Why you need to practice at 3’ and why “get off me guns” are a bad idea

Downeast said:
I have a friend who spent a lot of time as an ER nurse and when given the opportunity she would ask if they knew of the caliber used on the victim being transported to the hospital. If it was a .45 she would relax a bit because chances were high that they would be DOA. Not always, but enough of the time that it wouldn't be considered a coincidence.
Click to expand...

I have seen dead people from a single .22, to someone shot 9 times with a .357 who walked out the hospital four days after admission. Shot placement > caliber. The most I recall was a dude who was shot 15 times--a full mag--with 9mm, and he eventually went home after spending months in the hospitals, having multiple surgeries, and multiple infections.
 
Downeast said:
I have a friend who spent a lot of time as an ER nurse and when given the opportunity she would ask if they knew of the caliber used on the victim being transported to the hospital. If it was a .45 she would relax a bit because chances were high that they would be DOA. Not always, but enough of the time that it wouldn't be considered a coincidence.
Click to expand...

IMG_6812.gif
 
alpharius said:
The big issue with overpenetration is that energy is being wasted.
Click to expand...
Energy is overrated with typically carried pistol calibers. I don't trust it.

Let's visit that for a minute.

Two different calibers. The original ballistics for the .45-70 Govt. with the 405 grain bullet at around 1350 fps vs the .220 Swift's 55 grain bullet at 3800 fps. Energy is so close to equal that we can call it that.

You're faced with a head-on charging Grizzly Bear at 30 feet. You have time for one shot.

Which rifle would you rather have in your hands?

Velocity, energy, momentum are all variable while mass and diameter are constant.

Also, a light, speedy bullet that readily expands in soft tissue may blow up on a bone or even a wallet. If it doesn't reach the vitals, you could have yourself a whole new set of problems.
 
Last edited:
alpharius said:
The big issue with overpenetration is that energy is being wasted. If your bullet went in and out the other end, then it still has energy that hasn't been imparted to the target. You might as well have a less powerful bullet, less recoil, and more shots at that point.
Click to expand...

No, energy is a meme in service calibers and handguns absolutely suck compared to rifles or shotguns with buck/slugs.

12"-18" of penetration in the vitals is all that matters. The .gov has spent decades and millions of dollars learning that when they got BTFO by a motivated man with a Mini-14.
 
John Travis said:
Energy is overrated with typically carried pistol calibers. I don't trust it.

Let's visit that for a minute.

Two different calibers. The original ballistics for the .45-70 Govt. with the 405 grain bullet at around 1350 fps vs the .220 Swift's 55 grain bullet at 3800 fps. Energy is so close to equal that we can call it that.

You're faced with a head-on charging Grizzly Bear at 30 feet. You have time for one shot.

Which rifle would you rather have in your hands?

Velocity, energy, momentum are all variable while mass and diameter are constant.

Also, a light, speedy bullet that readily expands in soft tissue may blow up on a bone or even a wallet. If it doesn't reach the vitals, you could have yourself a whole new set of problems.
Click to expand...
Handgun terminal ballistics are completely different than terminal rifle ballistics so you are muddling up the conversation.
Typical defensive handgun cartridges-380, 38 special, 45 acp 9x19 are pea shooters compared to rifles and are overall do comparatively little damage and compared to each other have very small differences in effect between them.
Some pistol calibers with some bullets will have more effect but that only buys you some small margin of error in hitting a vital spot.
The myth of “knock him down with a 45!” Is just that a myth.
With pistols shot placement is key!
 
John Travis said:
Energy is overrated with typically carried pistol calibers. I don't trust it.

Let's visit that for a minute.

Two different calibers. The original ballistics for the .45-70 Govt. with the 405 grain bullet at around 1350 fps vs the .220 Swift's 55 grain bullet at 3800 fps. Energy is so close to equal that we can call it that.

You're faced with a head-on charging Grizzly Bear at 30 feet. You have time for one shot.

Which rifle would you rather have in your hands?

Velocity, energy, momentum are all variable while mass and diameter are constant.
Click to expand...
I don't know, is the grizzly wearing body armor?


It's not a good example because virtually nothing is gonna overpenetrate a Grizzly. And you are specifically disallowing followup shots which is part of the point of choosing a lower-energy cartidge, less recoil, fast follow up.
 
Slimer said:
No, energy is a meme in service calibers and handguns absolutely suck compared to rifles or shotguns with buck/slugs.

