Grevensher said:
What point are you trying to make? If you can't hit a target at 300 feet with a pistol, put your gun away and stick to call of duty.
Yes, I can hit a target at 100m with a pistol. If I got a Browning 9mm Hi-Power or a Colt 1911 .45cal and five full magazines and took carefully-aimed shots at a stationary full-size Figure 11 target at 100m, I'd hit it. Unlike the world of Call of Duty, this world has a rather peculiar phenomenon which can be summed up as follows: "Every bullet hits something." Actually, some bullets hit more than one thing, because the first things they hit are kerbstones, flagstone, walls, truck engines or whatever and they bounce off or because the first things they hit are soft flesh, car doors, wooden fences, bushes or whatever and they carry on right through. On the range, the ones that go through that target and the ones that miss by not much will hit the huge artificial sand dune behind it, which isn't so bad. In New York City, there are fewer huge artificial sand dunes and a lot of people, all of them with rights and most of them with access to legal representation.
You may think it's worth spraying a hundred rounds down Fifth Avenue at 2pm on a Saturday to hit a mugger twice, but .....
Shoqiyqa said:
Our priorities can't be the same here.
That apparently wasn't really clear. Let me try highlighting some parts of what I said, to see whether that's enough to cause you to read them this time.
Shoqiyqa said:
According to that, an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time at 50m with a 9mm pistol. tanding calmly at the range, taking my time, I used to be able to put in saucer-sized (between palm-sized and side-plate-sized) groups at 25m with a 9mm, but I really doubt that means I'd get 100% accuracy at 50m on a target twice that size in a hurry, outdoors, in a situation that actually warranted shooting someone. If you don't hit the target, where does the bullet go?
dogstile said:
Looks like you're the one who needs to go back to playing COD
This is factoring in wind, stress, etc. Too many factors for a perfect shot.
Thankyou, dogstile, for so visibly having a clue.
A quick search brings up the Men's 50m pistol shooting in the Olympics. As dogstile and I have now both pointed out, this is calm, slow shooting at the indoor range. They're also the world's best (unless maybe you want to claim you're a member of some elite Special Forces unit so secret they're not allowed to compete in sporting events) and using long-barrelled target pistols with long sight radii and fancy grips, fancy goggles and all sorts of stuff like that, firing 5.6mm, aka .22LR, which has a 100-200 ftlb muzzle energy, compared to the 380-700 ftlb of a 9mm ... and so on and so forth, and they're all on-target with every shot, but that final scoreboard is showing 5 points difference and one of those shots was "only" an 8.2, which is barely a hit at 100m even without wind, tumble or whatever else gets in the way.
Also found: rapid .22 at 25m, producing some really good scores
but they know where their targets are and get to line up in advance. Again, they're on a range, not in a firefight.
I also found this one, which has some more
really fancy guns and has shooters lying down to fire five shots over two minutes:
The other results coming up are hundred-megabyte size restrictions, hundred-metre sprints, hundred-metre-per-second bb guns and so on.
It ain't THIS:
Treblaine said:
... take a pistol in the same calibre, put it in a vice to fire it removing all physiological factors, it is mechanically an accurate gun it also hits bulls-eye every time at 300 feet.
That does depend on the pistol and ammunition. I refer you to some blogspot post I found via google [http://conventionalpistol.blogspot.com/2005/08/accuracy-tests-preliminary-results.html] as an arbitrary sort of example:
Sample Size Shape Ammunition $/Rnd
#1 2.3" diagonal oval CCI Standard Velocity $0.05
#2 1.5" vertical oval CCI Standard Velocity $0.05
#3 1.5" vertical oval CCI Standard Velocity $0.05
#4 2.5" vertical oval CCI Green Tag $0.12
#5 1.1" vertical oval CCI Green Tag $0.12
#6 1.5" round Remington 22 Target $0.04
#7 2.5" round Remington 22 Target $0.04
#8 1.1" round Federal Gold Match $0.13
#9 1.5" round Federal Gold Match $0.13
#10 1.3" round PMC Pistol Match $0.10
#11 1.5" round PMC Pistol Match $0.10
#12 2.3" slim vert. oval CCI Pistol Match $0.12
#13 1.4" vertical oval CCI Pistol Match $0.12
#14 2.1" vertical oval RWS Subsonic $0.09
#15 1.1" vertical oval RWS Subsonic $0.09
That's at 50 yds with a Ransom Rest. The vertical expansion of groups is attributed to variations in velocity due to inconsistent ammo.
