Dog Brothers Public Forum

DBMA Martial Arts Forum => Martial Arts Topics => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on January 26, 2009, 10:11:15 AM

Title: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 26, 2009, 10:11:15 AM
We kick this thread off with a newsletter from Gabe Suarez:

===========

MAGAZINE CAPACITY FOR SELF-DEFENSE
 
 
Last time we discussed calibers due to some new discussions at warriortalk.  It seems some people are still thinking like it was 1911 in terms of terminal ballistics. I think the truth of the matter is that all self defense handgun calibers (excluding the pocket pistol category) are basically the same when it comes to dropping an adversary.  That being the case, should we carry a pistol that only holds seven marginal shots, or one that holds as many as twice that number?
 
I wrote this one a while back and it seems the discussion and emailed questions I got come back to this issue.
 
Magazine Capacity
 
I suppose this will be yet another highly controversial issue, but what the heck.  Controversy makes for interesting discussion, no?  The issue is to look at whether high magazine capacity gives you a tactical advantage, or if we are better served by carrying an equally sized weapon with a smaller capacity of bigger bullets.  Before I answer my own question, let me put forth some facts as seen both in force on force training and on the street.
 
Point One - Pistol bullets, regardless of caliber are all, what one colleague calls, "iffy".  None can be guaranteed to drop an adversary in his tracks reliably.  The notion of a  one shot stop  is an urban myth dreamed up by those with a vested  interest in such things.  I have seen 45s work and fail, and I have seen 9mm both work and fail.  For the record, the only one shot drop (excluding head shots) I have ever seen with a pistol was fired by a good friend as we entered a  crack house  during a SWAT raid.  He shot the bad guy squarely in the heart with 9mm +P+ out of a SIG P-226.  He only fired once because the bad guy fell before my friend could reset his trigger for the next shot!
 
If we look at the most prevalent calibers we see that there is very little difference between them.  A 9mm (also .38/.357) is only one little millimeter smaller than the 10mm (aka .40 S&W), and that is only one little millimeter less than the vaunted 11mm (aka .45 ACP).  And before we get into the high speed light bullet versus the heavy slow bullet argument, lets remember that you can only drive a pistol bullet so fast without drastically affecting its integrity.  Moreover, since penetration is affected by weight, sacrificing weight for speed will not yield good results.  Finally, you can only make a bullet so light or so heavy.  There are limits to what you can shoot out of a pistol.
 
I have seen every one of these calibers fail at one time or another.  There are those who disdain the 9mm as unsuitable for anything larger than squirrels.  With modern ammunition, this is simply not true.  There is also a myth and a cult grown up around the .45 ACP in this country.  Sadly, it is not the deadly hammer of god its proponents suggest.   This is not new.  Read Fairbairn's Shoot To Live.  He writes of two separate times when the .45 failed to work any better than anything else.  Although one millimeter may give you a slight edge in a less than optimum body hit, under most circumstances, there will be very little difference between the effectiveness of the various calibers when modern anti-personnel ammo is used.  Trauma injury doctors and reputable terminal ballistics experts tend to agree with this statement.
 
Point Two - Private Citizen CCW Operators do not go looking for trouble.  If they are called to fight it is either because they have inadvertently crossed paths with bad guys while they are doing  bad guy  stuff (walking in on a robbery in progress as an example), or because they have been specifically targeted and stalked (such as a carjack, or home invasion event).    They will have to use extreme violence to fight off the surprise attackers.  When we translate the conversion of fright and startle into a firearm application we wee that definition is high volume of fire.  You will shoot a lot, and until the threat is no longer there.
 
While these events share slightly different dynamics, the common thread often seen is that of multiple adversaries.  The lone criminal or terrorist is an urban myth.  If your fight only involves one, consider yourself lucky.  More often than not you will be outnumbered. 
 
Another point is the time frames in which these events take place.  Think three seconds.  After this, either you will be dead, or your adversaries will be dead.  Urban gunfights do not go for hours.  Unexpected, short duration, high intensity, extreme violence, multiple adversaries.  That is the back drop.
 
Point Three - Our staff has collectively been in a large number of gunfights ranging from police, citizen, and military events.   We draw on those experiences to set up mock gunfights in dynamic, unscripted force on force training drills.  Although the  surprise factor  is missing (you generally don t know you will be in a gunfight until it is upon you), the dynamics of its evolution do not change much.  Here are some other observations from watching hundreds of those drills.
 
1).  Defenders will fire their weapons until the threat disappears.  That means that until the role player falls down (simulating effective hits delivered), or runs away (removing the target), the good guy will keep firing.  The concept of  school solutions, controlled pairs, or otherwise artificially limiting the number of shots (as one does in a firing string on the range) does not hold up even in guys who've been extensively trained to do it.
 
2).  When a training gun stops firing (due to running out of pellets), the shooter is still in the fight and still trying to shoot his enemy as well as trying to not be hit by him.  We see them continue to try to work the trigger for one or two times before there is a realization that there has been a stoppage (malfunction or empty gun).  This is followed by a visual examination of the gun, and only then is remedial action taken. 
 
This can take upwards f a second and a half before anything is even attempted to fix the gun, and then the additional time needed to reload.  Thus the idea that one can  read the gun s feel  and immediately realize a need to  speed load  simply does not hold up.  Running out of ammo is usually a fight ender if there has been a failure to stop, or there are multiple adversaries at hand.
 
3).  Participants in these reactive mock gunfights are debriefed immediately to get a clear picture of what happened before any rationalization takes place.  Besides a shoot them to the ground  firing process, most shooters do not remember seeing the crystal clear sight pictures they learned on the shooting range.
 
We see a great deal of point shooting, and gun index shooting.  I have yet to see anyone strike a classic shooting posture and press off a carefully sighted pair in these room distance drills.   
 
The point to remember is that in a fight such as what are likely for the private citizen, one can easily develop  Bullet Deficit Disorder , and that this can have deleterious effects on the outcome of that fight. 
 
