Accuracy vs Speed

[lklawson]

Another article you might like:
'More people have been killed with the .22 than any other caliber'

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

IMO "psychological stopping" is a meaningless term in this discussion.

No. It's not meaningless because it is a REAL effect. I recall reading of one person who was "shot" with a starter gun and proceeded to fall to the ground and flop like a fish until someone disabused him of the notion.

Hell, a BG just running off if a cap gun was presented (or missed shots from any weapon) sort of qualifies....

Of course it qualifies as a "Psychological Stop." But, as I point out, they're not DEPENDABLE. Not that any others are "dependable," per se, but psychological effects are dependent upon a thought process which must happen in the target. Don't bet your life on it.

I believe you need to carry a handgun that delivers the most powerful round you can accurately use. With factors such as capacity and size/ease of carry as considerations.

OK. That's important for around 3% or less, maybe only 0.5%, of actual Self Defense with a Firearm, at least according to the ShootingTheBull guy referenced above.
Does Caliber Even Matter?



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tgace]

We have to agree to disagree. IMO, a gun is a tool that works by putting lead into a body. That effect is measurable...the distinctions may be slight, but it's scientifically quantifiable.

Individual psychology and who will run or not has nothing to do with a gun or its projectiles. Meaningless to me when it comes to what caliber I will choose.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[lklawson]

Individual psychology and who will run or not has nothing to do with a gun or its projectiles.

I believe that I have stipulated to this more than once.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The authors point about what a "stop" means is important. In this "study" stop means the confrontation ended, not death or physical incapacitation.

Most people in this example fled the field (so to speak) after a hit with a .22

That point is important, but I take internet based "blog studies" with a grain of salt...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I went back and actually read it after my post, and it makes more sense. I do like that they included "psychological stops", which is a realistic point to consider. He also did a good job providing a possible explanation why some guns had higher hits-to-stop, mostly based on firing speed.

As you, I take these studies with a grain of salt. He seems to have been reasonably diligent, and took the data the way it came (rather than trying to judge whether the stop was physical or psychological, for instance), so I'll accept that it has some merit. I'd love to see a researcher with proven ability and a history of proper rigor do a similar study.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We have to agree to disagree. IMO, a gun is a tool that works by putting lead into a body. That effect is measurable...the distinctions may be slight, but it's scientifically quantifiable.

Individual psychology and who will run or not has nothing to do with a gun or its projectiles. Meaningless to me when it comes to what caliber I will choose.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

To an extent, I can agree with you. However, we are defending against people, and people have psychological reactions. If I had to choose between a completely silent .45 or a very noisy .380, I'd choose the latter. A miss with the .45 in the heat of battle is useless to me. The noisy shot might have a significant psychological effect, which is a potential bonus. I won't depend upon it, but I will take it into account. Physics is a pure science, but people are far more variable than physics can account for. We have to consider the people in our choices - it's why I keep a pump shotgun, rather than a semi-auto. The ballistics are the same, but one has a distinct sound that warns an intruder that he's about to face a shotgun.

 

[Tgace]

To an extent, I can agree with you. However, we are defending against people, and people have psychological reactions. If I had to choose between a completely silent .45 or a very noisy .380, I'd choose the latter. A miss with the .45 in the heat of battle is useless to me. The noisy shot might have a significant psychological effect, which is a potential bonus. I won't depend upon it, but I will take it into account. Physics is a pure science, but people are far more variable than physics can account for. We have to consider the people in our choices - it's why I keep a pump shotgun, rather than a semi-auto. The ballistics are the same, but one has a distinct sound that warns an intruder that he's about to face a shotgun.

I would never choose a handgun caliber based on psychological stop data. Choosing on a .22 because "most people run when shot with anything" is a non starter because some people will keep on trying to kill you till you bleed out.

IMO bullet construction and loading is more important than caliber. I'll take a 9mm+p bonded JHP over a .45 FMJ anyday in terms of what it will do regarding penetration and tissue damage.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty Dog]

IMO bullet construction and loading is more important than caliber. I'll take a 9mm+p bonded JHP over a .45 FMJ anyday in terms of what it will do regarding penetration and tissue damage.

