YAGT: OMG I love guns

[MtnMan]

Ohhh boy. Wait until the .40 S&W and/or .45 ACP die-hards read that. "NA UHHH!!!!" Hahaha.

I have a CCW in 9mm and own a P226 in .40, so I have both, but even if I only had .45 ACP I can objectively accept findings like that without getting my panties in a bunch. I just can't wait to see the arguments and denial of reality by the fanboys of .40/.45.

Handgun calibers are NOT manstoppers, but just about any caliber will send the message to the bad guy that he made a poor choice in victims and they will turn and run.

I have a number of different carry guns, based on my dress, weather, and other factors, from .380 to .40.

 

[IGemini]

http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/10-lessons-learned-worst-gun-ever-owned/

Interesting read...

Was her husband new to firearms, too? .40S&W is the last caliber I'd suggest for a first pistol and I'd make sure anyone would try it first in the same gun or similar platform they would plan to buy before actually getting one. The caliber debate is a bunch of smoke, the round just has more snap than some want to handle. Spending a pretty penny on a Kimber that you can't return is irresponsible.

For firearms I maintain that the best thing I did getting started was renting various pistols among the three major calibers and putting at least 100 rounds through each. You can get a good idea for feel in half that, but 100 makes it easier to practice at different distances/conditions more than once. I arguably have more hands-on time than most would do before buying first (14 between pistols & revolvers, not including .22s, before my first handgun), but I have a pretty good idea of what works for me. Certainly haven't regretted any purchase I made yet.

 

[shortylickens]

Handgun calibers are NOT manstoppers,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

 

[Merad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

Killing and stopping are not the same thing.

 

[irishScott]

Killing and stopping are not the same thing.

Depends on where you hit.

 

[irishScott]

Handgun calibers are NOT manstoppers, but just about any caliber will send the message to the bad guy that he made a poor choice in victims and they will turn and run.

I have a number of different carry guns, based on my dress, weather, and other factors, from .380 to .40.

Or you'll hit them in a critical organ and they'll die or collapse on the spot. I'd define that as "man-stopping". I sincerely hope you're not implying that handgun rounds can't or don't immediately kill. It's all in the shot placement, and that goes for many rifle rounds as well.

 

[Kelvrick]

Or you'll hit them in a critical organ and they'll die or collapse on the spot. I'd define that as "man-stopping". I sincerely hope you're not implying that handgun rounds can't or don't immediately kill. It's all in the shot placement, and that goes for many rifle rounds as well.

I think we can get away from the caliber argument. If the shot did what it needed to, then it was the right caliber and/or the right aim. If it didn't, then it was the wrong caliber and/or the wrong aim. End of story. I think he was implying that handgun calibers (short of the big boys) are generally categorized as backup weapons and something to be used to get to your rifle. I guess it is a good thing 99% of us will only experience the mean streets of wherever our local range is located.

People will make their own decisions regarding how they want to balance recoil with kinetic energy, round speed, expansion (if applicable), wound profiles, capacity, cost, etc, etc.

In other news, I picked up an M&P 9 core 4.25" today. I was really only looking for a regular run of the mill M&P 9mm fullsize, but those are hard to find in California along with the confusion of what model the seller has. Hopefully I don't get tempted to pick up an RMR, now.

 

[Merad]

Or you'll hit them in a critical organ and they'll die or collapse on the spot. I'd define that as "man-stopping".

Yeah, and that basically only happens if the round severs the spinal column or hits the brain. Someone can be hit in the liver, lungs, or even heart, ensuring that they will be very thoroughly dead, but continue fighting for a minute or more before they collapse.

 

[BlitzPuppet]

Took my Kit build Ak74 to the range this weekend and shot 60 rounds without issue.

Light recoil, accurate, and works. I couldn't ask for more!

 

[RampantAndroid]

Killing and stopping are not the same thing.

In self defense, they are absolutely the same...if you fire a gun in self defense and then say "I wasn't aiming to kill" you'll be in a world of hurt with charges brought against you. You shoot to kill. Or you don't shoot at all.

