'it's not a combat round. it's a self-defense round. '
- Thread starter Shotgun693
- Start date
Mrgunsngear
New member
The difference between a combat round and a self defense round is in combat, at least in the military, you are assigned what to use. i.e. rounds and weapon. For self defense, you pick and there's no way I'd pick the stuff they force me to use at work (military). FMJ rounds? I don't thinks so...
How old are glasers? almost 40 years since they were released. First I recalll hearing about them was in 1975 or thereabouts.
Do they still offer the 1 million dollar payment to the survivors of anyone who got a body shot in with a glaser, and then died by return fire?
I think that the glaser was a great idea at one time, but now, due to evolution of the human form from being a skinny terrier type construction into a bulldog wild boar like construction, I think that they would have a much harder time creating a lethal instantaneous shock.
Remember, fat don't bleed.
Do they still offer the 1 million dollar payment to the survivors of anyone who got a body shot in with a glaser, and then died by return fire?
I think that the glaser was a great idea at one time, but now, due to evolution of the human form from being a skinny terrier type construction into a bulldog wild boar like construction, I think that they would have a much harder time creating a lethal instantaneous shock.
Remember, fat don't bleed.
hardworker
New member
I think labels like this are kind of pointless. Any round can be used for combat or defense. I've even heard of old timey soil engineers using guns to test soil compaction (albiet way more awesome than troxler, but probably not covered by an ASTM).
the point? Who cares
the point? Who cares
Shotgun693
New member
The only time this might cause a heartache would be in court, I think. I want my Lawyer calling my ammo self defense ammo every time he opens his mouth and I want him calling the other/bad guys ammo combat ammo every time he talks about the other/bad guy. This is my opinion until or if it gets changed.
jason_iowa
New member
All rounds are lethal. Personally I want any round I fire to go through my target. The only way to truly stop a threat is a CNS hit or loss of blood pressure. So an entry and exit wound is desirable. Energy transfer does very little.
No hand gun round is going to have enough energy to knock me down. Not even a deer slug at point blank range is going to knock me down through energy transfer. Its just physics. What you don't want is a round leaving with enough energy to penetrate anything beyond your target.
A threat may stop before blood pressure loss or CNS being disabled and that should be our goal is to stop any threat as quickly as we can and keep ourselves and our loved ones safe.
No hand gun round is going to have enough energy to knock me down. Not even a deer slug at point blank range is going to knock me down through energy transfer. Its just physics. What you don't want is a round leaving with enough energy to penetrate anything beyond your target.
A threat may stop before blood pressure loss or CNS being disabled and that should be our goal is to stop any threat as quickly as we can and keep ourselves and our loved ones safe.
Everybody has differing ideas of terms...
Which is why one can discuss and argue better in English than some other tongues.
COMBAT has many definitions, all involving some kind of conflict. Which one specifically answers the question. Opinion is asked for, and here is mine...
While one can fairly describe any shooting as combat (because it is), but "combat" used in the term "combat round" implies something to me. It says we are talking about warfare. Military combat. And that means "comabt rounds" are clearly defined by US law and policy.
Normally, that means FMJ.
"Defensive round" implies any other round, but one primarly designed for the most rapid incapacitation of an assailant. Not any round that happens to have been used in defense.
Citizens don't engage in combat. The police don't engage in combat. Not in the military sense. And although that seems to be changing for a lot of police agencies with the use of swat teams being so common these days. Its not the police's role in society to engage in combat. And it shouldn't be.
While we may have to endure combat in order to defend ourselves (and in the case of police apprehend dangerous criminals) we don't engage in combat (go looking for it) the way the military does. And we are not bound by the same rules for our choice of ammunition for serious social use.
Words create perceptions, out of proportion to their defined usages. Use "combat" rounds and the DA can argue you (subconciously, perhaps) were seeking to shoot/kill someone.
Use "hunting" or "target" ammo, and that argument goes nowhere, even with the most uninformed jurors.
Defensive ammo is a kind of double edged sword when it comes to opinion twisting. It implies that you have thought about the possiblity of actually using it against an assailant. A slick lawyer might try to make something out of that, buts its much tougher.
Opinions vary greatly about what makes the best "defensive" round, which is why we have so many choices!
Which is why one can discuss and argue better in English than some other tongues.
COMBAT has many definitions, all involving some kind of conflict. Which one specifically answers the question. Opinion is asked for, and here is mine...
While one can fairly describe any shooting as combat (because it is), but "combat" used in the term "combat round" implies something to me. It says we are talking about warfare. Military combat. And that means "comabt rounds" are clearly defined by US law and policy.
Normally, that means FMJ.
"Defensive round" implies any other round, but one primarly designed for the most rapid incapacitation of an assailant. Not any round that happens to have been used in defense.
Citizens don't engage in combat. The police don't engage in combat. Not in the military sense. And although that seems to be changing for a lot of police agencies with the use of swat teams being so common these days. Its not the police's role in society to engage in combat. And it shouldn't be.
While we may have to endure combat in order to defend ourselves (and in the case of police apprehend dangerous criminals) we don't engage in combat (go looking for it) the way the military does. And we are not bound by the same rules for our choice of ammunition for serious social use.
Words create perceptions, out of proportion to their defined usages. Use "combat" rounds and the DA can argue you (subconciously, perhaps) were seeking to shoot/kill someone.
Use "hunting" or "target" ammo, and that argument goes nowhere, even with the most uninformed jurors.
Defensive ammo is a kind of double edged sword when it comes to opinion twisting. It implies that you have thought about the possiblity of actually using it against an assailant. A slick lawyer might try to make something out of that, buts its much tougher.
Opinions vary greatly about what makes the best "defensive" round, which is why we have so many choices!
The problem here is that human propensity to label. Whenever a person sees a difference, we name it. How many terms do the eskimos have for something as simple as frozen water falling from the sky?
As was mentioned, the one arena where this matters the most (outside of advertising) is in the legal system.
A lawyer knows that the easiest way to control a person's thinking, is to use a label, because that is our natural way of thinking.
Label the perp as a misguided youth. Label the homeowner as a radical nut. Label the gun as a high powered killing machine, and he used cop killer bullets. label the break in as an error in judgement, and the homeowner as a rogue vigilante. By the time a lawyer has all of the elements of the case lined out in 8x10 color glossy photos, with circles and arrows, all properly labeled, the defendant won't stand a chance when the feeble minded jurors that the prosecutor managed to hand select start listening to his smooth patter.
Sure, "Combat," "Defensive", they're just labels. Labels, however, are hazardous, because to many people, once something is labeled, it is what the label says it is. worse yet, labels are the tools of bad people and liars.
As was mentioned, the one arena where this matters the most (outside of advertising) is in the legal system.
A lawyer knows that the easiest way to control a person's thinking, is to use a label, because that is our natural way of thinking.
Label the perp as a misguided youth. Label the homeowner as a radical nut. Label the gun as a high powered killing machine, and he used cop killer bullets. label the break in as an error in judgement, and the homeowner as a rogue vigilante. By the time a lawyer has all of the elements of the case lined out in 8x10 color glossy photos, with circles and arrows, all properly labeled, the defendant won't stand a chance when the feeble minded jurors that the prosecutor managed to hand select start listening to his smooth patter.
Sure, "Combat," "Defensive", they're just labels. Labels, however, are hazardous, because to many people, once something is labeled, it is what the label says it is. worse yet, labels are the tools of bad people and liars.
So apparently, a combat round isn't necessarily associated with "Combat Shooting", which includes all forms of self defense. The term "Combat Gun" has always been associated with "street gun"---the types carried by many armed citizens as well as LE.
The Military side of things has usually been a separate subject, since military combat weapons and combat guns used by citizens may be different.
Now I've just learned that the ammo used in a civilian Combat gun should be called SD ammo if used by civilians and Combat ammo where the military is concerned.
Good grief, how confusing do we want to make this issue?
I think I'll call any gun that's considered to be good for defending ones self from a two legged predators, also armed with a gun, a combat gun. That includes 1911's, HK's, SIG's, Beretta Storms, and lots of pistols owned by many of us on this board for that very purpose.
And we can't leave out S&W's Combat Magnum, Distinguished Combat Magnum, and all the other revolvers that serve the same purpose just as well---can we?
Of course, not everyone would agree--guess now we need a thread to define Combat Gun.
Last edited:
What I said, was that lawyers use labels as a tool, and I said that it was dangerousl. I never said anything else.
And do I think that jurors are feeble minded?
Yes I do. Lawyers of every kind attempt to avoid smart, clever, independent minded jurors for a case. they want people who will not understand the oppposing case who can be manipulated to believe their own, and jurors who don't appear to fit that mold are taken out of the jury pool. When the case comes to court, what will they do? They may even move the trial to another state, even, because they don't trust the local jury pool. Sometimes they will even lock the jury up for the entire duration of the trial, so that they have no input other than the day after day of speeches made by the lawyers.
Do I think that the jury system is flawed?
