ShotGunWorld Shotguns

It is currently Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:44 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Image



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:36 pm 
Utility Grade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:32 pm
Posts: 11
Sorry for starting a debate.

I have used 00 buck in combat & inside of 10 yards pellets penetrated the wall behind the enemy after passing through him.

I have fired Federal #4 Magnum from 10 yards (a long shot in HD) into the ribcage of a recently "put down" male adult cow that due to a disease was unedible. All 34 pellets penetrated the rib cage & destroyed the vitals. I have no video as this was done around 1990 or so. No one would survive a shot like that. All it takes is 1 to reach the heart & 34 pellets highly increases that probability. A .22LR at close range would stop it as well. So will 34 .24cal rounds entering the vital areas at the same time. If it were a side shot for some reason the person will in no way get up & walk it off.

Personally, I'd prefer to control the situation verbally if available as being a BG or not He is someone to somebody. I am confident in my ability to do so as I have in the past. Any time a threat can be resolved w/o firing a shot is a good ending.

Bottom line is I would never stake the life of my family on something I was unsure of. I am sure of #4 Magnum based on personal testing as my HD load. No one would survive that shot to center mass.

Urban combat would be 00 Buck for sure. It's in my sidesaddle in the event that there were a Home Invasion & it got bad.

Jusy my .02c.
:wink:
RR




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:14 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:23 am
Posts: 5920
Location: In overwatch
Roadracer wrote:
Sorry for starting a debate.

You didn't really start the debate, it has been going on for several years and several pages.
Quote:
I have fired Federal #4 Magnum from 10 yards (a long shot in HD) into the ribcage of a recently "put down" male adult cow that due to a disease was unedible. All 34 pellets penetrated the rib cage & destroyed the vitals. I have no video as this was done around 1990 or so. No one would survive a shot like that.

Over on M4C there is an LEO on a department that had an OIS involving #4B through a screen door. #4B did not penetetrate past the ribs. I've heard of other shootings with #4B that had a slightly better result, but #4B was not a rapid fight stopper.
The guys that get paid to study terminal ballistics have found that #4B does not reliably and consistently meet the 12" FBI minimum.
None of that is to say that the #4B load cannot do so, or that it won't stop somebody, or not be lethal. It simply means that it does not do so on a repeatable basis. #1B is a better performer, and 00 does better as well.
Quote:
All it takes is 1 to reach the heart & 34 pellets highly increases that probability. A .22LR at close range would stop it as well. So will 34 .24cal rounds entering the vital areas at the same time. If it were a side shot for some reason the person will in no way get up & walk it off.

All true. However, I am not satisfied with the ability of #4B to do that reliably and consistently. Other people are more than happy with it, and have no reservations about using. I've got no problem with that.
Quote:
Personally, I'd prefer to control the situation verbally if available as being a BG or not He is someone to somebody. I am confident in my ability to do so as I have in the past. Any time a threat can be resolved w/o firing a shot is a good ending.

Agreed, but I and my family come first.
Quote:
Bottom line is I would never stake the life of my family on something I was unsure of. I am sure of #4 Magnum based on personal testing as my HD load. No one would survive that shot to center mass.

I've seen reports of some that have done just that. Maybe range played a part, maybe the shot angle, maybe just synergy. Absolutes are dangerous when you're looking at terminal ballistics and duty/defensive shootings.
Quote:
Urban combat would be 00 Buck for sure. It's in my sidesaddle in the event that there were a Home Invasion & it got bad.

Jusy my .02c.
:wink:
RR

I'm not sure what the distinction is: HD versus urban combat. It would seem that they are roughly the same: I would want the threat stopped as quickly and reliably as possible in both cases. I don't quite get having 00 in the shotgun for a home invasion that goes bad: it would seem that if either I were in a home invasion or a shooting at all I would define that as bad.

_________________
You might find me someday dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll find me in a pile of brass.

Image
http://www.weaponevolution.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:32 pm 
Field Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:01 pm
Posts: 96
cmug870 wrote:
inbox485 wrote:
My "evidence" of frontal shots being typical is that I've seen a lot of reports/vids/etc, and have yet to see an HD shot that wasn't frontal.

You are kidding, right? Even if you could provide a lot of examples of frontal shots made in HD scenario, without some sort of quantitative analysis from an authority on the subject, your examples are worthless as evidence of your point.
inbox485 wrote:
so knowing that #4 Buck will be good enough for the vast majority of HD shots you might need to take is useful info.


http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu91.htm
Just 2 examples. Google is you friend. With your lack of civility, I doubt you have many.


