Revolver vs. Auto. ???

[Admin]

did you ever have someone 10 feet away from you trying to jump you with a knife??????

there is no time to reload or do anything. you act fast or you are done. no need for extra ammo.

and Murphys law is the reason why revolvers are better.

stop trying to prove a stupid and pointless point. Extra Ammo is useless during self defense.

Oh because you're 100% positive you're going to engage one bad guy at 10 feet??

Why do you care if someone carries a spare mag? I don't care that you think you'll only use your gun on one guy inside of 10 feet.

 

[Broc]

I gotcha. So the only time you'll ever need a gun is when someone is 10 feet away with a knife. You're never going to encounter 2 or more people at a longer distance, possibly with guns. Good to know.

well, most people wont. But maybe if you are in some kind of business where you will, then you might. But i think we are just talking about the average person walking down the road, having a nice day, or maybe going to work.

 

[Admin]

well, most people wont. But maybe if you are in some kind of business where you will, then you might. But i think we are just talking about the average person walking down the road, having a nice day, or maybe going to work.

I carry because there are bad "people' in the world, not a bad "person".

 

[william_munny]

well, most people wont. But maybe if you are in some kind of business where you will, then you might. But i think we are just talking about the average person walking down the road, having a nice day, or maybe going to work.

I can appreciate the unlikeliness that I'll ever need a gun. Ever. That's not sarcasm, I really do, and that's what I hope for. The only point I'm trying to make is shit happens, and a 2nd or 3rd mag isn't weighing anyone down. I can't think of a single disadvantage to it at all, actually. Other than some guy on the internet might think I'm playing Rambo.

 

[Broc]

I carry because there are bad "people' in the world, not a bad "person".

yeah, and they are all walking around with guns. i see them every day down in Boston. And they pull the guns out on people 50 feet away, so you can see them coming.

anyways, im done posting in this thread. The arguments are just retarded.

 

[redtail]

Emotions aside. Pretty much everywhere I look these days-online at news or video (or both) of recent SD shootings, or in the Armed Citizen, etc, the common denominators remain that the shooting will be very close, and 3 or less shots are fired. And yeah I know there are exceptions, but thats what they are.
I think for us average Joe's, it remains almost a certainty that if we ever have to start firing, it will be 3 shots or less at a range of 21 feet or less, just as it was 30 years ago. I comfortably "take my chances" most of the time with an old Model 37 and 1 speed strip in my pocket. The last shot might be for my temple, if its the zombies. I'll count them as I fire.
If your thing is a Glock and 30-40 rounds of ammo, thats fine too. What ever trips your trigger. I seriously don't belittle the idea, for in this day, any of us could suddenly find themselves in the midst of a school or workplace shooting, or similar, and having 30+ rounds to fire might be a very life saving/situation ending thing. But at the end of the day, shot placement is the absolute king.

 

[jasons]

anyways, im done posting in this thread. The arguments are just retarded.

Wait, don't go yet. You didn't tell me what self defense class I should take.

 

[Admin]

yeah, and they are all walking around with guns. i see them every day down in Boston. And they pull the guns out on people 50 feet away, so you can see them coming.

anyways, im done posting in this thread. The arguments are just retarded.

When you get rid of that tunnel vision let me know.

 

[Admin]

Wait, don't go yet. You didn't tell me what self defense class I should take.

He was going to recommend "You only get attacked from inside of 10 feet.com"

 

[jasons]

He was going to recommend "You only get attacked from inside of 10 feet.com"

Crap, it must be down. I'm f@$cked.

 

[drgrant]

Marshall and Sanow's research is ancient and outdated. Today's top performing bullets did not even exist when they compiled their information. There are a lot of other problems with their conclusions also.

With modern ammo the 9mm is now considered to be very close to the .357 & .45. However, most if not all modern research concludes that the .357 & .45 are still at the top.

You can disagree if you like, but I don't know of any research that says otherwise.

