You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Check out this .38 special video!
- Thread starter Fer
- Start date
1. Most handgun stops are psychological. That is, most attackers stop when shot NOT because they are physically disabled but because they no longer want to attack--they want to get away and get medical attention. That means that most of the time caliber choice doesn't factor into whether you get a stop or not.
2. The fact that most handgun stops are psychological doesn't mean that caliber choice is completely moot because SOME handgun stops ARE physical. That is, some attackers stop because they are physically disabled by the damage from the bullet and have no choice but to stop. Sometimes (but not always) caliber choice DOES factor into whether or not the attacker is physically disabled by damage from the bullet so sometimes caliber choice does factor into whether or not you get a stop.
As far as your state of mind goes--whatever it is BEFORE being shot it's likely to be very predictable AFTER being shot regardless of the severity of the injury or the caliber used. If you're a rational person you'll almost certainly be very interested in determining how badly you need medical attention and doing your best to get some and very uninterested in what size the bullet was.
2. The fact that most handgun stops are psychological doesn't mean that caliber choice is completely moot because SOME handgun stops ARE physical. That is, some attackers stop because they are physically disabled by the damage from the bullet and have no choice but to stop. Sometimes (but not always) caliber choice DOES factor into whether or not the attacker is physically disabled by damage from the bullet so sometimes caliber choice does factor into whether or not you get a stop.
As far as your state of mind goes--whatever it is BEFORE being shot it's likely to be very predictable AFTER being shot regardless of the severity of the injury or the caliber used. If you're a rational person you'll almost certainly be very interested in determining how badly you need medical attention and doing your best to get some and very uninterested in what size the bullet was.
Firepower!
New member
I actually thought small calibers were effectice immediate stoppers at that close of a range, and specially the 38spl.
However, after watching this I agree with Jim March that robber should have stopped immediately. It took three shots at that close of a range to incapacitate him. Between these shots I saw enough energy in him to retaliate with atleast 3-4 shots.
Conclusion, for a big size guy aggressive guy .38spl might not do the jon in first shot. Now I haven't got all day to stand there and keep shooting at him until he is not moving.
However, after watching this I agree with Jim March that robber should have stopped immediately. It took three shots at that close of a range to incapacitate him. Between these shots I saw enough energy in him to retaliate with atleast 3-4 shots.
Conclusion, for a big size guy aggressive guy .38spl might not do the jon in first shot. Now I haven't got all day to stand there and keep shooting at him until he is not moving.
SpectreBlofeld
New member
Can we talk about what a well-executed draw and firing that clerk performed?
I mean, dayum, that was slick. Minimal body movement/telegraphing. Where did she pull the pistol from? Was it on his/her (hard to tell) right hip or on a shelf somewhere? She reached across her body, slickly, and drew and fired. I suppose it could've been on a shelf and she, being left handed, drew with it, but it looked like she drew from the opposite hip or something. Where did that thing come from?
I mean, dayum, that was slick. Minimal body movement/telegraphing. Where did she pull the pistol from? Was it on his/her (hard to tell) right hip or on a shelf somewhere? She reached across her body, slickly, and drew and fired. I suppose it could've been on a shelf and she, being left handed, drew with it, but it looked like she drew from the opposite hip or something. Where did that thing come from?
Last edited:
We shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. The difference is in the motivation. The first may very well lead to the second, but it doesn't have to.I've been told that if a BG breaks into my house, I should kill him because if I don't, he will come back and sue me for shooting him. I don't think I could purposefully kill him.
It's highly unlikely you'll get sued if the shoot was justified. Georgia has a "castle doctrine" law that exempts the shooter from civil liability in a lawful shooting.
I certainly hope so! I keep a Model 15 on the nightstand loaded with it. Some think it's preferable to the .357 since it will be less likely to overpenetrate. It's also not quite as loud.Is .38+P good enough for home defense?
.38 is still around because it's effective, accurate and controllable. Of course, as with any caliber, shot placement is key. Practice regularly.
Exactly. I've heard the first point reiterated by many folks as a reason they carry a small caliber or don't carry with one in the chamber. The last thing I want is to be prepared only for a psychological stop and find that I've been confronted with a situation that requires a physical stop.The fact that most handgun stops are psychological doesn't mean that caliber choice is completely moot because SOME handgun stops ARE physical.
