Springfield XD Forum banner

Incapacitation theory: Hollywood vs reality.

6K views 48 replies 22 participants last post by  TSiWRX 
#1 ·
FUNKERTACTICAL Tactical Videos Photos Incapacitation Theory Hollywood Vs Reality Graphic

It seems I've been seeing a lot of videos lately of shootings and people being shot and continuing to fight. These aren't the best videos but it brings up the point that shooting someone is not going to drop them immediately, outside of an incredibly well placed shot. This has made me start to rethink my skills and gear. I carry my xds a lot without a spare mag. I've found myself carrying my g19 way more now. I feel like Hollywood has created this idea of one shot stop/incapacitation. When I first started carrying I thought 7 rounds was plenty. Now that I'm studying and researching self defense shootings I'm realizing what I've thought for a long time to be false. I've never believed one shot would down someone in every case. But I did believe that a few shots would put them down immediately. That's simply not the case. Even after many many shots a person can continue to fight.

Has anyone else come to this realization at some point or have I been duped?
 
#2 ·
Just had this discussion with my Mother. I have also had this discussion with many people who believe
that a single shot will put people down and out of any fight.
People always go on about how many shots the police used to take someone down.
It is absolutely TV and movies that push the perception of one shot and threat is over. Unless the bad guy is the main antagonist.
My second frequent discussion is gun vs knife attack. A lot of belief that the gun always wins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob2
#3 ·
How do you not carry a spare mags with any gun? I just swapped my normal edc here in brutal heat of SoFlo from an xds 45 to a a g19 or xdm compact, 40. I just bought am xdm compact 9mm to make my edc for the 19 round spare. I'm all about capacity these days. Especially with all these sub humans rioting everywhere
 
#5 ·
Good grief.

Folks, I'm gonna throw a little reality at you.

First off, it's not that difficult to avoid riots.

Second--rioters are not killer robots with the sole purpose of hunting you. They are not zombies with an overriding desire to eat your brain. They are not a Spec Ops team that will ignore casualties to take you out.

If you're caught in a mob action, as soon as that first round goes off, they are gonna run. Watch any mob, anywhere--when live rounds are fired, the crowds scatter.

Carry what you want; I don't care...but when you try and justify it because "I might get caught up in a riot, so I'm gonna need lotsa bullets"? Yeah. You look ridiculous.

Now: to the original topic.

You engage until the threat is no longer a threat. That may entail shooting; it may not. It may involve a hit to your assailant; it may not. It may involve one shot, or it may entail multiple shots. It might be a solid, centermass hit; it might be a minor wound, and they drop out of the fight.

In short, one-shot stops are not uncommon, but not common either.
 
#7 ·
@Cuda66

I rated your posting funny, simply because your wordsmithing is impeccable...

I agree completely...but the analogy of the rioters I saw during Ferguson or Baltimore as a Robot-Ninja Spec Ops Team made me spit out my Fireball...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cuda66
#10 ·
@Cuda66

I rated your posting funny, simply because your wordsmithing is impeccable...

I agree completely...but the analogy of the rioters I saw during Ferguson or Baltimore as a Robot-Ninja Spec Ops Team made me spit out my Fireball...
Well...in glad you liked it, but...Good Gravy, man! DON'T waste alcohol!
 
#9 ·
  • Like
Reactions: RogerB and Cuda66
#11 ·
If we are talking about one shot stops... I'll take this and carry around my 6 inch GP100.

50 round box - 357 Magnum 125 Grain SJHP Hollow Point Remington HTP Ammo - RTP357M1 SGAmmo.com

Probably around 1600 fps from that barrel length. Yeah, that could mess someone's day up.
Yeah, it'd do.

My personal choice would like be something like Remington's 180gr JSP .44 Mag load @ 1610fps...

Placed in the brainstem.

I'd have a high level of confidence for a one-shot stop then.

But I'd double-tap, just to play it safe.
 
#12 · (Edited)
....Even after many many shots a person can continue to fight.

Has anyone else come to this realization at some point or have I been duped?
Definitely.

I really think that the myth of the gun made that what it is - Hollywood or otherwise.

There are two kinds of "stops" -


The first is psychologic - and is purely subjective and varies based on the individual. Some simply have lower pain tolerance. Others believe so much that they need to stop once they're shot that they simply do (and maybe Hollywood and other media have contributed to this over the years?). But we've seen stories on both sides of the law where individuals simply refuse to go down until they have literally gone into shock.

