the gun you have vs the gun at home

[primlantah]

I have a few friends who have dogs that have never heard a firearm being shot, yet the moment any of us are ever handling firearms in a room, the dogs will usually clear the room in a hurry. These are different dogs owned by different people.

my dog is the same way... never been exposed to gunshots but she is afraid of guns.


Another point i think many people on this thread are missing.... Why did the US Military change to .223 from a .30? Why did the US Military change from .45acp to 9x19?

 

[Chui]

I have a few friends who have dogs that have never heard a firearm being shot, yet the moment any of us are ever handling firearms in a room, the dogs will usually clear the room in a hurry. These are different dogs owned by different people.


Epyon

I, too, have noticed this when dealing with MY OWN dogs or the OWNER of the dog presents a firearm.

My personal dog would snarl at you if you presented a firearm [or cigarette or alcolhol] but would whine and start to move about incessantly if in a room or would trot off to his house if outside. If you were to make ANY assertive gesture with what he perceived as a threat you'd be bitten.

Not quite the same thing, but we agree that their awareness is keener than many give them credit for.

 

[Chui]

Interestingly enough, I tried on a friend's pistol this weekend - and HK45 in an DeSantis IWB rig and guess what? It felt just fine. In fact, it was lighter than a Gov't Model - or was perceived by me - to be so.

Unless you have lower back issues or are overweight or use a rope for a belt there's no issues with carrying a full-sized pistol. Check your gear (i.e., belt and holster selections).

 

[primlantah]

according to http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf:

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed. " Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet

Walther P-22:
Penetrates 11.6-15.8 inches
http://www.brassfetcher.com/WaltherP22test.html

KelTec p32:
Penetrates 13.3-16.4 inches
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handloaded 85gr Hornady XTP (5-shot test).html

KelTec p3at:
Penetrated to 16.0 inches 5 out of 5 times
http://www.brassfetcher.com/95gr Fe...and 95gr Winchester 'WWB' truncated cone.html

5" 45acp:
Penetrated to 13.1-13.7 inches
http://www.brassfetcher.com/230 grain Winchester SXT.html

 

[threegun]

There is the basic difference. I tend to put aside feelings when given facts. I prefer to base decisions on reality instead of make-believe.

I gave you facts that could have led to a different outcome. A 22lr really won't go through a solid door when fired from a mousegun neither will a 25acp. Whether the bad guy would have run off despite the wounds to his body is what we cannot know for sure. No make believe David but thanks for the insult anyway.

Sure, just like there are times when factors like smallness and ease of carry could have weighed heavier. The key is "could have".

How do you determine the reason something happened if there are multiple possible outcomes if something different does or doesn't happen. How can we be sure that my uncle would have survived the incident had the bullets not penetrated the door and badguy?

You don't have to believe it, your own examples show it. Note the repeated and common use of the word "might" in there? Your uncle MIGHT have chased off the BG with a .22. Do you think you would continue beating down a door if somebody is shooting at you from the other side? Or would you be yelling "Hey man, what caliber is that gun? I need to decide if I should go away or keep getting shot at!"

I don't heck no but I'm not a bad guy beating down a door. I find it humerus how the unknowns are always in your favor though.

If you understand them you should not continue to use them incorrectly to try to prove a point. That goes beyond disagreement. That is dishonesty, assuming that you really do understand what you are saying.

I don't agree with your stats. The experiences of the shootout survivors I know indicate that caliber could have made a difference. As you are aware since we cannot play each and every shootout over again with lesser or bigger calibers to see the different outcomes I must use "could have". Just as the bad guy could have run off at the sound of the shot he could have continued or pulled and fired his own gun. Neither of us can with total certainly know what would have happened. One thing is a fact opting for larger removes any doubt I have.

As we've seen before, your suggestions sometimes seem somewhat flawed. Better is based on many factors. Self defense is based on many factors. What is better for self defense and DGU combines those factors. Caliber is towards the bottom of those factors according to all the research I've seen. If you wish to carry bigger/more/whatever that is fine, but please don't try to suggest the smaller guns have not shown themselves to be just as effective in virtually all DGU situations.

In the three incidents I listed caliber was an issue IMO. In 2 of them a larger caliber allowed the shooter to reach the bad guy were it would have been all but impossible with a mouse gun caliber. In the other the mouse gun armed bad guy placed his shot on target first. The angles suggest that had he been armed with a heavier caliber his round would have smashed the humerus and entered deep into the chest cavity. Certainly better than what did happen and certainly capable of changing the outcome of the shootout. In all three the person armed with heavier won.

Caliber may be towards the bottom for you but in my limited amount of actual shootouts it played a major role IMO.

 

[threegun]

Primlantah, Try shooting a true mouse gun like NAA's mini revolvers, berettas 21, or any other "miniature" gun at the gelatin. There is a difference particularly in 22lr from ultra short barrels. Try shooting hard objects with them.

My NAA 22lr penetrates only 1 inch of a phone book. My Walther p-22 almost doubled that with the same loads.

Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

I have been trained to shoot for the pelvic girdle if torso hits fail to stop an adversary because of what you posted above. Many top flight trainers teach the same thing because it impacts the bad guys ability to move and because the femoral artery runs through this area.

Yet another reason to carry a caliber capable of smashing bone and penetrating deep.

 

[primlantah]

3gun,

You are correct. But keep in mind my side in this debate supports both large and small calibers where ever applicable. My primary ccw is a double stacked 45. my favorite guns to carry when my 45 doesn't fit is a pm9 or my smith snub. If i owned lighter guns i would carry them occasionally too. I dont want people asking about my fanny pack or for my shirt to ride over the grip on a larger gun when jogging.. just dont want to think about it when its exercise time.

Your next argument would be this is silly because its a small caliber...but when i dont want to think about my gun i still have choices that are better than nothing. Lets face it, i love guns but i don't want to carry pounds of guns all the time...<15 ounces is fine for me in some situations... of course most other times i grab the heavy 10+1 45.

no one is saying smaller is better... we are saying smaller is sometimes more convenient and usually good enough. For the rare chance something extraordinary happens a peashooter is better than a pocket knife... I was trying to show this with my jello post earlier. Small bore does do it too... maybe not as well as large bore... but it gets there anyway. A bigger hole is a better hole in a SD situation but anything i posted above can make a hole that big enough for many(but not all) situations. Who is ready for any/everything anyway?

Try shooting a true mouse gun like NAA's mini revolvers, berettas 21, or any other "miniature" gun at the gelatin. There is a difference particularly in 22lr from ultra short barrels. Try shooting hard objects with them.

My NAA 22lr penetrates only 1 inch of a phone book. My Walther p-22 almost doubled that with the same loads.

This is a good point but people are a lot different from phone books. I recently reviewed handwritten confessions at work written by a murderer. Avoiding specifics with this...the murderer was quite successful at what he wanted to achieve and he was using a small gun.

 

[David Armstrong]

I gave you facts that could have led to a different outcome.

"Could have" is not facts, it is guesses. Just as my "could have" response is just a guess. Therefore "could have" is fairly worthless, as I can counter any "could have" from you with an equally valid "could have" from me.

22lr really won't go through a solid door when fired from a mousegun neither will a 25acp.

Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't, just like a .38 or a .45. A lot will depend on the door material, the bullet design, etc.

Whether the bad guy would have run off despite the wounds to his body is what we cannot know for sure.

Agreed. WE CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE. That is the key, and that is my point. So for you to try to use that as some kind of evidence is rather faulty.

How do you determine the reason something happened if there are multiple possible outcomes if something different does or doesn't happen.

You can't. That is the point. So when you claim that the caliber was the deciding element of the incident you are wrong. What we do know is that when similar DGU incidents occur the size and caliber of the gun seem to have no effect on the outcome.

I find it humerus how the unknowns are always in your favor though.

What is perhaps more humorous is that you think of these things as "unknowns." We talk to bad guys, we do research on shootings, we study self-defense situations. The fact that BGs almost always stop an attempted entry when shot at is not unknown, it is a well-established principle.