There are a number of solid studies showing that caliber makes little or no difference. They pretty much all stipulate that they are studying handguns using modern defensive ammo. The "bigger is better" mantra perhaps made a lot of sense when hardball or bare lead were your only options. Given a modern, centerfire handgun and modern ammo specifically designed for personal defense, there is no significant difference in real world penetration and tissue damage. All that really matters is: did you hit something vital.
Hence the decision of the FBI to change from .40 cal to 9mm. Commonly available 9mm semiautos offer the largest capacity for a given frame size, and more rounds available (and sent down range) means a greater chance of hitting something vital. There is a good summary HERE, including a link to the actual FBI report. The science is solid.

I love to shoot different calibers. I own (and shoot) hanguns chambered in .380, 9mm, .40 cal, and .45. I'm currently looking for a bargain for a .44 Mag and a .500 S&W. And there are specific applications where I do choose a lower-capacity gun. My bedside gun, for example, is a Glock 41. For this application, the .45 ACP round makes perfect sense. Not because it will be more effective, but because it is inherently subsonic, and subsonic rounds are important for a suppressed handgun.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would never choose a handgun caliber based on psychological stop data. Choosing on a .22 because "most people run when shot with anything" is a non starter because some people will keep on trying to kill you till you bleed out.

IMO bullet construction and loading is more important than caliber. I'll take a 9mm+p bonded JHP over a .45 FMJ anyday in terms of what it will do regarding penetration and tissue damage.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

We can definitely agree on that latter point. It's hard to talk about "a caliber" as a group - too much variability. I'd rather have a better bullet than a bigger bullet. In the words of Richard Bowe, "More isn't better. Better is better."

 

[PhotonGuy]

And I see a lot of argument back and forth about accuracy. I'd like to point out that some of those points are actually about "precision", not "accuracy". Accuracy means hitting your target (so, if you're shooting center-mass, you hit center-mass), whereas precision is about how close together your hits are. One can theoretically be very precise without being accurate (5 shots within 1 inch of each other, but 8 inches away from the intended target, so perhaps COM shots landing just to the left of the person's side, entirely missing within a 1-inch diameter). One can also be accurate without being highly precise (5 shots in center mass, within an 8-inch diameter). The ideal is to have high accuracy and reasonable precision. Accuracy is paramount, since (by definition) low accuracy means not hitting the intended target.

Well yes, accuracy is how close you are to the bullseye or wherever your aiming and precision is how close your shots are to each other. So, if your shots are right on top of each other but nowhere near the bullseye you've got excellent precision but really bad accuracy. If one of your shots lands on the bullseye but your other shots are far apart than you've got some accuracy but bad precision. To have really good accuracy though you would also need precision. To be accurate enough for all your shots to land on the bullseye that would obviously mean that you're also very precise.

Now, what Im talking about is speed vs accuracy/precision. If you're able to shoot the bad guy first and get a good hit chances are you've won the gunfight. So if you're able to hit the bullseye, in this case the center of the chest, where your shots are right next to or right on top of each other so you can cover them with a quarter you've got tremendous accuracy. If I was that accurate I would want to build up my speed, even if it meant losing some of my accuracy. If my shots were far enough apart that it would take a coffee mug to cover them those are still good shots. I would still be hitting the heart and lungs and if Im even just a little bit faster than the guy who can have his shots covered by placing a quarter on the center of the chest, I will be shooting him first and still getting good hits. So that's why I believe speed can be just as important as accuracy.

There has also been some talk about taking head shots. From what I've been taught head shots should only be taken in certain situations. Very rarely do you want your initial shot to be aimed at the head. Head shots are usually only used when body shots have failed to stop an assailant or if they've got a hostage, ect. Otherwise it can really be used against you in court, if you don't have a justifiable reason for taking a head shot.

 

[marques]

Some people here have said that in shooting accuracy is the most important factor. In the classes I've taken we've been taught that accuracy is important but you also need speed. The third factor is power which depends in the weapon and ammo you're using. Now, in terms of speed and accuracy when it comes to hitting the target, what I've been taught is you want the shots on your target to be roughly far enough apart so that you can cover them with your hand but not any further. If your shots are further than that you want to slow down and take your time with your shots to improve your accuracy. If your shots are really close together, if they're right on top of each other, than you want to speed up and sacrifice some accuracy in order to shoot faster. All the accuracy in the world won't be that good if your opponent shoots you first.

