For a personal home defense weapon used to ward off a robber, I don’t really think the caliber matters that much.
Think about it. How many robbers are going to try to confront you if you are shooting at them with anything.
Now a crazy person that has the intent to harm you is a different story.
I was looking at a .22 magnum for my Wife (she prefers revolvers). But I discovered that the trigger pull for rim-fires in double action mode is pretty heavy.
I was referring to a gun-on-gun fight, not traditional H2H.
No, this is not correct.
First of all, there is no such thing as “energy dumping” when it comes to handgun rounds. The primary killing mechanism is the tearing & severing of organs, muscles, blood vessels, nerves, and various body tissues. Much like what a knife does.
Secondly, my statement “people often fall (after being shot) because it’s what they think they’re supposed to do” is backed up by FBI research. In this paper the FBI says,
In an ideal world you would be correct, msmith537. But we live in a hyper-litigious society, and you will very likely get sued. Even if the shooting was 100% justified.
Yep. Even if the bullet goes through the bad guy’s heart, he can still fight for up to 20 seconds. And this is where Hollywood has it all wrong… they always show the person falling down right away. This makes people *think * that they *should * fall when shot.
The repercussions of this psychological programming are both good and bad. If the bad guy falls right away after being shot (because that’s what movies have taught him), then it’s good. But if *you * fall right away after being shot (because that’s what movies have taught you), then it’s bad.
Hence the movement in recent years to apply civil immunity to the Castle Doctrine laws - in Texas, for instance, after September 1, Castle Doctrine takes effect along with civil immunity (originally when the bill was drafted, it was an “affirmative defense” but, fortunately, the wording was changed to pure civil immunity.)
I agree, though, with the 25k figure; that’s pretty common advice within the CHL/CWP community.
I was going to point that out, but technically he’s correct. The 1911 came after the Moro Rebellion, so the next time the US used the 1911 in serious action in the Philippines was in WWII. Although he did say ‘any serious action’, so in that case you’re right.
In the training I’ve received it is repeatedly stressed that you keep shooting until the person is neutralized. With all the talk on the internet about one-shot-stop, no one I know puts any faith in it except as a reference point.
A creature can shake off a lung shot and keep going for far too long (speaking as someone who has seen deer and antelope do so), Massad Ayoob has shown a knife wielding mainiac covering something like 20 feet in a second, so we practice double-taps and 2 and 1’s.
A calm, cold-blooded shooter in a non-combat situation could take the time to get the perfect shot, but not usually in a self defense situation.
Just a clarification drachillix. You’ll find a predominant number of IC chokes on the skeet field or sporting clays, not the trap field. The widest choke I’ll shoot is modified, and that’s the first barrel when shooting doubles. Anything else it’s full, trap full or extra trap full.
And almost all modestly priced shotguns that you can buy at Wally-world or K-Mart come with more than one choke tube, usually IC, Mod and Full.
A Special Agent in the Firearms Training Unit wrote up a set of notes on the decision to choose 10mm Auto (FBI load, which eventually cased down to .40S&W - full load is indeed a monster of a gun), which looks to be a fairly good reference. Choice quotes:
Third, as our testing shows, even the most frangible bullets designed specifically for shallow penetration will plug up when striking wood or wallboard and then penetrate like full metal jacketed ammunition. We are aware of successful legal actions where an innocent party has been struck by a shot passing through a wall, but as we have proven, ALL of them will do that.
Regarding caliber: “Given desired penetration, only way to increase effectiveness is to make hole bigger.”
Regarding shot placement: “If shot placement was all that mattered, we could arm all Agents with .22’s.”
A good example is killing a 400 pound pig with a .22, something commonly done on the farm. If the shot placement is exactly right, the pig is instantly killed. If it is off less than an inch, the pig goes wild and the process of killing it becomes rather lengthy and involved, whereas a larger caliber would succeed with a larger margin of miss than an inch. (Larger calibers are not used because they ruin too much of the pig - a consideration that does not come into play in a shooting incident - and besides which, nobody is going to die if the pig is not killed instantly anyway. In shootings, just the opposite is true.
Do you have any cites or backup for these claims? #8 sounds like the most ridiculous sort of bullshit to me, and are you really saying a shot THROUGH THE HEART won’t stop someone immediately? Because, ya know, people without functioning hearts generally stop moving.
How many times have you personally been shot and kept fighting?
So tell me, just what movies were all those deer and hogs watching (that were shot through no vital organs or indirect to their central nervous system) that trained them to drop like a sack of hammers upon being hit with a high powered rifle round? Granted many deer or hogs do manage to take flight upon impact, but I have seen many that hit the ground immediately and did not get back up. These animals had to be shot again to bring about death, btw.
People falling because they were trained by television to do so is absolute crap, regardless of what your paper says, because there are people all over the world and throughout history that have been dropped by rounds that were not life threatening, having never seen a single film or television episode of Starsky and Hutch, or even a television at all, for that matter.
Theoretically, making a bullet faster is better than making it heavier, as the total force is mass times velocity(squared). If a bullet’s weight is doubled and it is fired at the same velocity, the impact will double: but if the velocity is doubled and the mass remains the same, the impact will quadruple.
I believe that was part of the rationale for making the M-16 a much smaller caliber, but higher velocity, weapon. There were other factors too; including that the average soldier could carry more m-16 rounds than m-14 rounds, and that accuracy at long range (which is generally better in larger rounds) was not particularly important in most combat situations.
I have read many stories of soldiers who dispute this however, and prefer heavier bullets because they do more tissue damage.
Was there a point at which M-16s and/or their ammo was re-designed to make the rounds tumble, making the tissue damage factor more equal to larger rounds? I seem to remember reading something to this effect.
At this point in the thread I’m sure that someone has pointed out that most modern military rounds are .22 calibre, right? The standard 5.5mm round is for all intents and purposes a .22 calibre.
Not that I’m aware of. From what I’ve read, the bullets used in M16 ammunition, along with many other rifle bullets, are inherently unstable. The spin imparted by the rifling is the only thing keeping them stable. As soon as they hit something, and the spin is reduced below a certain level, the bullet starts to tumble. This is due to the aft location of the center of gravity in the bullet. It would prefer to fly base first.
Again, is this a joke? Do you really think people are out there getting shot and falling because they saw it on a movie? Does someone take a round in the chest and think “damn, what should I do? people fall down in the movies, I guess I’ll do that?”
Although he did say ‘any serious action’, so in that case you’re right.