Treblaine said:
But aiming the pistol, you may find can't put more than 1 in 5 bullets even on the target at 300 feet.
The problem is pistols are really really poor aiming and shooting devices:
-smaller mass to absorb recoil
-no buttstock to absorb recoil
-shorter sight radius making aiming errors larger
-rear sight further from eye
-no buttstock to rest your cheek on
-no fore stock for better angle control
-smaller grip area means trigger pull also disrupts hold much more
-greater muzzle blast from short barrel
All true, but you missed the mass of the slide bouncing back and forth on a semi-automatic pistol, huge relative to the bolt carrier assembly moving in a rifle and very significant when compared to a manually-operated action, which has no moving parts except the bullet between ignition and relaxing after the shot.
Treblaine said:
Also, getting your car stolen? Seriously how incompetent does a cop have to be to allow that{?}
If police can't stop their cars being stolen WHILE ON DUTY then we have serious problems.
About this incompetent, apparently:
Grevensher said:
Plenty of places to practice a 100 meter shot:
http://www.funnewjersey.com/upload_user/Different_Outdoor_adventures_NJ/SHOOTING_RANGES_NJ.HTM
http://www.davisshootingsports.com/range.asp
http://www.dtbtest.com/Indoor-Shooting-Range.aspx
Facilities include: Outdoor Pistol (50 yds), Outdoor Rifle (100 to 300 yds), Trap, Skeet
Muzzleloader (75 yards)
The range consists of 13 twenty-five yard shooting ports. There are hanging target holders, for those members wanting to shoot at closer distances.
a 25 Yard semi-outdoor range
It includes a ventilated 25-yard range, a ready room, a master control booth for organized matches, administrative offices, a kitchen, and restrooms. Indoor Pistol (25 yds), Indoor Rifle (25 yds)
Facilities include: Outdoor Pistol (75 ft), Indoor Pistol (50 ft)
Outdoor Pistol (25 yards)
Indoor Pistol (25 yds.), Indoor Rifle (25 yds.)
Outdoor Pistol (25, 50 yds)
Outdoor Pistol (25 yds), Outdoor Rifle (50 - 100 yds)
Facilities include: Indoor Pistol (up to 20 yds)
Outdoor Pistol (25 yds)
Facilities include a 50 foot Indoor rifle range
Indoor Pistol (75 ft), Indoor Rifle (75 ft, .22 only)
Dayton T. Brown, an ISO 9001 and AS9100 registered engineering and testing lab, has expanded its services, now offering a fully functional ballistics testing 100 meter indoor shooting range, in addition to our 15yd underground range.
With over 60 years of experience with engineering and testing DTB is able to provide in condition environmental simulation testing, failure analysis, first article inspections, life cycle and durability, dynamics and vibration, design and program engineering, static and fatigue testing, prototyping and metallurgical engineering.
This background gives us the ability to provide efficient and effective management of your small arms and ballistics testing programs from start to finish.
..... and that's it for mention of ranges from the three links you provided. Nothing there specifically mentions pistol shooting beyond 50 yards. 100 metres is 109.36133 yards, which is more than twice 50 yards. Really.
You're sort of not very good at backing up your assertions.
Conza said:
Shoqiyqa said:
Conza said:
If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, ... not fatally wounding them ... damage none.
*crackle* Hello, Charlie Six Three, this is Mike One Zero. I spell:
Whisky,
Tango,
Foxtrot, over?
That's no a quote of my words, there's been a syntax error in your selection, the first part was a quote from mikezero.
