InSights Training Center Blog

A student recently asked about the terminal ballistics of different handgun calibers and the effectiveness of different bullet types.

From John Holschen:

Get a gun/cartridge combination that goes bang every time you pull the trigger and which you can shoot quickly and accurately. No common defensive handgun cartridge will quickly and reliably stop a human being who is committed to causing serious bodily harm, unless the bullet from that cartridge is applied to the correct anatomy. When the bullet is applied to the correct anatomy ANY of the 3 will serve equally well (9mm, .40, .45).

Handgun projectiles don’t have enough “energy” to damage tissue other than the tissue they directly touch (the drill bit analogy.) Therefore whether they come out the other side (energy remaining) or stop in the body (all energy transferred to the target) doesn’t really change the wound dynamics. In fact you could make an argument that passing all the way through the body gives you the best chance of damaging more tissue. Of course this could present a hazard to any innocents behind and beyond the threat (and to the shooter in legal liability.)

A good quality hollow point handgun bullet will expand and therefore create a bigger hole. If that hole is in the brain the larger size may not matter much at all (I’ve dropped fairly large animals in their tracks with single 22LR head shot.) When the hole is in the pump (heart) or pipes (blood vessels) the larger hole will usually result in greater leakage per unit of time (given the placement is identical.) How much faster leakage, and does it matter? Who knows?

Also hollow points often have fairly sharp “petals” when expanded. There is a chance these will cut vessels that round nosed bullets sometimes push out of the way and leave intact. If you can get hollow points use them, if you can’t then you have to use what you have.

One of our readers recently asked:

… [I am] very interested in buying a shotgun for home defense purposes. I would love your and staff opinion on brand (870 vs. Mossy, etc) and how you like to set them up (pistol grip, etc.)

First off, a shotgun isn’t our first choice for home defense. As John Holschen once said fairly succinctly:

I’ll start out by saying that a shotgun is my last choice to procure for employment as a defensive long gun. This is because:
1. It is heavy.
2. It’s manual of arms is relatively complex.
3. It’s recoil is more difficult to manage for quick follow up shots (as might be required for multiple threats.)
4. It’s ammunition supply is relatively limited (this is not a critical factor in a typical home defense situation but could become one in case of large scale civil disturbance.)

If I absolutely could not have a semi-auto rifle I would rather have a pump-action rifle (or a lever action rifle) than a shotgun.

Now that is not to say that a shotgun is not a serviceable weapon or that it is totally unsuited for the task of home defense. Some of the things that the shotgun has going for it is that they are relatively inexpensive, widely available, and widely legal to own in more jurisdictions than a semi-automatic rifle.

If past production quality and what we have seen in classes over the years holds true, a Remington 870 Police model is going to hold up a little better than a Remington 870 Express, and much better than a Mossberg.

Regarding the modifications or accessories, your shotgun needs:

• Sights you can see.
• A sling.
• additional ammunition.
• A flashlight.

Most of us have extended magazine tubes as well as side saddle carriers or butt cuff carriers for additional ammo, and SureFire fore ends. Beyond that I would size the stock for a comfortable length of pull (most shotgun stocks are a little too long for most users) and that is about it. A factory stock shotgun with a sling will work just fine as far as the class is concerned.

Matt over at Spartan Cops has an interesting piece on “Officer Created Jeopardy.”

I think one of the major issues that contributes to this problem is how tactics and policies get reviewed. A standard operating procedure (at either the tactical or policy level) is an excellent idea and should be both implemented and trained, but it should also be periodically reviewed. Without systematic reviews these things quickly turn into the “that is the way we have always done it” dogma and we loose sight of the reason why we we should follow a given procedure or utilize a specific tactic.

Changes in equipment, staffing, the law, and even the community being policed all have an influence on what the optimum method for accomplishing your objectives are.

We get a lot of questions about the differences between plain and serrated blades in Defensive Folding Knife. The short answer is that I prefer plain edge blades simply because they are easier to sharpen, but both have their assets and liabilities.

A serrated blade is a trick to get a longer blade in a shorter package. The cutting edge is pinched into ridges and valleys so we can more cutting edge in same overall length. Because all of the cutting edge doesn’t usually contact the medium that you are cutting serrated blades will stay ‘usefully sharp’ for longer, and as they get dull they tend to tear the medium.

Once the knives are dull enough to begin tearing the medium is providing more resistance and the blade will more prone to getting hung up in the middle of a cut. Things like zippers and seams will frequently cause a serrated blade to hang up.

Plain edge blades on the other hand simply skip over things like seams and zippers. They get dull more quickly because more the cutting edge is contact with the medium. You probably have more than one kind of knife in your kitchen and in a pinch you can carve meat with a bread knife, or bread with a carving knife, but the results aren’t really optimized. We don’t normally need a lot of optimization in our pocket knives (especially as defensive tools). I’ll take a sharp knife over a dull one before I worry about serration or any other blade pattern.

In some of the on going discussion and commentary over at Joe’s blog I found a few more things I would like to address.

The Tueller drill is not obsolete, it is just that generally the drill is not set up to reflect reality. I would also say that many of the recomended theories and techniques aren’t very effective in practice.

Basically there is a target at 21 feet and an ‘attacker’ at 21 feet (perpendicular to the defender/target axis). On the buzzer the defender draws an shoot the target, while the attacker runs to tag the defender. The only thing special about 21 feet is that it takes the average defender about 1.5 seconds to get a shot on target from the holster and that the average person can move about 14 feet per second from a standing start.

One of the other issues with the basic drill is that an advancing target becomes easier to hit as it gets closer, and leaving the target at 21 feet doesn’t simulate this behavior.

So the Tueller drill models simultaneous, mutually assured, destruction. The defender gets stabbed and the attacker gets shot. It happens at roughly the same time and it is an open debate as to who will be incapciated first (my money is on the guy with the knife slicing up the guy with the gun.) This is not a “win,” this is a “draw.” In order for the defender to prevail he needs more than 21 feet of distance between him and the attacker, or he needs to do something different.

In a real world encounter the attacker with the knife initiates the motion and the defender has to percieve and react. This is an advantage for the attacker with the knife, so the defender needs more than 21′ to even achieve a tie, let alone a win.

Starting with a hand on the gun, or the gun at the ready position is an advantage to the defender, and he needs much less than 21 feet to shoot simltaneously as he is getting stabbed. Similarly, allowing the defender various forms of movement also changes the amount of distance required.