Which is better car gun: Glock 17 or Ruger GP 100?


PDA






el Godfather
October 9, 2012, 03:27 PM
Dear THR:
The choice is between Glock 17 or Ruger GP100 for a car gun. Both are reliable enough. Just which you pick and why? I understand one is revolver and the other is a semi auto. Please take this and the power aspect in consideration as well as other things that my be important.

Thank you

If you enjoyed reading about "Which is better car gun: Glock 17 or Ruger GP 100?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Teachu2
October 9, 2012, 03:48 PM
Neither will reliably stop a car.

exiledtoIA
October 9, 2012, 04:08 PM
Let the car shoot them both and decide for itself.

jon86
October 9, 2012, 04:22 PM
The thing that is MOST important is the shootability to the user.

The intended users of the gun need to be able to shoot it well.

mdauben
October 9, 2012, 04:23 PM
Ignoring the jokes, either one would make a find SD gun to carry in your car. It really comes down to which you shoot better or like more. Personally I would probably pick the Glock 17 for the advantages of greater firepower and easier reloading, but I would not turn up my nose at the GP100 and a couple speedloaders, either.

Bushpilot
October 9, 2012, 05:17 PM
mdauben +1

Like mdauben said, either would be fine. I'd probably go with the Ruger GP100 out of personal preference.

TexAg
October 9, 2012, 05:18 PM
I had the option of both and went with my stainless 6" GP100. I liked the option of being able to load hunting ammo when I went hunting and SD ammo when I was in the city. Easily done with a speedloader. I wasn't worried about that stainless steel revolver in the super hot car either.

madstabber
October 9, 2012, 05:23 PM
the gp100 because your in a car so if you run out of ammo you could just drive away to reload

Doc3402
October 9, 2012, 05:49 PM
My very first thought was what if you need to return fire while actually driving. Do you really want a lot of hot brass flying around on top of everything else you have going on?

ZGunner
October 9, 2012, 05:53 PM
the gp100 because your in a car so if you run out of ammo you could just drive away to reload


If you have the option to drive away wouldn't you do that before getting into a shoot out? Sorry, anyway...

I like the G17, it just feels better to me.

TexAg
October 9, 2012, 05:56 PM
To add, I felt like I was a more accurate shot with the 6" GP100 at distances.

fxstchewy
October 9, 2012, 07:55 PM
GP100, cause when you run out of ammo you just bash in their head with it....:)

olafhardtB
October 9, 2012, 10:01 PM
Both are too expensive and too nice for thieves. A better choice might be a Taurus 82 vs a Highpoint 9.

David E
October 9, 2012, 10:27 PM
both are too expensive and too nice for thieves.

ANY gun is "too nice" for thieves.

a better choice might be a taurus 82 vs a highpoint 9.

Either of which will still kill good people after being stolen by thieves.

el Godfather
October 10, 2012, 12:38 AM
If it comes to Taurus, I would hand it over voluntarily.

JEB
October 10, 2012, 12:47 AM
my first thought was in favor of the glock because i would think that since they are bso corrosion resistant they would do well in a vehicle. however, then you are only limited to 9mm. a fine caliber to be sure, but not the most versitile. then i remembered; duh! the gp100 comes in stainless! IMHO the gp100 would be the better choice. all the corrosion resistance you need, lots of ammo choices, very accurate, and always dependable. for a general purpose/car gun a .357 is a real hard gun to beat.

45_auto
October 10, 2012, 07:08 AM
Glock 17, for all the same reasons that the military and cops carry high cap semi-autos instead of revolvers.

Snowshoe
October 10, 2012, 07:16 AM
GP-100
If you must struggle in the vehicle, the revolver will not get
knocked out of battery

Revoliver
October 10, 2012, 10:34 AM
GP100

No brass being chucked about and has the heft to beat someone with one handed while the other continues to control the steering wheel.

jmr40
October 10, 2012, 11:05 AM
GP-100
If you must struggle in the vehicle, the revolver will not get
knocked out of battery
__________________


If you are close enough for an auto to get out of battery, you are close enough for a revolver cylinder to bind or clothing ect. to get between the frame and hammer. There are more ways for a revolver to fail than a semi.

I keep a Glock 19 in my car/truck all the time.

smalls
October 10, 2012, 11:05 AM
Define "car gun".

Because when I think of car gun, I think of people leaving a gun in their center console, glovebox or under their seat. All of which are dumb ideas, in my opinion. So choice of gun isn't important

mavracer
October 10, 2012, 12:25 PM
For others I'd say what kind of car? and where are you going?
For me I don't prefer Glocks.

mdauben
October 10, 2012, 03:43 PM
GP100

No brass being chucked about
That's actually a pretty valid point in favor of the revolver. I never thought about that. :uhoh:

David E
October 10, 2012, 05:20 PM
That's actually a pretty valid point in favor of the revolver. I never thought about that. :uhoh:

Have you thought about how you're going to quickly reload a revolver while driving defensively?

Doc3402
October 10, 2012, 05:27 PM
Have you thought about how you're going to quickly reload a revolver while driving defensively?
Defensively? If they're shooting at me? I don't think so. Not having all that loose brass rolling around near the brake and gas pedal is a definite advantage in the type of driving I'm going to be doing.

Rexster
October 10, 2012, 06:54 PM
BMV is the single most-committed property crime, involving loss of property, in most parts of the USA. This makes me very hesitant to reply to "car gun" posts, unless I know precisiely what the OP means by that term. I do NOT believe in running a gun-giveaway program, no matter how inexpensive the gun. I think of a "car gun" as a powerful weapon that might be better than a pocket pistol for fighting opponents who may be using vehicles, or parts of vehicles, as cover, and/or sights that facilitate longer-range shooting. A car gun may be in a bag or other container, or on a specialized holster, rather than a typical concealment rig, in order to facilitate access while seat-belted.

OK, regarding the two handguns under discussion, both of which I actually own; the GP100's original factory grip, before the Hogue monstrosity beame standard, is a beautiful fit it my hand, as if designed by a twin from whom I was separated at birth. This is a beautiful grip for a handgun. I am sure this grip contributes to the practical accuracy of the GP100, for me.

A Glock, however, with its massive double-column magazine, is more of a hands-gun for me, as I cannot realize its full accuracy potential unless I have two hands on it, and use the modern thumb-forward grasp with the support hand. I know, from training, including force-on-force "sim gun" training with my employer, a big-city PD, that I can shoot a Glock amazingly well (for me) under some hairy conditions, but not quite as well as a GP100 or K/L S&W sixgun. The Glock, however, does hold more rounds.

Really, I like to have both a GP100 and a serious autoloader with me on a long road trip that might go through what I will euphemistically term "bad" areas. The GP100 gives me accuracy that rivals some carbines I have fired, whereas the auto provides sustained firepower. As the GP100 might be carried in a place other than holstered on my hip, I reckon that makes the GP100 my "car gun" choice, by default.

Regarding guns left in cars, I have used a bicycle U-lock to secure a revolver, through the cylinder window, to a much larger metal object, such a roll bar. If I just had to leave a weapon inside an unattended vehicle, this might tilt me toward a revolver, all else being equal.

shotgunjoel
October 10, 2012, 07:18 PM
Sound/pressure wise I think that I'd prefer to shoot a 9mm in a car instead of a 357.

481
October 10, 2012, 07:31 PM
I'd go with the Glock 17.

EVIL
October 10, 2012, 09:20 PM
I could go either way - both are excellent, accurate reliable firearms that shoot well for me. If I was mostly traveling to and from urban/suburban areas I guess I would lean towards G17, as a "get me home gun." If I was country dweller then I would probably take the GP100, which could be pressed into service for defense, hunting or survival.

Personally, I don't like to keep too much value of guns in my car due to the slight risk of car theft. I prefer to keep them on my person at all times if possible.

David E
October 11, 2012, 01:28 AM
Defensively? If they're shooting at me? I don't think so. Not having all that loose brass rolling around near the brake and gas pedal is a definite advantage in the type of driving I'm going to be doing.

Hey, I saw that movie too!!

easyg
October 11, 2012, 02:22 AM
If you had to shoot through the glass or through the door of the vehicle, the .357 would probably perform better, especially with 158g .357 rounds.