 

[irishScott]

Yeah, and that basically only happens if the round severs the spinal column or hits the brain. Someone can be hit in the liver, lungs, or even heart, ensuring that they will be very thoroughly dead, but continue fighting for a minute or more before they collapse.

Someone can fight for a minute or more after being hit in the heart? What action movie are you getting this from? We should be advising heart attack victims to drive themselves to the hospital in the middle of their attacks!

Collapsing a lung, stopping the heart or destroying leg tendons/muscle is going to take effect a lot quicker than a minute. Not that I advocate leg shots, just that there are many ways to incapacitate the threat even if they don't instantly kill.

Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukAJKnXvFa8

 

[Bartman39]

Common guys lets chill on the critical organ stuff...? Is'nt shooting at one another enough...:whiste:

Got me a new .45 to play with...:biggrin:

 

[NutBucket]

Details!

 

[MtnMan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

Didn't say they won't kill you, but they do not have the velocity and power to immediately stop someone (unless of course it is a lucky shot and hits something really vital).
A long gun does have the velocity and power to immediately stop someone.

 

[Phoenix86]

Didn't say they won't kill you, but they do not have the velocity and power to immediately stop someone (unless of course it is a lucky shot and hits something really vital).
A long gun does have the velocity and power to immediately stop someone.

I think we can safely assume most people here aren't talking about any engagement that's military style. Most of us are looking to protect our homes and ourselves.

Given that, long guns aren't really the correct weapon. Yes, there's a few you'd likely recommend in specific scenarios. Shotguns in general, and more compact long guns meant for closer quarters. Even then, those are only for the home, not in public...

The range of the "most likely" encounters would be less than 100' or so, and probably indoors. That leaves you with hand guns as the only option available for both scenarios.

So, your average non-gun enthusiast should learn a handgun and train on only that, because they won't have time to train on multiple weapons.

 

[Merad]

Someone can fight for a minute or more after being hit in the heart? What action movie are you getting this from? We should be advising heart attack victims to drive themselves to the hospital in the middle of their attacks!

A nice action movie called Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, by just some guy who's a doctor and expert on ballistic trauma. He cites two cases:

1. A man was shot in the chest by a 12 gauge with #7 1/2 shot from a range of 3-4 feet. Despite his heart being totally shredded, he was able to run almost 70 feet before collapsing. To quote the book, "Such activity is not surprising if one realizes that an individual can function without a heart for a short time."

2. A teenager was shot in the back with a .25 ACP which pierced the aorta, left main pulmonary artery, and left lung. 30 minutes after being shot he arrived at the hospital awake, alert, and with normal vital signs. 45 minutes after being shot, he started to become agitated and slipped into shock. He was taken into surgery and eventually died 2 hours and 20 min after being shot.

So basically, you have no guarantees whatsoever about incapacitation unless the brain stem is hit.

 

[irishScott]

A nice action movie called Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, by just some guy who's a doctor and expert on ballistic trauma. He cites two cases:

1. A man was shot in the chest by a 12 gauge with #7 1/2 shot from a range of 3-4 feet. Despite his heart being totally shredded, he was able to run almost 70 feet before collapsing. To quote the book, "Such activity is not surprising if one realizes that an individual can function without a heart for a short time."

2. A teenager was shot in the back with a .25 ACP which pierced the aorta, left main pulmonary artery, and left lung. 30 minutes after being shot he arrived at the hospital awake, alert, and with normal vital signs. 45 minutes after being shot, he started to become agitated and slipped into shock. He was taken into surgery and eventually died 2 hours and 20 min after being shot.

So basically, you have no guarantees whatsoever about incapacitation unless the brain stem is hit.

1. #7 1/2 is birdshot. I sincerely doubt his heart was "completely shredded". Stopped maybe, but birdshot isn't known for penetration in humans. Show me someone get shot in the heart with 00 buckshot who keeps fighting like nothing happened, the energy alone is going to knock them on their ass and probably break ribs even if they were wearing rifle plates.