Recheck that if you please.
Well, I could re-check that. In fact I did! I clicked on my name where you quoted me, then clicked on your name where I'd quoted you, and I looked at the post I'd quoted [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.286226.11299861] and I beheld ... well, pretty much what Gordon_4 also quoted, which appears below, because you quoted him quoting you in full in full!
Conza said:
Gordon_4 said:
Conza said:
Gordon_4 said:
Conza said:
Serenegoose said:
Snip... If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, arm, leg, ect, not fatally wounding them, and removing any possibility that the suspect would harm anyone else. Threat contained, damage none. In this scenario it took the time of 30+ officers to detain '1' person. That is inefficent when the cost of a single round would've saved all that hassle.
Let me just go back and hit the quote button on your post, just to be sure.
Conza said:
Option one. To protect and serve the people, law enforcements require firearms.
If you aren't persuaded by the video, then I thank the fact you are not in charge of any state or federal Australian police authorities, because firearms should never be removed from their side, and under any circumstance theyy do or do not believe to need a firearm, they should carry one, because anything could happen.
Serenegoose said:
police officers are there to keep the peace, not kill people. The UK doesn't suffer from out of control criminality and we have almost no gun crime. What possible use could we have for arming our officers when there is no clear need for them to be so?
I'm picking on you because my post comes after yours. Watch the video. If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, arm, leg, ect, not fatally wounding them, and removing any possibility that the suspect would harm anyone else. Threat contained, damage none. In this scenario it took the time of 30+ officers to detain '1' person. That is inefficent when the cost of a single round would've saved all that hassle.
EDIT: And let me add, if anyone else was actually wounded, or forbid, killed as a result of no firearms as could've easily been the case in this scenario, you might think twice about giving the proper tools, to the people we entrust our safety to.
See that? Now, let me trim that a little and highlight some parts:
Conza said:
Watch the video. If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, arm, leg, ect, not fatally wounding them, and removing any possibility that the suspect would harm anyone else. Threat contained, damage none. In this scenario it took the time of 30+ officers to detain '1' person. That is inefficent when the cost of a single round would've saved all that hassle.
To further trim it:
Conza said:
If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, ... not fatally wounding them, ... damage none.
Those are your words, in sequence, and I do not believe the way I quoted them significantly changed the meaning of what was said. Even if it did change what you said to mean something else, you then said this:
Conza said:
... shooting in the chest is an old school method used up until Vietnam (not that the UK was there of course), where a 7.62 round would plant someone in the ground if you shot them in the chest.
Firstly, the UK had more sense, sense a lot of us had apparently lost, probably by 1997 and certainly by 2003.
Secondly, a 7.62x51mm round will, indeed, put someone in the ground if you shoot him in the chest with it. It'll put him in a pine box six feet under the ground ... unless the family go for cremation or sky-burial or tossing the corpse off a boat or something like that.
Unusually low mortality of penetrating wounds of the chest. [http://jtcs.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/1/119]
There were 607 stab wounds and 502 gunshot wounds. Antibiotic prophylaxis was prescribed only for the 428 patients who had laparotomy, thoracotomy, and pulmonary contusion with hemoptysis. Of the 1109 patients, 105 had cardiac injuries. All patients with cardiac trauma underwent thoracotomy, and the mortality rate was 18.1%. Specifically, the mortality rate of gunshot wound of the heart 24.5% and that of stab wound of the heart, 11.5%. In contrast, of the 1004 patients without cardiac injuries, only 115 required thoracotomy and the mortality rate in this group was 0.8% (8/1004). The mortality rate was 69.6% in patients who had a thoracotomy in the emergency room but only 2.8% in patients who had a thoracotomy in the operating room within the first 24 hours after admission. In the 242 patients who had associated abdominal injuries, the mortality rate was 2.1% (5/242), as compared with 2.5% (22/867) for those who had isolated chest injuries. In the entire group, the incidence of complications was 5.1%, of which 1.8% were infectious complications. The presence of associated abdominal injuries did not influence the outcome. The mortality rate in noncardiac thoracic injuries is very low compared with that of cardiac injury. Because of the complexity of the injury, gunshot wound of the heart has the highest mortality rate.
