Handguns: One shot stop vs double tap... which is better???

Originally posted by Aliensun
You "one shot" believers need to check some of the pistol forums. You will find some astounding info on the results of cops using their guns. I don't remember all of the details, but the average distance in which a cop used his/her weapon was nine feet! The percent of misses on that first shot was 47%! Hard to believe at (about) nine feet!

The key is that those shots were panic shots. Made at some point between when the barrel was clearing the holster and when the barrel was on target. I don't care what gigantic calibre gun you are waving in the other guy's face, if you can't pull down or up on that body mass, you may be dead in the next second. And BTW, in that next instant, your recoil from that large bore had better not be so bad that the barrel is tipped to the Moon!

A regular .38 Special or a 9mm will give you the break you need to bring the gun to back to bear on target as was intented for the first round...a bullet that didn't bother him too much toward what he was trying himself to do at the time.

an attacker at 9ft would get my blade.
faster and more accurate than any handgun.

reply to post by Aliensun


I think alot of that comes down to proper training.

Playing devils advocate, with the current financial situation this country is in, it is to be expected that the police departments do not have the money to spend on training that is needed.

What can we expect from the officers if they themselves are not trained to the levels that they need to be.

Originally posted by SirMike
Shoot until the threat is neutralized .. whether that be one shot or twenty. Most shooters can’t operate under stress well enough to guarantee this outcome with one or two conscious shots.

What ever it takes. If I have to dump a 200 round belt in "IT" at point blank range then that is what "IT" gets.

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by hudsonhawk69

 

Then they were not shot in the brain or heart. I do not care how jacked up someone is on PCP, a bullet to the brain or heart will put them down.

That's very true... I hope when push comes to shove that you stay calm and shoot straight... If you don't you may not get a second chance.

reply to post by DaddyBare

If with my P-89, double down. But if it is with my Redhawk, one dab will do!

Firstly, i notice only one 38 super ammo in the list......
This is a once almost standards IPSC(practical pistol favourite)The advent of other rounds may have changed that by now, but the 38 super is a very good choice of handgun ammo.
The bullets are actually +/- 9mm (36 cal)
But the straight casing is longer than a 9mm alowing more powder and the slim body allows for ten rounds in a mag.
In matches with a 5in bbl red dot scoped colt commander (customised) i have consistently shot 5 in steels at 100 yds with NO holdover.....
Travelling at 1300 fps, the round makes "Major" ipsc caliber...(this is where we get to the one shot stops.)..
Close in on the other hand a double tap is best .Or if the shooter is moving while firing...

Aim low.

First shot belt buckle.

Number two heart

Three head

No need to bring the barrel back down between shots.

It also unnerves the opponent as he think you are aiming to blow his balls off..

With a rifle, from long range, one shot might be enough if you spotted your hit, and don't want to give up your position.

With a pistol, up close, you better make dang sure. So I would go with 2 to the chest, 1-2 the dome.

I always go for a double tap regardless of caliber. At least on the first target. Just like I was trained to do.

When it comes to multiple attackers, the first guy always gets a double tap. The rest are going to get whatever they get. One round. Ten rounds. Whatever it takes.

Shot placement is the key. Two .45s in the shoulder is inferior to one .380 in the heart. That being said...shot placement is the key.

/TOA

reply to post by DaddyBare


Yea the thing kicks like a donkey for sure, but im telling you if you use the double action with the hair trigger, ive hit bowling pins at about 100 ft. insane for a snub, trust that more with my life than any automatic, and if we are talking shtf Im talking grab the saga 12 with buckshot and an 80 round drum mag, and goodby to anything!!! Thats where the real damage is at.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Agreed, 100 come at me with knives, I bust a couple of them down and the rest run...

reply to post by DaddyBare


The common sense would dictate that one would continue to fire until the threat is no longer a threat. I'll stick with that. Now, one could get into all kinds of debate here, but generally, if you're discussing how many times to pull a trigger you're fantasizing. Play a little FPS video games and you'll see why in an actual situation like that there's no time to do anything but fire and get rounds into the target as fast as accurately possible. Yes, a game is not real life, but the principles we're discussing here are the same.. balancing speed and accuracy with the number of targets present. If two targets present themselves, my response would be to fire enough rounds to disorient one target, enough rounds to disable the second, and further rounds to completely disable the first. This would also depend on the proximity of one target to another because if they're in two completely different zones of my field of view it would take too long to respond that way. You can't think so specifically. A more general approach is required.

Originally posted by Skewed

Originally posted by guppy
reply to post by DaddyBare

 

Because that action makes you look like a blood, thirsty animal who was out of control.

When someones fight or flight kicks in, wouldn't you think the average person would be the same as a blood thirsty animal when they are fighting for their life. I think the court system needs to take this into account. Sure, a soldier is trained to deal with the adrenaline rush, but the average joe has not had the training and at times is operating on pure instinct and there really is not any thinking going on, just reacting to the situation.

Tell that to the 12 peers sitting in court who probably know nothing about guns, ballistics, combat or even home invasion. Saying it is natural to become animalistic with a gun in your hand will not convince most jurors, unless you live in Texas.

And saying, "I just repeatedly fired until he dropped", just won't cut it. You have to justify why you shot your opponent 6 times, especially when ballistic experts testify. Ballistics will probably tell the court the "victim"/criminal was already falling after the first 2 shots and the next 4 shots were from rage (aka "blood, thirsty animal).

