"a handgun is only good to fight your way to a rifle"

We now need to cover our options to fight to our pistol do we can fight to our rifle. Im going with fixed blade on a drop leg holster. I have no math to back this up though.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I will use jiu jitsu until I have enough distance to use my flying monkey Kung Fu. Then, I will use my CRKT folder until I get to my K-Bar, which I will use to fight to my mace dispenser. I will then mace the baddie until I get to my Glock, which I will use to fight my way to the AR. Once I get to my AR, I will escort the family into the basement where I have my LCC.
 
All weapons are just methods for getting back to the button to launch the nuke, which you never should have left in the first place.
 
All weapons are just methods for getting back to the button to launch the nuke, which you never should have left in the first place.

And this is why anybody who thinks that anything except force will stop Iran from developing nukes is stupid, naive, or intentionally courting the onset of WWIII.
 
And this is why anybody who thinks that anything except force will stop Iran from developing nukes is stupid, naive, or intentionally courting the onset of WWIII.

hmm_261977-250x.jpeg
 
Sure you mean cauterize. ;)

Fast-moving projectiles may pass right through a body, but it's not just the hole they make. An projectile with a lot more speed carries a lot more energy to dissipate. The tissues around the hole also get disrupted, so something moving quickly may not always be a bad thing. That being said, there are a lot more factors to take into account, like the diameter of the hole, etc. A large pistol caliber with an expanding bullet may create a bigger cavity and still disrupt a lot of surrounding tissue. Bottom line is I don't think there is a 'perfect' solution, especially not for every situation.

I agree. If you have ever seen pics of what a .223/5.56 does to human flesh, this wouldn't even be a question. Rifle rounds such as the .223/5.56 are designed to tumble when they enter and they do a massive amount of damage for such a diminutive size. Like most here I'm bound by the stupid storage laws here in MA, so I will reluctantly grab a handgun and light for things that go bump in the night, but I would much rather have a rifle or shotgun if I was actually going to be in a gun fight.
 
So where does this statement(or whatever variation you use) come from? If a handgun round has a bigger projectile(especially a JHP that expands) why are some people so crazy about a rifle round for home defense? Wouldn't you want something larger to damage someone and drop them? I can see if the blue helmets are roaming the streets and you want to pick them off lol. What's the benefit of a rifle round that is smaller and faster? Not trying to start a flame war, I just want to understand where the idea comes from.
There's a reason why the M1 Carbine was the most widely produced US firearm in WWII.

Most people can't hit squat with a pistol. It takes a pretty solid pistol shooter to be accurate at 25 yards: most anyone can shoot a carbine AT&T hat distance.

Some GI's trimmed off the mag to five rounds so it was flush, making it even easier to carry.
 
Except when the object leaves at nearly the same speed it entered. That's why people use hollow points; to expand and dump as much energy into the target as possible, if not all of it.

Imagine an example where a bullet leaves a person at exactly the same speed it was traveling when it entered. It has exactly the same mass and exactly the same velocity, therefore exactly the same energy. That means it transferred zero energy to the medium it passed through (i.e. the bad guy).

This sounds like how it would work "in theory" or based on that simple physics equation, but in reality that isn't how the rounds behave when they hit flesh. They tumble and do a f*$kton of damage!
 
Why shouldn't Iran have nukes.Israel does and lies about it.let Jews and Arabs kill each other .the US should focus on itself not police the globe.

How about because Iran has openly stated their intent to use them, and if you think there is such a thing as a limited nuclear war, well, good luck breathing radiation.
 
OK - you are mixing things a bit. I am sorry if I was not clear when I mentioned this only applies to the moment of impact. The algebriac expression as shown only captures fixed, snap shots in time. Notice there is no time component in KE=1/2mv^2. What you are alluding to is the acceleration (or more correctly in this example, deceleration - just switch the sign) dv/dt component - which involves differential calculus and a few more equations - and many more variables.

Expansion of the projectile is post impact - and that is where dv/dt comes into play. The greater the dv/dt (deceleration), the more energy is passed to the target - as they say, its not the fall that kills you, its the sudden stop - same idea.

So lets put it all together. KE=1/2mv^2 relates mass and velocity to kinetic energy at a given time point. Bullet expansion as as a result of deceleration - do we have an equation for that? **** yes we do. The grand daddy of them all: F=ma. OK, so what that really means (putting into calculus language) Force = mass x dv/dt. So, the larger the dv/dt - the more force is imparted on the object. How do we get more dv/dt from a bullet - make it a hallow point.

Again, I noted the KE equation is limited in what it tells us - it is this limitation that permits the debate to continue - that was the point I am trying to make.

I cant imagine a bullet that passes through a body with no change in velocity - Newton has taught us this is not possible thanks to conservation of momentum. Two objects can not impact one another without changing the vectors of the involved bodies.

Now, taking it all into account - what do we want to do in order to impart the max energy on the bad guy?

A fast moving bullet - I dont really care how heavy it is as long as its moving fast - that can slow down really fast once it impacts an object.

At impact: KE=1/2mv^2.
A few milliseconds after impact until the bullet stops: F=mdv/dt

Got that? That is not subject to debate.

What is, however - is some bullets are really fast. Some slow down really fast too. The holy grail is a bullet that does both. Hence gun shop post-docs like to debate which is better - all the while not realizing what we perceive as wound damage is the inter-relation of mass, velocity, acceleration and time. Its hard for folks to think in 4 dimensions at the same time - that's why Newton came up with calculus - when he was 20. We didnt even get into the densities of bone versus muscle versus sinew, nor the change in directional vectors that are also taking place, and heat, sound, friction etc.

I still assert - I don't want to get shot by any gun or caliber. Ever. Pretty sure they all hurt.


ToddDUBYAH was obviously assuming a friction-less environment.

He was simplifying his world into the fantasy land where a pistol is just as good as a rifle.
 
I live in a condo in boston.

There was a guy here a few months ago that was in the same situation and wanted me to tell him that an AK47 was awesome for HD in the city.
City living is a liability minefield that makes a high powered rifle round a poor choice (high likelihood a rifle round would penetrate a wall into the next condo and strike an unintended target).

How does that rule go again?
Always know your target and what is beyond.
Unlikely that I can keep that rule in mind when trying to defend myself in the home.

In my opinion, long arms are too risky for the close quarters of city living and the narrow hallways of condos.

If you live on a ranch and see people coming a mile away, rifle is fine.

In most situations I will prefer my HD tool tobe a pistol and fire a frangible round (to mitigate hitting unintended targets through walls) at muzzle energies in excess of 500 lb-ft. This means, .40 sw, .45 acp, .357 sig or mag (low flash if you can find it).

---

If was at war I would want a Tavor or something that shoots 458 socom. But again that's assuming in an urban environment where engagement is like to be medium to short range. If deployed in a featureless environment (desert or canyon) with long lines of sight I would want a longer barreled AR with 62gr green tip 5.56.

Right tool for the right job.
Not "favorite, cool looking" tool for all the jobs.
 
Last edited:
So where does this statement(or whatever variation you use) come from? If a handgun round has a bigger projectile(especially a JHP that expands) why are some people so crazy about a rifle round for home defense? Wouldn't you want something larger to damage someone and drop them? I can see if the blue helmets are roaming the streets and you want to pick them off lol. What's the benefit of a rifle round that is smaller and faster? Not trying to start a flame war, I just want to understand where the idea comes from.

I'm no physicist, but I did enjoy the classes in HS and college before deciding 'management' was the way for me to go.

Read up on hydrostatic shock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock

basically water hits back almost as hard as you hit it, we are ~90% water. So a faster round will hit and the resulting shock will do more damage. Youtube a pistol round into ballistic gel vs a rifle round.

BTW: My agency considers my M4/shotgun my primary weapon, my sidearm is my secondary.

edit: There has to be a physicist after page 3 of this thread I hope. I quit reading there.
 
We now need to cover our options to fight to our pistol do we can fight to our rifle. Im going with fixed blade on a drop leg holster. I have no math to back this up though.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

what if im dropping a deuce and dont have a knife with me? POP QUIZ what happens if someone breaks into your house while youre pooping and open fires, WHAT DO YOU DO? WHAT ? DO ? YOU? DO?

You had me going until the last sentence. I'm all about tacticool yo. But you can't put a rifle into a thigh holster.

Edit: and I work with some people who have probably tried.

bullshit if theres a will theres a way just gotta be a thinker
 
what if im dropping a deuce and dont have a knife with me? POP QUIZ what happens if someone breaks into your house while youre pooping and open fires, WHAT DO YOU DO? WHAT ? DO ? YOU? DO?

Why wouldn't you have a gun or knife with you in the toilet? If you learned anything from Pulp Fiction, it's that you never leave your gun on the counter when you go to the bathroom.

Also, never poop in a ground level outside facing bathroom with regular windows. It puts you at a tactical disadvantage. Now at I think about it, you should probably wear your plate carrier when you are on the toilet.
 
Why wouldn't you have a gun or knife with you in the toilet? If you learned anything from Pulp Fiction, it's that you never leave your gun on the counter when you go to the bathroom.

Also, never poop in a ground level outside facing bathroom with regular windows. It puts you at a tactical disadvantage. Now at I think about it, you should probably wear your plate carrier when you are on the toilet.

[laugh2]I thought all NESrs did that already![rofl]
 
You guys are analyzing the crap out of this. I don't know with any certainty, but I suspect the original quote originated within a military conflict context - where it makes perfect sense. The rest is an exercise in mental gymnastics.

Can't believe I went through twelve screens to make this comment....
 
You guys are analyzing the crap out of this. I don't know with any certainty, but I suspect the original quote originated within a military conflict context - where it makes perfect sense. The rest is an exercise in mental masturbation.

Can't believe I went through twelve screens to make this comment....

Some folks like to play, some folks like to defend their choices based on internet and gun shop lore to the death, some folks like to argue, I like to tell people they are wrong even though I am likely wrong myself. I am however, on the primary, all the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom