Stop cannot be killed. Where to put a comma?

What is the essence of stopping action?

Article “Army pistol and the stopping action of pistol cartridges” the concept of stopping given by Dale Towert (D.Towert) was given: "The stopping power of a bullet is simply the ability of a bullet to hit a person and cause him to instantly stop any action that he performed at the time of the shot." At the same time, the stopping effect is the property of a bullet to ensure the complete inability of the target to attack and resistance when hit. Causing death in this context is regarded as the "lethal action of a bullet."

This may look like a table of probabilities of destroying a target (death), depending on the time from the moment it hits, characterizing the stopping effect of the ammunition (the probabilities for the given ammunition are taken conditionally)

In my opinion, the concepts of “stopping action” and “lethal action” are inextricably linked. As long as the enemy is alive, there is always a risk that he will come to his senses and continue active resistance. Guarantee the absence of resistance from the enemy can only his complete and final death.

Based on this: The stopping action is the time of causing death to an object from the moment a bullet hits it - the speed of death. The shorter the time between a bullet hit and the onset of death, the higher the stopping effect.

You can talk about stopping action without causing death if this applies to gas cartridges, aerosol devices, stun guns and other arms for non-lethal effects. But the assessment of stopping action for non-lethal weapons will be even more complex and conditional due to the huge range of reactions of different people to external influences.

It would seem, based on their above definition, the stopping action of the ammunition could be characterized by a time characteristic - 1 second, two seconds and so on. The problem is that it is difficult to determine the time of death for all potential targets with a probability of 100%.

In this case, the probability of death can be considered as a quantitative estimate of the stopping effect: A quantitative measure of the stopping effect is the probability of causing death to an object, from the moment a bullet hits it, over multiple periods of time (presumably, 1 seconds).

That is, the higher stopping effect of the ammunition No. 1 in comparison with the ammunition No. 2 means that the ammunition No. 1 leads to death in a certain period of time with a higher probability than the ammunition No. 2. The numerical size of this probability characterizes the stopping effect of the ammunition.

Technically, the characteristic “stopping action of ammunition" may look like a line of probabilities of causing death in the first second, second second, third second, etc. Accordingly, the higher the probability of the death of the enemy in a shorter period of time, the higher the stopping effect.

How can one actually determine the probability of the death of a target at a particular point in time? It is extremely difficult to determine the stopping action characteristics by calculation, there are too many unforeseen factors determined by various mechanisms of the bullet’s impact on the target, although it is certainly necessary to develop methods for such a calculation.

But nevertheless, most likely, it will be necessary to create some breast targets from a ballistic gel, including the conditional "skeleton" and the "nervous system" from a network of conductors. When a bullet hits a target, it will break the conductors, which will track the movement of the bullet in the target in real time.

Indications of conductors should be superimposed on a virtual model, which should reflect the location of internal organs, simulate conditional bleeding in case of damage to blood vessels, organs, etc., and based on this, the estimated time of death, taking into account the available medical experience in the field of bullet wounds, is determined .

The target for assessing the stopping effect of ammunition might look something like this

The target, of course, will be disposable. It is possible that to reduce costs, such targets will be printed on an 3D printer. It may seem to someone that this is difficult and expensive, but I see no other way to get information about the effectiveness of new and existing ammunition. In the end, the transition to testing on such targets is possible only after other types of tests - on accuracy, armor penetration, penetration into ballistic gel, etc.

Ammunition parameters providing a stopping effect

So what ammunition parameters provide a stopping action on the target, in accordance with the above definitions?

In fact, there are only two such parameters:
1. Damage caused directly by the body of the bullet.
2. Damage caused by secondary damaging factors: hydrodynamic shock, temporary pulsating cavity, bone fragments, etc.

According to the results of the FBI research from 1986, which was mentioned in the article “Army pistol and the stopping action of pistol cartridges”, only the direct hit of the target by a bullet can guarantee the destruction of the target: The temporary cavitation cavity created by the pistol (revolver) bullet does not play a significant role in the formation of the damaging effect. The stock of kinetic energy of a bullet at the moment of hit is also not significant. The organs of the body are destroyed if they are directly affected by a bullet.

The secondary factors mentioned in 2, although desirable, are extremely unpredictable in their effect. In other words, if a temporary pulsating cavity arises when a bullet hits, then this is good, but developing ammunition based on the need to create a temporary pulsating cavity is inappropriate.

Thus, the main damaging factor is mechanical damage caused directly by the body of the bullet.

Mechanical damage caused by a bullet can be increased by opening an expansive bullet, with a corresponding increase in its diameter, or by controlled fragmentation of the bullet into individual elements, which significantly increases the likelihood of damage to vital organs.

Examples of modern expansive and fragmenting bullets

Tests 9-mm fragmented RIP bullet chicken carcass

The problem is that expansive and fragmented solutions work much worse for goals beyond the barrier, and do not always show consistently repeatable results. Depending on the situation, the expansive bullet may not open, and the fragmented bullet may not be divided into submunitions, which makes the result of their application unpredictable. This is indirectly stated in the previously mentioned FNB report of 1986 on the stopping action of ammunition: Although the expansion (expansivity) of bullets is desirable, one should not choose bullets that need to be opened to achieve the desired effect. In other words, the bullet must be effective, regardless of whether it managed to use its expansive qualities.

Nevertheless, with the adoption of the SIG Sauer P320 M17 pistol, the United States seems to have decided to cease to comply with the provisions of the Hague Convention 1899 of the year (which, however, they did not sign) by adopting M1152 and M1153 cartridges, the last of which is expansive (JHP) .

New M1152 and M1153 cartridges of the 9x19 mm caliber for the US military

It is stated that the M1152 FMJ all-round cartridge is designed to defeat enemy soldiers, and the expansive M1153 cartridge (JHP) is necessary in situations where limited penetration of bullets is needed to reduce collateral damage.

However, for the new Russian pistol "Boa" there is also an SP-12 cartridge with an expansive bullet. Of course, it is possible that it will be used only by fighters of the Russian Guard and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but apparently some of the provisions of the Hague Convention 1899 of the year will soon go to landfill stories following the missile defense treaty, the treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles and others.

Cartridges of caliber 9x21 mm for the "Boa" pistol, SP-12 expansive bullet second from the right

Another argument against expansive and fragmenting bullets is to reduce the depth of their penetration due to the energy spent on opening / fragmenting and increasing the cross section of the bullet / bullet fragments.

The penetration depth of the bullet is one of the critical indicators characterizing the damaging properties of ammunition.

It is this factor that does not always allow such ammunition as the 5,45x18 MPC to ensure a high probability of hitting targets. In some cases, the initial energy of the bullet may simply not be enough to penetrate the body to the depth necessary to defeat vital organs.

What penetration depth can be considered optimal? The FBI Commission claims to be about 25 centimeters. However, there are certain nuances regarding the penetration depth. Let's consider three options:
1. The bullet entered the body, but did not penetrate deep enough to damage vital organs.
2. The bullet entered the body deep enough and stopped in the body.
3. The bullet passed right through.

Which option is the best? Option number 1 we sweep away immediately, everything is clear with it. But with the options No. 2 and No. 3 is not so simple. It is believed that the bullet should remain in the body, completely transferring its energy to the body. The question is, what does “transfer energy” mean from a practical point of view? You can transfer energy in different ways, what will a bullet spend its energy on, not for heating the body?

No, she will spend it on the mechanical destruction of body tissues, in the presence of NIB, on their destruction, as well as on the deformation of the bullet itself during movement in the body and overcoming NIB. By the way, one of the tasks to be solved when designing armor-piercing bullets of the caliber 9 mm is the choice of such a shape of the shirt of the core of the bullet that would minimize the speed of the bullet during separation, when NIB is pierced, but somehow, part of the energy goes into this.

Bullets of increased armor penetration - cores in the "shirt"

Consider two options: one bullet entered the body in 1000 J energy and exited (through penetration) with 400 J energy, and the second entered the body with 500 J energy and remained in it. Which one will do more damage, which has a higher stopping effect? Formally, the first gave up more energy. But what about the fact that the bullet stuck in the body is more lethal, and in general opinion the stopping effect is higher precisely in the case when the bullet remains in the body?

It is possible that this is more connected not with the fact of energy transfer, but with the fact that the bullet remaining in the body continues to exert pressure on internal tissues, causing additional injuries, increasing bleeding, especially when the body moves.

Ways to increase stopping power (death rate)

What methods can be implemented to increase the transfer of bullet energy to tissue destruction and bullet retention in tissues? First of all, this is a change in the shape of the bullet, for example, the implementation of bullets with a flat rather than lively tip, as is done in the aforementioned M1152 cartridge of the caliber 9x19 mm for the US armed forces. The flat head of the bullet also reduces the likelihood of a rebound.

Flat-Bullet Cartridges

If we go back to the conversation about the transition from the cartridge 7,62x25 mm to the cartridge 9x18 mm, the use of a flat head part of the bullet could well solve the problem of penetrating the body through the bullet of the cartridge 7,62x25 mm. Moreover, a higher initial energy of the 7,62x25 mm TT cartridge bullet would provide a greater penetration depth with a corresponding increase in the likelihood of damage to vital organs.

Cartridge 7,62x25 mm with a live bullet, conditional cartridge 7,62x25 mm with a flat-headed bullet, cartridge 9x18 mm with a live bullet

Another option is bullets with low stability, which when hit in the body begin to tumble, which significantly increases the damage done.

Wound channels, top to bottom for bullets 7,62 mm, 5,56 mm, 5,45 mm

Does size matter?

In the context of the fact that the main damaging factor is the mechanical destruction of organs by the body of the bullet, how much influence will the increase in caliber have? Of course, a bullet with a diameter of 11 mm will form a larger wound channel than a bullet with a diameter of 5 mm, unless of course we consider the option of an unstable bullet, but how much greater stopping effect (read the rate of onset of death) will give in quantitative terms, can only be determined by the test results, the estimated the method of carrying out which is described above.

Based on the analysis of the ammunition used for hunting, it can be assumed that the priority factors providing a high stopping effect are the initial energy, shape and composition of the bullet material. The ammunition gauge in this case is a secondary factor, which is determined based on the required energy, the shape and material of the bullet, as well as the requirements of external and internal ballistics.

With regard to army weapons, in which bursts of fire or short bursts can be realized, it is necessary to choose the minimum caliber that allows you to implement the requirements of the previous paragraph. At the same time, the stopping effect of the weapon-cartridge complex is increased due to the destruction of the target simultaneously by several ammunition, as was considered in the article “A promising army pistol based on the PDW concept”.

This is again indirectly stated in the FBI report from 1986 of the year: Since an immediate hit on the target cannot be guaranteed by any combination of calibers and bullets, the FBI agent must fire on the hit as long as the target poses a real threat. Therefore, all experts recommended the use of weapons with a larger capacity stores.

Speaking about comparing the stopping effect of bullets with a diameter of 11 mm and a diameter of 5 mm with equal energy, it is necessary to take into account a significant reduction in ammunition for ammunition of a larger caliber. Therefore, it is justifiable to compare the stopping action of one bullet with a diameter of 11 mm and two bullets with a diameter of 5 mm. At the same time, to ensure the same penetration depth, the energy of a bullet with a diameter of 11 mm should be higher than that of two bullets with a diameter of 5 mm, which in turn significantly complicates the firing of such weapons. The need to defeat targets protected by NIB is also an argument in favor of small-caliber weapons.

If we talk about “A promising army pistol based on the PDW concept”, then firing in short bursts of two shots allows you to implement the combined use of ammunition, with a different type of damaging effect. For example, when one bullet is made in a variant with high armor penetration, as with cartridges 5,45x39 mm, 5,56x45 mm, 5,7X28 mm, and the second bullet is made with a flat head. At the same time, they are equipped in the store in turn, and in the main mode of firing in short bursts of two rounds, the positive qualities of both versions of the bullets are added up.

5,7x28 mm cartridge with a bullet, with increased armor penetration and low stability and a conditional 5,7x28 mm cartridge with a bullet, with a flat head

Thus, when firing at a target protected by NIB, a bullet with a flat head makes an impact on the target (if possible) without penetration, while, possibly, NIB elements will be damaged, and the second bullet, with increased armor penetration, penetrates the NIB and target defeat. When shooting at a target that is unprotected by NIB, a bullet with a flat head penetrates the body to a sufficient depth and remains there, injuring the internal organs as much as possible, and the second bullet, with increased armor penetration, hits the target with the effect characteristic of bullets with low stability, it is assumed that in some cases it can perform through penetration of the target.

