Propflux01
$100 Site Donor 2025
Shoulda just used hollow-point...
why you need semi-auto and large capacity mags
- Thread starter jjjxlr8
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Donald
She used the wrong gun. A 410 shotgun would have been better. The police get about 25% of their bullets on target so imagine the % for a homeowner with a rifle or pistol.
I don't doubt the difficulty, though I hope to never have to try in a real situation.
But it's funny that we must show proficiency of operating a motor vehicle under certain at least somewhat challenging scenarios and conditions that are death of you screw up, yet nobody has to show any proficiency with a firearm.
And it's also funny that the same folks that complain about heavy, tech filled cars which are designed to assure safety of incompetent drivers will demand 15+ shot capacity to protect the self.
Few, if any on here would be targets for real, professional crime, and if you have the means, you likely can afford better security than demanding a 30 round rifle for protection.
She used the wrong gun. A 410 shotgun would have been better. The police get about 25% of their bullets on target so imagine the % for a homeowner with a rifle or pistol.
I don't doubt the difficulty, though I hope to never have to try in a real situation.
But it's funny that we must show proficiency of operating a motor vehicle under certain at least somewhat challenging scenarios and conditions that are death of you screw up, yet nobody has to show any proficiency with a firearm.
And it's also funny that the same folks that complain about heavy, tech filled cars which are designed to assure safety of incompetent drivers will demand 15+ shot capacity to protect the self.
Few, if any on here would be targets for real, professional crime, and if you have the means, you likely can afford better security than demanding a 30 round rifle for protection.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Anyone who uses a carbine rifle for home defence though obviously isn't thinking about where rounds will end up as they freely penetrate drywall and the fact that the length of the rifle means its exceptionally unmaneuverable in a home.
Perhaps a basic understanding of terminal performance is in order. Common .223 rounds penetrate less building materials than common handgun rounds.
This!
And using generic soft points or hollow points is better than the FMJ Winchester white box, as long as they feed, you are good.
If you haven't read over The Box of Truth .com you should go over there and check it out. The site is kind of a Mythbusters for Firearms penetration testing.
Small high velocity projectiles break up and lose their kinetic energy when fired through building materials faster than larger slower projectiles.
And anything that will punch a hole in a bad guy will punch a hole though several layers of drywall.
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Anyone who uses a carbine rifle for home defence though obviously isn't thinking about where rounds will end up as they freely penetrate drywall and the fact that the length of the rifle means its exceptionally unmaneuverable in a home.
Perhaps a basic understanding of terminal performance is in order. Common .223 rounds penetrate less building materials than common handgun rounds.
This!
And using generic soft points or hollow points is better than the FMJ Winchester white box, as long as they feed, you are good.
If you haven't read over The Box of Truth .com you should go over there and check it out. The site is kind of a Mythbusters for Firearms penetration testing.
Small high velocity projectiles break up and lose their kinetic energy when fired through building materials faster than larger slower projectiles.
And anything that will punch a hole in a bad guy will punch a hole though several layers of drywall.
My Glock Model 22 .40 Cal would do the job nicely!
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: SuperDave456
Small high velocity projectiles break up and lose their kinetic energy when fired through building materials faster than larger slower projectiles.
And anything that will punch a hole in a bad guy will punch a hole though several layers of drywall.
Wasn't the .223 chosen for military use because it punctures and injures people without necessarily killing to the same extent? Drywall aside, a bullet designed to disable more enemy troops due to survivable flesh damage seems like a silly choice for home protection.
Maybe I'm inaccurate here, and open to the reality of the matter... But I was under the impression they sacrificed knock-down power for greater round capacity and some degree of added fragmentation.
Small high velocity projectiles break up and lose their kinetic energy when fired through building materials faster than larger slower projectiles.
And anything that will punch a hole in a bad guy will punch a hole though several layers of drywall.
Wasn't the .223 chosen for military use because it punctures and injures people without necessarily killing to the same extent? Drywall aside, a bullet designed to disable more enemy troops due to survivable flesh damage seems like a silly choice for home protection.
