|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 6, 2008, 03:19 PM | #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,188
|
Quote:
|
|
July 6, 2008, 03:39 PM | #77 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,973
|
Quote:
If you figure that about half the time when the gun IS fired the criminal is not hit. then 9 times out of 10 what caliber you carry has absolutely no effect. I think that Kleck's numbers indicated that the gun was fired in only 1 case out of 50, even less than Lott's data suggests. It's also important to remember that just because a criminal gives up after being shot, it doesn't mean that he COULDN'T continue the attack. Many give up regardless of the severity of the injury. So, when you stack all that up, YES, the odds are heavily against caliber affecting the outcome of a defensive gun use. How you use that information is up to you, I guess. One interesting observation. It seems to be quite commonly accepted that it's reasonable to prepare for the "average gun fight". That is, a gunfight involving less than 4 shots in less than 10 seconds at less than 25 feet. However, when it comes to caliber, it's quite commonly accepted that it's unreasonable to prepare for the average defensive gun use--one that doesn't involve the gun even being fired. Interesting, no?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
July 6, 2008, 03:51 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Keep in mind the term, "average", is 1/2 or 50 percent. Average don't mean squat. Why do you know almost 1/2 of the population is below average?
If LEOs when by that idea, six shooter would still be the order of the day. So I don't sit and think about averages. I know I can't prepare for every last possibility but I can sure do more than 'average'.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
July 6, 2008, 03:53 PM | #79 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,973
|
I should have been more clear. I'm not advocating that a person prepare for the average, just commenting on the contradiction.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
July 6, 2008, 04:20 PM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Keep in mind the term, "average", is 1/2 or 50 percent. Average don't mean squat. Why do you know almost 1/2 of the population is below average?
------- Nope, that's the median - not the average if by that you mean the mean. One shouldn't ignore the correct meanings of the terms or you make decisions not based on the actual distributional properties. I've argued in other threads that one should not plan for the ill defined average but instead think of a cutoff value that gives you a reasonable risk - as you want to define it based on distributional shape. As John reviewed from Kleck, the success rates are such in DGUs without shots fired and then in them with just a hit - that the implicit mantra that carrying a lesser caliber has a high probability of NOT being useful (what Threegun seems to imply most of the time) is incorrect. If one wants to state that you should carry a bigger caliber that you shoot well for the instances where you do have to make a physically based stop, that's fine - I agree - but one shouldn't ignore the fact that if you want to carry a smaller caliber it is much more likely to help you than not. It's very simple if one really does understand the idea of decision and risk. That's why taking a psych research design/stat course or one from a similar discipline - sociology, CJ, business, economics, biostats, engineering, etc. would enable folks to have thoughts which are not so scatterbrained and full of hot air. There are great texts on human engineering, accident prevention and risks that would lay this kind of thing out, instead of gong on and on about the risk of the Buggering Behemoth of a Biker who absorbs 32 ACPs and keeps coming - if that nightmare makes you not carry a gun at all. For the record - I carry 32 HR Mag/38 SPL +P or 9mm based on dress issues. My 45 ACP is just too big for comfort here.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 6, 2008, 04:45 PM | #81 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
Quote:
Any answers? |
|
July 6, 2008, 04:50 PM | #82 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
Glenn and John given the highly unlikely event of having to dispatch a determined attacker why do you guys push tactical training?
You guys seem to think that you are better served having a knowledge and skill set that statistics tell us you will likely never need. Now I push for being prepared for a determined attacker with a heavier caliber and I'm wrong according to stats. Any yahoo with 10 minutes of practice can draw and pop off a few rounds. Stats say hits don't even matter in making a BG retreat. No need for a heavy caliber and no need for premium tactical training...........according to your own stats. To me it is hypocritical to push training only to compromise with regard to caliber. |
July 6, 2008, 05:22 PM | #83 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
Socrates, The biggest, deepest, hole that will cause the most blood loss possible.
And for a 260-300 pounder it better be able to penetrate deep. |
July 6, 2008, 05:59 PM | #84 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,973
|
Quote:
Second, tactics & training is not just about shooting your attacker, it's also about learning to prevent/avoid situations. GOOD tactical training is useful in EVERY situation whether you pull your gun or not. Third, it's not crazy to prepare for the statistical outlier, but there needs to be some balance. People want to buy stopping power in a box. They can't. They will have to earn it at the range. Many seem to think that the things that will make the biggest difference are gun choice and caliber choice. Not so, they don't make ANY difference in most cases. * Try this simple research project. Go through the forums in Hogan's Alley on TFL (T&T, Gen Handguns, Revolvers, SemiAutos) and count up all the "what gun" & "what caliber" threads. Now do the same but make a total of all the "what training" & "how can I improve my shooting/how am I shooting" threads. If that's not enough of an eye-opener, I don't know what will convince you. The point isn't that caliber means nothing, the point is that the amount of attention focused on it is far out of proportion with reality. * "in most cases" is not the same as "in all cases".
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
July 6, 2008, 06:44 PM | #85 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
July 6, 2008, 10:56 PM | #86 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,973
|
Quote:
So I'll modify your comment here so that it's addressing only our newly defined term. Quote:
So, let's modify that one more time to change it so that it actually addresses the comments I made. Quote:
It's much less complicated if you will not construct strawmen and just address what I actually post... I have NEVER said here or on any other thread on TFL or any other forum that caliber selection is of no value or that it shouldn't be considered at all. I have REPEATEDLY asserted that too much attention is paid to it and that most people have an unrealistic expectation of the difference that caliber selection will make. Finally, I note that you completely failed to address the last paragraph in my post--sort of the summation of everything I was trying to say. That's unfortunate because it clearly would have answered some of your concerns. What I said was that I don't believe tactics (not TaT--the actual definition of tactics) gets enough attention while caliber gets too much. Balance--it's all about balance.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
July 7, 2008, 06:01 AM | #87 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
John, I agree that tactics aren't given the weight that they deserve. I understand that caliber and advanced tactics play a small role in the over all defense of self scheme of things because they will only come into play if we face a determined attacker.
My point was only to show the hypocrisy of some here on TFL that say caliber is of little use because of statistics yet tout advanced tactics like FOF training with their next breath. One such highly regarded member even belittled me for not obtaining such training. If the litmus test for caliber is "DGU history" "DGU stats" and not prepare for as much as possible beforehand then advanced tactics will hardly ever come into play and like caliber only against a determined attacker. I think the main sticking point in this debate is the suggestion that smaller (22/25) isn't a disadvantage over the 38-45's. Clearly it is despite the higher odds of it never coming into play. Same goes for advanced training. |
July 7, 2008, 08:16 AM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
|
Quote:
|
|
July 7, 2008, 12:09 PM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
My point was only to show the hypocrisy of some here on TFL that say caliber is of little use because of statistics yet tout advanced tactics like FOF training with their next breath. One such highly regarded member even belittled me for not obtaining such training.
Again, a misinterpretation - I never said caliber is of little use. I have always said that given the choice of no gun vs. a smaller caliber, I find that the smaller caliber gives me much added utility in my behaviorial response set. Second - the reason for FOF training is that it does aid you in the extremes and I've said that I make my decision based on a reasonable risk take. The majority of DGUs may be no shots fired DGUs, but some may not be. Thus, I choose to have that training. FOF also teaches you a range of responses beyond the simple gunfight. For example, Insights SVT and the NTI train you in a continuum of responses that the square range or IDPA match never consider. Most of you don't practice being engaged by two large panhandlers at contact distance or being in a bank when a domestic dispute erupts. So you have a large caliber handgun - is that the solution? FOF stress innoculation is far and away more than that of a match. I might never need them but my personal style is that if I want to engage in something, I want to know about it. I think I said in the beginning, I didn't value the thread because it was the same old thing with folks making the points they made in other posts as they are trying to win some verbal battle. It would have little real evaluation discussion. I got some insightful PMs about me being a tad harsh - sorry for that but it was frustration. One thing about quality FOF like at the NTI, Insights, KRtraining, etc. is that you move quickly beyond the caliber wars to talk about the total package of self-defense issues. In fact, if you try to raise the issue of caliber wars as the central focus - you get shut down. The quality trainers regard that as not the main focus. Most subscribe to being able to use the gun and understand the situation. I don't think any of them, given the choice of having a minor gun or NO gun would go for the former. That's my point. I wonder why the military and police are spending so much on FOF and simulations now? Why not just take their folks to the square range with a big gun?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 7, 2008, 04:48 PM | #90 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
Quote:
So you have advanced training-is that the solution? BTW You needed to be trained in how to deal with a domestic dispute in a bank? Call the cops on your way out.....training over . The mere pulling of my gun is statistically proved to be almost always enough to frighten away a foe. Again I'm comparing the two (caliber vs adv training)because both are mainly significant when facing a determined attacker. Yet one is said to be insignificant and the other very significant. |
|
July 7, 2008, 05:32 PM | #91 | ||||||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
July 7, 2008, 05:37 PM | #92 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
Glenn,
Quote:
Quote:
I get more miffed when the same folks (not you BTW) then tout advanced training. I get even more aggravated when the same folks would choose bigger if they knew in advance of pending danger. For the record I am a proponent of training as much as possible and carrying at minimum a caliber that can penetrate after bone is struck. Folks who cannot (for whatever reason) carry bigger then any gun is better than no gun. I think we agree more than you think. |
||
July 7, 2008, 08:52 PM | #93 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you remember suggesting that I was ignorant because I thought that I was adequately prepared for a gun fight despite not having attended any of the formal schools? You verbally scolded me like a great professor annoyed at his student. You were adamant about trainings value in surviving a gunfight. Now its " get some insight into techniques that might, in some very rare situation, help you in a gunfight." a total flip flop......you running for president? Also you make every effort to poke, insult, or take a jab at my persistence in challenging those who voluntarily chose to carry puny. Now I have pointed out one of your peeves (formal tactical training) that doesn't seem to matter much in most DGU incidents. You gonna stop stressing the value of training? Same answer for me stressing caliber. |
|||
July 7, 2008, 09:20 PM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Quote:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference.../entry/average No, I was correct. Like the 'average' distance of a gunfight is supposed to be 20 feet or so. 50 percent are inside, 50 percent are outside that distance. And the 'average' number of shots fired. Same thing. I dislike averages or mean or median or standard deviation. Average didn't mean squat to those on the Titanic. What is more, while most encounters don't end in shootings, those that do end in shootings, this is where one needs to look at effectivness of their weapons. Sure some just miss (and a miss with a .22 is just the same miss as a .45) but when it comes to hitting and you are playing for keeps, one then gets as powerful a weapon as they can control and hit with (and conceal if it's CCW.) Think of it as an 'average' inside an 'average' inside an 'average'. As for which one, even the cops can't decide as many a LEO organization uses 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, .45 GAP, .45 ACP, etc... Not to mention some cops still drag around .38s and .357s. And they do all kinds of testing.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
|
July 7, 2008, 11:21 PM | #95 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
July 7, 2008, 11:35 PM | #96 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 7, 2008, 11:39 PM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 30, 2008
Posts: 215
|
I handled 3 firearms today - a P95 Ruger, a CZ75B and a Glock 26. I kinda like the CZ and the Ruger about the same...but thhey are all fine firearms. In fact, I'd say the P95<imho>is just about the best bargain in a semiauto one can find. However, these semiautos are all not exactly the most concealable fireams and they require a tactical learning curb that <imho>that requires much more intense training and practice than does a snubnose revolver.
Even a semiauto mousegun is easier to deploy in a close quarters situation than the bigger semiauto. In a close quarters situation I don't want something that will snag or get grabbed by the bad guy. It's gotta be quick, small, and reliable in regard to rapid fire. Caliber and power are great, but they don't mean anything if they can't be concealed and be brought to use. The average gunfight might be at a distance of 25ft., but that's a bit misleading ie. the average mugging is not 25 ft. and the close quarters situations one might encounter a thug aren't 25ft. If someone breaks into my home - yeah, they might be 25ft.away, but that's not a situation I'm necessarily reaching for a concealed weapon or mousegun. |
July 8, 2008, 12:00 AM | #98 | ||||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
July 8, 2008, 06:30 AM | #99 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
|
Quote:
Quote:
My problem? You base your carry caliber choice on statistics? You choose to buck the odds by carrying since you will probably never even need the gun. Then I'm the problem for preparing for the even longer shot............pure hypocrisy. |
||
July 8, 2008, 10:04 AM | #100 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,539
|
Such sturm und drang.
I am an "enthusiast" as referred to in the Liberal press as a "gun nut." So my choice of a sidearm is not primarily based on ballistics, statistics, war stories, or distant authorities. I carry what I am interested in at the time. There are certainly factors for what I consider adequate power, convenient carriage and the inventory at the time. There were a couple of occasions when I was darned glad to have a .22 at hand and no thought of anything "better." For a while I was willing to hump a magnum revolver or an all-steel .45 auto. Phew. Now it shakes out to a 9mm auto or .38 Spl +P revolver, action type depending on what I have been shooting the most lately. I do have a dinky .32 which is better than nothing and easy to have along but it leaves me feeling a little out of sorts. But it occurs to me that the last authoritative source I saw to recommend a .22 for self defense was none other than the Gunners' Guru, Jeff Cooper. With a condition, of course: "When you can hit a tennis ball from anywhere on the court." Oh, yeah, from some of the posts above... James Bond (Fleming original or Connery movie versions) did not carry a .380. His PPK was a .32; but he was provided with a .38 Special for when more power was needed. Not to mention "the long barrelled .45" stashed in the agency Aston Martin. The S&W Schofield was not a double action revolver. And best evidence is that Jesse James had a No 3 New Model .44 single action rather than the Schofield .45. |
|
|