No, it is not. It is actually irresponsible for a person to say such things in an arena where people come to learn info on the proper way to defend themselves and their families. Saying that 00 is "good enough", because it meets the FBI standard of 12" of penetration would be useful info. Lots of people smarter and better funded than either you or I actually performed scientific, peer reviewed research and they found it to be an acceptable round. You are an anonymous guy on the internet that claims to have seen "reports/vids/etc", do you really think you are more credible than the FBI? If so, you would be making a lot of money publishing your reports and research as every police and military unit would be interested. Money is king, so I will just assume that you are not getting rich educating the world on your theory because you are just giving it out for free. Therefore, you do not have any credibility.


Here is you're "amazing" research that was performed:
Image

Penetration >12" is fine and dandy, but there is only 1 angle where you will need it. The FBI knows that and decided to use it as a standard. Problem is from the distance front to back tends to be less, and for some people depending on their circumstances, overpenetration is more of a concern than the risk of that one angle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:42 pm 
Field Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:01 pm
Posts: 96
m24shooter wrote:
inbox485 wrote:
#4 is generally recognized as being the minimum for HD

By whom?

There are training schools, LE agencies, etc. I listed a couple links that were handy in my last post.

Quote:
since it tends to penetrate more than enough for the frontal hits typical in HD.

I have never heard of that criteria, and I would absolutely not use it or pay any attention to it if I did.
Quote:
The 12" standard is to get to the heart from the right side of an average person starting with the arm.

Ever see someone in an Iso or even Modified Weaver? Those arms are in the front of the thoracic cavity most likely. Same as if the person were holding a rifle, carbine, or shotgun. Same as if someone were in a pugilistic stance or armed with a knife. So even though it may not be a lateral shot, you still may need to go through the hand/arm to hit vitals. That is why 12" is the minimum.

There is only 1 angle where 12" is needed to get to the heart, and it is from the rear side. Any frontal hit will be less than that angle even if the arm is in the way.

Quote:
There is a reason the same 12" standard is irrelevant to QCB knives.

Knives have a totally different wounding mechanism and are largely irrelevant to this discussion.

Stabbing isn't all that different when you are talking about getting to vital organs. That is the end of the comparison I was making.

Quote:
Also, I missed where the calibration offset was mentioned. Do you have a table showing the error?

If you look at calibrated ballistic gel blocks you will see a small BB track. That track shows that the gel is properly consistent. The tracks in these tests are too long showing too much penetration due to soft gel.
It isn't mentioned because it is an understood convention in measuring/projecting terminal ballistics with calibrated gel.

Thanks.

Quote:
Yes I realize that you may need to make an odd shot, but you may also need armor piercing ammo even level II soft armor tends to stop slugs and 000 Buck even though it isn't rated for it.

Under those circumstances carbine > shotgun, and that is why a lot of people use one.
Quote:
My "evidence" of frontal shots being typical is that I've seen a lot of reports/vids/etc, and have yet to see an HD shot that wasn't frontal. I know that isn't a guarantee of anything, but as I said, you don't know if OOO Buck will get the job done either, so knowing that #4 Buck will be good enough for the vast majority of HD shots you might need to take is useful info.

The problem is you don't know that #4B is going to be good enough, and it has not shown itself to penetrate deeply enough to pass the FBI minimum. Those that study contemporary terminal ballistics pretty much all recommend #1B as the smallest that will reliably reach 12" and that yardstick is there for a reason.
Quote:
Do with it what you want. I use 00 Buck because that is what I patterned in my gun, and I can always find the same brand and load at Walmart.

I'd rather use 00 because I know it will hit that 12" minimum regardless of what part of the body I have to shoot through, or what anatomical structures are in the way, or what item of clothing the target is wearing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:51 pm 
Utility Grade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:32 pm
Posts: 11
Quote:
Penetration >12" is fine and dandy, but there is only 1 angle where you will need it. The FBI knows that and decided to use it as a standard. Problem is from the distance front to back tends to be less, and for some people depending on their circumstances, overpenetration is more of a concern than the risk of that one angle.


+1.

RR


Last edited by Roadracer on Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:08 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:23 am
Posts: 5920
Location: In overwatch
inbox485 wrote:
There are training schools, LE agencies, etc. I listed a couple links that were handy in my last post.

