Pluspinc: I'm surprised by your statement that "The rifle offers very little in the way of stopping power compared to most conventional handguns". If the target to be stopped were a 200 pound whitetail deer rather than a 200 pound human, would you still consider the rifle's advantage negligible?
"A handgun is for shooting your way to your rifle..."
- Thread starter jdd
- Start date
- Status
IZZYJeff Thomas
New member
An aside - pluspinc, there may be at least one exception to the accepted views on rifles for home defense. Please see http://www.olyarms.com/223cqb.html
Apparently the .223 in 55 gr. hollowpoint may have some practical use in urban tactics / home defense.
When I first heard this quote, it was in a more humorous version,'... shooting your way back to your rifle, which you so stupidly left behind ...'
Apparently the .223 in 55 gr. hollowpoint may have some practical use in urban tactics / home defense.
When I first heard this quote, it was in a more humorous version,'... shooting your way back to your rifle, which you so stupidly left behind ...'
I always thought of it this way:
Pistols are deployed when there is no time to prepare for the attack.
Shotguns and rifles are deployed when you have time to prepare for the attack.
After all, is there anyone who would prefer to get into a gunfight with a pistol over a shotgun or rifle? Ask yourself - if at home and a situation arose where you might need to defend yourself with a firearm would you reach past your shotgun to get to your pistol? Why?
If you don't own a shotgun or rifle, fine. But if you can, you should.
Erik
Pistols are deployed when there is no time to prepare for the attack.
Shotguns and rifles are deployed when you have time to prepare for the attack.
After all, is there anyone who would prefer to get into a gunfight with a pistol over a shotgun or rifle? Ask yourself - if at home and a situation arose where you might need to defend yourself with a firearm would you reach past your shotgun to get to your pistol? Why?
If you don't own a shotgun or rifle, fine. But if you can, you should.
Erik
Destructo6
New member
The quote is meant for military types in a combat zone. The pistol is a defensive arm only in combat. That's why the Geneva Convention allows Hospital Corpsman and Medics to carry no more than a pistol for self defense and the defense of their patients.
An aside - pluspinc, there may be at least one exception to the accepted views on
rifles for home defense. Please see http://www.olyarms.com/223cqb.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BORING!!! As usuual you get the unverified nebulous reports. IF the police agency they mentioned in that biker drug raid existed, the information is PUBLIC and there is no reason NOT to name them. This constant gun rag type non-verifiable no-name stuff wears thin.
Also the federal "studies" are hardly worth the reading. These are the sources that claimed the 9mm Silvertip out performed all others and it came in #1 in their "tests" and then they flip flopped and the same outfit did thier "tests" again after the Miami thingee and that same load came in LAST but they came up with the 10mm. Remember that one?
Also as for Fackler they list NOTHING of value. They failed to mention the lethality rate Fackler and others use.
What you have in that piece is a typical gun rag logic with a collection of bits and pieces trying to make a point.
And incidents are always ONE time incidents that we are told are "normal." We learned a lot about the .223 in combat. Why try to use a "one time" raid as a foundation for an argument.
Also in that nameless PD item, the cop fired and MISSED with the first two shots out of four. The idea of slugs wandering around from such weapons isn't very comforting to those of us living in urban areas.
rifles for home defense. Please see http://www.olyarms.com/223cqb.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BORING!!! As usuual you get the unverified nebulous reports. IF the police agency they mentioned in that biker drug raid existed, the information is PUBLIC and there is no reason NOT to name them. This constant gun rag type non-verifiable no-name stuff wears thin.
Also the federal "studies" are hardly worth the reading. These are the sources that claimed the 9mm Silvertip out performed all others and it came in #1 in their "tests" and then they flip flopped and the same outfit did thier "tests" again after the Miami thingee and that same load came in LAST but they came up with the 10mm. Remember that one?
Also as for Fackler they list NOTHING of value. They failed to mention the lethality rate Fackler and others use.
What you have in that piece is a typical gun rag logic with a collection of bits and pieces trying to make a point.
And incidents are always ONE time incidents that we are told are "normal." We learned a lot about the .223 in combat. Why try to use a "one time" raid as a foundation for an argument.
Also in that nameless PD item, the cop fired and MISSED with the first two shots out of four. The idea of slugs wandering around from such weapons isn't very comforting to those of us living in urban areas.
Pluspinc- "The rifle offers very little in the way of stopping power compared to most
conventional handguns."
