5 weapon myths from the movies

[aramis]

Unfortunately, the last term, 'stopping power' has been b*st*rdized into many other meanings beyond its original definition.

Riik

The FBI and the DOJ did some nifty studies in the 80's and early 90's.

Stopping power itself is hard to measure, but "one shot stops" and "one shot kills" in police use are pretty darned good measures.

Non-fatal one-shot stops (target ceases to be a credible threat) were peaked by the .45ACP in the M1911 pistol.

One shot kills were topped in pistols with the .32ACP. An explanatory note cited that almost all the .32 ACP one-shot stops were head hits.

Looking at the study in detail as I did in about 1993, i noted several things... the .45ACP's stretch cavity is short and wide. Not lethal, but prone to inducing volumetric shock.

The .32ACP is just enough to penetrate the skull ONCE... much like the .22LR+ (CCI Stinger). Then it's pinball time.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Shooting out the tyres of a moving car.

Back in the 80s, a policeman friend in diplomatic protection told me they NEVER attempt this ... the chance of penetration is very low; and if the bullet fails to ricochet it bounces off in a random direction, spinning longitudinally. The risk of collateral damage is unacceptably high.

 

[PFVA63]

I seem to recall seeing an old episode of "Adam 12" (if I am recalling correctly) when I was young where an officer gets in trouble for firing at a moving car, which apparently was against the LA Police Department rules (at that time at least) which I believe they indicated in the show was for reasons similar to what you said.

 

[Riik O'Shae]

If you'd like to get some valid penetration information, sign onto the Box o' Truth.

Retired Marine shoots all manner of small arms into and through all manner of things.

www.boxotruth.com

Just as soon as I recover my database, I'll provide ya'll with FBI datum on just how dangerous a .22 caliber bullet is to the wellfare of the person shot with it ~ And i don't mean with just 'headshots'...

Riik

 

[dean]

If you'd like to get some valid penetration information, sign onto the Box o' Truth.

Retired Marine shoots all manner of small arms into and through all manner of things.

www.boxotruth.com

Just as soon as I recover my database, I'll provide ya'll with FBI datum on just how dangerous a .22 caliber bullet is to the wellfare of the person shot with it ~ And i don't mean with just 'headshots'...

Riik

This site has been down for months. It was interesting to look through however.

 

[BlackBat242]

If you'd like to get some valid penetration information, sign onto the Box o' Truth.

Retired Marine shoots all manner of small arms into and through all manner of things.

www.boxotruth.com

Just as soon as I recover my database, I'll provide ya'll with FBI datum on just how dangerous a .22 caliber bullet is to the wellfare of the person shot with it ~ And i don't mean with just 'headshots'...

Riik

We can just cite the case of one John Hinkley, Jr.

On 30 March 1981, he fired 6 rounds of .22 LR from a Röhm RG-14 revolver.


Round 1 penetrated the skull of James Brady, paralyzing him for life.

Round 2 penetrated the neck of D.C. Police officer Thomas Delahanty, rendering him out of action temporarily, and forced him into medical retirement.

Round 3 missed any target (it hit a building across the street).

Round 4 hit Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy in the abdomen, putting him out of action temporarily.

Round 5 missed any target (it hit part of the limo).

Round 6 ricocheted off the armored side of the limousine and hit President Ronald Reagan in his left underarm, grazing a rib and lodging in his lung, stopping nearly 1 in (25 mm) from his heart.


That's 6 rounds, 4 hits, and 4 casualties... only one of which was walking afterwards (and he nearly died from blood loss).

Yes, they were a special round with a small explosive charge... but rounds 2, 4, & 6 did not explode.

 

[Amber Chancer]

These two statements are nonsensical. A true swordsman uses every trick in his book to defeat his/her opponent, including thrusting.

Riik

You ever fought broadsword, Riik?

I have ... and the thrust isn't a "trick in the book to defeat your opponent" - it's a one-way ticket to Valhalla.

The point of the broadsword enables you to skewer a fallen opponent before he can get to his feet again ... but it doesn't do to try to skewer him while he is still on his feet and able to take a swing at you.

When I learned rapier, however ... well, a whole new repertoire of thrusts, and cuts driven from the wrist, and other fancy things that you cannot do with the heavier blades was there for the learning ...

 

[Garyius2003]

This site has been down for months. It was interesting to look through however.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

 

[Riik O'Shae]

You ever fought broadsword, Riik?

Off and on for 24 years. I have also fought with glaive, long sword, short sword and warhammer.

I did try bow and arrow but my aim is attrocious.

I helped man a trebuchet for a couple of battles.

I have practised Aikido for the better part of two decades.

Participated in several field battles with about 6,000 other participants.

Have been an armourer for a number of years.

Participated in competitive shooting across the US including Camp Perry with an M-1A in 7.62x51mm.

I also reload rifle, pistol and shotgun cartridges.