Maybe I'm inaccurate here, and open to the reality of the matter... But I was under the impression they sacrificed knock-down power for greater round capacity and some degree of added fragmentation.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
If I hit somebody 6X with .38 Special +P Hydrashok and they're still coming? They're on Angel Dust or they are Super Zombies that are immune to headshots
Bullets aren't magic. Perfect hits to major arteries and the heart still allow the perp to kill you several times over if he wants to. Luckily most simply give up. People watch too much TV and think that people die before they hit the ground with a hit from a pistol.
If I hit somebody 6X with .38 Special +P Hydrashok and they're still coming? They're on Angel Dust or they are Super Zombies that are immune to headshots
Bullets aren't magic. Perfect hits to major arteries and the heart still allow the perp to kill you several times over if he wants to. Luckily most simply give up. People watch too much TV and think that people die before they hit the ground with a hit from a pistol.
I chose years ago after months of special training. Our best option for HD--> The wife and I. Was a Remington 870 Pump Tactical--With a handful of Modifications->High Power mini LED light-Lazer. Light weight and balanced Perfectly.
http://www.impactguns.com/remington-870-...7700814049.aspx
I also carry the same gun between my seat and console of my pickup. Both 870s support a 8 hole saddle for extra backup ammo.
The Wife carries a 9mm with Lazer in her purse at all times loaded with 147gr TAP FPD.
With the 870 we strictly only load Hornady TAP Personal Defense Ammunition 12 Gauge 2-3/4" 00 Buckshot FPD.
Hopefully all the classes and training will pay off if an intruder would ever think about entering our home or attack us out in public.
I will say we as a family do go to the firing range at least once a month and stay familiar with all our CC weapons.
http://www.impactguns.com/remington-870-...7700814049.aspx
I also carry the same gun between my seat and console of my pickup. Both 870s support a 8 hole saddle for extra backup ammo.
The Wife carries a 9mm with Lazer in her purse at all times loaded with 147gr TAP FPD.
With the 870 we strictly only load Hornady TAP Personal Defense Ammunition 12 Gauge 2-3/4" 00 Buckshot FPD.
Hopefully all the classes and training will pay off if an intruder would ever think about entering our home or attack us out in public.
I will say we as a family do go to the firing range at least once a month and stay familiar with all our CC weapons.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Wasn't the .223 chosen forilitary use because it punctures and injures people without necessarily killing to the same extent? Drywall aside, a bullet designed to disable more enemy troops due to survivable flesh damage seems like a silly choice for home protection.
Chosen primarily as battlefield tactics had changed: instead of aimed fire, "shoot and scoot" had become more in vogue. Less trench warfare, if you will. Smaller caliber meant a soldier could carry more ammunition. It also has less recoil, which means faster proficency (general case).
The 223 was originally designed to be barely stabilized. Accurate, but once it slowed down in flesh it would yaw and tend to go through the body sideways. Which means all the more flesh damage. [For some reason though they changed, and wound up with a caliber that more often than not does not yaw on impact. Shorter barrel and different bullet weight, but they did not adjust barrel twist.]
AFAIK the "designed to wound and clog up their support" is a myth. It's a nice idea, but ignores that fact that it's still pretty easy to shoot to kill.
Wasn't the .223 chosen forilitary use because it punctures and injures people without necessarily killing to the same extent? Drywall aside, a bullet designed to disable more enemy troops due to survivable flesh damage seems like a silly choice for home protection.
Chosen primarily as battlefield tactics had changed: instead of aimed fire, "shoot and scoot" had become more in vogue. Less trench warfare, if you will. Smaller caliber meant a soldier could carry more ammunition. It also has less recoil, which means faster proficency (general case).
The 223 was originally designed to be barely stabilized. Accurate, but once it slowed down in flesh it would yaw and tend to go through the body sideways. Which means all the more flesh damage. [For some reason though they changed, and wound up with a caliber that more often than not does not yaw on impact. Shorter barrel and different bullet weight, but they did not adjust barrel twist.]