I've heard they're tasty. I heard this from a very strange character whose company I was glad I didn't have to keep for too long. He seemed to think it was amusing. Me? There's a certain symbolic mojo wrapped up in eagles and I couldn't imagine killing and eating one.What the heck was he shooting eagles for?
I don't imagine they were endangered in Keith's day, and I have heard of them being dangerous to farm animals in some parts. Keith was hardly a poacher, so I imagine there was good reason in his case.
Yes as for the eagle thing.
In the old days predators were pretty much shot on sight in ranch country. They were viewed as pests and dealt with accordingly. It was a different time.
Read the old books by Teddy Roosevelt. He would cut down as many elk out of a herd as he could. It was the way he provided meat to the workers on his ranch. He would leave his foreman to dress the downed game and he would resume the hunt on horseback in hopes of getting a few more. Yet he was instrumental in ushering in the concept of game management and the National Park system. It seems strange to us today. I imagine he would not recognize his Sierra Club if he could see it today.
In the old days predators were pretty much shot on sight in ranch country. They were viewed as pests and dealt with accordingly. It was a different time.
Read the old books by Teddy Roosevelt. He would cut down as many elk out of a herd as he could. It was the way he provided meat to the workers on his ranch. He would leave his foreman to dress the downed game and he would resume the hunt on horseback in hopes of getting a few more. Yet he was instrumental in ushering in the concept of game management and the National Park system. It seems strange to us today. I imagine he would not recognize his Sierra Club if he could see it today.
Most handgun stops are psychological stops and that's a very fortunate thing for people who use handguns for self-defense.
Ok, so let's take a very simple example and make up some numbers.
You have to be kidding, right? First you say most stops are psychological, without any evidence to back it up, and then you try to prove it with a made up example and made up numbers?
I've never shot a human, and I hope and pray each day that I never have to, but...
I've shot quite a few game animals with a handgun, and "psychological stops" on these animals are non-existant. If they can run, they will.
A "failure to stop" results in a lost animal, yet I don't remember losing any after hitting them with a well placed bullet. They generally just "die", and pretty quickly at that. A bullet through the chest drops blood pressure very quickly, and when that happens, whatever "critter" was shot falls down.
A bigger bullet of same design causes more blood and blood pressure loss than a small bullet.
Doubt me? Ask a doctor how long you'll live if your aorta bursts from an annurism (sp?). It's usually no more than 7 seconds. Rupturing the lungs with a bullet is at least as devastating, and you won't stay on your feet most of those 7 seconds.
Daryl
You didn't ask for evidence. Had you asked for evidence to back it up I would have advised you to read Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness by the FBI's expert Patrick Urey.You have to be kidding, right? First you say most stops are psychological, without any evidence to back it up...
Here's what he says based on his analysis of many shootings:
Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury (often delayed by the suppression of pain); fear of injury, death, blood, or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; preconceived notions of what people do when they are shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation from even minor wounds.
...
Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location... People largely fall down when shot, and the apparent predisposition to do so exists with equal force among the good guys as among the bad guys. The causative factors are most likely psychological in origin. Thousands of books, movies and television shows have educated the general population that when shot, one is supposed to fall down.
...
Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location... People largely fall down when shot, and the apparent predisposition to do so exists with equal force among the good guys as among the bad guys. The causative factors are most likely psychological in origin. Thousands of books, movies and television shows have educated the general population that when shot, one is supposed to fall down.
Not EVEN close. I wasn't trying to prove that most handgun stops are psychological with the example, I was addressing the VERY SPECIFIC allegation that if most stops were psychological that then one might as well pick a .25ACP as a .45ACP. That is not true and the made up example demonstrated that handily by providing a counterexample--a case where most stops were psychological (60%) and yet caliber choice still affected the overall outcome by around 30%....and then you try to prove it with a made up example and made up numbers?
Naturally. Being non-sentient they don't understand the implications of being shot so the psychological stop can not work on them. Therefore to stop an animal you must stop it by doing physical damage to it. Fortunately in most cases the animal is not an immediate and continuing deadly threat to the hunter and the hunter has some time to prepare for the shot which gives him a bit more of an edge in terms of shot placement compared to a typical gunfight participant.I've shot quite a few game animals with a handgun, and "psychological stops" on these animals are non-existant. If they can run, they will.
He's also not concerned if the animal lives on for another 10-15 seconds or even longer while it bleeds out because it won't be shooting at him during that interval so an instant stop is less of a concern.