Lethality of Firearm-Related Injuries in the United States Population [http://www.shootingvoodoo.com/index.php/articles/gunshot_wounds_and_you/]
This is a nation-wide analysis based on 132k individual patients with gunshot wounds (GSWs).
? Of those who died from their wounds, only 30% made it to the ER for treatment, the other 70% were not alive long enough to be transported.
? Of the total number of patients with GSWs who survived, 43% were treated in the ER and then released, 52% were treated and held at the hospital, and 6% were treated and transferred to an acute care facility.
? Of those shot in an assault, the overall mortality rate was 20%
? Of those shot in the head in an assault, the mortality rate was 40%.
? Of those shot anywhere other than the head in an assault, the mortality rate was 16%.
Outcomes Related to the Number and Anatomic Placement of Gunshot Wounds Carr
This is an analysis of 111 patients treated at an ER in Philadelphia in 2004. There was a lot of interesting data, and I'll comment as we work through it:
? The range of number of GSW?s per patient was from a single hit to a dozen, but the mean was 2.6 wounds and the median was 2.
? They broke the body into six anatomic sections ? head & neck, upper torso, lower torso, butt & pelvis, proximal extremities, and distal extremities. The number of regions hit per victim was a mean of 1.6 and a median of 1.
So much for all of that crap in the '80s about how Glock pistols and other high-capacity semi-autos were going to change the face of shooting... Median patient receives two hits to one region...
? Of those who arrived to the ER alive; 13% died while being treated in the ER, 27% were treated and went home (all survived long-term), and 60% were treated and held at the hospital.
? Of the 60% who were treated and held, 65% survived long-term and 35% died.
? Of that 35% who died, 100% did so within the first 24 hours.
? Mortality rates by region were 38.5% head and neck, 28.6% upper torso, 23.1% lower torso, and ZERO for butt and pelvis and the extremities!
The Number of Gunshot Wounds Does Not Predict Injury Severity and Mortality
This is an analysis of 531 patients treated at an Oakland, CA hospital from 2004 to 2006. As their title indicates, these guys appear to have supported their null hypothesis; imagine their horror!
? Of those who arrived to the ER alive, only 13.2% went on to die.
? Mortality rate from single head shots was 50%, multiple hits was 38%
? The rate for a single GSW anywhere but the head was only 9%, multiple hits was 8%.
? The mortality rate for a hit to the thoracoabdominal cavity was 13.6%, for multiples 12.9%.
? The mortality rate for a hit to an extremity only was 1.5%, multiples 0%.
? Their overall mortality rate for a single hit anywhere was 16%, for somebody hit more than once 11%.
In all cases, when there were multiple hits the mortality rate went down. What the hell does that indicate? If we had two communities of shooters, ones who took careful aim and delivered good head shots or solid cardio-pulmonary or CNS shots with a single hit, and then a second community of shooters who sprayed and prayed and got multiple hits but few "good" ones, then we could plausibly explain these results. But I strongly suspect there is, in fact, a single community of shooters on the streets of Oakland with shared levels of training and technique responsible for these 531 patients. What the hell indeed...
Military rifle bullet wound patterns [http://www.uthr.org/SpecialReports/Military_rifle_bullet_wound_patterns.htm]
Far and away the most disruptive bullet of those described is the West German 7.62 NATO round. Its fragmenting behaviour maximises utilisation of its much higher potential (bullet mass well over twice that of any of the 5.56mm bullets and velocity only about ten percent less than theirs) for tissue disruption.
NATO 7.62x51mm FMJ (US version) ... The abdominal wound, with a sufficiently long path so that the bullet will yaw, causing the large temporary cavity that is seen at depths of 20 to 35cm, would be expected to be very disruptive. If the bullet path is such that this temporary cavity occurs in the liver, this amount of tissue disruption is likely to make survival improbable.