2. That one I believe, as .25 acp is the most diminutive center-fire round available and likely didn't pierce with enough force to collapse the lung or cause a major bleed. Same shot with a larger caliber would have very different results. Even .380 has about 4x the muzzle energy of .25 acp.

Even if both stores are 100% accurate they're extreme outliers. There may not be any guarantee of incapacitation, but that's like saying there's no guarantee of my killing someone by hitting them with my car. One way or another there will be an immediate effect in 99.9% of cases, and the bigger and faster the car the greater the effect and likelihood of effect.

 

[Merad]

1. #7 1/2 is birdshot. I sincerely doubt his heart was "completely shredded".

Yeah, the author is a well known expert on gunshot wounds and examined that case in person. I'm gonna have to value his word more than your internet opinion.

 

[MongGrel]

I'd imagine a 12 gauge with birdshot from 3-4 feet would really mess something up.

00 would mess it up much worse, but still.

 

[irishScott]

Yeah, the author is a well known expert on gunshot wounds and examined that case in person. I'm gonna have to value his word more than your internet opinion.

And I've seen well known experts exaggerate before. Believe whatever you want, I'm just saying citing two cases involving diminutive rounds that no one would recommend for self defense isn't what I'd call convincing.

 

[irishScott]

I'd imagine a 12 gauge with birdshot from 3-4 feet would really mess something up.

00 would mess it up worse, but still.

Everything I've seen concerning bird-shot wounds (which is admittedly just what anyone can find on the internet) seems to indicate that it makes large, nasty, but relatively shallow wounds with only a small minority of pellets penetrating far enough to do any potentially lethal damage.

Some ballistic gel comparisons here (starts with #8 birdshot):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhZf_x8Esms

And some corresponding data for the buckshot, note the FBI minimum, and that Birdshot had about half the penetration of #4 buckshot which is already well below said minimum.

There's also this test by the same people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=192&v=0xALsm0NRDM

If #8 shot truly "shredded" that guy's heart, as in physically sliced it into shreds, then he was a very skinny guy and/or it was an abnormally powerful load.

 

[RampantAndroid]

My view on this has always been to just say got with #4 buck if you live in a populated area. Load 1-2 shells of #4, then the rest as 00.

 

[MongGrel]

I never said I'd recommend birdshot for self defense, I never would.

But the difference between 3-4 feet vs 50 yard will be huge of course.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Good article:

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/bird-shot-for-self-defense

If you don’t believe me, check out this video (caution if you have a weak stomach for blood) from a police shooting in Bahrain. The birdshot created bloody and painful wounds but didn’t incapacitate the teenage boy who was shot. It appeared as if none of the birdshot pellets penetrated more than about 1/2 inch into his body.


In my study of defensive shootings, I collected data on nearly 200 shotgun shootings. When I analyzed the data to determine which rounds immediately incapacitated the person shot, I found some interesting results:

Birdshot (all types)- 17% of shots led to an immediate incapacitation
Buckshot (all types)- 54% of shots led to an immediate incapacitation
Rifled Slugs- 67% of shots led to an immediate incapacitation
- See more at: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/bird-shot-for-self-defense#sthash.lr3vTkRT.dpuf

Birdshot patterns so badly at anything more than 10-15 feet that collateral damage happens, and doesn't seem like it does enough damage to warrant having one loaded. If someone is aiming for the head, they are doing it wrong. Do NOT aim for the head. If you miss, and you're more likely to with a smaller target, it'll go through walls and such. Stay with something that patterns better and can be fired at center of mass, IMO.

 

[MongGrel]

Even a little 410 shotgun with a Rifled Slug will do serious shit, yeah.

.410 slug gun.

No pattern, it's a rifle at that point of course more or less, but that is the point of Buckshot to begin with.

I still have a couple .357 Magnums with Hollow Points I keep around personally for that use.