Rail Driver
October 11, 2012, 02:25 AM
I carry my firearm on my hip. I don't need a different, special gun just for in the car. It's dangerous and STUPID to leave a firearm in a car unattended, especially for extended periods of time. I'm aware that sometimes it's unavoidable (such as when going into the post office or various other prohibited places), however anyone that leaves a firearm in a car for an extended period of time (such as overnight) is grossly negligent.

The above is MY OWN opinion. Take from it what you will.

As to the question, I'd go with the GP100 over the Glock. It fits my hand better.

IllinoisGun
October 11, 2012, 12:41 PM
Got to go with a pistol. Revolvers are so 1980's.

Old Shooter
October 11, 2012, 01:04 PM
I could go either way - both are excellent, accurate reliable firearms that shoot well for me. If I was mostly traveling to and from urban/suburban areas I guess I would lean towards G17, as a "get me home gun." If I was country dweller then I would probably take the GP100, which could be pressed into service for defense, hunting or survival.

I think that is the way I'd go also. I'm not a fanboy of the Glocks but if the case arose that I needed to use a weapon in a hurry and from the scenario of only having available the gun in the car...I think I'd prefer having 17 rounds on tap rather than 6 and a couple of reloads that I may or may not fumble during stress.

Also, most likely in that situation each shot will be taken with the double action method of the Ruger rather than the consistent "safe, single" action of the glock.

For the record my "car gun" is a stainless Colt Commander in 45.

Rail Driver
October 11, 2012, 01:10 PM
I think that is the way I'd go also. I'm not a fanboy of the Glocks but if the case arose that I needed to use a weapon in a hurry and from the scenario of only having available the gun in the car...I think I'd prefer having 17 rounds on tap rather than 6 and a couple of reloads that I may or may not fumble during stress.

Also, most likely in that situation each shot will be taken with the double action method of the Ruger rather than the consistent "safe, single" action of the glock.

For the record my "car gun" is a stainless Colt Commander in 45.
A Glock isn't single action. It's striker fired, which is closer to a double action trigger than it is to a single action. Think of the difference between your Colt and a Glock - The Colt is single action. The Ruger won't have an inconsistent trigger unless it's been damaged or neglected. They're quality firearms.

coolluke01
October 11, 2012, 01:13 PM
Loose brass in the car being a problem is just plane dumb. It's not going to cause a problem. What could a 9mm brass casing do? Stack up end for end in a tower and jamb the break peddle? Come on, it's not even remotely an issue.

I would go for the Glock with 17 rounds. When driving with one hand any shots fired are going to be in an attempt to provide cover. More rounds the better. Also one hand firing is easier to do with a DAO than a heavy DA revolver. No you won't be able to shoot it SA when you are driving for your life.
I think FMJ's would be in order since barriers of glass and metal are very likely. Also roadways are often wider and longer than most SD locations so over penetration may not be as much of an issue.

During deer season I would put my GP100 in the car. Never know when you run across that "Turdy Point Buck"

Carrying a gun in the car is not always negligent and careless. Where I live it wouldn't be a problem at all. If you live in an area where I could be stolen a simple safe bolted to the floor would serve as a deterrent.

Rail Driver
October 11, 2012, 01:25 PM
Carrying a gun in the car is not always negligent and careless. Where I live it wouldn't be a problem at all. If you live in an area where I could be stolen a simple safe bolted to the floor would serve as a deterrent.

I didn't say carrying a gun in the car is always negligent and careless - I said LEAVING A GUN UNATTENDED in a car is careless and negligent. What good does a safe do you if your car gets stolen from your driveway or from the parking lot of a prohibited place? Sure it prevents your firearm from actually being used in a crime, but that is only part of the point.

We ALL live in an area where a vehicle could be broken into and/or stolen (at least those of us that don't have a 30 foot wall surrounding our property, topped with electrified razor wire and a pack of guard dogs running loose inside the wall), and we all have occasion to take our vehicle to public places where any safeguards that are in place at home won't be effective.

The safe in the vehicle does negate the negligence factor, but it doesn't eliminate the risk of loss, just lessens it slightly.

I stand by my statement.

Kahr33556
October 11, 2012, 05:26 PM
I have a gp100 but voted glock because of more firepower.

silicosys4
October 11, 2012, 05:40 PM
Glock 17 here.
BYW, if you are shooting and driving at the same time in a "self defense" situation, you are likely going to be charged with a serious crime. In the eyes of the law, If you are in control of a car you have more than enough opportunity and ability to evade or escape a "situation" before opening fire on a public roadway while operating a motor vehicle.

Doc3402
October 11, 2012, 06:14 PM
That would depend on where you live and what your state laws are. Blanket statements like that can be very misleading, and could even cost someone their life. In Florida self defense is self defense, and it doesn't matter what you are doing as long as you aren't committing a crime when you defend yourself.

coolluke01
October 11, 2012, 06:15 PM
^^^^ this is hardly even remotely true. Doc beat me too it. Pointed at above post


There are not hard fast rules which dictate which acts are always or never justifiable use of force.

silicosys4
October 11, 2012, 06:46 PM
Yea...sorry guys, but this isn't "mad max", and there are pretty "hard and fast" rules dictating proper use of a firearm in such situations. I'm pretty sure in any state, you'd have trouble explaining why you decided driving along at speed exchanging shots with a bad guy was the best course of action and why pulling over and doing your best to disengage from a dangerous situation, or call for LE help, wasn't. At least, that's the argument I got from the police when my friend was charged with a crime for simply showing a firearm during a situation in which someone was actively trying to run him off the road at highway speed in a much larger vehicle...pretty much the exact situation being fantasized about throughout this thread.

coolluke01
October 11, 2012, 06:55 PM
Please site those hard fast rules that apply to SD while driving a car!

Are you driving towards them or away from them? That might change things. We can't always turn a 4000 lb car around and speed away. Forward is often the only option. Shooting at someone outside your car while driving could be very justifiable use of force.

Things are never all or none. You need to read your local laws and find out what it says about justifiable use of force. MN says you need to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. The key is the word "reasonable". It's in that regard that one needs to be mindful or how their actions will be perceived by others.

Doc3402
October 11, 2012, 06:56 PM
I agree this isn't Mad Max, and I also agree that unless someone is shooting at me or trying to ram me gunfire on my part is not the best response. The thing is, we have had several instances around here in the last year where gunfire appeared to be the only appropriate response, and charges were never filed against the defender.

For some reason road rage seems to be increasing by leaps and bounds, and people are even using their cars as weapons. Shots fired from one vehicle at another is rare, but not anywhere near as rare as it was 10 years ago. Right off the top of my head I can think of five instances in the last year or so.

beatledog7
October 11, 2012, 07:46 PM
Defensive driving and defensive shooting are an utterly unsatisfactory mix.

Drive if you can; shoot if you must. Trying to do both at the same time is strictly TV/movie stuff. It will get a lot of people hurt, and you'll probably do time in the end.

Dr_2_B
October 11, 2012, 09:34 PM
I voted G17.

Far greater capacity, up to 20 rounds without going to an abnormally long mag.

Also, a 9mm is not a quiet round, but it's quieter than a 357 magnum. In an enclosed car, that could be the difference between ringing ears and permanent hearing loss.

Doc3402
October 12, 2012, 05:39 AM
Defensive driving and defensive shooting are an utterly unsatisfactory mix.

Drive if you can; shoot if you must. Trying to do both at the same time is strictly TV/movie stuff. It will get a lot of people hurt, and you'll probably do time in the end.