Quote:
You have to be kidding, right? First you say most stops are psychological, without any evidence to back it up...
You didn't ask for evidence. Had you asked for evidence to back it up I would have advised you to read Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness by the FBI's expert Patrick Urey.
I didn't know that providing proof had to be asked for, but ok, lets move on to the "proof"...
Here's what he says based on his analysis of many shootings:
Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso. Awareness of the injury (often delayed by the suppression of pain); fear of injury, death, blood, or pain; intimidation by the weapon or the act of being shot; preconceived notions of what people do when they are shot; or the simple desire to quit can all lead to rapid incapacitation from even minor wounds.
...
Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location... People largely fall down when shot, and the apparent predisposition to do so exists with equal force among the good guys as among the bad guys. The causative factors are most likely psychological in origin. Thousands of books, movies and television shows have educated the general population that when shot, one is supposed to fall down.
Umm...hate to point this out, but this is just one more person's opinion. He doesn't even mention whether he's talking about rifle or handgun cartridges. Once again, I've shot a lot of animals that were NOT "predisposed" to fall down when shot. If the bullet didn't do enough damage to stop them, they wouldn't have stopped. Even so, they died pretty quickly with a well placed bullet...every time. If the bullet wasn't placed well, they usually DON'T fall down, and therein might lie the basis for your comments.
Even so, a well placed bullet from a handgun is more than capable of stopping a human, with or without phychological affects. Stopping a coyote, deer, or other critter with a handgun isn't a "trick" that only happens occasionally. Hunters have proven the effectiveness of their weapon over the years, and psychology has nothing to do with it.
While there may be the added affect of psycholocal influences on a human who's "predisposed" to fall down, that in no way lessens the physical incapacitating capabilities of any particular handgun cartridge.
In the blach powder days (and black powder firearms are still in use and still affective today), men used lead round balls, many times at no higher velocities than are achieved with handguns today. They used them for all sorts of things, including hunting, and once again psychological aspects of stopping the animal are a complete non-issue. Any such affects encountered on a person should be considered a "bonus" affect, rather than a primary cause of incapacitation.
Naturally. Being non-sentient they don't understand the implications of being shot so the psychological stop can not work on them. Therefore to stop an animal you must stop it by doing physical damage to it. Fortunately in most cases the animal is not an immediate and continuing deadly threat to the hunter and the hunter has some time to prepare for the shot which gives him a bit more of an edge in terms of shot placement compared to a typical gunfight participant.
He's also not concerned if the animal lives on for another 10-15 seconds or even longer while it bleeds out because it won't be shooting at him during that interval so an instant stop is less of a concern.
Don't hunt much with a handgun, huh?
I've shot a bunch of animals through the chest that went down within a few feet of where they were shot, and they died shortly after that. If they live 15 seconds, they can be lost fairly easily; an animal runs a LONG way in that much time. Most I've shot are down within 2-3 seconds.
Were that not the case, the prefered shot for SD would be the hip, rather than the chest, since breaking the hip will stop an attacker on the spot. With that, the prefered bullet would be a heavy-for-caliber bullet of a somewhat stronger construction rather than a lighter hollow point to maximize damage while limiting penetration. After all, skeletal breakdown would likely be somewhat more reliable on a drugged up perp if a handgun were less-than-capable of physical incapacitation with a chest shot.
Some of it is stated as opinion with qualifying terms like "appears"--particularly when trying to explain WHY psychological stops occur so commonly. However, the part I underlined in the initial quote is not stated as opinion, it is asserted as fact.hate to point this out, but this is just one more person's opinion.
"People largely fall down when shot, and the apparent predisposition to do so exists with equal force among the good guys as among the bad guys. "
As far as it being "just one more person", that's a bit narrow. I would say that the FBI's expert on handgun wounding and effectiveness is not exactly "just one more person" when it comes to discussing handgun wounding and effectiveness.
The entire document is about handgun cartridges, hence the title.He doesn't even mention whether he's talking about rifle or handgun cartridges.
I've never said otherwise, in fact that's been a common argument of mine. On the other hand, if the bullet doesn't hit anything particularly vital it won't do much of anything constructive outside of possibly garnering a psychological stop.Even so, a well placed bullet from a handgun is more than capable of stopping a human, with or without phychological affects.
