You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What inaccuracies can we dispel?
- Thread starter Hiker 1
- Start date
Five shots are plenty unless you are planning to miss several times.
Agree that this is a potentially dangerous myth.
A 5 shot revolver is a perfectly fine weapon if the shooter understands its limitations and understands the different types of dangerous encounters: multiple attackers, attackers high or drunk, etc.
Agree that this is a potentially dangerous myth.
A 5 shot revolver is a perfectly fine weapon if the shooter understands its limitations and understands the different types of dangerous encounters: multiple attackers, attackers high or drunk, etc.
Some guns were better made fifty years ago--and better still 75 years ago. And some guns were certainly cheaper, too, only they weren't the same guns.
There were a lot of cheap guns being manufactured before WWII, although apparently few continued after the war. H&R kept turning them out for a while and some of their .22 revolvers had quite a following. Before the war, though, there were all sorts of small caliber revolvers, mostly .32 and .38 S&Ws, most of which were break-tops, being sold, including from S&W. There was a market for things like that. Today, of course, there's still a market for small caliber, small handguns. And I don't want to be shot by any of them.
I think reloading can lower the cost of shooting some calibers but you quickly turn things upside down to the point that you shoot in order to justify reloading.
Does anyone think their handloads are better than factory ammunition?
There were a lot of cheap guns being manufactured before WWII, although apparently few continued after the war. H&R kept turning them out for a while and some of their .22 revolvers had quite a following. Before the war, though, there were all sorts of small caliber revolvers, mostly .32 and .38 S&Ws, most of which were break-tops, being sold, including from S&W. There was a market for things like that. Today, of course, there's still a market for small caliber, small handguns. And I don't want to be shot by any of them.
I think reloading can lower the cost of shooting some calibers but you quickly turn things upside down to the point that you shoot in order to justify reloading.
Does anyone think their handloads are better than factory ammunition?
OldMarksman
Staff
I'll go challenge him, and I'll take my gun--I may need it for self defense.
Cheapshooter
New member
knockdown power!!!
Does anyone think their handloads are better than factory ammunition?
Yes, and I save buckets of money too.
Oh, come on! You're hoarding guns. For every two guns you have, there's some poor defenseless soul out there with no gun.
I sometimes say to people that I often have to decide whether to buy another gun or to sell them all. Of course, there are other options, although not many. One is to trade them all for just one. Many things prevent that from happening.
One is, I like what I have, of course.
And another is, there are other guns I haven't owned already, although I've owned a lot of really good ones, plus some that really weren't as good as their reputation (in my opinion).
And yet another is that when you have guns, you accumulate accessories that don't fit other guns. Things like magazines, holsters and of course ammunition.
But I'm getting on in years and it would be nice to have something really special (by my standards, at least). No one I'm related to cares for guns particularly, especially my son who spend 15 months in Iraq. So there's none of this business of a special hand-me-down gun. It still needs to be practical, of course, and it only needs to be in a caliber for which I have a supply of ammunition. That's virtually no limitation at all right there, though. But it has to be a handgun.
I think I really want it to be a Colt. A real Colt.
Whaddya think?
I sometimes say to people that I often have to decide whether to buy another gun or to sell them all. Of course, there are other options, although not many. One is to trade them all for just one. Many things prevent that from happening.
One is, I like what I have, of course.
And another is, there are other guns I haven't owned already, although I've owned a lot of really good ones, plus some that really weren't as good as their reputation (in my opinion).
And yet another is that when you have guns, you accumulate accessories that don't fit other guns. Things like magazines, holsters and of course ammunition.
But I'm getting on in years and it would be nice to have something really special (by my standards, at least). No one I'm related to cares for guns particularly, especially my son who spend 15 months in Iraq. So there's none of this business of a special hand-me-down gun. It still needs to be practical, of course, and it only needs to be in a caliber for which I have a supply of ammunition. That's virtually no limitation at all right there, though. But it has to be a handgun.
I think I really want it to be a Colt. A real Colt.
Whaddya think?
"Knockdown power" has been discussed for decades. I suspect that the doubters have never been knocked down.
I believe there is such a thing as "knockdown power," only not like it's depicted in the movies--or at bowling pin shoots. The real problem is, I think, that it's not predictable and probably not something that can be relied on. In fact, Fairbairn in his book "Shooting to Live," he stated that the more he learned about the issue, the less certain he was about anything.
