Carry Ammo

[clinotus]

Ah, the caliber wars.

War? Come on, we all know that they all fall to hardball, the .45 is the best round ever developed to come out of the holy hands of J MOSES himself. Its practically ordained!

 

[GSG]

War? Come on, we all know that they all fall to hardball, the .45 is the best round ever developed to come out of the holy hands of J MOSES himself. Its practically ordained!

I personally prefer to read about how devastating the .25 ACP is in the hands of a skilled marksman.

My honest opinion is you should carry the most powerful handgun that you can fire accurately, conceal and afford to practice with. That's going to be different guns for different people.

But, to keep up good Internet tradition WRT caliber wars...

WHAT?!? Are you out of your mind? A 9mm is clearly more powerful than a .45, since the lighter bullet will puncture body armor. Your 1911 sucks, real men carry a Beretta 92.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

I personally prefer to read about how devastating the .25 ACP is in the hands of a skilled marksman.

My honest opinion is you should carry the most powerful handgun that you can fire accurately, conceal and afford to practice with. That's going to be different guns for different people.

But, to keep up good Internet tradition WRT caliber wars...

WHAT?!? Are you out of your mind? A 9mm is clearly more powerful than a .45, since the lighter bullet will puncture body armor. Your 1911 sucks, real men carry a Beretta 92.

I thought it was a bullet war???

 

[clinotus]

I thought it was a bullet war???

GLOCK 23 in 40, sonny.

No metal parts on the gun, and the round just needs to pass near the perps arm to stop him cold from the shockwave. I also use eXtreme ammo.

 

[pernox]

*snip*

My honest opinion is you should carry the most powerful handgun that you can fire accurately, conceal and afford to practice with. That's going to be different guns for different people.

*snip*

I would add to this that the gun you carry 100% of the time is more useful than the gun you carry "sometimes.. but not with a t-shirt" or "most of the time, except when I'm wearing dress slacks."

This, of course, just means that we all have a good excuse to buy and practice with several guns, perhaps even many guns.

 

[MassMark]

GLOCK 23 in 40, sonny.

No metal parts on the gun, and the round just needs to pass near the perps arm to stop him cold from the shockwave. I also use eXtreme ammo.

For added effect, carry the new eXtreme Shockwave +PF+...It has a proximity fuze....

 

[Trupo]

I carry a plain-jane S&W 910 9mm, stuffed with Cor-Bon 115gr +P JHP (1340 fps). The best self-defense load for that caliber... period.

I think he meant after HST and gold dot

...and certainly after #1, Winchester Ranger SXT's

 

[EddieCoyle]

Ah, the caliber wars.

Here are my two "favorite" stupid statements that end up in every caliber war:

It's all about shot placement.

Really? Holy crap! What a revelation! You mean you actually have to hit something?

A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .45.

That's right! A .22 fires a homing bullet, and all .45 bullets are secretly coated with bad guy repellent so they automatically miss.

 

[Chrisg67]

Really? Holy crap! What a revelation! You mean you actually have to hit something?

my ammo is so cool that people see it and stop, i dont even need to shoot.

 

[GSG]

I would add to this that the gun you carry 100% of the time is more useful than the gun you carry "sometimes.. but not with a t-shirt" or "most of the time, except when I'm wearing dress slacks."

This, of course, just means that we all have a good excuse to buy and practice with several guns, perhaps even many guns.

Yup. It's always better to be armed.

Here are my two "favorite" stupid statements that end up in every caliber war:



Really? Holy crap! What a revelation! You mean you actually have to hit something?




That's right! A .22 fires a homing bullet, and all .45 bullets are secretly coated with bad guy repellent so they automatically miss.

Eddie, you made me laugh, I never looked at it that way before.

 

[Titan]

Definitely an interesting debate.

For what it's worth, although caliber and hollow points weren't the only issue, THEY WERE a significant element of the Harold Fish trial in Arizona.

I think you could certainly expect these issues to be even more likely to come up in a trial in MA.

How you value that possibility seems to be a matter of personal judgement, since ALL of the ammo being discussed is legal.
.

 

[Erebus]

Definitely an interesting debate.

For what it's worth, although caliber and hollow points weren't the only issue, THEY WERE a significant element of the Harold Fish trial in Arizona.

I think you could certainly expect these issues to be even more likely to come up in a trial in MA.

How you value that possibility seems to be a matter of personal judgement, since ALL of the ammo being discussed is legal.
.

