April 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm #10769
Feel free to discuss new blog post here.April 25, 2014 at 1:50 pm #10782
Very good point about will to kill. I have a friend who was in WW2 and I remeber something he told me a while back about the early days of the war. A lot of our fighting force was made up of young Christian men who were raised in rural communities. The all grew up hunting and shooting and were very accurate shots before they ever joined the military.
They scored very highly as riflemen during basic training but when dropped in a war zone they could not hit anything. What they discovered was they had all been trained shooting at round targets and because of their Christian upbringing subconsciously were missing on purpose when firing on another human. That is when they started using human silhouette tagets in training.
As soon as they did accuracy increased dramatically on the battlefield. It is about mind set ad much as it is about caliber and accuracy.April 25, 2014 at 2:02 pm #10785
All your points are well made. I have shot deer through the heart and lungs destroying all three organs and after being shot are able to run 100 yards. That probably equals 5 seconds of time. Time an opponent could be shooting back after a devastating lethal injury.April 25, 2014 at 2:07 pm #10787
It is good point Matt, I have seen situations like that. Sometimes simply people did not want to shoot, even if their life was in danger, or sometimes they would deliberately miss.
It is pretty shocking for most of the people who are not trained for that.April 25, 2014 at 2:18 pm #10790
Selco, I had a police man tell me that he had a criminal come at him with a knife, he shot all six shots and the criminal fell two feet away from him. So he told me to never stop shooting!April 25, 2014 at 2:23 pm #10791
You mention you did not feel the need to shot but the guy you were with did. What was the difference in perception for you in a shoot – no shoot situation?April 25, 2014 at 2:38 pm #10794
Good post, Selco..
I would add that generally, if you know you’re going to be in a shooting scrape, bigger and more is better than smaller and less. Having carried the M16/M4 and the M14 both, the heavier 30 caliber is more effective against human targets. This isn’t to say that the lighter 5.56mm, even the “bad old” M193, 55g round isn’t effective. People who dismiss the 5.56mm as ineffective haven’t shot anyone with it or seen anyone shot with it. It’s just simple physics – a big, heavy, fast bullet will destroy more tissue than a small, light, fast bullet. Can you carry more small rounds than big rounds? Yep. Big rounds are heavier and bulkier than smaller ones, so you can only carry so many…
Selco is right about the individual being hit, too. When I was active duty, my platoon sergeants, etc, were all Nam vets. They told me stories of how the VC would be so hopped up on a cocktail of drugs (amphetamines and opiates) being struck squarely in the heart, but their blood pressure was so high their blood kept circulating for up to 15 minutes, enabling them to fight on. You shoot until the threat is down and stays down. Period.
My personal carry weapons vary with the season, but I get the most use out of a heavy Colt revolver in 45 Colt, and a plain Jane, G.I. issue M1911A1 in 45 ACP. I don’t run hardball (FMJ) ammo. Why should I? I usually use some hollowpoint type, like Winchester T ammo (which is the infamous “Black Talon” ammo, only without the black and under a new name). Expensive, but very much worth it.
It isn’t the weapon which kills, or the bullet. It is the hard heart that kills. You have to have the will to do what the other guy won’t. Use the best, most effective weapons you can obtain and become proficient. When the time comes, bullet placement is critical – head, heart, liver, spine. Prison inmates use medical books to study where the critical areas of the body are, in case they have to stab someone. I suggest you all study that as well, since a critical area is the same, whether you have a blade or a firearm…
Edit: One thing I can speak with a bit of authority on is the effectiveness of the shotgun. I carried one in the jungles of Central America for a couple years and have used it for building clearing. At close range, it’s not only a game-changer, it is a game ender. Especially with No. 1 buckshot.
Look, it breaks down like this.
A 12 gauge shell, 2 3/4″ in 00 buckshot has only 9 pellets of .33 caliber.
A 12 gauge shell, 3″ in 00 buckshot has only 15 pellets of .33 caliber.
A 12 gauge shell, 2 3/4″ in No. 1 Buckshot has 16 pellets of .30 caliber.
A 12 gauge shell, 3″ in No. 1 Buckshot has 24 pellets of .30 caliber.
Which means that a bad guy, being hit with a load of No.1 Buckshot from a 3″ shell, is being hit with the equivalent of 24, .30 caliber rifle bullets simultaneously. You’re only trading .03″ diameter for a 63% increase in pellets. The total weight of the payload does not change. But the number of pellets increases dramatically for only a tiny tradeoff in individual pellet diameter. One thing I can tell you all from personal experience is that at close range, the shotgun is devastating, and I have never seen anyone get up after being hit with a charge of No.1 buckshot.
This might be a bit gruesome for some of you, but hunters will know what I am talking about – when a body is hit with a charge of buckshot at extreme close range, the wound pattern is commonly referred to as a “rat hole”. It literally looks as if a rat has gnawed it’s way clean through the body. The wound channel is just enormous. At farther distances, the pellets have a chance to spread out some and there are individual 30-something caliber holes spread fairly evenly. Each pellet has its own wound channel, does its own amount of trauma, delivers its own shock. The body that keeps on going after one hit with a rifle rarely gets up after being hit with over a dozen 30-something caliber pellets. Internal organs are just shredded, destroyed.
The downside is that the shotgun has a limited range. You can stretch it some with the use of rifled slugs (100 yards or so), but that’s about it. Bottom line is that guns are a toolbox and what works best for one situation might actually compromise you in a different situation…
The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1April 25, 2014 at 2:39 pm #10795
They had dispute over the some old issues and revenges. Guy wanted to finish that, I simply did not want to get involved in that dispute.
I was not in danger there, and it was not my thing.April 25, 2014 at 2:48 pm #10798
Thanks Malgus, you are right, I agree with physics, can not go against that. It would be like I am saying that it is better to have spear then loaded rifle.
Simply I am trying to say that whole set of other factors need to be considered before saying that “I ll be safe with 9 mm, AK 47, Glock (or whatever else ) because it is best.
Sometimes people who are not experienced real gunfight, or do not have any experience with any shootings have tendency to misunderstand what is all about.April 25, 2014 at 2:56 pm #10800
Excellent article as always; very good point about finding the best handgun and caliber for the individual. The fact is that many people with a smaller body size and smaller hands, or elderly people perhaps even wtih arthritis or other problems with joints – wrists, elbows, shoulders – will not hit as consistently with a larger caliber, and the higher recoil, than they can with a slightly smaller setup.
Have seen women and kids and odler people, flinch and have trouble holding properly the .45 standard 1911 styles at the range. Yet I have found that people can often handle a 9mm more easily than .45, and the ammo is pretty much universal and easy to find, wherever a person is in the world. Just my thoughts.April 25, 2014 at 3:17 pm #10806
All my pistols are 9mm , thats for two main reasons , more rounds , and so that my girl can use them easily . I dont get into arguments about cal, except to bash the .223 baby bullet , but thats another topic . Point is , have something , Considering most home defense shootings happen at ranges of less than 20 ft . , they are almost literally in your face …………….9mm will do just fine , so will most other cals .One cal , that is a proven man killer , that is not real common in the US , but its worth mentioning , the Soviet 7.62×25 is a very fast and hard hitting round . The pistols that shoot this are inexpensive surplus weapons , and you can get surplus ammo as well . Its a battle proven round .April 25, 2014 at 3:29 pm #10807
You speak truth. People will be “flinchy” at the oddest times for the oddest reasons. I’ve seen guys bigger than me get flinchy when shooting the M4… why? It has almost no recoil at all. It’s 99% mental.
My lovely wife had never handled a handgun in her life, ever. I took her shooting and, because she had no bad habits to unlearn, she learned just fine. Being “flinchy” can be overcome with training and incremental increases in power. Even though my wife is only 5’6″ and 120 lbs, she can handle a 1911A1 with no problems…
I started her off with a simple .22 pistol. Piff, piff, piff… Then moved her up to a 38 Spl. revolver. Bang, bang, bang… let her play with that for some time. Then another increase in power – this time I put 357’s in the revolver she had been using (it was chambered for 357’s… no worries) and let her play with that. Then came the big 45’s. She ended up shooting up 3 boxes of my (expensive) 45 Colt ammo using that big Colt’s revolver I have… at that point, I told her that if she was going to shoot up all my ammo, then she rated her own handgun and could feed it herself.. she settled on a 357 revolver – a hot-rodded S&W 686.
Recoil can be mastered with time and proper training for all but the smallest and/or most frail… the worst thing you can do is hand a noob shooter a very powerful handgun and let them touch rounds off when they don’t know what they’re doing or what to expect… that’s where being “flinchy” comes from.