However, the assumption that it is possible to use a combined variant, when firing simultaneously with two types of bullets, can be refuted by the test results, which show that the simultaneous use of two bullets with increased armor penetration and low stability will show comparable or higher efficiency.

Does it then make sense in pistol cartridges of the 9-11 mm caliber, if you do not take into account the established stereotypes? Yes, if we are talking about civilian or police weapons, which are forbidden to fire in bursts and it is necessary to limit the range of a bullet, to prevent accidental damage to unauthorized persons. This is especially true for civilian weapons, in which artificial restrictions can be set on the capacity of the store, for example, up to ten rounds. Given that both the police and civilians are significantly less likely to meet with the enemy, protected by NIB, the role of expansive and fragmenting bullets increases if they are allowed for use by the legislation of a particular country.

But for promising army pistol, in which it is necessary to ensure both a high stopping effect (death rate) and hitting targets protected by NIB, the best solution is to use small-caliber ammunition in combination with firing in short bursts of two shots.

Comments

[andrewkor]

I remember in the movie "The Lonely" Bruce Willis from the Colts M1911 fired from two hands at one target with particular theory without bothering, practice it is ... practice!
Of course, cinema is cinema, but it is very clear. I would do it too if it happened!

[novel66]

particularly impressed with the number of spare clips

[SashOK]

shops, not clips

[novel66]

now, now everything began to play differently. great thing stylistics

[SashOK]

so for sure, this is important)

[Ka-52]

Guarantee the absence of resistance from the enemy can only his complete and final death.

very near statement of the author. Did the author see battle injuries? Did you help a seriously injured fighter? In fact, even fatal injuries to the body and head do not guarantee the absence of resistance. Since for some time a person can remain conscious and capable of performing meaningful actions. I remember the case in the HR when the platoon commander, lt, who was seriously mortally wounded by a shrapnel in the head for another 20 minutes. actively led the battle, then sat on a stone and died. The only thing that can guarantee instant death is extensive damage to the nervous systemassociated either with the destruction of the brain or spinal column.
In contrast, in many cases with severe (but not fatal) injuries, a person may lose their ability and will to resist, being in deep shock from the wound itself or its consequences (heavy bleeding). Therefore, it is not always necessary to kill the enemy in order to completely incapacitate him.
Therefore, in both cases, everything is purely individual and depends on the physiological characteristics of the wounded.

[haron]

Quote: Ka-52

extensive damage to the nervous system, associated either with the destruction of the brain or spinal column.

In general, I fully support Vahe's remark. But even "extensive" destruction of the central nervous system does not always guarantee the cessation of deliberate and purposeful actions. It is necessary to destroy the motor centers in order to have a 100% guarantee. For example, the destruction of the frontal or parietal lobes of the cerebral cortex gives only a high percentage of stoppage, as well as the interruption of the spinal cord below TH 3 leaves a high chance for conscious hand mobility.

I repeat why the definition of the concept of OD only on a cartridge is an error and is devoid of specificity.
1. The result of injury with any hand-held firearm depends not only on the properties of the projectile, but also on the properties of the target - a person. And we are all different. Not only are we different in structure and physiology, our properties change over time. I, having been injected with an opiate, having drunk 3 liters of water, having listened to a lecture about the atrocities of the enemy, will react to injury in a completely different way than before. And let's say after a bullet hits the heart and thoracic spine, I can still "gather my will into a fist" and aim at the enemy. And if I still wear armor?
2. In addition to the properties of the target, the OD depends on the weapon. Accordingly, the result of wounding with the same ammunition, with the same other parameters, will be different if the shot is fired, for example, from Glock or from MP-40. In addition to speed, a twist is also important. It will affect the stability of the bullet inside the body. That is, it is necessary to consider the cartridge / weapon complex.
3. The environmental conditions in which the shot was fired also affect the result. Let not enough, but this is not enough enough for the same source to appear on the target for several seconds to answer.
I will add some problem points of wound ballistics.
1 The problem of calculating OD for ballistic gelatin. Our body is absolutely not homogeneous, while the properties of discrete "cells" in principle do not coincide with the properties of gelatin. The tissue closest to gelatin is the kidney without a capsule. The unevenness and unpredictability of the location of the macro and micro structures of a particular person, of which the properties of connective and muscle fibers, as well as bones, are important, completely negate the possibility of reliably calculating the result of a projectile hit. Most of all, the properties of gelatin are not suitable for modeling the Temporary Pulsating Cavity.
2. The variability of the properties of our body is in a wider range than the variability of the properties of one type of ammunition. This means that for one person a certain weapon / cartridge complex will have the best ML, and he will already be worthless for another person. For example, a sumo wrestler is better than 5,45x39, and for a bruce, 45 colt is better.

IMHO. as a kind of generalization. OD cannot be considered only by the properties of the cartridge. Hence the inconsistency of most statements about ML.
All statistics give only a percentage of probability, which eliminates the possibility of applying these data in practice.
The main thing is learning to shoot accurately, in order to hit a vital organ as quickly and accurately as possible.

[Michael HORNET]

However, objectively, the following
1. Statistics of the fact that of all handguns the maximum efficiency was statistically 357 magnum revolvers - on average they incapacitated or killed MUCH more efficiently than all other cartridges. You can even say - with a margin from all others
it’s not for argument - it’s statistics collected including by Marshall and Sanov
2. The fact that the number of rounds matters is certain. But sometimes quantity cannot replace quality. if the damaging effect of one ammunition is not enough - as in the famous episode of a shootout in Miami, when Platt was shot at the very beginning when leaving the car and the bullet was aimed exactly at the projection of the heart. but didn’t get it. That is, use an FBI agent instead of a 9x19 pistol 357 revolver (or even a TT pistol - that is, a weapon with a greater penetrating ability of a bullet) - and Platt would most likely die with a bullet in his heart, well, or at least not have time to soak his arts
3. As a result, after being carried away by 40 caliber, all the siloviki again switched to 9x19 - the power became the same, and there were 2-3 more rounds in the store, but in a more powerful version and with modern bullets. And, apparently, this situation will persist for a long time, since the 9x19 cartridge in its modern design (speed plus bullet design) has sufficient power, and the number of cartridges is greater than at 40 caliber. Cartridge 40 is rapidly losing popularity, although 10 autos are growing in popularity.
4. The transition to 5.7x28 does not take off. although the 5-7 pistol is not bad (by the way, we measure the length of the cartridge with a ram 5.7x28)
5. An excellent compromise of penetration and efficiency between 9mm and 5.7mm would be in 7.62, but 7.62x25 killed, and 7.5x27 is endemic and too expensive and high energy. This cartridge implements the "rifle" principle of hitting with a long tumbling bullet, it is in this that the trick of this caliber is the use of a long bullet from 7.62x39 (7.5 Brno has its own bullet, but a similar principle)

in the bottom line - 9x19 firmly occupied the niche of a standard pistol cartridge around the world (while the current 9x19 is not 9 at the beginning of the century, so energy matters, moreover, this is the most important parameter), and only in Russia muddy again with 9x21 while maintaining all three cartridges (300 joules 9PM, 500+ j 9x19 and 600+ j
9x21)

the article is a mistake - FBI experts talked about that. that a bullet should pierce 12 inches (305 mm) of soft tissue, not 10 (254 mm)

[antivirus]

I read the polite spit in the appen.
I am about other - rotor lines in the watch industry and cartridge.
for volumes and low cost of cartridges you need your own hourly industry - no

[haron]

An analogy often, but not always, readily explains the essence of the problem.
Take football. There is a goal - to win the championship (to kill the enemy), there are means - a team, a trainer .... (shooter and weapon), There is a tool - a ball (bullet).
And we’ll try to calculate the ability to win the championship by focusing only on the property of the ball.

[haron]

Quote: antivirus

I read the polite spit in the appen.

Long thought, all day, how and where you can "spit politely"? I couldn't find the answer. So, I want to ask the author - where is this taught?

[antivirus]

see above mine - exquisite, at the level of the best village squabbles, no slaps

[haron]

Quote: antivirus

at the best village squabble level, no slap in the face

And how should one express one’s opinion if it does not coincide with some points of the article?
I agree that the text is stylistically not quite a Pushkin's syllable. What can you do, Russian was never my working language, unlike wound ballistics and forensic medicine .... as they say, I eat this.
Indeed, please tell me how to conduct a discussion and express your opinion on the Internet with slaps and blackjack, but within the limits of the norm? They banyat for a mat, they accustom people so to speak not to dissolve their hands on the keyboard. I must admit that I was banned for this. At what I got a ban for the purest medical term, in Latin it is true .... but the court found it differently and I agree with him.
Here you see a competent person, and in wound ballistics and martial arts on the keyboard, therefore I ask for advice below - how is it right?

[haron]

In general, Russia has a very worthy school of forensic medical forensics. For example, the book by Popov, Shigeev, Kuznetsov "Forensic ballistics". Peter. 2002 Limited to 300 copies. (photo attached). The book, on 650 pages, contains a compilation of almost all views and theories on this topic (including the opinion of experts from the foreign world). I have this manuscript.
The main difference between our school (I take the post of the USSR), from "theirs" is the purpose of the applied use of terminal ballistics.
Our main focus is on the study and prediction of the nature of damage to shells already used in practice. Tobish within the framework of the judicial investigative system.
They put more emphasis on the creation of new ammunition, and theoretical forecasting of the behavior of virtual shells. Ie modeling. Naturally, the forensic trend is also developing, but it does not allow you to earn money on caviar.

[Undecim]

The author decided that reading a couple of articles on the Internet is enough to revolutionize and make a number of discoveries on the issue that scientists have been working on for more than a hundred years.
Hence the theses of the type "The stopping action is the time of inflicting death on the object from the moment a bullet hits it - the speed of death. The shorter the time between a bullet hit and death, the higher the stopping action.".
Question to the author - hitting where?
The dimensions of the projection of organs, the defeat of which leads to the onset of instant or rapid within the seconds of death designated by the author of 10, are extremely small. Moreover, for the cessation of the vital activity of the organism, it is necessary not only to get into these organs, but to inflict damage on them, leading to the complete cessation of their functions.
Proceeding from this, if we apply the "Mitrofanov criterion", then the bullet of the 14,5x114 cartridge, which tore off an arm or leg when it hits the body, has much less stopping effect than the bullet of the 9x18 cartridge, which hit the head and destroyed the brain, since in the second death will occur much faster.
The statement looks no less "empirical" "The quantitative measure of stopping action is the probability of causing death to an object, from the moment a bullet hits it, after multiple intervals of time (presumably 1 second)."
And if death did not come at all? After all, not all bullets hitting a person's body lead to his death. Even if organs such as the brain and heart are damaged. On the other hand, there are known cases of instant death from a Diablo bullet from an air rifle. How, then, can a "quantitative measure" be applied?
Accordingly, the author's "revolutionary" conclusion "But for a promising army pistol, in which it is necessary to ensure both a high stopping effect (the speed of death) and the destruction of targets protected by the NIB, the best solution is the use of small-caliber ammunition in combination with firing short bursts of two shots." again, about nothing, since the number of hits alone does not guarantee the onset of death in general.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Undecim

The author decided that reading a couple of articles on the Internet is enough to revolutionize and make a number of discoveries on the issue that scientists have been working on for more than a hundred years.

The author decided that he could express and argue his point of view without asking anyone for permission. The revolution seems to be nowhere mentioned in the article, but the scatter in the concept of “stopping action”, which is noticeable based on the analysis of various methods for determining it, and throwing in the choice of a cartridge by the police, the US FBI and the armed forces of different countries, suggests that this question still not disclosed, despite centuries of research by scientists.

Quote: Undecim

Hence the theses of the type "The stopping action is the time of inflicting death on the object from the moment a bullet hits it - the speed of death. The shorter the time between a bullet hit and death, the higher the stopping action.".
Question to the author - hitting where?
The dimensions of the projection of organs, the defeat of which leads to the onset of instant or rapid within the seconds of death designated by the author of 10, are extremely small. Moreover, for the cessation of the vital activity of the organism, it is necessary not only to get into these organs, but to inflict damage on them, leading to the complete cessation of their functions.
Proceeding from this, if we apply the "Mitrofanov criterion", then the bullet of the 14,5x114 cartridge, which tore off an arm or leg when it hits the body, has much less stopping effect than the bullet of the 9x18 cartridge, which hit the head and destroyed the brain, since in the second death will occur much faster.

Where to? In the chest, the stopping effect is not evaluated by shooting in the head and limbs

some chest targets from a ballistic gel will be required

And in this case, the assessment for cartridges 9x18 and 14,5x114 will fully correlate with reality.

Quote: Undecim

The statement looks no less "empirical" "The quantitative measure of stopping action is the probability of causing death to an object, from the moment a bullet hits it, after multiple intervals of time (presumably 1 second)."
And if death did not come at all? After all, not all bullets hitting a person's body lead to his death. Even if organs such as the brain and heart are damaged. On the other hand, there are known cases of instant death from a Diablo bullet from an air rifle. How, then, can a "quantitative measure" be applied?

Probability is usually gained by test statistics. The term "stopping action" in the context of the definition of "speed of death" implies a certain certain time during which the subject is guaranteed to stop resisting. For me - it will stop resisting, so it will appear, in other cases, no guarantee that it will wake up in 2 seconds. and continue shooting no.

If you performed 100 cartridge tests, in 99-100 cases from 100, death did not occur within the specified time, then the stopping action of the cartridge tends to zero. Which applies to the Diablo pool for pneumatics. Unless of course it was dispersed to 2000 m / s.

Quote: Undecim

Accordingly, the author's "revolutionary" conclusion "But for a promising army pistol, in which it is necessary to ensure both a high stopping effect (the speed of death) and the destruction of targets protected by the NIB, the best solution is the use of small-caliber ammunition in combination with firing short bursts of two shots." again, about nothing, since the number of hits alone does not guarantee the onset of death in general.

If you mean 100% by guarantee, then no. But if we say that two hits of the ammunition 5-7 mm (but with a sufficiently high energy) will give a higher stopping than one ammunition 9-11 mm, then the PMSM is so.

[Undecim]

The author decided that he could express and argue his point of view without asking anyone for permission.
Without encroaching on the author’s right to express his point of view, the commenter decided that he could express and argue his opinion about the author’s point of view and its value.

[Avior]

throwing in the choice of a cartridge by the police, the US FBI and the armed forces of different countries

There are no throwings.
There is a 9 * 19 generally accepted in the world with some separate experiments for army self-defense submachine guns and associated pistols (in fact, only Seven fives).

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

throwing in the choice of a cartridge by the police, the US FBI and the armed forces of different countries

There are no throwings.
There is 9 * 19 generally accepted in the world with some separate experiments for army self-defense submachine guns and associated pistols

Oh really? What then did the FBI look at 10 mm Auto, then at 40 S&W? They went back to 9x19, of course, but that doesn't mean the issue is closed. Until another massacre. And the kaleidoscope of calibers for the US police departments also shows the spread of preferences.

Quote: Avior

(In fact, only file Seven).

He then interests me.

I can still clarify my point of view. Of course, the pistol in the Armed Forces is far from the most important weapon. But since we are looking for a replacement for him, and we are switching to a new cartridge (9x21), which was not mass-produced, then I think it would be nice to work out this issue and consider different options. And what is happening now is very similar to lobbying. Talking about the Strizh pistol, then about the PL-14/15, I'm not talking about the previous attempts, and suddenly once and "Boa", without competition.
What is characteristic is that Strizh and Glock did not withstand the tests conducted precisely at TsNIITOCHMASH. I sincerely hope that all this is a coincidence, and our aircraft will receive a decent gun, which will not have to finish for many years.

[Avior]

Americans have a lot of money and specific views.
But if we are talking specifically about army weapons, and we don’t interfere here with the FBI and others, then the Americans have 9 * 19 both for the gun and for the self-defense of the crews.
As for the Seven files, this is the rarest exception in the world of 9 * 19 It is only an addition to the PP you know, which for many years has not received full recognition in the world.
Nobody rushed to work out new PP cartridges, and the two made PPs remained in limited quantities.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

... the Americans have 9 * 19 both for the gun, and for the PP self-defense crews.
As for the Seven files, this is the rarest exception in the world of 9 * 19 It is only an addition to the PP you know, which for many years has not received full recognition in the world.
Nobody rushed to work out new PP cartridges, and the two made PPs remained in limited quantities.

The PP niche was generally greatly reduced, PMSM, many of those who had previously used the PP switched to BC for an intermediate cartridge.

And the price of the 5,7x28 cartridge and weapons for it is quite high. Perhaps if Germany hadn’t stood up because of her 4,6x30 and agreed to standardize the 5,7x28 as a NATO cartridge, then the new US army pistol would now be under this cartridge ...

[Avior]

Maybe, maybe maybe impossible.
Americans do not save money in such matters.
And the gun at five-seven was not taken clearly not because of the money.
But because really 9 * 19- for the gun is the best option. For its real applications.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

Maybe, maybe maybe impossible.
Americans do not save money in such matters.
And the gun at five-seven was not taken clearly not because of the money.
But because really 9 * 19- for the gun is the best option. For its real applications.

It's not about the money. The US is trying to use ammunition standardized within the NATO framework for the army - 7,62x51, 5,56x45, 9x19

The first were the Belgians with their 5.7x28 mm cartridge for the FN Five-Seven pistol and P-90 software. This cartridge was created to replace the standard pistol ammunition 9xNUMX mm PAIR in the armies of NATO countries. However, due to disagreements, no decisions were made on standardization within the alliance. The German and other delegations rejected the NATO recommendation to standardize the 19 × 5,7 mm cartridge, as a result of which the standardization process of this cartridge in NATO countries was postponed indefinitely.

The very fact that the 5.7x28 cartridge was considered in the program of the new US army pistol along with the 9x19, 40S & W, .357SIG speaks volumes.

[Avior]

He speaks only about what was considered.
And also that there is no alternative to 9 * 19.
Considered and accepted.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

He speaks only about what was considered.
And also that there is no alternative to 9 * 19.
Considered and accepted.

99% because of the NATO standard. What is this for us? We do not have such ammunition stocks.

Or should we wait for the white gentlemen to make their move?

How much confusion was about the new assault rifle for the Warrior, in fact the same AK remained. Now the United States will adopt a weapon-cartridge complex, which will give the enemy an advantage on 30 percent in range and penetration. Well, if they screw it up, it already happened, but if not? Hurray-patriots will remember Fedorov’s assault rifle with his 6,5, telling everyone that this is the US idea backtracked on us?

[Avior]

99% because of the NATO standard.

The reason for your confidence is incomprehensible. The whole world sits on 9 * 19, and the States accept it supposedly only because of NATO.
And while trying to adopt the caliber 6.8, not NATO.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

99% because of the NATO standard.

The reason for your confidence is incomprehensible. The whole world sits on 9 * 19, and the States accept it supposedly only because of NATO.
And while trying to adopt the caliber 6.8, not NATO.

Because of the pistol cartridge there is no reason to butt, but from the lack of effectiveness of 5,56x45, they apparently already burn out.

[psiho117]

Quote: Avior

As for the file-seven, this is the rarest exception in the world

Oh oh More than 20 countries have a pistol in service, and more than 30 countries have PP under this cartridge. Moreover, among the operators there are very serious offices and special forces, such as the American and Saudi Secret Services, the French GIGN, DGSE and RAID, the German BKA, the Italian 9 Airborne Assault Regiment, etc. intelligence services around the world.
Plus, the American market has a very popular weapon and cartridge.
And how all sorts of Latinos in Mexico and Brazil like 5-7 - this is a separate topic that has cost the lives of many policemen.
The German 4.6 × 30 is also very popular - again, more than 30 countries are in service...

[Avior]

Namely, that offices and special forces, three dozen trunks, and not a mass army.
Somewhere like this

The first military organization to adopt the Five-seven was the Cypriot National Guard (Greek: Εθνική Φρουρά), which purchased 250 pistols in May 2000 for its special forces group.

And we are discussing army weapons, not special forces, and especially not civilian ones.
And actually, I had in mind that the actually used pistol models for a cartridge five-seven are actually only one, and that’s over twenty years already.

And the same States for the army, navy and marines are now buying 400 barrels, which is typical, under 000 * 9.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: psiho117

Quote: Avior

As for the file-seven, this is the rarest exception in the world

Oh oh More than 20 countries have a pistol in service, and more than 30 countries have PP under this cartridge. Moreover, among the operators there are very serious offices and special forces, such as the American and Saudi Secret Services, the French GIGN, DGSE and RAID, the German BKA, the Italian 9 Airborne Assault Regiment, etc. intelligence services around the world.
Plus, the American market has a very popular weapon and cartridge.
And how all sorts of Latinos in Mexico and Brazil like 5-7 - this is a separate topic that has cost the lives of many policemen.
The German 4.6 × 30 is also very popular - again, more than 30 countries are in service...

That's right, I gave a list of countries in the article: A promising army pistol based on the PDW concept:

Weapons of the caliber 5,7x28 mm and 4,6x30 mm are quite widespread in the world. For example, the FN Five-seveN pistol is in service with law enforcement agencies of countries such as Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, France, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Mexico, Nepal, Peru, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, Suriname, Thailand, United States.

The FN P90 submachine gun is operated in Austria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Canada, Cyprus, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland , Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, USA, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Chile, Philippines, France. HK MP7 submachine gun is used in Austria, Vatican, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Jordan, Norway, Oman, Republic of Korea, Kazakhstan, USA, Japan.

According to some reports, a small number of submachine guns FN P90 and HK MP7 are also available in Russian special forces.

[Michael HORNET]

5.7 and 4.6 are still cartridges for MPE / minicarabiners, in pistols it is insofar as
after cooling to small-caliber weapons in automatic machines you look and in pistols return to the natural caliber 7.62))) - the golden mean is between a slow 9 mm and too awl-shaped 5.7.
7.62 optimal compromise, you just need to attach the joule and a long bullet

[Michael HORNET]

Yes, no, the author’s reasoning is not without reason, but the statistics is that so quickly there is a loss of resistance in 1-10 seconds, in fact, no. if there is - show

[Bormanxnumx]

Oh really? What then did the FBI look at 10 mm Auto, then at 40 S&W?

Looked in and in the case of the "to death" sedated "10 Auto came to the conclusion that it is damn hard to shoot from a pistol chambered for this cartridge if you are not Jerry Mikulek))) And 40S & W is not so radically superior to 9 Para. And I had to return a reasonable 9Para. sane retention of the pistol during a series of shots, and sufficient damage to the target.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: BORMAN82

Oh really? What then did the FBI look at 10 mm Auto, then at 40 S&W?

Looked in and in the case of the "to death" sedated "10 Auto came to the conclusion that it is damn hard to shoot from a pistol chambered for this cartridge if you are not Jerry Mikulek))) And 40S & W is not so radically superior to 9 Para. And I had to return a reasonable 9Para. sane retention of the pistol during a series of shots, and sufficient damage to the target.

About 10 mm Auto, this is exactly the case, and about 40S & W, there is an opinion that they returned precisely because of the understanding that more ammunition of a smaller caliber with sufficient energy is better than less ammunition, but of a larger caliber.

[Michael HORNET]

Well, both statements do not contradict each other. 10 auto full power is redundant for the middle shooter - he can not cope. this is a cartridge for experts with strong muscles and ligaments
40 St. did not show significant advantages in practice. and much less straight rounds of ammunition. therefore, everyone returned by 9 mm and it’s not much discussed that it’s necessary to leave somewhere
although the new Czech Rolls-Royce 7.5 FC Brno with its carabiner power and slaughter, as well as the topic of 6.8 may make them think about a more optimal pistol caliber.
By the way, this may turn out to be something like 6.8x28 (or 7.62x28) - use a sleeve from 5.7x28 but without bottlenecks. There are 20 of them in a regular-length store (against 17-18 9x19), and you can increase the energy to try up to 650-700 j. Together with the machine gun, we get the action of the machine gun 7.62x39 at 250 meters approximately

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: AVM

Where to? In the chest, the stopping effect is not evaluated by shooting in the head and limbs

It depends on how you approach. 15-20 years ago, one hunter told that after the end of the corral for the elk, they decided to check how the 5,6 cartridge from TOZ-78 would work and first shot at the elk's head from 15-18 meters into the sector limited by the distance between the eye and ear (the brain) is first targeted and then expansive. Both bullets pierced the skull wall. An ordinary bullet left smooth edges of the hole, and the expansive one from the inside knocked out pieces of bone, which play the role of additional striking elements. In fact, at a certain position of the target, the stopping and lethal effect was guaranteed even with a small-caliber non-sheathed bullet. The next stage also shot two cartridges in the shin. The first bullet simply entered the shin and nothing but the entrance could be seen, but after the expansive one, the shin at the point of impact received a diametrical thickening around the circumference, which suggests that it was broken into fragments and was held only by the skin. If the leg was under load, it would surely have broken, respectively, and the stopping effect for some time would have been achieved, although not lethal, but sufficient to make the decision to use a more substantial caliber to achieve a lethal effect. I have no reason not to trust him. in empty chatter he was never seen. It would seem "small", the weight of the bullet is small and the caliber is not great, but under certain conditions it is also an evil thing.