12"-18" of penetration in the vitals is all that matters. The .gov has spent decades and millions of dollars learning that when they got BTFO by a motivated man with a Mini-14.
Click to expand...
Really? If you don't care that all the energy gets put into the target then why are you carrying a gun with hollow points in it? ( Don't tell me you aren't)
 
alpharius said:
Really? If you don't care that all the energy gets put into the target then why are you carrying a gun with hollow points in it? ( Don't tell me you aren't)
Click to expand...

For expansion turning a .35 caliber hole into a .50 caliber hole. I do NOT carry JHP in my .38 snubnose revolvers because they do not expand, so I just pick guaranteed penetration.

Energy does not matter in service calibers. Shot placements with a good bonded JHP trumps theoretical numbers. Read the 1986 Miami shootout because the FBI should have won if you are talking numbers which means nada when faced against a carbine.
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
Handgun terminal ballistics are completely different than terminal rifle ballistics so you are muddling up the conversation.
Click to expand...


Well, you started it when you brought deer hunting into the conversation.

And...

You missed the point. That being that velocity and energy are only part of the equation and not the most important part. If energy was the end-all, the 1911 pistol would have been chambered in .38 ACP or 9mm.

Discounting brain and spinal cord hits, incapacitation from being shot with a pistol comes mainly from blood loss and rapid pressure drop...the faster the better...not from any notion of energy dump.

I'm more confident with the constant than the variable. I like big holes and two holes per round if at all possible.
 
Last edited:
alpharius said:
If you don't care that all the energy gets put into the target then why are you carrying a gun with hollow points in it? ( Don't tell me you aren't)
Click to expand...
Energy dump isn't the primary function for hollowpoints. Making the hole bigger and providing a better chance of cutting a major artery or aorta with an edging shot is. The energy 'dumped" simply adds a little to the stew.

Professional fighters prove how much energy the human body is capable of absorbing every time they step into the ring.
 
If energy dumped into the bad guy is what decided incapacitation, then the Glazer Safety Slug would still be around. They dumped all their energy in the bad guy each and every time.

Remember Newton’s Laws. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The recoil you feel is similar to what the bad guy feels when it comes to energy. Does it hurt, heck yeah. Does it mean immediate incapacitation, nope, not even close.
 
Average Joe said:
If energy dumped into the bad guy is what decided incapacitation, then the Glazer Safety Slug would still be around. They dumped all their energy in the bad guy each and every time.
Click to expand...
And, even with the Glaser, the primary mechanism was bleeding. The problem was that they so often blew up and failed to make anything really important bleed.
 
John Travis said:
Energy dump isn't the primary function for hollowpoints. Making the hole bigger and providing a better chance of cutting a major artery or aorta with an edging shot is. The energy 'dumped" simply adds a little to the stew.

Professional fighters prove how much energy the human body is capable of absorbing every time they step into the ring.
Click to expand...
Energy dump and bigger hole are two sides of the same coin.

If an FMJ bullet did not have enough energy to overpenetrate then there wouldn't be much reason to make it a hollow point.
 
John Travis said:
And, even with the Glaser, the primary mechanism was bleeding. The problem was that they so often blew up and failed to make anything really important bleed.
Click to expand...
More specifically it is blood pressure drop not blood loss. Blood loss will cause the blood pressure to drop eventually stopping whatever.
This why a heart shot will almost always cause a deer to drop-the pressure pump (so to speak) gets knocked out and pressure in the system goes to zero.
It is like a tire that gets a hole vs a blowout, both stop you but one is a lot quicker!
This reinforces the point of shot placement. A 45 in the liver will kill but a 9 in the heart will stop.
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
but a 9 in the heart will stop.
Click to expand...
Not always. At least not instantly, and possibly not in time. A man can keep functioning for up to 15 seconds after being shot through the heart. That's been documented.

That aside...Can you hit the heart every time without fail...no matter the circumstances?
 
@BatteryOaksBilly Rules of Gun Fighting
(Commonly known as the 3 Ps)

1 Presentation
He who shoots first has a better chance of being less dead. Practice drawing and presenting the weapon frequently.

2 Placement
Shooting first means little if you don’t place the bullet where it needs to go to disrupt the central nervous system or create substantial blood loss. Practice shooting quickly, but more importantly, accurately.

