This essentially underscores a dichotomy of warfare that has been commented on many times; that human beings are surprisingly easy to kill, yet they are also surprisingly hard to kill as well. As always, thanks for sharing Matt.
Great video and assessment but if I could add 2 things 1st the caliber matters but not as much as shot placement if the rounds would have hit something extremely vital like the heart spine or head he would have been able to take 6 of them also modern day calibers in cartridges are much better today than they were a 150 years ago so I wouldn't take this knowledge to seriously in the modern day According to the United States FBI's Statistics the average amount of rounds a person takes in concealed carry shootings is 2 rounds by a pistol in the body and one round by a shotgun or rifle the certainly doesn't happen all the time but for the most part firearms have gotten much more effective in the last 150 years thanks again love your videos
@SidtheKid if you researched that case, youd find that he in fact was Trained enough to make Multiple Hits in lethal Areas, yet the lethal effect for some reason failed
@@realtalk4real243 It's more likely then unlikely..Survival rate for pistol shots is somewhere near 70%...while rifle rounds is in the low teens...There's always room for lucky hits, and stops, and unlucky depending on the context
@@50StichesSteel nah man surviving 14+ hits from a pistol is extremely unlikely and you can't conceal a rifle even if your statistics were true. Events like that happen a lot less often than you think and good luck with your "concealed rifle"
A gun is essentially a long range drill in terms of what the bullet does. Back in the 80s I had a text book called 'A History of Battle' dealing primarily with the Napoleonic era. There is an account in there of a British officer who was hit through the chest by a grape shot but who also continued fighting and actually survived the battle. In WW2 my father served on a bomber crew and he told me that on one flight a fellow waist gunner reported an injury but continued to man his gun. When the plane landed and his Mae West was removed by medics he quickly bled out and died. A flack shell had entered somewhere below the ribs and exited behind the shoulder (also exiting the plane's ceiling) near the gunner's neck without exploding. Shock and the Mae West had enabled the man to continue to man his station and later actually exit the plane under his own power. Likewise in my own personal life I recall an individual who charged a police officer with a knife at which point the officer put six rounds of .38 Special (lead round nose, standard velocity, this was in the late 1970s) from his Colt OP into the man's chest. The man then knocked the officer down with his shoulder and ran away. Three days later the man's housemate summoned an ambulance because the man was having trouble breathing. We arrived to back up the ambulance crew and found this was the man we had been searching for. He had six entry wounds in his chest and 3 exit wounds from his back. One lung had collapsed and the other one was doing so, hence the 'difficulty' breathing. He survived. Experienced hunters can often speak of good hits with modern hunting ammunition only to have the targeted animal either charge or run away. It doesn't happen often, but often enough for those there to realize there is no such thing as a perfect stopping round.
According to this doctor who specilizes on gunshots wounds you are both right and wrong ruclips.net/video/wXwPtP-KDNk/видео.html Yes, low power pistol rounds creates narrow wound channels but high power rifle bullets, and I bet the martini henry would be counted among them creates such devestating wounds that more often then not you are not gonna survive more than a few minutes
It all depends on the velocity of the projectile and the projectile it self. 5.56 nato is a perfect example of this, if the little 77 grain bullet is going above 2500-2700 fps, the bullet will fragment and cause terrible damage to tissue, below that fragmentation threshold though the bullet has a tendency to "act like a drill" and a 5.56 mm hole througb an abdomen isnt going to outright kill a combatant.
I'm pretty certain said waist gunner was hit by shrapnel from a flak shell, and not the actual flak shell, because the only flak shells that could reach US bomber height were 88mm and up, and if one of those hits a human, well then there's no more human left. He could ofcourse also have been hit by MG fire from enemy aircraft, perhaps a Bf110 which carried 4x MGs in the nose in addition to 2x 20mm cannon. I'm inclined to believe it was flak shrapnel though, as getting hit in the ribcage by a MG bullet usually means a rather quick death.
I thought that military bullets are restricted by treaties to non fragment on impact, hence the FMJ only type of projectiles on small arms. that's why they forbitten in the old days Dum Dum type of led bullets, because it cause wounds that heal very difficult and put soldiers in more suffering than it needs.
Fast flying FMJ fragments as well, esp. in the case of rifle bullets as the projectile is simply going too fast for it too be able to stay together on impact. Hence why the lightning fast 5.56 NATO, despite being issued in FMJ only for the military and being rather small, litterally explodes on impact, creating some truly terrifying wounds.
I have met several people who, having taken pistol rounds that missed vital organs and arteries, were quite capable of running or driving themselves to the hospital, and even of giving us a bit of trouble from thrashing about in their distress.
I know an old dude who got shot with a .38 and not only used a pipe to brain one of the guys who shot him, drove himself home and THEN to the hospital.
Exactly what I was going to say. Immediate incapacitation of an individual by handgun rounds is far from certain and depends on several factors, some of which are not in the control of the shooter such as mindset of the target and whether said target is a believer in modern chemistry. It's never as cut and dried as Hollywood and the media make it out to be.
Powg- that's because modern pistols are desgined to kill humans while wasting as little energy as possible. Getting hit in the chest with a .60cal soft lead ball, however would have a much more dramatic effect.
@@darkblood626 true when it comes to military ammunition. Civilian and law enforcement officers have access to all sorts of frangibles and expanding rounds. Big lead balls aren't always effective either; Private O. W. Norton at Gaine's Mill wrote, the bullet "entered my left groin. I pulled it out, and, more maddened than ever, I rushed in again."
8:03 Adrenalin, sometimes drugs, definitely insufficient shot placement It is quite possible that many of the warriors tanking these 5 or 6 shots didn't even feel the impacts and only realized they had been wounded at all when they fell over and bled to death in the following minutes or died of sepsis in the following days at the latest.
read an account once from a us marine in ww2 who saw another fire his m1 carbine about 6 times in rapid succession centre of mass at a charging japanese infantryman who, after being hit several times, bayoneted the marine before getting sprayed by a thompson, which still took two long bursts
I also read an account of an US soldier of the poor stopping power of their .38 and .44 caliber revolver against the "Huramentados" during Philippine - American War. and these led to the creation of the iconic .45 Colt Pistol.
@ET Hardcorgamer If you hit the spine, hip, or leg bones, the person will fall. They may still be able to move and fight, but they will be doing so from the ground. If you hit the skull, they'll likely drop and die on the spot. Even with small caliber rounds this is true, so long as there is enough power behind the shot to shatter bone. Some pistol ammo may not be up to that, but plenty are.
Reminds me the story of how the last Napoleon died. He went to the Zulu wars as a newspaper corespondent. He was with a small calvery detachment when they were attacked by a larger larger group of Zulus. The horsemen all turned to flee, when the Frenchman fell of his horse. His horse fled with the rest of the horses(with riders). Getting up and seeing himself abandoned Napoleon pulled his revolver and fired three quick shots, missing all three. He thin slowed down and fired three aimed shots that also missed. As the zulus moved into kill him he threw his revolver at one of the Zulus, drew his sword and charged. This shocked the zulus and they turned to run but quickly realized the European ran slowly. They then surrounded him and threw spears at him till he was badly wounded. Once he went down all the men in the warband wanted partial credit for killing this particularly brave man (he charged a war band alone by himself) so they all stabbed the body, but all in the front because unlike the calverymen he never showed his back but always turned to face the nearest enemy.
Andy wl It’s not in one magazine, it’s in a lot of magazines. The officer got into a gunfight with a crook and shot him like 20 times, the guy only died when he got shot in the head three times. The officer was also using a .45 acp Glock.
Having done a great deal of shooting and hunting with black powder revolvers, I am not in the least surprised that they were not great man stoppers. It's another level of terror entirely to see a man take a round from a Martini and have him keep swinging. YIKES!!!!!
Even in modern times, pistol rounds are remarkably ineffective at stopping an assailant on adrenaline. I've seen security cameras and police cameras often demonstrate it. So it is no wonder bayonets and swords were used so recent in history.
@@placeholdernameisplacehold7671 It would stop them using that arm but I wouldn't bet on that stopping a person with a gun shooting back at you no matter the condition of their shoulder. Any hand gun round in the shoulder is still going to be an unreliable stopper.
@@placeholdernameisplacehold7671 Gunshots don't knock people back at all. The force of the bullet impact can only be less than the force of the recoil on the shooter. To knock a person backwards you would need a gun that knocked the shooter off his feet when he fired and for the bullet to completely stop in the person. Check out a .50 cal Desert Eagle being fired into a dummy on a stand wearing a bullet proof vest. The bullet was stopped in the vest so all energy was transferred yet it barely moves. Here is the footage. ruclips.net/video/7S0J6Fb-b9k/видео.html Mythbusters also did it with pig carcass with various calibers and it took a 12 gauge to finally knock the hook holding it up back enough for it to fall. It just doesn't work like that in real life.
My favorite is the determined guy (not on drugs or alcohol) that walks through getting shot with a Tazer or even multiple Tazer hits and the cops stay on the trigger.
@@Stigstigster And how does that compare to the .50 cal M2, or Barrett? Check out the 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle.... All qualify as "gunshots" and if the target's body is not knocked backwards, most of it's insides are.
There's phrase you sometimes hear a law officer use in here in the US, "walk, talk, drop." The term describes the way people with sometimes nearly catastrophic injuries from may different sources - car accidents for instance - will often walk over to explain their situation in the incident, and then suddenly drop. It happens with knife wounds as well.
The thing to remember that pistol cartridges will only immediately incapacitate someone in one of three ways: 1) catastrophic injury to the central nervous system, 2) exsanguination (ie critical blood loss), or 3) physiological shock. With blood loss you must wait for a critical volume of blood to be lost and then for the body to "run out of steam", which can take several minutes. In modern firearms martial arts there are two main camps of thought: 1) shoot the aggressor until the aggressor is no longer aggressive (ie poke as many holes as possible to accelerate blood loss), or, 2) for more "trained professionals" to shoot a number of shots into the center of mass, usually two, with a follow up shot to the head (this is called the Mozambique drill: two to the chest then one to the head). Bottom line is that when you shoot someone they do not automatically cease becoming a threat, which you should take into consideration before you shoot that someone.
@@JohnBrowningsGhost People call it the Mozambique drill, at least the ones that I have heard calling it a name. I hear it on RUclips and also down here in South Africa. I don't know why, and it doesn't make any sense to me why.
The term was coined by Chuck Taylor . There was intentional vagueness as to the inspiration for the technique . But the predominant rumor/ folklore involved South African elite forces clandestinely fighting in Mozambique . The SA Trooper shot a Terrorist twice in the chest, then paused to examine the results . Upon the threat continuing , the Trooper fired a hasty snap shot, striking in the throat . Or so goes the story .