To me, this is part of why good training is so important: to get our mindset right - to make us realize that we cannot choose to quit. Good force-on-force training helps a lot, with the instruction to the defender/protagonist to simply not stop until the end of the exercise is called: that "good guys don't die." [ However, here, the danger of force-on-force and the Krav gym is that some have role-players or are structured so that "the bad-guy(s)" go down without much of "a fight." The question to ask here is: does my training mesh with reality - and if not, what can I do to make it better...do I go to another gym/trainer? do I adopt a different mindset as I go through my gym's exercises or my trainer's scenarios? what can I do so that when, in real-life, my threat doesn't do what I want him to do.... ]

With that in-mind, we have to realize that our counterparts may have that same mental drive. Sure, theirs may not be righteous, but it is valid to them, nonetheless, and it can be just as powerful as your desire to see your family one more time.


The other "stop" is physiologic. It's either cutting those vital life-signals by destroying critical CNS components or by inducing hypovolemic shock. The former should be an instant "off switch" kind of deal ( but it's harder to do than it looks when the target is three-dimensional, is moving [and you're moving, too], and with anatomy actually in-consideration - I've alluded to this in a previous post: To aim or protect yourself... Page 3 XDTalk Forums ), but the latter simply takes time to effect.

Officer Stacy Lim sustained mortal injuries, yet fought and won.

What one person can do, another can do.
 
#14 ·
I am surprised I haven't seen the .45 acp fan boys jump in here with their normal clichés....:p:D
"It's a manstopper..."
".45 because shooting twice is silly..."
"Real men shoot .45...."
:p:D:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: RogerB
#17 ·
How do you not carry a spare mags with any gun? I just swapped my normal edc here in brutal heat of SoFlo from an xds 45 to a a g19 or xdm compact, 40. I just bought am xdm compact 9mm to make my edc for the 19 round spare. I'm all about capacity these days. Especially with all these sub humans rioting everywhere
I do carry one for my xds a little less than half the time, which gives me 17 total rounds. With my g19 I have 15+1. I typically subscribe to the thought that spare mags are less about extra rounds and more about having a safety net for malfunctions etc. Now I feel it's a delicate balance between the two.

I'm not worried about riots. Sure they could happen but even if they do, 45 rounds won't be enough. I'm not trying to get into an extended gunfight. I'm just becoming more aware of the importance of accurate shot placement. I'm currently searching for a spare mag pouch for my g19. I have one now but I bought it for competitions. It's not ideal for conceal carry with my dress style.
 
#20 ·
I'm not worried about riots. Sure they could happen but even if they do, 45 rounds won't be enough.
The weird thing about civil unrest is that they are unpredictable.

Certainly, in most cases, we've seen that even the faintest display of the simple intent of aggressive (armed or not) defense will dissuade every and any potential threat.

However, we've also seen - again in recent events - that such similar displays will actually ignite the crowd.

Some of the best advice I've read from LE and former non-permissive-environment personnel (these are people who have been abroad, and have seen much, much worse than the cases of civil unrest we've seen) carries echos with Cuda66's post - try your best to stay aware of current-events and try to not be where the action will be. If caught inside the masses, try to be "the gray man" and blend in, look for avenues of escape - only resort to violence to defend yourself if absolutely necessary (simply because as the Magic 8-Ball would say, "Outlook is Uncertain."

I'm not trying to get into an extended gunfight.
I don't think anyone does - and please understand that I'm not picking on you :) ;) - I'm simply highlighting what you've said because it's a good point. I'll come back to this in just a minute, but first....

I'm just becoming more aware of the importance of accurate shot placement.
Absolutely.

You've seen my posts - I'm absolutely certain that shot placement is critical. I'm a scientist by trade and training, and anatomy and physiology gets my vote every time.

But what we who champion the "shot placement is king" school need to realize is that under life-and-death stress, while both parties are moving dynamically, shot placement is not a certainty. The late Louis Awerbuck's critical, real-world view of why even trained shooters can miss at what are truly very short distances is a sobering reminder that we must all train to higher standards - that if shot placement is indeed king, we must realize the limitations that stress puts on our body and mind, and understand the effects of dynamic movement with regard to the presentation and availability of vital hit zones in an anatomic, three-dimensional target.

:)

Now, that said, we go back to your statement above - that of "your gunfight," and I'd like to bring in Powerman's post, here, too:

Being prepared isn't about training for every possible scenario that ever happened to a human. It's about being prepared for what is most likely going to be the problem.
The problem with thinking this way is that, in doing so, we're coming awfully, dangerously close to claiming clairvoyance.

Why?

