[QUOTE=cerberus]
The FN FiveSeven is chambered in a new round called the 5.7mm. The FN P90 also uses this little round. If you’re Police or Military, you can get a supersonic version of the round, otherwise, you’re stuck with a subsonic version.
A number of PDs use the 5.7mm, in part as a way to get people armed who can’t otherwise qualify with larger rounds.
The 5.7 was developed, in part, as a way to defeat modern body armor. It isn’t clear how the subsonic round performs, but this pistol might be a good choice for people who need a concealable weapon that can be easily controlled. And if it works out, perhaps others will chamber the new round.
If you want a nice concealable that has punch, go with a nice Sig, chambered in .357Sig. If they’d chamber a Sig in 5.7, that’d be interesting.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, all of the rounds are supersonic. You’re thinking of the SS190 armor piercing cartridge, which is the one not available outside the Military/LE communities (ostensibly).
I’m actually curious to know of some agencies that have adopted it. I was under the impression is had pretty much failed to penetrate that market in a big way. I wouldn’t consider it a particularly concealable weapon, though, if I’m not mistaken its about the size of a full-size Glock.
[QUOTE=elbows]
Can’t you imagine a scenario where when the gunplay came instead of calmer heads prevailing, one person shoots gunman, another dies in crossfire, and mayhem ensues, many more die. This scares me far, far worse.
[/QUOTE]
I can quite easily imagine that. During my misspent youth, I trained quite a bit with Danish law enforcement officers as well as with part-time soldiers who were earmarked to assist the police in time of crisis.
We spent a lot of time on the “armed perpetrator inside a building” scenario, and we learned why the police have special teams to tackle that sort of thing.
It is simply very (very!) hard to do without hurting bystanders and/or other team members. Reasonably well-trained people, who are briefed ahead of time, who know each other and who have nothing to fear but a bad post-exercise critique will routinely act in a manner that would have left bystanders and team members dead or wounded, had it been real.
I do not believe for a second that the well-armed and -intentioned citizens will fare better. Not for lack of individual skills, but due to no team structure and no chain of command. Having a gun out, once the first round has been released, may even reduce your survival chances.
Scared people in crowds are dangerous. Armed, scared people in crowds…
Howsabout some high-powered mace/pepperspray/teargas? Reasonably effective at indoor ranges, and it’s so much easier to apologize for afterwards.
[QUOTE=1010011010]
the intent of defensive shooting it to STOP the attacker. Not to kill them.
[/QUOTE]
In the unlikely event that I must protect my family against someone coming into my house, the 12 gage doesn’t allow a whole lot of leeway in stopping him without killing him. Besides, Hell, if he can wriggle, he can still shoot back.
I’m not a physician, I’m not able to decide where to shoot him given our relative positions so that I can stop him and not kill him. I’m not that good of a shot, either, I’m aiming for the center of the body. You think I can shoot the gun out of his hand like Roy Rogers?
[QUOTE=Soapbox Monkey]
Guns are almost demonized in left-leaning culture today. Most everyone I know would feel uncomfortable around them, if not downright afraid, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a good deal of my friends wouldn’t even want to hang around someone who carries or advocates guns.
[/QUOTE]
Just FTR, I very left leaning and I an not uncomfortable around guns or afraid of them and I hang out with people who own guns.
The odds that you will ever have to use a gun in self-defence are pretty low. But if you want to buy a gun just be sure to practice with it on a regular basis.
[QUOTE=Spiny Norman]
<snip>Howsabout some high-powered mace/pepperspray/teargas? Reasonably effective at indoor ranges, and it’s so much easier to apologize for afterwards.
[/QUOTE]
Very interesting - you seem to be suggesting that there are ways to incapacitate the attacker without killing him. But - how do people justify buying more guns then?
[QUOTE=Spiny Norman]
I can quite easily imagine that. During my misspent youth, I trained quite a bit with Danish law enforcement officers as well as with part-time soldiers who were earmarked to assist the police in time of crisis.
We spent a lot of time on the “armed perpetrator inside a building” scenario, and we learned why the police have special teams to tackle that sort of thing.
[/QUOTE]
Misspent? It sounds like you’re a lot wiser for that experience.
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
In the unlikely event that I must protect my family against someone coming into my house, the 12 gage doesn’t allow a whole lot of leeway in stopping him without killing him.
[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about “stop the attacker without killing them”? The intent is to stop them. Period. If they die as a result of being stopped, perhaps they should have chosen a different profession.
[QUOTE=tvvat]
No sir, you aren’t a cowboy, you are one of the brave souls dedicated to keeping us safe.
[/QUOTE]
They keep “us” safe by catching the bad guys. They are under no obligation to intervene to protect you or me during the commission of a crime. You’re on your own until it comes time to fill out the paperwork.
I bought a gun once. I was 20 years old and living on campus. There was a small yet big-enough crime element around the area I lived in.
I bought the gun mostly because a) I could, b) I thought it would be a good idea to be knowledgeable and proficient with an automatic firearm, and c) it could be a useful tool in defending myself and my house.
I went to the range numerous times, cleaned my gun regularly, and got used to the idea of having “protection” by my side whenever I wanted it.