True, this just shows how well people have been received and weakened in order to perceive an inanimate object or tool as something that is evil, while the rich and powerful still strong and protected but the poor people are left weakened and unprotected by the powers to be by being mentally disarmed first then physically disarmed because according to these clowns "civilized people don't use violence or need to have tools to aid in the dispensing of that violence in order to save your life of the life of your loved ones from a estranged criminal that intends to do you or your loved ones harm")
The charging "fanatic" was stopped by the mass of a British soldier, not by a bayonet. He may have already been dead but his momentum may have still been carrying him forward. 180 pounds has a lot more stopping power than 300 grains.
looking in the comments for something like this, nobody seems to offer an explanation as to why a melee weapon is better at stopping someone than a gun. is it cos the guy has got to where he wanted to be ?
One of the reasons the Colt .45 Automatic became so popular in close combat in the Philippines is that it knocked the tribesmen off their feet and Teddy Roosevelt loved it.
45 acp certainly does NOT knock people off their feet - especially not in the lowest pressure variety that were used back then. Any bullet impact capable of knocking someone off their feet would also knock the shooter off their feet with recoil.
This is still relevant to this day and gets into the bigger concept best described (in the modern parlance) as “switches and timers.” Switches, or centers of central nervous system control, turn off immediately when interrupted. This is like a brain shot. Timers take time to turn off. This is typically bleeding wounds or wounds that cause more damage as time goes on (arrows stuck in someone) but allow the wounded person to keep fighting. In general, handguns are relatively inefficient at killing people. They take a fair amount of skill and training to employ properly and are only effective when they impact a switch that immediately renders the opponent physiologically unable to fight OR causes a psychological reaction through which the opponent is not prepared to fight. The latter is an unreliable effect, so combatants must train for the former.
Jim Carillo from the stakeout squad was actually a proponent of the M-1 Carbine with a soft point bullet due to what he saw first hand during shootouts in NYC.
Jim Cirillo and the Stakeout Unit did a good amount of dropping bad guys. He had used his model 10 .38 Special that was hand loaded with wad cutters. He would run to the ME to look at the post mortem autopsy to see the effects of the firearms used. He was a big fan of the 12 gauge slug. He did like the 110 grain soft point ammunition with the M1 Carbine.
For not having much personal experience with firearms (when compared to your American neighbors over here), you get a lot right in this video. Center of mass is the only place to aim because if you aren't hitting the CNS, even a shot in the heart might not kill for a minute or so. The head will drop someone, but is a smaller target. If the Martini had hit the mans spine, he would have dropped. Same with the revolver. You can apply a lot of this to the 20th and 21st as well. Even the AR platform in 556 has a significant drop off in kill rates when compared to larger hunting or "battle rifle" calibers. It's tough to get people to realize who have no hands on experience that these weapons aren't scary magical death dealers, but tools to be used well if you intend to stop an immediate threat. There is a video floating around of a girl on a campus being shot within ten yards with a shotgun in the abdomen and just running away. That all said, you can still kill someone by shooting them in the foot with a 22lr. It's always a lethal threat and not to be used lightly.
I am not anti-firearm in the least but if you drop the "magical" part firearms really are "scary death dealers" when they are being used against you! That's the purpose of the tool, to stop people taking offensive actions and that does result in death fairly often by the very nature of the weapon. Real life certainly isn't anything like in Hollywood movies that's for sure. The amount of damage a person can take from a firearm and still be dangerous is astounding at times. You are also totally correct about a firearm being a tool too.
So are knives, bombs, and swords though. They are just clearly less technical and advanced as firearms. But a sword would probably be just as scary to a man with a stone knife as a gun is to us.
@@GeorgeLCostnza I totally agree. In fact I have never been threatened with a gun before but I have been with a knife. I can only infer that by how scared I was (I couldn't be any more scared at the time!) a gun probably would not have been much more frightening at all. An angry person with a knife only three or four steps away from you is horrifying to say the least. Nobody wants to get a hole in them of any appreciable size.
I was shot. Here is my 21st century anecdote. I was shot with a single round at no more than 1 metre. I was hurtling towards the shooter at that moment. Faster than you can snap your fingers I was on my back. I was unable to rise again. The bullet was a 9mm pistol round (I recovered it later) fired by an unknown handgun (I couldn't catch the blackguard). It struck me in the centre of my right pectoral, pierced my right lung, and exited on the inside of my right shoulder blade. I felt quite thoroughly stopped. Never felt a bash quite like it.
I am glad you survived that, and I do not intend to offend you in any manner, but for argument sake, is it possible that the bullet hitting your shoulder blade caused the stopping power? If the bullet only hit flesh and perhaps weaker bones, would it have the same effect?
When I say "on the inside of my shoulderblade" I mean the inner side, I mean that it went between my shoulderblade and my spine. It did not actually hit my shoulderblade at all. Even if I had absorbed the entire momentum of the bullet, there is no way it could have provided enough energy to send me backwards. The only explanation I can think of is that it caused a reflexive action in my muscles, causing the body to straighten and stiffen, and that this was what made me stop moving forwards and topple backwards.
EnglishDreadnought Thats likely more from mental effects. If you were on drugs and not concerned with being shot it wouldn’t have even pushed you back. You can see it time and time again in modern police encounters.
If you want to see just how frequently a bad guy can take multiple hits and not only survive BUT also run away or attack, just check out Active Self Protection's channel. John does a very good job of breaking down the gunfights (mostly shown on security cameras) and explaining what was done right and wrong. He's worth a look if you are interested in the dynamics of a lethal force encounter.
A very good explanation of early CQB, Close Quarter Battle, a very interesting time. A sword or a short sword was king when the firearms are empty. Most people don't understand how hard it is to hit a stationary target let alone a moving one with any pistol.
There was an account by a Zulu Medicine Woman who described how Warriors during the Zulu Campaign against the British were snuffing dried and powdered Mushrooms that would give them a state of berserk like strength. I, myself, experienced on the job how hard it is to stop a delirious and or drugged person that is rampaging. In EMS and now in intensive care we experience people that cannot be stopped but by the brutest of force and the strongest of our sedatives. A so called fanatic in the accounts presented in this video might have been in a similar state.
There are numerous modern instances of multiple large calibre pistol bullets failing to immediately stop an assailant. Look up Timothy Gramin; he put 14x .45 ACP hollow points into a guy and he didn't stop fighting. Took three more to drop him. So I wouldn't be so quick to discount "most" of these claims.
Amazing story. The only police shootout I recall that tops it is one I read about 15 years ago inviting a drugged perpetrator. He took about 20 hits from various 9mm, 40 S&W, and AR15 rounds before going down. The photos were pretty gruesome.
The final 3 shots were to the bad guys head. The Skokie Illinois Police Sergeant now carries a G17 9mm. He hit him hard with Speer Gold Dot 230 grain Loads. Mas Ayoob interviewed him and another Chicago PD officer detailing their in the line of duty officer involved shootings. Both of these officers survived because they trained and were avid gun enthusiasts and hunted.
Always bring a long gun to a fight, if you can :) like some swords, pistols are great to carry but abysmal killing implements compared to their longer, more powerful kin.
this was much of the same reason the U.S. army adopted the .45 caliber pistol and the 12 gauge shotgun while fighting in the Philippines. those large slow moving slugs were man stoppers
i believe most revolver calibres of 19th century, combined with what gunpowder quality they had were not 'man stoppers', even at almost point blank ranges. also, some tribes in Africa and India were also pumped up with drugs which allowed tribesman to continue charging despite seriously painful wounds, which if they hadn't taken, might have killed them earlier. i said might. in the famous 1986 gunfight between 2 bank robbers and 8 FBI agents in Miami, both robbers were shot multiple times and the FBI thought they were on drugs, but the autopsies showed both men had not taken drugs or alcohol. one of the robbers had been shot twelve times.
Just found your channel, amazing content and knowledge. As a paramedic/ firefighter in the USA I see the “myth” of stopping power nearly every shift on my job. I very often arrive at scenes where persons have been mortally injured with with firearms, even high velocity rounds 5.56mm or 7.62. Although fataly wounded they are often waking around on the scene with enough vitality to theoretically injure or kill their assailant with a bladed weapon if they had been in close quarter combat. The myth of stopping power has been perpetrated by Hollywood. Just as these historical accounts have noted, your opponent can be struck multiple times by a firearm but if they are close enough to strike you with a bladed weapon before they expire you are both most likely going to end up in the same place. Thank you for the awesome content. New sub.
Good job explaining the very important difference between being simply "shot" and being critically wounded. War isn't paintball and not all hits count, even direct hits to the enemy's torso. Remember, a bullet to the chest perhaps may only kill an enemy 2 days after he stabs the life out of you. A well placed shot with a weak pistol is far more deadly than several poorly placed shots from a battle rifle :) stay safe, gentlemen.
Interesting compendium of primary source material for that time period and subject. Thanks for sharing. I hope no one confuses this with the current day.
In the firearms world, we call the target zones on a body as timers and switches. Hits on timers(heart, lungs, arteries, etc) are lethal, but do not neutralize the threat right away. Switches are used to immediately stop the active threat. The T zone on the head, composing of the central parts of the brain and brain stem, the spinal cord, and depending on the situation, the pelvic girdle.
Both Cole Younger in Northfield, MN, and Emmett Dalton in Coffeeville , KS were shot more than 10 times ( 11 and 15 respectively, IIRC) . They both continued fighting , made their escapes , eventually captured, served prison terms . were eventually released , and live long lives . But they are famous for being the exceptions .
Don’t dry fire your Martini. The striker will be damaged as it’s design and the steel it made of means the tip gets fatigued by hitting the breech block. Get a snap-cap.
I had a friend that was shot 5 times with a 22 rifle. He walked a few blocks before feeling sick and asking for help. He was pretty fat, and was not hit in any vital organs. Another guy I knew died of complications from 38 special bullets hitting vital organs; but it was years later that he died. The organ damage screwed him up.
Win94ae I friend of mines nephew beat a man to death with his little 22 pistol after the man shot him a few times in the stomach area he’s was barely in his 20s at the time not big or tall pretty normal build
Very interesting vlog. As an exservicemen, I often wondered about this kind of fighting. I thought that in a tight melee a rifle and bayonet could be a little cumbersome and a large calibre heavy and sturdy hand gun and a long, pointed dubble edged blade might be an advantage. The reason for the gun to be heavy and sturdy is so when empty, you can turn it around and use it as a club.