+Speed to open. +Accuracy to finish.

 

[Dirty Dog]

If my shots were far enough apart that it would take a coffee mug to cover them those are still good shots.

Depends on the coffee mug...

 

[PhotonGuy]

I was talking more along the lines of this.

 

[ballen0351]

Head shots are usually only used when body shots have failed to stop an assailant or if they've got a hostage, ect. Otherwise it can really be used against you in court, if you don't have a justifiable reason for taking a head shot.

If you are legally justified to use deadly force then you are legally justified to use dealy force where you shoot is irrelevent

 

[Dirty Dog]

There has also been some talk about taking head shots. From what I've been taught head shots should only be taken in certain situations. Very rarely do you want your initial shot to be aimed at the head. Head shots are usually only used when body shots have failed to stop an assailant or if they've got a hostage, ect. Otherwise it can really be used against you in court, if you don't have a justifiable reason for taking a head shot.

Utter nonsense. If you're justified in shooting them, your specific target is irrelevant. If you've been taught this, find another teacher.

 

[lklawson]

Utter nonsense. If you're justified in shooting them, your specific target is irrelevant. If you've been taught this, find another teacher.

Absolutely correct.

Deadly Force is Deadly Force, regardless of where you aim.

If you're not legally justified in shooting someone in the head, then you're not legally justified to shoot them ANYWHERE.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Now, what Im talking about is speed vs accuracy/precision. If you're able to shoot the bad guy first and get a good hit chances are you've won the gunfight. So if you're able to hit the bullseye, in this case the center of the chest, where your shots are right next to or right on top of each other so you can cover them with a quarter you've got tremendous accuracy. If I was that accurate I would want to build up my speed, even if it meant losing some of my accuracy. If my shots were far enough apart that it would take a coffee mug to cover them those are still good shots.

To expound on this, there are some theories of combat, which hold that those shots may be too close. In the days following WWII, the U.S. Army taught Combat Pistol Shooting and specifically taught that hits spreading out over the torso, not too close to each other, were better than hits all in exactly the same spot because 1) this meant that more internal organs were being damaged, which increased chances of incapacitation and kill 2) the trade-off in "accuracy" was replaced with quicker hits on target at follow-up shots, and 3) it fit well with the Instinctive Shooting method they were using at the time.

The first is the most important, imo.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Dirty Dog]

To expound on this, there are some theories of combat, which hold that those shots may be too close. In the days following WWII, the U.S. Army taught Combat Pistol Shooting and specifically taught that hits spreading out over the torso, not too close to each other, were better than hits all in exactly the same spot because 1) this meant that more internal organs were being damaged, which increased chances of incapacitation and kill 2) the trade-off in "accuracy" was replaced with quicker hits on target at follow-up shots, and 3) it fit well with the Instinctive Shooting method they were using at the time.

The first is the most important, imo.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

It's worth pointing out here that at that time, the available ammo was pretty much limited to what we would call (today) "crappy hardball target ammo" and that modern defensive ammo is quite different.
It was also though, at that time, that cavitation from the shot added to the damage and that spreading out the shots led to larger cavitation injury. This is not true, however, when talking about handguns.
I train, and I encourage others I work with to train, to put all my shots in an 8-9" circle, as rapidly as possible.

 

[Hudson69]

Well to add my .02¢ into this. Accuracy is most important with speed being a bonus. As far as caliber goes, who cares. If you want a cannon that will load 7 (+1) of 50 AE or 6 of 500 mag then carry a cannon. If you just want something that hides great and is super light but only carries 5 rounds of .22LR and that works for you.... good. Whatever you are going to carry just train with it, work to make it work for you. Don't just carry it because its either the biggest or smallest thing around, or because it has some other trait that speaks to you, train to best operator (of said firearm) you can be.

 

[Tez3]

Utter nonsense. If you're justified in shooting them, your specific target is irrelevant. If you've been taught this, find another teacher.

We were taught by the MOD basically (and I'm simplifying), 'shoot what you can see'.