Aren't most police groups in the world moving up to the .40-.41 range because of issues with the 9mm and it's stopping power? It's also the reason that most officers use hollow-points these days (increased stopping power on suspects and decreased chance of penetrating into a civilian).
London Riots
- Thread starter Jax
- Start date
- Status
The idea is that it won't go through the intended target and then into an innocent civilian. Hollow-point rounds tend to ricochet around inside the body where they indeed cause massive internal damage. Full metal jacket bullets are much more likely to go through and into the surroundings, potentially wounding others.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ahh, I see. That makes a degree of sense. Though it kind of derails Keanu's "shoot the hostage" move a la Speed. heh.
It's mainly about making sure your bullets don't pass through a suspect and into someone else in the line of fire (which is, admittedly, a bad shot to begin with) and to make sure your rounds don't penetrate through an interior wall and into someone you didn't even see. That last bit is one of the reasons why frangible bullets are hitting the market as well, as they are even less likely to hit someone through a wall.
Gas the reason that hollow points don't normally go through a human target is because they expand most of their energy on impact because they mushroom out and rhe bigger surface area causes more drag and slows it down
This also tends to knock the wind out of anyone it doesn't kill, which is even better for a police officer. After all, the point is to get them to stop resisting, not necessarily to kill them.
This post is 100% wrong. If you fire a gun at anyone, you are trying to end their life. Period. I detest guns, and even I know that's the first rule of handling a gun.
I would have expected most Law Enforcement would have moved into the 10mm range (.40S&W, .41) by now just for the bigger cross section. Frangible bullets (such as the Glaser Safety Slug) exist to prevent overpenetration and ricochet and the accidental injury/death of people alongside or behind the intended target. One of the reasons a shotgun is the standard for home defense is that its range is limited and (non-steel) shot doesn't ricochet.
There ARE times when you want the extra penetration (armored target, under cover) but there are very few of those situations where you wouldn't just be better off with a rifle/carbine anyway.
--Patrick
There ARE times when you want the extra penetration (armored target, under cover) but there are very few of those situations where you wouldn't just be better off with a rifle/carbine anyway.
--Patrick
That's the intention, but officers of the law are held to a different standard. If they weren't, they'd be allowed to empty rounds into someone on the ground just to make sure they were dead. Your only allowed to respond with that kind of force as long as they are still a threat (I.E. they are standing or trying to resist). Your shooting to kill, but it's not like you can execute them as they are bleeding out on the pavement (unless they keep trying to resist).
Or you're trying to keep them from returning fire so your partners can move into a better position. It's called suppression fire. Not every shot is designed to kill.
I agree with Charlie on this one. While yes police are shooting to stop the threat the first or second rule of firearms is don't point it at anything you don't intend to (or aren't willing to, in this case) kill
Truth. Funny thing about deadly force situations: you want the threat stopped, and you want it stopped right then. If the person requires an injection of vitamin L, you don't have time to wait for them to exsanguinate due to numerous little holes. You want one big hole, from a round that hits hard enough to stun the nervous system, halting them long enough to lose inertia from adrenaline.
Most cops I have worked with have never shot their gun on duty. At an install site today, I actually asked this question same question to 4 police officers that I was training and with a combined 102 years of experience between them, only one of them admitted that they shot their weapon and even so only pulled the trigger once. He shrugged and said, "I only needed one shot" with a cold stare in his eyes. I liked him right away.
PS : They were all carring 5946s. The officer in question had a nice once though being extra shiny and nickle plated.
PS : They were all carring 5946s. The officer in question had a nice once though being extra shiny and nickle plated.
As an illustrative example, the other day I had a soldier (Special Forces tryout) who was drunk out of his mind and having a severe PTSD episode. He had already demonstrated that he was a) feeling no pain and b) not present in reality, in his mind, due to his actions prior to police arrival. I was the only one onscene, waiting on backup, when he spotted me and started coming towards me.
I had no desire to do anything to hurt this man - it wasn't his fault that he was having his episode. However, if he was feeling no pain, my pain compliance techniques, OC spray and baton would be ineffective, and I carry no taser. He was smaller in height and weight, but in FAR better shape than me.
The Force Continuum is a vague guideline that comes down to two simple requirements: is the level of force reasonable and necessary?
In that situation, if he had decided to bullrush me, as he was beginning to do, there would have been very little I could have done to defend myself. I would have needed something to incapacitate his system, rather than cause him to comply via pain (i.e. taser, supersock, or lethal force). I only have one thing on my belt that would have fit the bill.
Doesn't mean it would have been an easy call to make.
I had no desire to do anything to hurt this man - it wasn't his fault that he was having his episode. However, if he was feeling no pain, my pain compliance techniques, OC spray and baton would be ineffective, and I carry no taser. He was smaller in height and weight, but in FAR better shape than me.
The Force Continuum is a vague guideline that comes down to two simple requirements: is the level of force reasonable and necessary?
In that situation, if he had decided to bullrush me, as he was beginning to do, there would have been very little I could have done to defend myself. I would have needed something to incapacitate his system, rather than cause him to comply via pain (i.e. taser, supersock, or lethal force). I only have one thing on my belt that would have fit the bill.
Doesn't mean it would have been an easy call to make.
Thankfully, this was the point he started (slowly) coming back to reality, and after chasing him through several apartment complexes (while he was calling out squad rushes and covering behind stanchions and trees and such) and calling for backup, I was able to get him surrounded by enough military veteran officers that he trusted us to secure him in cuffs.
He was terrified that he had done something to his wife and baby boy. Thankfully not.
Had he NOT started coming back to the here and now, though... there are times that this job is not fun, and dealing with veterans can be one of them.
He was terrified that he had done something to his wife and baby boy. Thankfully not.
Had he NOT started coming back to the here and now, though... there are times that this job is not fun, and dealing with veterans can be one of them.
Shark repellant? Tell me it was shark repellant.
Huh?
Some historical perspective: http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/08/civil-disorder-and-looting-hits-britain-0
Our streets are actually not as safe as they were in the days of our grandfathers. We have slipped back to a state of affairs that would be intolerable even in Naples. - 1862
Our streets are actually not as safe as they were in the days of our grandfathers. We have slipped back to a state of affairs that would be intolerable even in Naples. - 1862
- Status