But being knocked down doesn't mean that you're down and out; only that you've been knocked down. You can easily (or with some difficulty) get back up and either run or continue the fight. So, in a sense, it's like "stopping power." It exists but it's not something you can count on to the exclusion of everything else. You can call it something else but if they go down when shot, that's either stopping power or knockdown power. Talking about physiological details is just so much hair-splitting.
If these things didn't exist, all boxing matches would be decided on technicalities. But unlike in boxing, fights with guns are not evenly matched or fair. You can argue all you want (just like I'm doing) about why someone was "knocked down" when they got shot, although the obvious reason is, they got shot. However, I can only think of one (usually) reliable hit that will knock a person down, even though it probably won't be fatal or even a fatal wound: a hit to the top of the head. The problem is, what kind of a target is that? Not much when only hits count.
I believe there is such a thing as "knockdown power," only not like it's depicted in the movies--or at bowling pin shoots. The real problem is, I think, that it's not predictable and probably not something that can be relied on. In fact, Fairbairn in his book "Shooting to Live," he stated that the more he learned about the issue, the less certain he was about anything.
But being knocked down doesn't mean that you're down and out; only that you've been knocked down. You can easily (or with some difficulty) get back up and either run or continue the fight. So, in a sense, it's like "stopping power." It exists but it's not something you can count on to the exclusion of everything else. You can call it something else but if they go down when shot, that's either stopping power or knockdown power. Talking about physiological details is just so much hair-splitting.
If these things didn't exist, all boxing matches would be decided on technicalities. But unlike in boxing, fights with guns are not evenly matched or fair. You can argue all you want (just like I'm doing) about why someone was "knocked down" when they got shot, although the obvious reason is, they got shot. However, I can only think of one (usually) reliable hit that will knock a person down, even though it probably won't be fatal or even a fatal wound: a hit to the top of the head. The problem is, what kind of a target is that? Not much when only hits count.
too often, there is an assumption that the good guy will have significant time to prepare for the encounter. I submit that most interpersonal violence comes very quickly and often with little or no warning.
Look at those folks on the train in Europe the other day. Sitting there minding their business, and suddenly it's "Let's roll" time.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Knockdown power is certainly a myth.
It's unclear what caliber was used, but the violent video yesterday of a thin defenseless woman being shot repeatedly point blank - she was able to turn and run a short distance having presumably been shot multiple times. She was not a drugged up 250 pound violent man. She was standing 3 feet from her assailant and appears to have been shot repeatedly as she turned and ran...
Whatever caliber, handgun bullets don't tend to knock people down as we saw here.
If you spend any time watching shooting videos, rarely do shot people go straight down.
It's unclear what caliber was used, but the violent video yesterday of a thin defenseless woman being shot repeatedly point blank - she was able to turn and run a short distance having presumably been shot multiple times. She was not a drugged up 250 pound violent man. She was standing 3 feet from her assailant and appears to have been shot repeatedly as she turned and ran...
Whatever caliber, handgun bullets don't tend to knock people down as we saw here.
If you spend any time watching shooting videos, rarely do shot people go straight down.
Knowing about something does not make one able to perform the something, especially in a high stress situation.
And, neither does training.
Training increases the odds you will do what you trained for. It does not guarantee competency in a high stress situation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against training. I just don't see it as the proof that people take it as.
Trained people screw up all the time. And not always in high stress situations. And untrained people sometimes do exactly the right thing in those situations, as well.
Trained people have a piece of paper that says they are trained. People assume this means they know what they are doing.
Only what they actually do shows me if they know it, or not.
Good training hurts nothing. Bad training is worse than no training.
serf 'rett
New member
44Amp - that was the point of the following statement about timer brain scramble even though I've shot IDPA for several years.
There's nothing wrong with training unless the training is wrong. Training is, or should be, based on a set of assumptions. Different people are going to make different assumptions, partly because they expect the trainees are going to be in different situations. The assumptions for a soldier would not necessarily be the assumptions for a policeman. But the assumptions also take into account the expected reactions of the trainees when they are involved in a fight and the assumption may be wrong. Or the training may be attempting to overcome those expectations, too.