Neither of your posted links was someone recommending #4B. Neither one was a training school or LE agency.
Your first source was written 12 years ago. A lot has changed since then. That report even lists loads that are no longer in use/produced.
But from that source:
Quote:
Number 1 buck is the smallest diameter shot that reliably and consistently penetrates more than 12 inches of standard ordnance gelatin when fired at typical shotgun engagement distances.
In all shotshell loads, number 1 buckshot produces more potentially effective wound trauma than either #00 or #000 buck. In addition, number 1 buck is less likely to over-penetrate and exit an attacker's body.
For home defense applications a standard velocity 2 ¾-inch #1 buck shotshell (16 pellet payload) from Federal, Remington or Winchester is your best choice.
Fourth choice is any 2 ¾-inch Magnum shotshell that is loaded with hardened, plated and buffered #4 buckshot. The Magnum cartridge has the lowest velocity, and the lower velocity will help to minimize pellet deformation on impact. The hardened buckshot and buffering granules also help to minimize pellet deformation too. These three innovations help to maximize pellet penetration. Number 4 hardened buckshot is a marginal performer. Some of the hardened buckshot will penetrate at least 12 inches deep and some will not.
Number 1 buckshot has the potential to produce more effective wound trauma than either #00 or #000 buck, without the accompanying risk of over-penetration. The IWBA believes, with very good reason, that number 1 buckshot is the shotshell load of choice for quickly stopping deadly criminal violence.

Your second source (our own Old_Painless):
Quote:
While any buckshot is better than birdshot, the larger the buckshot pellets, the more they will weigh, and the more they will penetrate. The #4 Buckshot I measured is the "minimal" buckshot load, and will barely meet the penetration standards. Some folks like it, and some police departments even issue it, but it is the smallest buckshot and will penetrate the least. Larger is better, and 00 is preferred.

Quote:
The 12" standard is to get to the heart from the right side of an average person starting with the arm.
There is only 1 angle where 12" is needed to get to the heart, and it is from the rear side. Any frontal hit will be less than that angle even if the arm is in the way.

Here's a problem with that: if the arms are in front of the torso. That does happen, with great frequency if the subject is armed. While the 12" minimum is the guideline and the actual amount of tissue may be less than 12" if you were to stack the various tissues and structures that would be in the projo path, you must also factor in the fact that you have several bones in there, and several layers of skin, both of which can diminish the expected performance of a projo from that minimal 12" goal. 12" is the minimum, meaning that if it can go farther that is good. You're reading too much into the picture I posted. That just shows why the 12" minimum is a minimum. If it were the longest possible bullet track and needed penetration, then it wouldn't be called the minimum.
Quote:
Stabbing isn't all that different when you are talking about getting to vital organs. That is the end of the comparison I was making.

It is absolutely different. Go talk to somebody who studies terminal ballistics and tell them that the wounding mechanisms are similar between knives and bullets.
The wounding mechanism for a knife is cutting. It is very efficient and can be done with a good blade with minimal effort or force. Just think of a papercut: it is a very flimsy cutting edge with minimal force which is often completely accidental. But it is enough to cut the skin. Push a broadhead arrow or tanto point knife into your hand. It doesn't take much effort to push either in.
Now take a bullet and try to push it in. Bullets are much less efficient and require much greater force/effort to not only break the skin, but to penetrate deeply and do significant damage. The wounding mechanism for GSWs is crushing.
So yes it is different, and it is much easier for a knife to reach vital organs with far less force and effort than a bullet.
Quote:
Penetration >12" is fine and dandy, but there is only 1 angle where you will need it. The FBI knows that and decided to use it as a standard.

Not exactly: they use it as a minimum.
Quote:
Problem is from the distance front to back tends to be less, and for some people depending on their circumstances, overpenetration is more of a concern than the risk of that one angle.

From your second source:
Quote:
2. Buckshot penetrates too much and will go through walls in my home.

Sure it will. Any load that will STOP a bad guy, will also penetrate several interior walls, as I proved here: Rifles, Shotguns, and Walls

Until someone invents a phaser, like on Star Trek, any load that will STOP a bad guy will also penetrate several walls.

So by your logic, in HD shootings the 12" minimum is too much because your research indicates almost all HD shooting occur with the target squared to the shooter with arms down.
Does this mean that because the FBI chose the 12" minimum and the only possible bullet path that requires that is from the right rear that almost all FBI shootings are from the right rear?

_________________
You might find me someday dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll find me in a pile of brass.

Image
http://www.weaponevolution.com


Last edited by m24shooter on Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:27 pm 
Field Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:01 pm
Posts: 96
m24shooter wrote:
So by your logic, in HD shootings the 12" minimum is too much because your research indicates almost all HD shooting occur with the target squared to the shooter with arms down.

Never stated that. Just said that they tend to be frontal.

Does this mean that because the FBI chose the 12" minimum and the only possible bullet path that requires that is from the right rear that almost all FBI shootings are from the right rear?


You're being ridiculous. I never said or implied anything to that effect. Obviously the FBI know that they might need that odd angle shot to end a fight as they had before. They also have a duty not to retreat in a lot of circumstances. Semi barricaded in my room, the only way, I'm going to shoot anything other than a frontal shot is if the guy charges in running backwards. If you don't have anything else besides putting words in my mouth, I'm done here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:34 pm 
Presentation Grade

Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:01 am
Posts: 511
Location: Not Huntington Beach, CA
His frontal, not through the arms shot sounds like shooting someone doing this, and this only.
Image
Image
as compared to someone you would want to shoot, like, say him...
Image
Look at how his arms cover up is chest. Or this guy.
Image
That is not a frontal shot, in fact it looks like a shot like the one you posted of the 12" on a cadaver is needed. That type of stance is not that far fetched is it?

_________________
This is my shotgun, there are 10 million like it but this one is mine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:43 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:23 am
Posts: 5920
Location: In overwatch
inbox485 wrote:
Never stated that. Just said that they tend to be frontal.

With no intervening structures, or dismissing those.
Quote:
You're being ridiculous. I never said or implied anything to that effect.

You're absolutely right-I'm being ridiculous. If you are going to say that the 12" minimum isn't needed because you will never need that much penetration because you will almost assuredly face an attacker front-on with no intermediate structures, then the conclusion of that logic would be like saying that the FBI is using the 12" minimum to address the shot from the right rear and that is the most probable shot they would face.
I know the FBI doesn't believe that: they are using the 12" minimum as a minimum because they understand that you can't determine how the target will present itself. They understand that you can wargame potential scenarios all day and still not cover every possiblity. They understand that even in a frontal shoot you very likely will have to go through arms first.
Quote:
Obviously the FBI know that they might need that odd angle shot to end a fight as they had before.

Or that there may be arms in the way from a frontal shot. It does happen, and quite frequently.
Quote:
They also have a duty not to retreat in a lot of circumstances. Semi barricaded in my room, the only way, I'm going to shoot anything other than a frontal shot is if the guy charges in running backwards.

That's fine. If you know that is the only possible shot you will ever have to make that's great.
Quote:
If you don't have anything else besides putting words in my mouth, I'm done here.

I didn't put words in your mouth.
I did make a ridiculous statement to show how unrealistic your research is.
I also raised some other issues that you've completely ignored.

_________________
You might find me someday dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll find me in a pile of brass.

Image
http://www.weaponevolution.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:47 pm 
Utility Grade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:32 pm
Posts: 11
I think the internet as a whole has led people to believe that Ammo trumps Good Marksmanship...at least that's what ammo companies would have us believe.

9 Rounds of .33 cal centermass = Dead.

34 Rounds of .24 cal centermass = Dead.

Either way it's like getting hit by a firing squad.

Let's all talk this one at my place over Steaks on the grille this weekend at my place. You're all invited! :lol:

Peace.

RR


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:51 pm 
Field Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:01 pm
Posts: 96
Roadracer wrote:
I think the internet as a whole has led people to believe that Ammo trumps Good Marksmanship...at least that's what ammo companies would have us believe.

9 Rounds of .33 cal centermass = Dead.

34 Rounds of .24 cal centermass = Dead.

Either way it's like getting hit by a firing squad.

Let's all talk this one at my place over Steaks on the grille this weekend at my place. You're all invited! :lol:

Peace.

RR


That sounds a lot more fun than continuing to have words put in my mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:51 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:23 am
Posts: 5920
Location: In overwatch
Roadracer wrote:
I think the internet as a whole has led people to believe that Ammo trumps Good Marksmanship...at least that's what ammo companies would have us believe.

I would tend to agree with that.
However, I and several others here have said placement is king on numerous occassions.
Quote:
9 Rounds of .33 cal centermass = Dead.

34 Rounds of .24 cal centermass = Dead.

Either way it's like getting hit by a firing squad.

Agreed, so long as there is adequate penetration. The problem is that with spherical projos (and particularly those that are moving at relatively low velocity and are soft or unplated) they don't do that as well as an actual .33 or .24 cal bullet-type projectile.
Quote:
Let's all talk talk this one out at my place over Steaks on the grille this weekend at my place. You're all invited! :lol:

Peace.

RR

Now that I can do. You seem to have quickly adapted to the mindset and understand what makes us tick.

_________________
You might find me someday dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll find me in a pile of brass.

Image
http://www.weaponevolution.com


Last edited by m24shooter on Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:53 pm 
Presentation Grade

Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:01 am
Posts: 511
Location: Not Huntington Beach, CA
Dead=/=Dead. The goal is to stop as quickly as possible. That was the lesson of the 86 Miami shootout was it not? That even a dying man can kill you. See if this makes sense, a shot to the head is difficult so you shoot center of mass because the heart and other good stuff is there and you want them to bleed a lot. If that is your goal, why not use something that can reliably penetrate to the heart?