The idea that a pair or trio of  quality rounds  carefully delivered onto a  high scoring  target zone will stop the action fails both the terminal ballistics test as well as the applications test. 
 
A truth of gunfighting - Having more ammo immediately on board lessens the likelihood of ever needing to reload.  Not needing to reload translates into more time delivering lead and less time manipulating the weapon.  More trigger time increases likelihood of hitting, which increases survivability.
 
So the question is this.  Given that there is a limit to the size pistol one can carry, do I want that pistol to hold more rounds?  My answer is a strong YES! 
 
Consider the similarly sized Glock 36 in .45 ACP, and the Glock 23 in .40 S&W.  The latter holds nearly twice the ammo of the former in an almost identical package.  The Glock 19 is an even more drastic comparison with 15 shots available.  Of course there are also high capacity 45 pistols for those so inclined and for those who can wield them.  I would argue that if your choice is a 45, a gun holding 13 would be better than a gun holding 6.  And if your hand is too small for the 13 shooter, rather than decrease capacity, I d decrease caliber.
 
I have a colleague is South America who has been in High Risk Police Service for close to three decades.  He has been in over three dozen verified gunfight .   His weapon was originally a Browning Hi-Power and later a Glock 17. 
 
I was very interested in hearing more so I asked him about the load he used.  He said he had always used military ball full metal jacket.  Astounded I asked him why he chose that.   That is all we can get here.  Hollow points are illegal . 
 
I shook my head and told him that there was a belief in the USA that 9mm was an anemic caliber, especially in the load he d chosen.  He shrugged and said that his adversaries must not have gotten the word.  He said he fired a burst at the chest and if they didn't fall fast enough, he fired a burst at the face.   He never needed to reload and had enough on board so if he missed a shot or two he could  catch up  in the fight.  And before we hear the careful shooter versus the spraying prayer, this man is one of the best shots I have seen and competes on an international level.  Even so, he knows the chaos in a gunfight can play havoc with even the most gifted marksman.  Perhaps we need to take a lesson from him.
 
I still carry a Glock 17 with 17 rounds of Corbon DPX ammo in 9mm.



Gabe Suarez

One Source Tactical
Suarez International USA
Christian Warrior Ministries
 
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on January 26, 2009, 05:18:36 PM
When it comes to guns, I pay close attention to what Gabe Suarez says.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: maija on January 26, 2009, 06:39:03 PM
Can't fault his logic.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Tom Stillman on January 28, 2009, 11:36:55 AM
I feel accuracy of a weapon still comes into play. Larger round capacity is the way to go.  The police in Mexico learned this years ago. It is a common practice for them to use a shorter 12 gauge shotgun round than normal 2+3/4".  The rounds are manufactured by an ammo company called "AGUILA". 
You can find these rounds for sale on the internet. These rounds make it possible for an eight round capacity shotgun to hold maybe eleven or twelve rounds. These rounds deliver the same velocity with less shot. According to reports I have seen, the stopping power of these loads are is still more than sufficient. One important factor is, in many shotguns, the shorter shells are more difficult to eject and are more likely to jam during ejection in semi auto (not recamended) and pump models. Many models of shotguns need to be modified in order to remedy this problem. There are a few models that work well with the shorter shells right out of the box and require no modification. One of these models is the "Winchester 1300" 12 gauge pump. Back to the subject of pistols, I would rather have a nine shot 22cal. revolver than a five shot 38cal. revolver,  also I feel anything bigger than a 357 is just not accurate enough.  I have shot 45cal. and if you do not have the time to compensate for it's inaccuracy and drop, it is not very reliable. I think one is also better off in some way's, choosing a revolver over a semi auto, just for the reliability factor alone.           
I wonder if a revolver might not slow down the rate of fire, so one would be less likely to rapid fire durring adrenal state.  Interesting subject. 8-)
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: eechurch on January 28, 2009, 04:51:56 PM
This is a no win argument, cause people have strong opinions ...and most of them are valid.  However, regardless of whether you're a LEO or civilian, you're responsible for EVERY round that you fire from a weapon ...so accuracy is paramount!  My opinion, I'll go for the larger caliber.  I don't subscribe to the one shot school of thought, but you're more LIKELY to STOP an attacker with a 45 vs a 9mm.  Of course, multiple targets make higher capacity attractive.  So I guess when I say larger caliber ...I really don't want to give up ammunition capacity ...when presented with the option, I'll reach for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAS-12

Train well...
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on January 28, 2009, 06:54:03 PM
  I don't subscribe to the one shot school of thought, but you're more LIKELY to STOP an attacker with a 45 vs a 9mm. 



You base this on what?
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: eechurch on January 30, 2009, 12:22:27 PM
Hi GM,

Mostly based on police reporting, video footage, and personal accounts of people in the field.  Like I said "people have strong opinions ...and most of them are valid."  I've carried many different pistols and feel confident with using any of them (thought I love my 1911).  Magazine capacity vs stopping power ...solid arguments can be made for either one.

Train well...
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 30, 2009, 04:05:24 PM
From the TPI forum:
==================================

everyone is familiar with 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz'. It was the first of 14 novels written by L. Frank Baum at the turn of the last century. My personal favorite installment is the fourth, 'Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz'. Did you know that the Wizard carried two handguns?

In Chapter 11 'They Meet The Wooden Gargoyles' we find this passage.

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

"Jim's right," sighed the Wizard. "There's going to be trouble, and my sword isn't stout enough to cut up those wooden bodies—so I shall have to get out my revolvers."

He got his satchel from the buggy and, opening it, took out two deadly looking revolvers that made the children shrink back in alarm just to look at.

"What harm can the Gurgles do?" asked Dorothy. "They have no weapons to hurt us with."

"Each of their arms is a wooden club," answered the little man, "and I'm sure the creatures mean mischief, by the looks of their eyes. Even these revolvers can merely succeed in damaging a few of their wooden bodies, and after that we will be at their mercy."

"But why fight at all, in that case?" asked the girl.