I suppose all one could say with certainty is that, for an inexperienced beginner, nothing is a given. The basic training is familiarity with the weapons. Then you do enough shooting to learn what happens when you pull the trigger and find out where the bullet goes. I imagine many do not progress beyond that point. People went off to war in WWII with little more training in using a handgun than that. The assumption there was there wasn't enough time for anyone to master a handgun.
I've seen enough wartime films, which were confirmed by my father, that sometimes people drop like rocks when shot. But to repeat what I said earlier, you can't count on it.
It is equally false to believe that some calibers, like 9mm hardball, are so ineffective that the victim won't even know they're shot. Some people even believe that a .22 hollowpoint is more effective. And an automatic pistol without a chambered round is not an unloaded gun. How difficult is it to rack the slide. You even practice it a lot without realizing it. True, some are difficult but some are easy and the easiest one I've used was a Glock. Anyone should be able to draw from a thumbsnap holster from concealment and run five feet or more in less than three seconds. Three seconds is the newly established time limit because that's how long it takes to kick in a door. I know that's true because I read it here.
I suppose all one could say with certainty is that, for an inexperienced beginner, nothing is a given. The basic training is familiarity with the weapons. Then you do enough shooting to learn what happens when you pull the trigger and find out where the bullet goes. I imagine many do not progress beyond that point. People went off to war in WWII with little more training in using a handgun than that. The assumption there was there wasn't enough time for anyone to master a handgun.
I've seen enough wartime films, which were confirmed by my father, that sometimes people drop like rocks when shot. But to repeat what I said earlier, you can't count on it.
It is equally false to believe that some calibers, like 9mm hardball, are so ineffective that the victim won't even know they're shot. Some people even believe that a .22 hollowpoint is more effective. And an automatic pistol without a chambered round is not an unloaded gun. How difficult is it to rack the slide. You even practice it a lot without realizing it. True, some are difficult but some are easy and the easiest one I've used was a Glock. Anyone should be able to draw from a thumbsnap holster from concealment and run five feet or more in less than three seconds. Three seconds is the newly established time limit because that's how long it takes to kick in a door. I know that's true because I read it here.
I think I really want it to be a Colt. A real Colt.
Whaddya think?
Well, I think the clock is ticking for all of us all the time.
Good luck.
I often tell them at the range/gun shop that I'm always trying to decide whether to sell them all or buy one more. But I have fewer now than I have had since I was in the army, when I only had one. Even then I was trading a lot. But there's no question that someday I will have bought my last gun. The question is, which one will it be?
I don't think I'll ever sell them all. I might trade them all for something but probably not. So it's back to square one: what should I get next? Money is always an issue, even though we seem to be spending money left and right and taking long trips overseas. Even today we're buying land in the heart of the city--Ivy Hill Cemetery in Alexandria, Virginia.
I don't think I'll ever sell them all. I might trade them all for something but probably not. So it's back to square one: what should I get next? Money is always an issue, even though we seem to be spending money left and right and taking long trips overseas. Even today we're buying land in the heart of the city--Ivy Hill Cemetery in Alexandria, Virginia.
Last edited:
.Anyone should be able to draw from a thumbsnap holster from concealment and run five feet or more in less than three seconds.
That is an inaccuracy right there. First i dont see the connection in your statements. "Draw from a snapped holster" "Run 5feet in 3 seconds " "Thats how long to kick in a door" Im not understanding the connection of those events.
Second, not everyone has the mobility to move as you describe. Wheelchair bound or even recovering from a Ski accident and in a cast, can reduce movement to almost zero
There's nothing inaccurate there. But that isn't to suggest it's easy. Some believe you need to be able to draw in less than a second. I'm not that fast but I guess everyone else is.
Someone in another thread mentioned that it takes three seconds to kick in your front door. You have to read the whole forum. Everything's connected, if only loosely. I've don't know of anyone whose front door was kicked in, even loosely.
However, if we leave out the running part, I don't see why everything else doesn't remains valid. Drawing the gun in under three seconds is directly related to someone kicking in your front door or even your rear door. What is your standard for an adequate reaction time?
Someone in another thread mentioned that it takes three seconds to kick in your front door. You have to read the whole forum. Everything's connected, if only loosely. I've don't know of anyone whose front door was kicked in, even loosely.
However, if we leave out the running part, I don't see why everything else doesn't remains valid. Drawing the gun in under three seconds is directly related to someone kicking in your front door or even your rear door. What is your standard for an adequate reaction time?