I think your credibility on the issue went out the window with the above statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
yeah, FACTS do get boring. With a lethality rate only 2 or 3 percent greater than handguns I think the FACTS are pretty obvious that the advantage is not that great. You could argue with the medical types if you want, and that is common in the gun magazine crowd. We don't always hear what we WANT to hear.
It is NOT MY information and NOT my creditability on the line. It is the medical types that publish this stuff. Your argument is with them. This isn't the first time the gun mythes have been blown out of the water.
If you really want to argue the point I will point you to two sources.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is a quote on the medical treatment of gunshot wounds.
Reports from Vietnam confirmed the often minimal wounds caused by AK-47
bullets: "Uncomplicated perforating soft-tissue wounds were the most common
bullet wounds of the extremities; They showed small entry and exit wounds
and a clean soft tissue track with little or no devitalization of tissue.
They usually healed if left alone."[3]
In the proceedings of the Tri-Service War Surgery Conferences, in which
those who were treating the war surgery casualties met to report and
discuss their findings, all three of Trask et al.'s conclusions were shown
to be in error.[4] More recent reports from Afghanistan concur: "Wounds
with the greatest tendency to spontaneous healing were the through and
through gunshot wounds. Of note were the number of patients in this group
with gunshot wounds, the bullet passing through the body, who did not have
the massive tissue destruction that one expects, even when bone had been
fragmented."[5]
The most convincing and undeniable available evidence exposing the
exaggerations and misstatements by Trask et al. comes from examining the
mortality rates from incidents in which deranged persons shot multiple
victims (1984-1994). "Assault rifles" were used in four incidents: 89
persons were shot; 17 died, for a mortality rate of 19%. Shotguns were
used in five incidents: 71 persons were shot; 48 died, for a mortality rate
of 68%. The much lower velocity projectiles fired by the shotguns produced
a mortality rate more than three and one-half times that produced by the
"high -velocity" assault rifle bullets.[6]
Edgar A. Suter, MD
National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
Member, International Wound Ballistics Association
Col. Martin L. Fackler MD, US Army (retired)
President, International Wound Ballistics Association
Former Director, US Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory
Member, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Most wounds from military type rifles are no big deal compared to LOWER velocity wounds from a shotgun for example. And little greater than a handgun. Now there is MY source for my OPINION. Where is yours?
Guns & Ammo doesn't count. If you disagree take it up with the source. Blah blah blah as a person once said.
------------------
Specialists in the use and training of lethal force.
conventional handguns."
I think your credibility on the issue went out the window with the above statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
yeah, FACTS do get boring. With a lethality rate only 2 or 3 percent greater than handguns I think the FACTS are pretty obvious that the advantage is not that great. You could argue with the medical types if you want, and that is common in the gun magazine crowd. We don't always hear what we WANT to hear.
It is NOT MY information and NOT my creditability on the line. It is the medical types that publish this stuff. Your argument is with them. This isn't the first time the gun mythes have been blown out of the water.
If you really want to argue the point I will point you to two sources.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is a quote on the medical treatment of gunshot wounds.
Reports from Vietnam confirmed the often minimal wounds caused by AK-47
bullets: "Uncomplicated perforating soft-tissue wounds were the most common
bullet wounds of the extremities; They showed small entry and exit wounds
and a clean soft tissue track with little or no devitalization of tissue.
They usually healed if left alone."[3]
In the proceedings of the Tri-Service War Surgery Conferences, in which
those who were treating the war surgery casualties met to report and
discuss their findings, all three of Trask et al.'s conclusions were shown
to be in error.[4] More recent reports from Afghanistan concur: "Wounds
with the greatest tendency to spontaneous healing were the through and
through gunshot wounds. Of note were the number of patients in this group
with gunshot wounds, the bullet passing through the body, who did not have
the massive tissue destruction that one expects, even when bone had been
fragmented."[5]
The most convincing and undeniable available evidence exposing the
exaggerations and misstatements by Trask et al. comes from examining the
mortality rates from incidents in which deranged persons shot multiple
victims (1984-1994). "Assault rifles" were used in four incidents: 89
persons were shot; 17 died, for a mortality rate of 19%. Shotguns were
used in five incidents: 71 persons were shot; 48 died, for a mortality rate
of 68%. The much lower velocity projectiles fired by the shotguns produced
a mortality rate more than three and one-half times that produced by the
"high -velocity" assault rifle bullets.[6]
Edgar A. Suter, MD
National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
Member, International Wound Ballistics Association
Col. Martin L. Fackler MD, US Army (retired)
President, International Wound Ballistics Association
Former Director, US Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory
Member, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Most wounds from military type rifles are no big deal compared to LOWER velocity wounds from a shotgun for example. And little greater than a handgun. Now there is MY source for my OPINION. Where is yours?
Guns & Ammo doesn't count. If you disagree take it up with the source. Blah blah blah as a person once said.
------------------
Specialists in the use and training of lethal force.
Rogue Spear
New member
Lets see, handgun instead of a rifle?? Hmmmm, LAPD bank shoot out, officers were using handguns, shotguns and what happened? So a rifle isn't a good stopper? Only marginally more than a handgun? For my home defense I dont care what the stats say, if you want to bring a handgun to a firefight by all means go ahead. I'll take the rifle any day even on Sunday!
Jeff Thomas
New member
pluspinc, without getting into your critique of that particular article, I gather your opinion is that a .223 55gr hollowpoint round is still going to penetrate more than a pistol round? We're not talking about .308 or 30-06.
I ask because I have heard others begin to discuss and ponder the real facts on this score,including some instructors. And, we have seen some LEO's using .223 carbines in urban settings. Conventional wisdom is sometimes in error. Again, the article I noted above is not the only place I've heard this theory advanced.
If a .223 round has more utility in an urban setting than previously considered, then a good AR with two or three thirty-round magazines might be an interesting alternative to a shotgun for some home defense. In my hands at least, the AR is much more accurate, and delivers considerably more fire power than a sidearm.
Now, whether one needs that kind of fire power is open to debate. However, in this town, we have had some sad situations where home invaders have entered homes with two or three armed BG's attacking. Not likely, but I wouldn't want to face such a crew with a 6-shot revolver.
In my area, it is quasi-rural - one acre lots, with mountains on two sides. I've still chosen a shotgun for HD, but I keep learning. That's what I enjoy about TFL.
Thanks. Regards from AZ
I ask because I have heard others begin to discuss and ponder the real facts on this score,including some instructors. And, we have seen some LEO's using .223 carbines in urban settings. Conventional wisdom is sometimes in error. Again, the article I noted above is not the only place I've heard this theory advanced.
If a .223 round has more utility in an urban setting than previously considered, then a good AR with two or three thirty-round magazines might be an interesting alternative to a shotgun for some home defense. In my hands at least, the AR is much more accurate, and delivers considerably more fire power than a sidearm.
Now, whether one needs that kind of fire power is open to debate. However, in this town, we have had some sad situations where home invaders have entered homes with two or three armed BG's attacking. Not likely, but I wouldn't want to face such a crew with a 6-shot revolver.
In my area, it is quasi-rural - one acre lots, with mountains on two sides. I've still chosen a shotgun for HD, but I keep learning. That's what I enjoy about TFL.
Thanks. Regards from AZ
Plusp's "statistics" are coming from BALL AMMO, which is DESIGNED to only produce a SMALL HOLE in the victim. NO hollowpoints are allowed on the battlefield. NATO specified this restriction due to the MASSIVE BODILY DAMAGE that hollowpoint ammunition imparts on the human body. The goal of war is NOT to KILL the enemy, but to put him out of action. As usual, Darrel's statistics have NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.
I don't read many gun mags but I do hunt a lot. In fact, I think the gun mags actually glorify the handgun quite a bit more than they should for combat rather than vice versa.
I have killed many small and medium sized game with bot handguns and rifles of all calibers, and I have dressed then and studied the wounds. If you think that a handgun does anywhere near the damage that a rifle does, then I cannot imagine how you could qualify yourself as a firearms instructor, because you obviously do not have any clue about what you are talking about.
I have killed many small and medium sized game with bot handguns and rifles of all calibers, and I have dressed then and studied the wounds. If you think that a handgun does anywhere near the damage that a rifle does, then I cannot imagine how you could qualify yourself as a firearms instructor, because you obviously do not have any clue about what you are talking about.
have killed many small and medium sized game with bot handguns and rifles of all calibers, and I have dressed then and studied the wounds. If you think that a handgun does anywhere near the damage that a rifle does, then I cannot imagine how you could qualify yourself as a firearms instructor, because you obviously do not have any clue about what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Shooting critters and people are not related and I can't imagine a grown and educated adult thinking they are. Also the information I use is from SCIENTIFIC sources not some gun magazines. If you have a complaint take it up with the medical scientists. I am a court approved expert witness on firearms use and self-defense issues. You can list YOUR credentials on the issues if you like.
