What matters is shot placement. Actual bank robbery shooting.

fiddletown said:
speedfreeq, it looks like you would benefit from some good, professional training.
Click to expand...

Thanks guy. Really.

The only thing you know about me you gleaned from a single post from a new forum member.
I'm a veteran, with a valid CCW and a decent shot group.

"It looks like you would benefit from some good" taking yourself a little less seriously.

I was simply participating in a conversation. Was unaware there was a professor lecturing... my bad.


Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
 
speedfreeq said:
...I'm a veteran, with a valid CCW and a decent shot group...
Click to expand...
Thanks for your service.

However, it's still not obvious that you fully understand self defense issues, especially when you make statements like, "...using my little .22 revolver and some bad guy stealing my stuff ..." or "...put as many of the 9 available rounds in dude's face. I feel I could probably be somewhat less judicious with the 17 rounds in my 9mm,..." One may draw inferences about what you know from what you write.

And having a valid CCW is a fine thing, but many States have no training requirement to get a CCW; and even in all of the States with a training requirement, it's pretty minimal.

speedfreeq said:
...Was unaware there was a professor lecturing... my bad.
Click to expand...
Well you're welcome to check out my profile here on the board.
 
speedfreeq, your comments fully justified fiddletown's feedback. If you believe your own remarks, then your training and judgement are suspect.

If you just threw them out there to be funny, please realize a lot of people who don't have much training and who don't know any better might take them seriously.

Either way, you are not representing yourself well.
 
MLeake said:
speedfreeq, your comments fully justified fiddletown's feedback. If you believe your own remarks, then your training and judgement are suspect.

If you just threw them out there to be funny, please realize a lot of people who don't have much training and who don't know any better might take them seriously.

Either way, you are not representing yourself well.
Click to expand...

I see this is the thread that just gets more and more ridiculous, drawing all parties back in repeatedly to clarify, justify, or simply argue.

For the record and the benefit of any random persons who seem to find themselves concerned, I am indeed aware of the definition and fairly narrow permitted use of deadly force. I understand that I may not haphazardly fire upon an innocent mugger or burglar unless I'm reasonably sure I'm in vital danger.

Furthermore, I apologize profusely for contributing to an increasingly absurd argument that was already considerably OT with an equally absurd statement ironically meant to draw attention to the aforementioned absurdity.

As for the matter of how I'm representing myself... it's an internet forum; ergo, it's essentially a futile exercise. Think of me what you will. You're probably wrong.

Done here. Forget you saw me.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
 
WOW That was major funny. Speedfreeq very funny. You absolutely deserved what you got but it was a blast. If you were joking you should have said so. If not you should be corrected. Thanks all the same for making this morning bright.
 
Wow.

We have someone drawing conclusions from a single gunfight, with some importance attributed to which of the wounded survived and which did not.

We have reference to "a caliber despised for allegedly lacking stopping power (9mm)".

We have someone believing that a "valid CCW and a decent shot group" equips him for a violent encounter with one or more assailants....

...who contends that, in an encounter in which deadly force is justified because it is immediately necessary to defend against imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, he will somehow be able to shoot an attacker in the face nine times before being overcome.

We have people introducing hunting experience and the slaughter of livestock into the discussion.

All of this is under a topic called "what matters is shot placement."

So, what should the neophyte take into account?

  1. From threegun, "shot placement is what matters once you have a cartridge that can reach the vitals even through appendages"; many people consider a .380 ACP to be the minimum for that, while others would opt for at least a .38 Special or a 9MM.
  2. The assailant is likely to be moving rapidly, and one's ability to produce decent groups on a stationary target is unlikely to translate into an ability to hit that assailant in any particular place.
  3. It is likely that two or perhaps several very rapid shots will be required to hit and effectively stop the assailant; that means that a firearm that is too light to control in rapid fire, or a cartridge that recoils too violently, would not be a good choice.

Finally, relevant training is extremely important.
 
Good post, Old Marksman.

I'd add the following:

1) A .22 that the shooter can handle and is willing to carry is much better than nothing (and old age, arthritis, small stature can potentially limit somebody to a .22, based on hand strength).

2) However, a round that has better penetration, more reliable ignition (IE centerfire), and a good probability of breaking bone, if it hits large bone, is better - assuming one can carry and control it.

3) Learning to "shoot to stop" will get people to quit fixating on round count, per se; it takes what it takes, under the circumstances in which it occurs; this could be one shot, or it could be a dozen.

4) Given 3) more capacity is never a bad thing.

5) Something I almost never see brought up, when people talk about carrying spare ammunition, is that it might be nice to be able to reload, after the encounter, for the period between the shooting and the arrival of the police. The BG might have friends.
 
1) A .22 that the shooter can handle and is willing to carry is much better than nothing...
Click to expand...

Something to remember with this is that while a .22 may have its place, "better than nothing" is an EXTREMELY low standard on which to base protecting your life. If you go any lower than 'nothing' then you move into the realm of those things that are worse than nothing. So 'nothing' is the last stage of non-negative standards...very low indeed.
 
Really? You're not willing to have others challenge your notions
Click to expand...

This is not what is going on here, them guys just dont understand what Ian writing so I am out of this one. Seems the same 3 guys go after any and all 22 posts. So go ahead, dont use it. Forget Ieven said anything about it.

Is like talking to a child that just wont listen. I posted I use a larger caliber but if a 22 was all I had......broken record.....