I saw a man (who was drugged) run over 200m after being shot through the heart. I also remember being trained that someone who recieved a mortal wound could continue fighting for 20 seconds or more.
Very much appreciate clearing up these misconceptions Matt. Remember. Gun remains the best martial art But there was that extremely rad to depict period where you got like twelve shots before you were back on the stabby choppy beaty weapons.
@@khaccanhle1930 That's because people don't agree on how much a factor caliber is. I place it behind shot placement, adequate penetration, terminal energy; and terminal ballistic deformation, deflection, and yaw/pitch. Caliber isn't unimportant, it's just not the most important factor. In the ER, I've seen people die from seemingly not very serious wounds from .22lr, and I have seen one case of self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head with .45 ACP and he lived. I have seen one coroner case study from my own county, where the victim stuck the muzzle of his 30-30 rifle in his mouth, fired, it didn't finish him, he repeated the process, lost consciousness after the second hit, and actual cause of death was from dogs or coyotes feasting on him while still faintly alive. Bottom line: we can crunch numbers all day, but in the end, there are so many unknown factors at play, we can't say "always" or "never" on this subject. The best we can get is "usually," but no two shootings are going to be exactly the same, except under the most strict laboratory conditions. Real life isn't anywhere nearly as sterile. When your number is up, your number is up. People die from seemingly innocuous things every day, and people survive the unsurvivable every day. They're the exception to the rule, but they happen more often than you'll ever hear about on the news.
@Richard Honaker If it's not true, then the county medical examiner is a liar. He said that the angles were really off on both shots, which is why it critically wounded and incapacitated him, and would have caused a delayed fatality, if it hadn't been for the animals finishing him off. I didn't do any imaging on the remains or in any other way handle them. The point remains that bizarre stuff happens.
@Richard Honaker Yes, something along those lines was about what the situation was. Point-blank range gunshot wounds are nasty stuff, for sure - even more so at rifle velocities and energies. It makes me wonder, what kind of muzzle velocities are we talking about with a Martini Henry and the British revolvers, when loaded to British military specifications? I can probably find it later, but it's dinner time, lol. Just wondering if anybody in here has a ballpark figure off the top of their head...
I seem to remember an account you talked about where a soldier shot a guy with his service revolver a few times and didn't stop him and had to take him on with his saber.
There is a saying, if you want to be the best, know how to fight with and without your weapon. Your video has a lot of good points, thanks for posting it.
There's also the question of ammunition quality. Modern ammunition with a jacketed and bonded bullet will have much more reliable expansion and more consistent penetration.
Excellent cometary on the truth that sometimes the firearm just doesn’t get the job done. This could be due to numerous factors including caliber, shot placement, clothing, alcohol/narcotic use by the attacker, and, as you related, the attacker’s motivation. I love history and have been a law enforcement firearms and tactics instructor in the US since 1989. I’ve seen instances where a criminal lived through unbelievable damage,and also some that expired at the slightest wound. I subscribed Sir.
There are plenty of modern accounts in which the gunshot victim doesn't even immediately realize that he's been shot. Adrenaline and shock can do a lot to keep a wounded man going.
You should read Lagarde's book "Gunshot Injuries." He encapsulates everything before the very early 20th century quite nicely. Those people weren't stopped in these accounts because FMJ or solid lead bullets are poor incapacitators. Hollow-points are much better at stopping people, and also less lethal because they don't usually make exit wounds, which bleed more. Blood loss is the primary cause of death, destruction or disruption of the central nervous system is the only way to instantly incapacitate. Also when people are more likely to be stopped with fewer shots, they have less grievous wounds they must survive.
A lot of accounts like these are against tribes men which did have ceremonies before going into battle in the ceremonies they would consume drug like substances that nullify pain and give them a bit of resistance to go down easily.
The US had a problem with "stopping power" when warriors in the Philippines would take six shots from the 38 caliber New Army revolvers and still wound or kill the soldier who'd shot them. The US response was the same as it would be today... issue a bigger gun with bigger bullets
@@jerikromero1746 I'm a bit divided on that one. On the one hand, ballistic gel tests I've seen seem to show there is little difference between major pistol calibers. On the other hand, several of first hand accounts of cops and EMT workers I read indicate. that bigger, hotter rounds make a bigger mess. Luckily I haven't needed to carry for my job for 15 years, so my life doesn't depend on it anymore. So it's only academic for my interests.
The ability and strength to kill someone physically or with a manual weapon is a very specific skill that only a few can do. Shooting someone opens up the field of killing to a whole wide range of individuals whether that be by firearms or bows. In the pre-firearm days, if you put up an untrained peasant against a fully armoured Knight, the chance of the hayseed winning was essentially 0%. Even a group of poorly armed people against a single well armed, fully trained and enabled killer was no match. Enter the gun and suddenly even someone of no physical match has a chance (maybe small but still a chance) of getting in a lucky shot and taking out the highly skilled fighter. Thus the modern era was born.
Handguns are a compromise weapon you have size, weight, and recoil to alter. Heavy recoil harder follow up. Larger caliber fewer shots. Smaller caliber smaller wounds.
Apparently the little extra push from more powder or a slightly bigger bullet don't help all that much. Outside of toy calibers, you're more trading capacity for psychological comfort.
But seriously , there has been an eternal back and forth between size & weight of weapons, recoil, vs power , and trying to convince themselves that less was really the same as more . In British context, start with .450 , move up to more powerful .476/ .455 , then downsize to .380/200 . In US Mil handguns, .44 Dragoons, downsize to 1851 " Navy " .36 to be lighter , concurrently add 1860 Colt and 1858 Remington in .44 to be more powerful, to .45 Colt , then switching to lighter .45s&w actual ammunition . Then .38 Long Colt to be lighter and less recoil , then back to .45 Colt for more power , to .45acp , then eventually 9mm for less recoil . For US Law Enforcement individual agencies , and even individual officers have had a variety of choices , but there are general trends . Prior to circa 1900 , nothing standardized or predominant . After introduction of .38 Special quickly became predominant for about 80yrs , with dissenting minorities using .44 Special, .38-44, .357mag, .38Super , generally for more power . 1980's massive shift to 9mm for about same power as .38spl +P , but more capacity . Circa 1990 massive shift to .40s&w for more power , and right now in the midst of massive shift Back to 9mm, for less recoil .( With some dissenting minorities using .357Sig, 10mm, and .45acp at times during the 9 and 40 eras, all with intent of more power .)
It is like David and Goliath the Key Terrain is your position to suit your weapon. Goliath was inside range and David was outside Goliath's reach. He wouldn't have succeeded hand to hand.
Black powder is funky stuff. Difficult to make any projectiles go much above the speed of sound. I found that BP revolvers are much less effective than even smaller smokeless powder cartridges.
That's still true today, if you don't damage a vital spot, the enemy won't stop. He will eventually die later but a shot in the guts or the limbs won't put someone down instantly.
Surely you shouldnt rest those swords on their blades. Like u got on the wall. Bad for the fine grind.most combat casualtys were caused by artllery ever since we had it
Hi Matt! I have two - very different - questions. #1: If a stiff, less springy sword is better for thrusting and it's also more forgiving for cuts (edge alignment), then how come they didn't dominate more in Europe? #2: Was there a specific time in history when nationalism became a thing? I don't mean the extreme way, like Mussolini's Italy, but more like did the general public in the medieval ages have a sense of pride in their country? Or for this to happen we needed more homogeneous and better defined states? Cheers!
I would say to the second question that that nationalism has always been present when one is part of a nation, particularly when under an external threat. That nationalism is what keeps a country together and helps them to survive and win in a conflict. The fact that you may lose everything to an invader must certainly get people to band together under a national banner and to fight even when you risk dying. I think when it comes to the crunch most people become nationalistic and are willing to fight and risk their life for a mixture of personal and greater (national) good. For instance, Britain can be quite a competitive and antagonistic nation amongst themselves being made up of several different countries but they certainly banded together effectively and nationalistically the last time there was an existential threat from outside.
But I wonder how different it is when the vast majority of the population is basically excluded from the affairs of the country, e.g. in a feudal system. So for a peasant in the medieval ages I guess the most important issue is that of stability, having a ruler that maintains some sort of consistent law. And maybe in this case it doesn't matter as much if it's the French or the English monarch. For example in medieval Hungary when a lineage of rulers died off they sometimes brought in some relative of a relative from Austria, that did not even speak the language of the people (which was also way less homogeneous, a patchwork of Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian etc). So it seems to me that nationality might have been a fuzzier concept, and so maybe there was less room for nationalism.
I think it was all about "us" (Europeans" and "THEM" (in this case Turks). Possibly Turk´ vassals from Serbia or Wallachia culd have had better chances to survive as prisoner of war tham moslems.
Very informative video. Everyone still needs to consider a few things. Type of gun, shot placement and above all else type and weight of the bullet. Knowing ballistics I'll be the first to say even today that handguns don't always stop immediately. Great video though.
Keep in mind that the steel at the time was nowhere near our modern metal. So the charges of that revolver were probably pretty mild. With a modern BP revolver you can load as much you can fit in each chamber safely. While the rifle probably was much thicker in chamber to allow a crazy load.
In engineering terms regarding pressures, yes . In practical terms , not so much . Large bore revolvers with heavy soft lead bullets at black powder velocities are quite capable , even by the standards of today . In the specific British Empire context discussed here , the .476 , and later various .455 loads were about as capable ( in anti- personel context ) as could be reasonably expected of a Service Pistol in any era . ( The earlier .450Adams, .442 Webley were a bit less , but still fairly respectable .) In the more things change, the more they stay the same department , the .40S&W is ballistically identical to black powder loaded .38-40 .
Well , I’m familiar with several accounts of police shootings in the US with modern handguns . In several instances , a perpetrator is shot at close range while charging . They were able to absorb multiple rounds without seeming to notice . Once stopped , then the shock , pain and exsanguination takes effect , sometimes expiring shortly thereafter . If the individual is stoned on street drugs , it’s quite common . Something they might have in common with the “ fanatics “ your British soldiers encountered in the East , as American troops had in our history , in say the Philippines , with the Moros . Handguns are not reliable fight stoppers . Having said that , I wouldn’t dream of leaving the house without mine securely in its holster . .40 caliber pistol rounds and harsh language trumps only harsh language . I am a portly , elderly gentleman , not too physically suited to swift flight nor flailing about in a wrestling match . I’ll stick with my sidearm , bit of a pity we aren’t allowed to carry a sword as well .
@@r.awilliams9815 where Im at, the cops pay you no mind if youre openly carrying. Ive not been bothered in years. I also generally wear my Bowie knife.