Also, not being mentioned here is the fact that using large, hi recoiling rounds like #4 magnum makes the gun harder to use. The speed the shotgun is one of its assets and you slow yourself down with big rounds. You may say that you can handle the big rounds like a man but you cannot say that you can handle the big rounds better than you can handle the non-magnum and especially the low recoil rounds. Gotta love the low recoil rounds, kick like birdshot and still exceed the 12" minimum, can't beat that. Then note that you will need the bigger 00 to penetrate adequetly at those lower velocities.

_________________
This is my shotgun, there are 10 million like it but this one is mine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:02 pm 
Field Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:01 pm
Posts: 96
m24shooter wrote:
I didn't put words in your mouth.

Yes you did, or you would have been able to quote where I even implied that the FBI only shoots through the back. Instead you put together a ridiculous string of logical fallacies

I did make a ridiculous statement to show how unrealistic your research is.

I stated only that needing to take a shoot from the right rear quadrant is unlikely in a HD situation. The arm in front of the chest presents less of a barrier than what the FBI based the 12" standard on. So if a load barely tends to meet that standard as numerous sources have suggested, and needing that standard in its fullness is a stretch, saying that load can be considered a minimum is not outlandish.

I also raised some other issues that you've completely ignored.


There is only so far I'm going to follow your logical equivalents of Alice in Wonderland trips.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:46 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:23 am
Posts: 5920
Location: In overwatch
inbox485 wrote:
Yes you did, or you would have been able to quote where I even implied that the FBI only shoots through the back. Instead you put together a ridiculous string of logical fallacies

No, actually I used your own aregument against you.
Quote:
I stated only that needing to take a shoot from the right rear quadrant is unlikely in a HD situation.

Which you based on your "research." A criteria that is not used in any actual study of defensive shootings.
You made the blanket statement that #4B is generally recognized as the minimum because it penetrates enough to hit the vitals in a frontal shot. You later came back and said that this actually just applies to your particular planned home invasion scenario.
Quote:
The arm in front of the chest presents less of a barrier than what the FBI based the 12" standard on.

Please see my earlier post about why you are wrong.
I will expand on that a bit though. If you simply stacked the limbs on top of the chest, the distance that the projo has to travel will be significantly less than if the arms are extended, as if they were holding a weapon or attempting to stab or reach for you. Once the bullet has to transit at an angle through the limbs (as in the projo enters around the wrist and travels up the radius/ulna and exists along the elbow) that 12" gets eaten up quickly.
Quote:
So if a load barely tends to meet that standard as numerous sources have suggested,

Are you referring to your two sources that really didn't say what you claimed they said? The closest you came to was O_P's qualified "it is a minimal buckshot load" and says 00 is preferred. Your first source contradicts pretty much everything you claimed. It states that #4B is a "marginal performer" and says it is the fourth choice behind several other loads and may or may not travel even the minimum 12". Now if that's what you see as a minimal standard and it works for you that's great.
Quote:
and needing that standard in its fullness is a stretch, saying that load can be considered a minimum is not outlandish.

As long as you understand that it is a minimum, and in order for it to do that everything else has to fall into place. As far as "needing that standard is a stretch" I'd say it is far from a stretch. If it was a stretch, something else would be the minimum. A lower standard.
Quote:
There is only so far I'm going to follow your logical equivalents of Alice in Wonderland trips.

Now that's funny.
You claim #4B is "generally recognized as being the minimum for HD since it tends to penetrate more than enough for the frontal hits typical in HD." You can't support this claim. Your own source contradicts you. You establish a logic that if extended to anything else is ridiculous. You say I'm putting words in your mouth. You don't understand the different wounding mechanisms of bullets and edged weapons. Your minimum standard only occurs if the target is facing you squared up with no arms or anything else in the way, and the #4B penetrates deep enough, which your own sources again say is "marginal" and "may or may not." You say the only reason the 12" minimum is there is solely for the rear right oblique shot, I've told you why that isn't the case.
But I've got the logical equivalents of Alice In Wonderland.

_________________
You might find me someday dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll find me in a pile of brass.

Image
http://www.weaponevolution.com


Last edited by m24shooter on Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:56 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:23 am
Posts: 5920
Location: In overwatch
Inbox, for your benefit I'll provide the following key points from DocGKR.
http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=91

Overpenetration:
Quote:
In short, the consequences of projectile under-penetration are far more likely to get officers and citizens killed than over-penetration issues.


Wounding mechanism:
Quote:
All projectiles that penetrate the body can only disrupt tissue by these two wounding mechanisms: the localized crushing of tissue in the bullet's path and the transient stretching of tissue adjacent to the wound track.


The 12" minimum: (emphasis added)
Quote:
Bullets that may be required to incapacitate aggressors must reliably penetrate a minimum of approximately 10 to 12 inches of tissue in order to ensure disruption of the major organs and blood vessels in the torso from any angle and through excessive adipose tissue, hypertrophied muscle, or intervening anatomic structures, such as a raised arm.