It does happen, this ain't Hollywood, and the driver that fired the shot was not charged. If you'll read the story at both links you will see who did what, who got charged, and who didn't.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-08-05/story/buckman-bridge-road-rage-incident-not-fault-shooter-police-say

http://www.news4jax.com/news/Teen-Arrested-In-Buckman-Road-Rage/-/475880/1948692/-/dkfl8oz/-/index.html

iblong
October 12, 2012, 07:33 AM
I like both the 17 and the GP but dont use either for a truck/car gun.
Im alway carring (IWB) I do have and keep a LCP in the center council
in a pocket holster for various reasons.But to me a truck/car gun would be a
long gun,But then Im a hunter so I have other reasons than just self defence
involved with my choice.Also If given the time or option to use something other than my 1911 Ill take the carbine every time.While I shoot a lot and am proficent with all my hand guns,Glocks and revolver inc.Id feel much more comfortable with my mini 14 with optics,that rides under my back seat of my truck.I do live out in what some would call the sticks though.

chicharrones
October 12, 2012, 09:14 AM
Sound/pressure wise I think that I'd prefer to shoot a 9mm in a car instead of a 357.

Me too. I've already had experience trying to blow my eardrums out while firing my GP100 outside many years ago. I can only imagine my ears after firing a .357 while in a car.

I'll take the hi-cap 9mm Glock in this situation. My ears will still hurt, I'm sure. Hopefully, my ears would only ring for a few days instead of a few months.

Yet, consideration for my ears are not my only reason for picking the Glock.

beatledog7
October 12, 2012, 09:15 AM
It does happen, this ain't Hollywood, and the driver that fired the shot was not charged. If you'll read the story at both links you will see who did what, who got charged, and who didn't.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2...ter-police-say

http://www.news4jax.com/news/Teen-Ar...z/-/index.html

Doc:

You posted this as if the story you cite was the point of the OP's original question, or as if it had been linked and was under discussion. Neither is true.

It's not too hard to find cases that prove any rule by being exceptions to that rule. I did not follow the links; I presume they lead to a news story in which a person was shooting in self defense as he/she was driving and that said driver was not charged in connection with either the firearm discharge(s) or the non-standard driving.

OK, but that doesn't negate my point. I invite you to follow my reasoning:

Driving is a serious activity that most people tend to take for granted. Doing it properly requires one's full attention. Most of us have had close calls in traffic while we were doing something we shouldn't have been doing. Shooting is a similarly attention-heavy activity.

Trying to make an accurate shot, or even an inaccurate one, falls squarely into the "not while driving" category.

If I'm focused on drawing and shooting, I'm not focused on driving, and I could very well collide with another vehicle, a pedestrian, or an obstacle. If I do that, personal injury will likely result, and since I was doing something other than focusing on driving, I will very likely be charged with negligence, reckless driving, etc. If someone dies, that escalates to homicide.

If I'm firing a shot while I'm focused on driving, I'm not properly focused on where that bullet is going. If I miss my target or my bullet passes through it, how can I know what's beyond? If that bullet strikes another person, I will be charged. If that person dies, again we're looking at a homicide charge.

That's why I said the driver/shooter will likely do time. Sure, he might get lucky and not hurt anyone with either his car or his bullet, but I stand by my position that mixing two such potentially lethal activities is severely unwise and can almost certainly be avoided. Training is what makes good drivers and good shooters, but almost nobody trains or practices for such a drive/shoot scenario. Why would we advocate doing something under stress that we have not trained to do under controlled conditions? Why on Earth take such a risk when simply driving will nearly always separate us from the danger?

Doc3402
October 12, 2012, 11:40 AM
Doc:

You posted this as if the story you cite was the point of the OP's original question, or as if it had been linked and was under discussion. Neither is true.

It's not too hard to find cases that prove any rule by being exceptions to that rule. I did not follow the links; I presume they lead to a news story in which a person was shooting in self defense as he/she was driving and that said driver was not charged in connection with either the firearm discharge(s) or the non-standard driving.

OK, but that doesn't negate my point. I invite you to follow my reasoning:

Driving is a serious activity that most people tend to take for granted. Doing it properly requires one's full attention. Most of us have had close calls in traffic while we were doing something we shouldn't have been doing. Shooting is a similarly attention-heavy activity.

Trying to make an accurate shot, or even an inaccurate one, falls squarely into the "not while driving" category.

If I'm focused on drawing and shooting, I'm not focused on driving, and I could very well collide with another vehicle, a pedestrian, or an obstacle. If I do that, personal injury will likely result, and since I was doing something other than focusing on driving, I will very likely be charged with negligence, reckless driving, etc. If someone dies, that escalates to homicide.

If I'm firing a shot while I'm focused on driving, I'm not properly focused on where that bullet is going. If I miss my target or my bullet passes through it, how can I know what's beyond? If that bullet strikes another person, I will be charged. If that person dies, again we're looking at a homicide charge.

That's why I said the driver/shooter will likely do time. Sure, he might get lucky and not hurt anyone with either his car or his bullet, but I stand by my position that mixing two such potentially lethal activities is severely unwise and can almost certainly be avoided. Training is what makes good drivers and good shooters, but almost nobody trains or practices for such a drive/shoot scenario. Why would we advocate doing something under stress that we have not trained to do under controlled conditions? Why on Earth take such a risk when simply driving will nearly always separate us from the danger?
Too bad you didn't follow the links. You might have a better understanding of why they were posted.

As far as the rest of your post goes, your reasoning really doesn't apply to the situation this man found himself in even though I agree with you in most circumstances. Under attack is under attack. This was not a situation the shooter chose or instigated, yet he felt a need to defend himself against somebody that had already used his car as a weapon more than once. The police and state attorney seem to agree with him.

silicosys4
October 12, 2012, 12:00 PM
Doc..
terrible examples. Do you really want to be sharing the roads with people who hear a loud noise then immediately assume they have been shot at and start tearing ass all over the freeway, while accidentally discharging their pistol into innocent people?

You really think that driving at a prolonged high rate of speed, "weaving in and out of traffic" and negligently discharging his firearm into an innocent person, were good reactions to having his car hit with a can of air freshener?!?

Your first link states that the man who displayed his firearm in order to deter a "threatening" driver couldn't maintain control of his weapon while driving and and had a negligent discharge resulting in an innocent person being shot. The other driver had "thrown a can of air freshener" at him. How does that constitute "using his car as a weapon?" How is accidentally shooting his passenger, then engaging in a car chase at a high rate of speed, weaving in and out of traffic, because of a nonexistent threat, a better response than pulling over to take cover and assess the threat? Hit the gas, shoot first and ask questions later very very rarely cuts it, and in this case I'm surprised the guy isn't doing hard time for brandishing, endangerment, reckless driving, attempted murder, etc... There was no one charged here, but in many cities and states there would have been, and by continuing to drive at a high rate of speed, prolonging the public's exposure to danger, while endangering the public himself with his antics, he should have been charged with a crime. Regardless, the stupid police would have been all over this one.

Does that mean every time I hear a backfire I can whip out a handgun and point it at whoever is closest to me at the time, then shoot someone accidentally, then expect to get away with it? Get real.

The biggest danger here was the guy with the gun, who misidentified a threat, then initiated and prolonged a high speed car chase on public roadways, and could not maintain control of his firearm while driving.

the other link I followed has this to say about whipping out a pistol and firing down a public roadway at a perceived threat...

"Brown, 24, will now spend the rest of his life in jail for his poor aim and willingness to fire a gun in the direction of a highly traveled road."

So how I'm interpreting many peoples posts here... is that somehow many people think that if someone is driving down the highway, and accidentally offend another driver who then acts aggressively, either swerving at you or pulling a handgun and aiming it at you..maybe firing shots...The best thing to do is to pull out a handgun, and start firing out your window back at the person?
So, you going to put the cruise control on to keep up?
Are you going to accelerate to match speeds so you can get an extra close, accurate shot?
How do you think your level of impairment from high stress and trying to aim and fire a handgun, would compare to being intoxicated?
Can you text and drive, let alone shoot, duck, and drive? Why do people pull over to text and why would that not apply to defending your own life?
Would you be better off shielding behind your vehicle engine block when someone is shooting at you, or behind your door and 1/8" glass windshield....doing 60mph?
Who is responsible when you actually make a direct hit and cause the bad guy to run off the road into someones car or house?
What if the bad guy has a passenger with them, is that passenger an accomplice, or a hostage? Are you qualified under duress to make that decision? Can you see through that SUV's tinted window to see if crazed road-raging person has their kid with them? Are you a good enough shot at 60mph that it would even matter?
Are you realizing that you are in active pursuit at the time and are escalating a situation?
How long do you think it takes to either drive out of pistol range or hit the brakes and cause the other person to drive out of pistol range, vs pulling your gun, and aiming for a good shot?

Bottom line, you are endangering yourself and others much more by attempting to shoot while driving. You are limiting your options, your ability to escape and evade, your accuracy, and your maneuverability...all while deliberately increasing the time that you are in proximity to a threat, while heightening the chances other people will be harmed as well. There are many other things you could be doing instead that would much more effectively protect yourself and others. Such as either driving away out of danger, or stopping and taking cover so that you can EFFECTIVELY RETURN FIRE, and calling LE.

This may have worked out for someone once upon a time in a spur of the moment decision when they had no other choice,... and officers in Juarez, Mexico may be trained to shoot first when confronted by the signs of a rolling ambush.... but thinking that whipping out your pistol and blazing out the window is a "tactic" for the everyday man is living in fantasy land.

The OP wanted to know what gun would work best as "glovebox gun" or so I perceived. "while legal to have a gun locked in your car, its not recommended due to its easy accessibility by thieves" is the direct quote from a police officer regarding that question. If someone didn't have thieves or small children to worry about, A glock 17 would be the more versatile and reliable gun for most situations in my opinion.

Mr.357Sig
October 12, 2012, 04:42 PM
So, in some of your minds, a "car/truck gun" is for a rolling shoot out with a BG/BGs? Wow, just wow.

I don't care how in the right you are, if you open fire from a moving vehicle, you're going to prison.

Doc3402
October 12, 2012, 04:51 PM
Where you live that may well be true. Other locations do not have a law against it. Florida is one of them as long as you are defending yourself from death or great bodily harm.

TexAg
October 12, 2012, 05:02 PM
Boy, I never considerd a "car gun" something I'd use while in motion.

Mr.357Sig
October 12, 2012, 05:39 PM
Boy, I never considerd a "car gun" something I'd use while in motion.

Exactly. When was the last time anyone heard of a CCL holder involved in a shootout while driving their vehicle?

Doc3402
October 12, 2012, 06:07 PM
Doc..
terrible examples. Do you really want to be sharing the roads with people who hear a loud noise then immediately assume they have been shot at and start tearing ass all over the freeway, while accidentally discharging their pistol into innocent people?

You really think that driving at a prolonged high rate of speed, "weaving in and out of traffic" and negligently discharging his firearm into an innocent person, were good reactions to having his car hit with a can of air freshener?!?

Your first link states that the man who displayed his firearm in order to deter a "threatening" driver couldn't maintain control of his weapon while driving and and had a negligent discharge resulting in an innocent person being shot. The other driver had "thrown a can of air freshener" at him. How does that constitute "using his car as a weapon?" How is accidentally shooting his passenger, then engaging in a car chase at a high rate of speed, weaving in and out of traffic, because of a nonexistent threat, a better response than pulling over to take cover and assess the threat? Hit the gas, shoot first and ask questions later very very rarely cuts it, and in this case I'm surprised the guy isn't doing hard time for brandishing, endangerment, reckless driving, attempted murder, etc... There was no one charged here, but in many cities and states there would have been, and by continuing to drive at a high rate of speed, prolonging the public's exposure to danger, while endangering the public himself with his antics, he should have been charged with a crime. Regardless, the stupid police would have been all over this one.

Does that mean every time I hear a backfire I can whip out a handgun and point it at whoever is closest to me at the time, then shoot someone accidentally, then expect to get away with it? Get real.

The biggest danger here was the guy with the gun, who misidentified a threat, then initiated and prolonged a high speed car chase on public roadways, and could not maintain control of his firearm while driving.

the other link I followed has this to say about whipping out a pistol and firing down a public roadway at a perceived threat...

"Brown, 24, will now spend the rest of his life in jail for his poor aim and willingness to fire a gun in the direction of a highly traveled road."

So how I'm interpreting many peoples posts here... is that somehow many people think that if someone is driving down the highway, and accidentally offend another driver who then acts aggressively, either swerving at you or pulling a handgun and aiming it at you..maybe firing shots...The best thing to do is to pull out a handgun, and start firing out your window back at the person?
So, you going to put the cruise control on to keep up?
Are you going to accelerate to match speeds so you can get an extra close, accurate shot?
How do you think your level of impairment from high stress and trying to aim and fire a handgun, would compare to being intoxicated?
Can you text and drive, let alone shoot, duck, and drive? Why do people pull over to text and why would that not apply to defending your own life?
Would you be better off shielding behind your vehicle engine block when someone is shooting at you, or behind your door and 1/8" glass windshield....doing 60mph?
Who is responsible when you actually make a direct hit and cause the bad guy to run off the road into someones car or house?
What if the bad guy has a passenger with them, is that passenger an accomplice, or a hostage? Are you qualified under duress to make that decision? Can you see through that SUV's tinted window to see if crazed road-raging person has their kid with them? Are you a good enough shot at 60mph that it would even matter?
Are you realizing that you are in active pursuit at the time and are escalating a situation?
How long do you think it takes to either drive out of pistol range or hit the brakes and cause the other person to drive out of pistol range, vs pulling your gun, and aiming for a good shot?

Bottom line, you are endangering yourself and others much more by attempting to shoot while driving. You are limiting your options, your ability to escape and evade, your accuracy, and your maneuverability...all while deliberately increasing the time that you are in proximity to a threat, while heightening the chances other people will be harmed as well. There are many other things you could be doing instead that would much more effectively protect yourself and others. Such as either driving away out of danger, or stopping and taking cover so that you can EFFECTIVELY RETURN FIRE, and calling LE.

This may have worked out for someone once upon a time in a spur of the moment decision when they had no other choice,... and officers in Juarez, Mexico may be trained to shoot first when confronted by the signs of a rolling ambush.... but thinking that whipping out your pistol and blazing out the window is a "tactic" for the everyday man is living in fantasy land.

The OP wanted to know what gun would work best as "glovebox gun" or so I perceived. "while legal to have a gun locked in your car, its not recommended due to its easy accessibility by thieves" is the direct quote from a police officer regarding that question. If someone didn't have thieves or small children to worry about, A glock 17 would be the more versatile and reliable gun for most situations in my opinion.
So just what would you do if you were stuck on a bridge during rush hour and your only choices were get rammed by a road rage idiot, taking out another car full of innocents at 80 miles per hour, or taking a shot that would stand no chance of hitting anything else except the assailants car, water, or concrete.

Look, I realize you're not familiar with the bridge they were on, and I realize that neither one of us was there, but you need to realize he was already rammed twice before he took the shot. Why did he not have the right to defend himself? The cops and state attorney said he did what he needed to do and sent him home. I think that alone points out that it wasn't such a terrible example at all.

With all that said, if the lanes had been reversed I would agree wholeheartedly with you. At that point he would have been shooting towards the assailant plus the cars in two other lanes. As it was there was a clear line of fire to the guy that was trying to kill him, and there was nothing... let me repeat that... nothing in the background besides water and concrete. He had no chance of hitting anybody in the opposite lanes of travel. Most people couldn't say that if they defended their home against an intruder, yet they wouldn't hesitate to take the shot.

So why did I post the links. That's an easy one. Somebody made an erroneous blanket statement that if you shoot from a moving car you're going to jail. That is not always true, and putting that thought into someones mind may harm them somewhere down the line. They need to check their local laws instead of believing what they read on the internet.

Oh, yeah. Would I have taken the shot? I hope so. If I was involved in the same incident under the same conditions I hope I would not have hesitated to take the shot. I would have truly been in fear for my life.

beatledog7
October 12, 2012, 08:05 PM
Somebody made an erroneous blanket statement that if you shoot from a moving car you're going to jail. That is not always true, and putting that thought into someones mind may harm them somewhere down the line. They need to check their local laws instead of believing what they read on the internet.

That was me, and possibly others. But you have it a little bit wrong. I said that shooting while driving would get you jail time. And I seriously doubt that the decision not to shoot and drive simultaneously will harm anyone, while the decision to so do almost certainly will.

We see that in FL you can shoot from a moving vehicle without breaking a law ipso facto, and that's about as dumb as the TX law that says you can shoot a burglar in the back as he runs away with your TV.

Still, a person who decides to -- how was it put: roll and shoot? -- is asking for trouble. He or she might not be arrested in FL for the act, but most likely will be for the aftermath.

So, I stick by what I said -- the person who chooses to fire shots while driving is almost certainly going to do time because of the unintended damage he or she is likely to cause. If I were still a resident of FL, I'd phone my Congressman right now to ask that this blatantly dangerous law be changed.

Doc3402
October 12, 2012, 08:22 PM
I said that shooting while driving would get you jail time. And I seriously doubt that the decision not to shoot and drive simultaneously will harm anyone, while the decision to so do almost certainly will.

If I were still a resident of FL, I'd phone my Congressman right now to ask that this blatantly dangerous law be changed.

Do you understand that the driver that fired was under attack at the time he fired? You would encourage your congressman to at least partially take away your right to defend yourself? If that's true, even though I don't know you I'm sorta glad you moved.

...and that's about as dumb as the TX law that says you can shoot a burglar in the back as he runs away with your TV.

We could do that back in the good old days. It was called the fleeing felon law. Unfortunately the bleeding hearts took that one away. One more law that favors the criminal and hamstrings the law abiding citizen.

He or she might not be arrested in FL for the act, but most likely will be for the aftermath.

He hasn't been yet, and probably won't be.

Anyway, this has gone way off topic. Feel free to have the final word, but I'm done with this.

coolluke01
October 12, 2012, 08:39 PM
I said that shooting while driving would get you jail time.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true! There are no variables that will always or never get you in trouble.
The laws of SD don't work that way. Most all laws define certain actions as wrong. They are not intended to show what "right" is.
SD laws state that a person who kills another will be guilty of wrongful death unless a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death is perceived.

MN Statute 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

Note that it doesn't limit what your other actions at the time are. You could be standing on your head riding a unicycle and Could be justified in use of force.

Making blanket statements is not helpful and is plain wrong.

I don't know anyone that would disagree with someone saying that it would be hard to show that you were acting responsibly be shooting while driving. But it's not always going to be the wrong thing to do.

beatledog7
October 12, 2012, 08:53 PM
You guys should actually think your way through this instead of simply quoting laws. Legal ≠ smart.

Driving and shooting at the same time means at least one of those activities is not getting the attention it deserves, and that will lead to having either a motor vehicle or a bullet wind up in the wrong place. It is that potentially lethal eventuality that will result in charges, not the act of shooting while driving.

There is nearly always a better solution.

It's really that simple.

coolluke01
October 12, 2012, 08:57 PM
It is that potentially lethal eventuality that will result in charges, not the act of shooting while driving.
Thank you!! "Potentially"

This very different than
I said that shooting while driving would get you jail time.

I do think we agree fundamentally. It's just a matter of semantics. Which can be very important when talking about matters of SD.

beatledog7
October 12, 2012, 09:42 PM
Re-thinking a portion of my commentary:

I would not ask for this FL law to be changed. I made that statement while I was frankly a little teed off. I'm not even in favor of texting while driving prohibitions, since where such laws lead can be reliably predicted to be downhill.

As a lover of liberty, I want fewer restrictions and more freedom. But I want to re-emphasize this point before I bow out of this one:

Self defense by way of shooting another person is and always must be the very last resort, used only when no other course of action can neutralize the threat (by that I mean, render the attacker unwilling to or incapable of continuing the attack).

There is a very good reason why "in the driver's seat" has been so often used colloquially to mean "in control." If you are in the driver's seat, literally, then you have at your immediate disposal a very effective way of achieving neutralization -- you can drive away, creating separation between yourself and the threat.

Separation from the threat will achieve the SD goal about 99.999% of the time.

Out here.

jad0110
October 13, 2012, 07:29 AM
Assuming they are both reliable, the one you shoot best. For me it would be the GP, but YMMV.

AKMtnRunner
October 13, 2012, 01:27 PM
If 9mm is adequate for your need, it's really hard to compete with the practicality of the G17. In that power range, the semiauto really shines. Shootability would be the only reason to prefer something else, but with the available selection of 9mm firearms, I would think that a very ergonomic semiauto 9mm can be found for anyone's hands.

If 357 is needed, why not consider the similarly powerful 10mm in a platform that has much more capacity than a revolver? Only a very slight accuracy advantage with a revolver. Again, you can find/make a 10mm grip that fits your hand.

I really wanted to like the revolver more, but I can't ignore the advatages of the semiauto up to the 357/10mm power level.

leadcounsel
October 13, 2012, 01:36 PM
Assuming you mean which is the better gun to keep in your car for anti-car jacking...

If you fire a .357 magnum inside an enclosed car, it will be very painful unless you have ear protection for you and your passengers. It could easily cause serious permanent hearing loss.

Also, consider that reloading while in a car is also tricky, the Ruger only gives you 6 shots, whereas the Glock gives you 15, 17, or even 33 with a stick magazine.

Finally, a 9mm one handed is much easier to control than a double action .357 magnum. That is a long trigger pull and a hearty recoil for one hand (assuming your other hand is on the steering wheel).

I would take the G17 every time as a car gun over the Ruger (and I love the GP100).

Edited to add: For those that are saying that they would take the .357 because they could hunt with it, I have to ponder what scenario are you envisioning where you are stranded long enough to have to hunt large game to survive? Where are you hunting and preparing a deer? On the side of the road with engine problems? You can survive many days without food as long as you have water. Keep a few snacks and a few gallons of water in your car if you think you are in any danger of being in a rural area. Do you not have a cell phone, a CB, or can't you walk 5-10-15 miles? Is there no other traffic you can flag down?

The most likely scenario for urgent need of a handgun would be a carjacking - in which case you need to make a split second decision to give up the car or shoot back, probably through a window and without time to put on ear protection for you or others. It may require several shots and repeated hits to stop the assailant(s). There could be 5+ assailants. One tactic I've read about is for small gang to throw caltrops (a few boxes of roofing nails for instance) in the road in front of you to force you to stop. In this example, 6 shots will not do the job... If you're serious about this, mount a holster in the drivers area and put your gun in it while you are driving. Don't leave it there unattended.

rskent
October 14, 2012, 07:33 AM
Great thread. I have to pretty much agree with leadcounsel on everything except the hunting.
Itís not a matter of having to hunt. Itís a matter of having the opportunity.

I keep a nine in my truck. Very easy to control with one hand if needed, very easy to get to in a carjacking or road rage situation.
Both very common around here. It can be fired from its concealment.

Again, I canít imagine shooting a magnum inside my truck. :eek:

el Godfather
October 14, 2012, 09:58 AM
What are possible scenarios where a weapon is discharged while your hand is in fact inside the vehicle other than when shooting over the passenger side? I ask this because if shot is taken on the driver side weapon is most likely going to be out. However, car gun does not necessarily translate into shooting while in the car. Its just a gun accessible to you because it's in your vehicle.

tomrkba
October 14, 2012, 11:07 AM
Have you ever shot a gun inside your car? It is very unpleasant. The brass case bounces all over the place. The blast immediately fills the compartment and has no place to go but into your eyes and lungs. The sound is exceptionally loud even with doubled up hearing protection. I cannot imagine how bad 357 Magnum would be without hearing protection. I fired eight shots of Federal HydraShok 45 ACP and will never do that again. You can mitigate most of this if you can get the muzzle of the gun slightly outside the car.

The best car gun is a suppressed semi-automatic pistol.

Given the above, I would carry a semi-auto on my belt. My car gun typically is my daily carry gun. However, I would choose 38 Special +P for use inside the car if I did not have a suppressed gun. I would prefer a snub nosed revolver (such as the S&W Model 442), but would compromise with a gun with a four inch barrel. Bud's Gun Shop has S&W Model 10 revolvers for $269. This is a great price for a gun in that role.

56hawk
October 14, 2012, 11:33 AM
For safety reasons I would choose the GP 100. I'm assuming a car gun is going to be loaded and more or less loose in the center consul, under the seat or in a locked box of some sort. The Glocks short light trigger is way to easy to accidentally fire when grabbed in a hurry.

coolluke01
October 14, 2012, 02:15 PM
Have you ever shot a gun inside your car? It is very unpleasant. The brass case bounces all over the place.