I have a cane, which I need sometimes: solid oak shaft, a mace shaped knob of solid brass weighing about 10-12 ounces, and a metal tip covered by a rubber cap to keep it from sliding. Harmless-looking enough to pass through airport security, but potentially lethal when wielded by someone who knows how to use it properly. Like me
Great video. I think you could apply a lot of this to today. Think of the Miami-Dade shootout. Nowadays we have so much more ammunition and weapons that are easier to fire fast. When it comes to handguns. But the stopping power is still not that much better than it was back in the 19th century. I can't think of the exact notations at the moment but I am sure I have read accounts from World War 1 of soldiers still standing and still continuing on after a British officer emptied the Webley Revolver chamber into them. Which was very similar to the 45 ACP
In the 1980's in Malmo Sweden a sword wielding halfnaked madman managed to stab and cut several policemen before he went down with 11 bullets in his body.
Well, poor shot placement is always a problem , and single shot weapons have inhetent limitations . But neither .577/450 , nor .476 or .455 revolvers have any lack of necessary power .
I've seen soldiers shoot horribly with pistols and shoot very well with rifles. There's a lot to be said for the stability and accuracy of rifles and lack there of with pistols. I'm betting on the missing except in extreme cases.
Up close those extra points of contact (stock and/or further up the weapon) probably make for a lot more and faster hits. I've never actually tried bringing a weapon up to bare and firing quickly as possible, but I can imagine.
Excellent video. Now to be Frank you are right about aiming and accuracy. If you read a book called on combat. This book states that most people did not fire on accurate atomical targets. Therefore making aiming probably harder for the average Soldier. You also have to take into consideration the effectiveness of the round. Even to this day people have arguments about 45 and 9 mm. It's funny because the technology has gotten better. There was an FBI study that was conducted you should read up on the data. It pretty much states that pistol rounds are inferior to Rifle rounds specifically modern ones. Also if you read any accounts of modern encounters there are individuals that have sustained severe wounds has questioned the limits of the body. At the end of the day it is still good to have a blade in your hand especially if you run out of bullets.
their is examples of pepole who has taken a high number of faital shoots and kept fighting. brain is a instant kill, lungs and hart not so much. if you fight a person in rage or high on a central stumulating drug.
As with any weapon, accuracy/ shot placement is often more important than the size of the weapon. With firearms it is best to aim for center mass of the thoracic area. Take out the central nervous system. I will take my SBR over a saber 99 times out of 100 (as long as I have ammo to go with it).
My brother-in-law before he retired was a captain on the local police department. When they were changing over to semi auto he looked into 9mm and .45ACP. They went with .45ACP because it delivered more energy on impact while the 9mm was subject to over penetration
Really interesting video, thankyou. Two things to keep in mind from modern terminal ballistics studies; the malnourished bodies of third world militias and extremists, owing to diet, have a smaller chest size, and therefore a smaller space in which bullets can destabilise, slow down, fragment etc - shown with the limited fragmentation effect of SS109 5.56x45mm rounds failing to occur within the few hundred metre engagement range where it was 'supposed' to, and secondarily, shot placement is more important that 'power' of the cartriges fired generally speaking, and while modern training emphasizes shot placement into vital areas, I'm not sure to what extent in the 19th century this was widely known and taught?
That guy running thru the camp surely had to be on some type of narcotic. Opium Poppies are grown in that region, aren't they? That's about the only way you're gonna get me to charge thru an enemy camp armed with nothing but a sword. :D
In the 1800s I think it would have been more likely that the British were the ones on opium. :D Probably the poor fellow was just really high on adrenaline and in some primordial fight/flight mode. It is likely that he would have undergone years of indoctrination into a warrior culture concerned with fearlessness, which can lead people to behave in self-destructive ways.
The context of the context of guns stopping power depends on the context of the individual in their society and how that context unfolds with fanaticism which emerges from the context of an individual's spirituality and the context of how fatalism and willingness to embrace death is described and encouraged by the grift or the con of a text. - I would so love it if Matt would say something as contextual as the context of him saying context as a meme or metameme. I think I have gone overboard past the humor line to annoying but given the context of youtube comments I am no doubt quite tame having not said anything sexist or racist. I wonder how many people were looking at the sword put up backward aching to fix it. OCD bane.
Great video! Plus an interesting book, which should be read by anyone interested in field performance of firearms, though somewhat un-scientific and more anecdotal in nature. I noted with amusement the complaints about smaller caliber (.36 and under) revolvers, which contrast with USA/Civil War experience. The '51 "Navy" Colt did have some problems there, and some American writers felt it was under-powered. Others said the .44 had too much recoil and wanted the cartridges loaded with smaller charges. I think what's implied in these is that training was more the issue than effectiveness. The Confederate Cavalry and Raiders, who worked almost exclusively with both Colt and Remington .44 revolvers, were advocates of maximum charges with round-ball (not conical bullets), and experience proved them generally correct. No complaints about reliability, either. As for the noted stoppages, failures to fire and accidental discharges, I couldn't help feeling that most could be put down to lack of training/familiarity with the particular weapons involved, simple arrogance/carelessness, poor ammunition components, and failure to regularly maintain the arms in a hostile environment. Granted, revolvers are finicky and delicate in the field, far more so than enclosed auto-loading designs of later periods, but it still seems odd to read such accounts and compare them to American experience, often with the exact same weaponry. No doubt many will disagree, however...
"A mohamedan fanatic attacked an irish british officer he ignored all the punches he threw at him but still kept going and managed to out wrestle him!" Sergeant Major of the royal irish dragoons Conor Mcgregor!
It's interesting to note that (having spoken to many range officers) US Military officers in particular, and soldiers in general receive woefully inadequate handgun training. Almost to a criminal degree.
For most of the Millitary , a handgun is a very secondary, if not tirtiary weapon . Certain SecOps types get highly trained with everything . Military Police, Embassy Guards, Naval & Coast Guard Boarding Parties get trained with handguns to a level similar to US Police .
So they did. And learned these lessons well. Transitioning from massed vollé fire to individual marksmanship (and shooting from concealment) followed the costly lessons the boeren taught the British army and it served them well in the opening stages of WW1. So, thank you, boeren; Europe might be quite different now if it hadn't been for you giving the British army a bloody nose.
A 260 grain soft lead projectile at 650 feet/second hitting center mass would be quite a man stopper hence the Webley was a very respectable weapon. When soft lead hits bone it squash heads out and often shatters the bone I think the squash head effect which enhances energy transfer and wound channel size needs some attention.
Развлечения
This essentially underscores a dichotomy of warfare that has been commented on many times; that human beings are surprisingly easy to kill, yet they are also surprisingly hard to kill as well. As always, thanks for sharing Matt.
Very true.
Thanks.. this helps
We are very soft but also very resilient. Some of us also have more than our fair share of non-vital mass. :)
It really is an interesting dichotomy. Human beings are so fragile, yet so tough and resilient at the same time.
Great video and assessment but if I could add 2 things 1st the caliber matters but not as much as shot placement if the rounds would have hit something extremely vital like the heart spine or head he would have been able to take 6 of them also modern day calibers in cartridges are much better today than they were a 150 years ago so I wouldn't take this knowledge to seriously in the modern day According to the United States FBI's Statistics the average amount of rounds a person takes in concealed carry shootings is 2 rounds by a pistol in the body and one round by a shotgun or rifle the certainly doesn't happen all the time but for the most part firearms have gotten much more effective in the last 150 years thanks again love your videos
haha it's neat seeing youtubers comment on other youtubers videos.
Search "why one cop carries 145 rounds" to see a modern account of this happening with a pistol
@SidtheKid if you researched that case, youd find that he in fact was Trained enough to make Multiple Hits in lethal Areas, yet the lethal effect for some reason failed
hanf peter , right! It's bizarre how some people survive multiple dozens of gunshot wounds, while others die from a single shot in the arm or leg.
That story is super unlikely and better bullets are still better. And lethal hits does not mean immediately lethal
@@realtalk4real243 It's more likely then unlikely..Survival rate for pistol shots is somewhere near 70%...while rifle rounds is in the low teens...There's always room for lucky hits, and stops, and unlucky depending on the context
@@50StichesSteel nah man surviving 14+ hits from a pistol is extremely unlikely and you can't conceal a rifle even if your statistics were true.
Events like that happen a lot less often than you think and good luck with your "concealed rifle"
A gun is essentially a long range drill in terms of what the bullet does. Back in the 80s I had a text book called 'A History of Battle' dealing primarily with the Napoleonic era. There is an account in there of a British officer who was hit through the chest by a grape shot but who also continued fighting and actually survived the battle. In WW2 my father served on a bomber crew and he told me that on one flight a fellow waist gunner reported an injury but continued to man his gun. When the plane landed and his Mae West was removed by medics he quickly bled out and died. A flack shell had entered somewhere below the ribs and exited behind the shoulder (also exiting the plane's ceiling) near the gunner's neck without exploding. Shock and the Mae West had enabled the man to continue to man his station and later actually exit the plane under his own power. Likewise in my own personal life I recall an individual who charged a police officer with a knife at which point the officer put six rounds of .38 Special (lead round nose, standard velocity, this was in the late 1970s) from his Colt OP into the man's chest. The man then knocked the officer down with his shoulder and ran away. Three days later the man's housemate summoned an ambulance because the man was having trouble breathing. We arrived to back up the ambulance crew and found this was the man we had been searching for. He had six entry wounds in his chest and 3 exit wounds from his back. One lung had collapsed and the other one was doing so, hence the 'difficulty' breathing. He survived. Experienced hunters can often speak of good hits with modern hunting ammunition only to have the targeted animal either charge or run away. It doesn't happen often, but often enough for those there to realize there is no such thing as a perfect stopping round.
According to this doctor who specilizes on gunshots wounds you are both right and wrong
ruclips.net/video/wXwPtP-KDNk/видео.html
Yes, low power pistol rounds creates narrow wound channels
but high power rifle bullets, and I bet the martini henry would be counted among them creates such devestating wounds that more often then not you are not gonna survive more than a few minutes
It all depends on the velocity of the projectile and the projectile it self.
5.56 nato is a perfect example of this, if the little 77 grain bullet is going above 2500-2700 fps, the bullet will fragment and cause terrible damage to tissue, below that fragmentation threshold though the bullet has a tendency to "act like a drill" and a 5.56 mm hole througb an abdomen isnt going to outright kill a combatant.
