aryfrosty
That was a good story...
I can only add that that was, again, not a superficial wound. That was an arm shot and I hypothesize that the recipient of that wound was immediately out of the fight. As I said earlier...Some like them-some don't. IF anyone still doesn't like them no you can argue with the xrays and the photo of the wound.
Post #33
__________________
Superficial defined:
su·per·fi·cial
/ˌsupərˈfɪʃəl/
–adjective
1.being at, on, or near the surface: a superficial wound.
2.of or pertaining to the surface: superficial measurement.
3.external or outward: a superficial resemblance.
4.concerned with or comprehending only what is on the surface or obvious: a superficial observer.
5.shallow; not profound or thorough: a superficial writer.
6.apparent rather than real.
7.insubstantial or insignificant: superficial improvements.
The wound was superficial by definitions 3, 5, and 7 above. On the other hand, the wound was not superficial by definitions 1, 2, 4, and 6. So both positions on the use of the adjective "superficial" are correct. It only penetrated the skin and muscle. It did not penetrate or break the humerus.
More to the point,
RWK post #28
aryfrosty . . .
In #8 you said: "Glasers are NOT designed to wound superficially. Rather they are designed to immediately transfer all of their energy to a target, (bad guy), and incapacitate by this transference. Glasers, properly used, will immediately stop the threat."
I apologize, but I respectfully disagree, for a few substantial reasons:
First, "energy transfer" does kill or disable; the generally accepted fact is only a central nervous system hits or major blood loss from an internal organ will cause rapid incapacitation. Damage to the heart, the liver, and so forth that result in massive and comparatively immediate blood loss requires the projectile both to reach the applicable organ AND to damage it extensively. "Energy transfer" simply does not do this.
Second, in large part this is why highly reputable performance protocols for handguns -- and their rounds -- require significant penetration. For example, the FBI's post-Miami standard mandated twelve inches penetration, with an objective of eighteen inches or more (for specific, relevant details, please see:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf).
Third, the unusual examples you cite (in #8) are based on EXTREMELY small sample sizes (like a single incident), which renders them analytically invalid. Certainly, a .22 short can often be lethal if fired with great precision; however, the selection of weapons and ammunition is intended to provide a HIGH PROBABILITY OF FAST INCAPACITATION, NOT A “RARE MIRACLE.”
If the Glaser/energy transfer concept were proven and authoritative, law enforcement agencies would widely accept this round, due to its potentially reduced lethality (combined with desired efficacy). Does any standard agency (even the Sky Marshals) mandate Glasers, or similar frangible loads? If not, doesn't that STRONGLY suggest that they are -- as I indicated in my previous post (#7) to this thread -- unsuitable.
I have to agree with RWK's points made in the above quoted post #28.
I think he meant:
"First, "energy transfer" does [
not] kill or disable; the generally accepted fact is only a central nervous system hits or major blood loss from an internal organ will cause rapid incapacitation.
(I added the "not")
" . . . twelve inches [of] penetration, with an objective of eighteen inches or more . . ." (added "of" to the partial quote)
". . . the selection of weapons and ammunition is intended to provide a HIGH PROBABILITY OF FAST INCAPACITATION . . ."
This last point is the most critical. All you have in a defensive situation is what you have. You can't say to the threat "uh, wait I'm not loaded for this situation. I was expecting to encounter an average sized male, wearing a T-shirt in an occupied dwelling, in a densely populated city." You have to select which weapon and ammunition you may use with the criteria of covering as many of the reasonable scenarios you may encounter.
In short: Keep your options open.
To elaborate:
Inadequate penetration may allow the threat to continue for such a length of time that you would get seriously harmed or killed. Multiple (6 or more) shallow (3 inches or less) wounds would not predictably cause fast (less than 5 seconds) incapacitation due to blood pressure loss. The real risk of such shallow penetration means that a determined attacker could continue to function even after you ran out of ammunition, and do whatever the attacker set out to do. Pain caused by the wounds may not be felt for as long as a minute, which is sufficient time to do a great deal of damage by a firearm or knife wielding attacker. An attacker who has been shot multiple times who is not losing blood pressure sufficient to cause incapacitation or feeling pain would predictably continue to pursue the course of action which motivated you to use deadly force to stop.
A handgun is a compromise tool.
I submit that all defensive handgun cartridges are underpowered (subjectively, less than full powered .44 mag load). That is why it is taught to shoot at least twice to center of mass. Assess and proceed as needed.
We carry a handgun, not because it is the best tool for self-defense, but because it may be adequate; and it is small and light enough to be tolerated in everyday carry.
Choosing a handgun and the ammunition for self-defense is a personal choice. It should be an informed decision. Learn which factors cause reliable physiological incapacitation. Learn which handguns and cartridges can most often accomplish this goal. Learn which handgun and cartridge load you are competent with, or will practice enough to become competent.
Additionally, each individual has a personal perception of risk and tolerance to risk;as well as, tolerance to how much they will expend to meet their perceived risk. You may have noticed that some people write something to the effect that "I feel perfectly confident that my '
fill in the blank weapon, number of rounds, or such a cartridge' will be sufficient." The fill in the blank is filled with everything you can imagine.
I say perceived risk because it may not be actual risk.
To conclude: Keep your options open.
All you will have when the worst happens is what you bring with you every day.
Things have gone astray here. I would like the discussion closed.