3 Penetration
Once the shot has been fired into the right place. It must penetrate deep enough to hit the central nervous system and/or the major organs and blood vessels that cause the fastest blood loss. Not all defensive calibers penetrate deep enough with JHPs. Some calibers perform better with FMJs. Know what works best in the caliber you carry for self-defense.

Billy, please correct me if I’m off or putting words in your mouth.

Edited for spelling and grammar errors. Where is chat gtp or whatever the computer's name is when you need them? Lol.
 
Last edited:
John Travis said:
Not always. At least not instantly, and possibly not in time. A man can keep functioning for up to 15 seconds after being shot through the heart. That's been documented.

That aside...Can you hit the heart every time without fail...no matter the circumstances?
Click to expand...
well I practice with my EDC regularly and also why I titled (in part)

“Why you need to practice at 3’”​

 
Schattenreiter said:
I don't know about that. Almost every time I get a spinal shot my blood pressure drops. It was so bad once I passed out and they couldn't revive me with an ammonia capsule.
Click to expand...
That is vasovagal syncope and is different from a trauma projectile wound reaction. Similar-ish reaction/feeling, but it is the body overreacting to relatively minor pain. I know, I suffer from it occasionally when I get my lumbar injections and electro ablations.
 
Johnny said:
That is vasovagal syncope and is different from a trauma projectile wound reaction. Similar-ish reaction/feeling, but it is the body overreacting to relatively minor pain. I know, I suffer from it occasionally when I get my lumbar injections and electro ablations.
Click to expand...


Whatever it is it sucks.
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
well I practice with my EDC regularly and also why I titled (in part)

“Why you need to practice at 3’”​

Click to expand...
Not knockin' your advice or your practice discipline, but I'd hazard a guess that if your attacker is 3 feet away, the opportunity for a precise shot has pretty well passed unless you can do it from the hip. Your best bet in that situation is to shoot as many holes in him as you can as quickly as you can...wherever you can.

The video that started this conversation doesn't address a lack of marksmanship so much as a failure of the defender to grasp the seriousness of her situation. The fight didn't start at 3 feet. It started when he came off the porch. She had 10 seconds to take steps and she didn't. She literally let him get close enough to knock her down...with her gun in her hand.
 
John Travis said:
Not knockin' your advice or your practice discipline, but I'd hazard a guess that if your attacker is 3 feet away, the opportunity for a precise shot has pretty well passed unless you can do it from the hip. Your best bet in that situation is to shoot as many holes in him as you can as quickly as you can...wherever you can.

The video that started this conversation doesn't address a lack of marksmanship so much as a failure of the defender to grasp the seriousness of her situation. The fight didn't start at 3 feet. It started when he came off the porch. She had 10 seconds to take steps and she didn't. She literally let him get close enough to knock her down...with her gun in her hand.
Click to expand...
Feel free to drop the mic and walk away sir.
 
John Travis said:
Not knockin' your advice or your practice discipline, but I'd hazard a guess that if your attacker is 3 feet away, the opportunity for a precise shot has pretty well passed unless you can do it from the hip. Your best bet in that situation is to shoot as many holes in him as you can as quickly as you can...wherever you can.

The video that started this conversation doesn't address a lack of marksmanship so much as a failure of the defender to grasp the seriousness of her situation. The fight didn't start at 3 feet. It started when he came off the porch. She had 10 seconds to take steps and she didn't. She literally let him get close enough to knock her down...with her gun in her hand.
Click to expand...

100%.
This officer may not suffer from poor marksmanship - she suffers from poor threat assessment and then poor reaction to a threat. I'm not too sure how well excellent range shooters that have never been in this type of situation would do. Managing confrontation, especially of the physical type, is something many people lack, especially the younger generations.
 
alpharius said:
The big issue with overpenetration is that energy is being wasted. If your bullet went in and out the other end, then it still has energy that hasn't been imparted to the target. You might as well have a less powerful bullet, less recoil, and more shots at that point.
Click to expand...

No.

The big issue with overpenetration is people make too big a deal out of it.

There's more to terminal ballistics than whether or not a bullet "over penetrates".

And that's aside from the fact that what may "over penetrate" from one angle and/or area of a deer may not do so from another angle and/or area.
 
Dan0311 said:
100%.
This officer may not suffer from poor marksmanship - she suffers from poor threat assessment and then poor reaction to a threat. I'm not too sure how well excellent range shooters that have never been in this type of situation would do. Managing confrontation, especially of the physical type, is something many people lack, especially the younger generations.
Click to expand...
And, there it is.

The questions as to why remain and will probably never be answered.

Was it because she was mentally/psychologically unprepared and/or unable to shoot a man armed "only" with a hammer...if at all?

Or, was it because she was preoccupied with the repercussions of shooting a man armed only with a hammer? That she fiddled with her body cam seems to suggest that it's a possibility, but that may have been unintentional while she was reaching for the radio.

Or...was she following orders/defaulting to her training to call for backup, thus burning precious seconds and tying up her gun hand in the process?

One thing we can be sure of. She'll replay that scenario in her mind a thousand times before she'll be able to sleep through the night.
 
John Travis said:
And, there it is.

The questions as to why remain and will probably never be answered.

Was it because she was mentally/psychologically unprepared and/or unable to shoot a man armed "only" with a hammer...if at all?

Or, was it because she was preoccupied with the repercussions of shooting a man armed only with a hammer? That she fiddled with her body cam seems to suggest that it's a possibility, but that may have been unintentional while she was reaching for the radio.

Or...was she following orders/defaulting to her training to call for backup, thus burning precious seconds and tying up her gun hand in the process?

One thing we can be sure of. She'll replay that scenario in her mind a thousand times before she'll be able to sleep through the night.
Click to expand...
I think you are Monday morning quarterbacking this too much, hindsight is 20/20.
This situation happened so fast that I doubt she weighed the repercussions of shooting a man with a hammer.
Calling backup was 100% the right thing to do and she did it quickly and before he charged at her so give her credit assessing the situation correctly. The backup call didn’t effect her draw but it most likely saved her life.
The real lesson is between the time he began running at her and first contact was about 3 seconds. Under that is what you need your EDC draw time to first (good) shot.

Timeline:
00:10 first verbal contact
00:13 call for backup
00:16 Suspect starts running
00:19 first contact
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
I think you are Monday morning quarterbacking this too much, hindsight is 20/20.
This situation happened so fast that I doubt she weighed the repercussions of shooting a man with a hammer.
Calling backup was 100% the right thing to do and she did it quickly and before he charged at her so give her credit assessing the situation correctly. The backup call didn’t effect her draw but it most likely saved her life.
The real lesson is between the time he began running at her and first contact was about 3 seconds. Under that is what you need your EDC draw time to first (good) shot.

Timeline:
00:10 first verbal contact
00:13 call for backup
00:16 Suspect starts running
00:19 first contact
Click to expand...
Yes. It was very fast.

It's been proven time and time again that an attacker with a melee weapon can close the gap extremely quickly.

I disagree that calling for backup was the right move or saved her life. I don't see how backup that's minutes away could stop this attack in time to let her live.

She's alive because she got lucky he didn't land a blow to her head and the fact that at some point he (must've) stopped his attack. Maybe he stopped because he got hit. It's hard to tell. We can't really even know if the end of the video is when he stopped or not. It's clear he didn't stop because of the backup (unless the backup was already basically there, in which case calling for backup was a waste of time).
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
I think you are Monday morning quarterbacking this too much, hindsight is 20/20.
This situation happened so fast that I doubt she weighed the repercussions of shooting a man with a hammer.
Calling backup was 100% the right thing to do and she did it quickly and before he charged at her so give her credit assessing the situation correctly. The backup call didn’t effect her draw but it most likely saved her life.
The real lesson is between the time he began running at her and first contact was about 3 seconds. Under that is what you need your EDC draw time to first (good) shot.

Timeline:
00:10 first verbal contact
00:13 call for backup
00:16 Suspect starts running
00:19 first contact
Click to expand...

Interestingly, "Monday morning quarterbacking" is supposed to be the thing EVERYBODY does after such an encounter. Even if everything of any given encounter came out "100% perfect". It is precisely BECAUSE hindsight is 20/20 that we should be doing this.

Every violent, or potentially violent, encounter REQUIRES us to look back on the entire series of events leading up to the encounter through to its conclusion. That's how we work to improve ourselves.

We ought to be doing this with our own experiences as well as with other people's experiences. How else are we to learn and improve ourselves?

"It is necessary for us to learn from others' mistakes. You will not live long enough to make them all yourself." Admiral Rickover.


Calling for backup may indeed be the right thing to do...I'm certainly not going to disagree. But when and how that should have happened is another matter.