[Simargl]

Quote: Nyrobsky

It would seem "small"

What a little thing? 5,6x39 is also small ...

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Simargl

Quote: Nyrobsky

It would seem "small"

What a little thing? 5,6x39 is also small ...

I pointed out TOZ-78 in the comments. We are not talking about the Bars 5,6x39 carbine. This is a much more serious device.

[haron]

Quote: AVM

Where to? In the chest, the stopping effect is not evaluated by shooting in the head and limbs

This is the main mistake of your thesis.
The most important mistake is that the guaranteed death of a person is called "Clinical death". If any projectile hits any organ except the Central nervous system, death will occur no earlier than 4 - 5 minutes after injury, and the person will retain all the conditions for the possibility take purposeful and deliberate actions.
The second question is whether or not to be able to perform these actions - will lose consciousness or not. The main thing is that death never occurs instantly.
Moreover, the time of death and the body’s reaction to the wound (continues to perform actions, will not turn off), It all depends on the state of the body by an order of magnitude more than the performance characteristics of the incoming projectile.

IMHO. The concept of OD is initially "empty". He cannot have specificity and mathematical expression.

[Simargl]

Quote: AVM

But if we say that two hits of ammunition of 5-7 mm (but with a sufficiently high energy) will give a higher stopping than one ammunition of 9-11 mm, then PMSM is so.

Learn the tests of a 5,6 x 39 cartridge. Marvel

[SASHA OLD]

I agree.
Terminal ballistics is the most difficult section of the three (internal and external yet) that I studied once.
and then once - and in one article, everything easily fit ...

[businessv]

Quote: Undecim

Hence the theses like "Stopping action is the time of inflicting death on an object from the moment a bullet hits it - the speed of death.

I agree, colleague, the statement is very controversial, and in my unsophisticated opinion. The stopping effect of a bullet, caliber 11 mm, even when it hits the NIB, is very, very strong! The impact is precisely stopping a person, even with a minimal, so to speak, impact on the body. And such a temporary "stop" of the attacker can decide the outcome of the fight in favor of the defender. There are cases when a serious wound of an attacker with a caliber of 7,62 did not protect the defender, although the attacker also died after a while.

[Sling cutter]

businessv (Vadim) Colleague, why polymize unnecessarily? Caliber 7,62 has never let anyone down, I will repeat once again the PC is a serious "machine" for satisfying the enemy at sufficiently large distances. AKS, as a personal weapon, calmly stopped unnecessary people at distances of 250-600 meters, with the practice of defeat. Here is the whole dispute about the service weapon of garbage and what the military units will screw up.
With normal machine gunner training, there is simply no equal on condition of a cohesion group, again, I mean the actions in the group, and the weight and wearable BC of the group gives maneuvering advantages.

[businessv]

Quote: Stroporez

Colleague, why unnecessarily polymerize?

And what, in your opinion, are we all doing here, colleague? I spoke exclusively about close combat, the service contributed, therefore I posted exactly what I had in mind - the stopping, kinetic effect of the bullet, which gives additional time for making further decisions and actions.

[Sling cutter]

businessv (VadimAnd where did you see the melee, so as not to release the belly of the enemy half-horn, just out of fear No chance, tested in practice SOLDIER .A. will confirm.

[businessv]

Quote: Stroporez

where you saw melee, so as not to release a half-horn of the enemy’s belly, just out of fear

In close combat, colleague, you cannot have a half-horn, we are talking about pistols, they have clips, if you forget.

[Sling cutter]

Quote: businessv

In close combat, colleague, you cannot have a half-horn, we are talking about pistols, they have clips, if you forget.

Colleague, I have never seen the concepts of "close combat" in the regulations. accordingly, the division into "near", "close" and "very near-close-erotic" However, please note that "Stechkin" has a store rather than a "clip" or ... In general, "the bullet is a stupid bayonet."

[Undecim]

It’s just that the author didn’t bother to read properly before writing. In order for a person to instantly lose the ability to perform any action, he does not need to be killed at all. Therefore, experts operate on such a concept as the minimum possible level of bullet hitting ability, at which an instant disruption of vital functions occurs, depriving the enemy of the possibility of using weapons and the possibility of resistance.
A person with a broken spinal cord can live for several more years, while his ability to resist is the same as that of a deceased person.

[Vlad.by]

Yeah, what to go with a boar? With SCS or Berdanka?
Old people here take a berdank, and from the SCS they shoot in bottles if they give.
Stop action ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: businessv

Quote: Undecim

Hence the theses like "Stopping action is the time of inflicting death on an object from the moment a bullet hits it - the speed of death.

I agree, colleague, the statement is very controversial, and in my unsophisticated opinion. The stopping effect of a bullet, caliber 11 mm, even when it hits the NIB, is very, very strong! The impact is precisely stopping a person, even with a minimal, so to speak, impact on the body. And such a temporary "stop" of the attacker can decide the outcome of the fight in favor of the defender. There are cases when a serious wound of an attacker with a caliber of 7,62 did not protect the defender, although the attacker also died after a while.

It all depends on the energy of the bullet. If the pool 11 mm is given the same energy as 7,62 mm, then it is not a fact that the result will be positive. And if vice versa:

As an extreme example of small-caliber high-speed ammunition, the Gerlich bullet for conical barrels can be mentioned. The diameter of the Gerlich bullet was 6,35 mm, the mass of the bullet was 6,35 g, the initial velocity of the bullet reached 1740 — 1760 m / s, the muzzle energy was 9840 J. This record for bullets of small caliber and small mass has not been broken so far. Gerlich's bullet at a distance of 50 m was breaking a hole with a diameter of 12 mm in a steel armor sheet with a thickness of 15 mm, and in a thicker armor it made a funnel in 15 mm of depth and a diameter of 25 mm.

[businessv]

Quote: AVM

It all depends on the energy of the bullet. If a bullet of 11 mm gives the same energy as 7,62 mm

Imagine what the charge should be and what the return will be! At 45 Magnum, it is already not so weak, sorry for the tautology, I spoke specifically about the direct stopping effect. By the way, Makarov’s is also quite good. I did not intend to dispute the fact that the purpose of using any weapon and its direct purpose is to destroy the enemy.

[Chaldon48]

A sufficiently trained shooter, having a quality weapon, will always get the effect necessary to accomplish the task, you just need to stop getting into your leg, kill in the face

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Chaldon48

A sufficiently trained shooter, having a quality weapon, will always get the effect necessary to accomplish the task, you just need to stop getting into your leg, kill in the face

Gets in the dash, in the headphones, slept well. And tired after a march-throw, after he had not slept for a day, during the hours-long battle? No, it’s not in vain when evaluating the effectiveness of ammunition they consider getting into the body.

Another head and limbs are very mobile ...

[sen]

Or maybe so. First, in the body, in body armor, to temporarily cut down, and then come up and finish off with a shot in an unprotected place.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: sen

Or maybe so. First, in the body, in body armor, to temporarily cut down, and then come up and finish off with a shot in an unprotected place.

There is a way. For example "Mozambique" - two in the chest, one in the head.

[Chaldon48]

It depends on what kind of bulletproof vest, an old, but a living target will receive an armored injury, and there are already those who are able to stop this blow, distributing it across the entire surface and absorbing, in part, the energy of the bullet, the one who shot the first will most likely suffer. In battle, the one who shot last wins.

[VeteranVSSSR]

Apparently, in this life, I don't understand anything. I always believed that any weapon is intended for murder ... to stop the enemy, you need to kill him. Wrong, correct, but for these `` explosive bullets '' you generally need give a deadline, because. only sadists dream of delivering mortal pain, whether to a person or to an animal. And what is interesting, they found an explanation for this, so as not to leave wounded ...

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: VeteranVSSSR

Apparently I already don’t understand anything in this life. I always believed that any weapon is intended to kill ... to stop the enemy, you need to kill him. [B]

In order to kill with a guaranteed and immediately, it is almost always necessary to hit the head, which is not always achievable in combat conditions, and therefore shooting is carried out simply to defeat and finish off, as luck would have it. When carrying out special operations, when it is desirable to receive not just a corpse, but, if possible, an "interlocutor" so that later he "talk" and get some information, then they try to shoot in such a way as to cause minimal damage.

Quote: VeteranVSSSR

for these `` explosive bullets '' in general, you need to give a term, because. only sadists dream of delivering mortal pain, whether to a person or to an animal. And what is interesting, they found an explanation for this, so as not to leave wounded animals.

The fact of the matter is that the larger the wound channel and the more extensive the damage, the greater the blood loss and pain shock, respectively, and the death is faster - from this side it seems to be more humane, since the beast, being not picked, will not suffer for a long time. But if a burst hit on the limbs, then this is essentially amputation and lifelong disability, which is not at all humane. Although, the use of the word "humanity" in the matter of shooting at living beings is generally not suitable.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: VeteranVSSSR

Apparently I already don’t understand anything in this life. I always believed that any weapon is designed to kill ... to stop the enemy, you need to kill him.

Actually about this and speech - the stopping action is characterized by the speed of death.

Quote: VeteranVSSSR

but for these `` explosive bullets '' in general, you need to give a term, because. only sadists dream of delivering mortal pain, whether to a person or to an animal. And what is interesting, they found an explanation for this, so as not to leave wounded ...

In fact, when developing expansive and fragmenting bullets, the goal was never to cause suffering. This is rather a side effect in certain situations. Those. if you shoot an expansive or fragmenting bullet in the chest or in the head, the enemy will die faster and experience less suffering, but if you shoot in a limb, then everything is much sadder. Since wounds to a limb are not uncommon in war, in order not to increase the number of persons with disabilities, such ammunition was banned by the Geneva Convention.

For me, the main argument for banning them with civilians in the short barrel is the difficulty of identifying badly deformed bullets.

[VeteranVSSSR]

No, I understand all this, but ... as doctors say, much more dies from pain shock than from the wound itself.

[Sling cutter]

it depends on how it arrived

[haron]

Quote: VeteranVSSSR

that much more dies from pain shock than from the wound itself.

Sorry, but in medicine there is no scientific concept of "pain shock". You can lose consciousness from pain, but you cannot die.
The brain simply disconnects from the source of pain. More precisely, the brain turns off consciousness, and continues to direct non-conscious processes.

[VeteranVSSSR]

If you don’t want pain, then let there be a correctly-traumatic shock, and if a person cannot be taken out of him on time and correctly, then the result is agony and death.
Promedol nor I put it in an individual medicine cabinet ....

[haron]

Quote: VeteranVSSSR

I didn’t put Promedol in an individual medicine cabinet ...

Promedol inhibits the development of shock not through the pain center. Opiates interrupt the hypotolamic-adrenal connection, stabilize the membranes of the pituitary cells, adrenal cortex and blood macrophages, thereby block the expansion of arterioles in the central organs, and block the massive release of histamine. In fact - they hinder the onset of the decompensated stage of shock.
Opioids are terrifying as important for myocardial infarction, although a person may not feel pain at all.
Suppression of pain is quite important for the survival of the wounded, but this is not the main reason for the ulcer promedol.

[VeteranVSSSR]

You are completely right, but nonetheless ...

[haron]

Quote: VeteranVSSSR

but nonetheless..

If more would die from painful shock than from injury, then before using anesthesia, most of the operated wounds would die right in the hands of the surgeon. This was not the case. And even if the wound was NOT operated on "dry", most of the patients survived the operation.
Small offtopic. Anesthesia with alcohol, or its use after surgery instead of pain reliever, in most cases worsened the situation. Alcohol increases blood pressure, increases vascular permeability, inhibits thrombosis of damaged vessels, "opens" closed vessels, very weakly presses visceral pain, somatic so-so .... not suitable for serious operations and injuries.
After the collapse of the USSR and the total collapse of the system, in my Palestinians on the edge of geography, there were a couple of cases of medical errors. I was just starting to work in forensic medicine. In a small settlement there was one surgeon with an operzal. Due to despair and the impossibility of sending acute appendicitis to the regional center, he decided to replace anesthesia with alcohol. Of the 7 patients, all of them managed to survive the operation. But they also "left" in terrible agony on the second or third day from hemorrhagic or septic shock. The doctor explained that he was struggling with the painful shock, while forgetting that he was doing alcohol with the intestines. He had to go back to school for 2 years, under strict supervision and without the right to leave the "institute".

