Accuracy vs Speed

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

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.

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.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

+Speed to open. +Accuracy to finish.

 

I was talking more along the lines of this.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

We were taught by the MOD basically (and I'm simplifying), 'shoot what you can see'. 123