Since most on this forum would carry a Revolver

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those of you that want to take on someone armed with a rifle with a handgun are suicidal. Then you want to choose a semi auto that lacks the structural integrity to handle a large caliber in weapon you can pocket carry. Sorry, the math just doesn't add up.

Please stop and think this through.

The reason you would take on a man armed with a rifle is because you are in a situation where you have no other choice. In the case of a mall or movie theater shooting, the pistol has more than adequate range to hit the murderer. There will be chaos with people running around. It may or may not be dark. We carry handguns because they're concealable and people are so weak minded today that they panic over the sight of a slung rifle.

Additionally, consider that the vast majority of people are untrained with firearms. I frequently see people with $2,000 AR-15s proceed to shoot 12 inch groups at 50 feet. Compare the number of shots fired to the number of killed and wounded. The hit rates are low.

I believe people should try to stop the murderer if possible. It is the right action to take, rather than the selfish action of caring only for one's family. However, this must be accomplished in a pragmatic way. If the murderer is on the other side of the mall, then there is no reason to go looking for trouble. But, if the murderer is right there, take the shot if you can. You may not be able to take the shot if there are too many people in the background or are running around in front of you. This is why we study tactics so we can quickly figure out how to change the angles.

Here is a case that supports my point:

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...es-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/

Look at this:
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/

Finally, on stopping power. 357 Mag is one of the better ones, but it's not as good as you say.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power
 
Last edited:
"Deltaboy I carry 5 shot Charter Undercover and I Don' t feel under gunned."

I new a Detective Sgt who after returning from a drug raid came to me. He said to me that the S&W Chief he was carrying, just wouldn't do. At that raid, there were more people arrested in one room than he was carrying ammunition. He ended up getting a Browning HiPower (not my choice).

In some places, 5 rounds just isn't going to cut it. :scrutiny:

At that time I was carrying a Model 60 in an ankle holster, a Model 67 on my 'Sam Brown' belt and a 1911A1 in the middle of my back. Had to carry the cities Model 67, so I did. But, I wasn't working the nicest districts and could carry anything that I liked as a second/backup weapon. Just needed to qualify with them. :D
First I want to thank you for your service.

There is no way I would have entered a dwelling on a drug raid with a handgun. I would have had a shotgun or whatever long gun the department issued. There is no way an officer should be put into a position were he/she is likely to be outgunned. Criminals like their guns. In that situation it would be to easy for an officer to end up facing an AK or sawed off shotgun with a handgun.
 
Posted by Deer_Freak: Given that the 357 mag stops attackers 97% of the time with the first shot it is my choice of weapons. The 9mm stops attackers less than 60% of the time with the first shot.
FBI studies tell us that a wound channel of the same diameter that hits in the same place at the same angle and penetrates in the same way will have the same effect whether it is made by a 9x19, 9x23, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, or .38 Super.

With appropriate loads all of them are effective--and frankly, equally effective, with one exception. A single shot by any one of them that does not damage a critical part of the body would effect a stop only through psychological means. A single shot by any one of them that destroys the central nervous system will likely stop the attack rather quickly.

It is important to not confuse the boom and blast at the muzzle with wounding effectiveness.

The exception has to do with the possibility that the bullet may have to penetrate plate glass, an auto body, or body armor. The .357 and .38 Super do have an edge in that regard.

This should shed some light on the subject.
 
Finally, on stopping power. 357 Mag is one of the better ones, but it's not as good as you say.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power

For personal protection, the full power .357 Magnum is the most effective of all handgun calibers. According to the police shooting results research conducted by Marshall and Sanow and published in their seminal book Handgun Stopping Power, the various 125 grain JHP Magnum loads from the major manufacturers achieved "one shot stop" percentages of about 93%-97%. It just doesn't get any get any better than this. These loads drive a 125 grain bullet at a MV around 1450 fps and ME of 583 ft. lbs.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/most_versatile_handgun.htm

If you lump in ineffective loads and the 357 sig you get different results. The 357 sig isn't much more than a glorified 40 cal. Hunting and target loads aren't man stoppers. Virtually all self defense articles and books I have read recommend a 125 gr hollow point for the 357 in self defense situations.
 
If the bad guy is moving and you are moving, why are you shooting?

If the bad guy is moving, why not wait until he stops to take a shot? If he's moving away, you may not need to. And while he is moving is a great time for YOU to move.

Cops have different requirements. Your job in a self defense scenario is to get you & your family away without injury or death, if possible.