Years passed, and I visited the range less often. The gun was more of a symbol of protection and power to me. I didn’t use it, but I could feel safer having it available to me.
One night my roommate came running into the living room with blood gushing down his forehead. He was screaming “call the police!!” We had no idea what happened, but as my friend was calling the police, I realized that I was getting my gun. For what? The guy that mugged and pistol-whipped my roomie was long gone, yet I was still going for my weapon. Why? To chase the guy down and shoot him? In the heat of the moment, had I been armed, and had the mugging occurred right in front of me, I might have shot the guy. Based on my average target results, I would have killed the guy.
This was a bit of a revelation to me. I could feel safer with a gun, but in order for the gun to actually save my life, I would have to kill another person (or at least come pretty damn close). Could pointing the gun at someone really do that much? How much more likely was I to be in a situation where my gun was more of a liability than an effective method of defense?
I sold the gun. To a friend’s uncle.
If I ever feel the need to protect my family from invaders, I’ll buy a shotgun, and keep it locked up. First I need a family though. Then the Benelli.
Last night one of the dull, dull tasks given those that had turned up to my OTC was the armory inspection, which involves cleaning all the weapons. Cleaning the SA80s is was dull, done it a thousand times before. But when it came to cleaning the L9A1s, which we haven’t used for a while me and my friends spent less time cleaning, more time posing and trying to look cool releasing the slide forward and stuff.
I think that’s it, guns are cool to most guys and that’s why people want one. I know that if I had a personal firearm it would certainly not make my life any safer, particularly since I dont think I’d be holding onto it or my freedom for very long if I did!
People say they’re thinking about their safety and whatnot when they buy a gun; I wish people would sometimes just say how they think guns are cool and fun and they want to feel good with one of their own.
[QUOTE=pretend my name is witty]
I wish people would sometimes just say how they think guns are cool and fun and they want to feel good with one of their own.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, I think that little Beretta Neo would be fun to plink with, but I don’t have $200 to spend on it, and I’d still use the shotgun if I had to shoot someone, a situation I hope never to be in. How’s that?
[QUOTE=pretend my name is witty]
People say they’re thinking about their safety and whatnot when they buy a gun; I wish people would sometimes just say how they think guns are cool and fun and they want to feel good with one of their own.
[/QUOTE]
See post #40 -
[QUOTE=Myownself]
Practice a lot, but keep it fun - Don’t beat yourself up over a bad day at the range. Fun and practice.
<snip>
Well over half of my guns are, in my opinion, mostly useless for defense but are great fun at the range.
<snip>
Key point to remember - shooting is fun. Get a gun that is fun to shoot.
[/QUOTE]
The “cool” factor is easily misinterpreted by the antis. I don’t feel cool because I have a gun any more than I feel cool because I have a partial skeleton automatic mechanical wristwatch with tritium illumination. The watch is cool, but it doesn’t make me cool. Some of my guns are, I feel, pretty cool. But I don’t carry “cool” guns, I carry practical guns, I carry tools. The cool toys I take to the range.
Well, you can’t have one. There’s already a poster here with the username Monkey with a gun and it’s clearly against SDMB policy to have duplicate usernames.
Smith and Wesson, Glock, HK, Springfield Armory, Keltec, and Taurus all make compact and mid-size autoloaders in appropriate calibers and various price-points.
…Smith and Wesson and Taurus make revolvers in appropriate size and power.
[/QUOTE]
No, Ruger didn’t slip my mind. I was listing companies that make mid-size and compact weapons. Ruger’s stuff tends towards the bulky and their revolvers_which have massive steel frames_are heavy into the bargain. Ruger makes perfectly good service pistols but they don’t really service the concealed carry market very well.
[QUOTE=Scumpup]
No, Ruger didn’t slip my mind. I was listing companies that make mid-size and compact weapons. Ruger’s stuff tends towards the bulky and their revolvers_which have massive steel frames_are heavy into the bargain. Ruger makes perfectly good service pistols but they don’t really service the concealed carry market very well.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, The ruger autoloaders I’ve fired tended to be needlessly bulky. What really struck me is how think the grip panels were.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Your reasoning about why to carry a gun appears to rest on the assumption that doing so is a “cure” for incidents such as the VT shootings.
The whole point of the contrary position is that it is not. I think we simply must get over the idea that a gun settles anything. Using a gun to hunt is one thing. Using a gun for alleged protection merely leads from one set of highly improbably conditions to another. The first is that there will be a madman’s gun attack, you will be present, and your gun will be accesible in time. The second is that sometime there will be an accident; that sometime you gun will be stolen; that even if an shooting incident does occur you will shoot the wrong person or persons, etc.
There is only one possible “good” scenario. That is that there will be an attack in your presence. There are multiple bad scenarios and even though each of them is improbably, in combination the bad become much more likely than the good.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s a “cure” for personal incidents. It’s a personal issue, just like getting a rare disease. I’m speaking of incidents wherein I am personally threatened (eg. have a curable but potentially fatal disease, say, cancer) and have a way to deal with it (eg. chemotherapy). Chemo treating cancer, just like a gun to deal with aggressive attackers, won’t always work, but my survival rate will be higher than if I did not have one.
