"A handgun is for shooting your way to your rifle..."

Status
Not open for further replies.
so again shooting a at a 200 pound deer has nothing to do with..... auggghhh i give up.

Apparently unless you are a super secret ninja deltaforce jock with a "expert" medals tattooed on your ass by god almighty and have your words carved in stone over some forsaken monument you apparently should stay the hell home and leave the shooting sports to the "experts".

So I guess no 90 year old granny need a gun.

I guess no cop needs a rifle.

I guess no soldier needs a handgun.

Guys ALL 3 SCENARIOS are totally different.

and let me just say this: i'd MUCH rather trust my safty to a longtime hunting partner who knows how to shoot a moving target and will check to make SURE he has a clear target and can be counted on not to point a gun at ME over ANY armchair commando who practices once in a blue moon, or cop who qualifies once a year or granny that needs a point and shoot piece in a hurry.

HOWEVER:

I'm NOT a cop, I'm not at war, and I'm not 90 years old different rules apply to every scenario.

You DON'T have to be a musician to buy a record.

You don't HAVE to be an artist to buy a painting.

You don't HAVE to be an expert woodsman/sharpshooter/attorney/witness/cop/commando/doctor/gunsmith to own and use a gun.

Dr.Rob


PS Point of contention over "match grade vs "hollowpoint" ammo used by snipers.. Snipers DO NOT use expanding bullets in military applications. the "hollowpoint" in a sierra 168gr. palma match king is a leftover of the manufacturing process the bullet DOES NOT expand. Anti terrorist units and domestic police and troops invloved in drug interdiction are NOT covered by the hague accords, so expanding soft point/hollowpoint ammo is usable in these scenarios. (source: John Pilaster, Ultimate Sniper)
 
Taking a handgun over a rifle in an anticipated fight is not wise. Not only does the rifle out reach and out penetrate the handgun (in human tissue), but there are many other advantages as well.

I covered the subject fully in Tactical Rifle.

The reasoning behind the concept about "taking a rifle to a handgun fight" is not new, and goes back to Jeff Cooper (who preceded Clint Smith). His dictum was always that the handgun was defensive and anytime one expected trouble, he should get something bigger (ie. rifle or shotgun).

All legal limitations aside, its not a bad idea to have some sort of long gun around for just such an instance - in home, business, or vehicle. If you live in an urban area, you just have to be more careful with your shooting (just as you do with a handgun, no?).

In spite of the over riding concept of avoidance, there are times when that is not likely (anyone remember LA in '92). At those times, any good rifle will be worth much more than any good pistol.

Gabe Suarez
Author- Tactical Rifle http://www.thehalogroup.com
 
Law Dog (welcome back), RedBull, and Glenn, You guys are right. PlusP, take a breath and quit thinking so much about equipment. It's not the equipment that wins.

Personnally, I'm gonna take the best tool I've got (pistol, shotgun, or rifle; hopefully one of the latter two), loaded with the best ammo (don't really care hp vs. fmj, just fresh & reliable & Federal), and go to work (which is being sure of your "opponent", background, and knocking him flat).

Sure, you gotta think, just don't overdo it.
 
Depends which I have the most ammo for at the time.

------------------
Anarchism: The radical notion that I am the sole authority when it comes to deciding what's best for me.
 
Couldn't agree with GABE more on the rifle. If you live on the desert or on a mountain top ALONE it might be a good choice. But that isn't true for most of us. A rifle is like any tool. It has a place and wise be the man who figures that out. What military background types don't understand is that the application in the civilian world isn't not the same as a military environment.
 
diesl44, welcome to TFL. Don't worry - most of us live in locations where such a dire need is unlikely. This is a discussion of the relative merits of different firearms - more relevant to LEO's quite often, but of interest to civilians considering their best defense.

This discussion of the .223 hollowpoint round is interesting to me, but it seems to be difficult to calmly discuss the scientific realities. Perhaps another day.
 