"So I may die with a clear conscience," returned the Wizard, gravely. "It's every man's duty to do the best he knows how; and I'm going to do it."
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on January 30, 2009, 07:54:34 PM
Hi GM,

Mostly based on police reporting, video footage, and personal accounts of people in the field. 

**What would that be?**

Like I said "people have strong opinions ...and most of them are valid."  I've carried many different pistols and feel confident with using any of them (thought I love my 1911).  Magazine capacity vs stopping power ...solid arguments can be made for either one.

Train well...

**Please define "stopping power"**
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 31, 2009, 02:59:40 AM
Careful eechurch, GM can be relentless with logic  :lol:
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on February 05, 2009, 03:03:37 AM
Woof,
 When it comes to issues like stopping power and magazine capacity there's no silver bullet (pardon the pun). Any given situation you find yourself in can make the weapon you carry, idea for the time and place or not so idea. As a civilian I arm myself to be prepared for the most likely confrontations I'll face. A police officer is going to be asked to face situations that most of us as civilians never will.
 For me concealability of the weapon is an issue and I carry a Glock 27. I like it better than a 9mil for power and it still has room for eleven rounds. A lot of people die in emergency rooms from 9 mil wounds but if the situation is bad enough for me to be shooting someone then I want them to stop moving on the spot. I don't want to ruin a perfectly good day by having the guy get off a dieing shot; when you both die that's not a tie. A baby 40cal makes me feel a little better about things and I can leave the 45 at home. I don't want to be standing in a checkout line with my bazooka hanging out and have someone shoot me in the back of the head just to get me out of the way first so they can rob the place. In the winter time it's not much of an issue and since everyone are wearing heavy coats as well, I'll carry my 45 for the extra punch. Yes, coats can slow down a bullet. I use 8 round mags in the 45 and carry two more with me but generally speaking as a civilian, if you need more than a couple of shots to take care of the problem, carrying a case of ammo on you probably wouldn't help you shoot your way out of it.
                                P.C.
                                   
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on February 05, 2009, 06:49:04 AM
Does a 5 inch knife have more "stopping power" than a 4.5 inch knife?
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on February 05, 2009, 02:09:42 PM
Woof,
 It depends on who's using it :evil:, and with a bullet it's good to remember it's not just the size that counts, it's the extra power of the load as well. The type of ammo you use also makes a big difference nowdays; some self defense ammo that's designed for rapid expansion and larger wound path can make a small caliber weapon like a 32 more deadly on the human body but it won't penetrate car metal or even glass. Again, finding the idea weapon setup that covers every situation is impossible but you can improve your readiness by selecting a weapon, ammo, carry method, and training that brings you to a point of being prepared for most situations that you're likely to find yourself in. Is a 9mil adequate for self defense? Yes. Is a 40cal all that different? Not really. Do I FEEL better with the 40cal? Yes! It brings a little more size and power and it still holds a handfull of shells. Any improvement, however slight is still an improvement. If you gave me the choice 5 inch knife or 4.5, which one do you think I'll take? If the person I'm fighting has a half inch thicker chestwall, it could make all the difference. :wink:
                                       P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: eechurch on February 15, 2009, 01:42:22 PM
LOL ...thanks Guro Crafty, no worries.  Civil debate is always good ...even when confronted by "relentless logic."

GM - maybe "knockdown" would have been a better term for me to use.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on February 15, 2009, 06:49:44 PM
"Every action having an opposite and equal reaction" Would this not mean that a firearm capable of knocking down the shootee would also knockdown the shooter?
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on February 16, 2009, 06:48:52 AM
Woof,
 Guns operate under the rules of physics but their design certainly deals with it to a large degree. Back pressure is absorbed by the frame of the weapon, used as the mechanical force operating the weapon's slide, gases vented, and is also felt by the shooter as felt recoil. The difference between being shot and feeling recoil is as different as being hit and being pushed. If you hold the gun away from you, recoil hurts.
                                   P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on February 16, 2009, 01:25:37 PM
Yes, but a bullet doesn't push you, it pushes through you.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on February 17, 2009, 10:28:29 AM
Woof,
 Yes, because of its shape, size, and velocity at which it hits you; if the bullet was the size and shape of a gun with reduced power because of absorbed back pressure and held against the body, it would push you. :-) If you shot a gun from a cannon at the propper velocity it would push through you as well, just like a piece of shrapnel but trust me, you wouldn't want to hold the cannon against yourself; the recoil wouldn't be reduced enough and it would probably kill you.
                                          P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on February 17, 2009, 05:29:25 PM
If I fill a bag with 100 lbs of sand, can I knock it down with a handgun?
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on February 17, 2009, 06:28:39 PM
http://www.policeone.com/pc_print.asp?vid=1757987

11/19/2008
P1 Exclusive: The truth about handgun knockdown power

By Commander Jeffry L. Johnson
Long Beach Police Dept., Detective Division
Special contributor to PoliceOne

Related articles:
 The Snubnose: The little gun that could...
 High performance shooting: The head shot

There is undoubtedly no other myth more perpetuated and closely held (even now) by many law enforcement professionals than what I have previously referred to as the “Demonstrative Bullet Fallacy,” or in plainer terms, the idea that any handgun of any caliber has “knockdown power,” in that the sheer size and force of the bullet can knock a person down. Closely related is the myth that bullet size — rather than shot placement — can determine or ensure a “one shot stop.” Both are inaccurate, unscientific, and dangerous, and have no place in the training of law enforcement professionals.

Not that any of this is new information. This fact has been generally known for about six hundred years or so. Notable intellects such as DaVinci, Galileo, Newton, Francis Bacon, and Leonard Euler all studied physics and ballistics, as did many others. It was Newton’s research that led Benjamin Robbins to invent the ballistic pendulum in 1740 (the first device to measure bullet velocity).

There is no mystery here — the truth has been documented time and again. So how is it that we still don’t get it? One word: Hollywood.

Ever since Dirty Harry came along with his .44 Magnum hand-cannon, when someone gets shot in the movies or on TV (and don’t forget video games) two things happen: 1) the victim is thrown back convulsively, through windows, off balconies, etc. and 2) there will immediately emerge a geyser of blood spewing forth from the wound, leaving no doubt that this person has been shot, and pinpointing exactly where the bullet has struck.