Because it implies that we should be able to see trouble coming. ( REF: Pat Rogers' 2010 article in Carrying a Handgun - Separate Facts From Fallacies SWAT Magazine )

I pose that if that's indeed the case, that we can see trouble coming, then would not we as individuals in our right mind simply choose to not be at that particular place, at that particular time - at all? ;)

Now, in reading that, y'all might think that I'm one of those people who would advise that people carry no less than a "full-size fighting handgun" of death-ray caliber, with a laser/light combo slung underneath, and have no fewer than 250 spare rounds available, a knife, another knife, OC, a ECD, a back-up gun plus a rape whistle and some hand sanitizer.

:p

That's far from true.

Instead, what I would like for everyone to realize is that concealed-carry for a law-abiding everyday-Joe/Jane citizen is a set of compromises. Everything from where we go during the day (are you required by law to disarm?) to what we do for a living (a construction worker? a physician? a trainer in a gym? a bicycle messenger? a truck driver?) to what we wear (a dress? a suit? corporate casual? scrubs?) to what our subjective perception of comfort may be all comes into play even before we make our own "threat assessments" (let's remember that we are here on this thread ostensibly because we've chosen armed self defense - by this very action, some would say we are paranoid, so let's not think any less of our fellow brothers or sisters who may decide to be more prepared than us: instead simply realize that one person's preparation is another's paranoia ;) ).

The right compromise for you may not be the right one for me. No two persons are the same.

So, with that in mind, I'd like to wrap back to titanicthunder's closing remark in his post above:

I'm currently searching for a spare mag pouch for my g19. I have one now but I bought it for competitions. It's not ideal for conceal carry with my dress style.
For EDC, I compromise accessibility for concealment because most of the people I interact with, I'd rather just not have to explain to them why I've chosen armed self-defense - the way I see it, how I choose to defend myself is no one else's business but mine. :)

I use the Comp-Tac Minotaur Single Magazine Concealment Pouch - Single Magazine Concealment Pouch Comp-Tac Victory Gear

^ That full-length leather backing is just like having a leather holster or the leather side of a hybrid, IWB.

The compromise I make for this is, of-course, that it's also inside my waistband (for me, it's actually more comfortable than just having a holster/gun IWB on one side; this balances me out a little, and also helps counter-leverage the pull exerted on the gun side of the belt, and helps my belt/pants stay put at my waist - but YMMV), and that in being "deep concealment," it takes more time and motion to get to the magazine (although, honestly, if you train enough from it, it's still pretty darned fast) as well as makes replacing the magazine in the pouch almost impossible (a consideration for tactical reloads).
 
#18 ·
In any gunfight ever documented, I've yet to hear anyone ask what caliber it was when they started shooting.

Gun fans do plenty to promote one stop shots too. "Stopping power". I remember the ridiculous claims when black talons came out. Instant death if you looked at them too long. FBI stats show that a person shot in the heart will have 8 seconds of useful time before they stop. If they have a gun, that's a lot of shots.

Cuba had it right. We can all talk about a story someone wrote. The odds any of us will fire a shot are extremely low. Miniscule. The odds of actually killing someone even lower. The odds of all that including a zombie rioters SEAL jihadist death wish mutant... You are talking getting hit by lightening after winning the lottery.

Being prepared isn't about training for every possible scenario that ever happened to a human. It's about being prepared for what is most likely going to be the problem. Riots are easy to not go to. Some one bent on seeing me dead, I'm not worried about. If the day ever comes when I need deadly force, I shoot till I no longer need it. Extended engagements with multiple reloads, not high enough risk to devote significant resources to mitigate. Most gun fights are over in 3 shots. I expect to fire 3 shots. Maybe more, maybe less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jonnyuma
#19 ·
Good grief.

Folks, I'm gonna throw a little reality at you.

First off, it's not that difficult to avoid riots.

Second--rioters are not killer robots with the sole purpose of hunting you. They are not zombies with an overriding desire to eat your brain. They are not a Spec Ops team that will ignore casualties to take you out.

If you're caught in a mob action, as soon as that first round goes off, they are gonna run. Watch any mob, anywhere--when live rounds are fired, the crowds scatter.

Carry what you want; I don't care...but when you try and justify it because "I might get caught up in a riot, so I'm gonna need lotsa bullets"? Yeah. You look ridiculous.

Now: to the original topic.

You engage until the threat is no longer a threat. That may entail shooting; it may not. It may involve a hit to your assailant; it may not. It may involve one shot, or it may entail multiple shots. It might be a solid, centermass hit; it might be a minor wound, and they drop out of the fight.

In short, one-shot stops are not uncommon, but not common either.
+1000 here! I can't even think of anything to add to it!
 
#21 ·
Oh, and to wake y'all up from having fallen into a coma while reading that word dump I just dropped :oops::p:D



I think that video goes along rather well with the sentiments contained in the OP.

As the local instructor whose FB post I'm taking that from says, it's not a "death ray."
 
#22 ·
I'll explain what I meant... First, different strokes for different folks. I'm not as paranoid as others. And I don't mean that in any demeaning way at all, I just can't think of another word. I promise every single member here, that if I ever find myself needing more than I have... The first thought after "crap" will be damn, those guys were right.

What I meant by my comment TSi, is that I don't have the time or budget to train for every possibility. Forget about guns, first I need to train empty hand. Knife skills are incredibly effective. Some weapons training. Then yes, projecting force. Guns. Speed, accuracy, movement, malfunction clearing. Gun protection, defending your firearm. And once you can do one threat, then you need to train multiple threats. And the likelihood of using those skills is highly unlikely. So with my limited time and budget, I need to spend my time on what is most probable.

I wish I could go to a few classes a year. I would love to go through 10,000 rounds in training. I wish I was 20 years younger. it's totally cool if you you want to be more prepared than me. You might be right. Serious. We should all do what we feel is best for us. And we should reexamine that from time to time to see if our readiness is still up to par.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flamingsuit
#23 ·
We should all do what we feel is best for us. And we should reexamine that from time to time to see if our readiness is still up to par.
^ I think this is the crux of it.

We each assign different levels of priority to what our perceived risks are - and in all honesty, there's nothing wrong with that: we're all simply different people. The life that any one of us may lead can be very different from the other person's.

It's about compromises: to understand it realistically and to look at it with absolutely no bias. :)
 
#28 · (Edited)
By your definition, then, is anyone who uses firearms against an opponent who is ill-bent on doing that person grave bodily harm a "Rambo?"

If you had a defensive-use-of-firearms incident, are you then automatically a "Rambo," too? and if-so, would not your simple presence on these Forums - the act of reading through it and no less posting on this thread, perhaps imply that you yourself had such wanton bloodlust?

:roll::lol:

The sad truth is that in our litigious society, any act through which I mount a self defense - armed with a gun, a knife, a bat, or otherwise - will most likely incur the wrath of a politico ladder-climbing prosecutor and definitely be a target for the attorney on the other side.

I fully expect all aspects of my background to be probed in-depth by the other side, and that everything that I have done to be, in some way, shape, or form, at least attempted to be used against me. My public-Forum postings? that's the least of my worries: as we have seen with the Zimmerman trial, the other side will also explore any past training one may have had (no matter if we proficient at what was taught) - I've had courses on the legal aspects of use-of-force, I've had more than a few hours of various handgun, carbine, and shotgun classes, I've reached varying states of proficiency (some would say that I am less than proficient :oops:, there's a reason why my nickname is Kung Fu Panda :p) in unarmed combatives, and for as much as knives are still seen as being the instruments of bad-guys, I've even had knife combatives training.... I even expect the fact that as someone who has been through medical school, the fact that my knowledge of anatomy and physiology exceeds that of the average person, will also be made known in an effort to paint me and the defensive encounter that I had in a way that's other than complimentary to me.

To refute such accusations would be the job of my lawyer, and it will be his duty to out the truth. That more knowledge of all of these areas - as well as my having actively sought training in them with people who are acknowledged to be the current experts in their respective fields - should prove instead that my actions were indeed justified and appropriate.

My goal is only to stop the threat.

The actions I take to achieve such end reflects solely on what the aggressor(s) is/are doing to threaten my life, that of my loved ones (or those for whom I have an obligation to protect, as delineated by the laws of my area).

What the industry experts have depicted factually is that stopping a human threat involves the intersection of terminal ballistics, anatomy and physiology, as well as physics.

I am advocating no more, and no less.
 
#26 ·
If you look at all shooting stats... Police, criminal, accidents... Hand guns are only fatal in a 3rd of the shootings. Twice as many get shot as opposed to die. Lots can be taken from that. Accuracy sucks, hand guns are not death rays, when shooting starts, people generally knock off what got them shot and don't need more.
 
#27 ·
... Or, EMS and trama centers are really good.

Keep in mind a little over half of all deaths are suicides where guns have a very high success rate. So in other shootings, death occurs in only 25% of shootings.
 
#30 ·
^ I'm not sure, either.

That's what I thought, too - and that there was a muzzle-flash from his barrel as well.

But as with you, I am simply not sure.

If he - the perpetrator at the door - did indeed have a firearm and did indeed shoot, given that the person in the vehicle was not shot, it would be a perfect illustration of how easy it is to miss at close range during a dynamic circumstance.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top