AND, even if it does hit something vital it can take several seconds (or longer) for the person to bleed out and become incapacitated. Platt in the Miami shootout was killed early in the fight with a shot to the chest (medical authorities indicate it was a fatal wound, unsurvivable even had he immediately received medical attention) but he survived to kill and wound several FBI agents AFTER sustaining the wound. A psychological stop would have saved lives in that case (as it has in others) but it was not forthcoming due to Platt's determination not to stop.
I didn't say it did. HOWEVER, even when a rapidly lethal hit has been administered, a psychological stop can STILL help out. If the person gives up immediately upon being shot (as most people do) then you get an instant stop instead of having to wait for the person to bleed out. The example with Platt is a good one--even though he was only seconds from being physically stopped a psychological stop (had he been so predisposed) would have helped a lot.While there may be the added affect of psycholocal influences on a human who's "predisposed" to fall down, that in no way lessens the physical incapacitating capabilities of any particular handgun cartridge.
Shooting an unsuspecting animal is very different from shooting one that is highly alarmed. An adrenaline rush can prevent the animal from going down and staying down long enough to bleed out--that is why, as you know, it is recommended that one sit and wait instead of immediately going out after shooting to retrieve the animal.Most I've shot are down within 2-3 seconds.
In a gunfight, a human is aware of the danger and therefore an unsuspecting animal is not a good model for what will happen with a human when shot. The alarmed, adrenaline charged animal is a better model. As you know, even a lethally wounded animal can run for quite a long distance if it is alarmed. A wound that might drop an unsuspecting animal in a couple of seconds and a few feet might allow an alarmed animal to run a long distance and even possibly be lost.
Here's another problem with carrying hunting experience over without realizing the differences between it and self-defense. Anchoring an attacker who is still shooting at you with a firearm is of limited value. Sure, he's not going to run away now, but actually if he DID run away that would be a useful outcome for you. As it is, now you've pretty much limited his options to killing you or being killed/giving up where as before he also had the option of flight. There can be some advantages in breaking down an opponent but it can also be a disadvantage unless he's armed only with a contact weapon.Were that not the case, the prefered shot for SD would be the hip, rather than the chest, since breaking the hip will stop an attacker on the spot.
Ok, I think this is the root of your problem with what I've said. You're taking my statement of fact as if it is a recommendation rather than just an explanation of how things work.Any such affects encountered on a person should be considered a "bonus" affect, rather than a primary cause of incapacitation.
1. Most stops are psychological. That is simply a fact. I'm not saying a person should rely on it, I'm just pointing out a fact.
2. Experts agree that you can not RELY on a psychological stop because while most people do stop for psychological reasons after being shot, many people do not. I am NOT saying one should EXPECT a person to simply give up after being shot--I'm just saying that most of the time they do.
3. Experts agree that for self-defense one should use a relatively powerful caliber (service pistol calibers are typically endorsed) and employ good shot placement. NONE of them tell people that they can count on the psychological stop even though it happens the majority of the time.
Psychological stops are a fact of life and that's a GOOD thing. But as you say they are a "bonus". We can't rely on them because they are, by definition, not reliable and that means we need to strive for physical/physiological stops which require good shot placement and are facilitated by the use of an adequately powerful caliber.
LouisianaMan
New member
Well done, JohnKSa
Well stated, on all counts. I had previously studied the article you referenced and your analysis of it was spot-on.
Likewise, I understood your use of nominal values to explain your ".25ACP vs. .45ACP" example.
Well stated, on all counts. I had previously studied the article you referenced and your analysis of it was spot-on.
Likewise, I understood your use of nominal values to explain your ".25ACP vs. .45ACP" example.
The misconception here is people don't die immediately, unless the central nervous system is taken out, no matter what caliber you use. If you hit the central nervous system there done. This was a good stop and he was done for. I didn't see any aggression and he was hurting bad. No deer hunters here. You can blow out a mans heart with a 45 and he will still live long enough to kill you. It's pretty clear she didn't hit his central nervous system, either his brain or spine. I have shot deer in the heart with a high powered rifle and they still ran for a distance. Does that mean it's poor stopping power? No, it means the body of that deer can still function and run. Shoot that same deer in the head he's done. Animals or people don't die immediately, but their done for. This guy was done and the gun she used did what it was intended to do. That round actually seemed to do better for a poorly placed shot. You put a hole in someone with anything or any caliber it's not going to be a fun day for them.