|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 1, 2008, 11:00 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
|
Quote:
Sorry man, I couldn't resist. |
|
March 1, 2008, 11:22 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 998
|
|
March 3, 2008, 12:33 PM | #53 |
Member
Join Date: July 7, 2007
Posts: 97
|
The guy with the five shot revolver does the same as those of us with seven or nine shot revolvers.
Actually it doesn't make much difference. One uses what one has at the time according to the circumstances of the moment. Realistically the likelihood is extremely slight that any of us will ever be required to fire a shot in self defense. In many cases the victim will be caught off guard and 'neutralized' before he realizes what is happening. The real world odds of being killed in a gunfight are far less that falling down the stairs, being kit by a drunk driver, or a thousand other causes. How many people who obsess about what to do in a never to exist gunfight drive without seatbelts, while drinking or too fast for conditions, involve themselves with the drug scene or the neighbors wife, etc. etc. There are lots of more productive ways to assure one''s safety and continued good health. Apparently some people have very active fantasy lives and enjoy leading theme as though they were video games. Personally I am building an underground bunker to protect me and mine from falling meteorites. At least the storage space will come in handy. |
March 3, 2008, 06:58 PM | #54 | |||
Member
Join Date: June 13, 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 57
|
Quote:
Not all places are as safe as yours. Quote:
Quote:
Yes, but you seem to forget what forum you are in. It's called "Tactics and Training". If you dont like thinking and training for these things, or you think it's stupid... .... .... exactly what are you doing here?? FerFAL |
|||
March 3, 2008, 11:30 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Every day in the papers you read of some people being robbed. Others murdered. Others resisting and many times suceeding!
Just because I have never needed to actually shoot someone does not mean it can't or won't happen. If I really didn't think I might one day have to defend myself, I sure wouldn't bother getting a CHL, or lugging aroud a gun, or doing all the dojo training I do. I mean, life sure would be less complicated and less expensive if I just decided to let the government 'protect' me. But like Tom Givens says, "It aways happens to other people... but to everyone else, you are 'other people'." And I know the government can't protect me.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
March 4, 2008, 07:23 PM | #56 | ||||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
March 5, 2008, 06:46 PM | #57 | ||||
Member
Join Date: June 13, 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 57
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do they have some magic property, that cna be found in snubs alone? That has to be the most unrealistic comment I've read, ever. Quote:
FerFAL |
||||
March 6, 2008, 11:34 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
BTW - 22 mag derringers or NAA minis have saved the day several times.
Not to harp on research design but one would have to come up with incident rates which examined the rate of failure of such guns to save the day vs. that of larger calibers. As far as I know - and I know the literature and experts quite well - the rate of success of such guns is very, very high and if there is a significant different in DGU success by caliber for civilians - it's not out there and the experts don't know it. Here you go for a case. http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw....bfc57dff.html
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; March 6, 2008 at 05:01 PM. |
March 6, 2008, 09:34 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Quote:
david has always felt 'scareing' BGs with guns would do for 'most' situations. I guess he fells one just plays the odds. If 95 percent of the time or so all you need to do is 'scare', why a 2 shot .22 would be fine. Maybe he also has just a bicycle tire for his spare car tire since most of the time you don't need one either. Say david, since one usually doesn't need seat belts, in fact I''ve in well over 35 years of driving never needed them, wonder why we need those gizmos, or maybe just a rope would do for a seat belt, right? I suggest other readers here see that you don't carry a substandard gun, nor substandard seat belts, nor substandard tires cuase most of the time you won't need them. Cause if you do need them, you will need them bad. Carry something a bit better than that piece of crap david suggest for 'most' situations.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
|
March 7, 2008, 08:34 AM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 998
|
Quote:
But from watching the interview he pretty much says he wished he had more shots. Then at the very end of the interview he says something about "having 15 of something next time" then stops talking. Which I would infer to mean that he is going to start packing a Hi-cap 9. |
|
March 7, 2008, 10:36 AM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
This is always a useless argument. It comes down to this:
1. Mouse guns have no utility - not true. 2. Mouse guns have utility - true 3. If you could carry a bigger gun that you can use, is this better - true 4. Are you better off not carrying the mouse gun - not true. Sprinkle rants through this and you have the never ending thread.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 7, 2008, 10:48 AM | #62 | |||||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
March 7, 2008, 01:23 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
david,
Kind of hard to just say "I pointed out it works" and still not say you don't imply you recommend it. If it works, it works, if it don't it don't. You did NOT add any qualifier saying it's still a stupid pick and one that can get you killed. That is one of your main problems. You give so nuanced a reply you don't see to say it works basicly says you approve, and then don't add any qualifer. And it's not the first time you have done this. It would be like me saying riding on bald tires works most of the time and the just stop and not point out it's a very bad idea. But then, I guess to you the 2 shot .22 isn't a bad idea cause you still havn't said it IS a bad idea. Same with pointing out the 'scareing'. You say 'scareing' works most of the time yet you don't mention it's not a good strategy to rely on that. 'm sure the other readers here know one does not keep a gun just to frighten off the bad guys. One must not only have decided if need be they will use it. And they know that if they have to use it then a serious weapon is needed. And thus the 'stats' in this case are not something to rely on.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
March 7, 2008, 01:34 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Talking at cross purposes - again the small gun has utility. If that's all you got or can carry - go for it.
If one argues that you shouldn't carry the small gun at all, which is the implication - you are making a mistake of missing its added value. Look at it this way. For some reason - you have only have a short barreled Single Action Colt clone in 38SP or 357. If that's all you had - would you carry it? It's not a modern gun and difficult to shoot quickly without practice. But I'd carry it. Some predicted utility vs. max predicted utility. I do agree that one should not be delusional about the smaller gun IF you do get into an intensive fight. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't carry one at all.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 7, 2008, 02:32 PM | #65 | |||||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Only in the world of personal defense do we regularly see people suggest one should ignore the best information and instead rely on guesses and unusual experiences. It is like going to the casino and betting "00" on the roulette wheel every spin. |
|||||||
March 7, 2008, 03:07 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
What you could say, statistically, is that...
... any gun works better for SD purposes than no gun.
... most SD applications of a firearm won't require the weapon to actually be fired. ... in most cases where the weapon is fired, no more than 3 rounds are expended. ... a .38 snubby is adequate for the majority of SD cases. However, it is not unreasonable to argue that the most sensible pistol to carry is the one that, for the given conditions, allows: 1) as close to perfect reliability as can be obtained; 2) the most power the user can effectively control, for initial and follow-up shots; and 3) the best ammunition capacity available Conditions will vary. They will include: 1) Physical strength, size and condition. Some weapons may be too heavy to carry all day, or too bulky to conceal. 2) Weather. Some weapons may require impractical (uncomfortable and tactically obvious) clothing. 3) Legality. Sorry, CA members... The list can go on. So, statistically, David Armstrong is basically right. Common sensically, so is FerFAL. |
March 7, 2008, 03:11 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Stop being rational - this is the Internet.
Dave speaks to the body of the distribution and others speak to a cut off level for the small percent of intensive interactions in the tail. It's real like a signal detection matrix with various types of errors. Oh, shut up - Glenn!
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 7, 2008, 10:36 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
No, one carries a weapon to defend their life. They presume if they do one day need it, then it should be as effective as practical.
Weapons like .22 two shot pistols are, as they say, 'good guns for your opponent to have'. To on purpose pick an ineffective weapon just shows one is either not serious or is ignorant (or both.) And to say they are adequate is to show either the same ignorance ir they just like to argue on the internet. Same goes for using statitics that way.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
March 8, 2008, 05:29 PM | #69 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Location: The third dimension
Posts: 670
|
Quote:
People won't agree on what constitutes that acceptably-optimal balance, and each man must find those CCW choices which meet his perceived needs. Though I prefer a 1911 in .45ACP, I'm often found carrying a S&W 649 snubby loaded with 158gr+P LSWCHPs because its lighter weight and concealability may trump the heavier weight and better ballistics of the 1911 enough to make it the favored choice at some times and places. My range of acceptable CCW choices, in terms of ballistic effectiveness, weapon size and weight, doesn't go below a .38 Special snubby plus a speedloader, or above a full size 1911 with two spare mags, though I realize some have broader limits than mine.
__________________
"Humani nihil alienum" |
|
March 8, 2008, 10:39 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
Saw,
I have two principle carry guns. Glock 27 and 642. Now the 642 is a 5 shooter, but I practice an awful lot with a 640 and 63 (2 inch .22 kit gun.) Yes we all make choices about what we feel our needs. But things like .22 2 shot pistols are not in that relm.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
March 9, 2008, 11:52 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Location: The third dimension
Posts: 670
|
I agree not only that handguns shooting .22 rimfire loads, but also handguns shooting .25ACP, .32ACP and .380ACP are not among my acceptable choices for self defense and CCW, but I can imagine occasions when they might serve my needs, and I can also imagine particular persons whose needs for self protection they might meet better than guns of more powerful calibers (folks whose hands are weak for whatever reason or disabled by arthritis or deformity), since almost any gun is better than no gun when in extremis.
I'm not limited to those weaker-caliber choices, so I won't go "below" a .38 Special snubby for CCW, but I have no illusions about such being "good" or "good enough" or "an effective manstopper", nor do I place undue confidence in any carryable handgun-cartridge combination. CCW is always a compromise. I think most of us know these things, it seems we just argue or disagree about relatively minor points.
__________________
"Humani nihil alienum" |
March 10, 2008, 09:36 AM | #72 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--OR-- "What about the 22 for self-defense? We do not recommend it, but we certainly do not disregard it." The above quotes from the apparently ignorant and argumentative late Col. Jeff Cooper, who I guess knew far less about defensive handgun use than does our own deaf smith. Admitedly he is discussing the .22 in general here, and not the derringer in particular, but I think the point is still worth tossing out there. Cooper recognized that while a full-size fighting gun in major caliber was the first choice, it was not always the only choice, and for some it was not even the best choice. |
||||
March 10, 2008, 09:48 AM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Been watching this one for awhile, hoping it would get back on track, but it just keeps getting further afield ... and more acidic, too. Too bad!
This one's closed. If you want to continue the discussion about .22 calibers for defense, I believe one of the handgun forums has that subject going right now. If you want to debate semi-autos versus revolvers, the general handgun discussion forum is thataway. ------> If you'd like to discuss training methods for revolvers, feel free to open a new thread next week or so, after tempers from this one have cooled a little. pax |
|
|