clubsoda22
member
ever see the birdman weapons systems "Nuke .50" (www.birdman.org) It's a funny websight.
When Absolutely Have to Stop Bad Guy, What Auto Cartridge?
- Thread starter Higgins
- Start date
- Status
Island Beretta
Member
The one that you won't miss with...
(moving target)
(moving target)There was a story some years ago in Ayoob's column about a BG who was threatening suicide - when two officers arrived, the BG turned on them, snatched the policewoman's gun, killed her with it, and started after her partner. The surviving officer pumps a few 9mm's into him, he falls down, then starts to get back up. The LEO then in a panic fires at the head at close range, and hits the guy, spraying blood and hair everywhere. The BG looks up and says, "Oooh, you got me good that time!" and keeps getting up.
IIRC one more reload, a few more shots and the BG finally drops. Turned out the head shot had struck at an angle, cracking the skull, but glancing off. Only a couple of the body shots were effective.
The moral is, it IS a small target, and if you expect to hit it, be very good or lucky. Me I will stick to the .45 or 10mm and COM.
IIRC one more reload, a few more shots and the BG finally drops. Turned out the head shot had struck at an angle, cracking the skull, but glancing off. Only a couple of the body shots were effective.
The moral is, it IS a small target, and if you expect to hit it, be very good or lucky. Me I will stick to the .45 or 10mm and COM.
Hypnogator
Member
.45 230-gr Hydra Shok. 'Nuff said.
tex_n_cal,
I've read about that story in one of Ayoob's books. It was a .38, not a 9mm. The BG took about a dozen hits before he died, but one of the 2 LEOs was killed with just one .38 fired from her own gun.
If we look at only half of the story, you get two very different pictures of what a .38 will do:
"It took a dozen .38s to kill this guy, even with one to the head!"
Wow, .38 must really suck
Or
"LEO was killed instantly by a single .38 round"
Wow, one shot stop, .38 must be an awsome caliber
This just tells me that shot placement is the most important factor as long as you have a somewhat decent caliber pistol (anything .380 ACP or above if you ask me).
I've read about that story in one of Ayoob's books. It was a .38, not a 9mm. The BG took about a dozen hits before he died, but one of the 2 LEOs was killed with just one .38 fired from her own gun.
If we look at only half of the story, you get two very different pictures of what a .38 will do:
"It took a dozen .38s to kill this guy, even with one to the head!"
Wow, .38 must really suck
Or
"LEO was killed instantly by a single .38 round"
Wow, one shot stop, .38 must be an awsome caliber
This just tells me that shot placement is the most important factor as long as you have a somewhat decent caliber pistol (anything .380 ACP or above if you ask me).
Poohgyrr
Member
Based on the original question, no doubt about it, 10mm.
But I like 12Ga. & rifles better.
But I like 12Ga. & rifles better.
kalibear45
Member
Desert Eagle .44magnum
Pocket Pistol
Member
You said AUTO right ??
how about 30mm explosive / incendary.
Tough to conceal but definate one shot stop
how about 30mm explosive / incendary.
Tough to conceal but definate one shot stop
MicroBalrog
member
Double-tap to the head with a Desert Eagle .50AE (JHP +P)
Well putting aside that it is a slightly silly question, I like the .45 just because, since it makes a slightly larger hole (even without any expansion), it has a slightly higher chance of hitting a major organ, blood vessel, CNS, or supportive bone structure that a smaller round just might miss or only graze (again, this is only in very close call situations, so we're talking about tiny advantages here), which just might cause the BG to shut down, or fall down, more quickly, if he's trying to kill me - and yes I'm shooting to stop the attack, not kill, as a civilian - that much is correct. I used to think 10mm was the shiz for carry, but it actually has less diameter, and potentially too much penetration. If I thought that a good .45 round would not penetrate far enough in 99% of circumstances, then I would go back to the 10mm, but that is not the case - I think the .45acp WILL penetrate far enough in 99% of the defensive scenarios. I can see carrying 10mm for a LEO duty weapon, since it would be much more likely that an LEO would have to say, shoot through a windshield to stop a BG than me as a civilian would - not saying this could never happen to a civilian, just that it's MORE LIKELY that an LEO would need this extra penetration in certain scenarios, for two reasons:
1. LEOs are flat-out more likely to need to use their guns on an absolute scale, and therefore the number of times where a real penetration scenario might come up are much higher, EVEN IF the percentage/proportion of extra penetration vs. regular penetration scenarios remain constant as between LEOs and civilians.