I'm pretty certain said waist gunner was hit by shrapnel from a flak shell, and not the actual flak shell, because the only flak shells that could reach US bomber height were 88mm and up, and if one of those hits a human, well then there's no more human left. He could ofcourse also have been hit by MG fire from enemy aircraft, perhaps a Bf110 which carried 4x MGs in the nose in addition to 2x 20mm cannon. I'm inclined to believe it was flak shrapnel though, as getting hit in the ribcage by a MG bullet usually means a rather quick death.
I thought that military bullets are restricted by treaties to non fragment on impact, hence the FMJ only type of projectiles on small arms. that's why they forbitten in the old days Dum Dum type of led bullets, because it cause wounds that heal very difficult and put soldiers in more suffering than it needs.
Fast flying FMJ fragments as well, esp. in the case of rifle bullets as the projectile is simply going too fast for it too be able to stay together on impact. Hence why the lightning fast 5.56 NATO, despite being issued in FMJ only for the military and being rather small, litterally explodes on impact, creating some truly terrifying wounds.
I have met several people who, having taken pistol rounds that missed vital organs and arteries, were quite capable of running or driving themselves to the hospital, and even of giving us a bit of trouble from thrashing about in their distress.
See also Teddy Roosevelt
I know an old dude who got shot with a .38 and not only used a pipe to brain one of the guys who shot him, drove himself home and THEN to the hospital.
You even see it with modern pistols, people being shot multiple times and still running quite some way before collapsing from blood loss.
Exactly what I was going to say. Immediate incapacitation of an individual by handgun rounds is far from certain and depends on several factors, some of which are not in the control of the shooter such as mindset of the target and whether said target is a believer in modern chemistry. It's never as cut and dried as Hollywood and the media make it out to be.
Yeah, just about the only thing that guarantees somebody will drop immediately is a direct hit to the brainstem
This is why I prefer .45 ACP or LC.
Powg- that's because modern pistols are desgined to kill humans while wasting as little energy as possible. Getting hit in the chest with a .60cal soft lead ball, however would have a much more dramatic effect.
@@darkblood626 true when it comes to military ammunition. Civilian and law enforcement officers have access to all sorts of frangibles and expanding rounds. Big lead balls aren't always effective either; Private O. W. Norton at Gaine's Mill wrote, the bullet "entered my left groin. I pulled it out, and, more maddened than ever, I rushed in again."
"That's right I do just have a martini henry down there" scholagladiatoria 2018
It's obvious he doesn't live in the USA, because an American would not expect anyone to be surprised, even if it was an AR15.
@@khaccanhle1930 Because that British accent totally doesn't give clues...
@@Lucky_16 well yeah, besides that.
@@khaccanhle1930 Lol
I thought he was just pleased to see us.
8:03 Adrenalin, sometimes drugs, definitely insufficient shot placement
It is quite possible that many of the warriors tanking these 5 or 6 shots didn't even feel the impacts and only realized they had been wounded at all when they fell over and bled to death in the following minutes or died of sepsis in the following days at the latest.
read an account once from a us marine in ww2 who saw another fire his m1 carbine about 6 times in rapid succession centre of mass at a charging japanese infantryman who, after being hit several times, bayoneted the marine before getting sprayed by a thompson, which still took two long bursts
@Dreymon Green it is mot about the damge it is about the hypothetical "man stopping" effect melee weapons have over some average service firearms
I also read an account of an US soldier of the poor stopping power of their .38 and .44 caliber revolver against the "Huramentados" during Philippine - American War. and these led to the creation of the iconic .45 Colt Pistol.
@@octaviogonzalezventura1919 there good as back up weapon back ups as in gunn jamms doesnt stop enemy u have options to survive with
@@oksanagilroy1950 indeed a useful sidearm
"this is the type of knife he was talking about"
Oh...
As always, shot placement is crucial.
@ET Hardcorgamer If you hit the spine, hip, or leg bones, the person will fall. They may still be able to move and fight, but they will be doing so from the ground. If you hit the skull, they'll likely drop and die on the spot. Even with small caliber rounds this is true, so long as there is enough power behind the shot to shatter bone. Some pistol ammo may not be up to that, but plenty are.
Reminds me the story of how the last Napoleon died. He went to the Zulu wars as a newspaper corespondent. He was with a small calvery detachment when they were attacked by a larger larger group of Zulus. The horsemen all turned to flee, when the Frenchman fell of his horse. His horse fled with the rest of the horses(with riders). Getting up and seeing himself abandoned Napoleon pulled his revolver and fired three quick shots, missing all three. He thin slowed down and fired three aimed shots that also missed. As the zulus moved into kill him he threw his revolver at one of the Zulus, drew his sword and charged. This shocked the zulus and they turned to run but quickly realized the European ran slowly. They then surrounded him and threw spears at him till he was badly wounded. Once he went down all the men in the warband wanted partial credit for killing this particularly brave man (he charged a war band alone by himself) so they all stabbed the body, but all in the front because unlike the calverymen he never showed his back but always turned to face the nearest enemy.
Donut Operator has just done a video explaining why one officer now carries 145 rounds, while on duty. Pertinent to this topic.
Andy wl It’s not in one magazine, it’s in a lot of magazines. The officer got into a gunfight with a crook and shot him like 20 times, the guy only died when he got shot in the head three times. The officer was also using a .45 acp Glock.
Having done a great deal of shooting and hunting with black powder revolvers, I am not in the least surprised that they were not great man stoppers. It's another level of terror entirely to see a man take a round from a Martini and have him keep swinging. YIKES!!!!!
Even in modern times, pistol rounds are remarkably ineffective at stopping an assailant on adrenaline. I've seen security cameras and police cameras often demonstrate it. So it is no wonder bayonets and swords were used so recent in history.
@@placeholdernameisplacehold7671 It would stop them using that arm but I wouldn't bet on that stopping a person with a gun shooting back at you no matter the condition of their shoulder. Any hand gun round in the shoulder is still going to be an unreliable stopper.
@@placeholdernameisplacehold7671 Gunshots don't knock people back at all. The force of the bullet impact can only be less than the force of the recoil on the shooter. To knock a person backwards you would need a gun that knocked the shooter off his feet when he fired and for the bullet to completely stop in the person. Check out a .50 cal Desert Eagle being fired into a dummy on a stand wearing a bullet proof vest. The bullet was stopped in the vest so all energy was transferred yet it barely moves. Here is the footage. ruclips.net/video/7S0J6Fb-b9k/видео.html Mythbusters also did it with pig carcass with various calibers and it took a 12 gauge to finally knock the hook holding it up back enough for it to fall. It just doesn't work like that in real life.
My favorite is the determined guy (not on drugs or alcohol) that walks through getting shot with a Tazer or even multiple Tazer hits and the cops stay on the trigger.
SHOT PLACEMENT.
SURFACE AREA.
VELOCITY.
If everyone carried 10mm you wouldn't see that so much.
@@Stigstigster And how does that compare to the .50 cal M2, or Barrett? Check out the 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle.... All qualify as "gunshots" and if the target's body is not knocked backwards, most of it's insides are.
There's phrase you sometimes hear a law officer use in here in the US, "walk, talk, drop." The term describes the way people with sometimes nearly catastrophic injuries from may different sources - car accidents for instance - will often walk over to explain their situation in the incident, and then suddenly drop. It happens with knife wounds as well.
Ah, the stopping power debate. I see no way this will be controversial at all.
Did you roll your eyes too? I did.
Phill Oliver I did 👀
@David Metis Lol sure.
7.62 for the win : D
@Caliban777 I'm gonna vote 30.06 cuz the BAR would be awesome to own, and that concludes my reasoning
The thing to remember that pistol cartridges will only immediately incapacitate someone in one of three ways: 1) catastrophic injury to the central nervous system, 2) exsanguination (ie critical blood loss), or 3) physiological shock. With blood loss you must wait for a critical volume of blood to be lost and then for the body to "run out of steam", which can take several minutes. In modern firearms martial arts there are two main camps of thought: 1) shoot the aggressor until the aggressor is no longer aggressive (ie poke as many holes as possible to accelerate blood loss), or, 2) for more "trained professionals" to shoot a number of shots into the center of mass, usually two, with a follow up shot to the head (this is called the Mozambique drill: two to the chest then one to the head).
Bottom line is that when you shoot someone they do not automatically cease becoming a threat, which you should take into consideration before you shoot that someone.
2 to center mass 1 to the head is the Israeli drill, the Mozambique Drill is a mag dump, and the denizens of Mozambique are want to do.
@@JohnBrowningsGhost People call it the Mozambique drill, at least the ones that I have heard calling it a name. I hear it on RUclips and also down here in South Africa. I don't know why, and it doesn't make any sense to me why.
The term was coined by Chuck Taylor . There was intentional vagueness as to the inspiration for the technique .
But the predominant rumor/ folklore involved South African elite forces clandestinely fighting in Mozambique . The SA Trooper shot a Terrorist twice in the chest, then paused to examine the results . Upon the threat continuing , the Trooper fired a hasty snap shot, striking in the throat . Or so goes the story .
Wow, how times have changed. They called that a knife, and nowadays some people get scared of a 10 cm folder.
Or arrested for having a potato peeler
True, this just shows how well people have been received and weakened in order to perceive an inanimate object or tool as something that is evil, while the rich and powerful still strong and protected but the poor people are left weakened and unprotected by the powers to be by being mentally disarmed first then physically disarmed because according to these clowns "civilized people don't use violence or need to have tools to aid in the dispensing of that violence in order to save your life of the life of your loved ones from a estranged criminal that intends to do you or your loved ones harm")
Correction: deceived
Correction: or the lives of your loved ones
Correction: not estranged but derranged
The charging "fanatic" was stopped by the mass of a British soldier, not by a bayonet. He may have already been dead but his momentum may have still been carrying him forward. 180 pounds has a lot more stopping power than 300 grains.
looking in the comments for something like this, nobody seems to offer an explanation as to why a melee weapon is better at stopping someone than a gun. is it cos the guy has got to where he wanted to be ?
One of the reasons the Colt .45 Automatic became so popular in close combat in the Philippines is that it knocked the tribesmen off their feet and Teddy Roosevelt loved it.
45 acp certainly does NOT knock people off their feet - especially not in the lowest pressure variety that were used back then. Any bullet impact capable of knocking someone off their feet would also knock the shooter off their feet with recoil.
This is still relevant to this day and gets into the bigger concept best described (in the modern parlance) as “switches and timers.”
Switches, or centers of central nervous system control, turn off immediately when interrupted. This is like a brain shot.
Timers take time to turn off. This is typically bleeding wounds or wounds that cause more damage as time goes on (arrows stuck in someone) but allow the wounded person to keep fighting.
In general, handguns are relatively inefficient at killing people. They take a fair amount of skill and training to employ properly and are only effective when they impact a switch that immediately renders the opponent physiologically unable to fight OR causes a psychological reaction through which the opponent is not prepared to fight. The latter is an unreliable effect, so combatants must train for the former.
Jim Carillo from the stakeout squad was actually a proponent of the M-1 Carbine with a soft point bullet due to what he saw first hand during shootouts in NYC.
Jim Cirillo and the Stakeout Unit did a good amount of dropping bad guys. He had used his model 10 .38 Special that was hand loaded with wad cutters. He would run to the ME to look at the post mortem autopsy to see the effects of the firearms used. He was a big fan of the 12 gauge slug. He did like the 110 grain soft point ammunition with the M1 Carbine.
For not having much personal experience with firearms (when compared to your American neighbors over here), you get a lot right in this video. Center of mass is the only place to aim because if you aren't hitting the CNS, even a shot in the heart might not kill for a minute or so. The head will drop someone, but is a smaller target. If the Martini had hit the mans spine, he would have dropped. Same with the revolver. You can apply a lot of this to the 20th and 21st as well. Even the AR platform in 556 has a significant drop off in kill rates when compared to larger hunting or "battle rifle" calibers. It's tough to get people to realize who have no hands on experience that these weapons aren't scary magical death dealers, but tools to be used well if you intend to stop an immediate threat.
There is a video floating around of a girl on a campus being shot within ten yards with a shotgun in the abdomen and just running away.
That all said, you can still kill someone by shooting them in the foot with a 22lr. It's always a lethal threat and not to be used lightly.
I am not anti-firearm in the least but if you drop the "magical" part firearms really are "scary death dealers" when they are being used against you! That's the purpose of the tool, to stop people taking offensive actions and that does result in death fairly often by the very nature of the weapon. Real life certainly isn't anything like in Hollywood movies that's for sure. The amount of damage a person can take from a firearm and still be dangerous is astounding at times. You are also totally correct about a firearm being a tool too.
So are knives, bombs, and swords though. They are just clearly less technical and advanced as firearms. But a sword would probably be just as scary to a man with a stone knife as a gun is to us.
@@GeorgeLCostnza I totally agree. In fact I have never been threatened with a gun before but I have been with a knife. I can only infer that by how scared I was (I couldn't be any more scared at the time!) a gun probably would not have been much more frightening at all. An angry person with a knife only three or four steps away from you is horrifying to say the least. Nobody wants to get a hole in them of any appreciable size.
I was shot. Here is my 21st century anecdote. I was shot with a single round at no more than 1 metre. I was hurtling towards the shooter at that moment. Faster than you can snap your fingers I was on my back. I was unable to rise again. The bullet was a 9mm pistol round (I recovered it later) fired by an unknown handgun (I couldn't catch the blackguard). It struck me in the centre of my right pectoral, pierced my right lung, and exited on the inside of my right shoulder blade. I felt quite thoroughly stopped. Never felt a bash quite like it.
I am glad you survived that, and I do not intend to offend you in any manner, but for argument sake, is it possible that the bullet hitting your shoulder blade caused the stopping power?
If the bullet only hit flesh and perhaps weaker bones, would it have the same effect?
When I say "on the inside of my shoulderblade" I mean the inner side, I mean that it went between my shoulderblade and my spine. It did not actually hit my shoulderblade at all. Even if I had absorbed the entire momentum of the bullet, there is no way it could have provided enough energy to send me backwards. The only explanation I can think of is that it caused a reflexive action in my muscles, causing the body to straighten and stiffen, and that this was what made me stop moving forwards and topple backwards.
@@imdare hit his ling doesnt get better shit placement than that ..if hit bone.shatters bone fragments causes more pain also
EnglishDreadnought Thats likely more from mental effects. If you were on drugs and not concerned with being shot it wouldn’t have even pushed you back. You can see it time and time again in modern police encounters.
Yes, as I mentioned, I think it is more to do with my own spinal reflexes than anything else.
If you want to see just how frequently a bad guy can take multiple hits and not only survive BUT also run away or attack, just check out Active Self Protection's channel. John does a very good job of breaking down the gunfights (mostly shown on security cameras) and explaining what was done right and wrong. He's worth a look if you are interested in the dynamics of a lethal force encounter.
So basically:
"Guns don't kill people; bayonets do".
lol
That's because of deep penetration
Imagine if the bayonet has a silencer
More like guns kill people... eventually.
No, it's "Guns don't STOP people; bayonets do."
A very good explanation of early CQB, Close Quarter Battle, a very interesting time. A sword or a short sword was king when the firearms are empty. Most people don't understand how hard it is to hit a stationary target let alone a moving one with any pistol.
@Mike Smith I liked the cold steel's Trench Hawk so much I now have 2. Quick, wicked, well made. Scary tool.
There was an account by a Zulu Medicine Woman who described how Warriors during the Zulu Campaign against the British were snuffing dried and powdered Mushrooms that would give them a state of berserk like strength. I, myself, experienced on the job how hard it is to stop a delirious and or drugged person that is rampaging. In EMS and now in intensive care we experience people that cannot be stopped but by the brutest of force and the strongest of our sedatives. A so called fanatic in the accounts presented in this video might have been in a similar state.
There are numerous modern instances of multiple large calibre pistol bullets failing to immediately stop an assailant. Look up Timothy Gramin; he put 14x .45 ACP hollow points into a guy and he didn't stop fighting. Took three more to drop him. So I wouldn't be so quick to discount "most" of these claims.
Amazing story. The only police shootout I recall that tops it is one I read about 15 years ago inviting a drugged perpetrator. He took about 20 hits from various 9mm, 40 S&W, and AR15 rounds before going down. The photos were pretty gruesome.
The final 3 shots were to the bad guys head. The Skokie Illinois Police Sergeant now carries a G17 9mm. He hit him hard with Speer Gold Dot 230 grain Loads. Mas Ayoob interviewed him and another Chicago PD officer detailing their in the line of duty officer involved shootings. Both of these officers survived because they trained and were avid gun enthusiasts and hunted.
Always bring a long gun to a fight, if you can :) like some swords, pistols are great to carry but abysmal killing implements compared to their longer, more powerful kin.
That's exactly right
this was much of the same reason the U.S. army adopted the .45 caliber pistol and the 12 gauge shotgun while fighting in the Philippines. those large slow moving slugs were man stoppers
That was also probably a fearless and high pain tolerance very tough man. Love your content man.
The best CQB weapon is a 12 gauge...stopping power plus club plus pugil...
Racking a slide is intimidating enough.WW1 Germany wanted to ban the Yanks Shotguns they brought to the fight do to cruelty
This...
IS MY BOOMSTICK!
Shotguns where popular during the maori land wars, the british army had a bad experience against them at gate Pa.
@@tim2269 myth.
i believe most revolver calibres of 19th century, combined with what gunpowder quality they had were not 'man stoppers', even at almost point blank ranges. also, some tribes in Africa and India were also pumped up with drugs which allowed tribesman to continue charging despite seriously painful wounds, which if they hadn't taken, might have killed them earlier. i said might. in the famous 1986 gunfight between 2 bank robbers and 8 FBI agents in Miami, both robbers were shot multiple times and the FBI thought they were on drugs, but the autopsies showed both men had not taken drugs or alcohol. one of the robbers had been shot twelve times.
Andrenaline...is nature's drug. I'm sure those two were flying "high" on that...---
Plat and Maddox
Just found your channel, amazing content and knowledge. As a paramedic/ firefighter in the USA I see the “myth” of stopping power nearly every shift on my job. I very often arrive at scenes where persons have been mortally injured with with firearms, even high velocity rounds 5.56mm or 7.62. Although fataly wounded they are often waking around on the scene with enough vitality to theoretically injure or kill their assailant with a bladed weapon if they had been in close quarter combat. The myth of stopping power has been perpetrated by Hollywood. Just as these historical accounts have noted, your opponent can be struck multiple times by a firearm but if they are close enough to strike you with a bladed weapon before they expire you are both most likely going to end up in the same place. Thank you for the awesome content. New sub.
Can I just tell you how much I love this channel. It speaks to my history nerd heart.
Good job explaining the very important difference between being simply "shot" and being critically wounded. War isn't paintball and not all hits count, even direct hits to the enemy's torso. Remember, a bullet to the chest perhaps may only kill an enemy 2 days after he stabs the life out of you. A well placed shot with a weak pistol is far more deadly than several poorly placed shots from a battle rifle :) stay safe, gentlemen.
The only sure fatal stop is a good hit to the central nervous system (I.E. a solid hit to the brain stem that will flip the light switch)
Interesting compendium of primary source material for that time period and subject. Thanks for sharing. I hope no one confuses this with the current day.
In the firearms world, we call the target zones on a body as timers and switches. Hits on timers(heart, lungs, arteries, etc) are lethal, but do not neutralize the threat right away. Switches are used to immediately stop the active threat. The T zone on the head, composing of the central parts of the brain and brain stem, the spinal cord, and depending on the situation, the pelvic girdle.
Look at the wounds Cole Younger received and survived when the Jesse James gang was shot up while trying to rob a bank ... gives you food for thought!
Both Cole Younger in Northfield, MN, and Emmett Dalton in Coffeeville , KS were shot more than 10 times ( 11 and 15 respectively, IIRC) . They both continued fighting , made their escapes , eventually captured, served prison terms . were eventually released , and live long lives .
But they are famous for being the exceptions .
Don’t dry fire your Martini. The striker will be damaged as it’s design and the steel it made of means the tip gets fatigued by hitting the breech block. Get a snap-cap.
I had a friend that was shot 5 times with a 22 rifle. He walked a few blocks before feeling sick and asking for help. He was pretty fat, and was not hit in any vital organs.
Another guy I knew died of complications from 38 special bullets hitting vital organs; but it was years later that he died. The organ damage screwed him up.
Win94ae
I friend of mines nephew beat a man to death with his little 22 pistol after the man shot him a few times in the stomach area he’s was barely in his 20s at the time not big or tall pretty normal build
Very interesting vlog. As an exservicemen, I often wondered about this kind of fighting. I thought that in a tight melee a rifle and bayonet could be a little cumbersome and a large calibre heavy and sturdy hand gun and a long, pointed dubble edged blade might be an advantage.
The reason for the gun to be heavy and sturdy is so when empty, you can turn it around and use it as a club.
For a second I thought that the Townsends have made a video about guns, because of the thumbnail ^^'
I wouldn't mind a cooking video with Matt
@@aldor9357 It would be like watching Ainsley cooking videos but with a white guy.
