Interesting FBI training document

[fillythebish]

I know this document is based on human targets and with hand guns which is very different to using an air rifle, but at the very end of the document under the Conclusion it talks of penetration being the best cause of a quick death, and that knockdown power is a myth.

 

Anyone think this applies at all to a .22 rifle hitting a pigeon?

 

EDIT: Forgot to add link to document http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Edited May 4, 2008 by fillythebish

[Ferret Master]

Hit it in the head and you won't go far wrong.

 

FM

[col s10]

head works for me

[Hunter]

 

I work on short placement (95% of my kills are head shots) instead of worrying about how big the gun is

 

But actually the nockdown DOES play a part in the kill, I dont care what the FBI say, its down to pure physics.. think about it, chuck two stones in the water. One a golf ball sized stone, and one a brick. The brick leaves shockwaves (that do the damage) greater then the pebble.

 

Penetration only kills when you hit the right spot such as a vital organ(s) or spinal cord etc.. but the massive effect of the shockwaves will do big damage to surrounding tissue and organs, where as a small bullet may pass through the body entirely, missing major organs and doing less shock damage.

 

Explosives kill, by hammering the body with massive shockwaves that damage the organs, even if there are no visible flesh wounds or limbs missing. Messy, but true.

[taz24]

I know this document is based on human targets and with hand guns which is very different to using an air rifle, but at the very end of the document under the Conclusion it talks of penetration being the best cause of a quick death, and that knockdown power is a myth.

 

Anyone think this applies at all to a .22 rifle hitting a pigeon?

 

EDIT: Forgot to add link to document http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

 

 

No. In the report it states that 100% destruction of the body

equates to 100% incapacitation. 50% destruction the incapacition

is reduced acordingly. If that figure relates to .22 round in a 12 stone

man then the % of incapacition of a pigeon that weighs a few ounces

will be far greater.

 

Good report though. Intresting reading. I like the bit onthe first page

that says FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT DISSEMINATION ONLY.

Where did you get it from

 

Cheers taz.

Edited May 4, 2008 by taz24

[njc110381]

All this stuff has come to light after the freedom of information act (which is really stupid IMO). I have a book called TM31-210, Improvised munitions handbook, which was released when some idiot decided the puplic have the right to read this kind of stuff! It has DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TECHNICAL MANUAL, OFFICIAL USE ONLY written on every page, and tells you all sorts of methods of improvising explosives. On page 32 for example are instructions on how to make methyl nitrate dynamite from Methyl alcohol and sulfuric/nitric acid. I won't go into the method, it's rather complicated and not just a case of mixing the three up and shaking it (so don't try it!). More to the point, why is this kind of material on general sale? I bought it because I'm interested in this kind of thing, but in the wrong hands £100 and this book could destroy a small town!

 

This FBI document isn't going to do any real damage if read by us, but I'm still surprised their findings are published.

[bullterrier]

I remember reading an article about the 2 fellas that trained the Royal Marine Commandos in close quarter battle during WWII (think that it was Fairburn & Sykes, although I`m not 100% sure). Before WWII these fellas had been in the Shanghai or Hong Kong police depts (can`t remember which). They preferred the 9mm over the 45. cal due to the fact that they were up against opium fuelled criminals due to the fact the 45. cal was not guarunteed to stop the criminals regardless of the size of the round fired, they preferred the 9mm because it could carry more rounds in the mag enabling the officer to get more rounds on target quicker hopefully hitting a vital organ.

These blokes used all sorts of ungentlemanly methods to stop the local loonies in their tracks & none were exactly pc.

[markbivvy]

head works for me

 

 

them was the days.

[DaveK]

I remember reading an article about the 2 fellas that trained the Royal Marine Commandos in close quarter battle during WWII (think that it was Fairburn & Sykes, although I`m not 100% sure). Before WWII these fellas had been in the Shanghai or Hong Kong police depts (can`t remember which). They preferred the 9mm over the 45. cal due to the fact that they were up against opium fuelled criminals due to the fact the 45. cal was not guarunteed to stop the criminals regardless of the size of the round fired, they preferred the 9mm because it could carry more rounds in the mag enabling the officer to get more rounds on target quicker hopefully hitting a vital organ.

These blokes used all sorts of ungentlemanly methods to stop the local loonies in their tracks & none were exactly pc.

 

9mm was used in preference to .45 but doesn't have the stopping power. A crazed person could take half a dozen 9mm rounds to stop them and some of them would pass through. The person can keep coming. .40 cal was brought out to give the stopping power thet 9mm doesn't have. Similarly .357 magnum was brought out as a law enforcement round in preference to the .38 special. .38 again doesn't have the stopping power and .380 cal (.38 short rimless) is only really good as a backup. I disagree with the .45 statement though. A .45 ACP with a hollow point or semi wadcutter will stop a mad cow never mind a human target.

[THEINVISIBLESCARECROW]

A small bullit can zip through a body, miss all the vital bits & human or animal is walking wounded.

A common debate with .177 & .22 air gun users.

A flat head .22 pellet has shock value, wind that up to live rounds & I'd of thought the same sort of theory.

[staglioni]

heavy reading and the yanks don't take prisoners do they

[Taff Mason]

i don't think this applies to airguns or any hunting rifles at all.

 

when hunting you are trying to kill your quarry as quickly as possible. but army's and police forces are not trying to kill anybody, just shooting as a last resort to stop them endangering human life.

 

thats why most military rifles are 5.56mm because the old 7.62mm SLR rifle was considered too overkill

[SteveieP]

5.56 is the Nato standard & used in preference to 7.62 for 2 reasons

1) Logistically you can carry / transport more bullets if they're smaller & lighter & take up less room

2) More bullets = more rounds downrange = more chance of a kill.

Still penty of non-Nato countries like their Kalashnikov's in 7.62 but that's alot more to do with who your country happens to be friends with.

However, 5.56 is not used, for example, for hunting large dear because it's not considered humane.

So shoot people yes, animals no. Figure that?!

Still, 5.56 has a nasty habbit in that it will tumble & fragment on impact, so it doesmake a little more of a mess than you might expect.

Find some video of the Barrat .50 cal in action in Afghanistan on Youtube, & you'll see what shock value is about.

They don't make a half inch hole.... whole torso's get vapourised & arms get blown clean off at a useful range of.................wait for it ....................1 & a quarter miles.

That's what I call energy transfer!

At the smaller end of the calibre scale it's all about hitting a vital organ. There are plenty of places in both human & animal bodies where a hit won't dissable let alone kill outright & the likes of 9mm means more bullets in the mag=more shots downrange=more chance of a shot on target=dead

[casts_by_fly]

i don't think this applies to airguns or any hunting rifles at all.

 

when hunting you are trying to kill your quarry as quickly as possible. but army's and police forces are not trying to kill anybody, just shooting as a last resort to stop them endangering human life.

 

thats why most military rifles are 5.56mm because the old 7.62mm SLR rifle was considered too overkill

 

 

taff,

 

actually if you draw your gun on someone you are shooting to kill. 'Shoot to wound' can be prosecuted and it has been done before. When you are being attacked and have decided it is necessary to use lethal force (i.e. draw your gun) then you shoot to kill, not just turn them away.

 

Rick

[blahblahblah]

Don't forget reason 3: If an enemy soldier is wounded instead of killed his fellow enemy soldiers have to look after him so instead of taking out 1 soldier you take out 5 minimum