Originally posted by Skewed
This is a problem with our court systems. They do not recognize natural human tendencies that for the most part people cannot control when faced with certain situations.

edit on 27-9-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)

I agree the court systems are . We have politicians who have zero knowledge about firearms making gun control laws. And, criminals have WAY more rights than the average citizen. This keeps the average citizen defending him/herself at a great disadvantage when dealing with criminals.

Its a harsh world out there. Train often. In combat, you're only half as good on your best day on the range.

Also, operating a firearm (e.g., reload, malfunction clearance, etc.) should be reflexive. But shooting a firearm should be intellectual (e.g., think before you pull that trigger).

reply to post by guppy


I do agree.

However, in my neck of the woods, I just have to have fear that myself or family is in imminent danger, after that the Castle Doctrine does the rest of my talking.

reply to post by guppy


Having participated in several round-table discussions with law enforcement higher ups and attorneys, even state attorneys, all you really have to be able to articulate is that you feared for your life. No more and no less. In fact, the less you say to anyone the better.

You feared for your life. If that meant 6 shots hit your attacker/intruder then so be it.

Now, if you fired two shots then paused before firing the rest you've got yourself some trouble.

Squeezing to slide-lock as long as you "feared for your life" is perfectly acceptable.

The cops all hated that reality but eventually did concede it was the truth. Man, cops really just want to nail somebody, anybody on anything. Out of their own mouths they dont care about the circumstances or details that dont help them haul your ass in. If you're in a self-defense situation don't say anything to them at all. If they keep pressing say you want to go the hospital and take that time to calm down and call your lawyer because cops by their own admission to my face on several occasions just want to stick something to somebody and they dont care what or who. A reality which consequently shattered my faith in the system. I cannot believe without reasonable doubt that any felon or offender is actually 100% guilty. There are always those voices in the back of my head reminding me of what those cops and lawyers said during those meetings casting doubt on every conviction or convict I happen to run across.

The Marshall, Sanow, and Fuller tables that Hawks and others use to derive their "one shot stop" data from is flawed. It has been proven flawed time and again. From the data collection methods on up they have been ridiculed and disproven by other experts.

Evan Marshall has been a bad joke to almost every technically trained person ever since his earliest articles on his "data base" were published.1 Ed Sanow has been part of this act since at least 1992 when Marshall & Sanow's first jointly authored book was published.2 Statistical analyses of this "data base" was the source of the certainty that this Marshall & Sanow "data base" was nonsense. Unfortunately, recognition and understanding of this kind of statistical analysis is not easy for those without technical training, so it has been easy for Marshall & Sanow and their advocates to just ignore this criticism because their target audience doesn't understand it and ignores it. This was and continues to be frustrating to those who understand all aspects of this whole situation, but can't think of anything to do about it.

Statistical Analysis Tells The Ugly Truth

Sanow states that Fuller's formula shows maximum stopping power at a penetration depth of 8.4 inches and provides a table showing that the formula gives reductions in stopping power of 2% and 4% at penetration depths of 14.6 inches and 17.1 inches, respectively (these calculations can be easily verified by using the formula). What Sanow doesn't state is that a penetration of 2.5 inches also produces a 2% reduction in stopping power and a penetration of 0 inches produces a 4% reduction in stopping power. This is not a typo; Fuller's formula shows that a 2.5 inch penetration is just as good as a 14.6 penetration and no penetration at all is just as good as a 17.1 inch penetration! This wonderful new model shows that .45 ACP hardball would have about 10% more stopping power if only its high penetration could be reduced to zero penetration!

Once again, the response can be made that no one cares about zero penetration bullets, so the model need not apply to them. And once again, the real issue is the applications of elementary wound ballistics principles would lead to a zero (or possibly a very small) stopping power rating at zero penetration. This could easily be accomplished in a curve fit, but this new curve fit would no longer match Marshall's data as well as Fuller's formula does. Could it be that the problem is in Marshall's data?

Sanow Strikes Out Again

I suggest people read the FBI report on handgun wounding and effectiveness. It does a great job of explaining how a bullet stops a person and the reality of what is required. The one shot stop myth is no longer taken seriously. If you are going to carry a gun, carry the biggest caliber you can competently run fast and accurate. Then shoot untill the threat stops being a threat.

When justifying the number of shots you should be able to say, I used Y shots because X weren't enough and Z would have been too many. If you can articulate a sound reason for using lethal force (fear of death, fear of rape, ece...) the rest becomes secondary. Just don't stand over the corpse and take insurance shots.

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

Always someone with a gun thread....so disappointing that people are now so detached from
life that using a gun is the preferred method to kill. So plain, so cowardly, so borrrrring!

I prefer the use of Number 7 scalpel (two of). Or a gutting knife, Serrated on one side.

Again, you can apply the same technique as the gun,,,,

One slice to the throat (single swipe)

or


Double thrust to the abdomen. Your choice.


My favorite would be (obviously on a pig or something similar for practice) Single thrust to the abdomen and single swipe to the throat.

No gun needed. Much more inventive this way.

reply to post by Six6Six


Good luck with that one.

reply to post by Six6Six


Let us know how that works out for a woman with a 200 pound attacker.