The design standards for ammunition that can be called "NATO" ammunition do not specify bullet jacket material or jacket thickness. The construction of the West German 7.62 mm NATO bullet differs from the US 7.62 mm NATO round in that, the jacket material is copper plated steel, whereas the US version is copper (or the so called gilding metal alloy, which is predominantly copper). The West German steel jacket is about 0.6mm thick near the cannelure and the US copper jacket is about 0.8mm thick at the same point. This design difference is responsible for a vast difference in performance in tissue. The German bullet, after travelling point-forward for only about 8 cm, yaws and breaks at the cannelure. The flattened point section retains only about 66 % of the bullet's weight, the remaining 45 % mass becomes fragments (Fig. 8). The wound profile can be described as an enlarged M16 profile (Fig. 3), with dimensions of the tissue disruption increased by 60 % (temporary stress cavity about 22 cm diameter; permanent crush cavity about 11 cm diameter, penetration depth of the bullet point about 58 cm). The uncomplicated thigh wound from this bullet is likely to have a large exit with the loss of substantial tissue near the exit; still, this might not be a very serious wound since the bullet fragmentation does not occur until beyond 10 cm penetration depth and, in most shots, the bullet will have passed well beyond the major vessels before this occurs. The abdomen shot, however, because of the much enlarged permanent cavity from bullet fragmentation, is likely to prove fatal in a majority of cases.
Lots of pretty pictures of "lead snowstorms" in hips and pellets in blood vessels [http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/19/5/1358.full] and all that are available from RSNA.
The 7.62 mm × 51 military rifle bullet (7.62 mm NATO) [http://www.springerlink.com/content/g7278h1558141957/] as manufactured in Denmark, and in some other countries as well, has been claimed to fragment when fired at ranges encountered in forensic practice. All autopsied cases of death due to this bullet in Denmark since 1975 were investigated by studying autopsy reports and the bullets retrieved by the police. With one exception, all bullets that were found in, or known to have passed through the body, had fragmented. This behaviour is assumed to be due to a lack of strength in the jacket causing it to break at the cannelure when hitting the target at high velocity. The fragments will increase the already sizeable lesions and may leave the body through several separate exit wounds, presenting problems, both for the surgeon treating survivors and for the forensic scientists when defining the direction of the shot.
Terminal ballistics (hitting the target) [http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html]
The type of tissue affects wounding potential, as well as the depth of penetration. (Bartlett, 2003) Specific gravity (density) and elasticity are the major tissue factors. The higher the specific gravity, the greater the damage. The greater the elasticity, the less the damage. Thus, lung tissue of low density and high elasticity is damaged less than muscle with higher density but some elasticity. Liver, spleen, and brain have no elasticity and are easily injured, as is adipose tissue. Fluid-filled organs (bladder, heart, great vessels, bowel) can burst because of pressure waves generated. A bullet striking bone may cause fragmentation of bone and/or bullet, with numerous secondary missiles formed, each producing additional wounding.
Two things to keep in mind about birdshot. The first is that birdshot is as lethal as buckshot at close range. Don't believe for a second that you can just wound someone with birdshot and he'll go on to live another day. If you aren't justified in killing a man, you aren't justified in wounding him, either. Never "shoot to wound." I once again direct you to read Ayoob's 'In the Gravest Extreme' and learn the truth. [http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm]
.308 Winchester (7.62x51mm NATO)
This is an excellent rifle cartridge, perhaps the best. Over-penetration is the biggest problem. Use fast opening bullets of 150 grains or less. The Nosler Ballistic Tip, Hornady V-Max, and Remington Accu-Tip are examples of quick-opening bullets that are available in several brands of factory loaded ammunition.
Still no record of an unarmoured victim surviving a shot to the chest with a 7.62x51mm rifle round, and yet another voice saying you never shoot to wound, only to kill.
It's almost as if the entire internet thinks you were talking shite there, isn't it?
