jimbob86 said:
If you don't live in a location that allows you to be a self reliant, resonsible citizen, you can always vote with your feet!
You could, but if everybody did that, then there probably would be a lot fewer places we could all cram into by now.
jimbob86 said:
Or you can work to change your local government....
We're working on it here. It'll take a bit longer, but remember that concealed carry wasn't so common in the rest of the country not so long ago, and then of course there had been more federal restrictions, too. We simply had no other country to run to, and frankly I don't like running away from anti-gunners because if they're so successful in one place, then eventually they'll chase after you. Now that they're making a final stand in the few havens left for them, I'd rather eradicate them than run. Well, not literally eradicate them--you know what I mean!
jimbob86 said:
Try to get a CCW permit- you might find that you can get one. If you are denied, then you have a political target come election time!
It may cost a substantial amount of money to merely apply, and it's not worth the risk unless you have a lot of discretionary income to play with. In CCW-unfriendly counties (it's generally done by county here, usually decided by the sheriff), you'll most likely need to show, using concrete, tangible evidence, that your need for personal protection is above that of the average civilian, otherwise they'll almost certainly reject your application, and they may not refund your application fee. I'd rather put the money toward things like a gun, ammo, and training first, and get the CCW after the stupid laws are done away with, which actually may not be all that long from now (knock on wooden stock).
Lost Sheep said:
In order of power, commonly carried cartridges are:
(Skipping the various 32 calibers)
380 Auto (also known as 9x17 or 9mm Corto or 9mm Kurz
9mm Makarov (also known as 9x18)
9mm Parabellum (also known as 9mm, 9x19, 9mm Luger, it is the world-wide standard military pistol cartridge)
38 Special (Sometimes called 38 S&W Special, but not to be confused with the less powerful 38 Smith & Wesson)
38 +P This is a 38 Special loaded to higher pressure than standard 38 Special, but far below the power level of .357 Magnum
9mm Parabellum is generally more powerful than .38 Special+P--certainly with factory loads that most people will be using.
Lost Sheep said:
40 Smith & Wesson (a fairly new Semi-Auto cartridge, VERY popular with police departments nowadays)
44 Special
With standard factory loads, reverse these two.
jimbob86 said:
On Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio show today, he had a guy from the California Rifle and Pistol Association (
www.crpa.org) saying they were making progress on CCW and self defense issues....
Every RKBA organization should be in attack mode right now after the US Supreme Court's decisions on the Heller and McDonald cases. In California, there is virtually no doubt that the only real progress (anytime soon) will be made in the courtroom--via striking down existing unconstitutional laws--rather than the legislature (although that's being worked on, too, through the upcoming election and in the long term). San Diego County couldn't even elect the right sheriff, choosing by far the worst candidate in every respect, not just regarding the CCW issue.
Maxine said:
I'm going to be looking for a range where I can rent a gun, and try out a few different things.
Great idea, and hopefully it will answer a lot of questions that frankly we cannot answer for you.
Maxine said:
I still think I want something for home.
Don't completely give up on CCW, though, in choosing your gun. At the risk of sounding overly and uncharacteristically optimistic, I think that "Shall Issue" is coming to California and eventually everywhere else in the country before long. The case against San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore's refusal to recognize personal defense as a valid reason ("good cause") for issuing CCW permits (the Peruta case) is rock-solid, and the presiding judge, Irma E. Gonzalez, seems to recognize that it is fundamentally incompatible with the Heller decision. With the McDonald decision now making the 2nd Amendment and the Heller interpretation of it apply at all levels of government, only a rabid anti-gun judge (like four of the US Supreme Court's justices
) would not decide in our favor, and in my opinion that is hardly the case here.
Maxine said:
And you never know; I could end up enjoying a firing range, right?
Shooting guns is fun!
Maxine said:
I'm confused by a few things..... One thing I see a lot is 'single action' vs. 'double action'..... looking around that seems to be about pulling back the hammer with your thumb? Is that right? What're the advantages or disadvantages of either?
For defensive shooting, generally you'll be using a revolver in double-action mode, which means that all you have to do for each shot is pull the trigger (then release it for the next shot). The disadvantage is that such a trigger pull is necessarily fairly heavy, and while most people can handle it and still maintain good accuracy and speed with some practice, a few people struggle with being able to pull the trigger at all. In those cases, they may have to resort to the more accurate but slower single-action mode, where for each shot you have to cock the hammer back with your thumb first (virtually everybody who has a functional thumb could do that) and then pull the trigger, which will now be very light and short.
What you'll learn at the range is how well a revolver in double-action mode works for you. If it doesn't, then there are still some "old school" single-action-only revolvers that are better suited for that mode of firing (allowing rapid fire, among other things), albeit most are not the best for CCW unless you're on the large side physically.
By the way, there are also double-action-only revolvers that have no exposed hammer spur to cock (or get snagged on things), although most modern-style revolvers can be shot in either single- or double-action mode (per individual shot) at the shooter's option.
Maxine said:
It may just be an impression, but it seems automatics are cheaper than revolvers? Is this right?
It sure seems that way these days to me, too.
Maxine said:
What's the learning curve for gun maintanence like there?
If you're mechanically inclined at all (even minimally), then it shouldn't be an issue, as most autos are pretty easy to field strip (i.e. separate the major components). I think they're also a bit easier to clean because the barrel and other parts that need cleaning are easier to manipulate and access once disassembled, and there is only one chamber to clean.