I have shot from inside a car. It's amazingly loud! With two windows open my 9mm was painfully loud with good muffs on.
Brass doesn't bounce all over the place however. Unless you are in a tiny compact. But I doubt people who drive mini coopers are really gun owners. Loose brass in a car is not even remotely an issue. In a SD situation you won't see any brass or probably even hear the shots. You will still do real damage with .357 though.

The short trigger argument is also really flat. The finger shouldn't be on the trigger when garbing the gun. This logic should also apply to carrying a glock IWB, but it's not a legitimate problem. With lighter springs and the smooth trigger on my GP100, if I grab it with a finger on the trigger, it's likely to go off.

el Godfather
October 14, 2012, 02:59 PM
Yes I have. It was VERY loud. For almost a joke I had done it a several time my own ears covered. :)

56hawk
October 14, 2012, 03:05 PM
The short trigger argument is also really flat. The finger shouldn't be on the trigger when garbing the gun. This logic should also apply to carrying a glock IWB, but it's not a legitimate problem.

Of course your finger shouldn't be on the trigger, but try quickly grabbing a gun out of a box in a high adrenalin situation and see how easy it is for a finger to accidentally touch the trigger. Not as much of a problem with a double action pull, but a lot easier to accidentally pull the preset trigger on a Glock.

I've seen several ADs in USPSA matches from people just trying to grab a loaded Glock off a table.

cwl1862
October 14, 2012, 03:47 PM
Neither will reliably stop a car.

:D good one! But I voted GP100 if it will primarilly be kept in the vehicle then size shouldn't matter and I'll take a 357 over a 9mm anytime I can. Desides I don't care for Glocks......

el Godfather
October 14, 2012, 03:53 PM
Like they show in the movies sonetimes that shots are fired at the hood of the car and it blows up- I guess that will stop the car. In such event I guess 357 is more effective. Just a thought not fact by any means.

chicharrones
October 14, 2012, 07:58 PM
For safety reasons I would choose the GP 100. I'm assuming a car gun is going to be loaded and more or less loose in the center consul, under the seat or in a locked box of some sort. The Glocks short light trigger is way to easy to accidentally fire when grabbed in a hurry.

A car mounted holster is the way to go in my opinion. The gun stays where its at so you can expect the grip to be in the same place every time. A Galco Matrix paddle holster can be bolted into a out of sight place and will hold the gun in place very solidly.

Plus, the Glocks can have the NY1 or NY2 trigger spring installed which will increase trigger pull weight comparable to a double action revolver. I like the NY1 trigger spring myself which Glock claims to raise the trigger weight to 11 lbs. as long as no other trigger parts are changed out. For only $2.00 in cost, too.

As an owner of a GP100 and a Glock, the Glock is my choice for a car gun.

Averageman
October 14, 2012, 10:26 PM
I dont leave a pistol in my Truck unattended.
It comes out of my IWB holster and in to my truck holster secured between the split seats. When I get out it goes right back into my IWB.
I do not intend to shoot and drive it's pretty much an anti ambush in a parking lot scenerio I prepare for.
Anything threatening me while I am in the truck is going to get run over and if I have to back over you, you might get it twice as I am getting out of dodge and to a safe place and then calling 911.

el Godfather
October 23, 2012, 10:35 AM
It is not about leaving handgun in the car unintended. Rather, it is about what is best to have in the car in case of need.

SKLFCO
October 23, 2012, 10:41 AM
Should anyone choose to let loose with a full house load from that GP inside the confines of the vehicle the choice will become as clear as the ringing is in the ears!

CoRoMo
October 23, 2012, 11:18 AM
My car guns will have to be revolvers because I might not be the only one who ever has to use one. I've chosen the police trade-in 64 for each vehicle's glove box.

PabloJ
October 23, 2012, 12:25 PM
Dear THR:
The choice is between Glock 17 or Ruger GP100 for a car gun. Both are reliable enough. Just which you pick and why? I understand one is revolver and the other is a semi auto. Please take this and the power aspect in consideration as well as other things that my be important.

Thank you
Glock unless you're going to throw gun into pile of steel tools on regular basis. The GP100 would make better hammer and or pry bar if you choose to employ it for that purpose.

el Godfather
October 24, 2012, 12:21 AM
From reading some of the posts here, i am leaning towards a revolver myself.

Malamute
October 24, 2012, 01:05 AM
I read Ferfals story about life in Argentina after their economy collapsed a couple years ago. One story I remember. He saw a guy in a gun shop trading his revovler for an auto. He asked him why. It seems that the thugs in Argentina found a good way to carjack/kidnap/steal by pulling up next to someone stopped in traffic with a van, open the side door, and display weapons/threaten the driver. This particular guy responded with fire, which was the prefered way to respond for many, (no way to exit the scene easily in traffic), and after 6 rounds, was done returning fire while driving.

Not saying its the new thing in Miami or wherever, but something to think about.

I've found that the factory glock bikini holsters are easy to pop off with one hand when pulling the gun from the console one handed. The trigger is protected, and it meets many states requirements for the gun to be holstered if in a console etc.

The_Armed_Therapist
October 24, 2012, 01:36 PM
GP101... Car guns won't get cleaned NEARLY enough, making it more a problem for the auto.

coolluke01
October 24, 2012, 01:44 PM
^^^ Is this a serious comment? or are you being sarcastic?

golden
October 24, 2012, 05:00 PM
I would go with the GLOCK 17 because of the available ammo without having to reload. If you have to get out of you car and are not carrying a reload, you have 18 versus 6 rounds. That is enough for me.

Jim

marv
October 24, 2012, 06:44 PM
For a gun that will spend much of its existence out of immediate physical posession by its owner and subject to coonfingering by unauthorised persons I would go with the revolver. And make it DAO.

The_Armed_Therapist
October 25, 2012, 09:13 AM
^^^ Is this a serious comment? or are you being sarcastic?

Serious comment. I can't quite figure out how it would be construed as sarcastic. LOL

jim243
October 25, 2012, 09:33 AM
You mean the "SP"101 don't you. I am unaware of a GP101.

Jim

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt284/bigjim_02/IMG_1227.jpg

Ian Johnson
October 25, 2012, 09:56 AM
G17

onebadcaballero
October 25, 2012, 10:16 AM
This is gonna have to do more with which platform you dig but if your having trouble deciding between high capacity and high power I would get a glock 26 for carry on person (should suffice for bipedal's), and use a 4" gp 100 as the truck gun (for two and four leggers, as well as hunting if you need to), I know here in Florida I would go with the stainless model since humidity can get kind of high.

Either way the gp 100!

coolluke01
October 25, 2012, 11:10 AM
Car guns won't get cleaned NEARLY enough, making it more a problem for the auto.

A Glock could go for 10 years in a glove box with out cleaning and still function properly. I might 2nd guess the ammo. If you use crapy lube that will get think and set up I could see this as a problem, but otherwise there is really no reason to clean a non fired gun to maintain function.
I'm planning on buying a boat glock. It will likely get detail stripped once a year when I put the boat away for the winter. This is only because it will be in a moist environment and it certainly wont hurt it to be stored clean for the winter.

The_Armed_Therapist
October 25, 2012, 02:31 PM
I'm personally a hugh Glock fan, and you're probably right; I just thought that revolvers would be more inherently durable.

The_Armed_Therapist
October 25, 2012, 02:32 PM
You mean the "SP"101 don't you. I am unaware of a GP101.


Just mixed up the GP100 with the SP101, that's all.

el Godfather
October 26, 2012, 01:32 AM
What is price comparison between the two guns?

How much more of the energy are you getting from 357 Magnum over the 9mm?

What are the specific advantages of having a revolver over a semi-auto when in vehicle?

I believe some discussion on the aforementioned questions is still due here.

iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns
October 26, 2012, 10:34 AM
Just read every post, and no one has directly mentioned that you can shoot .38 special out of the GP-100... so I'm mentioning that, in regards to the awful noise that would result from shooting in a vehicle.

Definitely comes down to whichever you shoot better and feels better in your hand, I respect both choices. I would personally choose the GP-100, I'm fast with speed-loaders and own several, and I love my GP-100. I'd keep .38 (maybe +P) in the gun and .357mag in the speedloaders. I choose the revolver because it's heavier and I like the trigger-pull. I shoot it better than a polymer frame when one-handed, and far more accurately two-handed. I also really prefer the GP-100 sights to the Glock sights. All that being said I wouldn't try to change someone's mind if they chose the Glock though, both are good options for reasons previously mentioned in this thread.

m2steven
October 26, 2012, 08:07 PM
I voted for the Glock 17 because I honestly believe that if I fired a gp100 with .357 in it, i'd be stunned and deaf after the first shot.

However: I own and often shoot my Ruger SP101 .327. It's small, has a great trigger and is much easier to shoot than my 686SW. I shoot them side by side and there is almost no difference in impact damage (pumpkins, concrete blocks, etc). The actual ballistics are substantially identical. Bullet size is nearly identical as well.

But - If i'm in trouble, I'd rather have the Glock for several reasons. Capacity, weight, less shockwave and ear damage.

Doc3402
October 26, 2012, 08:19 PM
This thread has me totally confused. Why would anybody pick the 9mm over the .357 magnum? Even with a 3 to 1 capacity disadvantage wouldn't the obvious choice be the round with the best ability to end the fight?

barnetmill
October 26, 2012, 08:27 PM
The vote selection is defective relative to the number of choices. For a car gun I want something that is highly effective that will not break my pocket book if it gets stolen. I have a HiPoint 45 that functions well with FMJ and it is what I am thinking of using. I normally CCW or carry a G19 with a RMR or a G33. I do not know the ruger revolver, but I assume it is a good gun, but I l like semiautomatics.

GLOOB
October 26, 2012, 08:31 PM
When driving with one hand any shots fired are going to be in an attempt to provide cover.
Really? I guess a Mare's Leg should have you covered. You just have to practice the move that Arnie uses in T3.

orionengnr
October 26, 2012, 10:07 PM
I think that Rexster has spoken the wisest words by far in this thread post #26)..

I don't have (or believe in) a "car gun", a "motorcycle gun", a "boat gun", a "snowmobile gun", a "hang-glider gun"...and so on.

I have an EDC. If I am in the car, it is with me. If I am on the motorcycle, it is with me. I'm sure you can connect the dots from there.

gandog56
October 26, 2012, 10:31 PM
Glock has yet to make a SINGLE model that feels good in my short fat fingered hand. I carp even about the grip angle. So the choice was very easy for me.

coolluke01
October 26, 2012, 11:15 PM
This thread has me totally confused. Why would anybody pick the 9mm over the .357 magnum? Even with a 3 to 1 capacity disadvantage wouldn't the obvious choice be the round with the best ability to end the fight?

I'm sure most would agree that 6 perfectly placed rounds of .357 will take care of most any situation. Unfortunately that's never really an option. 18 rounds of 9mm will be far better suited to this SD role. I'm not saying you should spray and pray, but there is a huge difference between a precise shot and tactical accuracy. I would rather have more 9mm COM than one .357 slug.

Also as has been covered, shooting a .357 in a car is a foolish thing to do. Someone suggested loading .38's in the GP100. Why do that when a 9mm has better ballistics than the .38 and you can load 12 more.

chicharrones
October 26, 2012, 11:20 PM
I think that Rexster has spoken the wisest words by far in this thread post #26)..

I don't have (or believe in) a "car gun", a "motorcycle gun", a "boat gun", a "snowmobile gun", a "hang-glider gun"...and so on.

I have an EDC. If I am in the car, it is with me. If I am on the motorcycle, it is with me. I'm sure you can connect the dots from there.

In the case of people that conceal carry a handgun daily, a subcompact carry gun can be difficult to draw if still kept in a pocket or IWB while seated in a car. Having a separate gun in a car mounted holster makes drawing easier and faster. Plus, a car gun can be larger than a pocket gun or IWB gun.

Motorcycles are a different ball of wax in this situation in my opinion.

chicharrones
October 26, 2012, 11:28 PM
This thread has me totally confused. Why would anybody pick the 9mm over the .357 magnum? Even with a 3 to 1 capacity disadvantage wouldn't the obvious choice be the round with the best ability to end the fight?

That's a pretty good point. In my thinking in this thread I am mostly picking the autoloader for capacity for its size. Not to mention my own experience with the ear shattering .357 Magnum. So, although I am a fan of the .357 and the 9mm, my current choice in a car gun is actually a .45 ACP.

Black Butte
October 27, 2012, 12:23 AM
Guns should not be left in cars.

iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns
October 27, 2012, 10:34 AM
In a life-threatening situation I seriously doubt I'd have the time to put them in, but I always have quality earplugs easily reachable on my person :)

el Godfather
October 29, 2012, 12:02 AM
I understand that 357 is loud as hell, but note we are asking about pleasure shooting. The question is about the use in life threatening situation, rather. In such an event its foolish to think about negative collateral aspects. I seriously do believe that impact of a 357 Magnum has more potential to end a fight than a 9mm. The reason i pitched gp against Glock is because in their respective platforms they are considered most reliable by a vast majority of people as i observed that from various polls.

Still some of the questions i posed in the previous post are unanswered.

GaryP
October 29, 2012, 03:20 AM
I think would go with the Ruger GP100. Less rounds but much more power in .357 Mag.


:evil: :scrutiny:

Doc3402
October 29, 2012, 04:57 AM
Also as has been covered, shooting a .357 in a car is a foolish thing to do.

Shooting a .357 in a car to save your own life is never a foolish thing to do if that's what you have. Both rounds exceed the hearing damage threshold by a great margin, so that's really not an issue.

I'm sure most would agree that 6 perfectly placed rounds of .357 will take care of most any situation. Unfortunately that's never really an option. 18 rounds of 9mm will be far better suited to this SD role.

That would depend on what you have to shoot at. If you are working against a carjacker at a stoplight I would say pick a round, any round. If you are working against some road rage idiot trying to run you into the trees his car is going to be the target in order to get to him. In that case the .357 is the only logical choice of the two firearms mentioned.

Note to all: Before this goes any further, I have already had this argument about shooting from a moving car. Please don't make me go through it again. It can be done, and it has been done, without resulting in prosecution. That does not mean you can take potshots at Bambi while driving down the carpool lane. It needs to be a self defense situation where deadly force is justified.

guyfromohio
October 29, 2012, 05:35 AM
I call my car-glock my "Reginald Denny" gun. That will Never happen to me. As an urban dweller, it's not a zombie fantasy, but a very real (hopefully very slight) possibility. I want capacity.

chicharrones
October 29, 2012, 12:15 PM
Still some of the questions i posed in the previous post are unanswered.

You mean the questions below?

What is price comparison between the two guns?

Price comparisons can be found on internet gun store websites like Bud's Gun Shop, Gallery of Guns, or brick and mortar stores that have their inventory (with pricing) on the internet.

How much more of the energy are you getting from 357 Magnum over the 9mm?

Another internet search will give some decent information. Check Ballistics by the Inch, Brass Fetcher, or even Wikipedia. With a known muzzle velocity and bullet weight you can punch in info at online ballistics calculators and get some basic numbers. Here is one. http://www.cruffler.com/BallisticCalculators/BallisticCalculator.shtml

What are the specific advantages of having a revolver over a semi-auto when in vehicle?

If a round fails to fire in a double action revolver, pull the trigger again and get a fresh round under the hammer. Many autoloaders do not have double strike capability and will require the tap-rack drill. That is not car specific though.

Also, a contact shot can be made with a revolver where some autoloaders may get the slide pushed out of battery if a contact shot is attempted. Not car specific on that one either.

earplug
October 29, 2012, 05:05 PM
Depends on if your driving a F-250 or a Dodge Magnum.

el Godfather
October 30, 2012, 01:41 PM
what does it matter which vehicle?

Certaindeaf
October 30, 2012, 02:45 PM
Probably one of each. And a sunroof for the wingman. lolz

el Godfather
November 18, 2012, 02:42 AM
In retrospect do you think this poll was about the two specific guns, between two calibers or really a preference poll between revolver and an auto loader?

Inebriated
November 18, 2012, 03:24 AM
Auto v. Revolver, for me.


I would prefer a little more power for a vehicle gun (10mm, I'm thinking), but between 6-7 rounds in a revolver platform that I don't shoot as well, and 20+ in an auto platform that I shoot better than any other platform? No question.

56hawk
November 18, 2012, 11:09 AM
In retrospect do you think this poll was about the two specific guns, between two calibers or really a preference poll between revolver and an auto loader?

I would say it was probably the two specific guns considering how close the poll results are. This site seems to have more Ruger fans than Glock fans. If the question was revolver vs auto or 9mm vs 357 (which is pretty much the same question), I would expect a very different result.

Or judging by some of your other polls do a Wilson Combat 1911 vs Ruger GP 100. :evil:

el Godfather
November 18, 2012, 03:36 PM
56
Good idea. It will be interesting to see results.

otasan56
November 18, 2012, 05:30 PM
The GP100 for sure. The .357 magnum is a far better car penetrator than any 9mm.

el Godfather
November 19, 2012, 11:37 AM
Not sure about 357 penetration. For sure a lot more powerful than 9mm.

coolluke01
November 19, 2012, 06:58 PM
Using a handgun to shoot a car is foolishness. It would be better to focus fire on the driver. ;)

Besides, having to shoot through a car would only be one small part of the usage of a car handgun.

Limited capacity in a SD handgun is a poor decision.

KodeFore
November 19, 2012, 09:38 PM
Glock 18 shots vs 6

el Godfather
November 19, 2012, 11:02 PM
Well i am not sure how realistic is the need for reload in the sense that the gun flight will last that long. Practically speaking you will use handgun to just get away from the situation. In case you want to stay and fight, handgun is not the right weapon to begin with.

Now if you do assume the reload scenario then it means that not only the capacity of the two platforms is a factor, but also the east of reloading. In such event a semi auto will have a clear advantage.

However, if you believe capacity is not an issue and accept the frequently stated statistics that gun fight do not last over 4-5 shots, then I do not see how a semi auto with lesser force in the projectile propelled would have any advantage over a more powerful revolver because: a) the 357 magnum is far more superior round in energy and stopping power, and b) a miss fire in revolver will not require you to rack the slide.

coolluke01
November 20, 2012, 01:40 AM
frequently stated statistics that gun fight do not last over 4-5 shots
Frequently misstated as fact!

Assuming a 30% hit rate and one round to stop an attacker a 6 shot revolver will not be adequate for stopping two attackers. The 30% number is a fact. This has been taken from the NYPD's numbers. Not to say that you will only ever hit 30% but this is based on real life and death shootings by officers. Your best day fighting will not be as good as your worst day at the range.

Find the thread on likelihood in %'s of stopping an attacker with 6 rounds. Very enlightening.

David E
November 20, 2012, 02:28 AM
The old "2-3 rds per gunfight" stat oft cited is WRONG.

It includes suicides, ADs, warning shots, animal put downs, etc. all of which typically involve only one shot total being fired. And many of those circumstances have nothing to do with an actual gunfight.

1goodshot
November 20, 2012, 06:45 AM
Anything you leave in a car will get stolen so pick the gun you wount miss if someone steals it.

otasan56
November 20, 2012, 08:00 AM
You got that right, brother Kodefour. I carry a G17 with 17 rounds of 115gr JHP +p+ rounds. I hope to never have to reload with my spare 16-round magazine.

coolluke01
November 20, 2012, 01:24 PM
Anything you leave in a car will get stolen so pick the gun you wount miss if someone steals it.

Allowing a handgun to get into the hands of a criminal is not acceptable. I don't lock up my guns only to avoid financial loss but to keep from being part of the problem. Retaining your weapon is a huge part of firearm ownership responsibility.

If you will leave a gun in the car keep it secure. Secure is subjective. Where I live that means locking your car and avoiding things that would draw attention to the fact that you are a gun owner. Most other places a locking car safe will be needed to secure a weapon properly.

el Godfather
November 20, 2012, 02:34 PM
I dont understand the point that a gun car is bound to be stolen. I mean how often your car is broken into? My car has never been broken into and i also do not keep weapon visible "if" left in the vehicle.

XGibsonX
November 21, 2012, 12:20 AM
This is humorous. You guys do not know squat about a gunfight yet you sing away as if you were a bird. These threads go on and on and are almost always perpetrated by a troll or someone with the mentality of a troll. Semi-auto versus Sixgun. . .

I have read this tripe ad nauseum. Why? Masochistic, I suppose.

Guys run amok grabbing whatever stat they can find and regurgitate them w/o ever thinking about them. NYPD shooting stats? Please. Some could not hit a bull with a bass fiddle.

Another guy is going to only shoot as a last resort to neutralize. Yeah, okay. Walk into a room on someone who has just beaten your wife to death and then get back to me. . . but, then again, based on the posts I see here, it wouldn't surprise if you retreated and dialed 9-1-1.

The spray and pray mentality seems to have displaced the old mentality of being a marksman, even under duress. Odd, though, as it seems me that the 14 round 9mm has been around longer than the .357 magnum. I suppose it takes decades to sink in.

To each his/her own.

I think I'll stop torturing my eyes with this stuff, too old for it.

You guys keep hashing it around. Adios

el Godfather
November 21, 2012, 09:07 AM
Adios Amigo

C0untZer0
November 21, 2012, 09:25 AM
.
Glock


Has any firearms manufacturer ever specifically made a car gun?

I know some have made trail guns, target pistols, pocket guns... but has anyone ever made a car gun?

chicharrones
November 21, 2012, 11:49 AM
.
Glock


Has any firearms manufacturer ever specifically made a car gun?

I know some have made trail guns, target pistols, pocket guns... but has anyone ever made a car gun?

Just about any gun can be a car gun in my opinion. Some will be better choices than others, for sure.

As far as a manufacturer to specify in print that a certain model is designed for being a car or truck gun, I'm sure manufacturers don't need any anti-gunners to get all wound up on thinking about all the "car guns" out there.

chicharrones
November 21, 2012, 11:51 AM
Anything you leave in a car will get stolen so pick the gun you wount miss if someone steals it.

Could be stolen, just like a stereo, laptop, phone, wheels, or the whole car.

coolluke01
November 21, 2012, 01:57 PM
If I felt the need for a "car gun" It would be a AR15 or AR10 with a 10" barrel.

hariph creek
November 21, 2012, 02:02 PM
For starters, I don't drive a car. I drive a truck. My truck doesn't have opposable thumbs. I doubt it would be a very good shot?

Or, do you mean a gun for shooting cars? When are they in season?

Seriously, it's irresponsible to leave a gun in a car. Ask my stepfather, retired LEO, he kept a .45 in his. Wonder where it is now? You know, since it was stolen.

David E
November 21, 2012, 02:57 PM
Could be stolen, just like a stereo, laptop, phone, wheels, or the whole car.

Except that a stereo, laptop, phone or wheels aren't typically used to kill someone.

Inebriated
November 21, 2012, 03:04 PM
Except that a stereo, laptop, phone or wheels aren't typically used to kill someone.

Yeah, we should just totally get rid of guns!

chicharrones
November 21, 2012, 05:14 PM
Except that a stereo, laptop, phone or wheels aren't typically used to kill someone.

Not directly.

David E
November 21, 2012, 07:22 PM
Yeah, we should just totally get rid of guns!

That's not what I said, but you know that.

If you want to keep a gun unsecured in the car, you're an irresponsible fool.

At least secure it if you're going to do it.

Inebriated
November 21, 2012, 07:34 PM
That's not what I said, but you know that.

If you want to keep a gun unsecured in the car, you're an irresponsible fool.

At least secure it if you're going to do it.

When did I say that I don't keep my guns secured?

Jorg Nysgerrig
November 21, 2012, 07:35 PM
It seems this one has run its course.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which is better car gun: Glock 17 or Ruger GP 100?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!