You bet I do. If I have for example, exercised the right given to me by god to defend my family, and I'm charged because of some failure to follow legal requirements, do I want that prosecutor to select 12 people from my community, and play a game that is essentially "get them to agree with me?"
Let me add that yes, I believe that jury members are feeble minded. I don't personally know a single person that I really would want to see sitting on a capitol punishment case. Some of them are just plain stupid. Some of them are gullible to extreme degree. Some of them are disorganized thinkers, have emotional problems, arrogant and close minded, etc.
Maybe you think it's fine. I don't.
Going back to the topic, I really think that defensive ammo is the best possible label to use. No good guy uses hollow points against another person except in defense.
So, in a way, use of "defensive" ammunition automatically gives you an edge, whereas use of "cop killer" bullets aren't going to help your image in court.
Edward429451
Moderator
There's no such thing as over-penetration. There's no good reason for tactically weak ammo.
I have absolutely no intention of grabbing that tar baby by the neck, for two reasons. First, it's off topic, whereas my post on labeling "defensive rounds" and the judicial consequences was. You're probably not goint to like what I have to say, anyway, and I'm not here to argue politics with you.
I think I made it pretty clear that I don't like labeling of any sort, because it tends to simplify complex issues into sound bites. Labels are for commercials. They have a dumbing down effect. I think that black talon, "gun nut," assault rifle, and "cop killer" bullets are great examples.
Again, I doubt you agree, but these are good examples of why I think labeling is dangerous all throughout society. There's nothing more for me to say on the subject.
Archer 9505
New member
Combat vs. Self Defense
It is a legal distinction.
As a civilian arming myself to defend home and family I am not bound by the constraints of international treaty and agreement. As a legal combatant on the battlefield I am constrained by the Laws of Armed Conflict and International Treaties and Agreements. A few years ago we lawyered our way through legal hurtles so that our snipers and designated marksman could use HPBT ammunition in combat (War). In that example the HP part of the HPBT was determine not to contribute significantly to the destructive characteristics of the bullet.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html
It is a legal distinction.
As a civilian arming myself to defend home and family I am not bound by the constraints of international treaty and agreement. As a legal combatant on the battlefield I am constrained by the Laws of Armed Conflict and International Treaties and Agreements. A few years ago we lawyered our way through legal hurtles so that our snipers and designated marksman could use HPBT ammunition in combat (War). In that example the HP part of the HPBT was determine not to contribute significantly to the destructive characteristics of the bullet.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html
Last edited:
I think I'd mostly have to agree with that. A hit from a high powered rifle, either military or sporting ammunition, is likely to kill a human being with a single well placed shot. It pleases me that a court handed down a rational answer like that.
It really bothers me that such a question had to be decided in court.
What is the world coming to when a SNIPER has to jump legal hurdles to use proper ammunition to do their job? Isn't the job of a sniper to immediately disable a criminal, normally by killing him?
How so? The very term means more than necessary. Over penetration on human targets can only come as at the expense of expansion.
Bullets that don't expand take us backwards into the realm of 9mm or .45 ball ammo that always had penetration to spare.
Seems to me that the energy left in a bullet after it's passed thru one's assailant could have been used to expand the bullet while it was still in the target to much better effect.
Sounds like an elementary principle that the balance between expansion and penetration is what makes a good SD round.
LOL, of course there are those out there who must have all the penetration in the world 'cause you never know what "barriers" they might have to shoot thru.
Last edited:
I think the distinction between combat and personal defense ammo is one best left to lawyers and politicians. At the time of use does it really matter?
I do find the idea that there is no such thing as over-penetration challenging. Any energy that is expended outside of the target is wasted as far as incapacitation is concerned. The potential for collateral damage due to over-penetration is also a concern. What am I missing here?
I do find the idea that there is no such thing as over-penetration challenging. Any energy that is expended outside of the target is wasted as far as incapacitation is concerned. The potential for collateral damage due to over-penetration is also a concern. What am I missing here?
Shotgun693
New member
I guess the best ammo would dump all its energy in the target then fall to the ground after exiting. Thus, an entrance and exit wound with max expansion between.
In an attempt to keep this on topic, I do believe that words are important when it comes to how we describe our rights and responsibilities under the law. A 'combat round' may sound more sinister than a 'personal defense round' to someone who doesn't understand the 2 Amendment. With that said Briandg, I know many people who are intelligent, clear thinking and capable of making rational decisions based on the facts at hand. Some of us have served on juries and have done our very best to see that justice was done. There are many who fit your above description, but to paint all Americans with the same brush seems to be arrogant and close minded. I could be wrong. Having been a juror in the past maybe I don't understand the issue.