Recomended shot size:
Quote:
I use 870's and would be OK using any load from a major manufacturer of #1 buck to 000 buck for typical indoors defense of ones family and home.

Quote:
Pretty much any buckshot from 1 to 000 works just fine

_________________
You might find me someday dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll find me in a pile of brass.

Image
http://www.weaponevolution.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:18 pm 
Field Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:01 pm
Posts: 96
m24shooter wrote:
inbox485 wrote:
Yes you did, or you would have been able to quote where I even implied that the FBI only shoots through the back. Instead you put together a ridiculous string of logical fallacies

No, actually I used your own aregument against you.

Your "aregument" was that something I said was virtually impossible in HD must therefore be the most likely scenario for the FBI. I said nothing of the sort and you are full of $h!t for claiming otherwise.

Quote:
I stated only that needing to take a shoot from the right rear quadrant is unlikely in a HD situation.

Which you based on your "research." A criteria that is not used in any actual study of defensive shootings.
You made the blanket statement that #4B is generally recognized as the minimum because it penetrates enough to hit the vitals in a frontal shot. You later came back and said that this actually just applies to your particular planned home invasion scenario.

Right - because that's not out of context at all. :roll:

Quote:
The arm in front of the chest presents less of a barrier than what the FBI based the 12" standard on.

Please see my earlier post about why you are wrong.
I will expand on that a bit though. If you simply stacked the limbs on top of the chest, the distance that the projo has to travel will be significantly less than if the arms are extended, as if they were holding a weapon or attempting to stab or reach for you. Once the bullet has to transit at an angle through the limbs (as in the projo enters around the wrist and travels up the radius/ulna and exists along the elbow) that 12" gets eaten up quickly.

If that is the possibility then even 12" is completely arbitrary. So as long as we have a rational for the 12", I'll stick to that.

Quote:
So if a load barely tends to meet that standard as numerous sources have suggested,

Are you referring to your two sources that really didn't say what you claimed they said? The closest you came to was O_P's qualified "it is a minimal buckshot load" and says 00 is preferred. Your first source contradicts pretty much everything you claimed. It states that #4B is a "marginal performer" and says it is the fourth choice behind several other loads and may or may not travel even the minimum 12". Now if that's what you see as a minimal standard and it works for you that's great.

I never said it was a great choice. It was like saying that 380 is the minimum for a handgun. What part of barely passed = passed is so damn hard for you to comprehend? Seeing as those articles which basically say the same thing I've seen elsewhere (#4 Buck is marginal / barely good enough / etc.), how in the hell does it contradict my saying that #4 is the minimum?

Quote:
and needing that standard in its fullness is a stretch, saying that load can be considered a minimum is not outlandish.

As long as you understand that it is a minimum, and in order for it to do that everything else has to fall into place. As far as "needing that standard is a stretch" I'd say it is far from a stretch. If it was a stretch, something else would be the minimum. A lower standard.

Seeing as by the FBI's own criteria, 12" is only needed in worst case scenario, and those scenarios are rather unlikely in a home invasion, it isn't much of a stretch to say that if a load barely meets the standard and happens to fall a tiny bit short due to some random circumstance, it will likely have still done it's job.

Quote:
There is only so far I'm going to follow your logical equivalents of Alice in Wonderland trips.

Now that's funny.
You claim #4B is "generally recognized as being the minimum for HD since it tends to penetrate more than enough for the frontal hits typical in HD." You can't support this claim. Your own source contradicts you.

I cited two sources that by your own admition state that #4 barely meets muster. Maybe you have a hard time separating the terms minimum and ideal, but I'm hoping the average reader is a bit sharper than that.

You establish a logic that if extended to anything else is ridiculous.

You established that logic and used a pretty major logical fallacy to do it.

You say I'm putting words in your mouth.

Yup. You couldn't quote anything to support your quantum leap in logic, you you just ran with it and claimed I said it.

You don't understand the different wounding mechanisms of bullets and edged weapons.

Now your just daft. I wasn't born yesterday. I do understand the difference. I also understand the main similarity in that there are common depth requirements to reach vital organs. That was the extent of the comparison. You were the one that ran with it beyond any sort of relevancy.

Your minimum standard only occurs if the target is facing you squared up with no arms or anything else in the way

Really? So if #4 is marginal and may or may not make the 12" and on a bad day only penetrates 10" and it goes through an arm and hits the chest lined up with the heart, you don't think it is going to plow right on into the heart? If so that's news. It is a good thing 12" will find its target but 11.9" won't. I don't know if I ever could have survived without that gem of knowledge. :roll:

, and the #4B penetrates deep enough, which your own sources again say is "marginal" and "may or may not." You say the only reason the 12" minimum is there is solely for the rear right oblique shot, I've told you why that isn't the case.