Many firearm and shooting magazines picked up on the idea as well, discussing and propagating the pseudo-scientific idea of handgun “knockdown power” and “one shot stopping power.”

The Truth
The Federal Bureau of Investigation Firearms Training Unit published a concise yet insightful report that speaks directly to this issue of firearm wounding ballistics and the misconceptions that have surrounded this area.

These so called [knockdown power] studies are further promoted as being somehow better and more valid than the work being done by trained researchers, surgeons and forensic labs. They disparage laboratory stuff, claiming that the “street” is the real laboratory and their collection of results from the street is the real measure of caliber effectiveness, as interpreted by them, of course. Yet their data from the street is collected haphazardly, lacking scientific method and controls, with no noticeable attempt to verify the less than reliable accounts of the participants with actual investigative or forensic reports. Cases are subjectively selected (how many are not included because they do not fit the assumptions made?). The numbers of cases cited are statistically meaningless, and the underlying assumptions upon which the collection of information and its interpretation are based are themselves based on myths such as knockdown power, energy transfer, hydrostatic shock, or the temporary cavity methodology of flawed work such as RII. (1)

The truth is, the whole idea of handgun knockdown power is a myth. It simply doesn’t work that way. The FBI report further clarifies:

A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down. This is simple physics, and has been known for hundreds of years. The amount of energy deposited in the body by a bullet is approximately equivalent to being hit with a baseball. Tissue damage is the only physical link to incapacitation within the desired time frame, i.e., instantaneously. (2)

The report cites previous studies that have calculated bullet velocities and impact power, concluding that the “stopping power” of a 9mm bullet at muzzle velocity is equal to a one-pound weight being dropped from the height of six feet. A .45 ACP (45 auto) bullet impact would equal that same object dropped from 11.4 feet. That is a far cry from what Hollywood would have us believe, and actually flies in the face of what even many in law enforcement have come to mistakenly believe.

The FBI report also emphasizes that unless the bullet destroys or damages the central nervous system (i.e., brain or upper spinal cord), incapacitation of the subject can take a long time, seemingly longer if one is engaged in a firefight.

Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso, causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed. (3)

More often than not, an officer firing at a suspect will not immediately know if he or she has even struck the target. The physics are such that the body will rarely involuntarily move or jerk, and usually there is no noticeable spewing of blood or surface tearing of tissue. Often there is no blood whatsoever. (4) That is why military surgeons and emergency room physicians take great time and pains to carefully examine gunshot victims for any additional small holes. Often that is the only indication the person has been shot.

Personal Experience
But let’s be real here. I can cite numerous additional academic and scientific sources that support this article, but I know how cops think. We’re not always the most trustful of academics, especially when it comes to our street survival. So let me add my own personal experience to the data. Please allow me to go beyond the cold facts and share with you why I know what I’m telling you is the truth.

In the mid-1980s I was involved in my first shooting as a police officer. But to give the story context, I must go back to 1982 when I graduated from the Long Beach Police Academy. The first thing I was told by experienced training officers I trusted and looked up to, was to “get rid of that pea-shooter 38 they issued you and buy a real gun with some knockdown power!” Although we were issued .38 caliber revolvers, we were authorized to carry a number of different caliber weapons on duty, the largest of which was the 45 Long Colt.

 
The .45 Long Colt round next to the diminutive 9 millimeter.

Imagine my surprise when I was confronted by a suspect armed with a shotgun in a dark alley and my Long Colt didn’t live up to its billing. I fired five rounds at the suspect. It wasn’t until I fired my last shot — intentionally aimed at his head — that he went down. I can’t begin to relate to you the surprise and horror I felt when there was absolutely no outward indication I was hitting my target. It was the kind of situation cops have nightmares about.

What actually happened? I fired five rounds at a distance of about twelve feet. The first one missed completely. The second struck his upper leg and broke his femur. The third struck him in the shoulder/chest. The fourth round hit him dead center—in the heart. And of course, the fifth was a headshot. Three of the five rounds created fatal wounds, though only one had immediate results.

Needless to say, I was pretty shaken by the whole thing. Not by the morality of what I’d done; the suspect had already fired at a bystander and taken a hostage earlier. He was also high on PCP. That wasn’t my inner struggle. What shook me was how unprepared I felt; how totally off guard I was taken by what occurred. No one ever told me it would be like that. The reality was contrary to everything I thought I knew about deadly force.

That experience more than any research or study is the reason is why I am writing this article. Police officers risk getting into shootings every day; we need to know the dynamics of how a shooting incident may unfold. It will affect our equipment, tactics, and most important, our mindset. We need to know that rarely will one shot incapacitate an assailant. We further need to be able to explain this when our fellow officers are involved in shootings where multiple shots are fired. The public honestly believes it’s like the movies. Why would we ever need to fire twenty or thirty rounds to subdue an armed suspect? Problem is we can’t teach it or explain it until we understand it ourselves. (5)

 

Footnotes:
1. Patrick, Urey W., Federal Bureau of Investigation, Firearms Training Unit, “Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness,” p.13. (1989).
2. Ibid., p.9.
3. Ibid., p. 8.
4. Newgard, Ken, MD, “The Physiological Effects of Handgun Bullets: The Mechanisms of Wounding and Incapacitation” (1992).
5. For you visual learners still unconvinced, I highly recommend viewing the Discovery Channel MythBusters segment, “Blown Away,” (Brown Note Episode, Second Season), where the knockdown power myth is visually and scientifically debunked once and for all.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Grunttwice on February 17, 2009, 09:48:43 PM
   Hi,

   I've been  reading the forum for a long time, but I believe this is the first time I've posted.  I'm a little surprised that the discussion has not mentioned wound ballistics.  From what I've learned, and I'm by no means an expert, the number one thing you are looking for is depth of penetration and number two is permanent cavity.  Ideally you should have 18 inches of penetration, but for a self defense round you require at least 12.  This is to ensure you hit vitals with your shot.