Did I mention I like a 45 1911? I know, I know, it doesnt hold 15plus rounds....
 
markj said:
...I posted I use a larger caliber but if a 22 was all I had...
Click to expand...
Let's be clear. That is not exactly what you posted.

You initially wrote:
markj said:
...It was a common carry round before the media brain washed everyone into thinking only a cannon will do the job...
Click to expand...
And then you wrote:
markj said:
...Would I consider a 22 for self defense? heck yeah, pin point accuracy and little noise, light recoil and fast back on target, sure would...
Click to expand...
And then:
markj said:
...Them riverboat gamblers carried multi shot 22s for the cartridges guns...
Click to expand...
And then:
markj said:
...Like I said themedia has brain washed most folks, Americans need bigger than anyone else...
Click to expand...
All of that is about defending choosing a .22, not simply using a .22 if that's all that is available.

All of us are agreed that in an emergency, one should use what he has. And if a .22 is all that he had to work with, he's going to need to use it and hopefully find a way to make effective use of it. But if one can make a choice and pick something bigger than a .22, a .22 is not necessarily the best idea.

markj said:
...them guys just dont understand what Ian writing...
Click to expand...
Perhaps we aren't understanding what you are trying to say. But if so, perhaps it's because, as I've noted above, you're not making yourself very clear.

Are you trying to say that in an emergency, if a .22 is all that's at hand, one would have to use that and could, with skill, make decent use of it? If so, we can all agree on that.

But are you also trying to say that a .22 could be a good choice for a gun intended to be used for personal defense? If so, then several of us don't agree (at least absent special circumstances like serious recoil sensitivity or various disabilities), and we've explained why.
 
'Shot placement is what matters.'

Shot placement is what matters. But, when we say this we are also assuming quite a few things are understood. Like the fact that we are using handguns that generate ~400 to 530 ft/lbs of energy (Just a range of muzzle energy stats I have found from 9mm to .45 ACP without going into .45 super). Shot placement clearly doesn't matter if we are shooting spit wads or if they are wearing tank armor *face palm*. So we are also assuming we aren't shooting people in their vests (chest, chest, head anyone?)

'So why don't you use a .22?'

Well a .22 doesn't have the same energy as a 9mm. We are simply claiming that the difference in energy between the 9mm and the .45 ACP is negligible and the extra capacity and lower recoil are tangible, factual advantages. Putting a little extra energy in the same hole really doesn't affect anything and it has been proven that penetration is equivalent between the .45 ACP and the 9mm.

It's a fact that bullets delivered by handguns kill through blood loss and damage to vital organs. Only bullets delivered at energy levels on par with rifles start to kill through less precise means (hydrostatic shock) because the amount of energy delivered to the target is so phenomenal.

Muzzle energy:
.50 BMG: ~14,000 ft/lbs
5.56x45mm: ~1,300 ft/lbs
.44 Magnum: ~1,200 ft/lbs
.45 ACP: ~530 ft/lbs
9mm: ~460 ft/lbs
.22LR: ~200 ft/lbs

It is clear that the 9mm and the .45 ACP are in the same category and they are not to be compared to a .22 or a .44 magnum. They are equivalent.
 
DNS, did you somehow miss 2), which was right after 1)?
Click to expand...

Sure, I read the entire post. I fail to see why folks choose such low standards against which to base their protective measures. A BB gun is better than nothing. A sharp stick is better than nothing. There is a whole world of possibilities that are better than nothing. Nothing is a very low standard. Saying a .22 is better than nothing is just saying it is better than anything that doesn't actually cause detriment to the carrier.

A .22 is better than a lot of things that are also better than nothing. Many folks will claim that the .22 is better than the .17 hmr and better than the .25 acp for self defense as well. They too are better than nothing.

Nothing is a very low standard.

-------------------

.22LR: ~200 ft/lbs
Click to expand...

200 ft/lbs? What .22 lr ammo are you shooting from your pistol to get ~200 ft lbs.?

I don't find any that come close to 200 ft/lbs. Most are less than 135 at the muzzle when fired from a rifle (not a pistol). Only a few go over 150 lbs. The only one I find at 200 is the Aguila Super Max (30 grains) and once more, that is when fired from a rifle, not a pistol, and even then I haven't seen where any end user has actually gotten that much velocity from it when they have chrono'd it.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/22_rimfire_cartridges.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm
http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productDetail&prodID=AU1B222297
 
DNS, you left out the context where I said what I really recommended were rounds that had good reliability for breaking bone. The only "standard" I set for .22 was that it was worth considering for those who are too feeble to handle something more. Some folks do fall into that category.

For those who are not physically limited, I normally would recommend .38 Special or 9mm as a minimum.

If you are going to selectively quote people, in order to make your arguments, you might pick your quotes from people who actually illustrate your argumentative point. In this case, you are simply annoying somebody who generally agrees with you, by quoting in incomplete context and implying intent that does not exist.

I would put it to you, though, that as somebody who has some idea of how to use a sharp stick as well as a .22, that I'd choose my Model 18 over a sharp stick. Moving targets are a different matter, but on stationary ones I can shoot the eyes out of a zombie target at 10 yards with that revolver; I imagine it would work in a pinch.

But it won't have to, since my carry guns are .38 and .357 revolvers, and 9mm, .40, and .45 autos.
 
Well, I'm not sure if the stick would break off in the eye socket or go on through. I suspect the .22 would go on through, so I'd go with the .22 in the eye over the sharp stick in the eye.

I'd take either over a bunch of raspberries.

But I'd take the Bengal tiger over the raspberries, stick, or .22.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top