The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1April 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm #10808
Don’t mean to pick a fight, since you seem to be a pretty cool guy and post good posts, but just because something has been used in battle doesn’t necessarily mean it’s any good. Just to play Devil’s Advocate…
Remember Black Jack Pershing dealing with the Moros in the Philippines? They were using the .38 Spl against the Moros and it was so ineffective against stopping them it got people killed. Which is why they went back to the creaky old .45 Colt – it would lay a whoopin’ on that a$$ and stop them cold. Which is also why the .45 ACP was king of the bean hill for 70-some years…
Or the .30 Carbine round? My daddy fought in Korea. He said the Chinese had these heavy winter coats and when our guys would shoot them squarely with the 30 Carbine, it couldn’t penetrate their winter clothing… what kind of battle cartridge can’t penetrate a winter coat? That’s just sad. And they weren’t even far away… they were right over there.. and that 30 Carbine round did diddly squat…
Don’t misinterpret me as bagging on what you choose to use… just saying that just because something was used in a war somewhere doesn’t mean it’s any good… plenty of bad ideas out there have been foisted on guys sent to fight…
The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1April 25, 2014 at 4:00 pm #10821
Thats true , thats one of the reasons that Luger upgraded their cal to the now famous 9mm version , they tried to sell it to the US Army , and it was rejected because the original cal was not powerful enough . Also as you know , some military rounds do very well at some things , and suck at others . The 7.62×25 Soviet , did very well as a pistol round in WW2 , I have heard that the M1 carbine was a mistake , correct me if I’m wrong , but the cartridge was not bottle necked either , more like the old cowboy rounds of the post civil war era . Perhaps it goes into the ” what were they thinking ? ” category ? Your right , every country had its share of lemons , even the Russians had several problems attempting to replace the mosin , the cal rounds they chose were fine , they just had some severe design problems to work out , not good in the middle of a war at a time when your not winning .April 25, 2014 at 4:12 pm #10834
I’m standing here, making breakfast and waiting for the rain to stop so I can go do something productive, and my mind was wandering… got to thinking about my last comment to Tolik about crappy stuff being foisted on guys sent to fight…
Being a soldier made me a student of war, which means I’ve gone out of my way to study what we now call “After Action Reports” about previous wars… and I remembered what a guy said about the first world war.
Guys’ name was McBride. He ended up writing a book about his experiences, but that’s beside the point. Short version is: dude was a Captain in the US Army before WWI. The war rolls around and the US isn’t in the fight (yet), so Our Hero resigns his commission and heads to Canada to join up with the Canuks heading for France as a Private.
Here’s where it gets interesting. One of the rifles the Canadians pressed into service was called the Ross rifle. Not many of them left these days, but back then they were around, so the Canuks used them. Accurate? Yep. Very. Powerful? Yep. But nobody figured out it had a fatal flaw – when you shot the thing rapid fire, it would overheat and the bolt would jam shut. Nothing could open that bolt. Our Hero, McBride, said he observed one of his Sergeants hammering on the bolt with the butt of another rifle in an effort to open it, and it refused to budge. (Incidentally, he said the same Sergeant had a real gift for cursing, and when he got on a roll, his men would stand in rapture at the things that came out of his mouth… which, also incidentally, where I learned about The Begats…. ). When the Ross jammed, you had a club. Nothing more. Not until the armorer could un-jam it back at Depot level maintenance.
Second thing was the remarks he made about the ammo they were using. The Herms spent a lot of time, effort and money developing the most effective bullet they could – heavy, aerodynamic and effective. The Allies did not. They just figured a bullet with a point on it was just as good as any other bullet. Wrong. When the Allies engaged the Germans, they would shoot at them and find that their bullets would shed velocity quickly and fall out of the air, while the Herms could lay back and shoot at them all day. Despite the Germans using a heavier bullet, it retained higher velocity over a longer period of time, which means they had a substantial range advantage over the Allies. This resulted in the front line troops crabbing so badly, it sparked a flurry of redevelopment to come up with a better projectile… which they eventually did.
Third thing was when McBride captured a German soldier. Our Hero was carrying a Ross rifle with bayonet attached, which made it almost taller than he was. He had an opportunity to observe what the German was using – a much shorter carbine. Sleek, fast, powerful, handy… everything the Ross was not. The German saw Our Hero comparing the two and actually sneered at him, such was the disdain the German had for Allied weaponry. He knew as well as Our Hero that compared to the German’s true battle rifle, the Ross was little more than a clumsy club that happened to go “bang”…
All kinds of stuff like this are in my mind when I choose a rifle of military usefulness… and I have to say that even though I got a lot of experience carrying and using the M16/M4, I refuse to carry one now. Anyone who wants to know why can just ask, as I’m hungry and the rain is stopping….
The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.