|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: NY Giants' Plaxico Burress is an Idiot
|
Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 12-13-2008 11:30 AM
It is all about the margin of error. A shotgun holds way more ammo a covers a greater area than any pistol and here's why:
00 buckshot in a 2 3/4" shell (very common for home defense) has 12 .33" pellets with all the velocity and weight to kill a deer, much less an intruder. An shotgun with an extended magazine holds at least 7 shells. That's like 84 bullets, 12 each time you pull the trigger. 15 if you use 3" shells. Handguns don't hold nearly that much since you're only getting one projectile each time you pull the trigger and you certainly don't want to have to pull the trigger over and over and over before hoping to hit something vital with that little .357 Sig bullet you're talking about. Yeah, you might get lucky the first shot, but I don't want to count on luck. After the first couple rapid shots, the barrel naturally starts to rise anyway making accurracy more difficult. It is like me taking 12 shots with my 00 Buck before you can get 2 off with your semi-auto and I'll have a better range of coverage at any distance than your handgun. At the end of the day that is what increases your chances to live, not the unlikely chance that someone would be close enough to grab an 18" barrel being held at your hip, yet too far away to grab your arm holding your pistol. Please... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) You want the highest chance of dealing the greatest amount of damage in the first shot or maybe the first two shots. That comes with a shotgun - its not even close.
That being said, I will say it is much harder to practice with 00 buck in a 18" barrel with a 26" overall length (shortest allowed by the ATF). After the first couple shots you really don't want to shoot anymore. It hurts. Going to a #1 or #4 buckshot helps with the kick, gives you even more pellets per shell, still has plenty of energy for penetration, but won't go through walls as easily risking whatever is on the other side.
I think the dialogue in Pulp Fiction when they're about ready to enter the apartment sums it up for me:
Jules: We should have shotguns for this kind of deal.
Vincent: How many up there?
Jules: Three or four.
Vincent: That's countin' our guy?
Jules: Not sure.
Vincent: So that means there could be up to five guys up there?
Jules: It's possible.
Vincent: We should have f**n' shotguns.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-13-2008 07:44 PM
Hollywood movies like Pulp Fiction hardly serve as any sort of valid testament on what weapons and tactics are best to use in a life threatening situation.
quote: Chad Souder
It is all about the margin of error. A shotgun holds way more ammo a covers a greater area than any pistol and here's why
Your "shotguns are always better than handguns" argument has some holes in it.
First of all, handgun magazines can be changed quickly if you even need to do that at all. I'm not going to need more than a couple or so bullets to resolve a situation like an attempted home invasion. At any rate, I can shoot a LOT of bullets out of a handgun pretty quickly.
Shotguns are larger and more unwieldy than handguns. It takes more effort to grab one of those things out of the closet than it does to retrieve a handgun out of a night stand. You may lose critical seconds to react.
Handguns can be hidden in a wider variety of places in a home than a shotgun. I can keep a handgun in the living room with me and no visitor would be aware of it. A shotgun is a little more conspicuous. You can take the handgun with you and conceal it in your vehicle or on yourself if you have the proper permits. Not many people are going to put a trigger lock on a shotgun or place it in a gun safe everyday before they go to work. Good opportunity for a burglar.
I'll repeat this point: Unless you have a really good auto-loading shotgun you have to manually cycle each round. And that opens an area of vulnerability. Some newbie who just bought a shotgun for home defense isn't going to have the technique down to do that smoothly, quickly and confidently. It takes a good amount of practice to handle a shotgun well. Lots of trips to the skeet range or lots of bird hunting should be in order for anyone using a shotgun for home defense -especially if it's their only firearm for home defense.
You can certainly miss a target with a shotgun too. And one cartridge is just one shot regardless of how many pellets are contained inside.
It is foolish for anyone to think they can merely point a shotgun in the general direction of the attacker and expect to hit the target. At close distances the spread of buckshot is limited. The spread expands about 1" for every yard of shooting distance. You might see a spread of 6" to 8" at a 20' target distance from a standard .12 gauge open choke shotgun.
If you miss once with a shotgun and don't have your cartridge reloading technique down very well that attacker may rush you and gain control of the weapon. He may already be rushing you if you miss. A shotgun has a lot of hardware available to grab. Chances are that intruder will be younger and stronger than you. So if it turns into a wrestling match for control of the weapon your odds are automatically bad.
Lots of people don't like shooting 00 buckshot because of the harder kick. A newbie will fire once and be stunned by the hard kick -especially if he just jumped out of bed in the middle of the night. So that may potentially put him into even more trouble if his first shot missed the target. Double ought buckshot is extremely effective, but it needs to be used by an experienced shooter. A .12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot is easier to control. A .20 gauge shotgun loaded with #3 buckshot is even easier to shoot and is still very lethal. You can do "street sweeper" action and be surgical about it with that setup.
quote: Chad Souder
Handguns don't hold nearly that much since you're only getting one projectile each time you pull the trigger and you certainly don't want to have to pull the trigger over and over and over before hoping to hit something vital with that little .357 Sig bullet you're talking about. Yeah, you might get lucky the first shot, but I don't want to count on luck.
You must suck at shooting handguns the way you spin the chances of striking a target as being so slim.
If an intruder is inside of my home it would be easy for me to stop him with a handgun if I had to do so. It isn't very difficult to control the recoil and flip of a handgun to gain rapid return to target. All it takes is some practice. Double taps and rapid fire skills aren't difficult to develop.
If you think that little .357 Sig round is insignificant then you really don't know much about that round at all. A good quality 125 grain JHP .357 Sig load will have a muzzle velocity of 1350-1450 feet per second and 500-550 foot pounds of muzzle energy. That's nearly as much power as .357 Magnum. The .357 Sig round is a very effective man stopper. Texas Rangers, Texas DPS officers, Dept. of Homeland Security and a growing number of police agencies carry Sig Sauer pistols chambered in .357 Sig. They wouldn't be using that caliber if it wasn't dependable on delivering a "one shot stop."
At least in the case of the Sig P-series, you can swap barrels and shoot .40 S&W. You use the same magazines and recoil spring. The barrel is the only thing you change. Shooting .40 S&W is almost as cheap as shooting 9mm. And I can load a wide variety of JHP defensive rounds in .40 S&W if need be. But I'm going with .357 Sig for that purpose since it packs an even greater punch.
[ 12-14-2008, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 12-15-2008 09:02 AM
You are not going to have time to get to changing magazines. That's my point. Get rid of the idea that you can carry multiple magazines and shoot 50 times. You're lucky if you have the luxury of shooting twice. That's how fast things happen. And yes, I do suck at shooting handguns in a high-stress situation where someone is trying to kill me back. Fortunately, I've never been in that situation before, so I'm a little unpracticed. I will say that it is not "easy" for you to stop an intruder with a handgun inside your home. That's ridiculous. One shot stops are almost unheard of. Unless you hit the central nervous system, they keep coming. That's how the human body works. It takes time for blood loss to affect you. If you can regularly deliver spinal cord severing shots the first time every time in stress situations, then you are indeed the greatest shooter ever and deserve a trophy.
Read this book Tools Of Violence. Its a decent read. It will give you some insight on what you're really holding. Page 50 and 51 talk about blood loss and what someone can still do after being hit. Page 55 discusses an experiment in which under 21' away, most FBI agents were able to get off only one shot before the assailant stabbed them with a knife. You're one shot stop idea is strictly Hollywood. You've been watching too many movies. Page 16 talks about why the shotgun excels in close quarters.
I never said the .357 Sig round is insignificant - quit putting words in my mouth. I said it was little. Do the math on the surface area of that round vs. the 12 pellets I was talking about and you'll see I am right. By comparison, it is tiny. Can it still do the job? Yes. Do you have a much better chance shooting 12 or 15 or more at once? Obviously.
Look, if you want to keep a handgun in your home, its OK by me. Its not my home. My concern is that others reading may take to your crazy notion that "it would be easy for me to stop him with a handgun if I had to do so" and not be as prepared as they could. I would like everyone here, including you, Bobby, to be as safe as possible in their homes. And every gun and type of ammo need to be used by an experienced shooter, not just 00 Buck, so whatever you choose, practice, practice, practice.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-15-2008 07:52 PM
quote: Chad Souder
You are not going to have time to get to changing magazines. That's my point. Get rid of the idea that you can carry multiple magazines and shoot 50 times. You're lucky if you have the luxury of shooting twice.
I can shoot a full, 12 round magazine of handgun ammo a lot faster than I can shoot a full tube of shotgun cartridges. I can get to one of my handguns a lot faster than I can get my shotgun.
quote: Chad Souder
I will say that it is not "easy" for you to stop an intruder with a handgun inside your home. That's ridiculous. One shot stops are almost unheard of. Unless you hit the central nervous system, they keep coming. That's how the human body works. It takes time for blood loss to affect you. If you can regularly deliver spinal cord severing shots the first time every time in stress situations, then you are indeed the greatest shooter ever and deserve a trophy.
Do you think blood loss is the only thing an assailant suffers when getting shot?
A home owner can make a poor choice by heading to Wal-Mart and buying some Winchester White Box FMJ ammo because it's cheap. It's crazy for that guy to expect ball ammunition to work for self defense. Premium JHP ammunition designed for personal defense won't be so prone to the problems of FMJ ammo.
A person can indeed die very quickly or at least be incapacitated from just one JHP handgun round to the chest. Keep in mind, if someone invades my home and I have the chance to defend myself with a handgun, I'm not going to just fire once. I'm going to keep firing at center mass until the intruder is stopped. Nothing is certain in a life and death home defense situation. But the chances are at least pretty good that an intruder will not keep coming after you with a chest full of JHP slugs.
quote: Chad Souder
I never said the .357 Sig round is insignificant - quit putting words in my mouth. I said it was little.
Even referring to the bullet for being "little" still sounds dismissive. The truth is a lot of lighter grain slugs are more effective than bigger slower slugs. Most people shooting .40 S&W will load 180 grain JHP bullets because they just think bigger is better. There is a number of 135 grain JHP loads in .40 S&W that have much more impressive ballistics. They strike the target faster and have more energy to make that hollow point slug spread out into the target.
quote: Chad Souder
Look, if you want to keep a handgun in your home, its OK by me. Its not my home. My concern is that others reading may take to your crazy notion that "it would be easy for me to stop him with a handgun if I had to do so" and not be as prepared as they could.
Considering I'm pretty good with shooting a handgun my own personal choice is not crazy.
You're insisting that anyone interested in defending their home can make due perfectly with a shotgun and they don't need to consider anything else. I don't agree with that.
Anyone choosing to use a gun to defend their home must choose the kind of gun that fits them best. Shotguns are not automatically easy for just anyone new to guns to just immediately depend on to defend themselves -especially if they're going to load that thing with double ought buckshot.
Handguns, shotguns and rifles all have their various strengths and weaknesses. There is a lot more to the situation than just the power of the round being fired. One person's tactical choice isn't going to be automatically right for everyone else or even every life/death confrontation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 12-16-2008 10:02 AM
quote: Chris Slycord
Except that's not how the body works. That's like saying that if I shot the tires out of your car you can still drive fine because you've still got gas and a spark plug.
Except that is exactly how the body works. You may not be able to drive 100%, but you could keep going with lethal force. Keep in mind, the idea here is not to kill an intruder - it is to keep yourself from being hurt or killed. You may deliver a lethal shot on your first attempt but in the time it takes for someone to bleed out, they could keep coming and deliver an effective attack on you. When you have high adrenaline, your capillaries naturally tighten around wounds, slowing blood loss. There are countless stories of people that get shot more than a couple times that keep coming. If you enter drugs into the equation, the pain or shock they feel would be diminished.
quote: Bobby Henderson
A person can indeed die very quickly or at least be incapacitated from just one JHP handgun round to the chest.
No they can't. Like I said before, not unless you damage the central nervous system. A bullet in your heart doesn't even kill you right away. Do some research. Go hunting. See how far an animal can go after you hit it in the heart or go through both lungs. We're built pretty similarly.
Read page 55 of that book where it cites Military Review magazine, it says "The harsh reality in such circumstances is unless the shot happens to hit the attacker in the central nervous system, the attack will succeed". That is exactly how the human body works. Following that citation is one such story of a man being repeatedly shot by police, only to wound 3 officers before dying. There are countless stories like it - especially when the assailant is under the influence of drugs.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The book makes the claim that very little bullet energy is transferred to a person when shot -no more than the recoil felt by the shooter. Pretty strange claim.
That is correct. Some energy is used to cycle the action on a semi-auto, but it goes back to Newton's third law. The action of the bullet being fired from the chamber creates the equal and opposite reaction going the other direction. If you think a bullet has the power to push someone backwards, then again, you've been watching too many movies. Myth Busters did an episode where they shot their dummy with a .50 BMG. The dummy absorbed 100% of the energy, yet it did not move away in the slightest. Think about it - a 180 grain bullet moving is going to move a 180 pound man? Its simple physics. Can't happen.
quote: Chris Slycord
[sarcasm]And yeah if the only way to stop someone was to cause significant bleeding or sever the spinal cord, it seems amazing how a boxer can get stopped simply by getting punched a bunch of times. I've even heard of people getting knocked out.[/sarcasm]
Yes, those are called closed head wounds. Concussions, if you will. The brain hits the inside of the skull so hard that you lose consciousness. Today's anatomy lesson is: The brain is part of the central nervous system.
quote: Bobby Henderson
You're insisting that anyone interested in defending their home can make due perfectly with a shotgun and they don't need to consider anything else.
No I'm not. Nothing is perfect. I never used that word. All you can do is increase your chances. A shotgun increases your chances the most in close range combat.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-16-2008 11:44 AM
quote: Chad Souder
No they can't. Like I said before, not unless you damage the central nervous system.
Chad, unless you are a Medical Doctor or Masaad Ayoob you just need to stop. I've seen plenty of news footage of police incidents and combat where people drop dead or immediately collapse from getting shot just once. And it isn't automatically through the heart or the spine either.
The way you keep concentrating on the notion that unless the spine is hit the person has to bleed out to be incapacitated gives me the impression you don't know the differences between how FMJ ball ammo and JHP hollow point ammo behaves when striking a target.
quote: Chad Souder
That is correct. Some energy is used to cycle the action on a semi-auto, but it goes back to Newton's third law. The action of the bullet being fired from the chamber creates the equal and opposite reaction going the other direction. If you think a bullet has the power to push someone backwards, then again, you've been watching too many movies.
Where did I say a bullet has the power to push someone backwards? You complain about me putting words in your mouth. Try practicing what you preach.
When I fire a handgun I don't break any bones in my hand. I know people who have suffered cracked ribs from catching a handgun bullet into a standard bullet proof vest. The energy behind a bullet is tightly focused. That is a big difference.
quote: Chad Souder
Myth Busters did an episode where they shot their dummy with a .50 BMG. The dummy absorbed 100% of the energy, yet it did not move away in the slightest. Think about it - a 180 grain bullet moving is going to move a 180 pound man? Its simple physics. Can't happen.
Try thinking about what happens to the insides of a target when it is hit with a JHP round. It isn't going to just make a little tiny hole and over penetrate through the back of the target. It is going to make a hard splash inside the target. It won't lift a bad guy off the ground like you see in the movies, but it is still going to pack a wallop and cause immediate, critical trauma to internal organs.
Since you seem to be so vested in that Tools of Violence book, did it ever occur to you that book may be one of those pieces with the agenda of discouraging gun ownership? Certain gun experts and some law enforcement officers fall into that camp.
That book brings up that FBI shootout in the 1980s where a couple of agents were killed and uses it to illustrate handguns being ineffective in a fire fight. The book fails to mention the differences in using effective handgun calibers and proper defense ammunition. The FBI, many law enforcement agencies and the firearms industry did a lot of research and development after that incident. Many law enforcement agencies switched to .40 S&W, .357 Sig and .45 in the following years. They use JHP loads when they can. When lawyers interfere they go to .45 if they have to settle for FMJ ball ammo.
quote: Chad Souder
No I'm not. Nothing is perfect. I never used that word. All you can do is increase your chances. A shotgun increases your chances the most in close range combat.
Chad, maybe you need to be reminded of what you said earlier: "Shotgun. That's the only choice."
Whether you said "perfect" or not really makes no difference. It's essentially the same statement. You certain said no other options should be considered. That's pretty crazy. You refuse to consider many factors that come into play regarding shotguns.
I can get to one of my handguns a lot faster than I can retrieve my shotgun. Let's say an intruder is already in my house wielding a knife might and able to stab or slash at me a couple of times before I brought him down with my handgun. If he's that fast, I wouldn't have nearly enough time to get to my shotgun at all. A good weapon you can get to quickly is a hell of a lot better than a perfect weapon too far out of reach.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 12-16-2008 03:06 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Where did I say a bullet has the power to push someone backwards?
quote: Bobby Henderson
He wasn't knocked off balance even when standing on one foot. Now that just sounds very hard to believe.
That's where you said it. A bullet doesn't even have the power to knock someone off balance - even when standing on one foot. It may sting, but it won't move you.
quote: Bobby Henderson
When I fire a handgun I don't break any bones in my hand. I know people who have suffered cracked ribs from catching a handgun bullet into a standard bullet proof vest.
That's how vests are designed to work. They distribute the energy over a wider area so your skin doesn't get punctured. Bruising will usually occur. Ribs are kind of fragile. People have been known to crack one while sneezing. Your hand flies up when you shoot a handgun. It doesn't absorb all the energy directly. It may very well break a bone in your hand if it did.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That book brings up that FBI shootout in the 1980s where a couple of agents were killed and uses it to illustrate handguns being ineffective in a fire fight.
Handguns are ineffective in a fire fight. That is why they are, by definition, a backup weapon - not a primary. They are called side arms for a reason. They are desirable only for their concealability and portability. They are inferior in every other measurement, because they simply do not have the accuracy, power or ammo capacity to compete with rifles or shotguns. That's why law enforcement carry rifles or shotguns in their vehicles. A handgun allows them to keep their hands free and looks less intimidating to the public, but they have more power close by if needed. Are they fun to shoot? Sure. Are they great for concealed carry? Absolutely. Are they ever preferable when concealment or portability is not desirable? No.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I've seen plenty of news footage of police incidents and combat where people drop dead or immediately collapse from getting shot just once.
Please reference some links to this footage. If this is true, these police officers are horribly trained. They are trained to shoot repeatedly until the threat is eliminated. If there are more than one, they all shoot. I would like to see this footage to see what you are referring to. If there is "plenty" it should be no trouble for you to find.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chris Slycord
Film God
Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-16-2008 05:09 PM
quote: Chad Souder
Yes, those are called closed head wounds. Concussions, if you will. The brain hits the inside of the skull so hard that you lose consciousness. Today's anatomy lesson is: The brain is part of the central nervous system.
1) When did I say the brain isn't part of the CNS?
2) Many boxing matches are ended early, not due to the person getting a concussion, but due to the person simply being injured. Many times they get their abs hurt to the point that they can't go on. And bullets can cause similar or worse injuries that simply hurt so much that they stop or they get worried that you'll shoot again.
Like I said before, there's more to a trauma than just the CNS and blood. Police throughout the world use rubber bullets to stop attackers by breaking their limbs. And it does stop people before they bleed to death.
edit:
And I think you're misunderstanding that a gun doesn't have to completely, 100% incapacitate someone to be effective. If a gun will make the guy stop for a second, giving me time to escape to get help then great. If the gun's presence makes the guy reconsider, then great. Etc.
You're also assuming that every assailant is the type that will attack no matter what, at all costs. This type of person is the exception, rather than the rule, imo.
[ 12-16-2008, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Chris Slycord ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-16-2008 09:55 PM
quote: Chad Souder
That's where you said it. A bullet doesn't even have the power to knock someone off balance - even when standing on one foot. It may sting, but it won't move you.
That example is the strange claim from that book you mentioned of someone taking a fired 7.62mm NATO rifle round into the chest while supposedly wearing an ordinary bullet proof vest. All while balancing on one leg and taking the hit "comfortably." That story might be believable if the guy was wearing heavy external body armor designed for SWAT and military use.
Police officers have suffered bruised or cracked ribs from getting hit handgun bullets fired into their vests. Are you going to claim all of those police officers are lying and the medical evidence of their injuries is all fabricated? Are you going to claim there is no need for trauma plates to augment the function of bullet proof vests? I'd like to meet someone who can still balance on one foot while getting one of his ribs bruised or cracked. The way you're describing the weakness of handgun bullets I guess we should be thankful they can even pierce the skin.
I guarantee that if you just put on a bullet proof vest and allowed someone to fire a NATO rifle round into it at near point blank range you would not be able to just balance on one foot while getting shot.
quote: Chad Souder
Handguns are ineffective in a fire fight.
As usual, another broad brushed, overly generalized statement. It depends on the kind of firefight involved. In close quarters, handguns can be very effective. In a fire fight of significant distance rifles win.
quote: Chad Souder
That is why they are, by definition, a backup weapon - not a primary. They are called side arms for a reason. They are desirable only for their concealability and portability. They are inferior in every other measurement, because they simply do not have the accuracy, power or ammo capacity to compete with rifles or shotguns.
Handguns can kill people. If they were truly as worthless and ineffective as you seem to believe no one would be manufacturing handguns at all.
quote: Chad Souder
Please reference some links to this footage.
Not everything ever recorded to video or film is on YouTube. I know you've seen news reel war footage from WWII, Vietnam, etc. of soldiers running forward and collapsing immediately when hit. You see it in footage from D-Day. That isn't Hollywood.
I'll admit I don't actively record explicit scenes of death I see in news/documentary footage on TV or collect links to such footage on the Internet. That would be pretty creepy.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic