9mm S&W 659 - Rubber Bullets?


PDA






zapsilent
October 1, 2007, 09:46 PM
Hopefully my ignorance won't provoke an attack on me here....

I wanted to ask if there are anything similar to or same as 'RUBBER BULLETS' as used in some Hollywood films. To simply replace my current 9mm ammo with replacement (same size) rubber firing version.

My interest is to have home protection with my existing S&W 659 model handgun. However, I would love to have something that is more of a stun option than a 'kill' option for ammunition. Such as if you shot an intruder four times, out of shock and terror alone, they would fall to the ground because they would feel the rubber bullets hit them and they'd (consciously) think they were truly hit possibly fatal but I would know that they are not seriously or fatally shot. Thus, giving me the time to get away and call police without having the conscious of having killed someone.

I guess i'm just asking for general input on this. I would like to use my existing handgun and not purchase anything else. I've had this gun for years. So, basically i'm looking for non penetrative ammunition for stun and shock purposes instead of lethal. If anyone has a link or further info on where (or if) I can obtain such ammunition i'd appreciate your reply. If such ammo doesn't exist can I ask if it's ever been at least considered or is the science behind it just not possible? I guess i'm wondering why they don't encourage such ammo for home protection. As even homeowners have been sued for fatally shooting an intruder as have merchants being robbed. It would be nice to know you could shoot this person a half dozen times and not fear fatal consequences. Yes, I know death is possible from any projectile and nothing is guaranteed. Such as a head shot of any bullet easily could result in death. Looking forward to your replies to my less an educated question on this.


Respectfully,
Zap
:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "9mm S&W 659 - Rubber Bullets?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Geronimo45
October 1, 2007, 10:03 PM
It would be nice to know you could shoot this person a half dozen times and not fear fatal consequences.
You could still face legal consequences, unless you're shooting at somebody with a cheap airsoft or a rubber-band gun. Deadly force is deadly force. If you are justified in using deadly force, you should be justified if the BG's end up dead. The use of a gun, even with only rubber bullets, will still be the use of deadly force, in the eyes of the law (as far as I know).

As for rubber bullets: The best rounds of that type that I've heard of are the baton rounds and such for 12 gauges. Those rounds are classified as destructive devices, from what I understand (in the same category as TNT, in other words) - which means much paperwork and a tax stamp and a long wait from the BATFE.
As for putting 'em in handguns - I have very grave doubts that they would be able to work the action of your gun. Rubber's much lighter than lead, and I think you'd have to rack the slide after every shot.
The only good use for rubber bullets in handguns, from what I know, is for indoor shooting areas with weak backstops. Put in a primer and rubber bullet in an empty case, and you can practice short-range accuracy with little noise and recoil, possibly in the comfort of your own home.

zapsilent
October 1, 2007, 10:42 PM
Thanks allot for your input. Yes, you are likely right in the 'deadly force' legal stance. I didn't give it much thought. My main reason for this question is for the spiritual impact that killing someone would have on me (or any shooter). Thus, my question.

Would you possibly have any other links or suggestions of where for me to start researching what might be best for me. I would purchase a 12g shotgun if necessary or if that would be an easier route for me to accomplish my request of non lethal result. Ignoring (yes) it's lethal force. I am just stating non lethal to help me emphasize what I am trying to accomplish.

Thanks so much!

Respectfully,
Zap

The Lone Haranguer
October 2, 2007, 12:01 AM
I've heard of rubber or plastic or even beeswax training bullets, powered only by the primer, for revolvers. Such a load would not cycle the action of an autoloader and would not be very useful as training. I would NOT recommend the use of this kind of bullet -- even if such a load were available -- for a self defense situation. To shoot someone is employing deadly force. If you only want to scare off or wound, the situation did NOT require the use of deadly force and you would not have been justified in shooting in the first place.

AZ_Rebel
October 2, 2007, 12:08 AM
The only justification for using a firearm against another person is if he (or she) threatens your life - or the life of someone you are responsible for. In a case like that it is so crucial that your adversary stop doing what he is doing that you should not care whether he lives or dies. Killing is not the issue - stopping is what is important. You should not "shoot to kill" or "shoot to wound" or fire a warning shot. All of these are falacies. In a stressful situation it is difficult enough to shoot and hit the biggest target - that's why you shoot for center of mass with a firearm powerful enough to stop. You should practice shooting at the center of mass of a target enough that it becomes a "conditioned reflex" and that you do not have to think about the mechanical actions of firing your gun. That way all your concentration can be on the "shoot - no shoot" decision. If you have problems with the thought of shooting another live human being who is trying to do you harm, perhaps you should consider not having a gun. Unless you are prepared mentally and physically to use your gun it will be a hazard and a liability to you. Consider Pepper Spray, Stun Gun or a Taser... not nearly as effective and exposes you and your family to more danger but to have a gun and not be prepared to use it really opens you and your family to disaster if you are ever faced with deadly force.

zapsilent
October 2, 2007, 12:11 AM
Thanks to those having replied. Please,... I understand about the legal woes involved. My question is regarding any links or suggestions you could give. If someone breaks into your house, you are in fact justified in shooting them if you feel your life is in jeapordy in Ohio. So, i'm not worried about the legal ramifications. I'm concerned about the spiritual ramifications of my beliefs.

So, ignoring the laws, if anyone could please give me their suggestions of what may best serve my purpose in ammunition that stuns. I know there are 12g bean bags the police use to stun. I am just looking for something similar that would fit my gun. However, if my gun would not function, then I would be open to purchasing a 12g or similar if you could tell me some things that you support or have tried, etc that is NOT lethal. This is no more than a spiritual reason, let's ignore the law issue. I understand that. I don't want to have a life taken on my concious when I could have researched and found something non lethal could have been used. Thus, I am asking specialists out here for their input.

I am not trying to be difficult in the least. I just want to know if you have suggestions, links, etc that may help me. That's why I joined this forum was only for this question. So, it has meaning to me. I appreciate each of your responses.


Respectfully,
Zap

Geronimo45
October 2, 2007, 12:21 AM
My main reason for this question is for the spiritual impact that killing someone would have on me (or any shooter). Thus, my question.
Very good reason, for sure, but on that note, an old thread you might want to read:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=596
Basically, be wary of trusting your life to less-lethal items. And that's exactly what they are - LESS lethal, not non-lethal.

For less lethal that's not a firearm, you have tasers... or, if your area/lifestyle permits, a dog could be a pretty good deterrent.

About as close as I'd personally be willing to get in the 'less lethal' department would be 20 gauge or 12 gauge birdshot. It can and does cause a wound in most cases that I'm aware of, but (usually?) isn't fatal.

zapsilent
October 2, 2007, 12:28 AM
Most excellent. Thanks so much! Tasers are a good alternative that I did not even think of. That's why I came out to your forum. I knew you guys would come thru for me. he he

Thanks so much!
Zap

kingpin008
October 2, 2007, 12:29 AM
Zap - I think part of the reason that we're having trouble recommending rounds for you to try, is because the way you're looking at self defense is something that most who are concerned about it cannot understand. If you must use a firearm to defend your life, there is a reason for it. A firearm should be a last-ditch effort, meant to STOP the attack, rather than hopefully just buy time to possibly escape.


What I'm trying to say, is that if you're planning on keeping a gun for self defense, you really shouldn't go "halfway" with it. I hope to never have to use any of my guns against another living thing - but if I have to, so be it. The fallout (both emotional and otherwise) will doubtfully be tremendous - but you must be willing to accept that. If you are not, for whatever reason - I would suggest leaving firearms out of your considerations for self-defense options.


Also - remember, "less lethal" is little more than a buzzword. The term used to be "non-lethal", before the police realized that many of these sorts of weapons (including tasers and even pepper spray) can indeed be quite lethal. So please, don't fall into that trap of thinking that because you're not trying to kill the person, and the tool you're using isn't meant to kill, that it in fact is any safer than a bullet.

zapsilent
October 2, 2007, 12:59 AM
Good point. Again thank you for clarifying. Let me pose a situation that we've all had to consider in this day and age. I've had and shot guns on/off since,... well for about 20 years or so. I'm in no way as qualified or educated as many of you out here. So, I wanted to pose the question to you all. I do understand your confusion. Let me clarify a bit more, and I am sorry I did not clarify more early on.

Let's say my wife and I are asleep. We have four dogs already indoors, granted their lapdogs but they have excellent ears and notify us of things. Recently we've had two break ins with people home in our neighborhood, which is becoming (strangely) more common. My dogs would notify me of an intruder, certainly. However, let's say worst case scenario the intruder shot and killed each of my dogs. My wife and I are in the bedroom trying to get out the window most likely. However, we know he is going thru the house and likely knows we're home and are of course, awake by now. I am not saying I would not shoot to kill someone if my life or my wife's was in danger in any way by an intruder. However, my only form of defense is my 659 S&M. Or, if I went with a 12g bBag ammo. I got it for our protection due to the residential intrusions that are growing throughout the USA. But it hit home when 2 happened here. Another one was on my house where they cut the screens and were forcing their way in while we were home! We called police of course. Found foot prints and also found out there were 2 known B&E felons that are literally so close the officer said he could be home before police even arrived. My residential area is not a crime area. We pay hefty taxes in our area of town.

With my situation as such. I guess I should say that i'm open to good solutions. I very much like guns. I only have owned 2 at one time but usually only have one (as is the case now). Out of instinct I would pull the gun. You are right in stating that you should only pull a gun if ready to dispatch the intruder. However, i've gone to Catholic schools all my life and I know some people just can't get over killing someone even when it's justified. Police officers go thru this all the time. I hear people stating they could do it and not think twice. I am trying to be pro-active as aposed to reactive in researching this topic. I've gone online and searched with Google.com. Actually that's how I came to this site and registered so that I could ask this question.

In summary, I do apologize for the less than descriptive situation I was posing. Yes, I would go for my gun in this instance without question. Yes, I could kill someone in this situation. However, spiritually, when I meet my maker I want to know that i've researched it to know if less lethal solutions were available. Not that God would likely question me on killing an intruder. However, this topic likely resonates for several gun owners. We'd like to think we'd have no problems taking the intruder out in this circumstance. I just wanted to know from you all that likely have some form of great knowledge to where i'm lacking in this field and am asking for solutions. Let's take same situation. If you could suggest a better tool to go to than my gun. I like the idea of tasers or stun guns. However if an armed person intrudes illegally into my house, a home is a man's castle. That slogon has multiple meanings to me. So, without being further long-winded, again thanks so much for each of your input. You may be helping protect me and my wonderful wife of 10 years. I could not go on (I don't think) without her. She is my best friend.

Hopefully this helps clear up any confusion i've mislead you all to. If you could tell me any ammo that I could use in my current S&M 659 that is less lethal, I am appreciative. However, a few posts said my slide would jam or fail. I absolutely would not want to go that route then. That's when I mentioned I would purchase a Rem 870 12g if there were similar ammo products on the market that do not impede the function of the gun. Further, someone mentioned 12g buck shot. I am not familiar with that. But, I do remember my uncle when I was young, telling me about buck shot and it had something to do with firing of the 12g would cause several projectiles to go toward the target. I don't know what's in these buck shot bullets. Would this be a good choice for my (above) listed situation? I would imagine anything that hits someone from a 12g would have to be impacted pretty hard and possibly put them to the floor. If I had to shoot again, I would. Again, I could kill the intruder. Yes I could do that. But it's the depression that occurs after the shooting that i'm trying to eliminate.

As far as tasers or stun guns, I don't really know the difference in them either. I thought you had to touch the villain with the electrodes on the stun gun. And if that be the case, it would not help either as I don't want to get close to the intruder like most. I would like to have some sort of firing mechanism for this reason. Protection from a distance.

Again, thanks so much for the link on this forum. I read it and very much appreciate the talents and knowledge that the person posted. I am likely like any of you all. I played most every sport in grade and high school, a jock-type. Not a preppy snob like my other Catholic friends (some) went on to be. I just would like your suggestions on what would best work for my wife and I in the (above) situation. I have a large brass knuckles hunting knife and my 659 under my bed available for less than an arm's reach and I made sure it was two movements to fire. Thus, easily within my reach but I have to disengage the safety. Some suggest that some say one movement because of the heat of the situation you will likely not remember the safety is on. With us not having kids, it could easily be set to one motion and have the safety turned off at all times. Again, this is an additional question I guess. But if you reply to this thread if you want to toss in your suggestions on how many movements should happen or be set on a firearm for home protection.

Thanks again all. You're being very helpful and not being critical in a heated way unlike other forums I've posted to on other issues.


Respectfully,
Zap

Geronimo45
October 2, 2007, 01:13 AM
As for taser versus stun gun - tasers have range. Around 20ft max, I think. Basically a mini harpoon gun - shoots an electrode with a wire running back to you. Gives 'em a jolt.

Buckshot is very much a lethal round. Very popular for that lethality. The name comes from what you should be able to down with it: a buck. Birdshot is smaller (dozens, possibly hundreds of BBs, basically), and is named after the preferred target: a bird. Birdshot has the potential to be lethal to a human, too, but less potential than buckshot would. Birdshot's very easy to come by.

I can't seem to find anyplace that sells the baton-rounds for shotguns to normal civilians. I see places selling 'em to LEOs, but that's it.

http://www.actiongear.com/cgi-bin/tame.exe/agcatalog/level4s.tam?xax=14312&pagenumber%2Eptx=1&M5COPY%2Ectx=29910&M5%2Ectx=29910&M2%5FDESC%2Ectx=Gun%20%26%20Shooting%20Accessories&level3%2Ectx=results%2Etam&query%2Ectx=shotgun&backto=%2Fagcatalog%2Fresults%2Etam

zapsilent
October 2, 2007, 01:20 AM
Good insight. Thanks for that link. However, having spoken with the few of you, It is not a sure fire success. It may or may not hit the target. And it may or may not ground the intruder. Even in the best situation, the intruder goes down. If he isn't incapacitated with an entry wound, such as if you hit him with a 12g round, you then have to be concerned that he/she won't shoot your from the floor they are laying on. Your input is appreciated.

However, I am not quite sure of the differences in tasers and stun guns. From what i'm understanding is that tasers have wires shoot out of the taser gun and does it shock intruder on impact? Because i'm pretty sure the wires or leads would likely bounce off the intruder. I wouldn't want to have that risk. However, if you're telling me the wires somehow get thru the clothes of the intruder and stays on their skin then I think that would be a wonderful solution to my situation posted.

Thanks all,
Zap

Trebor
October 2, 2007, 01:56 AM
To answer your original question, there are no "less lethal" rounds available for pistols. There is nothing you can load in your S&W pistol that would only "stun" an attacker.

There are "less lethal" loads available for shotguns, but they are still capable of inflicting serious injury or causing lethal injury. Because of that, they should not be used by people who are not trained in their use and are generally only sold to LEO agencies.

To give you an example of how dangerous these "less lethal" projectiles can be, a few years ago a young woman was killed by the Boston Police Department when an officer fired a "pepperball" round at her from a "less lethal" crowd control launcher. The projectile struck her in the head and killed her. This was right after one of the World Series games and the woman was in the crowd celebrating after a Red Sox victory. The City of Boston lost a lawsuit and had to pay out to the victim's family.

Although this was a "pepperball" launcher, there are many, many recorded instances of serious injury and deaths caused by other "less lethal" projectiles fired from shotguns. Rubber bullets, plastic bullets, and bean bags have all caused deaths in the past.

If you were to use anything similiar, you could very likely expect a similiar result. The difference is you wouldn't have the immunity that the officer had and would also face criminal charges and could very well go to prison.

There is a place for pepper spray and devices like Tasers or stun guns. They are for when you want to disengage from an attacker and plan to use the devide to give yourself time to get away.

If you are attacked by someone to the extent that you honestly fear for your life or the life of your family you need something that will stop the attacker right NOW. Going to a half measure in an attempt to save yourself the post traumatic stress later can easily get you killed.

kingpin008
October 2, 2007, 03:07 AM
Exactly my point. You can search for a "safe" way to deal with a violent encounter all you want, but sometimes there just isn't any answer that will suffice.

Zap - I can understand where you're coming from, and it's an admirable position to take - but let me say (and please, please don't be offended when I say this) I personally believe it's foolish. Human life is a precious thing, but there are situations where you MUST be willing to put preservation of your own life (or the lives of your family) over what emotional or spiritual aftermath may follow such a situation. It just doesn't work both ways. As has been stated before - there is no guaranteed "non-lethal" round for any weapon, PERIOD.

Let's run a hypothetical situation. You are asleep one night, and a badguy breaks into your home. You wake up, and shoot him with your "less lethal" weapon of choice. Badguy is stopped, but badly wounded. Police arrive, take badguy away, and arrest you. Yes, that's right - they arrest YOU. The way it will be looked at by a jury, is that you shot a mman in your house, but you obviously weren't in fear of your life, because you didn't respond to the threat with deadly force. Instead, you are sued by the badguy and his family for malicious wounding and attempted murder. Badguy wins, because his lawyer plays up the "poor inner-city minority from a bad environment" angle. You are taken to jail. Your family will be lost in debt to lawyers, and possibly the family of the badguy who you shot, and they'll be forced to deal with any possible retaliation from the badguy or his friends/family alone.

All because of a poor choice of a self-defense tool.

See what I mean?

isp2605
October 2, 2007, 09:11 AM
1) I won't get into the moral and legal issues of using less lethal loadings in self defense type shootings except to say if you aren't justified in using deadly force but deploy less lethal then you become the aggressor and the other person, facing a firearm, would be justified in deploying deadly force against you.
2) "birdshot" in either 12 or 20 ga can be very fatal at typical home distances. At typical room distances the shot doesn't open that much and the impact is nearly 1 hole. The very first shooting I went to involved one subject shooting another across the room, about 15 ft, with a 20 ga single shot using low brass #6 shot. The load hit the guy right on the xyfoid (lowest part of the chest bone). He was wearing a t-shirt. The hole was about the size of a golf ball, ragged edges, and some pellets penetrated clear thru to the spine. Killed him right there.
3) There was some rubber bullet pistol rds made altho the effectiveness was pretty much nothing. I never saw any of them function an auto.
4) 12 ga less lethal loads like the bean bag is not 100% effective even when the subject is wearing light clothing. Wearing heavy clothing offers pretty much effective protection.
5) The most effective less lethal rds are launched from 37/40 mm type guns. The difference between the 37 or 40 mm type less lethal and the 12 ga less lethal is like night and day. Even so, the 37/40 mm loadings aren't 100% effective either. The following is an article from the April 1999 issue of Survive-L:

LESS THAN LETHAL?
When is it appropriate to use alternatives to deadly force?

by Deb Shinder with Andre Belotto, LAPD and Dennis Sloman, ISP

Many agencies, either worried about liability issues or out of genuine humanitarian concern, are exploring less-than-lethal weaponry that can be used to respond to situations where previously deadly force would have been considered the only appropriate option. Bean bag guns and rubber pellets are two increasingly popular options being used against armed suspects -- sometimes with gratifying success. Other times, they simply don't work and become just an extra step in the escalation continuum that finally ends in the use of deadly force after all.

Here is an account of one large agency's effective use of the bean bags recently, reprinted from a popular police forum and used with permission of the author, Andre' Belotto, a sergeant with LAPD:

"Boy, am I proud of the officers working LAPD's Rampart and Wilshire Division today. They used minimum force and took an armed suspect into custody without taking his life. Apparently there was a traffic collision and "road rage" took over one of the parties involved. [The suspect] had a pistol and started to threaten the others involved, and pedestrians, in a busy Koreatown neighborhood.

"The police arrived and told everyone on the street to get on the ground for their own safety, and using their vehicles and buildings as cover, police ordered the suspect to get on the ground and drop the weapon. The suspect got down on his knees, but held the pistol in his right hand, pointing it at the ground, while he talked to the officers. The Air Unit was overhead and helped coordinate the tactical deployment of the arriving officers, who were coming from everywhere.

"There were officers on the roof of a three story building directly above the suspect and they had a good sight picture on him. There were dozens of officers behind cover about 30-50 feet away from the suspect and they had a bead on him. This guy was surely going to be shot if he decided that he wanted to go out in a blaze of gunfire.

"A couple of officers were deployed using bean-bag shotguns, also behind cover.

"Well, here is where I salute the supervisors at scene and the officers' firing discipline. The suspect raised the weapon and fired two shots. The officers were behind good cover and were not in immediate danger. The two bean-bag officers each fired at the suspect and he collapsed to the ground. An arrest team moved in and took him into custody without incident. He's being charged with an assortment of criminal violations, including attempted murder of the police officers for firing at them.

"He's lucky to be alive. A few years ago, before bean-bag shotguns were issued to patrol officers, this guy would have been swiss cheese.

"The point here is that less-than-lethal options are indeed available nowadays, and can turn potential deadly force situations into arrests without incident and no injury. Then the question here is: can any agency today defend against NOT having less-than-lethal options in their trick bag, in civil court? It is definitely a good tool for us in law enforcement to show the public that we have a reverence for life and at least attempt to minimize the use of force. I am not saying these less-than-lethal tools are a panacea and should be first options against armed suspects. Officer and public safety comes first and maybe bullets will be the solution, but having such tools available in the field show that at least we are trying to be mindful of human life. We all know that generally the suspect will ultimately make the call."

Unfortunately, as Andre notes, the less-than-lethal alternatives cannot be expected to work everytime. Capt. Dennis Sloman, with the Illinois State Police, offers his views on the subject:

"Bean bags should just be another tool available to us, but they don't always work. Don't get complacent thinking that everyone hit with a bean bag will react as Andre's subject did. [That assumption] could get one of your officers killed.

"In the spring of 1997 we had just gotten 12 gauge bean bags in our inventory. We had a former deputy who had mental problems and attempted suicide by cop. He was waving a revolver around, not pointing it at anyone but making sure everyone knew he had it. We hit him twice with bean bags, once in the upper shoulder and once in the torso, at about 15 feet. He dropped like he'd been hit with 12 gauge slugs. He was bruised but said he didn't remember getting hit.

"On Sept 26, 1997, during our 39 day standoff [with a barricaded older lady with apparent mental problems] at Roby, IL, we hit the woman 3 to 4 times in the torso from no farther than 20 feet. She was unaffected and returned fire with a 12 gauge slug nearly hitting one of the officers before retreating back into her house. On Oct 30, 1997 we hit her 3 times in the torso with 37 mm rubber bullets from less than 20 feet and she still didn't immediately drop. When she went down it was not from the impact of the 37 mm. If you haven't seen the difference, the 12 gauge bean bag is not even in the same league as the 37 mm rubber bullet. The 12 gauge bean bag is a pop gun compared to the 37 mm.

"About 2 weeks later our team made entry on a armed hostage taker. From less than 10 feet the subject was hit in the chest with a 12 gauge bean bag. He was not affected and immediately returned fire with a .25 auto, striking the body bunker our guy was behind. He then killed himself.

"The mental attitude of the subject will determine whether [and how] they react to being hit. With the deputy, and from the way Andre's subject sounds, they wanted to be killed. The old "suicide by cop" routine. When hit with the bean bag, their mental conditioning told them they had been shot, therefore they fell down. They didn't know it was bean bags they'd been hit with; they thought it was real ammo. With our 2 other subjects, they were fighters. They had no intentions of being killed. Therefore, when hit with the bean bag they just got mad and fought back.

"Bean bags have their place but don't expect them to always perform as hoped. One last point, while normally bean bags and similar [weapons] are not lethal, they CAN be lethal. They can kill, depending on where the round strikes and the physical condition of the subject. They are not "less than lethal" but more accurately "less lethal". If hit and killed by a less lethal [weapon], liability-wise for the department, was the force used necessary? While the intent was not to kill, death still occurred."

The viewpoints of these two officers aren't really in opposition. Both make the same points, though perhaps with a different emphasis: 1) less-than-lethal (or "less likely to be lethal") weaponry is a useful development and belongs in the officer's list of options when confronted with a violent suspect. 2) These alternative weapons are not "The Answer" to every situation, any more than the baton, pepper spray, or other "new toys" that were acclaimed by some proponents to be the definitive solution that would make the use of duty firearms unnecessary under most circumstances.

Just as we should never put all our eggs in one basket, we should never place all our faith in one force option. But we must always remember that the more options officers have available in a given situation, the more likely they are to resolve that situation with the minimum amount of force necessary.

Geronimo45
October 2, 2007, 10:42 AM
"birdshot" in either 12 or 20 ga can be very fatal at typical home distances.
Absolutely - which is the reason I consider that to be my minimum 'less lethal' load. It can be lethal, but is somewhat less likely to be lethal than buckshot or slugs (though the shotgun's loaded with buckshot at the moment). I seem to recall that most baton rounds/bean bags/less-than-lethals and such have a minimum safe distance - only fire it at targets 25ft away or further.

As for tasers, from their site:
http://www.taser.com

Electronic Control Devices (ECDs) use propelled wires or direct contact to conduct energy to affect the sensory and motor functions of the nervous system. The ADVANCED TASER M18L includes an optional laser sight to aid in aiming and uses a replaceable cartridge containing compressed nitrogen to deploy two small probes that are attached to the ADVANCED TASER M18/M18L by insulated conductive wires with a maximum length of 15 feet (4.5 meters). The ADVANCED TASER M18/M18L transmits electrical pulses along the wires and into the body affecting the sensory and motor functions of the peripheral nervous system. The energy can penetrate up to two cumulative inches of clothing.

Tasers have a sharpish end that attaches to the flesh and transmits electricity to it. Keeps up a flow for a few seconds, then stops.

zapsilent
October 2, 2007, 04:15 PM
You know something? I have no idea why I didn't remember seeing a taser used in a recent news issue. It actually shoots darts or something with leads on them back to the gun unit. Duh on me. I forgot that. Now I know the difference between taser and stun gun. I think this very well may be my best choice and then keeping my 9mm loaded appropriately with live rounds as just another 'go to' tool if the situation warrants it.

Thanks all. You've been more than helpful and have helped protect an American family.


Most Respectfully,
Zap

isp2605
October 2, 2007, 04:33 PM
For the taser to work properly both leads have to hit the person. If only one hits then it's a no go. Thickness and type of material of clothing can limit penetration of the barbs.

Crunker1337
October 2, 2007, 04:43 PM
Less-lethal shotgun rounds are not, to my knowledge, destructive devices.

Plenty of places sell 9mm rubber ammunition, like www.firequest.com.

You're only allowed to use rubber bullets if you are allowed to use deadly force, as in the eyes of the law, a gun loaded with rubber bullets is a deadly weapon.

I've always though that having a shotgun whose first round is a rubber round and the rest buckshot would be best. If they don't get the message the first time, then you can morally feel like you have no choice but to kill, and you'll be ready to do so.

check this out
http://www.forums.livingwithstyle.com/showthread.php?t=1869923928

PS: if want me to add anything to that list, drop me a PM or better yet join LWS and post it :)

Geronimo45
October 2, 2007, 11:14 PM
Less-lethal shotgun rounds are not, to my knowledge, destructive devices.
So it's company choice alone keeping them from civvie hands? Somewhere I read that they were DD's... maybe that's only certain 37mm rounds. Guess it was the equivalent of classic 'gunshop talk'. :p

jlbraun
October 2, 2007, 11:46 PM
I'm concerned about the spiritual ramifications of my beliefs.


zapsilent,

As a Buddhist, I have no qualms about using deadly force when it's justified - even though "mainstream" Buddhism has prohibitions against killing. Buddhism has prohibitions against killing another - but does not an attacker kill themselves if they attack an armed would-be victim? Indeed, some schools of Buddhist thought say that a lethal attacker who is killed in self-defense is actually prevented from doing further harm to their karma.

Buddhism is OK with force in self-defense. Buddhism is against wanton violence for no reason.

Someone threatening me or mine with lethal force will meet the business end of my AK. I think Siddhartha would be OK with this.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." --The Dalai Lama

"If we feel we cannot avoid maiming or killing [in self-defense], we can at least try to do it… with regret at having to cause another pain. If our intention to cause harm is weak, the karmic effect of the act will be less.” --Buddhist Union, Oct. 96: 7

carebear
October 3, 2007, 12:07 AM
For some Christian (if that is your spiritual bent) takes on use of deadly force you might check out:

http://corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx#Ethics

There are numerous other sources of guidance on the ethics, morality and spiritual propriety of causing the justified death of another. In my limited experience the horror stories of "lifelong moral upset" just don't pan out in real life. The few folks I know who had to use force had thought about the circumstances in which they would be comfortable in taking a life prior to the event and, since they knew their standards were moral, didn't feel guilty when it actually happened.

If you have locks and dogs, and a home invader makes it through all that into your bedroom, you have done all that G-d or any man could require to prevent conflict. At that point the attacker has clearly determined their own fate.

Your mindset and spiritual comfort levels are not set in stone, you can overcome "wrong thinking" and "wrong belief" with reason and meditation on the right.

boredelmo
October 3, 2007, 12:49 AM
Ok this might not be anything you're looking for buttttt:

Shotgun shells loaded with salt. I believe the box'o truth did a run with them. Barely penetrated cardboard. I heard the were used to get squatters to leave railroad stations.

It is an alternative, but i think it would be too "less lethal", so much as to be ineffective and aggravate an assault or promote counter fire. Which at that time youre fighting lead with salt. Uh oh.

Just something to look at or ponder.

zinj
October 3, 2007, 12:51 AM
Just another point to add, many of the "Less Lethal" rounds fired from conventional firearms are meant to be bounced off the ground towards a subject. A direct hit can easily kill someone, and even a properly deployed projectile can still be fatal.

And as said before, birdshot can most definitely kill someone. It also will penetrate interior walls if the circumstances are right, contrary to popular belief.

Finally, a gun changes a situation. When an attacker sees someone with a firearm they always change their behavior. Most of the time they try to escape of surrender, but sometimes the situation will be escalated. You don't want to be shooting "funny" ammo like rock salt when an attacker has decided that he needs to shoot his way out with his .45 automatic.

woodybrighton
October 3, 2007, 08:00 AM
a non lethal round used in Close quarter battle CQB is more than likely to be lethal baton rounds used in the British army came in various strengths but the minimum safe distance was 5 to 10 metres thats minimum of 15 feet. maybe you live in a big house but if there inside a house its unlikely theres 15 feet between you and them.

The Lone Haranguer
October 5, 2007, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by zapsilent:
... However, let's say worst case scenario the intruder shot and killed each of my dogs ...
:what: The intruder has gotten into your house and has exhibited wanton violence. If this does not justify deadly force with the most effective ammunition possible, nothing does. Your only other alternatives are to evacuate the premises (and there is nothing wrong with that), or surrender (which, if the situation is this dire, will probably get you killed anyway). There is just no "in-between" level of force you can use here.

Kindrox
October 5, 2007, 01:30 PM
The problem with less lethal options, be it an under powered gun or rubber ammunition is it brings more uncertainty to the situation.

Now instead of you KNOWING you have deadly ammunition, you are now uncertain if your ammunition will still kill, or will be completely ineffective.

How is your mind going to resolve the uncertainty? Are you going to lower the threshold at which you pull and or use your gun in the hope you can somehow defeat the threat before you are actually in fear for a life? You can see the foolishness of that.

On the other hand, if you pull then gun because there is no alternative, and your attacker is immune to the result, you just escalated a bad situation to a worse situation.

IMHO, either do pepper spray/mace/stun gun/taser, or do a firearm with lethal ammunition. Courts and bad guys recognize the general non-lethal nature of the former, and pulling a gun with out all the faculties needed to use it is a very dangerous decision in my mind.

Diggers
October 5, 2007, 02:47 PM
Z,

From what you said you would like, I have to agree with what many others said, it seems a Tazer is really your only choice. It is the only thing out there that has a good chance to stop an attack that is less than lethal. (mostly)
I saw the police use one once on a combative psych patient, big guy 6-2 230 ish, he was on the ground in about 1.5 seconds. Pretty amazing. They shot him from about 10-12 feet.
I think Tazer models for civilians just came out a few months ago, so you can get one in the color of your choice. (no joke)


Also thanks to those who commented on bird shot being lethal also at close range. I have argued that point in other forums more than once with people who think a 12 gauge slug is the ONLY way to go.
To me # 6 birdshot always seemed like a good choice for a shotgun in a home where wall penetration was a worry.

If you enjoyed reading about "9mm S&W 659 - Rubber Bullets?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!