He may also be referring to that Taurus revolver that can fire .410 shotgun shells. Nothing I’ve read at the Box O’ Truth or on a couple gun boards leads be to believe it is anything that I’d choose as a home defense weapon. Performance with shotshells is feeble. Performance with .410 slugs is in pocket pistol territory. Accuracy with .45 Colt cartridges is no better than so-so.
Larry made it sound as though the shells would scatter the shot, to do great damage to your intruder, but not fly through your wall on their way to another target. I am not a gun owner, I’m an alcoholic, so I plead ignorance.
Such shells are intended for use against small varmints. Their penetration against human targets is minimal. The coworker may have been talking about something like Glaser Safety Slugs or other prefragmented ammunition, which breaks up on impact causing dramatic surface wounds; this, too, is questionable as an effective round for self-defense in terms of providing adequate penetration for reliable stopping potential.
The main value of a shotgun is that it is a longarm that can be loaded with a variety of different rounds that will give a desired range of penetration; inside of a home, for instance, you would probably select #4 or #3 shot, which won’t penetrate drywall with much energy but is lethal at 8-10 meters; at longer ranges, #1-#00 shot or slugs can be used. A shotgun, despite claims to the contrary, still has to be aimed accurately; however, being a longarm it has a much longer sight radius and requires less marksmanship training than a pistol.
“less than lethal force” should be just that–pepper spray, Taser™, or some other weapon that is (generally) not lethal or permanently disabling in effective application. A firearm, however, can cause maining injury or death even when one is not aiming for the head or upper torso. In no way can a firearm be considered a nonlethal weapon however it is applied, and thinking of it in those terms will only get one into a bad situation, legally and otherwise.
As for the notion of “shooting to wound,” this is patent nonsense; outside of movies and television, no law enforcement or military agency trains people to shoot for arms or legs, nor is there any realistic expectation under the stress of combat that a disabling but nonlethal wound can be accurately applied. The precision of most “service grade” handguns is 3"-4" grouping, and that is firing from a fixed rest at a well marked and lighted fixed target; the practical accuracy of even a well-trained shooter with a pistol in actual combat conditions (i.e. draw and shoot, low light, dynamic target, et cetera) at 10 meters is about an 8" circle, which is much larger than a knee or elbow. And given that a missed shot both allows an attacker to return fire and poses a hazard to bystanders, the universal practice in defensive and law enforcement training is to fire for the center of mass of the target, and to keep firing until the target is down and nonthreatening. (Certain drills such as the so-called “Mozambique Drill” call for a well-aimed shot to the head following two or more shots to the torso, but I don’t know any law enforcement organization that teaches this.) This poses the least risk to the defender and bystanders, and ends the threat as quickly as reasonably possible. Aiming for kneecaps or somesuch, however, just extends the possible threat for all involved.
Stranger
Not that it matters for this discussion, but I thought the Mozambique was “Two in the heart, one in the head” or two in center mass followed by one well placed shot (if necessary) in the head.
That’s what Stranger says. I know, I thought he got it backwards too, but read the sentence carefully. Just weird grammar is all.
If Larry had been talking about Glasers, he likely would have said “Glasers.” They’re what I keep the .44 in the computer room loaded with.
Ah, “following” not “followed by”… Got it. Didn’t compute for some reason
This is what we were taught in the armored trade by our instructor, a local SWAT officer.
If you shoot someone in the head, they can argue in court that you ‘intended’ to kill the person outright, which may open you to criminal charges or make any lawsuit by their next of kin more successful.
That and you’re shooting at a slightly smaller target with more chance to miss. If you shoot at the ‘center of mass’, you’ve got more target to hit, and if you empty your clip into them (which is somewhat likely in the panic of the attack), you can still argue that you didn’t intend to kill them, you just kept shooting because they were still coming at you.
That being said, when you look at someone, where do you look? The face. So if you’re in the heat of the moment, where are you likely to point the gun? At their face. Learning to shoot at center of mass is a trained response.
It’s pretty obvious the OP wants a gun for self defense. This means he must have a gun and ammo in the house. If his wife is nervous about having a gun + ammo in the house, it is probably because she knows nothing about guns and is fearful of them as a result. Her fear is irrational, and a few trips to the range will (hopefully) make her fear disappear.
Exactly why I was suggesting some trips to Thunder Mountain in Jersey, if he’s in the area. He’s East Coast, he said.
No it’s OK to be nervous. But yes, a trip the range should help.
Originally posted by Stranger on a Train:
“(Certain drills such as the so-called “Mozambique Drill” call for a well-aimed shot to the head following two or more shots to the torso, but I don’t know any law enforcement organization that teaches this.)”
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) teaches this and it is part of pistol qualification.
Serious question: why are accidental deaths from firearms worse than accidental deaths from:
-
Auto?
-
Falls?
-
Poisonings?
-
Choking?
-
Fire?
-
Drowning?
-
Suffocation?
Each of those supercede the accidental death from firearms annual rate. Cite. Scroll down to “By Type of Event.”
Our family has had firearms in our homes for generations. We’ve never had an accidental discharge, much less an assault, resulting in injury or death.
Considering the estimated numbers (tens, perhaps hundreds of millions) of firearms “out in the public” in the USA, that argues very favorably that Americans are safe, sane firearms owners.