2. Civilians only have a legal right to protect their own lives and that of their loves ones, in most states, not the average "other citizen", whereas LEOs do have that right (and arguably duty as well - moral and departmental if not legal). So, for example, if some idjit is about to drive their car through a crowd of people, producing a scenario of imminent death or serious bodily injury to many in that crowd, Joe Q. Public should just jump out of the way of the car, not shoot the criminal driver (unless his loved one is in the crowd, but set that aside). LEOs, OTOH, have a right to shoot this idiot even though he doesn't have a loved one in the crowd, since his job is to protect the general public.
Thus, I would personally choose 10mm if I were an LEO as a duty gun, but use .45acp for carry if I know there's going to be a high likelihood of trouble.
1. LEOs are flat-out more likely to need to use their guns on an absolute scale, and therefore the number of times where a real penetration scenario might come up are much higher, EVEN IF the percentage/proportion of extra penetration vs. regular penetration scenarios remain constant as between LEOs and civilians.
2. Civilians only have a legal right to protect their own lives and that of their loves ones, in most states, not the average "other citizen", whereas LEOs do have that right (and arguably duty as well - moral and departmental if not legal). So, for example, if some idjit is about to drive their car through a crowd of people, producing a scenario of imminent death or serious bodily injury to many in that crowd, Joe Q. Public should just jump out of the way of the car, not shoot the criminal driver (unless his loved one is in the crowd, but set that aside). LEOs, OTOH, have a right to shoot this idiot even though he doesn't have a loved one in the crowd, since his job is to protect the general public.
Thus, I would personally choose 10mm if I were an LEO as a duty gun, but use .45acp for carry if I know there's going to be a high likelihood of trouble.
Sludge
Member
Well Futo, in North Carolina a citizen can use lethal force to stop any attack where fear of death or serious bodily injury or sexual assault is taking place. Not only in self defense or for immediate family, but anyone. On the victims property there is no duty to retreat, but in public there is one if it is possible to do so before lethal force can be used. Just FYI
Oh, and im shooting to stop.. if that means kill, then so be it. Im not going to go out of my way to try to wound a BG. If my hand goes to the gun, im aiming for the heart in most cases. Perhaps the head depending on the circumstances
Oh, and im shooting to stop.. if that means kill, then so be it. Im not going to go out of my way to try to wound a BG. If my hand goes to the gun, im aiming for the heart in most cases. Perhaps the head depending on the circumstances
CZ52GUY
Member
Stop vs. Survive...
The following "rant" is not directed against any individual post or poster...
I too live in a state where the movement to guarantee that "the rights of criminals to victimize shall not be infringed" has yet to be amended into our constitution.
To the contrary, the right of citizens to defend their person, the innocent, as well as their property is constitutionally guaranteed.
Beyond the RKBA, the fundamental right of self-defense is in jeopardy when the victim has to fear charges of "excessive response" or "vigilanteism" while the perpetrator need have no such fears...the perp is over the line anyway...it's the intended victim to whom the responsibility is being shifted which is maddening.
I'm appalled and disgusted by the laws which seek to diminish the fundamental right to self-defense...and frankly infuriated by those supposedly within the lawful gun owning community that would endorse these morally corrupt statutes.
BG's should be afraid, very afraid...we need to take back our rights not just to KBA but fundamentally to defend ourselves.
This thread poses a scenario where a BG must be "stopped" which in many circles is a code word for k-i-l-l-e-d so the BG will not be allowed to inflict serious harm on others.
We can debate the method and/or tools to be employed, but should be unified in the validity of the premise and the moral justification thereof...nonsense criminal-friendly statues notwithstanding.
Rant over...safe shooting,
CZ52'
The following "rant" is not directed against any individual post or poster...
I too live in a state where the movement to guarantee that "the rights of criminals to victimize shall not be infringed" has yet to be amended into our constitution.
To the contrary, the right of citizens to defend their person, the innocent, as well as their property is constitutionally guaranteed.
Beyond the RKBA, the fundamental right of self-defense is in jeopardy when the victim has to fear charges of "excessive response" or "vigilanteism" while the perpetrator need have no such fears...the perp is over the line anyway...it's the intended victim to whom the responsibility is being shifted which is maddening.
I'm appalled and disgusted by the laws which seek to diminish the fundamental right to self-defense...and frankly infuriated by those supposedly within the lawful gun owning community that would endorse these morally corrupt statutes.
BG's should be afraid, very afraid...we need to take back our rights not just to KBA but fundamentally to defend ourselves.
This thread poses a scenario where a BG must be "stopped" which in many circles is a code word for k-i-l-l-e-d so the BG will not be allowed to inflict serious harm on others.
We can debate the method and/or tools to be employed, but should be unified in the validity of the premise and the moral justification thereof...nonsense criminal-friendly statues notwithstanding.
Rant over...safe shooting,
CZ52'
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