++++++++++++++
Plusp's "statistics" are coming from BALL AMMO, which is DESIGNED to only produce a
SMALL HOLE in the victim. NO hollowpoints are allowed on the battlefield. NATO specified this restriction due to the MASSIVE BODILY DAMAGE that hollowpoint ammunition imparts on the human body.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Small hole? The hole is the EXACT size of the bullet. Simple math. It doesn't get smaller because it is a FMJ. You are totally wrong about hollowpoints in battle. If you check you will find our military sniper units use the Federal HOLLOWPOINT and have for years in .308. We never signed the ammunition agreements of war BTW.
Also you need a visit to www.plusp.com to see REAL bullet wounds. We are presently ready to upload photos of organs etc., AFTER being hit by various hollowpoints. It is not as dramatic as you THINK they are. Having attended numerous autopsies and having done murder investigations you find that 50% or MORE of hollowpoints do NOT expand and those that do, will expand at the END of a wound channel where it doesn't do a whole lot of good. Also you can hardly tell without microscopic examination if a bullet wound channel is from a FMJ or hollowpoint and that may not do it. You are watching way to many movies. Even if the bullet expands in text book perfect fastion the ONLY thing that does is increase bleeding and NOTHING more. Bleeding takes a lot of time to make much difference. 40% of people shot in the heart with a handgun will LIVE. See my web page for a picture of a human heart IN the body still beating with a 9mm hole in it.
+++++++++++++++
And, we have seen some LEO's using .223 carbines in urban settings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And it makes me shudder. They have a 90+% miss rate with pistols, so we give them .223's. Strange world we live in. Most will make little effort to excell to the MINIMUM requirements of qualification with a handgun which are constantly lowered, and we give them .223's?
I hope NOT for the safety of our children and low flying aircraft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Shooting critters and people are not related and I can't imagine a grown and educated adult thinking they are. Also the information I use is from SCIENTIFIC sources not some gun magazines. If you have a complaint take it up with the medical scientists. I am a court approved expert witness on firearms use and self-defense issues. You can list YOUR credentials on the issues if you like.
++++++++++++++
Plusp's "statistics" are coming from BALL AMMO, which is DESIGNED to only produce a
SMALL HOLE in the victim. NO hollowpoints are allowed on the battlefield. NATO specified this restriction due to the MASSIVE BODILY DAMAGE that hollowpoint ammunition imparts on the human body.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Small hole? The hole is the EXACT size of the bullet. Simple math. It doesn't get smaller because it is a FMJ. You are totally wrong about hollowpoints in battle. If you check you will find our military sniper units use the Federal HOLLOWPOINT and have for years in .308. We never signed the ammunition agreements of war BTW.
Also you need a visit to www.plusp.com to see REAL bullet wounds. We are presently ready to upload photos of organs etc., AFTER being hit by various hollowpoints. It is not as dramatic as you THINK they are. Having attended numerous autopsies and having done murder investigations you find that 50% or MORE of hollowpoints do NOT expand and those that do, will expand at the END of a wound channel where it doesn't do a whole lot of good. Also you can hardly tell without microscopic examination if a bullet wound channel is from a FMJ or hollowpoint and that may not do it. You are watching way to many movies. Even if the bullet expands in text book perfect fastion the ONLY thing that does is increase bleeding and NOTHING more. Bleeding takes a lot of time to make much difference. 40% of people shot in the heart with a handgun will LIVE. See my web page for a picture of a human heart IN the body still beating with a 9mm hole in it.
+++++++++++++++
And, we have seen some LEO's using .223 carbines in urban settings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And it makes me shudder. They have a 90+% miss rate with pistols, so we give them .223's. Strange world we live in. Most will make little effort to excell to the MINIMUM requirements of qualification with a handgun which are constantly lowered, and we give them .223's?
I hope NOT for the safety of our children and low flying aircraft.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If you check you will find our military sniper units use the Federal
HOLLOWPOINT and have for years in .308. [/quote]
They did? Bloody hell. All that time and we kept supplying them with boat-tailed match FMJ.
LawDog
[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited February 20, 2000).]
HOLLOWPOINT and have for years in .308. [/quote]
They did? Bloody hell. All that time and we kept supplying them with boat-tailed match FMJ.
LawDog
[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited February 20, 2000).]
Scientific tests have shown that the 5.56mm out of a carbine penetrates hard targets LESS than a 9mm. Through dry wall, a 5.56mm will not generally retain enough energy and mass to be lethal, whereas a common 9mm will still be lethal through dry wall.
THAT is why entry teams have been issued 5.56mm carbines lately, for SAFETY, which is a departments number one concern (sometimes good, usually bad). You are wrong Pluspinc, once again. You don't even know why they issue 5.56mm carbines to entry teams, so you are ranting way off base.
Not only that, but at close range, without cover, the 5.56mm out of a carbine makes wounds that a handgun could only dream about. Everyone here has seen the pictures of the wounds at one time and seen scientific descriptions of why these rounds are so vicious, and we all know it, so stop trying to bend statistics and tell us that the sky is green. The argument is so absurd, it is not even worth most people's time here to argue about it. Should we send our troops into urban combat with handguns? Why not? Because rifles put people down faster. Would you rather be shot with a 9mm or a 5.56 carbine?
Ps- shooting a 200 pound animal through the chest and a 200-300 pound man are actually very similar in how the bullet will react and the damage it will do. If the bullet tears a big hole in an animal and obliterates organs in it's path, then it will do the same to a person. The difference in the wounds of a handgun and a rifle are very dramatic. That is real life, not bent statistics.
THAT is why entry teams have been issued 5.56mm carbines lately, for SAFETY, which is a departments number one concern (sometimes good, usually bad). You are wrong Pluspinc, once again. You don't even know why they issue 5.56mm carbines to entry teams, so you are ranting way off base.
Not only that, but at close range, without cover, the 5.56mm out of a carbine makes wounds that a handgun could only dream about. Everyone here has seen the pictures of the wounds at one time and seen scientific descriptions of why these rounds are so vicious, and we all know it, so stop trying to bend statistics and tell us that the sky is green. The argument is so absurd, it is not even worth most people's time here to argue about it. Should we send our troops into urban combat with handguns? Why not? Because rifles put people down faster. Would you rather be shot with a 9mm or a 5.56 carbine?
Ps- shooting a 200 pound animal through the chest and a 200-300 pound man are actually very similar in how the bullet will react and the damage it will do. If the bullet tears a big hole in an animal and obliterates organs in it's path, then it will do the same to a person. The difference in the wounds of a handgun and a rifle are very dramatic. That is real life, not bent statistics.
Libertarian
New member
We are a signatory to the Geneva Convention. That is the article that prohibits anything but FMJ in rifles and handguns (but not flechets or fragmentation gernades - go figure).
A bullet does not leave a permanant wound opening the same size as the bullet for the simple reason the flesh is elastic and the hole tends to reseal itself. (Think about wadcutters v. round nose on paper.)
A bullet does not leave a permanant wound opening the same size as the bullet for the simple reason the flesh is elastic and the hole tends to reseal itself. (Think about wadcutters v. round nose on paper.)
Don't mean to fan flames but I find this whole topic somewhat amusing. With only a few exceptions, if you read the hundreds of published accounts of gunfights that involve civilians you'll be hard put to find any examples of folks who used their handguns to fight their way to their long guns. A few cases I've read involving shopkeepers and folks in their homes, but by in large the vast majority a brutally fast and then they're over. Bang, bang, bang - you're out of the fight or they are! We all have inner fantasies and scenarios we think about or daydream.
In modern America I just don't get this whole philosophy of "a handgun is to fight your way to your rifle with." Rather than discount the power of the handgun, I think it is better to "bury yourself in brass" so that you have have a chance to deliver that power, such as it is, to the place you need to deliver it in the few seconds that you'll likely have (at most) with the only firearm you're likely to have (a handgun) before the situation resolves itself. Regards, Dennis
In modern America I just don't get this whole philosophy of "a handgun is to fight your way to your rifle with." Rather than discount the power of the handgun, I think it is better to "bury yourself in brass" so that you have have a chance to deliver that power, such as it is, to the place you need to deliver it in the few seconds that you'll likely have (at most) with the only firearm you're likely to have (a handgun) before the situation resolves itself. Regards, Dennis
- Status