You've used the "might travel through the arm lengthwise" nonsense. Hate to break it to you , but there is a hell of a lot more length in the arm than 12". If the FBI wanted a standard for coming up the right middle finger and traveling all the way to the heart, I'd think they were pretty asinine seeing as their agents couldn't even handle a 10mm.

But I've got the logical equivalents of Alice In Wonderland.


That about sums it up. I'm done here, so if you have anything else, scream into the wind, but I won't be responding. I've had about enough of circular logical fallacies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:13 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:08 am
Posts: 4271
Location: Right Behind You
inbox485 wrote:
... I'm done here...I won't be responding. I've had about enough...


The best three things you've posted in this thread so far. :|

Folks, there's a reason this thread is tacked and not really an ongoing discussion. The science of terminal ballistics is what it is, and the recommendations based on that science are what they are.

Any projectile fired from any firearm can kill. What we are looking for are loads that will stop badguy in a rapid and reliable way. No "maybe"s, no "if"s, no "I've seen it once where"s.

There is an established protocol set up by gentlemen with PhDs in Physics and MDs in Medicine, hired by your government and paid for with your tax dollars. Their scientifically repeatable criteria for minimum, optimum, and maximum penetration have been field tested as accurate within our ability to understand the human body.

The corrolary is not perfect (projos typically expand and penetrate less in living flesh than they do in gel), but again, the data has been validated with autopsies on real bad guys, shot in real world situations, by real goodguys. That protocol calls for a minimum of 12" penetration, maximum 18" of penetration, with 15" penetration being optimum.

The only current production shotgun loads that reliably meet this criteria are #1 buck or larger. Smaller shot sizes do not reliably meet this critera.

If you want to argue against the protocol, do it with the men who developed it. They are out there and posting on other forums (Doctor Gary Roberts - "DocGKR" linked to above - is one of them). I'm sure they'd love to hear how they're wrong and you're right... but this thread is not the place for it, nor is this forum an appropriate place to argue what pet load you believe to be superior based on something other than the established protocol.

_________________
Don't be shocked that people die, be surprised you're still alive.

Either you are a weapon and your gun is a tool, or your gun is a weapon and you are the tool. - Tactical Response
Embrace your wear marks. - 870Pilot


Last edited by FMD on Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:38 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:23 am
Posts: 5920
Location: In overwatch
inbox485 wrote:
Your "aregument" was that something I said was virtually impossible in HD must therefore be the most likely scenario for the FBI. I said nothing of the sort and you are full of $h!t for claiming otherwise.

Not exactly. What I said was "by your logic."

Quote:
Right - because that's not out of context at all. :roll:

Let's see:
inbox485 wrote:
Semi barricaded in my room, the only way, I'm going to shoot anything other than a frontal shot is if the guy charges in running backwards.


Quote:
If that is the possibility then even 12" is completely arbitrary.

If you were at all familiar with the research and methodology and history of terminal ballistics in the last 25 years, you would know that the 12" minimum is anything but arbitrary, and that intermediate anatomical structures are included as part of the rationale for that 12" minimum.
Quote:
So as long as we have a rational for the 12", I'll stick to that.

Except, you admittedly don't.

Quote:
I never said it was a great choice.

No, you said it was generally recognized as the minimum. According to one of the two sources that you posted, it does not reliably and consistently meet the 12" minimum. So your own source rules it out. I understand that you are probably frustrated that the source you chose to back up your claim doesn't even support your own argument.
Quote:
It was like saying that 380 is the minimum for a handgun. What part of barely passed = passed is so damn hard for you to comprehend?

I would have to ask what part of it doesn't pass according to your own source is so hard for you to comprehend? It doesn't pass. Your own source indicates: Number 1 buck is the smallest diameter shot that reliably and consistently penetrates more than 12 inches of standard ordnance gelatin when fired at typical shotgun engagement distances.
Quote:
Seeing as those articles which basically say the same thing I've seen elsewhere (#4 Buck is marginal / barely good enough / etc.), how in the hell does it contradict my saying that #4 is the minimum?

Becuse your first source doesn't say that. Again, I am deeply sorry that your source doesn't say what you think it says.
Quote:
Seeing as by the FBI's own criteria, 12" is only needed in worst case scenario,

Here's another of your (several) logical breakdowns: you don't know when you will need all that penetration. You want to keep saying that in an HD shooting it will be a frontal shot, and that there will be no intervening structures. Since you can't guarantee that, your argument falls apart.
Quote:
and those scenarios are rather unlikely in a home invasion,

Is that because your version of a criminal doesn't have arms or simply will advance with them down at his side?
Quote:
it isn't much of a stretch

Just about everything you've said is a stretch.
Quote:
to say that if a load barely meets the standard and happens to fall a tiny bit short due to some random circumstance, it will likely have still done it's job.