I only mentioned them because they were the ones pushing the one shot stop garbage. IMHO it's BS, and there isn't even a reliable data source to back it up, even if you could chart it. The concept of "one shot stops" from a data standpoint is bogus. That's without even getting into the "why" portion.

Believe it if you want, but I sure as hell won't- because the idea is based on something that, at best, is junk science.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

yeah, and they are all walking around with guns. i see them every day down in Boston. And they pull the guns out on people 50 feet away, so you can see them coming.

anyways, im done posting in this thread. The arguments are just retarded.

Pot... Kettle..... comm check?

-Mike

 

[JonathonEmergency]

well, most people wont. But maybe if you are in some kind of business where you will, then you might. But i think we are just talking about the average person walking down the road, having a nice day, or maybe going to work.

Are you making an argument against guns in general? because it sounds like you are.

 

[william_munny]

But at the end of the day, shot placement is the absolute king.

QFMFT

 

[Jose]

Emotions aside. Pretty much everywhere I look these days-online at news or video (or both) of recent SD shootings, or in the Armed Citizen, etc, the common denominators remain that the shooting will be very close, and 3 or less shots are fired. And yeah I know there are exceptions, but thats what they are.
I think for us average Joe's, it remains almost a certainty that if we ever have to start firing, it will be 3 shots or less at a range of 21 feet or less, just as it was 30 years ago. I comfortably "take my chances" most of the time with an old Model 37 and 1 speed strip in my pocket. The last shot might be for my temple, if its the zombies. I'll count them as I fire.
If your thing is a Glock and 30-40 rounds of ammo, thats fine too. What ever trips your trigger. I seriously don't belittle the idea, for in this day, any of us could suddenly find themselves in the midst of a school or workplace shooting, or similar, and having 30+ rounds to fire might be a very life saving/situation ending thing. But at the end of the day, shot placement is the absolute king.

Finally some sense after Elmer Fudd's keyboard diahrrea

 

[Jose]

and Murphys law is the reason why revolvers are better.

Hope Murphy never puts a grain of sand under your revolver's ejector star or loosens up your ejector rod just one bit.

 

[Jose]

you need to take a self defense class, or aska friend to try to beat you up, and you will realize what i am telling you

Maybe you should take your own advice and have your ass handed to you

 

[Cato]

I only mentioned them because they were the ones pushing the one shot stop garbage. IMHO it's BS, and there isn't even a reliable data source to back it up, even if you could chart it. The concept of "one shot stops" from a data standpoint is bogus. That's without even getting into the "why" portion.

Believe it if you want, but I sure as hell won't- because the idea is based on something that, at best, is junk science.

-Mike

Don't get hung up on the phrase "one shot stops" just because Marshall coined it. Let's use "stopping power" if it makes you feel better. Stopping power refers to the ability of a certain round to stop an attack with one shot. It is the basis of ALL discussion regarding the efficiency of defensive ammo.

So do you think that there is no way to rationally hypothesize that a .380 does not have the stopping power of a .357 or a .45? You think it's all BS?

 

[Jose]

Stopping power refers to the ability of a certain round to stop an attack with one shot. It is the basis of ALL discussion regarding the efficiency of defensive ammo.

No it isn't.

Armed professionals and reputable trainers long ago moved from the "one shot stop" BS to having as much ammo as possible on hand to shoot multiple attackers to the ground.

 

[Cato]

No it isn't.

Armed professionals and reputable trainers long ago moved from the "one shot stop" BS to having as much ammo as possible on hand to shoot multiple attackers to the ground.

I never should have used that phrase. I never mentioned Marshall, Sanow or any of their old nonsense.

I never advocated carring a single shot.

I would guess that most people do not think that all ammo is equal. If so, then there must be some ammo that is better than others, right?

My guess is that .357 an .45 are the best. Some might think that others are best. That's OK.

 

[cekim]

My guess is that .357 an .45 are the best. Some might think that others are best. That's OK.