[Simargl]

Quote: AVM

Actually about this and speech - the stopping action is characterized by the speed of death.

Many times they explained to you that no.

[businessv]

Quote: AVM

Actually about this and speech - the stopping action is characterized by the speed of death.

In order to understand what was wrong in this article, I had to re-read all the comments! IMHO, the concepts of incapacitating a person for failure to deprive him of the possibility of further participation in the battle and precisely stop the person by a bullet, at the same time causing him minimal harm, are mixed up. After all, shooting is not always for murder, agree!

[Smooth]

I always believed that any weapon is designed to kill ... in order to stop the enemy, you need to kill him.

It all depends on the type of weapon. A stopping action is stopping because it does not imply the murder of a person (a lethal action is responsible for this parameter), but the ability of the striking element to influence the "object" in such a way as to make it stop doing what it did before. And preferably as quickly as possible (units of seconds).
A striking example is civilian weapons, including traumatic ones. Such a thing as "Wasp" has a rather pronounced stopping effect (concussion, pain shock, etc.), but does not at all imply the murder of the intruder.
In police weapons, especially short-barreled ones, the stopping action is also an important parameter, because even if an FMJ bullet hits the heart, an armed criminal has 30 seconds before passing out. And this can lead to serious consequences. There were precedents. Plus options when the "client" is drunk or on drugs.

[Avior]

In my opinion, the concepts of “stopping action” and “lethal action” are inextricably linked.

The problem is that the opinion of the author diverges from the generally accepted.

The stopping power of a bullet is simply the ability of a bullet to hit a person and cause him to instantly stop any action that he performed at the time of the shot. ”

And then you use handcuffs if you are a policeman, call the police if it is civilian self-defense, or shoot a second time if you are a military man in military operations.
As for expansive bullets, they are forbidden to be used precisely in military operations against an enemy combatant under the Hague Convention, but the army now quite often performs police functions, the Convention does not apply to them.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

In my opinion, the concepts of “stopping action” and “lethal action” are inextricably linked.

The problem is that the opinion of the author diverges from the generally accepted.

The stopping power of a bullet is simply the ability of a bullet to hit a person and cause him to instantly stop any action that he performed at the time of the shot. ”

And then you use handcuffs if you are a policeman, you call the police if it is civil self-defense

Everything seems to be right. It’s just not to say for how long he will stop

any actions that he performed at the time of the shot

One policeman, one criminal. The criminal goes to the policeman, the policeman shoots, the criminal falls, seemingly unconscious, the policeman tries to handcuff him, gets a knife into the trachea ...

Combat weapons are designed to hit the target to death, tightly. If the goal is lucky to survive, so be it. If a policeman or a defender can afford to shoot in the legs, the target has a chance to survive. When shooting into the corps, the task of fighting weapons is to kill as quickly as possible, and not to realize a mythical stopping action with an unpredictable result.

Quote: Avior

or shoot a second time if you are military in combat.

This is undeniable. Here are just the dynamics of the shootout is such that either you shoot without stopping until the target is guaranteed to die, anyway significantly increase your chances to go to the other world. A trained shooter will hit two targets in four seconds with four to six rounds of ammunition at a short distance, where the stopping effect plays a role.

Quote: Avior

As for expansive bullets, they are forbidden to be used precisely in military operations against an enemy combatant under the Hague Convention, but the army now quite often performs police functions, the Convention does not apply to them.

This is all legal crocheting. The USA did not declare war on Iraq and Yugoslavia, so they can peck at them with anything - napalm, phosphorus, expansive? Very comfortably.

[Avior]

The United States, or rather, the coalition, declared war on Iraq, as did Yugoslavia.
In the form, if you don’t do this, then this and that, we’ll start hostilities from such and such an hour.
The Gaussian covenant does not at all distinguish between war or just hostilities between combatants in terms of a convention, and this does not in any way connect with a formal declaration of war.
As for the first part, firstly, police officers kill in order to kill in limited cases, because then it is fraught with problems, and secondly, while shooting, it is difficult for you to determine whether the target has already died, or if she has the strength to start the trigger . Well, perhaps in the forehead, and even without an iron guarantee.
Therefore, having stopped shooting when the target has ceased to behave actively, you continue to be ready until you are convinced of the result.

[Simargl]

Quote: Avior

police officers to kill in order to kill shoot in limited cases

It will be said in secret - only executioners and murderers are fired with the aim of killing, police officers are firing with the aim of stopping the resistance, and the potential criminal will die or survive - this is luck, rather ...

[Avior]

But the military just for this purpose shoot - kill.
As for the police or civilian self-defense, the killing of an attacker will not always be justified.

[Oleg (Kharkov)]

Quote: Avior

But the military just shoots for this purpose - to kill

to get in. just hit the target.

[Simargl]

Quote: Avior

But the military just for this purpose shoot - kill.

No. The goal is exactly the same: to suppress resistance. And if the projection of the "god" on a dust storm or a mountain of leaflets above the "trenches" is sufficient, then a minimum number of the enemy is killed ... usually ...
By the way, prisoners are taken for the same purpose: to show that in the absence of resistance you will live. But even during a battle it is better to injure the enemy so that he is on the verge of death - then associates will spend resources on treatment, including combat.

[haron]

Quote: Avior

The problem is that the opinion of the author diverges from the generally accepted.

The problem is that OD does not have a common opinion.
OD cannot be expressed by mathematics; this is an abstract concept; accordingly, any person can express his opinion without distorting the truth - for it does not exist.

[Avior]

There I gave formulas.
They, of course, are not generally accepted, but the same problem is with slaughter - you cannot express the time of death on mathematics

[haron]

Quote: Avior

but with slaughter the same problem - you can’t express the time of death by mathematics

Yes, it's hard.
Although for mathematics in wound ballistics there is an application. But post factum. When there is a wounded / killed person, there is a bullet (but not always), there is a complete picture of the damage, there is clothing, and when you need to determine: the type of cartridge (the same bullets can be used in completely different cartridges, e.g. 308 wines, 300 wines mage, 30-06 ...), the distance of the shot, the direction of the shot. Approximate data on the compromomas of different biological tissues of tissues are in biophysical reference books. Sometimes you can conduct a series of benchmark comparative shootings. either by corpse or by animal (pig).
And then you can use different maths. But here it will be only indicative information for the investigation. For the court, it is not evidence, it is only indirect information.

[Avior]

I was aware that not a single bullet from a small arms that hits a person will give a guarantee that he will die in, say, 3 seconds.
And all the cheese is boron due to the fact that the author was not satisfied with the OD assessment, since she did not give a guarantee.
The author of one statistical probabilistic method is trying to replace the same

[garri-lin]

The stopping action is death. Paradoxically. At the moment when this term appeared, they did not play with words and called things by their proper names.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: garri-lin

The stopping action is death. Paradoxically. At the moment when this term appeared, they did not play with words and called things by their proper names.

The stopping effect is the speed of death.

You can shoot a person with a beam of high-energy particles, and he will die in a month from leukemia, or you can use an RPG-7, and a "wet spot" will remain from him in a second. The difference between these cases shows the essence of the stopping action.

[garri-lin]

Neither there nor there is a stopping action. There is instant and delayed death.

[Avior]

And it’s possible to have small things in the kneecap, he will live, but he will forget about all plans instantly due to pain

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

And it’s possible to have small things in the kneecap, he will live, but he will forget about all plans instantly due to pain

And if it’s in your head, then it will die right away. And you can still aiming at the little finger or at the ankle, for complete control. When considering the effectiveness of weapons, they talk about the defeat of the body.

[cat Rusich]

About pain. In war and in everyday life (peaceful life in the rear) "drug addicts" (opponents under the "high") very often come across. The "addict" will not feel the "pain" itself. Crushing the kneecap will stop the "addict" not with "pain", but with the inability to move on his feet. But the enemy in war and in everyday life can throw a grenade at you. A conversation about the fact that one hit should be enough for the enemy to either die immediately or lose the ability to any resistance. In WWII, the Germans used pervitin, the USA "vigor pills" in Vietnam, and so on and so on. The pain option may not work ...

[Simargl]

Quote: AVM

The stopping effect is the speed of death.

Bullshit!
From the shocker, what is the speed of death?
What is the rate of death from GSS?
From traumatic weapons (not the nonsense that is available to the population of Russia, mainly, but a normal policeman) what is the speed of death?
From the shot charge, what is the speed of death?
But stopping is great. True, almost all obstacles break through weakly or in any way.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Simargl

Quote: AVM

The stopping effect is the speed of death.

Bullshit!
From the shocker, what is the speed of death?
What is the rate of death from GSS?

Read more carefully:

You can talk about stopping action without causing death if this applies to gas cartridges, aerosol devices, stun guns and other weapons for non-lethal effects. But the assessment of stopping action for non-lethal weapons will be even more complex and conditional due to the huge range of reactions of different people to external influences.

This is a non-lethal weapon. And by the way, what is their stopping effect in your opinion?
If the shocker is in a range of voltages and currents that is safe for health, then it has no OD. By backing up the power / frequency / voltage, it is possible to "turn off" the muscles, but this is only with continuous exposure, which is suitable for remote shockers. If we talk about a manual contact, then I would have seen how you would go with him to a man with a knife, relying on his OD.

And the SSH is a completely different type of weapon, and there is no guarantee that after its use the target will be cut down. Rather, it’s aids that reduce the effectiveness of the enemy’s actions.

Quote: Simargl

Quote: AVM

The stopping effect is the speed of death.

From traumatic weapons (not the nonsense that is available to the population of Russia, mainly, but a normal policeman) what is the speed of death?

This is also a non-lethal weapon, but we are talking about a lethal one. And it is used against unarmed people, in extreme cases, against those armed with stones, sticks or knives (in the latter case, most likely they will be shot from a military one).

Quote: Simargl

From the shot charge, what is the speed of death?
But stopping is great. True, almost all obstacles break through weakly or in any way.

Extremely tall. And what do you think, after hitting a shotgun, you’ll go home, such a weapon has a mortality rate of 99% And what contradicts my theory here? If we talk about the fractional charge, then there is a large number of damaging elements with a low probability of hitting each, but summing up the probability of hitting each, a high damaging effect is obtained, I wrote about summing the probabilities here: https://topwar.ru/163548-perspektivnyj-armejskij -pistolet-na-baze-koncepcii-pdw.html

Nonsense is trying to "put an owl on the globe", trying to figure out how to stop a man from a lethal weapon, but not kill.

[Simargl]

Quote: AVM

If the shocker is in a safe range of voltage and currents for health, then he has no OD.

This is then not a shocker, but a toy.

Quote: AVM

By backing up the power / frequency / voltage, it is possible to "turn off" the muscles, but this is only with continuous exposure, which is suitable for remote shockers.

Those. the shocker must also be specially designed. In addition, the result of the impact is leveled not immediately after the "apparatus" is turned off, but over time, no one will touch the "suggested" until the end of the impact of the charge - it is fraught.

Quote: AVM

If we talk about manual contact, then I would see how you go with him to a man with a knife, trusting in his OD.

Interestingly, but there are unique ones who will poke an armed man with a stick at least with a barrel? Manual - this thing is not clear why.

Quote: AVM

Rather, it’s aids that reduce the effectiveness of the enemy’s actions.

And by increasing the stopping effect, what do we want to achieve?

Quote: AVM

This is also a non-lethal weapon, but we are talking about a lethal one.

Get statistics on deaths? It is conditionally non-lethal.

Quote: AVM

What do you think, after hitting a shotgun, you’ll go home, such a weapon has a mortality rate of 99%

It all depends on the number of fractions, choke and distance. With 200 m sporting can be observed with glasses, without much harm to health. From the plates. From 10-15 m can break.

Quote: AVM

Nonsense is trying to "put an owl on the globe", trying to figure out how to stop a man from a lethal weapon, but not kill.

Having interrupted the spinal column just below the thoracic region?
You were not interested in boxing?

[Avior]

Nothing like this. The term appeared at the beginning of the 20 century, and did not imply equality with death.