AFAIK the "designed to wound and clog up their support" is a myth. It's a nice idea, but ignores that fact that it's still pretty easy to shoot to kill.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
If I hit somebody 6X with .38 Special +P Hydrashok and they're still coming? They're on Angel Dust or they are Super Zombies that are immune to headshots
Bullets aren't magic. Perfect hits to major arteries and the heart still allow the perp to kill you several times over if he wants to. Luckily most simply give up. People watch too much TV and think that people die before they hit the ground with a hit from a pistol.
Lots of places for a bullet to zip through the body and not hit an artery, even with maximum expansion. She may have also done rapid fire, not pausing between shots.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
If I hit somebody 6X with .38 Special +P Hydrashok and they're still coming? They're on Angel Dust or they are Super Zombies that are immune to headshots
Bullets aren't magic. Perfect hits to major arteries and the heart still allow the perp to kill you several times over if he wants to. Luckily most simply give up. People watch too much TV and think that people die before they hit the ground with a hit from a pistol.
Lots of places for a bullet to zip through the body and not hit an artery, even with maximum expansion. She may have also done rapid fire, not pausing between shots.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But it's funny that we must show proficiency of operating a motor vehicle under certain at least somewhat challenging scenarios and conditions that are death of you screw up, yet nobody has to show any proficiency with a firearm.
Uh, when I took driver's ed we didn't do any corrections from oversteer, nor driving on ice and snow, nor how to deal with an aggressive driver on our tail. It was largely about legalities.
Quote:
And it's also funny that the same folks that complain about heavy, tech filled cars which are designed to assure safety of incompetent drivers will demand 15+ shot capacity to protect the self.
On a tangent: how come I have to pay extra, and undergo extra special background checks, in order to put what is required on my car onto my gun? IOW, a simple muffler... On a little less of a tangent, I suppose you could consider firearm capacity a bit like demanding extra fuel capacity in a car. I know I'd whine about having to own a car with less than 400 mile range.
Quote:
Few, if any on here would be targets for real, professional crime, and if you have the means, you likely can afford better security than demanding a 30 round rifle for protection.
What if you live in the boonies, where'd it be easy to cut the phone lines? [Look up the Dartmouth murders.] Or if you are stuck living in a bad section of town, where crime is rampant? Last I knew, it cost money to have a home security system put in, and then a hefty monthly bill. And then you are waiting for police to show up--it might be trite, but when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. [No matter how fast they wish to respond.] I understand your point about "needing" a 30 round capacity for self defense, and I more or less agree with you--my contentions with firearm restrictions lie elsewhere. [Mainly, the reason behind why "shall not be infringed" was included, and also why 10 rounds is ok, and 11 rounds is evil--entirely arbitrary.]
But it's funny that we must show proficiency of operating a motor vehicle under certain at least somewhat challenging scenarios and conditions that are death of you screw up, yet nobody has to show any proficiency with a firearm.
Uh, when I took driver's ed we didn't do any corrections from oversteer, nor driving on ice and snow, nor how to deal with an aggressive driver on our tail. It was largely about legalities.
Quote:
And it's also funny that the same folks that complain about heavy, tech filled cars which are designed to assure safety of incompetent drivers will demand 15+ shot capacity to protect the self.
On a tangent: how come I have to pay extra, and undergo extra special background checks, in order to put what is required on my car onto my gun? IOW, a simple muffler... On a little less of a tangent, I suppose you could consider firearm capacity a bit like demanding extra fuel capacity in a car. I know I'd whine about having to own a car with less than 400 mile range.
Quote:
Few, if any on here would be targets for real, professional crime, and if you have the means, you likely can afford better security than demanding a 30 round rifle for protection.
What if you live in the boonies, where'd it be easy to cut the phone lines? [Look up the Dartmouth murders.] Or if you are stuck living in a bad section of town, where crime is rampant? Last I knew, it cost money to have a home security system put in, and then a hefty monthly bill. And then you are waiting for police to show up--it might be trite, but when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. [No matter how fast they wish to respond.] I understand your point about "needing" a 30 round capacity for self defense, and I more or less agree with you--my contentions with firearm restrictions lie elsewhere. [Mainly, the reason behind why "shall not be infringed" was included, and also why 10 rounds is ok, and 11 rounds is evil--entirely arbitrary.]