Hehe
Yeah boi
I saw a man (who was drugged) run over 200m after being shot through the heart.
I also remember being trained that someone who recieved a mortal wound could continue fighting for 20 seconds or more.
Fun video to watch. You are a great teacher. Thank you.
Very much appreciate clearing up these misconceptions Matt. Remember. Gun remains the best martial art
But there was that extremely rad to depict period where you got like twelve shots before you were back on the stabby choppy beaty weapons.
Shot placement matters.
Well that and caliber but there are trade offs with everything
Oh no, I hear an invite to the dreaded caliber wars in the comments.
@@khaccanhle1930
That's because people don't agree on how much a factor caliber is. I place it behind shot placement, adequate penetration, terminal energy; and terminal ballistic deformation, deflection, and yaw/pitch. Caliber isn't unimportant, it's just not the most important factor.
In the ER, I've seen people die from seemingly not very serious wounds from .22lr, and I have seen one case of self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head with .45 ACP and he lived. I have seen one coroner case study from my own county, where the victim stuck the muzzle of his 30-30 rifle in his mouth, fired, it didn't finish him, he repeated the process, lost consciousness after the second hit, and actual cause of death was from dogs or coyotes feasting on him while still faintly alive.
Bottom line: we can crunch numbers all day, but in the end, there are so many unknown factors at play, we can't say "always" or "never" on this subject. The best we can get is "usually," but no two shootings are going to be exactly the same, except under the most strict laboratory conditions. Real life isn't anywhere nearly as sterile. When your number is up, your number is up. People die from seemingly innocuous things every day, and people survive the unsurvivable every day. They're the exception to the rule, but they happen more often than you'll ever hear about on the news.
@Richard Honaker
If it's not true, then the county medical examiner is a liar. He said that the angles were really off on both shots, which is why it critically wounded and incapacitated him, and would have caused a delayed fatality, if it hadn't been for the animals finishing him off. I didn't do any imaging on the remains or in any other way handle them. The point remains that bizarre stuff happens.
@Richard Honaker
Yes, something along those lines was about what the situation was. Point-blank range gunshot wounds are nasty stuff, for sure - even more so at rifle velocities and energies.
It makes me wonder, what kind of muzzle velocities are we talking about with a Martini Henry and the British revolvers, when loaded to British military specifications? I can probably find it later, but it's dinner time, lol. Just wondering if anybody in here has a ballpark figure off the top of their head...
The greatest advance in firearms was the self-contained cartridge/breech-loader. This is what led to quantum leap in firepower.
I seem to remember an account you talked about where a soldier shot a guy with his service revolver a few times and didn't stop him and had to take him on with his saber.
There is a saying, if you want to be the best, know how to fight with and without your weapon.
Your video has a lot of good points, thanks for posting it.
I don't know how it happens but it does, the NYPD stakeout squad has some interesting accounts of people not falling, after been shot many times.
There's also the question of ammunition quality. Modern ammunition with a jacketed and bonded bullet will have much more reliable expansion and more consistent penetration.
Agreed :) but you may be surprised to see how insanely destructive a soft lead bullet is at 900-1200 fps.
Excellent cometary on the truth that sometimes the firearm just doesn’t get the job done. This could be due to numerous factors including caliber, shot placement, clothing, alcohol/narcotic use by the attacker, and, as you related, the attacker’s motivation. I love history and have been a law enforcement firearms and tactics instructor in the US since 1989. I’ve seen instances where a criminal lived through unbelievable damage,and also some that expired at the slightest wound. I subscribed Sir.
The way the blade of that tolwar squeaked when he ran it across those hooks. 2:57 RIP
There are plenty of modern accounts in which the gunshot victim doesn't even immediately realize that he's been shot. Adrenaline and shock can do a lot to keep a wounded man going.
what is that sword beneath your youtube-plate? looks like it's got an integrated bottle opener.
Lol, I think that's just how the light reflects off the pommel, but now I can't unsee the bottle opener.
Must be Swiss.
It's a bottle opener. :-)
@@scholagladiatoria bottle opener, pattern which year?
Open them rightly?
You should read Lagarde's book "Gunshot Injuries." He encapsulates everything before the very early 20th century quite nicely.
Those people weren't stopped in these accounts because FMJ or solid lead bullets are poor incapacitators. Hollow-points are much better at stopping people, and also less lethal because they don't usually make exit wounds, which bleed more. Blood loss is the primary cause of death, destruction or disruption of the central nervous system is the only way to instantly incapacitate. Also when people are more likely to be stopped with fewer shots, they have less grievous wounds they must survive.
A lot of accounts like these are against tribes men which did have ceremonies before going into battle in the ceremonies they would consume drug like substances that nullify pain and give them a bit of resistance to go down easily.
The US had a problem with "stopping power" when warriors in the Philippines would take six shots from the 38 caliber New Army revolvers and still wound or kill the soldier who'd shot them. The US response was the same as it would be today... issue a bigger gun with bigger bullets
Then they went back to a 38 in 1986 when they adopted the 9mm. Was it the best idea? I dunno.
I guess they figured that 6 shots hadn't worked but 17 shots might
@@Odin029 it seems like the more rounds people get, the worse they shoot. Look at police reports of 50 years ago and compare them to more recent ones.
@@khaccanhle1930 only to conform to the NATO 9mm round. That's the reason politics shouldn't mix with military decisions.
@@jerikromero1746 I'm a bit divided on that one. On the one hand, ballistic gel tests I've seen seem to show there is little difference between major pistol calibers. On the other hand, several of first hand accounts of cops and EMT workers I read indicate. that bigger, hotter rounds make a bigger mess. Luckily I haven't needed to carry for my job for 15 years, so my life doesn't depend on it anymore. So it's only academic for my interests.
The ability and strength to kill someone physically or with a manual weapon is a very specific skill that only a few can do. Shooting someone opens up the field of killing to a whole wide range of individuals whether that be by firearms or bows.
In the pre-firearm days, if you put up an untrained peasant against a fully armoured Knight, the chance of the hayseed winning was essentially 0%. Even a group of poorly armed people against a single well armed, fully trained and enabled killer was no match. Enter the gun and suddenly even someone of no physical match has a chance (maybe small but still a chance) of getting in a lucky shot and taking out the highly skilled fighter. Thus the modern era was born.
That's why Colt referred to his revolver as an equaliser.
I love your use of firearm safety. thank you for setting that example.
I love the new intro sound! It's so calming . . .
Handguns are a compromise weapon you have size, weight, and recoil to alter. Heavy recoil harder follow up. Larger caliber fewer shots. Smaller caliber smaller wounds.
When in doubt "Desert Eagle".
Apparently the little extra push from more powder or a slightly bigger bullet don't help all that much. Outside of toy calibers, you're more trading capacity for psychological comfort.
Or you're trading the psychological illusions of capacity to make up for inability to make accurate hits .
But seriously , there has been an eternal back and forth between size & weight of weapons, recoil, vs power , and trying to convince themselves that less was really the same as more .
In British context, start with .450 , move up to more powerful .476/ .455 , then downsize to .380/200 .
In US Mil handguns, .44 Dragoons, downsize to 1851 " Navy " .36 to be lighter , concurrently add 1860 Colt and 1858 Remington in .44 to be more powerful, to .45 Colt , then switching to lighter .45s&w actual ammunition . Then .38 Long Colt to be lighter and less recoil , then back to .45 Colt for more power , to .45acp , then eventually 9mm for less recoil .
For US Law Enforcement individual agencies , and even individual officers have had a variety of choices , but there are general trends .
Prior to circa 1900 , nothing standardized or predominant .
After introduction of .38 Special quickly became predominant for about 80yrs , with dissenting minorities using .44 Special, .38-44, .357mag, .38Super , generally for more power .
1980's massive shift to 9mm for about same power as .38spl +P , but more capacity . Circa 1990 massive shift to .40s&w for more power , and right now in the midst of massive shift Back to 9mm, for less recoil .( With some dissenting minorities using .357Sig, 10mm, and .45acp at times during the 9 and 40 eras, all with intent of more power .)
It is like David and Goliath the Key Terrain is your position to suit your weapon. Goliath was inside range and David was outside Goliath's reach. He wouldn't have succeeded hand to hand.
Black powder is funky stuff. Difficult to make any projectiles go much above the speed of sound. I found that BP revolvers are much less effective than even smaller smokeless powder cartridges.
That's still true today, if you don't damage a vital spot, the enemy won't stop. He will eventually die later but a shot in the guts or the limbs won't put someone down instantly.
Surely you shouldnt rest those swords on their blades. Like u got on the wall. Bad for the fine grind.most combat casualtys were caused by artllery ever since we had it
Hi Matt! I have two - very different - questions.
#1: If a stiff, less springy sword is better for thrusting and it's also more forgiving for cuts (edge alignment), then how come they didn't dominate more in Europe?
#2: Was there a specific time in history when nationalism became a thing? I don't mean the extreme way, like Mussolini's Italy, but more like did the general public in the medieval ages have a sense of pride in their country? Or for this to happen we needed more homogeneous and better defined states?
Cheers!
I would say to the second question that that nationalism has always been present when one is part of a nation, particularly when under an external threat. That nationalism is what keeps a country together and helps them to survive and win in a conflict. The fact that you may lose everything to an invader must certainly get people to band together under a national banner and to fight even when you risk dying. I think when it comes to the crunch most people become nationalistic and are willing to fight and risk their life for a mixture of personal and greater (national) good. For instance, Britain can be quite a competitive and antagonistic nation amongst themselves being made up of several different countries but they certainly banded together effectively and nationalistically the last time there was an existential threat from outside.
But I wonder how different it is when the vast majority of the population is basically excluded from the affairs of the country, e.g. in a feudal system. So for a peasant in the medieval ages I guess the most important issue is that of stability, having a ruler that maintains some sort of consistent law. And maybe in this case it doesn't matter as much if it's the French or the English monarch. For example in medieval Hungary when a lineage of rulers died off they sometimes brought in some relative of a relative from Austria, that did not even speak the language of the people (which was also way less homogeneous, a patchwork of Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian etc). So it seems to me that nationality might have been a fuzzier concept, and so maybe there was less room for nationalism.
Of course medieval european states were "nationalistic", but more in a sense of fealty to their lord rather than an overwhelming sense of civic duty.
I think it was all about "us" (Europeans" and "THEM" (in this case Turks). Possibly Turk´ vassals from Serbia or Wallachia culd have had better chances to survive as prisoner of war tham moslems.
Very informative video. Everyone still needs to consider a few things. Type of gun, shot placement and above all else type and weight of the bullet. Knowing ballistics I'll be the first to say even today that handguns don't always stop immediately. Great video though.
Keep in mind that the steel at the time was nowhere near our modern metal. So the charges of that revolver were probably pretty mild. With a modern BP revolver you can load as much you can fit in each chamber safely. While the rifle probably was much thicker in chamber to allow a crazy load.
In engineering terms regarding pressures, yes . In practical terms , not so much .
Large bore revolvers with heavy soft lead bullets at black powder velocities are quite capable , even by the standards of today .
In the specific British Empire context discussed here , the .476 , and later various .455 loads were about as capable ( in anti- personel context ) as could be reasonably expected of a Service Pistol in any era . ( The earlier .450Adams, .442 Webley were a bit less , but still fairly respectable .)
In the more things change, the more they stay the same department , the .40S&W is ballistically identical to black powder loaded .38-40 .
This video makes me think of dad's army
"They don't like it up 'em!" -Lance Corporal Jones
John Doe haha
Well , I’m familiar with several accounts of police shootings in the US with modern handguns .
In several instances , a perpetrator is shot at close range while charging .
They were able to absorb multiple rounds without seeming to notice .
Once stopped , then the shock , pain and exsanguination takes effect , sometimes expiring shortly thereafter .
If the individual is stoned on street drugs , it’s quite common .
Something they might have in common with the “ fanatics “ your British soldiers encountered in the East , as American troops had in our history , in say the Philippines , with the Moros .
Handguns are not reliable fight stoppers .
Having said that , I wouldn’t dream of leaving the house without mine securely in its holster .
.40 caliber pistol rounds and harsh language trumps only harsh language .
I am a portly , elderly gentleman , not too physically suited to swift flight nor flailing about in a wrestling match .
I’ll stick with my sidearm , bit of a pity we aren’t allowed to carry a sword as well .
A sword, no...but as another older gent, I find a good stout walking stick is a decent substitute and doesn't get the police all excited and anxious.
@@r.awilliams9815 where Im at, the cops pay you no mind if youre openly carrying. Ive not been bothered in years. I also generally wear my Bowie knife.
I have a cane, which I need sometimes: solid oak shaft, a mace shaped knob of solid brass weighing about 10-12 ounces, and a metal tip covered by a rubber cap to keep it
from sliding. Harmless-looking enough to pass through airport security, but potentially lethal when wielded by someone who knows how to use it properly. Like me
Where do you live? I've heard it is legal to carry a sword in Texas.
R.A Williams Yes. And sadly, as the years go by, it draws less and less attention.
Great history lesson, Professor. Thanks.
Great video. I think you could apply a lot of this to today. Think of the Miami-Dade shootout. Nowadays we have so much more ammunition and weapons that are easier to fire fast. When it comes to handguns. But the stopping power is still not that much better than it was back in the 19th century. I can't think of the exact notations at the moment but I am sure I have read accounts from World War 1 of soldiers still standing and still continuing on after a British officer emptied the Webley Revolver chamber into them. Which was very similar to the 45 ACP
In the 1980's in Malmo Sweden a sword wielding halfnaked madman managed to stab and cut several policemen before he went down with 11 bullets in his body.
Underpowered cartridges, bad shot placement, few rounds, long reloads, makes sense.
Location location!
Well, poor shot placement is always a problem , and single shot weapons have inhetent limitations . But neither .577/450 , nor .476 or .455 revolvers have any lack of necessary power .
I've seen soldiers shoot horribly with pistols and shoot very well with rifles. There's a lot to be said for the stability and accuracy of rifles and lack there of with pistols. I'm betting on the missing except in extreme cases.
Up close those extra points of contact (stock and/or further up the weapon) probably make for a lot more and faster hits. I've never actually tried bringing a weapon up to bare and firing quickly as possible, but I can imagine.
Excellent video. Now to be Frank you are right about aiming and accuracy. If you read a book called on combat. This book states that most people did not fire on accurate atomical targets. Therefore making aiming probably harder for the average Soldier. You also have to take into consideration the effectiveness of the round. Even to this day people have arguments about 45 and 9 mm. It's funny because the technology has gotten better. There was an FBI study that was conducted you should read up on the data. It pretty much states that pistol rounds are inferior to Rifle rounds specifically modern ones. Also if you read any accounts of modern encounters there are individuals that have sustained severe wounds has questioned the limits of the body. At the end of the day it is still good to have a blade in your hand especially if you run out of bullets.
Fastest way to neutralize anybody is cutting off oxygenated blood to the brain. I.e; damage the lungs, damage the brain directly, or damage the heart.
@MountainRecluse You litterally just repeated what I said, but you made it sound more sophisticated than it really is.
their is examples of pepole who has taken a high number of faital shoots and kept fighting. brain is a instant kill, lungs and hart not so much. if you fight a person in rage or high on a central stumulating drug.
@MountainRecluse The brain is the center of the central nervous system. Cut off oxygenated blood to it, and it stops functioning.
@Lachlan Allen the heart does not depend on signals from the CNS to keep beating. If it did we wouldn't have quadriplegics because they'd all be dead.
Well in my country police is trained to do the triple-tap: chest-chest-head once deadly force is authorized
1 In the T Box for a guaranteed instant show stopper.
As with any weapon, accuracy/ shot placement is often more important than the size of the weapon. With firearms it is best to aim for center mass of the thoracic area. Take out the central nervous system. I will take my SBR over a saber 99 times out of 100 (as long as I have ammo to go with it).
The American .45 was developed for the same reason, lack of stopping power in the standard army issue pistol when faced with fanatics.
alot of times drugs were used by these "fanatics" and this would keep them going by preventing pain or increase ones strength of will.
Opium my friend.... played a big part in alot of Afghanistan's past
Even if one's head were to be cut off, he should be able to do one more action with certainty
Hagakure - The Book of the Samurai
Seriously?wow
My brother-in-law before he retired was a captain on the local police department. When they were changing over to semi auto he looked into 9mm and .45ACP. They went with .45ACP because it delivered more energy on impact while the 9mm was subject to over penetration
Really interesting video, thankyou. Two things to keep in mind from modern terminal ballistics studies; the malnourished bodies of third world militias and extremists, owing to diet, have a smaller chest size, and therefore a smaller space in which bullets can destabilise, slow down, fragment etc - shown with the limited fragmentation effect of SS109 5.56x45mm rounds failing to occur within the few hundred metre engagement range where it was 'supposed' to, and secondarily, shot placement is more important that 'power' of the cartriges fired generally speaking, and while modern training emphasizes shot placement into vital areas, I'm not sure to what extent in the 19th century this was widely known and taught?
That guy running thru the camp surely had to be on some type of narcotic. Opium Poppies are grown in that region, aren't they?
That's about the only way you're gonna get me to charge thru an enemy camp armed with nothing but a sword. :D
Opium has sort of the opposite effect.
Probably just went berserk for whatever reason. Opiates would, probably, have calmed him down.
Adrenaline is a heck of a drug.
In the 1800s I think it would have been more likely that the British were the ones on opium. :D Probably the poor fellow was just really high on adrenaline and in some primordial fight/flight mode. It is likely that he would have undergone years of indoctrination into a warrior culture concerned with fearlessness, which can lead people to behave in self-destructive ways.
not to mention the thousands of brits gunning their way through your homeland
The context of the context of guns stopping power depends on the context of the individual in their society and how that context unfolds with fanaticism which emerges from the context of an individual's spirituality and the context of how fatalism and willingness to embrace death is described and encouraged by the grift or the con of a text. - I would so love it if Matt would say something as contextual as the context of him saying context as a meme or metameme. I think I have gone overboard past the humor line to annoying but given the context of youtube comments I am no doubt quite tame having not said anything sexist or racist. I wonder how many people were looking at the sword put up backward aching to fix it. OCD bane.
Great video! Plus an interesting book, which should be read by anyone interested in field performance of firearms, though somewhat un-scientific and more anecdotal in nature. I noted with amusement the complaints about smaller caliber (.36 and under) revolvers, which contrast with USA/Civil War experience. The '51 "Navy" Colt did have some problems there, and some American writers felt it was under-powered. Others said the .44 had too much recoil and wanted the cartridges loaded with smaller charges. I think what's implied in these is that training was more the issue than effectiveness. The Confederate Cavalry and Raiders, who worked almost exclusively with both Colt and Remington .44 revolvers, were advocates of maximum charges with round-ball (not conical bullets), and experience proved them generally correct. No complaints about reliability, either.
As for the noted stoppages, failures to fire and accidental discharges, I couldn't help feeling that most could be put down to lack of training/familiarity with the particular weapons involved, simple arrogance/carelessness, poor ammunition components, and failure to regularly maintain the arms in a hostile environment. Granted, revolvers are finicky and delicate in the field, far more so than enclosed auto-loading designs of later periods, but it still seems odd to read such accounts and compare them to American experience, often with the exact same weaponry. No doubt many will disagree, however...
Would you do a video on accessing & retaining weapons? I'm quite curious how people are able to draw curved sabers or khukuris.
Matt, your thoughts on Khabib vs Conor on UFC 229!
"A mohamedan fanatic attacked an irish british officer he ignored all the punches he threw at him but still kept going and managed to out wrestle him!" Sergeant Major of the royal irish dragoons Conor Mcgregor!
Good one
Sure. Send me location.
Probably hopped up on some kind of drug
I love all your content!
It's interesting to note that (having spoken to many range officers) US Military officers in particular, and soldiers in general receive woefully inadequate handgun training. Almost to a criminal degree.
For most of the Millitary , a handgun is a very secondary, if not tirtiary weapon .
Certain SecOps types get highly trained with everything . Military Police, Embassy Guards, Naval & Coast Guard Boarding Parties get trained with handguns to a level similar to US Police .
Well.....the poms around the 1800's was not known for being good marksmen......they did get a bit if a shooting lesson by the Boers.
So they did. And learned these lessons well.
Transitioning from massed vollé fire to individual marksmanship (and shooting from concealment) followed the costly lessons the boeren taught the British army and it served them well in the opening stages of WW1.
So, thank you, boeren; Europe might be quite different now if it hadn't been for you giving the British army a bloody nose.
Expanding bullets once invented fixed this. Not used in military combat.
Donut Operator got a new video about this. Well worth looking up.
A 260 grain soft lead projectile at 650 feet/second hitting center mass would be quite a man stopper hence the Webley was a very respectable weapon. When soft lead hits bone it squash heads out and often shatters the bone I think the squash head effect which enhances energy transfer and wound channel size needs some attention.