There was just a show on the Harold Fish case on the ID channel. And one of the jurors came right out and said that him using a hollow point bullet(they pictured a Hydro-Shok) influenced her vote to convict as "That bullet is designed to do the maximum amount of damage and only to kill." They also made an issue out of caliber and said that 10mm is far too powerful for self defense as it's more powerful than what most police officers carry. They showed the video of self defense instructors on the stand explaining why you use expanding ammo and why you shoot for SOM. Apparently it didn't matter to her, she was fixated on the perceived deadliness of the round.

When you are on trial the prosecution will use anything to influence the jury. And people that don't understand that you always shoot for SOM, and are looking for the most effective stop will wonder why you didn't shoot to wound or use a mouse gun.

Myself I picked up a few boxes of several different types of expanding ammo and ran them through my carry pistol. Compared what I shot most accurately and what I observed as the round that fed most smoothly through my gun. Settled on Federal 45 Auto +P 185 grain JHP Hydro-Shoks.

 

[jhblaze1]

Guess i should buy me some different ammo to carry. My noob question for the day is what does FMJ stand for?

Reasearch a little first.

BEFORE you start carrying. Not trying to sound like a jerk, but if you don't get know the difference between FMJ and JHP, you probably are not helping anyone, including yourself by carrying a loaded gun around.

 

[Titan]

There was just a show on the Harold Fish case on the ID channel. And one of the jurors came right out and said that him using a hollow point bullet(they pictured a Hydro-Shok) influenced her vote to convict as "That bullet is designed to do the maximum amount of damage and only to kill." They also made an issue out of caliber and said that 10mm is far too powerful for self defense as it's more powerful than what most police officers carry. They showed the video of self defense instructors on the stand explaining why you use expanding ammo and why you shoot for SOM. Apparently it didn't matter to her, she was fixated on the perceived deadliness of the round.

When you are on trial the prosecution will use anything to influence the jury. And people that don't understand that you always shoot for SOM, and are looking for the most effective stop will wonder why you didn't shoot to wound or use a mouse gun.

Myself I picked up a few boxes of several different types of expanding ammo and ran them through my carry pistol. Compared what I shot most accurately and what I observed as the round that fed most smoothly through my gun. Settled on Federal 45 Auto +P 185 grain JHP Hydro-Shoks.

I saw that progam too. It was very good, but the presentation was clearly biased against Fish's defense.

The Fish case is truly a great example of the extent to which a defendant is at the mercy of the quality of his defense lawyer, but even more importantly, the biases and caliber of the jury. If Fish could get this verdict in AZ which had vastly more lenient gun laws than MA, you can only imagine the risks ANY DEFENDANT takes in going before a jury in this hysterical state.

Anyone who depends too heavily on what the law is, without realizing the risks of going before ANY jury, should rethink the issue.

It's not a question of bowing to the anti-gunners, it's a question of how much risk a person is willing to take.

I stick with reasonable calibers and common factory ammo and still hope I never find myself having to face a MA jury.
.

 

[GSG]

I saw that progam too. It was very good, but the presentation was clearly biased against Fish's defense.

The Fish case is truly a great example of the extent to which a defendant is at the mercy of the quality of his defense lawyer, but even more importantly, the biases and caliber of the jury. If Fish could get this verdict in AZ which had vastly more lenient gun laws than MA, you can only imagine the risks ANY DEFENDANT takes in going before a jury in this hysterical state.

Anyone who depends too heavily on what the law is, without realizing the risks of going before ANY jury, should rethink the issue.

It's not a question of bowing to the anti-gunners, it's a question of how much risk a person is willing to take.

I stick with reasonable calibers and common factory ammo and still hope I never find myself having to face a MA jury.
.

As I said before, Fish's trouble started when he shot and killed an un-armed man. A little bit of judgement would have gone a long way with him.

 

[Titan]

As I said before, Fish's trouble started when he shot and killed an un-armed man. A little bit of judgement would have gone a long way with him.

Agreed, altough his attorney missed an opportunity from what I understand, to mention that an armed response can be justified even against an unarmed man if you feel for your life in a violent encounter, and also fear that in a hand to hand fight, the aggressor could take your weapon and kill you with it.

There are many aspects of the Fish case that will be 'studied' for a long time to come.

It's worth noting that after the incident, the laws were changed in AZ to require the prosecution to prove that a defendant was NOT operating in a self defense mode, rather than having a defendant like Fish prove that he WAS operating in self defense.

...to whatever benefit that produces in the future.
.