I will not have others tell me what's best for me.
I was attacked by 9 individuals. While the situation eventually wound down, it was due to my pistol, and willingness to use it.
It had 12 rounds in the mag, 1 in the chamber and 1 additional 12 round mag available.
I will not have others, most of whom have NEVER BEEN ATTACKED, tell me what I need.
I was attacked by 9 individuals. While the situation eventually wound down, it was due to my pistol, and willingness to use it.
It had 12 rounds in the mag, 1 in the chamber and 1 additional 12 round mag available.
I will not have others, most of whom have NEVER BEEN ATTACKED, tell me what I need.
Last edited:
JHZR2-
We do not have a right to "operate a motor vehicle" so the government can put as many restrictions as it deems needed on the citizens.
However, we do have a right to "bear arms" and the government is forbiden to "infringe" on that right.
I believe it only makes sense for the law abiding citizens of America to have the same weapons as Drug Cartels and street gangs.
We do not have a right to "operate a motor vehicle" so the government can put as many restrictions as it deems needed on the citizens.
However, we do have a right to "bear arms" and the government is forbiden to "infringe" on that right.
I believe it only makes sense for the law abiding citizens of America to have the same weapons as Drug Cartels and street gangs.
I just love the way a lot of people talk about the killing power of firearms and/or they should have shot them in the head, etc, etc, etc.
The primary purpose of a self-defense firearm is to STOP the intended attack, not necessarily to kill. Same with the military.....you STOP the advance. Besides, a wounded soldier is more of a burden than killing them outright.
IMO, her shooting did EXACTLY what it was intended to do, it STOPPED Slater's advance and made the little wimp run away. It IS a shame he didn't die and surely he and his family will sue this woman for all she's worth but a career criminal such as Slater will not stop at this, will acquire a larger, more lethal firearm for his next criminal venture because of what he "wins" via lawsuit and will ONLY be stopped permanently by someone else that may be a better shot and/or handles a very stressful situation more calmly....something most of us cannot do:
I am fortunate to have passed the background investigation (and I can guarantee the FBI could tell you the color of my poop in my first diaper) and have the means to afford to own and shoot full-auto firearms but those firearms would be the LAST choice for self-protection. Attorneys would have a field day with me for the use of a full-auto to stop a criminal. To me, a .50 BMG is not near large enough to deal with a criminal but 20mm's are too expensive to waste on a POS and they are difficult to handle in the close confines of a house/auto. So, I settle on what I can comfortably carry on any given day, be it a 380, 9mm, or. 45acp.
@Cujet - Hooray for you for surviving an attack and the use of a firearm in your day allows you the luxury of posting a response!
The primary purpose of a self-defense firearm is to STOP the intended attack, not necessarily to kill. Same with the military.....you STOP the advance. Besides, a wounded soldier is more of a burden than killing them outright.
IMO, her shooting did EXACTLY what it was intended to do, it STOPPED Slater's advance and made the little wimp run away. It IS a shame he didn't die and surely he and his family will sue this woman for all she's worth but a career criminal such as Slater will not stop at this, will acquire a larger, more lethal firearm for his next criminal venture because of what he "wins" via lawsuit and will ONLY be stopped permanently by someone else that may be a better shot and/or handles a very stressful situation more calmly....something most of us cannot do:
I am fortunate to have passed the background investigation (and I can guarantee the FBI could tell you the color of my poop in my first diaper) and have the means to afford to own and shoot full-auto firearms but those firearms would be the LAST choice for self-protection. Attorneys would have a field day with me for the use of a full-auto to stop a criminal. To me, a .50 BMG is not near large enough to deal with a criminal but 20mm's are too expensive to waste on a POS and they are difficult to handle in the close confines of a house/auto. So, I settle on what I can comfortably carry on any given day, be it a 380, 9mm, or. 45acp.
@Cujet - Hooray for you for surviving an attack and the use of a firearm in your day allows you the luxury of posting a response!
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: supton
AFAIK the "designed to wound and clog up their support" is a myth. It's a nice idea, but ignores that fact that it's still pretty easy to shoot to kill.
If its pretty easy to shoot and kill, and few, if any will even encounter an army of criminals coming to rob their home... That implies that large quantities arent necessary for most any reason for normal use.
AFAIK the "designed to wound and clog up their support" is a myth. It's a nice idea, but ignores that fact that it's still pretty easy to shoot to kill.
If its pretty easy to shoot and kill, and few, if any will even encounter an army of criminals coming to rob their home... That implies that large quantities arent necessary for most any reason for normal use.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
I just love the way a lot of people talk about the killing power of firearms and/or they should have shot them in the head, etc, etc, etc.
The primary purpose of a self-defense firearm is to STOP the intended attack, not necessarily to kill. Same with the military.....you STOP the advance. Besides, a wounded soldier is more of a burden than killing them outright.
IMO, her shooting did EXACTLY what it was intended to do, it STOPPED Slater's advance and made the little wimp run away. It IS a shame he didn't die and surely he and his family will sue this woman for all she's worth but a career criminal such as Slater will not stop at this, will acquire a larger, more lethal firearm for his next criminal venture because of what he "wins" via lawsuit and will ONLY be stopped permanently by someone else that may be a better shot and/or handles a very stressful situation more calmly....something most of us cannot do:
I am fortunate to have passed the background investigation (and I can guarantee the FBI could tell you the color of my poop in my first diaper) and have the means to afford to own and shoot full-auto firearms but those firearms would be the LAST choice for self-protection. Attorneys would have a field day with me for the use of a full-auto to stop a criminal. To me, a .50 BMG is not near large enough to deal with a criminal but 20mm's are too expensive to waste on a POS and they are difficult to handle in the close confines of a house/auto. So, I settle on what I can comfortably carry on any given day, be it a 380, 9mm, or. 45acp.
A very reasonable and practical response.
I just love the way a lot of people talk about the killing power of firearms and/or they should have shot them in the head, etc, etc, etc.
The primary purpose of a self-defense firearm is to STOP the intended attack, not necessarily to kill. Same with the military.....you STOP the advance. Besides, a wounded soldier is more of a burden than killing them outright.
IMO, her shooting did EXACTLY what it was intended to do, it STOPPED Slater's advance and made the little wimp run away. It IS a shame he didn't die and surely he and his family will sue this woman for all she's worth but a career criminal such as Slater will not stop at this, will acquire a larger, more lethal firearm for his next criminal venture because of what he "wins" via lawsuit and will ONLY be stopped permanently by someone else that may be a better shot and/or handles a very stressful situation more calmly....something most of us cannot do:
I am fortunate to have passed the background investigation (and I can guarantee the FBI could tell you the color of my poop in my first diaper) and have the means to afford to own and shoot full-auto firearms but those firearms would be the LAST choice for self-protection. Attorneys would have a field day with me for the use of a full-auto to stop a criminal. To me, a .50 BMG is not near large enough to deal with a criminal but 20mm's are too expensive to waste on a POS and they are difficult to handle in the close confines of a house/auto. So, I settle on what I can comfortably carry on any given day, be it a 380, 9mm, or. 45acp.
A very reasonable and practical response.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I will not have others tell me what's best for me.
I was attacked by 9 individuals. While the situation eventually wound down, it was due to my pistol, and willingness to use it.
It had 12 rounds in the mag, 1 in the chamber and 1 additional 12 round mag available.
I will not have others, most of whom have NEVER BEEN ATTACKED, tell me what I need.
So youre attacked by 9 people on a regular basis. Something tells me that your experience is so far out of the regular statistical norm that it fails any test of reality, and doesnt make sense to be used as a basis for what any normal person needs in any normal situation.
Im not belittling your experience. Its just not sensible to me to use such a fringe experience to draw bounds here.
If I had to carry a gun, with a spare mag to exist on a daily basis, I would not live where I do. And dont give me a sob story about not being able to afford or have a job or whatever so youre stuck. There are plenty of places in this country where that will not happen.
I will not have others tell me what's best for me.
I was attacked by 9 individuals. While the situation eventually wound down, it was due to my pistol, and willingness to use it.
It had 12 rounds in the mag, 1 in the chamber and 1 additional 12 round mag available.
I will not have others, most of whom have NEVER BEEN ATTACKED, tell me what I need.
So youre attacked by 9 people on a regular basis. Something tells me that your experience is so far out of the regular statistical norm that it fails any test of reality, and doesnt make sense to be used as a basis for what any normal person needs in any normal situation.
Im not belittling your experience. Its just not sensible to me to use such a fringe experience to draw bounds here.
If I had to carry a gun, with a spare mag to exist on a daily basis, I would not live where I do. And dont give me a sob story about not being able to afford or have a job or whatever so youre stuck. There are plenty of places in this country where that will not happen.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: stumpman
JHZR2-
We do not have a right to "operate a motor vehicle" so the government can put as many restrictions as it deems needed on the citizens.
However, we do have a right to "bear arms" and the government is forbiden to "infringe" on that right.
I believe it only makes sense for the law abiding citizens of America to have the same weapons as Drug Cartels and street gangs.
I hear you. I am fully on board with DC V. Heller which maintained the use of arms for self defense outside of the militia statement that everyone conveniently overlooks and forgets in the 2nd.
So that is what it is.
But at the end of the day, one has to look at this from a practical standpoint.
Where is the harm vs good, and where does a viable self-defense posture exist that doesnt create added dangers in other cases.
Frankly, my biggest disgust, and as a firearm owner am free to say this, is the STUPIDITY and INCOMPETENCE of gun owners such that 200k firearms are stolen every year. This is criminal, not just in terms of the theft, but on part of the gun owner. That incompetence drives the crimes and deaths and puts blood on those owners' hands despite their intended purchase never necessarily being intended to kill anyone.
We all literally shoot ourselves in the foot, by fueling the fire of the criminal element who uses these firearms to carry out their behaviors, which is where the homocide numbers and all the other things that drive the anti-gun arguments come from. The boogey man argument of trained legions of criminals armed with 100 round drums coming to attack Ma and Pa kettle for the $100 in their matress just isnt sensible.
JHZR2-
We do not have a right to "operate a motor vehicle" so the government can put as many restrictions as it deems needed on the citizens.
However, we do have a right to "bear arms" and the government is forbiden to "infringe" on that right.
I believe it only makes sense for the law abiding citizens of America to have the same weapons as Drug Cartels and street gangs.
I hear you. I am fully on board with DC V. Heller which maintained the use of arms for self defense outside of the militia statement that everyone conveniently overlooks and forgets in the 2nd.
So that is what it is.
But at the end of the day, one has to look at this from a practical standpoint.
Where is the harm vs good, and where does a viable self-defense posture exist that doesnt create added dangers in other cases.
Frankly, my biggest disgust, and as a firearm owner am free to say this, is the STUPIDITY and INCOMPETENCE of gun owners such that 200k firearms are stolen every year. This is criminal, not just in terms of the theft, but on part of the gun owner. That incompetence drives the crimes and deaths and puts blood on those owners' hands despite their intended purchase never necessarily being intended to kill anyone.
We all literally shoot ourselves in the foot, by fueling the fire of the criminal element who uses these firearms to carry out their behaviors, which is where the homocide numbers and all the other things that drive the anti-gun arguments come from. The boogey man argument of trained legions of criminals armed with 100 round drums coming to attack Ma and Pa kettle for the $100 in their matress just isnt sensible.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." ... -Col. Jeff Cooper
JHZR2, seems your solution to defense from evil is flee to a safer place.... some folks don't like to run.
JHZR2, seems your solution to defense from evil is flee to a safer place.... some folks don't like to run.
- Status