The questions as to "why" she reacted the way she did and in the times that she did are very important questions that SHE needs to honestly consider and evaluate. If she does not, then she will not learn and move forward from this and that will have serious consequences for her down the line, especially in her chosen profession.

And why WE may never know the answers to these questions about HER, those very same questions/answers about OURSELVES are every bit as important on our own personal levels.
 
Button Pusher said:
Perhaps she was reluctant to shoot a man of color, despite the fact he was using a hammer.
Click to expand...
No, I think she wanted to shoot the guy.
In my mind the lesson here is she had 3 seconds to draw and fire and get a good hit. If she could have some that then she would have been fine, which brings us back to my original question (and slam on pocket carry get off me guns) is can you draw and fire from the pocket in under 3 seconds (ideally while back pedaling)? My personal biased opinion is the vast number of people who carry a j frame or LCP in the pocket not only can’t do it but never tried. I certainly can be wrong. When I carried a j frame I would practice draw from concealment.
 
She had well over 15 seconds before and during the attack before and after. Anyone else notice the perp did not have the hammer in a grip for a bit rather by the head which yes you can still 'stamp" someone like brass knuckles. She had her eyes closed 99 % of the time.
 
Last edited:
Maybe she suffered from paralysis by analysis. Maybe she just couldn't work her algorithm fast enough. Maybe not enough SA because of tunnel vision and adrenaline dump. Maybe all of these, some of these, none of these. I'd love to hear what she has to say about it.

RE: shots to organs, specifically the heart and liver. Even here, placement matter. A shot to the heart will, with 99.9% certainty, be fatal, either right away (ventricle) or in a few seconds. Most liver shots are not immediately fatal, or even fatal at all. But this is why most people teach dumping in the box (chest): it is the origin and terminal of the biggest vessels.

Head shots are awesome, if you can do it and not miss. But even this is not 100% guarantee of incapacitation. Just too many variables.
 
Lots of speculation on why SHE didn't take action sooner...but for us, the question is "what would keep US from shooting sooner if we were in that same scenario?"

To answer this question requires us to leave our bravado behind because the stark truth of the matter is that our default human nature AS A RULE makes it exceptionally difficult to intentionally act to deliberately bring deadly force on another human being.

It takes a lot of training and conditioning to overcome this. So much so that I strongly suspect that this was a significant factor in why she did not act sooner.

This fact of human nature is exactly why armed forces train and work the way they do in order to produce people who CAN act with such deliberation. And even so, history is replete with numerous instances where evidence clearly supports significant percentages of soldiers who deliberately chose NOT to shoot at the enemy, or even shoot at all.

Both my parents served in WWII; Dad in the South Pacific as an Army Engineer, Mom stateside as a Corpsman (PH, actually, I believe). I found out that over the course of the entire war, there were TWO PEOPLE out of Dad's original unit who make it back to the States alive and/or uninjured at the end of the war. TWO. Dad was one. And the Bronze Star he brought back with him carried a heavy burden in human lives that he had to live with for the rest of his days, the stories for which he forbid other relatives from relating to us kids.

That there are those of us here who could readily act under circumstances which would require the use of deadly force, I do not doubt. But don't fool yourself into believing that it would be easy, that you absolutely would not falter or hesitate, that you would make the right moves at the right time.

Ironically, the ONLY way the vast majority of us here would find out if they would actually respond with appropriate deadly force in a timely fashion is if we were in an actual SHTF circumstance calling for it.

Hopefully the majority of us will never have to "pass that test" and will simply have to be content with training and believing that we would if called for.
 
keepcalmandcarryon said:
I think you are Monday morning quarterbacking this too much, hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...
I watched the video four times. It was pretty clear what happened. Wondering why is the next step and logically, there are only three possibilities.

A. She wasn't mentally prepared to shoot a human being until she was at the point of being killed herself. She had 10 seconds to respond after the first time she told him to drop it.

He/She who hesitates is lost.

B. She was unable to accept that it was really happening, and froze.

It wouldn't be the first time that happened. Buck fever comes in many forms.

C. She defaulted to her training and reached for the radio instead of reaching for her pistol the instant his feet were on the ground. That happens more than we suspect, and...frankly...more than most police agencies want to admit to.

When you got to shoot, shoot! Don't talk.
-Tuco Benedicto Pacífico Juan María Ramírez-

And, it was even possible that it was a combination of any two or all three.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom