Can't a guy enjoy a Davidoff in peace

[Mikenice81]

If somoene's coming at you and you take the shot, and it goes through him, the fence and the neighbor's wall, (unless the statement was hyperbole), couldn't that hit a person in the next house?

It was hyperbole. After passing through a human body and a fence it wouldn't have made it through the siding, insulation and other material that makes up the average exterior wall. Well, at least not with enough force to be dangerous.

The sad truth is that any bullet that wouldn't penetrate a wall wouldn't penetrate a bad guy well enough to be effective.

 

[sofc]

It was hyperbole. After passing through a human body and a fence it wouldn't have made it through the siding, insulation and other material that makes up the average exterior wall. Well, at least not with enough force to be dangerous.

The sad truth is that any bullet that wouldn't penetrate a wall wouldn't penetrate a bad guy well enough to be effective.

cool. wasn't sure, that's why I asked.

 

[KookaRocha]

There's no doubt that a hot loaded 454 Casull has some ridiculous penetrating power, but no, it would pretty well use up quite a bit of its energy just getting through the guy and it would likely embed itself in anything solid afterwards.

For those who haven't figured out I enjoy writing in a storytelling fashion. I love hyperbole and my descriptions tend to be somewhere between Anne Rice and John Steinbeck.

 

[CVAC085]

Seems like no where is really "safe" anymore. I remember I was able to walk around town without a care in the world. Everyone was happy go lucky. Now, it just all seems to take the turn for the worst. Biggest problem here is the drugs (99.9% of the time it's heroin) and occasional bank robberies (which we have 4 or 5 banks within 1,000ft of each other). But they happen at least once a year. It's like a tradition now.

 

[EO80]

Damn I love my sleepy little town. I grew up in the barrio in California and actually saw break ins in broad day light. Nobody called the cops. If so you were guaranteed to be next. Now I am in a small town in Missouri where the biggest thing you have to worry about is where to buy allergy meds thanks to the meth heads.
*no shit, there are still people here that leave keys in the car unlocked all day.

 

[The EVP]

Best home defense.....the sound of a shotgun being racked. If they keep coming, they deserve killing.

 

[Cigary43]

I find that the sound of Mossberg being pumped usually gets some attention...just remember to drag the lifeless body into the house and fire again so it appears he was first hit inside and the body ended up outside where a second round was used for insurance.

 

[mdwest]

There's no doubt that a hot loaded 454 Casull has some ridiculous penetrating power, but no, it would pretty well use up quite a bit of its energy just getting through the guy and it would likely embed itself in anything solid afterwards..

youre assuming a solid body hit with every shot fired.. which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY..

trained cops miss more than half the time.. even at close ranges.. and even with relatively still targets (not crackheads at a full tilt run like you would like most likely have been dealing with)..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

CCW holders are harder to track (miss vs hit).. but.. it is generally agreed that overall the number "hits vs miss" fired by people defending their homes, self etc.. is substantially lower than police numbers..

Over penetration is a BIG problem in both military and police circles.. and people are far too often wounded or killed by "friendly fire" (there is nothing friendly about it).. due to penetration issues..

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q0PQNuhT9lMC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=percentage of CCW missed shots&source=bl&ots=v3KCuKCVwJ&sig=Bwzu4O40zngklCIEaYOIn3MP9Zo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VbtQVfP9Jc72oASYmYHABg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=percentage of CCW missed shots&f=false

not knocking your choice of pistol...

just saying you have some things to think about if thats what you are choosing for home/self defense..

 

[EO80]

My grandpa used to keep a shotgun with bird shot by his bed. If somebody even hears the rack and doesnt run, they will run when it goes off. Thats when they realise you are serious and the bird shot is not going to hurt bystanders if the target is missed. Just my .02.

 

[mdwest]

Birdshot is also not a good option (IMO) for the exact opposite reason... NO PENETRATION..

if you shoot someone... its not to scare them.. its to stop/eliminate the threat.. birdshot will not do that on a human target in most cases even at a distance of across a typical suburban bedroom..

there are plenty of other options for a shotgun that are proven for FISHing (Fighting In Someones House).. that have sufficient penetration to stop human threats, but do not typically over penetrate (lots of factors at play here.. there is never an "always" or a "never" when it comes to shootings.. lots of variables..)..

00 buck is pretty universal... I always liked #4 buck (more pellets, smaller, lighter, less penetration, etc.. for "close" distances... but, you have to acknowledge you are giving up range with #4.. etc..etc..

birdshot however is an absolute no-go..

 

[mwlabel]

My grandpa used to keep a shotgun with bird shot by his bed. If somebody even hears the rack and doesnt run, they will run when it goes off. Thats when they realise you are serious and the bird shot is not going to hurt bystanders if the target is missed. Just my .02.

The "rack and run" approach has no basis in reality.
Birdshot won't even penetrate the thin outer layer of a bowling pin, nevermind reach vital organs on a human.

2/2 on what NOT to do for self defense.

 

[99TRILLS]

In sorry but if they can hear the slide of your shot gun rack, 1: it's too late to try and scare somebody out of the fight. A pistol with a bright weapon light should give you a much better advantage than the old racking 870.

 

[KookaRocha]

youre assuming a solid body hit with every shot fired.. which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY..

trained cops miss more than half the time.. even at close ranges.. and even with relatively still targets (not crackheads at a full tilt run like you would like most likely have been dealing with)..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

CCW holders are harder to track (miss vs hit).. but.. it is generally agreed that overall the number "hits vs miss" fired by people defending their homes, self etc.. is substantially lower than police numbers..

Over penetration is a BIG problem in both military and police circles.. and people are far too often wounded or killed by "friendly fire" (there is nothing friendly about it).. due to penetration issues..

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q0PQNuhT9lMC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=percentage of CCW missed shots&source=bl&ots=v3KCuKCVwJ&sig=Bwzu4O40zngklCIEaYOIn3MP9Zo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VbtQVfP9Jc72oASYmYHABg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=percentage of CCW missed shots&f=false

not knocking your choice of pistol...

just saying you have some things to think about if thats what you are choosing for home/self defense..

I'm guilty of this too, so no offense, but you should read a whole thread before commenting.

I was in the back porch, all my smaller firearms were locked up and inaccessible. This one, because I happened to have it nearby say the only immediately accessible firearm.

I know the ballistics of this revolver. It was originally purchased while living in Alaska as Brownie defense.

 

[KookaRocha]

Birdshot is also not a good option (IMO) for the exact opposite reason... NO PENETRATION..

if you shoot someone... its not to scare them.. its to stop/eliminate the threat.. birdshot will not do that on a human target in most cases even at a distance of across a typical suburban bedroom..

there are plenty of other options for a shotgun that are proven for FISHing (Fighting In Someones House).. that have sufficient penetration to stop human threats, but do not typically over penetrate (lots of factors at play here.. there is never an "always" or a "never" when it comes to shootings.. lots of variables..)..

00 buck is pretty universal... I always liked #4 buck (more pellets, smaller, lighter, less penetration, etc.. for "close" distances... but, you have to acknowledge you are giving up range with #4.. etc..etc..

birdshot however is an absolute no-go..

I think too many people have become fixated on penetration. I agree with #M080 's sentiments; they're going to leave. Very rarely with the person not go running, and while it's true that would leave you more vulnerable, for some people, that's okay.

Many people only want to scare away an attacker or invader. These many people realize what most don't, they don't want to be responsible for killing anybody, regardless of the circumstances.

I did a lot of personal and private security for clubs, their owners and VIP's in DC during the early 2000's. I was attacked and shot at more during this tenure than my entire time spent in the Marine Corps. In my experience, the majority of these thugs are easily dissuaded by just the threat of force.

All those numbers and statistics are fine. In my opinion they're best used for engineers to design better guns and ammo, but it seems to me that they're most used to better market their product.

When it comes down to it, just having defense is going to deter most people with bad intentions. Actually using the firearm, whether accurate or not, is going to dissuade most of the rest.

I may get responses regarding those few others that'll persist, but at that point, it's all hyperbole.

Edit : I should also mention my opinions are just that, mine. Obtained through personal experience. I feel that in discussions like this there is neither black nor white but all grey.

 

[mdwest]

I think too many people have become fixated on penetration. I agree with #M080 's sentiments; they're going to leave. Very rarely with the person not go running, and while it's true that would leave you more vulnerable, for some people, that's okay.

you agree based on what evidence? what study supports this belief? how much personal experience do you have in this arena?

I spent the better part of 20 years teaching firearms to law enforcement, security, and military units all over the globe.. as well as a pretty significant number of private groups and individuals.. have better than 2,000 hours of firearms specific training, have attended close to a dozen firearms instructor programs, etc..etc... and have never once seen a viable study (police or otherwise) that would validate this argument..if youve got one.. Im being serious.. I would love to see it.. (I take specific interest in these types of subjects, obviously)..

Many people only want to scare away an attacker or invader. These many people realize what most don't, they don't want to be responsible for killing anybody, regardless of the circumstances.

Many people would be wrong then. Guns are not toys. They are not to be used to scare people. There is both criminal and civil liability involved if/when someone does something like that.

Would suck to go to jail.. and or loose your house.. because you chose to use a firearm to scare someone.. (whether they are a criminal or not)..

I did a lot of personal and private security for clubs, their owners and VIP's in DC during the early 2000's. I was attacked and shot at more during this tenure than my entire time spent in the Marine Corps. In my experience, the majority of these thugs are easily dissuaded by just the threat of force.

I owned a company that specialized in protective services, ran the protective services unit at the World Bank in DC, managed security contracts for nightclubs and bars for more than a decade in the 90's, and have deployed to hostile, semi permissive and non permissive locations regularly since the late 90's....

None of that has anything to do with any of the above, and whether or not the weapons choices are correct, or the strategy or tactics being encouraged are correct (tactically or legally (criminal or civil))

All those numbers and statistics are fine. In my opinion they're best used for engineers to design better guns and ammo, but it seems to me that they're most used to better market their product.

So, they wouldnt be best used by to ummmm I dont know.. people attending personal protection courses taught by the NRA? or Tactical Firearms Training as taught by the FBI? or to municipal law enforcement training taught by POST firearms instructors? or by the USMC when teaching recruits how to engage targets that are behind limited cover (you were a Marine.. I would think you could relate to this)?

and those firearms instructors arent interested when they teach their students in the actual capabilities and limitations of the weapons systems that they are instructing/utilizing? (as an FBI certified, NRA certified, and POST certified firearms instructor.. Im a bit curious about how you have come to believe this)..

When it comes down to it, just having defense is going to deter most people with bad intentions. Actually using the firearm, whether accurate or not, is going to dissuade most of the rest.

would love to see a couple of viable studies that support this.. since everything I have ever read.. and all studies I have participated in personally.. actually support otherwise..

I may get responses regarding those few others that'll persist, but at that point, it's all hyperbole.

hyperbole - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken seriously.

Are you saying your statements shouldnt be taken seriously? or the statements that oppose your positions shouldnt be taken seriously? Im not tracking your intention with that statement..

personally, I believe the words firearms and hyperbole should never be used in the same conversation.. guns, and shooting people (or the potentiality of it) are things that should never be taken lightly.. to do so puts you, and others at risk of injury, both personally and financially.. which, frankly, is stupid (no hyperbole used).

 

[mdwest]

I'm guilty of this too, so no offense, but you should read a whole thread before commenting.

I was in the back porch, all my smaller firearms were locked up and inaccessible. This one, because I happened to have it nearby say the only immediately accessible firearm.

I know the ballistics of this revolver. It was originally purchased while living in Alaska as Brownie defense.

I actually read the whole thread..you werent at home.. you were at your moms place... and you had to go to retrieve your weapon..

so.. the question would be.. why was this the weapon on hand/available? why was this the choice? if this was the only option.. not a problem.. as stated before.. as long as you understand the weapon, the environment, etc.. good to go..

your follow on comments are where the rub is.. claiming penetration is a non issue is simply wrong.. and believing that you are actually going to hit the target is why penetration is a non issue.. is again, wrong.. etc..etc..

 

[sofc]

you agree based on what evidence? what study supports this belief? how much personal experience do you have in this arena?

I spent the better part of 20 years teaching firearms to law enforcement, security, and military units all over the globe.. as well as a pretty significant number of private groups and individuals.. have better than 2,000 hours of firearms specific training, have attended close to a dozen firearms instructor programs, etc..etc... and have never once seen a viable study (police or otherwise) that would validate this argument..if youve got one.. Im being serious.. I would love to see it.. (I take specific interest in these types of subjects, obviously)..



Many people would be wrong then. Guns are not toys. They are not to be used to scare people. There is both criminal and civil liability involved if/when someone does something like that.

Would suck to go to jail.. and or loose your house.. because you chose to use a firearm to scare someone.. (whether they are a criminal or not)..



I owned a company that specialized in protective services, ran the protective services unit at the World Bank in DC, managed security contracts for nightclubs and bars for more than a decade in the 90's, and have deployed to hostile, semi permissive and non permissive locations regularly since the late 90's....

None of that has anything to do with any of the above, and whether or not the weapons choices are correct, or the strategy or tactics being encouraged are correct (tactically or legally (criminal or civil))




So, they wouldnt be best used by to ummmm I dont know.. people attending personal protection courses taught by the NRA? or Tactical Firearms Training as taught by the FBI? or to municipal law enforcement training taught by POST firearms instructors? or by the USMC when teaching recruits how to engage targets that are behind limited cover (you were a Marine.. I would think you could relate to this)?

and those firearms instructors arent interested when they teach their students in the actual capabilities and limitations of the weapons systems that they are instructing/utilizing? (as an FBI certified, NRA certified, and POST certified firearms instructor.. Im a bit curious about how you have come to believe this)..



would love to see a couple of viable studies that support this.. since everything I have ever read.. and all studies I have participated in personally.. actually support otherwise..



hyperbole - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken seriously.

Are you saying your statements shouldnt be taken seriously? or the statements that oppose your positions shouldnt be taken seriously? Im not tracking your intention with that statement..

personally, I believe the words firearms and hyperbole should never be used in the same conversation.. guns, and shooting people (or the potentiality of it) are things that should never be taken lightly.. to do so puts you, and others at risk of injury, both personally and financially.. which, frankly, is stupid (no hyperbole used).

I think all of this is incorrect.

and I shot a gun once in 2002 so I know.

 

[mdwest]

you do have pretty shoes though.. thats worth something

 

[sofc]

you do have pretty shoes though.. thats worth something

bought four pair on Friday. Might have a problem.

 

[KookaRocha]

@mdwest

You're obviously an experienced professional in your field and you seem to enjoy going beyond regular discussion online and making a general conversation into a very personal and argumentative debate. That's fine, it's your livelihood, it should be personal and I understand you defending it vehemently.

I join discussions on topics that interest me. I'll happily share my opinion and thoughts, however I may have arrived at them.

I may be and likely am, completely wrong. I have no problem admitting that. It's neither my occupation or something of personal pride that I feel the need to argue so hotly. I'm at most a part time shooter that carries for the defense of myself and family.

However, I will disagree with you on one note. I would far prefer to scare away a person who has broken into my home or attacked me or my family than kill them. You may not like the verb I have chosen to describe it and you can patronize me on my decision to use that word but I stand certain that if I have to use a weapon, I will. Whether I say deter or persuade or whatnot, scare isn't too inaccurate. And I would always choose to not have to kill someone if not absolutely necessary, and I would prefer to not even shoot someone if I don't have to. It's my opinion that if the simple act of brandishing my weapon sends the threat fleeing, then that weapon has served its purpose.

Now, all that said. I didn't start this thread to create an argumentative debate on firearms or to create animosity. It was a gripe on this neighborhood and it's problems.

So I'll say it clearly so that I'm not misunderstood. I'm new here and have no intention of offending anybody. I came here to find other like minded folks that enjoy a fine cigar, discuss the how's , the why's and the details with occasional conversations that we all may enjoy. I apologize if my opinions offended you. My opinions are exactly that, whether right or wrong. So, for the sake of future conversation I'm not going to discuss this topic any further. Have a good day and maybe we can enjoy a nice stick sometime chatting about something we can both agree on.