   I've also heard that only 60% to 70% of  hollow point bullets expand after impact because they strike bone or get shrouded in clothing.  So you want to look at the permanent cavity you attain with an unexpanded round.

   What I've been able to see from looking at the available statistics is that there are a number of 9mm rounds that penetrate as well as the .45 but none expand as much, and the majority of the time the .45 slug penetrates further.  So wouldn't the logical conclusion be to use a double stack .45?

   My personal opinion is to find a gun that suits you and practice until it is an extension of yourself.  For example I use an M4 for home defense because I've had extensive training with it.  I prefer a 1911 because it's what I grew up shooting and I'm the most proficient with it.  When I fire a Glock or double stack 1911's I'm much less accurate due to the wider grip, I tend to pull left for some reason.  Anyways, the real key is shot placement and being comfortable with your weapon.

   “When a training gun stops firing (due to running out of pellets), the shooter is still in the fight and still trying to shoot his enemy as well as trying to not be hit by him.  We see them continue to try to work the trigger for one or two times before there is a realization that there has been a stoppage (malfunction or empty gun).”

   I thought that was an interesting comment as well.  I hadn't noticed the same thing in my training except at the beginner levels.  It may be due to different platforms as well.  The majority of the training I have participated in was using either blanks or simmunition and has generally been for m4/m16 series rifles and/or m9 pistols.  I'm guessing by “pellets” he's talking about airsoft guns, but I can't be sure and I don't want to pretend to know more than I do.

   Also I don't want to make it sound like I'm some high speed CAG operator or anything like that.  I've spent some time as an armed guard, and I'm currently in a Support Company for the U.S. Army Special Forces.  So I have some experience, but take it with a grain of salt.  :-)

P.S.  It's good to finally talk to you guys, I really have been just reading for years now.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/45acp.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/9mm.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 17, 2009, 10:56:44 PM
Welcome to the conversation.  Quality post for popping your cherry.  :-)
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on February 18, 2009, 10:01:20 AM
   Hi,

   I've been  reading the forum for a long time, but I believe this is the first time I've posted.  I'm a little surprised that the discussion has not mentioned wound ballistics.  From what I've learned, and I'm by no means an expert, the number one thing you are looking for is depth of penetration and number two is permanent cavity.  Ideally you should have 18 inches of penetration, but for a self defense round you require at least 12.  This is to ensure you hit vitals with your shot.

   I've also heard that only 60% to 70% of  hollow point bullets expand after impact because they strike bone or get shrouded in clothing.  So you want to look at the permanent cavity you attain with an unexpanded round.

**There are additional factors to consider. With the .45 ACP hollow point, out of less than a 5 inch bbl., it's much less likely to expand with the lesser velocity, but the HP then acts like a semi-wadcutter with a larger crush cavity even though it doesn't expand vs. a FMJ round.**

   What I've been able to see from looking at the available statistics is that there are a number of 9mm rounds that penetrate as well as the .45 but none expand as much, and the majority of the time the .45 slug penetrates further.  So wouldn't the logical conclusion be to use a double stack .45?

**This makes sense if the bad guys you are engaging were made of ballistic gellatin. Ballistic gel only provides a consistant medium for testing purposes. There are more than a few real world shooting where .45 rounds have failed to penetrate into the thorasic cavity, stopping in subcutanious fat and/or muscle. Plenty of real world shootings where handgun rounds failed to pentrate the human skull. If a double stack .45 works for you, fine. Many people can't conceal or run one well. If 2 millimeters makes you feel safer, cool. Just don't think that a slight difference in diameter or velocity makes a big difference. All handguns suck. Handguns make little, zit looking holes. Rifles and shotguns rip things apart. One need not be a forensic pathologist to tell the difference between a handgun, shotgun or rifle GSW. **

   My personal opinion is to find a gun that suits you and practice until it is an extension of yourself.  For example I use an M4 for home defense because I've had extensive training with it.  I prefer a 1911 because it's what I grew up shooting and I'm the most proficient with it.  When I fire a Glock or double stack 1911's I'm much less accurate due to the wider grip, I tend to pull left for some reason.  Anyways, the real key is shot placement and being comfortable with your weapon.

   “When a training gun stops firing (due to running out of pellets), the shooter is still in the fight and still trying to shoot his enemy as well as trying to not be hit by him.  We see them continue to try to work the trigger for one or two times before there is a realization that there has been a stoppage (malfunction or empty gun).”

   I thought that was an interesting comment as well.  I hadn't noticed the same thing in my training except at the beginner levels.  It may be due to different platforms as well.  The majority of the training I have participated in was using either blanks or simmunition and has generally been for m4/m16 series rifles and/or m9 pistols.  I'm guessing by “pellets” he's talking about airsoft guns, but I can't be sure and I don't want to pretend to know more than I do.

   Also I don't want to make it sound like I'm some high speed CAG operator or anything like that.  I've spent some time as an armed guard, and I'm currently in a Support Company for the U.S. Army Special Forces.  So I have some experience, but take it with a grain of salt.  :-)

P.S.  It's good to finally talk to you guys, I really have been just reading for years now.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/45acp.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/9mm.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Title: The most famous man in AZ
Post by: G M on August 09, 2011, 12:28:12 PM
As Chandler residents Joshua Seto, 27, and his fiancée, Cara Christopher, walked over to a Fry's Food Store for refreshments, he tried securing her pink handgun in the front waistband of his pants.
 
The gun fired, striking Seto's penis and continuing through his left thigh. The bleeding started immediately and was heavy, according to police dispatch recordings released Sunday.
 
"He is still conscious, there is just a lot of blood," Christopher , 26, told 9-1-1 operators and dispatchers.

One operator told Christopher to apply direct pressure to the wound with a dry towel or T-shirt, but to avoid looking at the wound.
 
"I did look at it," Christopher said. "It's pretty bad."
 
The accidental shooting took place about 7:30 p.m. Tuesday on the 900 block of W. Elliot Road.
 