A lot of the problem of folks missing is because they think their gun is a shield. They think the sooner they fire and the more they fire, the less likely they are to be hit. But you can shoot a guy in the heart with a 44 mag, and he still has the capability to shoot back for 10-30 seconds. So if it takes you an extra second to take a good shot...take the extra second. Yes, you may be hit - but that is probably true anyways. Take a decent shot, then move. Shoot again if needed. Make sure your family knows that if you start shooting, they start running away.

I plan on shooting single action, because I shoot better that way. I also plan on running if the opportunity arises. The one time I've pulled a gun, it was a 22 revolver. My plan was to shoot the closest guy in the face. Having already fired 10,000 rounds thru it, I'm sure I would have hit. In any case, the other guys - 8 of them - didn't feel like finding out. Left the area without a shot. One data point. Take it FWIW.
 
If the bad guy is moving and you are moving, why are you shooting?
Have you spent much time watching videos of actual gunfights? You are both most certainly likely to be moving AND firing -- pretty much regardless of what you might have practice to the contrary. The best way to keep him from getting a good shot at you is to shoot HIM. As one trainer I knew said, "hide behind the wall of bullets."

If the bad guy is moving, why not wait until he stops to take a shot?
'Cause he might just stop the moment AFTER he shoots ME. Shooting while moving is a VITAL defensive skill.

If he's moving away, you may not need to.
Certainly true!

And while he is moving is a great time for YOU to move.
Always! "Get off the 'X.'"

A lot of the problem of folks missing is because they think their gun is a shield. They think the sooner they fire and the more they fire, the less likely they are to be hit.
Actually, that is true. No one reacts well to being shot. It doesn't do good things for a bad guy's aim, concentration or determination.

A halfway decent shot made in half a second is a WHOLE lot better than a PERFECT shot made 2 or 3 seconds later. He who hits first often wins. He who doesn't shoot, can't hit. He who waits for perfection (if he has the superhuman fortitude to do so) probably won't get the chance.

But you can shoot a guy in the heart with a 44 mag, and he still has the capability to shoot back for 10-30 seconds.
Um, well no. There are more effective fight-enders than a heart shot, but getting hit in the heart with a .44 Mag isn't something you're going to fight through. If nothing else, there are a lot of other REALLY important bits around and behind the heart that a .44 is going to damage. The same really holds true for a .45, 9mm, .40S&W...

And none of us are training for ONE shot anyway. A decent pistol shooter can put 4-5 aimed shots into the center of a threat in one second. Multiple hits vastly decrease the bad guy's ability to fight on. Hit early, hit often!

So if it takes you an extra second to take a good shot...take the extra second. Yes, you may be hit - but that is probably true anyways.
I have to disagree. Again, a "decent" hit fast is a whole lot better than a "perfect" hit slow. You're playing a game of fractions of a second and the first to catch a bullet is very probably going to get the short end of the stick.

Take a decent shot, then move.
No, no! Move AND shoot. You can do both at the same time. You really NEED to.
 
The difference between a wild shot and a good shot is maybe a half second not 2 or 3 seconds. In 2 or 3 seconds most proficient shooters can shoot a button off the attackers shirt. You just need to hit a 8 inch area where the vitals are located. By the way, a drug crazed or very determined attacker will carry on the fight until he drops dead. I sure would like to know were all these places that are better to hit someone that are better than the heart. I know a brain shot is better but where are all these other places?
 
I haven't seen any videos of gunfights where folks were running around - not SELF DEFENSE gunfights. Self defense is not the same as cops shooting it out.

But according to the FBI, you can shoot someone in the heart and they still can shoot back, and sometimes have. A shot to the heart doesn't empty the brain of blood & oxygen, so the person can still shoot back, if determined.

Can highly trained shooters shoot rapidly and hit? Yes. Can most shooters? Judging from police shootings, the answer is no. Too many cops have fired a half dozen rounds from a few feet away and missed the guy entirely.

If you can shoot and hit accurately in 0.2 seconds, great. Very few of us will practice enough to do that. Shots that miss, or hit thighs or guts, MAY stop the other guy because there are guys who will stop just at the sound of someone shooting back. But to be certain of stopping, even within a minute, you need to hit something vital. For most of us, that means taking a little extra time to settle and fire - an extra half second or so. If you, or I, get shot in the brain in that half second...guess God decided to take us home then.

But there isn't one out of 20 CCW carriers that I'd trust to shoot very quickly and hit anything. And hitting what you need to hit is more important than getting off a fast shot.

