Thalys Train Attack – A Cultural Bias for Action

In France this past week, we saw the actions of six people thwart what would mostly likely have been very severe on the Thalys Train traveling from Amsterdam to Paris. There were over 500 people on the train, and yet only six acted. Undoubtedly, there were others in the vicinity who could have acted, but they choose not to, or chose instead to distance themselves from the attacker. Conversely we saw employee’s of the company that operated the train lock people out of cars in a desperate attempt to save their own lives, even though their actions clearly increased the risk for those who could not have escaped the gunman. What is interesting, is that undoubted, Americans were in the minority by a substantial percentage, and yet four of the six who acted, were American.

One of the Americans involved in thwarting the attack was quoted as saying “Do something! Once I started moving, all the fear left me” or something to that effect as I have seen about four different variations of his exact “quote”. There is actually a biological basis for his feeling. The body has a natural programmed response of the autonomic nervous system in response to stressors frequently referred to as the fight or flight response.

The fight or flight response is common across species and evolved as a means of increasing the chances of survival during violent or life threatening experiences. The trigger for the autonomic nervous system in response to stresso is recognition that an organism is in a stressful situation. Most of us have felt some version of this response at some point in our lives in response to an unexpected stimulus. In the case of an existential threat, the autonomic nervous system dumps a combination of cortisol, epinephrine, norepinephrine and dopamine into the blood stream.

We aren’t going to get into the physiology of fight or flight but the impact of this chemical cocktail on the body is decreased sensitivity to pain and increased muscular performance which can be used to fight or run, or anything else we choose to do with it. Many on the train choose to sit and stare, others to hide or run, but only a handful to fight. The biological response to stressors is pretty standard across the human species. In the case of this attack, everyone who was aware of the situation was most likely physically primed to act, but the decision to act aggressively, and solve the problem, was only made by six.

The primary driver of what we decide to do with our genetic abilities and limitations is based on our environmental or cultural influences and is less influenced by genetics. In fact, you can condition people to be more or less prone to act through training. That is exactly what the training for military and some law enforcement personnel entails. It is called by a number of terms, but a bias for aggressive action is an apt description of the end goal of military training programs.

We do this by placing candidates in stressful situations and critiquing their response. One common principle in elite units is that bad decisions are not great and good decisions are preferred, but a lack of decision and action is a reason to be removed from the the unit. The bottom line is that a bad decision may result in a catastrophe, but no decision places you at the whim of the attacker, which will result in a catastrophe every time. Some combination of positive and negative reinforcement is used to instill a bias for doing something aggressive in the face of negative stress.

Many Americans respond well to this sort of training because it is in fact quite similar to what they are culturally used to. Conversely, most of the Arab militaries I have worked with do not have the cultural ability to act with out direct instruction and intense supervision. This is not, as far as we know a genetic limitation as there is no “bias for action” gene that we are aware of. There are certainly examples of Arabs who can learn to function in this type of environment, and many Arab Americans who serve in elite American military and intelligence assignments very successful. This further leads us to the conclusion that it is not a genetic limitation, which means it is likely environmentally induced.

Anyone who has worked with a nations military that comes from a culture of dependance will tell you how very different it is to working with Americans. You can see the culture of dependance result in an almost innate desire to have some else, anyone else make the decision for them. This delay is grossly ineffective in violent encounters. The question is what are the environmental conditions of American culture that lends itself to producing a predilection to act aggressively in the face of stress? Continue Reading>>

Author ~ Patrick Henry

Bullet Set Back

In his book, author, firearms instructor, and former Marine Paul G. Markel succinctly describes the journey through firearms proficiency from novice through “expert.” More importantly, he describes the attainment of "expert" not as indicative of the end of the journey, but a firm commitment to being a life-long student. Through my personal journey, I’ve had the opportunity to train, compete, and instruct in firearms disciplines… and there are still many things I learn every day. Although I’ve studied and written extensively on ballistics and considerations for personal and home defense ammunition, I recently "re-learned" a valuable lesson on bullet set-back that I’d like to briefly share with you.

For a number of years, I’d kept a 1911 in .45ACP as my home defense firearm and loaded it with 185 grain jacketed hollow-point cartridges. During this time, I’d followed the advice that I’ve often dispensed to “routinely train with the firearm, firing the personal defense ammunition to ensure 100% reliability and then thoroughly clean the firearm and the magazines."

Well, in the last two years, I switched my home defense firearm to a Sig P227 in .45ACP for the higher capacity (14 versus 8), the integral light rail, and the choice of Double Action or Single Action. Feeling confident with the 185 grain jacketed hollow-point cartridges, I kept the P227 loaded with this ammunition as well. At first, I routinely trained with this handgun/ammunition combination and found it to be as reliable as the 1911 that formerly held this role.

Another Step in the Journey

However, I "fell behind" on training with this system as often as I had in the past… opting to just unload the firearm and the magazines, clean and lubricate both, conduct a non-live-fire function check, re-load, and replace.

Recently, when I conducted this routine, I noticed how the Sig P227 failed to feed the first cartridge into the chamber which jammed the gun out of battery. Whereas a “tap” to the rear of the slide would normally return to the gun into battery, chamber the cartridge, and lock the slide and barrel to the frame, this cartridge was firmly jammed against the barrel’s feed ramp. For a home defense firearm that must be 100% reliable, I found this to be discomforting.

When I unloaded the gun, the cartridge in question fell free from the magazine and I noticed that it looked “a little different.” Well, it looked a lot different… and so did the second cartridge in the magazine. THEY WERE SHORTER!!!! This different dimension, the overall length, is one of the contributing factors that led to the jam. Other than the obvious concern that these cartridges could potentially jam my firearm when I needed it the most, I wondered how many other cartridges in the magazine were "shorter?"

With a digital caliper, I measured the overall length (from the end of the cartridge rim to the leading edge of the projectile) of the ammunition from the box which had not been chambered into the Sig P227 and they measured 1.206 inches. This measurement was consistent with all other un-chambered cartridges.

The measurement on the “short” cartridge was 1.103 inches! Although this is only about one-tenth of an inch, it was enough to jam the gun. So, I did a quick test with a “good” cartridge and chambered it repeatedly while taking a measurement between each iteration. I had found that each time I chambered the same cartridge, the bullet “set-back” about five thousands of an inch (0.005?). This could be caused by an insufficient crimp (pressure from the inside of the cartridge case against the outside of the projectile), the edge of the blunt-tipped jacketed hollow-point impacting the feed ramp, or both.

The bullet set-back was not only altering the external geometry of the cartridge as it fed from the magazine into the chamber which increased the potential for a jam, it was also changing the dimensions within the cartridge itself.

Internal Ballistics, Pressure, and Bullet Set-Back

If you recall from the Ballistics Series, there are four components to a metallic cartridge: the case, the primer, the propellant, and the projectile. Ideally, the composition/density of the propellant fills the otherwise empty volume of the cartridge case for a uniform ignition. Continue Reading »

Author: Howard Hall