Again, if you were at all familiar with the shooting that sparked pretty much the entire terminal ballistics field of research in the last 25 years, you would know that that is not the case.
Quote:
I cited two sources that by your own admition state that #4 barely meets muster.

Um, no. You cited two sources, one of which I quoted as #4 NOT meeting muster. You might have missed it (again) so here it is right from your source: Number 1 buck is the smallest diameter shot that reliably and consistently penetrates more than 12 inches of standard ordnance gelatin when fired at typical shotgun engagement distances. Now maybe to you, posting two cites with half of them not agreeing with you can be stretched into "generally recognized" but I would say that's a long way from true.
Quote:
Maybe you have a hard time separating the terms minimum and ideal, but I'm hoping the average reader is a bit sharper than that.

Oh I have no problem with that. You seem to not get that your own source doesn't support your argument. I'm hoping the average reader is a bit sharper than that too.
Quote:
You established that logic and used a pretty major logical fallacy to do it.

Sorry, wrong.
Quote:
Yup. You couldn't quote anything to support your quantum leap in logic, you you just ran with it and claimed I said it.

No, again I said: "by your logic." I'm sorry that you are unable to make the distinction between that and "you said." As you say, I'm hoping the average reader is a bit sharper than that.

Quote:
Now your just daft.

Stay classy, Inbox.
Quote:
I wasn't born yesterday. I do understand the difference.

Which is clearly why you said:
Quote:
There is a reason the same 12" standard is irrelevant to QCB knives.

-and-
Quote:
Stabbing isn't all that different when you are talking about getting to vital organs.


Quote:
I also understand the main similarity in that there are common depth requirements to reach vital organs. That was the extent of the comparison.

Then maybe you should have done a better job of communicating that.
Quote:
You were the one that ran with it beyond any sort of relevancy.

Sure thing.
Quote:
Really? So if #4 is marginal and may or may not make the 12" and on a bad day only penetrates 10" and it goes through an arm and hits the chest lined up with the heart, you don't think it is going to plow right on into the heart?

Again, if you were at all familiar with the last 25 years, you would know.
Quote:
If so that's news.

Actually, it's not. Welcome to 20+ years ago.
Quote:
It is a good thing 12" will find its target but 11.9" won't. I don't know if I ever could have survived without that gem of knowledge. :roll:

There are a few FBI agents that didn't.
Quote:
You've used the "might travel through the arm lengthwise" nonsense.

Oh, now wait a minute Mr Don't Put Words In My Mouth. I never said it might travel the arm lengthwise. Sorry, try again.
Quote:
Hate to break it to you , but there is a hell of a lot more length in the arm than 12".

This just in: Jimmy Hoffa is still dead.
Quote:
If the FBI wanted a standard for coming up the right middle finger and traveling all the way to the heart, I'd think they were pretty asinine seeing as their agents couldn't even handle a 10mm.

Good thing for them they didn't come up with that standard or that rationale. You're the only person that did that.
Quote:
That about sums it up. I'm done here, so if you have anything else, scream into the wind,

You've been done; you just didn't know it. I won't be the one screaming. Between the two of us there has been one person who has demonstrated an inability to discuss this matter in mature fashion without resorting to insults and profanity.
Quote:
but I won't be responding.

Your best idea yet.
Quote:
I've had about enough of circular logical fallacies.

I'm sure you have. You'll probably feel better when you recognize your errors and move past them.

_________________
You might find me someday dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll find me in a pile of brass.

Image
http://www.weaponevolution.com


Last edited by m24shooter on Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 12 gauge Wound Profiles (56k beware) Examples on page 3
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:21 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:23 am
Posts: 5920
Location: In overwatch
Good to hear from you again Mike.



_________________
You might find me someday dead in a ditch somewhere. But by God, you'll find me in a pile of brass.

Image
http://www.weaponevolution.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: 16dogs, Amcon, apexclays, barrelsquared, Bing [Bot], blackdogsrule56*, Bladeswitcher, Brooksy08, casonet, castnblast2, cddawson, chairman, clayflingythingy, Cooper4141, Curly N, cwtech, desmobob, Drew Hause, Ernest T, federal, goodemachine, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], hes, jeffreyk, kolar55, LilBoog, maltzahn, Old Retired Cop, oldshotty, Over-the-Hill, Pullandmark, railroad, Ravenanme, Ric P, rkittine, Road Man, Rogman79, rosiesdad, SDV, senoiaslim, shacked, shootandfish2, ShooterDave, skeetstar, sujumanji, Virginian, VizslaHunter, Wildwood, YevetS


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group    - DMCA Notice