[garri-lin]

So am I about that. Therefore, he said that the statement in the article is paradoxical.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

Nothing like this. The term appeared at the beginning of the 20 century, and did not imply equality with death.

How many comments, so many opinions. In the commentary to one article, it was believed that stopping action was invented for humanists and journalists, like we are not killing but stopping. This only confirms the lack of a clear understanding of the issue.

And still there is no quantitative assessment of OD.

[Avior]

It is customary to distinguish between slaughter and stopping action of a bullet.

There is no strict definition of these terms, however, slaughter means, as a rule, the ability to inflict wounds that are incompatible with life, and the stopping effect means the ability to strike a target so hard that it "almost instantly (within 1-2 seconds, no more ) will cease to perform those actions that were performed at the time of the shot "(D. Towert).
At the same time, the lethal action and the stopping effect may not be directly related: for example, the 37mm Flashball gun, which shoots rubber ball-bullets, has a significant stopping effect on a person, with practically no lethal one. And the 5.6x39mm MBO cartridge has a high lethal effect when shooting at medium and even large game (with an accurate hit), but death in the case of animals such as an elk or a wild boar will occur in minutes or even tens of minutes.

And you have the same thing.
As for the quantitative assessment of ML, then you are not right that it is not. It is, but there is no single universally accepted.
Here Popenker considers these subtleties
http://www.shooting-ua.com/force_shooting/practice_book_31.htm
Including Taylor's formula

This formula looks like this:
KO = M × V × C / 7000
where M is the mass of the bullet, gran
V - bullet speed, feet per second
C - bullet caliber, inches

and the theory of Marshall and Sanou with their tables.
Wikipedia has an estimate of OD for Hatcher

Table stopping action of various cartridges
Hatcher’s OOD of cartridges (more is better)
Cartridge type OOD
6.35x15 BRAUNING 50
7.62x38 NAGAN 151
7.62x25 TT 171
9x18 MAKAROV 210
9x19 PARA 270
.357SIG 380
.40 S&W 470
.45 ACP640
.50AE 1380
* Type of bullets in the table

Article The amazing properties of a bullet.
There is about OD and slaughter, which you equate.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

It is customary to distinguish between slaughter and stopping action of a bullet.

There is no strict definition of these terms, however, slaughter means, as a rule, the ability to inflict wounds that are incompatible with life, and the stopping effect means the ability to strike a target so hard that it "almost instantly (within 1-2 seconds, no more ) will cease to perform those actions that were performed at the time of the shot "(D. Towert).
At the same time, the lethal action and the stopping effect may not be directly related: for example, the 37mm Flashball gun, which shoots rubber ball-bullets, has a significant stopping effect on a person, with practically no lethal one. And the 5.6x39mm MBO cartridge has a high lethal effect when shooting at medium and even large game (with an accurate hit), but death in the case of animals such as an elk or a wild boar will occur in minutes or even tens of minutes.

And you have the same thing.
As for the quantitative assessment of ML, then you are not right that it is not. It is, but there is no single universally accepted.
Here Popenker considers these subtleties
http://www.shooting-ua.com/force_shooting/practice_book_31.htm
Including Taylor's formula

This formula looks like this:
KO = M × V × C / 7000
where M is the mass of the bullet, gran
V - bullet speed, feet per second
C - bullet caliber, inches

and the theory of Marshall and Sanou with their tables.
Wikipedia has an estimate of OD for Hatcher

Table stopping action of various cartridges
Hatcher’s OOD of cartridges (more is better)
Cartridge type OOD
6.35x15 BRAUNING 50
7.62x38 NAGAN 151
7.62x25 TT 171
9x18 MAKAROV 210
9x19 PARA 270
.357SIG 380
.40 S&W 470
.45 ACP640
.50AE 1380
* Type of bullets in the table

Article The amazing properties of a bullet.
There is about OD and slaughter, which you equate.

I carefully read Popenker’s article, and I refer to it many times in the article. The fact of the matter is that often the data of different tests contradict each other.

And I consider the stopping action as a temporary characteristic of slaughter, i.e. the speed of death, because, in my opinion, only death can guarantee the absence of resistance.

And to consider ML in isolation from the death of PMSM is pointless, simply because the weapon is initially lethal, it's not Taser.

[Avior]

I carefully read Popenker’s article, and I refer to it many times in the article. The fact of the matter is that often the data of different tests contradict each other.

And still there is no quantitative assessment of OD.

somehow it does not fit together.

And to consider ML in isolation from the death of PMSM is pointless, simply because the weapon is initially lethal

For different weapons, different requirements.
Specifically, here we are talking about pistols, for which ML is much more important than lethality precisely because of the close distance with the enemy.

And I consider the stopping action as a temporary characteristic of slaughter, i.e. the speed of death, because, in my opinion, only death can guarantee the absence of resistance.

Obviously a way to a dead end, since even with a sufficiently powerful weapon, death, as a rule, is far from instant, with the exception of falling into certain areas of the body.
A pistol is not the most powerful small arms.
Your notion is a direct way to increase the caliber and power of the cartridge, and the possibilities are organic.
Not to mention the fact that the result of a person’s defeat has always been, is and will be probabilistic due to the heterogeneity of the human body, so your

in my opinion, only death can guarantee the absence of resistance.

obviously unattainable for small arms.
And if the estimate for OD takes into account getting into any part of the human body, in the arm, in the leg, then your assessment is only for a relatively small part of the human body.
In my opinion, you are trying to invent a bicycle purely on speculative assumptions, although there are real usage statistics.

[Simargl]

Quote: AVM

in my opinion, only death can guarantee the absence of resistance.

Watch the end of the first "Terminator"
Check out the expression "Die but do".

[Smooth]

And I consider the stopping action as a temporary characteristic of slaughter, i.e. the speed of death, because, in my opinion, only death can guarantee the absence of resistance.

You are considering ... Fine .... If we are guided by this logic, then the maximum stopping effect is possessed by a 152-mm high-explosive projectile that hit the attacker directly ... It turns out that a runny nose is best treated by chopping off the patient's head. The deceased is the healthiest. He will definitely not get sick with anything.
Okay, this is all jokes ...
You see, what a thing, death guarantees the absence of resistance forever. And "forever" is too "heavy" word. And if it is not necessary forever, then how? There are a lot of such situations. For example, in the case of using a traumatic weapon. That is, you need to stop the attacker so that there is time to call the police, disarm the foe without his active resistance, and finally escape. Another option is that you are a police officer and you do not need to kill the criminal, but interrogate him. To do this, it is necessary that he ceases to provide armed resistance not forever, but for a certain period of time, which will allow the guards to "pack" him where he should. Note, not to kill, but to "pack". Or the option when you have a short firefight. An FMJ bullet, even if it hits the heart of a criminal, does not guarantee that he will die instantly. Yes, he will die, but after 30 seconds, having managed to stuff the policeman with lead before that. There were precedents. In such a situation, the need is precisely quickly immobilize the culprit is much more urgent than killing him.
Now about the terminology. Whatever anyone says, but "kill" is "kill", and "stopping action" is "stopping action". And the main difference between them is that ML does not imply the obligatory death of the enemy... This does not mean that the mentioned death is guaranteed not to occur. The main thing is that the attack or resistance should stop. At the same time, I fully admit that death will nevertheless come. For example, a criminal, a few days after being wounded, died in a hospital without regaining consciousness.
It turns out that death rate for characteristics such as "stopping action" does not play a decisive role... That does not exclude instant death when using a bullet designed to achieve an increased AP. For example, when a bullet with an expansive effect hits an adversary's forehead. Therefore, the term is different. Not "quick kill action", namely "STOPPING act".
I have no doubt that instantly kill = stop. But the opposite is not true at all. That is, "stop" is not equal to "instant kill". "Instant kill" is a special case. It does not exhaust all the meanings contained in the word "stop".
Something like that...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Glad

And I consider the stopping action as a temporary characteristic of slaughter, i.e. the speed of death, because, in my opinion, only death can guarantee the absence of resistance.

You are considering ... Fine .... If we are guided by this logic, then the maximum stopping effect is possessed by a 152-mm high-explosive projectile that hit the attacker directly ... It turns out that a runny nose is best treated by chopping off the patient's head. The deceased is the healthiest. He will definitely not get sick with anything.

In fact, if we are talking about lethal weapons, then this is exactly what happens. Otherwise, it is necessary either to use non-lethal weapons, or, as a special case, to shoot at the limbs.

Quote: Glad

Okay, this is all jokes ...
You see, what a thing, death guarantees the absence of resistance forever. And "forever" is too "heavy" word. And if it is not necessary forever, then how? There are a lot of such situations. For example, in the case of using a traumatic weapon.

Traumatic weapon - I call it a weapon of unpredictable defeat, if we are not talking about specialized systems of caliber 23-40 mm or more. Any small-bore so-called. "Traumatic weapons" are conventional military weapons with reduced performance. In the event of a serious threat (armed criminal), you still need to shoot in the head, just to kill. And if there is no threat to life, then it is better not to use traumatics at all, since by shooting into the body, you can accidentally hit some vessel, kill the enemy and go to the bunk.

Quote: Glad

That is, you need to stop the attacker so that there is time to call the police, disarm the foe without his active resistance, and finally escape. Another option is that you are a police officer and you do not need to kill the criminal, but interrogate him. To do this, it is necessary that he ceases to provide armed resistance not forever, but for a certain period of time, which will allow the guards to "pack" him where he should. Note, not to kill, but to "pack".

If a criminal fires a pistol / machine gun at a policeman, then there can be no question of "catching and interrogating". He must be brought down and as quickly as possible, such tactics are easy to notice from the actions of the police in the United States - resistance with weapons, and the criminal is almost guaranteed a corpse. This is based on the bitter experience of police officers being shot and stabbed to death. And for other cases there is a GB and / or a teaser, a baton.

Quote: Glad

Or the option when you have a short firefight. An FMJ bullet, even if it hits the heart of a criminal, does not guarantee that he will die instantly. Yes, he will die, but after 30 seconds, having managed to stuff the policeman with lead before that. There were precedents. In such a situation, the need is precisely quickly immobilize the culprit is much more urgent than killing him.

"Immobilization" of the criminal is achieved by stuffing him with lead until he turns off. This is the speed of causing death as a stopping effect.

Quote: Glad

...
I have no doubt that instantly kill = stop. But the opposite is not true at all. That is, "stop" is not equal to "instant kill".

"Instantly kill = stop" is reliable, it is a guarantee, and simply "stop" is the risk of a sudden "resurrection" of the enemy and continued resistance to them.

Quote: Glad

"Instant kill" is a special case. It does not exhaust all the meanings contained in the word "stop".
Something like that...

Not for lethal weapons. "Stop without kill" is for stun guns, gas cartridges, etc. etc.

[Smooth]

"Instantly kill = stop" is reliable, it is a guarantee, but simply "stop" is the risk of a sudden "resurrection" of the enemy and the continuation of their resistance ...
"Stop without kill" is for stun guns, gas cartridges, etc. etc.

Hmm ... You have an interesting interpretation of terms ...
Glory to the Creator, in the sky-high depths of the Ministry of Defense, they decided that the saying "to call it right is to understand it correctly" has a rational kernel and has given birth to a standard governing the terminology that should be used in relation to small arms. Not even 100500 years have passed ... Well, they don’t look at the donated standard in the spine.
So ... drum roll ...
GOST 28653-2018 Small arms. Terms and Definitions.
Open the section "Characteristics of weapons and ammunition" and read the definition at number 324:
"324 Stopping action of a small arms cartridge bullet:
A characteristic that determines the time interval between a bullet of a small arms cartridge hitting a live target and the loss of combat capability by this target. "
Such a squiggle.
What are the findings?
Obviously, they are as follows: the formula "instantly kill = stop" does not exhaust all cases of loss of combat capability. Simply put, the adversary may lose the opportunity to be dangerous, not only because he has come to a complete and final karachun. Not a full karachun will suit us too. If only the "child" would stop frolicking with causing lethal consequences to others. And in ordinary life, the words "kill" and "stop" are not synonymous.
What are the implications?
The use of the term "stopping action" as a synonym for the phrase "instant death" is not correct, misleads the respectable public, makes it difficult to understand what the respected Author is trying to convey to the reader.
And misunderstanding, of course, serves as a pretext for duels "on feces" of varying degrees of intensity and duration. Not that I am against dueling on feces ... Sometimes it can be quite fun to smear each other with excrement. It's just that such duels distract from the constructive discussion of the topic of the material. Do you need it?
Yes, not in zhist necessary! And let me be painted if I'm wrong!