Revolvers don't need to be field stripped and reassembled, which may seem like a big advantage for those who are intimidated by the process (and people do occasionally screw it up, which can bind their guns up good and tight
), but detailed cleaning is more crucial for proper functioning, and each chamber (or "charge hole" as they're sometimes still called) needs to be cleaned, which makes for more work.
Maxine said:
How often do you need to clean and look it over? (Heck, question's good for revolvers too....)
If you keep your revolver clean (like cleaning it after every range session, which you should do with a defensive gun), then you could completely ignore it for years and it should still work. Some tout this as an advantage of revolvers, but with a good service auto, I bet that you could do the same. With either you'll want to treat them for corrosion resistance, and occasionally check them for signs of rust. Some feel more comfortable when they unload and reload their auto's magazines every few months, but that shouldn't be necessary, in my opinion.
For guns that are used more frequently for practice, I'd say that revolvers, despite their well-deserved reputation for reliability, cannot withstand as much crud building up as the most reliable autos can (albeit some autos don't tolerate being dirty any better). This is not a real issue for defensive weapons because you should clean and lube them after every range session anyway.
Maxine said:
And again, for California residents (I may go to the California gun boards someone mentioned and asked this, but someone mentioned they're from California too) do you start by filling out your gun permit first, and where can you do that at?
I think that many if not most dealers can administer the Handgun Safety Certificate test and issue the certificate themselves, and you should be able to take the test and buy your first gun on the very same visit if you prefer, or you could do it ahead of time if you're ready. Of course, there will be a nominal fee charged, as with practically everything else. Read through the following guide to see what's involved:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/hscsg.pdf
Maxine said:
EDIT: Oh, and everyone says that .22 calibur isn't good enough. Is this true?
Well, most everybody these days says that with handguns, shot placement (exactly where and what the bullet hits) is what really counts, and I consider penetration a close second because it makes shot placement count. According to industry-standard ballistics tests, .22 LR (short for .22 Long Rifle, which is what people usually mean by .22 caliber), with the right loads, can penetrate deeply enough to make your shots count in human targets, so in theory it is effective. However, the same group of people will often say that .22 LR isn't good enough because the bullets are small and do less damage than larger calibers, which makes them slower to stop people. Then again, the same people will claim that only precise (or lucky) shot placement (plus adequate penetration) can actually stop people quickly, and that the so-called "stopping power" (dropping people with hits almost anywhere on their bodies) of pistol calibers is a myth.
Yes, there are some contradictions here that have yet to be resolved to everybody's satisfaction, and that's because first of all it is difficult if not practically impossible to quantify caliber effectiveness, and that for most people it is moot because they'll just select a larger, more popular (for defense, not target shooting), more proven defensive caliber anyway. Even so, in my opinion .22 LR should be considered for personal defense by those (particularly beginners) who can currently shoot it faster and more accurately than larger calibers due to its light recoil, which helps shot placement, the most important factor in defensive shooting. Additionally, in a revolver it'll give you a higher shot capacity of 8-10 rounds (and there's even a 12-round single-action revolver now).
Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut, surefire way to choose between calibers. First go to the range and try .22 LR (in a revolver) and some larger calibers such as .38 Special for comparison. In my view, defensive shooting includes being able to shoot fast when necessary while keeping on target, and by fast I mean multiple shots in rapid succession. Sometimes just showing a bad guy your gun is enough to make him flee the scene, and sometimes a single shot gets the job done--in either case, a .22 LR revolver would be enough. But sometimes you have to keep shooting, possibly at more than one target, and that's where ease of shooting can help. If .22 LR makes you a better shooter, then despite being so small, it may be the best option. Use something bigger if you can because bigger is generally better on a per-round basis, but don't entirely discount .22 LR for defense as many people do.
Maxine said:
And if so, why do they even make them?
Because .22 LR is far cheaper than any other caliber (the ammo, not necessarily the guns), and is easy and fun to shoot. Plus some folks use it to shoot pests and varmints, although it can be lethal against humans (and many other largish creatures), as noted above.
jmortimer said:
The .22 Long Rifle performs best out of a rifle but is used in hand guns. The longer barrel allows more of the powder to burn and create more velocity and more energy.
While that is true, for some perspective certain hyper-velocity loads can attain similar velocities out of handguns that standard-velocity loads attain out of rifles. One such example is the CCI Velocitor, which has 40 grain (i.e. standard rather than reduced weight) bullets, no less. I'd definitely recommend this load for defensive purposes, if .22 LR works best for you, as it seems to penetrate adequately when used in a wide range of weapons, including handguns and rifles with barrels of varying lengths.
jmortimer said:
It is a rimfire and less reliable than a centerfire
That may be true of ultra-cheap bulk ammo, but premium .22 LR ammo such as the Velocitor has been very reliable in my experience. I'd only use .22 LR in a revolver, by the way, as in my opinion autos aren't reliable enough for defense with this specific caliber (partly because the cartridges are rimmed, unlike normal ammo for autos).
jmortimer said:
and lack sufficient power to reliably stop an assulant.
And sometimes multiple shots from far more powerful calibers can fail, too, if you didn't hit anything vital, while .22 LR can potentially kill with a single shot if you did. Like people keep repeating over and over (but evidently do not necessarily believe 100%
), the most important factor is shot placement.