When the emergency call first went through, Chrisopher was asked if they needed paramedics, she said yes.
 
"He's still coherent and everything but he's bleeding quite a lot," she said.
 
In the wake the accident, police are warning armed residents to use holsters, not waistbands.
 
The movies and TV shows, like Sons of Anarchy, that show tough guys with guns shoved into their jeans are not realistic, Chandler Police Detective Seth Tyler said Sunday.
 
The cops and robbers of the silver screen most likely use rubber weapons, which weigh far less than the real things, Tyler said.
 
"Whenever you handle a firearm, whether you are a novice or experienced, always treat firearms as though they are loaded, said Tyler, a spokesman for the department. "If you are going to carry a handgun on your person, use a holster, not your waistband."
 
Meanwhile, it is not clear if Seto has been released from the hospital or suffered any permanent damage, Tyler said.
 
"He is recovering," Tyler said.
 
He may possibly face charges, too, Tyler said. "The case agent is still determining that," Tyler said Sunday.
 
Tyler was unsure of the type of gun, or whether it had a safety that was off.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2011/08/07/20110807cr-penisshot0811.html
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on August 12, 2011, 10:54:55 AM
Woof,
 I think there might be some psychological implications there when a man shoots his mini me off with a pink handgun. :lol:
                                                     P.C.
Title: Some 3 gun awesomeness
Post by: G M on August 17, 2011, 07:28:19 PM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukKjVx3pqPU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukKjVx3pqPU&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on October 24, 2011, 12:29:14 PM
Woof,
 Shooting some plates and how to change a mag, in a hurry. :-D And yes, that's me doing the shooting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNPjabBk5CA&feature=BFa&list

                by P.C.

Good hits on the plates.
Title: Shooting and Mag Changes
Post by: prentice crawford on October 24, 2011, 12:30:53 PM
Woof,
 Shooting some plates and how to change a mag, in a hurry. :-D And yes, that's me doing the shooting, as my alter ego Jack.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNPjabBk5CA&feature=BFa&list[/youtube]
                
                                      by P.C.
Ah, I finally got it to embed.
Title: Re: Shooting and Mag Changes
Post by: Hello Kitty on October 24, 2011, 01:00:19 PM
Woof,
 Shooting some plates and how to change a mag, in a hurry. :-D And yes, that's me doing the shooting, as my alter ego Jack.

      
                                    Ah, I finally got it to embed.

Pretty slick.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 24, 2011, 01:19:15 PM
Looking deadly! :-D
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on October 24, 2011, 06:54:04 PM
Woof,
 I have to be, because I can't out run anybody any more. :lol:
                            P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: cordtheseeker on October 30, 2011, 05:13:24 PM
Nice!  What were you using?
Title: Whose gun is it?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 31, 2011, 04:17:52 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9-LOxQXUmU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 :lol:
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on November 05, 2011, 04:29:13 PM
Nice!  What were you using?

Woof, Cord,
 Sorry I didn't see your post sooner. I was using Geritol; meth and coke stopped working years ago. :-D Actually, I'm shooting a Glock 35.
                                                 P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on November 05, 2011, 04:50:03 PM
Nice!  What were you using?

Woof, Cord,
 Sorry I didn't see your post sooner. I was using Geritol; meth and coke stopped working years ago. :-D Actually, I'm shooting a Glock 35.
                                                 P.C.
Stock, or did you make any modifications?
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on November 06, 2011, 04:18:35 AM
Woof,
 It's factory modified, in that it has a lighter upper slide than some offerings, because it has about a inch and a half cutout, exposing the barrel on top. The barrel is not ported and the slide is not cut for a ported barrel, it just has an oblong slot cutout of the slide. Mine also has the OD green lower receiver. Also on the day of this vid I replaced the .40 cal barrel with a Lone Wolf 9mm replacement barrel, which has the same thickness as the .40 barrel but is bored and chambered for 9mm and it just drops in for cheaper shooting, lighter recoil and higher capacity in the mags. Of course the .40 cal does considerably more damage.
                                       P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on November 06, 2011, 06:49:24 AM
"Of course the .40 cal does considerably more damage."

I'd debate that point.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on November 06, 2011, 10:37:45 AM
Woof GM, :-D
 Believe me it's been debated to death and I really don't have any dogs in that fight, so I'll humbly withdraw my statement and you can believe whatever you wish. Here's an interesting article on the subject: www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob93.html
                         P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 07, 2011, 05:05:19 PM
My philosophy on calibers is this:

"If he is not dead, shoot him some more."

You may quote me on that  :lol:
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: jcordova on November 07, 2011, 05:11:28 PM
Two to the chest, one on the head. And we use .40 cal. :-D
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on November 07, 2011, 05:40:19 PM
Woof,
 I've become fond of one to the head first, then two to the chest but only to stop the threat, not to kill. :wink:
                                                                                P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: jcordova on November 08, 2011, 05:38:34 AM
True, in a real confrontation I would do anything possible to stop the threat.
Title: Force on force
Post by: G M on November 09, 2011, 07:10:58 AM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/a-day-of-intense-force-on-force-handgun-training

A Day of Intense Force-on-Force Handgun Training
Realistic tactical training reserved for police officers is now open to the public. Popular Mechanics discovers the joy and terror of force-on-force training with high-velocity Simunition rounds.


