Another look at stopping power

[since9]

Personally, I think people put too much fear into over penetration. Unless you're like the Air Marshals, and have to worry about minimizing collateral damage, the chances that A) you're going to have to shoot someone and B) that your bullet passes through your target and that C) some innocent bystander is directly in line with you and the bad guy and D) is at a distance and trajectory which would put them in mortal danger... Well, the chances of all of these things adding up are totally eclipsed by the probability that a given shot won't hit the bad guy in the first place!

You're misunderstanding the statistics behind it. First, A) doesn't count because you carry on the premise that while A) might be unlikely, if it does happen i.e. if you need to use deadly force, you're in a situation where it's 100% necessary to use deadly force. 1 x X = X. Second, whether or not a bullet passes through a target is the entire point. We're trying to prevent that from happened, regardless of other factors. So, third, the probability of C) and D) don't matter. The point is that even if it's 1 chance in 1000, if it does happen, the innocent bystander could be injured or killed. The stats don't matter because there are rounds available which will penetrate initially heavy/fatty layers while mushrooming and stopping very rapidly without over-penetrating. So, there's no trade-off as the solution is a win-win situation.

Also, the FAMs have gone to 357 SIG--one round that is reputed to penetrate like the dickens for its size--even a good hollowpoint will probably go through an average sized person with some fuel to spare. If the air marshals are more concerned about raw damage than possible over-penetration, in an aluminum tube stacked with hundreds of potential innocent bystanders, at 30,000 feet... You know, I think that's pretty telling.

As a rated U.S. Air Force Officer with thousands of hours under my belt, I'm here to tell you the "Snakes on a Plane" scenario doesn't work that way. A single round may indeed blow out a window, but it's not likely. If so, rapid-D results, O2 masks will drop, and the pilots will descend to a safe altitude. What won't happen is the aircraft won't magically explode. The guy sitting next to the windows will still be sitting next to the window, provided he's wearing his seat belt. Flight attendants won't fly through the length of the cabin to be sucked out, and neither will "anything not strapped down." That's Hollywood hooferah.

The reason Air Marshals use a penetrating round is to strike through either body armor or a door or bulkhead. No, it might not penetrate the body armor, but it'll pack enough of a wallop to slow them down anyway.

Back to bullet holes, we've had enough of them, usually AK-47 rounds, appear in our aircraft while flying over Iraq to know they're not a serious threat, and most of the time we're not even aware until post-flight walk-around by maintenance. If we know about it in flight, we check to ensure no major systems are affected, then proceed on mission, bullet holes and all. A matching pair of bullet holes is nothing compared to the usual leaks in the various aircraft seals.

 

[since9]

Having said all that, I'm not an Air Marshal, and I'm very concerned about over-penetration. I don't have any reservations about putting down a bad guy, but most nut scenarios have them blasting away in the midst of a crowd, and I'd really rather not do the right thing if it means loosing an innocent human life.

Blah, blah, blah, stopping power, kinetic energy, fps, x19j4, PDQ, Reser's Peanut Butter Cups. All that amounts to JACK SQUAT when your rounds are flying everywhere because you can't put one of them on target.

Another good point...

 

[CO-Joe]

First, in the FAM scenario, I wasn't suggesting that handgun bullets are anyway remotely a threat to a passenger airliner. I don't even know how you think I was talking about the aircraft--I only talked about innocent bystanders.

Again, the point I was trying to make is thus: Any SOB unlucky enough to be behind a hypothetical bad guy (unless you have a obese hijacker or one wrapped in kevlar) is most likely still in danger from over-penetration due to the particular round that agency chose, even if they do use expanding bullets.

The second point: in a passenger airliner, you very probably will have literally dozens of innocent people lined up directly behind a bad guy, yet they still chose a round that is capable of thoroughly penetrating an average person, even with expanding bullets.

Here's another thing: even the best hollowpoint bullets can and do fail, and their failure mode is to operate as an FMJ. Example: A sternum shot is likely to make that happen. If they wanted something capable of actually defeating modern soft body armor, empty sheet metal bulkheads ***while still reducing the risk of over penetration*** they would have gone with FN's Five-Seven and their AP-core ammo.

You're misunderstanding the statistics behind it. First, A) doesn't count because you carry on the premise that while A) might be unlikely, if it does happen i.e. if you need to use deadly force, you're in a situation where it's 100% necessary to use deadly force. 1 x X = X. Second, whether or not a bullet passes through a target is the entire point. We're trying to prevent that from happened, regardless of other factors. So, third, the probability of C) and D) don't matter. The point is that even if it's 1 chance in 1000, if it does happen, the innocent bystander could be injured or killed. The stats don't matter because there are rounds available which will penetrate initially heavy/fatty layers while mushrooming and stopping very rapidly without over-penetrating. So, there's no trade-off as the solution is a win-win situation.

A) counts. Even if one were to always carry magical hyper-velocity DU bullets capable of zipping straight through an orphanage, but never have the need to use them in anger--as is most likely for all defensive minded citizens--they have zero chance of over-penetration. No?

But you're right, that C and D don't matter, because statistically they're far, far outweighed by the chances that you'll miss your target completely, and your bullet will never have the chance to expand inside the intended target. Indeed, that was kind of my point. Either way, the survival of a person behind your bad guy really comes down to LtCol Coopers 4th rule: Identify your target, and what is behind it.

I'm not advocating the disuse of a reasonably powerful weapon and whatever defensive ammo is best used in it: I'm saying that like any caliber-war thread on the internet, worrying about over-penetration mostly boils down to a frustrating exercise in mental masturbation. I present the preceding as evidence

 

[since9]

First, in the FAM scenario, I wasn't suggesting that handgun bullets are anyway remotely a threat to a passenger airliner. I don't even know how you think I was talking about the aircraft--I only talked about innocent bystanders.

Sorry. I must have errantly got the impression when you mentioned air marshal aboard an airliner downing the airliner. Silly me.

Again, the point I was trying to make is thus: Any SOB unlucky enough to be behind a hypothetical bad guy (unless you have a obese hijacker or one wrapped in kevlar) is most likely still in danger from over-penetration due to the particular round that agency chose, even if they do use expanding bullets.

I agree you 100% on this point.

The second point: in a passenger airliner, you very probably will have literally dozens of innocent people lined up directly behind a bad guy...

Not so. The overwhelming majority of terrorists stand up to do their dirty work. They don't do it sitting down, lined up with other people.

...yet they still chose a round that is capable of thoroughly penetrating an average person, even with expanding bullets.

Regardless of why they chose it, they chose it. I still think they chose it to go through body armor, or at least, pack a sledgehammer wallop. Having done so, I can't imagine they'd utterly, absolutely fail to give air marshals some sort of training so as to avoid drilling 12 innocents standing behind the bad guy.

Here's another thing: even the best hollowpoint bullets can and do fail...

Not really. Some do, some don't. The ones that normally don't, when they do, it's usually because they hit something hard enough to cause them to fragment. When that happens, a majority fraction of their energy was absorbed in the fractioning process.

...and their failure mode is to operate as an FMJ. Example: A sternum shot is likely to make that happen.

:banghead:

At which point most of it's energy is wasted in the sternum/fragmentation process.

If they wanted something capable of actually defeating modern soft body armor, empty sheet metal bulkheads ***while still reducing the risk of over penetration*** they would have gone with FN's Five-Seven and their AP-core ammo.

Are you talking about the 5.7x28mm? With this pistol? 2,000+ fps with a circa 30gr round?

Hmm... You might have something there, particular if the U.S. Secret Service picked it up for use.

A) counts. Even if one were to always carry magical hyper-velocity DU bullets capable of zipping straight through an orphanage, but never have the need to use them in anger--as is most likely for all defensive minded citizens--they have zero chance of over-penetration. No?

No. Because the chance of having to use them is not zero.

But you're right, that C and D don't matter, because statistically they're far, far outweighed by the chances that you'll miss your target completely...

Speak for yourself. I practice.

...the survival of a person behind your bad guy really comes down to LtCol Coopers 4th rule: Identify your target, and what is behind it.

First, he's gone by Jeff since the mid-70s (rest his soul), and second, you're right about his rule.

I'm not advocating the disuse of a reasonably powerful weapon and whatever defensive ammo is best used in it: I'm saying that like any caliber-war thread on the internet, worrying about over-penetration mostly boils down to a frustrating exercise in mental masturbation.

So say you, and you alone. If anything, Jeff's admonition to consider what's behind the target indicates he was concerned about over-penetration as well.

I present the preceding as evidence

You have presented precisely zero evidence. In fact, you've presented significant evidence to the contrary!

Please, do continue. Wake me when you're done so I can settle the headstone...

