getting that.
Same here. I also feel obliged to get a 1911 eventually. I like Beretta and...I hate to say this...but Glock too.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2013/12/22 10:31:36
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
I've been looking at Glocks, and I'm still sitting on the fence between a 19 and a 26.
I already have a pocket gun for CC, so I'm looking for an OC gun. I really like the 19 for that, but I also like that I could carry the 26 concealed if I wanted to.
Decisions decisions...
2013/12/22 11:09:50
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
d-usa wrote: I've been looking at Glocks, and I'm still sitting on the fence between a 19 and a 26.
I already have a pocket gun for CC, so I'm looking for an OC gun. I really like the 19 for that, but I also like that I could carry the 26 concealed if I wanted to.
Decisions decisions...
This must be what it feels like when my wife is picking out shoes.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/12/22 11:10:28
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
d-usa wrote: I've been looking at Glocks, and I'm still sitting on the fence between a 19 and a 26.
I already have a pocket gun for CC, so I'm looking for an OC gun. I really like the 19 for that, but I also like that I could carry the 26 concealed if I wanted to.
Decisions decisions...
This must be what it feels like when my wife is picking out shoes.
You're a lucky man!
Mine would just get both instead of deciding...
2013/12/22 13:35:25
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
Kilkrazy wrote: I remember passages in "Black Hawk Down" (the book) where the riflemen regret the loss of the 7.62mm round, because they see opponents getting hit with 5.56mm bullets and scrambling away apparently not seriously hurt.
That is the point, or at least one of the points, to the introduction of the 5.56 round, its designed to wound rather than kill as this is reckoned to remove a lot more manpower due to casualty extraction, medical requirements etc. I don't know how true this actually is but it is 'common knowledge' within the medical services.
Well someone needs to tell the British army to change their briefings then. Also that link is pretty much useless.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
2013/12/22 14:27:47
Subject: Just how often do gunshots result in death, and why?
I feel pretty comfortable with my 1911 as a defensive weapon. I've been shooting the thing since middle school and I've gotten it pretty well figured out. Not an expert marksman or anything but good enough to handle a defensive situation, once I get some tactical firearm training. I am woefully lacking on that. Apparently a hunting license is enough qualification to get a concealed carry permit in Idaho. That kinda terrifies me... so until I actually know how to use the dang thing my license is being unused.
Also I will agree that 9mm is easy to shoot. The first time I ever shot an M9 I shot out the center of the target in a group about the right size to put your fist through. But that was the most boring lifeless gun I've ever fired...and the trigger pull felt like putting your hand into a bowl full of jello...so I can't see myself using one if I have the option.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/22 14:33:34
Like watching other people play video games (badly) while blathering about nothing in particular? Check out my Youtube channel: joemamaUSA!
BrianDavion wrote: Between the two of us... I think GW is assuming we the players are not complete idiots.
Rapidly on path to becoming the world's youngest bitter old man.
Now That I've Said it, It Must Be Canon 