Wacky.
deer: 200 lbs. of walking flesh and bone
man: 200 lbs. of walking flesh and bone.
To say there is no relevance is nuts. Anyone can see for themselves if a rifle will outperform a pistol. Go hunting.

Sorry, Plusp, but IMHO you stepped in it on this one. Anyone can refer to this or that "study" or "report" to support almost any theory, but it has been my personal experience that bigger gun = more damage. And if someone needs shooting, I'm looking to do the most damage in the least time.

Modern military ammo is selected with the intent to wound, not kill, as wounding places a higher strain on the opposing army's support and morale. Wounding one takes 3 out of the battle. So, it's not a very good example of rifle "stopping power". And Lawdog is correct. And so is Libertarian.

Large game hunting is more relevant. Major calibers, high performance ammunition, sturdy human sized targets.

As for an urban enviroment, Gabe and DAVE MOON have already posted my opinions.

"What military background types don't understand is that the application in the civilian world isn't not the same as a military environment."

Neither is ammo, equipment, or tactics. So why quote fatality statistics from the military to support your argument?

there is a big difference between an M-16A2 loaded with military ball, and an AR-15 loaded with frangible ammo. I don't forsee laying down sustained suppresive fire on an enemy strongpoint, :) my concerns are more along the lines of zapping the scumbag breaking down my door.

I'm suprised no one mentioned the larger rifle's tendency to pulp organs through hydrostatic pressure. A good hit with a .308 will leave a heart that looks like it was hit with a large hammer.

I really recommend hunting, if you want to compare the effects of different calibers. tracking a wounded deer for a couple hours in the freezing cold will convince you to use the biggest gun availible.
 
Gentlemen: Play fair! Since Pluspinc has been kind enough to cite some sources that support his beliefs, we should address the validity and relevance of those sources if we disagree.

Consider, for instance, the quote from Dr. Suter, which seems to be the source of the "19% rifle fatality rate to 68% shotgun fatality rate" belief. Is this a valid scientific comparison of the lethality of assault rifles and shotguns? Perhaps not, for the following reasons:

1) No definition is given for "assault rifles". We don't know if the shootings cited involved only true assault rifles, such as M-16s and AK-47s, or simply "assault STYLE rifles" which could include anything from a Ruger 10/22 with a pistol grip stock to a 9mm Marlin Camp Carbine. For all we know, half of the 89 persons shot were hit with .22s and 9mm ball rather than with any sort of .223 or 7.62x39 slug.

2) There's no information on the crucial variable of shot placement. Perhaps the "assault rifle" victims were hit at an average range of 40 yards by random shots while the shotgun victims were hit at an average range of 4 feet in center mass. Note that the "assault rifle" incidents had, on average, more victims (22.25) than the shotgun incidents did (14.2), suggesting a wider distribution of rounds. Nor is there any information on the average number of times each victim was shot.

3) This is based on a total of only 9 incidents, a very small number from which to generate statistics.

What do you think? It's been said that "Virgins shouldn't teach sex", so I'd like to step aside and hear some discussion of the scientific method from those of you who've "been there, done that".
 
I work with stats all day - I'm lucky enough to not be in the stat department, though. ;) The stat department constantly reminds me that figures generated off of substantial numbers always produce more accurate results than figures produces off of insubstantial ones. It is a "law" in stats. The smallest quantity used for our purposes is 1000. Usually the numbers have several more zeroes or the data is deemed suspect. All information touted with minimal instances cited is suspect - regardless of whether we like the arguements or not.

Erik
 
Pluspinc, when you say HP's only expand 50% of the time, are you talking pistol HP's? My understanding is that velocity is important to HP expansion, so I would assume that HP rifle ammo moving at 2,000-3,000 fps would expand with much more regularity (and earlier in the wound channel) than pistol ammo moving at 800-1,300 fps.

That said, I would much rather my neighbors avoid rifle ammo for HD. high % of crimes are stopped by GG being armed with anything. If it gets to shooting, I think the % of cases where a rifle vs. pistol would make a difference is extermely small. I would stick with pistol for CCW, shotgun for HD, rifle for hunting game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top