 

[CO-Joe]

Alright, I'm not going to get into a battle of nested quote tags.

So, you practice. That naturally makes you incapable of missing? I practice too, and probably more than a lot of people. I've also been known to do some IDPA and IPSC matches, and I'm a reasonably good shot, at a reasonably fast pace. Yet, I know enough to say that I'm not 100% prepared for combat (if there ever is such a thing), and I wouldn't guarantee a 100% hit rate in a dynamic situation against someone who's trying to do me harm.

I've also seen the results of officer involved shootings. Remember that high speed chase that resulted in a shootout up in Federal Heights or Thornton a year or two ago? That car looked like swiss cheese, and the majority of the hits didn't even land near the driver. Funny that a lot of officer involved shootings end up looking that way, and yet errant bullets don't often seem find innocent bodies.

Re: Terrorists standing up: Sure... If I stand up, that puts my center of mass right in line right inline with where my face would be were I to be sitting down. Do FAMs train to shoot exclusively for the head/neck/upper torso? I dunno. Unless passengers have an opportunity to duck, it really doesn't bode well.

I've also done enough hunting to know that thin bones like the sternum don't absorb a lot of energy, but can totally change how expanding bullets are designed to work. A bullet that is designed to expand and stop inside the animal might work as intended in one animal, and might go completely through another, if a rib or proximal bone disrupts the bullet's structure enough... It basically won't expand.

Then, you have some bullets which are designed for the professional market, which have very poor expansion characteristics, even in optimal circumstances:
[video=youtube;zSY018CXRi8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSY018CXRi8[/video]

Edit: I'm done, so you can get your engraver out

 

[since9]

So, you practice. That naturally makes you incapable of missing?

Of course not. It reduces the likelihood I'll miss.

I practice too, and probably more than a lot of people. I've also been known to do some IDPA and IPSC matches, and I'm a reasonably good shot, at a reasonably fast pace. Yet, I know enough to say that I'm not 100% prepared for combat (if there ever is such a thing), and I wouldn't guarantee a 100% hit rate in a dynamic situation against someone who's trying to do me harm.

90% of success in combat is forced calm. As an aviator I've been in situations where the crap hit the fan and we were literally seconds from death. Four friends of mine in similar situations died during my career. I and the rest of us who lived did so in large part due to our training, which involved putting us in more and more challenging situations. This morphed our responses from uncontrolled adrenaline lock-up to controlled take charge of the situation and deal with it in a hurry.

It's why we practice on the range, and for max effectiveness, that practice must include mentally working through scenarios involving an opposing shooter. It's not merely target practice. Rather, it's situational practice.

I've also seen the results of officer involved shootings. Remember that high speed chase that resulted in a shootout up in Federal Heights or Thornton a year or two ago? That car looked like swiss cheese, and the majority of the hits didn't even land near the driver. Funny that a lot of officer involved shootings end up looking that way, and yet errant bullets don't often seem find innocent bodies.

I believe that's largely the result of an overemphasis on target practice as opposed to practicing for real-life situations.

Re: Terrorists standing up: Sure... If I stand up, that puts my center of mass right in line right inline with where my face would be were I to be sitting down. Do FAMs train to shoot exclusively for the head/neck/upper torso? I dunno.

I do, and I know they're trained to avoid shooting passengers.

Unless passengers have an opportunity to duck...

Not the passengers' responsibility, really. How can it be? Do airlines train passengers to duck? Does anyone? Fortunately, it's usually quite natural to duck in a firefight.

I've also done enough hunting to know that thin bones like the sternum don't absorb a lot of energy, but can totally change how expanding bullets are designed to work. A bullet that is designed to expand and stop inside the animal might work as intended in one animal, and might go completely through another, if a rib or proximal bone disrupts the bullet's structure enough... It basically won't expand.

Certainly. Some bullets are better and more consistent at expanding than others. The key is to find those which are better and more consistent than the others...

Then, you have some bullets which are designed for the professional market, which have very poor expansion characteristics, even in optimal circumstances:

Interesting video. I could push +P through my firearm, but I stick with regular loads precisely because I'd rather not overpenetrate. As for the lack of expansion in the video, ONE SHOT is not statistically significant. He also failed to describe the gel/gelatin he's using. Human tissue, particularly muscle, is quite fibrous. The gel he's using appears clean as a whistle. Countless test on those and similar rounds in ballistic geletin have shown consistent expansion. Thus, the video is a "one-shot-wonderless," if you will.