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

Which is a better car gun?

  • Glock 17

    Votes: 128 53.6%

  • Ruger GP 100

    Votes: 111 46.4%
  • Total voters
    239
Status
Not open for further replies.
beatledog7 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
silicosys4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I said that shooting while driving would get you jail time.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
It is that potentially lethal eventuality that will result in charges, not the act of shooting while driving.
Click to expand...
Thank you!! "Potentially"

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

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

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.
 
Last edited:
I can’t imagine shooting a magnum inside my truck.

Great thread. I have to pretty much agree with leadcounsel on everything except the hunting.
It’s not a matter of having to hunt. It’s 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 can’t imagine shooting a magnum inside my truck. :eek:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Have you ever shot a gun inside your car? It is very unpleasant. The brass case bounces all over the place.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yes I have. It was VERY loud. For almost a joke I had done it a several time my own ears covered. :)
 
coolluke01 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Neither will reliably stop a car.
Click to expand...

: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......
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

el Godfather
  • Locked
  • Poll
CZ 75 v Glock 17: which one is more accurate?
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
sixgunner455
S
D
  • Locked
  • Poll
Ruger Mark 3 or .22lr SP101 ?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
default57
D
el Godfather
  • Locked
  • Poll
Glock 17 v Sig P226: which is better duty pistol?
2 3 4 5
Replies
105
Views
14K
tomrkba
tomrkba
Skribs
  • Locked
  • Poll
Better for first timer - duty-size 9mm or .38?
2 3
Replies
62
Views
4K
Wanderling
Wanderling
N
  • Locked
GP-100 as a first handgun?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
canucksvt
C
Back
Top