Therein lies the problem - "best" presumes that all threats, users and scenarios are the same and thus there is even one "best."

"Best" is a function of what YOU can do in the widest variety of situations where what you need to do is sever nervous signals to/from the brain, drain blood, or disable muscles/skeleton from functioning...

For most people and most assaults (which now typically involve more than one attacker), this means as many vital shots in as short period of time as you can take.

Keeping in mind that more recoil means slower follow up shots no matter who you are, its always going to be a balance... You can shoot someone point blank in the chest with a .45 or a 9 - if you miss the good stuff, its gonna hurt, but there's nothing mechanically stopping the threat from continuing on as a threat...

There is no best, but certainly there are options which have more cons than pros...

 

[depicts]

I carry both



Got worried that 5 in my S&W might not be enough. Enough trips through bad areas that I wanted to carry more ammo, but didn't want a high cap Automatic.

So I started carrying TWO S&W airweight .38"s. Then I found the Kahr for sale in Mass, and it has become my primary carry gun now backed up by any number of J frames.

I think there are 4 factors in self defense, if you are forced to shoot.

You shoot and miss

You shoot and hit

You don't hit the right spot

You DO hit the right spot.

In Summation... hit your target, multiple times if possible.

Almost any caliber or mm will do for me. And plenty of bullets. You never know when you might need more. Carry what you can. Scum don't travel alone. Don't think 1 guy at 3 yards.

Damn I sound like a red neck keyboard kommando. Sorry to slip off topic a bit.

 

[Cato]

Therein lies the problem - "best" presumes that all threats, users and scenarios are the same and thus there is even one "best."

"Best" is a function of what YOU can do in the widest variety of situations where what you need to do is sever nervous signals to/from the brain, drain blood, or disable muscles/skeleton from functioning...

For most people and most assaults (which now typically involve more than one attacker), this means as many vital shots in as short period of time as you can take.

Keeping in mind that more recoil means slower follow up shots no matter who you are, its always going to be a balance... You can shoot someone point blank in the chest with a .45 or a 9 - if you miss the good stuff, its gonna hurt, but there's nothing mechanically stopping the threat from continuing on as a threat...

There is no best, but certainly there are options which have more cons than pros...

Good points.

But let me ask you a question.

If you could only carry one choice of ammo for the rest of your life and the choice was between .45 and .32 which one would you choose?

 

[jasons]

Good points.

But let me ask you a question.

If you could only carry one choice of ammo for the rest of your life and the choice was between .45 and .32 which one would you choose?

Do we get to carry a gun too, or are we flinging those rounds with a sling shot?

 

[Cato]

Do we get to carry a gun too, or are we flinging those rounds with a sling shot?

Sling shot.

 

[Cato]

Do we get to carry a gun too, or are we flinging those rounds with a sling shot?

The choice of ammo should be the same either way.

 

[jasons]

Choosing a caliber without first discussing the type and purpose of the gun that it would go into seems a tad short-sighted. The point being that there are many types and purposes and caliber is somewhat secondary IMHO.

 

[M1911]

I think shot placement is more important than differences in caliber. Choose anything from 9mm on up that you can shoot quickly and accurately. Then go practice more. There is no magic caliber any more than there is a magic gun.

 

[Cato]

I think shot placement is more important than differences in caliber. Choose anything from 9mm on up that you can shoot quickly and accurately. Then go practice more. There is no magic caliber any more than there is a magic gun.

Of course.

 

[cekim]

Good points.

But let me ask you a question.

If you could only carry one choice of ammo for the rest of your life and the choice was between .45 and .32 which one would you choose?

.45 without hesitation, but ask me the same question with .45 and 9 and you get a different answer.

.32, .380, et al of the pocket guns are the ones with more "cons" than "pros"... Concealable and light, but inaccurate, unreliable, do not offer high capacity that a double stack 9 does as they are generally very small guns...