Originally Posted by KCJeep
Shooting through somebody and hitting another innocent bystander is an internet myth. Find me one documented example of it I'd love to see it.
In this book: Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry
Massed Ayoob goes through DOCUMENTED ACTUAL cases of a round going through a bad guy and hitting an innocent.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0054KOLFQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
He starts the discussion with these words:
"From the early '90s adoption of 16-shot 9mm pistols (Glock 19, SIG-SAUER P226 DAO, and Smith & Wesson Model 5946) through 1999, NYPD issued a full metal jacket "hardball" round, comprising a round-nose 115 grain bullet in the mid-1100 fps velocity range. The New York Times exposed the following facts in its startling report on the matter: "According to statistics released by the department, 15 innocent bystanders were struck by police officers using full metal jacket bullets during 1995 and 1996, the police said. Eight were hit directly, five were hit by bullets that had passed through other people and two were hit by bullets that had passed through objects," stated the Times. In other words, in rough numbers, 53 percent of these tragic occurrences were apparently missed shots, while 33 percent were "shoot-throughs" of violent felony suspects. Counting bullets that went through objects to hit presumably unseen innocent victims (13 percent), that tells us that roughly 46 percent of these innocent bystanders were shot by over-penetrating bullets that "pierced their backstops." Let's call those victims Cases One Through Seven."
He continues:
"17 Officers Shot Due to Over-Penetration The Times continued, "In that same period, 44 police officers were struck by gunfire using the old ammunition: 21 were hit directly, 2 were struck by bullets that ricocheted and 17 were struck by bullets that passed through other people." In round numbers, 52 percent of those "friendly fire" casualties were hit by bullets that apparently missed their intended targets. 42 percent passed through the bodies of the intended targets after the bullets struck the people they were aimed at. Let's tally those victims of over-penetration as Cases Eight through Twenty-Four."
So, overpenetration happens.
It has killed people who were not the intended target.
It is most certainly NOT a myth.
Mas goes on to say,
"Some people either just don't get it, or have a totally irresponsible attitude. A popular Internet gun forum recently had a thread in its Caliber Corner section titled, "Why is over-penetration bad?" Most of those who posted had a pretty good grasp on the issue. One or two responsible, gun-wise participants even posted a link to the New York Times story and statistics above. Yet, even after that was posted, one participant wrote (the caps are his): "I have NEVER read ANY article or report addressing IDENTIFIED and actually occurring secondary victims." Now, you can put that down to simple ignorance, or haste in posting an opinion in a discussion he had not read and brought himself up to speed with. But how would you explain the following?"
"One fellow posted in the same discussion thread, "… and should over-penetration occur, oh well. The chances of it hitting someone else is practically nonexistent." Well, let's do the math. 46 percent of wounded innocent bystanders being hit by bullets that went through offenders' bodies or through objects that hopefully should have acted as backstops, is not "practically non-existent" by any stretch of the imagination. 42 percent of cops shot by friendly fire taking bullets that passed through the felony suspect first are not "practically non-existent." On the contrary, they are hugely significant. In that same thread, one poster callously said, "It's too bad about the bystanders. I call it gene pool cleansing." I don't think any comment is necessary on that one."
"Ignorance won't save you. You've heard and read people say that over-penetration is irrelevant because missed shots are a more likely danger. First, a defense that says in essence, "You must forgive me this mistake because I figured I'd probably make a much worse mistake" is a frail reed that will not withstand the gale-force winds of cross-examination. Second, 53 percent misses versus 46 percent shoot-throughs in the unintentional bystander shootings in New York hardly makes the latter "irrelevant." 52% misses versus 42 percent shoot-throughs in the friendly fire shootings of cops in the same study obviously shows that the over-penetrating bullet is not an "irrelevant" danger. The next time some Internet ninja advises you to load ball ammo for home or public defense, think of the above thirty cases. They are documented reality. And they are not the only such cases. Collective reality has given us a message, and it is this: Save the over-penetrating "hardball" for range practice. Load your concealed carry or home defense handgun with ammunition designed, and proven to be likely, to stay inside the body of the offender who forces you to shoot him. It's the responsible thing to do."
I stand with Mas on this point.
I highly recommend buying and reading his books.