I don't agree with your stats.

Then point out where they are wrong and how that was determined. I've got research on over 10,000 shootings and more DGUs behind me. And they are not just my stats, they are from multiple sources.

The experiences of the shootout survivors I know indicate that caliber could have made a difference. As you are aware since we cannot play each and every shootout over again with lesser or bigger calibers to see the different outcomes I must use "could have".

Maybe you must use "could have", but the rest of us don't. The rest of us can do comparisons, between events, look for commonalities, identify trends, isolate different variables, and so on. I'll give you a real easy example: BG comes in door and attempts to attack GG. GG fires a round into the air and the BG runs off. Caliber doesn't matter. Bg comes back, GG fires and hits BG a non-lethal hit to ear. BG runs off. Caliber doesn't matter. BG comes back, GG shoots him in thigh, BG limps off griping about the pain. Caliber doesn't matter. And so on.

In the three incidents I listed caliber was an issue IMO. In 2 of them a larger caliber allowed the shooter to reach the bad guy were it would have been all but impossible with a mouse gun caliber.

Your opinion duly noted, the facts do not agree with your conclusion. Because the shooters chose to shoot where/when they did does not change the fact they could easily have shot at a different time/position, and the mouse gun could well have penetrated either of those obstacles.

In all three the person armed with heavier won.

Huh!! How can you say that? You don't know how at least 2 of the parties were armed, unless you have left something out of the story earlier. The BG trying to get through the door could have had a .44 Magnum, the guy at the car could have had a sawed-off shotgun, and so on.

 

[David Armstrong]

no one is saying smaller is better... we are saying smaller is Sometimes more convenient and usually good enough.

That is pretty much it. We all compromise our personal SD carry, the only issue is where you are comfortable with the compromise being made.

 

[VA9mm]

When I have my 870 and rack the pump my dog takes a few steps back. Even when dry firing my 90Two or GP100 she looks at me like hmm this isn't good.

 

[threegun]

David, I'm not going to go round and round with you. In my tests mouse gun calibers fired from the shorter barreled weapons are just not capable of penetrating similar objects to what was easily penetrated by heavier calibers. That means my uncle wouldn't have been able to get his hit/hits and my friend would have had to fire more rounds and hope for the best. To you that may not constitute a fact or justify the carrying of heavier but for me it does.

I have been taught that in a shoot out the one who hits first and hardest usually wins. I have seen that the potential to miss increases with the pressure of a shoot out. I realize that good combat hits are going to be difficult to achieve on a moving shooting target. I understand that penetration angles might not be ideal given the BG's movement. All of these have led me to the conclusion that I may not get the best angle or greatest of placement in an actual shootout. Relying on the puniest of cartridges, ones virtually incapable of smashing bone and continuing into the vitals, is just not for me.

You feel good with a mouse and thats fine. I'll argue my points you argue yours. I do agree with you that in most of the already small odds of needing a gun a mouse will work. Its when things get ugly (actually having to use the gun) that I disagree with a mouse being adequate. It simply doesn't have what is needed to compete with the heavier calibers. If I'm gonna carry for the unlikely I might as well be ready with the biggest and best that I can conceal and control.

 

[threegun]

We all compromise our personal SD carry

My clothing would stay the same as would my carry gun choice were the laws different. What compromise? Only the law forces me to compromise.

 

[David Armstrong]

David, I'm not going to go round and round with you.

Sure seems like you are.

In my tests mouse gun calibers fired from the shorter barreled weapons are just not capable of penetrating similar objects to what was easily penetrated by heavier calibers.

So what? Unless you can show somehow that the penetration would make a difference, it doesn't matter. Of course, my test show a .22 zips right through most doors and car metal also.

That means my uncle wouldn't have been able to get his hit/hits and my friend would have had to fire more rounds and hope for the best.

OK, so let's see if I have this right. You are going to claim that in both of these cases the only reason the BGs left was because bullets penetrated an object. The fact that they found out their target had a gun and would shoot them didn't matter at all. Sorry, I really have to question that.

I have been taught that in a shoot out the one who hits first and hardest usually wins.

Then you have been taught about half right. First hits do matter quite a bit.

I have seen that the potential to miss increases with the pressure of a shoot out. I realize that good combat hits are going to be difficult to achieve on a moving shooting target. I understand that penetration angles might not be ideal given the BG's movement.

None of which changes based on caliber selection.

Relying on the puniest of cartridges, ones virtually incapable of smashing bone and continuing into the vitals, is just not for me.

Fine, then don't carry one. But because you are unsure of your abilities and tactics is no reason to suggest others are wrong in what they select.

You feel good with a mouse and thats fine.

No, I feel good with various rifles and shotguns. Virtually all handguns are weak. Fortunately, you don't need that much for most DGU incidents.

I'll argue my points you argue yours.

The basic difference is that my points tend to be based on facts while yours tend to be based on "what if."

It simply doesn't have what is needed to compete with the heavier calibers.

It's not supposed to compete with heavy calibers, it is supposed to provide protection during a DGU incident. It does that just fine.

If I'm gonna carry for the unlikely I might as well be ready with the biggest and best that I can conceal and control.

Then might one suppose that you are carrying a 6" N-frame .44 Magnum? Or maybe it is a Glock Model 21? Maybe a nice Desert Eagle?

My clothing would stay the same as would my carry gun choice were the laws different. What compromise? Only the law forces me to compromise.

Nonsense. Each gun, each caliber, can have strengths and weaknesses. We all compromise within that selection process.

 

[Chui]

"Unless you can show somehow that the penetration would make a difference, it doesn't matter. Of course, my test show a .22 zips right through most doors and car metal also."

You're kidding, right???

Penetration is very important and going through sheetmetal is NOT the same as going through a jacket, a T-shirt, skin, muscle, bone and then organs.

This thread is getting ridiculous.

 

[threegun]

Then might one suppose that you are carrying a 6" N-frame .44 Magnum? Or maybe it is a Glock Model 21? Maybe a nice Desert Eagle?

Not suggesting carrying the biggest of the big just a caliber capable of smashing bones and causing massive blood loss. Considering the difficulty of getting combat hits on a moving fighting target, under the duress of a gun fight, one cannot assume with any degree of certainty a hit to the brain or upper spinal cord. Mouse gun calibers simply do not have the penetration to reliably do so.

OK, so let's see if I have this right. You are going to claim that in both of these cases the only reason the BGs left was because bullets penetrated an object. The fact that they found out their target had a gun and would shoot them didn't matter at all. Sorry, I really have to question that.

No I'm not going to claim that. I'm going to say that we don't know the outcome had their bullets not made contact. For you to assume that they still would have fled is as dishonest as me saying they would have fought on if not hit. We simply don't know either way even though you will now post your odds.

BTW, My uncle hit Florida's lottery despite 14,000,000 to one odds.

None of which changes based on caliber selection.

But all of which suggests that precision hits are going to be difficult. BG movement further suggests that my caliber choice may be required to smash bone and penetrate deeply to force a stop.

Fine, then don't carry one. But because you are unsure of your abilities and tactics is no reason to suggest others are wrong in what they select.

Not unsure of either. However I am starting to believe that you don't understand the dynamics of a gun fight and what is required to stop a BG with a handgun. Something that you might be forced to do when carrying is actually having to stop someone. Might be more unlikely than the already unlikely need to just show the gun to gain compliance however it is the reason most folks carry.

Nonsense. Each gun, each caliber, can have strengths and weaknesses. We all compromise within that selection process.

Nonesense? You are now capable of knowing my situation? Wonderful please explain to me how I have compromised considering I wouldn't stop carrying my man purse nor change my attire. My current carry gun is a Glock 23 which also wouldn't change.....at least not for the sake of a carry size compromise. If the crap hit the fan my gun of choice would be the G-23.

 

[DeathRodent]

ISC

ISC I hear what you're saying and agree 100%.

Sure if I KNEW I was going to be getting into trouble I'd carry a .45 - no wait a 12 gauge - no wait I wouldn't go there!

The point is most people don't carry 24/7 and don't need to so while out jogging the NAA is better than pointing your finger or a small knife.

I would suggest upgrading to the .22 mag tho.

And yes the dog might bite but while it was locked on my arm or leg I would stick that NAA in its ear. I figure they are contact range weapons.

 

[ISC]

The point is most people don't carry 24/7 and don't need to so while out jogging the NAA is better than pointing your finger or a small knife.

I would suggest upgrading to the .22 mag tho.

And yes the dog might bite but while it was locked on my arm or leg I would stick that NAA in its ear. I figure they are contact range weapons.

Exactly.

 

[threegun]

DR & ISC, Why do you guys carry?

 

[David Armstrong]

You're kidding, right???

No. Although I have a fairly refined sense of humour, I rarely kid on these forums when I'm discussing issues.

Penetration is very important and going through sheetmetal is NOT the same as going through a jacket, a T-shirt, skin, muscle, bone and then organs.

The issue was if penetration was important in this specific case. As for the rest of the sstatement, n obody has said otherwise.

This thread is getting ridiculous.

Most of the time when people try to justify mandating large guns/calibers for self defense it gets pretty ridiculous.

 

[David Armstrong]

Not suggesting carrying the biggest of the big just a caliber capable of smashing bones and causing massive blood loss.

Sigh. So much for "David, I'm not going to go round and round with you." But that aside, yes you are. That is exactly what "If I'm gonna carry for the unlikely I might as well be ready with the biggest and best that I can conceal and control" seems to indicate. Either you want to be ready with the "biggest and best" or you will settle for smaller. Seems you are contradicting yourself now.

Considering the difficulty of getting combat hits on a moving fighting target, under the duress of a gun fight, one cannot assume with any degree of certainty a hit to the brain or upper spinal cord. Mouse gun calibers simply do not have the penetration to reliably do so.

Given the fact that has proven to be relatively immaterial in actual DGU incidents, it is relatively immaterial here also. Very, very few fights are decided based on getting "combat hits" as you describe.

I'm going to say that we don't know the outcome had their bullets not made contact. For you to assume that they still would have fled is as dishonest as me saying they would have fought on if not hit. We simply don't know either way even though you will now post your odds.

No need to post odds, you have made my point for me. WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW EITHER WAY. Thus, you cannot claim the anecdote as any kind of proof. It is as dishonest for you to assume it mattered as for me to assume it didn't. I simply point it out because you keep bringing it up as some sort of evidence, which you now agree it is not.

But all of which suggests that precision hits are going to be difficult.

So what? All the evidence of DGUs indicates that precision hits are not needed to stop the BG.

BG movement further suggests that my caliber choice may be required to smash bone and penetrate deeply to force a stop.

There is that great big MAY again. You want to base your choice on what MAY happen, that is fine. But don't suggest others are wrong because they base their choice on what DOES happen.

However I am starting to believe that you don't understand the dynamics of a gun fight and what is required to stop a BG with a handgun.

Any time you want to put my experience, training, and expertise up against yours, let me know. I'm not too worried.

Nonesense? You are now capable of knowing my situation?

Don't have to know your situation. All I have to know is that it is a truism that when options are available, everyone compromises based on the criteria that they might think to be more important to them. You have chosen a G23 in .40. That is a smaller caliber than a selection in .45. It is also a smaller capacity than one would get with a 9mm of the same frame size. It is even a smaller capacity than with the G22. It is also a bigger gun to carry around than a G27. So you certainly could have selected other guns. But you choose the G23 because it gives you a nice compromise. Interesting, BTW, that the .40 is so often referred to as the "compromise" cartrdge!

Wonderful please explain to me how I have compromised considering I wouldn't stop carrying my man purse nor change my attire.

That also is a compromise.

As I am heading off to Jamaica for a couple of weeks, you may have the last comment for a while.