Read more: A Day of Intense Force-on-Force Handgun Training - Popular Mechanics
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on November 10, 2011, 05:40:15 AM
Woof,
 Lay in bed and shoot guns all day? Who ever thought that up is a freaking genius!
                                        P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2011, 05:53:33 PM
I got to work today with an extraordinary firearms trainer.  Truly a joy to watch a master of the two way range at work.  The skill, the impeccability, are off the fg charts!  Even at my beginner level I feel like I got a lot to work with.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on November 29, 2011, 03:55:57 PM
Woof Guro Craftydog,
 Eye opening isn't? Now you need to work up some dry fire and soft pellet training routines so you can bring that back home with you and practice it at your leisure in your backyard. You'll surprise yourself at how quickly you can close in on your trainers' skill level, without even going to the range. Glad you are having fun.
                                                          P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on December 02, 2011, 02:59:34 AM
Woof,
 This site has valuable legal info for both those that carry concealed weapons and anyone that might have to defend themselves with empty hand skills. They also are setup to help you with legal matters in court; expert witnesses and the whole deal. Good to keep as a reference.

       www.armedcitizensnetwork.org

                              P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 02, 2011, 04:03:07 PM
Please post on Self Defense Law thread as well.  TIA!  :-)
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: dreatx on December 15, 2011, 10:28:46 AM
I am curious about something, and this seems to be the place for it:  In my mind, it seems that it is likely that there have been more incidents of defense with a gun in the home, and more instances of defense with some other kind of weapon out in the world.  Anyone know how that breaks down?
Title: Self Defense with pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on December 15, 2011, 09:09:01 PM
Woof,
 The answer is next.
            P.C.
Title: Re: No, no one knows.
Post by: prentice crawford on December 16, 2011, 06:05:52 AM
I am curious about something, and this seems to be the place for it:  In my mind, it seems that it is likely that there have been more incidents of defense with a gun in the home, and more instances of defense with some other kind of weapon out in the world.  Anyone know how that breaks down?
Woof dreatx,
 
 You will probably have trouble hashing the statistic's out on that one. Most private and government entities that are interested in such numbers usually only want to use them for political fodder, and since most big cities (where most of the crimes and deaths occur), are ran by Liberals, they are generally only interested in keeping records on gun deaths committed by violent criminals. They are not all that interested in how many people are stabbed or beaten to death and they are definitely not interested in how many people legally and successfully defend themselves against violence, by any method; gun or otherwise.

 You see if they started keeping those kinds of records then that would show how many innocent lives were potentially saved by the use of a weapon in the hands of a law abiding citizen. They are afraid of that number because then they wouldn't be able to justify their calls for more gun control. Why would they want more gun control that restricts law abiding citizens from having guns, when the crooks and murderer's just break those laws, leaving citizens defenseless?

 Well, they want you to need government protection, that way they can hire government employee's (cops, fire fighters, teachers, all unionized of course), that will also be dependant on a government check and benefits, then after they have wasted your tax dollars and need more, they can threaten you with taking the police off the street and let the riots, looting and burning begin. That's only half of it though; you see they need criminals to make this work, so they crowd millions of people into certain areas of these big liberal city's, make sure that all the jobs dry up or get sent overseas, then put a government roof over their head and give them just enough food stamps to keep them alive, make them angry at the world by telling them slavery from 200 hundred years ago put them there, then just set back and wait until the despair, depression, and hopelessness of their situation drives them to self medicate with illegal drugs and alcohol and turn to crime to get the money they need to buy the things they need and want.

 Of course drug users, attract drug dealers, and things get violent when they compete with each other, so they need gangs and the gangs raise the kids, because daddy is in jail and mom is stoned. You keep the borders wide open so the drugs keep coming and as a added benefit you get illegal immigrants and they fill any jobs left and also become depended on government handouts. You don't let prayer or the Ten Commandments in the schools because prayer might give them hope and the Commandments might contradict what they learn in the gangs. You know, all that 'thou shalt not kill' crap. Of course they won't be in school long anyway because most will drop out, which doesn't bother the teachers, so long as they get more pay and benefits and if they don't, they'll strike with the cops and fire fighters.

 Now the government has a nice little round robin, closed system, to manipulate and control, all for their own corrupt reasons and benefit. It's really a brilliant scheme because the elite in the government get all the power and money and then they blame all the problems on guns, or slavery from 200 hundred years ago, or greedy corporations, or global warming or guns (did I say guns twice?). They are really creative when it comes to finding something to blame while they keep accumulating power and control. Well, I got little off your question there but to answer it. No, no one knows how that breaks down. :wink:
                                            
                                  P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on December 16, 2011, 06:18:09 AM
I am curious about something, and this seems to be the place for it:  In my mind, it seems that it is likely that there have been more incidents of defense with a gun in the home, and more instances of defense with some other kind of weapon out in the world.  Anyone know how that breaks down?

Aside from what PC wrote, I'll add that in "Shall issue" CCW states, a very small percentage of the public actually goes through the process to get a CCW permit. Once the coolness factor wears off, the truth is carrying concealed is a pain in the ass. So, I doubt many who can legally carry actually do so on a regular basis. However, depending on the region of the US, a good percentage of US homes have at least one firearm inside.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: dreatx on December 16, 2011, 10:19:25 AM
Interesting.  I must add that conservatives are very invested in making sure you stay under the government thumb (police and many "law and order" types tend to identify with the conservative side), as well.

I do see how it probably will be impossible to see how the use of weapons breaks down.  That is too bad, but I will keep reading.

I started thinking about this because it seems to me that a somewhat fit, somewhat trained person can manage almost everything, outside of the home with smarts, awareness and maybe a blade or impact weapon.  However, it seems like home invasions would require firearms, simply because of the intention of the invader, the surprise factor and the isolation factor.  These are only my thoughts and I am not a LEO and am only familiar with certain kinds of violence which may not even cover half of the things that happen to people.  All this to say; I may have some illusions and need to get rid of them.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on December 16, 2011, 10:24:21 AM
Interesting.  I must add that conservatives are very invested in making sure you stay under the government thumb (police and many "law and order" types tend to identify with the conservative side), as well.

There is a difference betwen a rule of law as part of a limited government vs. a invasive nanny-state where minor crimes are used to extract revenue while felons run wild, see California as an example of this.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on December 16, 2011, 10:29:50 AM
I started thinking about this because it seems to me that a somewhat fit, somewhat trained person can manage almost everything, outside of the home with smarts, awareness and maybe a blade or impact weapon.

All those are good, however a gun or two is a serious improvement when facing deadly force threats.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: dreatx on December 16, 2011, 11:30:07 AM
"There is a difference between a rule of law as part of a limited government vs. a invasive nanny-state where minor crimes are used to extract revenue while felons run wild, see California as an example of this."

You are certainly correct but we don't have that and I do not see many examples of conservative leaning persons actually wanting that.  I see a lot of cries for lower taxes (I can relate) and greater freedom for business (more complicated but I can relate).  On the law and order side of things, many people, self identifying as conservative, see absolute submission to the government's agents as necessary.  Many confrontations with the government representatives come, not from a violation, but from being slow to demonstrate complete submission.  Any encounter with a government agent can end in your death.  This disturbs me.  Most likely, it will not because most government reps will not escalate confrontations that far  and most people will lay down and expose their bellies. 

"All those are good, however a gun or two is a serious improvement when facing deadly force threats."

I definitely agree with you here.  I guess I am in the process of trying to sort out how I can find myself in these positions and how to behave if I do.  Since I am not a LEO and I do not live in a rough area, my exposure to deadly force threats has been minimal.  Some of what I read and hear people say seems to be a bit of an overreaction.  Still, we already know that I am very underexposed and probably wrong.  Also, you hear that saying "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."  I am TERRIFIED of the criminal justice system and hope that if ever faced with force, my response is appropriate.  BTW, I do have guns and I do shoot them.  I just don't take them places with me.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on December 16, 2011, 11:54:56 AM
On the law and order side of things, many people, self identifying as conservative, see absolute submission to the government's agents as necessary.  Many confrontations with the government representatives come, not from a violation, but from being slow to demonstrate complete submission.  Any encounter with a government agent can end in your death.  This disturbs me.  Most likely, it will not because most government reps will not escalate confrontations that far  and most people will lay down and expose their bellies.

That's because in a nation of laws, government agents are empowered to enforce those laws. If you do not like the laws, one has the opportunity to work to change them though legislation or to challenge them in the courts. Failure to obey the laws on the other hand is not a viable option, something that was established at the founding of this nation. In addition, creating a confrontation with law enforcement has very bad consequences on a practical level.Funny how some people who consider themselves conservatives don't understand this.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: dreatx on December 16, 2011, 02:00:43 PM
I will say this and then leave it alone:  obeying the law and absolute submission to the government's agents is not the same thing and should not be considered the same thing.  The government's agents are citizens of the country and, allegedly, work for the citizens.  They do not own the citizens.  Also, saying what I just said does not mean that I believe murderers and such should not be arrested.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: G M on December 16, 2011, 02:21:56 PM
"They do not own the citizens."

Has anyone said that they do?
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: dreatx on December 16, 2011, 03:27:59 PM
I was making a statement based on how I feel about the subject and based on how I perceive things work, currently.  I did not attribute anything to anyone.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on December 16, 2011, 04:55:58 PM
Interesting.  I must add that conservatives are very invested in making sure you stay under the government thumb (police and many "law and order" types tend to identify with the conservative side), as well.

I do see how it probably will be impossible to see how the use of weapons breaks down.  That is too bad, but I will keep reading.

I started thinking about this because it seems to me that a somewhat fit, somewhat trained person can manage almost everything, outside of the home with smarts, awareness and maybe a blade or impact weapon.  However, it seems like home invasions would require firearms, simply because of the intention of the invader, the surprise factor and the isolation factor.  These are only my thoughts and I am not a LEO and am only familiar with certain kinds of violence which may not even cover half of the things that happen to people.  All this to say; I may have some illusions and need to get rid of them.
Woof dreatx,
 Certain members of our society are targeted by criminals because they can't fight back so well, and to use a knife or impact weapon you still need to be able to block blows and get around their blocks to make contact with the weapon. Often there are more than one attacker and while you're tied up with one of them going toe to toe, trying to stick your knife in him, his buddies are stabbing you to death or pull out their guns and shoot you. If you have your wife and family with you, what's happening to them while you are knife fighting, are you going to hold all them bad guys at knife point or worse stick point? One of them is going to grab your kid. There are other reasons why concealed firearms are needed for personal protection out on the street, but one that is often ignored is the deterrent factor. If the bad guys can't tell who's armed then even a little old lady doesn't look so helpless to them.
                                                           P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: dreatx on December 16, 2011, 05:14:06 PM
"If you have your wife and family with you, what's happening to them while you are knife fighting, are you going to hold all them bad guys at knife point or worse stick point? One of them is going to grab your kid. "

See, this is why it is good to talk to people about things.  I have no wife or kids, so I did not even consider the idea that one might have to worry about them.  I am going to reread the thread about people defending themselves or others.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 20, 2011, 04:38:50 AM
Exemplary attitude.  As the saying says "Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open."
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on January 12, 2012, 07:08:49 PM
Woof,
 Uzi. It's good to know what you might come up against out there.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s30IjVts73M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                              P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Spartan Dog on January 18, 2012, 08:00:47 PM
Woof,
 Uzi. It's good to know what you might come up against out there.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s30IjVts73M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                              P.C.

The above link is not correct...see below for what PC intended to share...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s30IjVts73M[/youtube]
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Spartan Dog on January 18, 2012, 08:03:34 PM
Though I am not much interested in guns, I thought the following might be an interesting starting point for a discussion...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s&feature=share[/youtube]
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2012, 08:19:52 PM
I would note that there seems to have been zero preparation of these students by the police for actually drawing the gun.  Then the students were given holsters remarkably unsuited for drawing the gun while wearing clothing that made the draw even less likely to succeed.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on January 19, 2012, 01:53:12 PM
Woof,
 You will find that this so called study was prepared by the Violence Policy Center AKA Handgun Control Inc.  :-P They have been distorting crime statistics and misleading the American public with false studies like this one and spread by the Liberal gun hating media for years.

                                   P.C.
Title: Re: Self Defense with Pistols
Post by: prentice crawford on January 19, 2012, 02:10:42 PM
Woof,
 Let's see what happens in real, real life not faked real life...

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Blq_a_lqDBs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g1zZGe3f0mc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P6pYEJhIFxQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oPYu4Mu2dto?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tiiQQP4-Ijw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                                    P.C. :-D