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Glad

"Instantly kill = stop" is reliable, it is a guarantee, but simply "stop" is the risk of a sudden "resurrection" of the enemy and the continuation of their resistance ...
"Stop without kill" is for stun guns, gas cartridges, etc. etc.

Hmm ... You have an interesting interpretation of terms ...
Glory to the Creator, in the sky-high depths of the Ministry of Defense, they decided that the saying "to call it right is to understand it correctly" has a rational kernel and has given birth to a standard governing the terminology that should be used in relation to small arms. Not even 100500 years have passed ... Well, they don’t look at the donated standard in the spine.
So ... drum roll ...
GOST 28653-2018 Small arms. Terms and Definitions.
Open the section "Characteristics of weapons and ammunition" and read the definition at number 324:
"324 Stopping action of a small arms cartridge bullet:
A characteristic that determines the time interval between a bullet of a small arms cartridge hitting a live target and the loss of combat capability by this target. "
Such a squiggle.
What are the findings?

In GOST, you can write whatever you want. What does it mean to you, "the loss of this goal of combat capability"? But what if the combat capability is temporarily lost? After 10 seconds, the culprit woke up and shot an approaching police officer? He won't wake up when he is dead.

Firearms are lethal, this is their main property. The stopping effect can only be considered in the context of lethality. For example, a shotgun has a high stopping effect when firing buckshot, and at the same time, a lethality of about 99%. Can the stopping effect of a shotgun be kept at the same level, reducing the lethality?

Quote: Glad

Obviously, they are as follows: the formula "instantly kill = stop" does not exhaust all cases of loss of combat capability. Simply put, an adversary may lose the opportunity to be dangerous, not only because he has come to a complete and final karachun. Not a full karachun will suit us too. If only the "child" would stop frolicking with causing lethal consequences to others.

The difference is in the guarantee that the child will not wake up and continue his work. If there is a desire to stop the child, but not kill, then it is necessary to use not a pistol / shotgun / rifle, but tear gas, a gas cylinder, specialized means with a rubber bullet of 40 mm caliber (the latter can also kill).

And if it comes to shooting, then everything is child.

Quote: Glad

And in ordinary life, the words "kill" and "stop" are not synonymous.

Not in the context of the use of military weapons.

The maximum lethality of a weapon does not deny the possibility of using it to "stop", for example, by shooting an enemy in the limb, but this already carries certain risks. For in the event of a miss, accidental damage to large vessels, etc. the effect will be lethal.

And from a legal point of view, there are risks. For example, by shooting an attacker from a legally available 12-gauge rifle with rubber buckshot, which can easily kill, and if this happens, the court will ask - he shot with rubber, i.e. did not want to kill? But killed? It means excess.

I am sure that for a combat weapon, the stopping effect is inseparable from the destructive one and is only its property, which can be expressed in time and probability.

Everything else "stopping" without "striking" is obviously non-lethal. Moreover, even in a non-lethal one, an increase in the “stopping” one can lead to the appearance of a “striking” one. For example, by increasing the concentration of tear gas, the eyes and mucous membranes will begin to be damaged, asthmatics may die, we raise the power of the stun gun - a weak heart, problems with the nervous system - death (which happens regularly in the USA).

[Smooth]

I am sure that for a combat weapon, the stopping effect is inseparable from the destructive one and is only its property, which can be expressed in time and probability. Everything else "stopping" without "striking" is obviously non-lethal. Moreover, even in a non-lethal one, an increase in the “stopping” one can lead to the appearance of a “striking” one.

You see, what a thing ... Personally, I can be sure of anything. The fact that the "barrel" and the "muzzle" are one and the same, or that the "trigger" is the same as the "trigger".
I can actively prove that I have the right to use one term instead of another, because I know that D'Artagnan is me, and all the others, so they went out for a walk. And the compilers of the GOSTs of that ... As, incidentally, the participants of all kinds of scientific and practical conferences .. People are strange and mysterious, since they write in their GOSTs and conference materials not what I am personally sure of.
I can even build some theory on the belief that the "trigger" is the "trigger". No problem. I have the right.
However, at the same time, I must be prepared for the fact that there will be people who will not understand why I call the "trigger" "trigger" and will start asking why I use the name of one part of the weapon instead of the name of another ...

[haron]

Quote: Avior

Including Taylor's formula

Sorry, but this is nonsense.
There is no target property in the formula, but in life there is a difference between people. Are you going to shoot at the "Schwarzenegger" who has eaten opiates, or at a sick 70-year-old man weighing 40 kg? There is a difference?
When talking about ML, there are no authorities. This is how to talk about Atlantis.

[Avior]

I do not write that this formula is the only true one.
And by definition, it cannot evaluate OD with accuracy in each specific case, since the specific effect will depend on the place of entry, on the state of the person, say, the presence of alcohol or some drugs in the blood. It is statistical and probabilistic.
On the other hand, for a comparative analysis of various ammunition when comparing them between such a method, in principle, it is suitable, again with a probabilistic assessment.

[haron]

Quote: Avior

On the other hand, for a comparative analysis of various ammunition when comparing them between such a method, in principle, it is suitable, again with a probabilistic assessment.

Taylor is not even suitable for comparative analysis, without even delving into the properties of the target. Take two 9x19, one will be with the FMJ bullet and the second with a half-shell expansive, while they will be the same in the TTX according to the Taylor formula - the result of shooting at gelatin will be very different.

[gross kaput]

what’s interesting to me is that the author strongly clings to the flat top of the bullet, how, in his opinion, should increase the damaging effect of the bullet - but what about ballistics on the trajectory?
Interestingly, for the sake of interest, the author at least studied a little how the designers of b / p solved this problem so that they wouldn’t fall out of the convention and not fix it with ballistics?
I recommend the author to study the subject a bit before undertaking landmark works
To begin with, to study the design of the following pistol bullets - Austrian Shneepflug, German from MEN Dusengeschoss, French THV from SFM. To understand what ways it is still possible to increase the stop-blowing effect without breaking the Hague, it makes sense to ask about the Spanish development of 4,6mm micro-caliber cartridges at CETME.

[psiho117]

Quote: gross kaput

gross kaput

SW gross kaput, but you can learn more about

Austrian Shneepflug and German from MEN Dusengeschoss

?
Well, or a reference please. I know about THV and Spanish, but I hear about these for the first time

[gross kaput]

The actual description of these bullets is in the second volume of the monograph of Dvoryaninov, in the evening I take pictures of the pages and lay out.

[gross kaput]

here are the pages from the book

[psiho117]

Thank you!

[gross kaput]

Yes, not at all.

[psiho117]

Heh, look - Nobleman is a supporter of THV bullets, and not a supporter of German politicians
I remember reading about these bullets back in the Foreign Military Review, in childhood. Also delighted with its apparent simplicity of design, and at the same time with great efficiency.

[gross kaput]

They have one significant drawback - the small effective firing range due to the low weight and still not the optimal shape - i.e. extremely low BC, which is why they have not received significant development.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: gross kaput

what’s interesting to me is that the author strongly clings to the flat top of the bullet, how, in his opinion, should increase the damaging effect of the bullet - but what about ballistics on the trajectory?
Interestingly, for the sake of interest, the author at least studied a little how the designers of b / p solved this problem so that they wouldn’t fall out of the convention and not fix it with ballistics?
I recommend the author to study the subject a bit before undertaking landmark works
To begin with, to study the design of the following pistol bullets - Austrian Shneepflug, German from MEN Dusengeschoss, French THV from SFM. To understand what ways it is still possible to increase the stop-blowing effect without breaking the Hague, it makes sense to ask about the Spanish development of 4,6mm micro-caliber cartridges at CETME.

Not that clings. It’s just that often all other methods of increasing the damaging effect are either extremely expensive or lead to a decrease in armor penetration, especially since this is an assumption. Ideally, all tasks can be solved with an unstable small-caliber cartridge with a fairly high energy.

A flat-headed bullet is an easy way to brake a bullet in the body without frills. It is clear that armor penetration will decrease with respect to body armor, but the lethal effect when firing through the boards or the car body will remain.

Ballistics for a pistol is not so critical, but I'm talking about pistol bullets, flatheads are successfully used, including selected in the new US competition for ammunition for pistols.

[Wildcat]

I will try to find and post an old American article, where this question "PDW and its patron" began to be viewed as "as a rule, the cause of death is: 1. destruction of the central nervous system (including the brain and spinal cord), 2. destruction of large vessels (including the heart) , 3. shock 4. post-wound complications, including infections ". True, the article ended with the fact that after the disappearance of the danger of World War 3 and budget cuts, such a question as "a weapon for a clerk who went out to smoke and someone else's recce is trying to steal him away" is irrelevant. And it may well be solved even with a 9 * 19 pistol, even an MP5 with a new butt. Never mind.
True, when the senseless and merciless GWOT began, new goals and new priorities appeared ("we shoot close, a lot and MB at NIB or cars (other obstacles), pulling everything on ourselves"), a renaissance arose and MP7 (DEVGRU in the USA actively uses it ) and P90 (here Yandex will help).

[riwas]

Our armor-piercing pistol cartridges (armor-piercing core in a lead "jacket") work in the following ways. When it gets into a bulletproof vest, the core "crawls" out of the "shirt" and pierces the bulletproof vest. And the "shirt" leaves a characteristic mark on the armor. Thus, the "shirt" strikes, which is transmitted to the body through the body armor. Double action: from the core and from the jacket.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: riwas

Our armor-piercing pistol cartridges (armor-piercing core in a lead "jacket") work in the following ways. When it gets into a bulletproof vest, the core "crawls" out of the "shirt" and pierces the bulletproof vest. And the "shirt" leaves a characteristic mark on the armor. Thus, the "shirt" strikes, which is transmitted to the body through the body armor. Double action: from the core and from the jacket.

The shirt’s mass is extremely small, and, as I understand it, they try to optimize the design of the bullet so that the shirt has a minimum of energy, it goes to the core to the maximum, i.e. The back-up effect of the shirt is minimized.

I wonder how such ammunition behaves when firing at an unarmored target, maybe the shirt gives some expansive effect?

[riwas]

Judging by the picture, most of the energy comes from the "shirt".
https://topwar.ru/9921-pistoletnye-patrony.html

[riwas]

With a thick steel core close to the caliber, armor penetration is significantly reduced. Therefore, sub-caliber shells try to make smaller diameter.

[gross kaput]

Quote: riwas

Therefore, sub-caliber shells try to make smaller diameter.

This is not why the caliber makes it so for another reason - it is simplified for the maximum return from the combustion of gunpowder in the barrel bore that the maximum projectile cross-sectional area is more advantageous, and for ballistics on the trajectory, on the contrary, a small diameter and as large a mass as possible.
With regard to armor penetration, it breaks apart, among other things, and the core energy itself is the mass at speed, so they try to make the core heavier, and for large diameters they use the core narrowing after the maximum diameter to reduce the friction of the side surfaces of the core against the barrier after breaking through.

[riwas]

reduce friction of the side surfaces of the core

To break through the armor, it is important to create more effort in a smaller area. To break through a thinner channel - to deformation armor needs less energy. A long, thin and heavy core is suitable for this purpose.

[gross kaput]

You forget one simple thing - breaking through the armor is not an end in itself, the main goal is to inflict damage on what is behind this armor, for this the residual mass of the core must have sufficient energy after breaking through. In rifle calibers, this is simpler - a large elongation of the core and its mass make it possible to maintain the backward action at the proper level, in pistol calibers everything rests on the design of the bullet and cartridge - there’s no place to lengthen the bullet in particular, which is why things that are not rational at first glance go. As an example, 7n30 is a sufficiently large maximum diameter of the core and narrowing in the area of ​​the shirt.

At the same time, in terms of the punching action at short ranges, he loses a bit by 7n31 but wins by the beyond, while at large distances his penetration is equal to and exceeds 7n31 due to the large mass and less speed loss on the trajectory.
Moreover, the desire to squeeze out the maximum from 7n31 in terms of characteristics - primarily in terms of range and residual energy of the core - led the designers to a dead end - by lengthening the thin core to the maximum - so that it began to "swell" the shell along the bottom of the bullet, they reduced it, and it was already not great liner volume. As a result, for the maximum acceleration of the bullet, one had to be smart with the brand of gunpowder and, as a result, the output is very high maximum pressure - it is not for nothing that this cartridge was nicknamed the "Glock killer". At the same time, a second negative effect was obtained - low accuracy of fire.

[Michael HORNET]

here, by the way, it is really visible that the 9x21 cartridge is superior in efficiency to 9x19 in all aspects, while doing the same work at less pressure, and that it would really be right to choose it as the main pistol cartridge. So it’s worth supporting the choice of a Boa instead of a submarine as the main pistol and finally making the cartridge 9x21 of an exotic FSO-shny cartridge a standard army

[Simargl]

We average: to break through, you need as much pressure (and energy) as possible, in order for the barrel to be real, you need to limit the pressure. Those. the area (caliber) of the projectile during firing is as large as possible, and penetration as little as possible. So there were sub-caliber crowbars.

[Avior]

The weight of the shirt is extremely small.

if the shirt is lead, and the core is thin steel, then the bulk will be on the shirt.

[gross kaput]

No, it doesn’t, the bullet does not undress in soft obstacles.

[riwas]

It is possible to increase the stopping effect of a bullet using "hooks". The tail part of the bullet has a smaller diameter in comparison with the caliber, onto which the stamped "crown" is pressed. A ring with small teeth directed towards the bullet's flight and slightly outward. When a bulletproof vest is pierced, the teeth of the "crown" do not interfere, since they are caliber, but when they hit the body they can cling, increasing the stopping effect of the bullet.

[Slon1978]

A number of the author's theses seem controversial. The stopping effect of a bullet is quite rightly defined as the loss of the target's ability to resist. But then the author himself equates this exclusively with the death of the goal, which is his fundamental mistake. The target can lose the ability to attack or resist not only from death, but also from pain shock. In this case, the injury does not have to be fatal. All hunters know the situation when a large animal (elk, bear) "lies down" - can no longer move, but is still alive. It can be targeted with a second shot. This comes from the painful shock of being hit by a large caliber bullet and high energy. When cutting an animal, a significant amount of meat around the bullet hit is wasted, because the meat is smashed, filled with blood, has a different consistency and is not suitable for consumption. These are the consequences of hydrodynamic trauma (contusion), which caused a painful shock as a result of which the animal "lay down". At the same time, I read about a case in Chechnya (and I am sure that this is far from an isolated case) when a militant who received multiple hits of 5,45 was able to reach the shelter and the fighter who fired had doubts at all that he got from 100 meters, then to the shelter for some time they were afraid to approach and only after a while they found the militant dead right behind the cover with multiple hits.
It is methodologically incorrect to compare the hits of 1 11 mm bullet and 2 5,45 mm bullets, because only 1 hit is possible per unit of time, no one will let themselves be shot. Relatively speaking, in a second granted to you by the effect of surprise, you can hit 1 time until you are hit. Therefore, for close range - for the role of a "trench broom", police or assault weapon, it is more expedient to consider a bullet of a large caliber with a needle-shaped solid core, rather than high-speed bullets of small calibers. And when the target is at an average or long distance and has time to "reach" from the wounds received, then it is advisable to use high-speed small-caliber pointed bullets with armor-piercing cores.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Slon1978

A number of the author's theses look controversial. The stopping effect of a bullet is quite rightly defined as the loss of the target's ability to resist. But then the author himself equates this exclusively with the death of the goal, which is his fundamental mistake. The target can lose the ability to attack or resist not only from death, but also from pain shock. In this case, the injury does not have to be fatal. All hunters know the situation when a large animal (elk, bear) "lies down" - can no longer move, but is still alive. It can be targeted with a second shot. This comes from the painful shock of being hit by a large-caliber bullet and high energy. When cutting an animal, a significant amount of meat around a bullet hit is wasted, because the meat is smashed, filled with blood, has a different consistency and is not suitable for consumption. These are the consequences of hydrodynamic trauma (contusion), which caused a painful shock as a result of which the animal "lay down".

The problem is that, as I understand it, there is still no clear quantitative assessment of this type of impact, all studies contradict one another.

Quote: Slon1978

At the same time, I read about the incident in Chechnya (and I’m sure that this is far from an isolated case), when a fighter who received multiple 5,45 hits was able to run to cover and the fighter who fired had any doubts that he had fallen from 100 meters, then some more At that time they were afraid to come up and only after a while they found the gunman dead right behind the shelter with multiple hits.

It is necessary to have a more detailed understanding of the situation, whether there was a bulletproof vest on the action movie, what clothes, shooting was not conducted through branches and other issues. In general, the damaging effect of 5,45 is often called into question, but the issue is not caliber, but the PMSM is that the energy of the bullet is less than that of 7,62x39.

5,45x39 - Bullet energy, J 1143...1528
Bullet energy, J 540 (silent) - 2206

You need to understand what cartridge the fighter shot. If it is closer to 1143, then the energy of a bullet is almost 2 times less than that of a normal 7,62 (2206).

You can compare ammunition of different caliber, but with the same initial energy, then it will be possible to understand the contribution of the caliber.

Quote: Slon1978

It is methodologically incorrect to compare the hit of the 1 bullets of the caliber 11 mm and the 2 bullets of the caliber 5,45 mm, because per unit of time, only 1 hits are possible, no one will allow themselves to be shot. Relatively speaking, in a second granted to you by the effect of surprise, you can get 1 once before you hit you.

If we talk about the Prospective army pistol I proposed based on the PDW concept, then in the main mode of firing in a short burst of 2 rounds, with a rate of fire of 1800 rounds per minute, about six hundredths of a second (0,06 seconds) pass between shots. This will ensure that two bullets hit 1 target. In fact - 1 shot, "manually" will not work that way. You can do 2-3, well, even four shots per second (for super pro) manually, but this is 0,5-0,25 seconds, i.e. 4-8 times slower.

What can work is confirmed by the AN-94, which has been adopted for service. Yes, they didn’t release it in a large batch, but this is more due to design flaws rather than concepts.

[Ironcity]

Here's another thing that’s not clear: how are you going to ensure accuracy when shooting deuces? The abakan uses a complicated firearm circuit, which is hardly acceptable for a pistol. Shooting a pistol without a butt in automatic mode will give a scatter that will lead the 2nd bullet into the milk. And the rate of fire here will not help. Shooting with twos from a short barrels, for example, involves the production of a 2nd shot, when the weapon returns to the aiming line after a toss from the 1st. But all these ultrasounds and engrams without a butt do not work either.

[SHOPPING MALL]

[quote = Ironcity] Here's another thing that’s not clear: but how are you going to ensure accuracy when shooting deuces? The abakan uses a complicated firearm circuit, which is hardly acceptable for a pistol. [/ quote]

There are plenty of weapons where they shoot deuces t triples without a gun monitor. And they shoot at 300-400 meters from a machine gun, and most often from a pistol up to 25.

[quote = Ironcity] Firing a pistol without a butt in automatic mode will produce a spread that will take the 2 bullet into the milk. And the rate of fire here will not help. Shooting with twos from a short barrel, for example, implies the firing of the 2th shot, when the weapon returns to the aiming line after the throwing from the 1go.

On this video it can be seen that it is quite possible to shoot heaps of Glock 18 in heaps. OC-23 Drozd assumed shooting in bursts of three rounds, of course, there is a weak ammunition 5,45x18 (120-150 J), although its enhanced version was studied on 300-400 J.

According to the test results, the recoil of 5,7x28 is perceived about 30% easier than that of 9x19 of the same energy you can expect that the shooting with a pair of 5,7x28 will be comparable to that of the 357 ZIG or 40S & W.

[quote = Ironcity] But all these ultrasounds and engrams without a butt do not work like that. [/ quote]

They work, but at a short range. The firing mode for two rounds is designed for a range of up to about 15 meters, presumably, it’s better to shoot solo further.

[prodi]

shooting single with an open shutter is not kosher

[vmasterv]

I think the term "stopping effect" is of little use for evaluating the effect of various small ammunition. There are too many nuances. It will be easier to use the term "Striking effect" taking into account the model of the weapon from which the shot was fired. The idea of ​​creating fancy ballistic stands is very good. Such a stand simply needs to be made and test standards introduced according to the principle of the same crash tests used for vehicles. Divide the stand into conditional affected zones, shoot the N-th amount of ammunition from various weapons and, according to the data from the stand, enter it into the plate. You can also test armor on it. On the analysis of such data, it is already possible to draw more reliable conclusions, of course, taking into account the physiological, psychological and other characteristics of a person. As an example: cartridge: 9X18 weapon: Makarov pistol: affected area No. 5 (liver) number of lesions: 1 Photo: _________ Video: __________ Data from sensors. from 1 to 10000 and a medical report.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: vmasterv

I think the term "stopping effect" is of little use for evaluating the effect of various small ammunition. There are too many nuances. It will be easier to use the term "Striking effect" taking into account the model of the weapon from which the shot was fired.

The damaging effect will characterize only the probability of hitting the target with one shot. The stopping, in my understanding, is the same thing, only taking into account the time of death from the moment it hits.

Quote: vmasterv

The idea of ​​creating fancy ballistic stands is very good. Such a stand simply needs to be made and test standards introduced according to the principle of the same crash tests used for vehicles. Divide the stand into conditional affected zones, shoot the N-th amount of ammunition from various weapons and, according to the data from the stand, enter it into the plate. You can also test armor on it. On the analysis of such data, it is already possible to draw more reliable conclusions, of course, taking into account the physiological, psychological and other characteristics of a person. As an example: cartridge: 9X18 weapon: Makarov pistol: affected area No. 5 (liver) number of lesions: 1 Photo: _________ Video: __________ Data from sensors. from 1 to 10000 and a medical report.

Mat. the model of the damage to the body must be compiled taking into account statistics on gunshot wounds, it is possible that the use of neural networks will provide additional benefits, + consultations with doctors.

[vmasterv]

How well it stops - only you can draw conclusions.
http://ren.tv/novosti/2019-08-02/chudovishchnoe-napadenie-muzhchiny-na-policeyskih-v-surgute-popalo-na-video

[Avior]

I think the term "stopping effect" is of little use for evaluating the effect of various small ammunition.

and you don’t need different ones, we are talking about pistols with their small application distances, with a greater distance it is much less relevant.

[vmasterv]

I read the news today. Two came to rob the third. Robbers with PP defending with a shotgun. As a result, minus the burglar and minus the defender. Who didn’t have time to stop?

[Avior]

A shotgun against PP is not the best weapon.
But actually, we are discussing an army pistol and pistol cartridges here.

[Catfish]

Thanks to the author! The article caused a discussion, and it is no less interesting for the article itself. What is the meaning of life. Interestingly, will any of the hamsters give me a minus for a completely neutral post?

[Nick]

One thing I know, the small-caliber cartridge allows you to increase wearable ammunition and improve firing accuracy due to the small recoil momentum and trajectory flatness. But this is about comparing AKM and AK-74 assault rifles, which I have operating experience with Regarding use in a combat situation, I would rather prefer a larger caliber, that is, AKM, but for shooting exercises at a shooting range it is better than AK-74 as the return is less, the flatness is better and the accuracy of the hit is correspondingly higher. But with regards to the pistols I can not say anything. There is little experience shooting from the PM and all, unfortunately. There is nothing to compare with.

[MBRSS]

zrazom pidemo soak Moskaliv with tsgooy reset
nothing personal, but watched the video on YouTube. Of course, "at once

no to you stsuki

[Narak-zempo]

troll face
It is high time to put an end to the Hague marasmus. The ancestors were eccentrics, after all - they talked about some kind of "humanity" in the war. In our time, the main thing is efficiency.
By the way, is it impossible to prevent any SDYAV into the body of the bullet so that there are simply no fatal wounds? Breivik was about to smear with nicotine, but then changed his mind for some reason.

[Avior]

Some have already finished the tribunal.
And they are not alone.
They also probably thought that winners are not judged

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Avior

Some have already finished the tribunal.

A pretty tribunal.
Those who set up "death factories" were judged by those who burned people in whole cities.
As they say, who are the judges?

Quote: Avior

They also probably thought that winners are not judged

Yes. None of the representatives of the victorious party was brought to trial for war crimes.

[psiho117]

winners are not judged, and you know it very well

[Basarev]

In my opinion, everything is much simpler. Given how enormous the numerical superiority of likely friends over Russia is, the only right thing to do is to kill. Especially considering the extremely high sensitivity to losses. So the more we kill, the sooner the Westerners themselves will sweep away the wicked presidents, and the new ones will try to agree on conditions favorable to Russia.

[Sergei]

Hit of 22 lr into the aorta. 45 ASP hit in the chest. You don't have to write further)