Riik

 

[Riik O'Shae]

I have ... and the thrust isn't a "trick in the book to defeat your opponent" - it's a one-way ticket to Valhalla.

The point of the broadsword enables you to skewer a fallen opponent before he can get to his feet again ... but it doesn't do to try to skewer him while he is still on his feet and able to take a swing at you.

The most interesting aspect of battle between two combatants using broadswords is the look of incredulous shock on your opponent's face when he realizes that he has just been taken out with a thrust to the face...

Too many broadsworders believe as you do.

And pay for that presumptiousness.

Riik

 

[Riik O'Shae]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Thanks for the updated link, Garyius2003!

Riik

 

[Nightwind1]

I remember reading a Tom Clancy novel where he talked of some gun used by the special forces that was so quiet that the clicking of the mechanical parts was louder than the gunfire. It was over 10 years ago, so maybe my memory is faulty. I had always thought that Clancy was a bit of a stickler for that sort of detail but I guess in this instance (assuming my memory is correct) he wasn't?

I once thought Clancy knew what the heck he was writing about...

...Then, "Clear and Present Danger" came out while I was in the U.S. Coast Guard, and I realized he didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Amber Chancer]

The most interesting aspect of battle between two combatants using broadswords is the look of incredulous shock on your opponent's face when he realizes that he has just been taken out with a thrust to the face...

Too many broadsworders believe as you do.

And pay for that presumptiousness.

Riik

Sounds like you've fought more and to a higher level than me ... but it's not presumptuousness. It's what I've been taught by my instructors.

But I've fought enough with the lighter blades - especially rapiers - to know a thrust coming when I see one. So even though I've never been taught a parry for a broadsword thrust, I reckon I'd have a reqasonable chance of coping.

But by and large, I'd try not to be in a part of the battle where my sword skills were needed. Longbow is my weapon of choice.

Have you read the materials analysis of the Mary Rose longbow staves? For many years, contemporary accounts of bows drawing as much as 180lbs have been dismissed as either exaggeration or poor measuring technology / technique resulting in an over-reading. But a fair few of the staves on the Mary Rose would have made up into bows of almost 200lbs draw (IIRC the highest computed draw was 198lbs) implying that there were indeed bowmen who could draw such monsters.

As with swords, the thing about the longbow is that ultimately strength is less important than technique. And we just have no concept of what level of technique could be attained by somebody practising for three hours every Sunday on the village green from the age of 8, as well as using his bow (in all probability) a fair bit at other times, whether on the butts or for a little illicit game-taking, and instructed by others who had done the same all their lives.

I find 90lbs is about my limit, with a preference to use a bow of 60lbs or thereabouts; but I can easily conceive how with a bit more intensive work, the higher weights woudl be eminently achievable.

 

[Timerover51]

I once thought Clancy knew what the heck he was writing about...

...Then, "Clear and Present Danger" came out while I was in the U.S. Coast Guard, and I realized he didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

For the Hunt for Red October, Clancy used Larry Bond, author of the Harpoon naval miniatures game, for his technical references. I have worked with Larry and Chris Carlson on the Command at Sea series.

 

[Riik O'Shae]

I did try bow and arrow but my aim is attrocious.

As I noted before, archery is one of the martial arts I am terrible at.

Study of what makes an archer good at their trade is as you've mentioned ~ praticing from an early age and technique.

Riik

 

[Riik O'Shae]

...Then, "Clear and Present Danger" came out while I was in the U.S. Coast Guard, and I realized he didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Please ellucidate us on the meaning of this statement...

In what way(s) did Clancy err...?

Riik

 

[DangerousThing]

And we just have no concept of what level of technique could be attained by somebody practising for three hours every Sunday on the village green from the age of 8, as well as using his bow (in all probability) a fair bit at other times, whether on the butts or for a little illicit game-taking, and instructed by others who had done the same all their lives.

Of course we do. If we assume 10 hours of practice a week for 50 weeks a year, that gives us 500 hours of practice per year. In 10 years, that gives us 5,000 hours, which is about the hours of directed practice that leads to a master of a skill.

Of course, directed practice (mainly practicing your weak points) is difficult to do as most people want to concentrate on their strong points. However, a number of people who practiced that much would be *very* good.

And longbowmen were much better in large numbers. And much more dangerous. And even when the armor was improved beyond the longbow, a flight of arrows would kill horses, and any idiot who though it was a good idea to not wear their helmet.

If I recall, teaching quarterstaff was roughly the same type of thing.

I find 90lbs is about my limit, with a preference to use a bow of 60lbs or thereabouts; but I can easily conceive how with a bit more intensive work, the higher weights woudl be eminently achievable.

 

[sabredog]

I remember reading a Tom Clancy novel where he talked of some gun used by the special forces that was so quiet that the clicking of the mechanical parts was louder than the gunfire. It was over 10 years ago, so maybe my memory is faulty. I had always thought that Clancy was a bit of a stickler for that sort of detail but I guess in this instance (assuming my memory is correct) he wasn't?

Clancy wasn't crazy: that would be a 9mm MP5SD.

http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/mp5sd_general.asp

Two of the members of my agency's tac-team have them and they actually are so quiet that they just make a sound that is quieter than a nailgun. The bolt cycling is all you hear other than the round impacting the target. Mind you, this has to be done with subsonic rounds designed for this or the sound gets much louder - but still doesn't sound like a gun. More like a cap gun snapping.

Here is what they sound like with regular 9mm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGibEFnD4xc&feature=related

If you use subsonic rounds, the action is all you hear and is more mechanical sounding - a light clicking noise like tik-tik-tik-tik. The problem with the subsonic rounds, though, is that they have much lower penetration and range potential than regular so we didn't use them with these weapons. If the threat had body armor the sub-rounds were pretty risky to use.

The gun also works more efficiently as the Hollywood-type of suppressed weapon because the suppressor is integral to the weapon and the whole gun is designed around the concept of making it as quiet as possible. The weapon is a closed-bolt rather than open-bolt as most submachine guns are so it can get hot pretty quickly but the closed bolt helps keep it quiet. So short bursts of fire are a must when using one. And they have almost no muzzle climb. They are kind of heavy as subguns go, but they are specialist weapons used strictly for CQB and dynamic entry.

 

[sabredog]

Shooting out the tyres of a moving car.

Back in the 80s, a policeman friend in diplomatic protection told me they NEVER attempt this ... the chance of penetration is very low; and if the bullet fails to ricochet it bounces off in a random direction, spinning longitudinally. The risk of collateral damage is unacceptably high.

It is actually against the policies of most police agencies to fire on a moving car unless you are directly threatened by it being used as a weapon. God only knows where the round will end up after it hits the car - or more likely misses it. In fact, the Oregon State Police preferred the 40SW round when they found it was better at penetrated the more streamlined windshield of newer cars than the .45 or 9mm. Tells you something about their use of force concerns.

A few years into my stint with my agency I had a guy shoot a round through the back end of my patrol car while I was driving by. He had decided that day he "was going to shoot a cop" and went looking for one with his Mini-14. After not finding one (gee - where's a cop when you need one?) right away he spent most of his rounds shooting out the lights in a parking lot. Then I came cruising by right as the call went out about some guy shooting out parking lot lights. Timing is everything.

So he fires at my car and his last three rounds went through the rear quarter panel to bounce around a bit in the trunk, and twice into a berm on the opposite side of the street. He then threw the gun down and surrendered when I got out and did my yelling/gun pointing/cop-on-the-edge-act thing. He was pretty pissed that he had all but run out of ammo before I showed up.

The round in the trunk set off a fire extinguisher in its clamp on the quarter panel the round entered, then bounced around without doing anything else. I didn't even hear it impact, but then I was concentrating on getting the car pointed at the guy pointing a rifle at me so I could have the engine between me and him and maybe run him down if I had to - the time interval between hearing the call go out/seeing the bad guy/distance to bad guy being that short.

Anyway - that was my only experience with guns shooting at moving cars. If the guy had led my moving car better he would have hit the passenger compartment (maybe me) instead of the trunk. So I imagine his point of aim was probably me when it should have been more like my front bumper.

 

[sabredog]

As with swords, the thing about the longbow is that ultimately strength is less important than technique. And we just have no concept of what level of technique could be attained by somebody practising for three hours every Sunday on the village green from the age of 8, as well as using his bow (in all probability) a fair bit at other times, whether on the butts or for a little illicit game-taking, and instructed by others who had done the same all their lives.

Based on my 10 years of competitive class A fencing on the National level from 1980-1990 in sabre and foil I can concur that it is all about technique and not strength. However, stamina plays a huge part of any sort of combat. In a tournament, if I was winning I could expect to be fencing more of less continuously for hours as I worked my way through the eliminations. There were breaks, but they were mainly for as long as it took the judges to re-order the boards for the next series of bouts - about 20 minutes or so every couple of hours.

Each bout was about 10 minutes at most of more or less continuous aerobics - less so with sabre, but foil is very active with nearly continuous blade and footwork, which was why I always preferred it to epee. If I was winning I could expect to fence around 4-6 bouts non-stop then a short break, then do it all over again. Depending on how the draws for matches came out I might also have fenced several bouts before meeting up with an opponent who hadn't fenced at all that day and was fresh.

So speaking to the hours of practice - without having fenced at the salle for four days a week for an average of 4 hours a session with opponents who were preferably better than me, or the maitre of the salle I would never have had the stamina, let alone the skill to make it through the tournament bouts. I saw a lot of really good fencers, some better than me, who just exhausted themselves in the first few bouts and then lost because they could hardly move.

I fought aggressively, but adapted my style to a more defensive technique as I tired so I could husband my strength. I would imagine the medieval archers, quarter stave fighters, and swordsmen did the same.