This is self defense we're talking about, not clearing a room a la the US Army or USMC. By definition, when you pull a gun, you are already in deep doo-doo. If you aren't, you aren't justified in pulling the gun out. So yes, you may be shot too. Deal with it. If you survive, hope you have better SA than to get in that hole to begin with.

Nor does everyone need to plan on panicking. Lots of folks don't. I've been shot at in combat. Mostly, I felt annoyed. Doesn't mean I wouldn't panic tomorrow...we don't ever know the future. But all this stuff about how you'll be near blind with panic is bull pucky. The one time I pulled a gun in self-defense, I was really annoyed. I've met others with the same reaction.

The mentality of shooting as quickly as possible is why so many shootings end up spraying bullets all over without effect. If the other guy is running, run in the opposite direction. Or wait until he stops, then shoot. Tell your family that if you start shooting, they start running. At least they will get away.
 
Deer Freak, I'm not saying a heart shot is bad. But no, a heart shot doesn't guarantee he won't shoot back for another 10-30 seconds. Unless you DO shoot him in the head, NO SHOT will be certain of stopping him immediately. Might as well accept it. You gun isn't a shield. It won't stop you from being shot.
 
"Quote:
Originally Posted by oldpapps View Post
"Deltaboy I carry 5 shot Charter Undercover and I Don' t feel under gunned."

I new a Detective Sgt who after returning from a drug raid came to me. He said to me that the S&W Chief he was carrying, just wouldn't do. At that raid, there were more people arrested in one room than he was carrying ammunition. He ended up getting a Browning HiPower (not my choice).

In some places, 5 rounds just isn't going to cut it.

At that time I was carrying a Model 60 in an ankle holster, a Model 67 on my 'Sam Brown' belt and a 1911A1 in the middle of my back. Had to carry the cities Model 67, so I did. But, I wasn't working the nicest districts and could carry anything that I liked as a second/backup weapon. Just needed to qualify with them.
First I want to thank you for your service.

There is no way I would have entered a dwelling on a drug raid with a handgun. I would have had a shotgun or whatever long gun the department issued. There is no way an officer should be put into a position were he/she is likely to be outgunned. Criminals like their guns. In that situation it would be to easy for an officer to end up facing an AK or sawed off shotgun with a handgun."


You are welcome.
The drug raid was the normal inter-agency process that we had a lot of back then. And Bill was only showing a presences as the street cops and first level dicks did all of the real work. The city, at that time, had a rack of Winchester model 92s in 32-20 and all shotguns were Rem 870s and assigned to patrol cars. It wasn't too long before we got a new chief.... he made changes and got rid of the old rifles. No he did not replace them. I think if he had his way he would have gotten rid of the issue revolvers. (I had him do practical night firing one moonless night, he put a crease in the hood of his car :eek: That was covered up.)

In my FBI Firearms Instructor training, one of the training processes was to take a person that had never fired a weapon and get them firearms qualified to meet the requirements for a 'Private Guard' licensee. I ended up with a novice, clean record, stupid.... His brother was under indictment for a shooting of a boy who was taking out trash at a restaurant and caught him/them breaking into cars. My opinion is these low life creeps just don't have the commitment to learn how to do much.
 
The difference between a wild shot and a good shot is maybe a half second not 2 or 3 seconds.
That of course depends on your definition of "good" and "wild." But I agree that taking a fraction of a second longer to make sure your front sight is on the bad guy's COM is the best thing to do.

However, having seen what even trained shooters do in force-on-force scenario stuff (when both shooters know it isn't even real!) taking one deliberate shot just doesn't happen. There is a LOT of movement, often in directions and ways the participants didn't plan for or even realize they were doing.

By the way, a drug crazed or very determined attacker will carry on the fight until he drops dead.
That's a VERY broad, blanket statement. There certainly have been instances of attackers continuing to fight with a bullet hole in their heart. That's VERY rare. We should prepare for such eventualities, but do so the same way we prepare for all other attacks -- make as many hits as we can, as fast as possible.

I sure would like to know were all these places that are better to hit someone that are better than the heart. I know a brain shot is better but where are all these other places?
The upper thoracic triangle is usually said to be "best." (The triangle between the nipples and throat. Read here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=558988) Any CNS hit will do the job faster than a heart shot, per se, but if you hit the heart, the spine is likely to be impacted as well. Win-win!
 
I haven't seen any videos of gunfights where folks were running around - not SELF DEFENSE gunfights.
And yet, that's what happens. Shooters tend to empty their gun without realizing it (you WON'T count shots) and move instinctively and erratically trying to avoid being shot. Even when pressing an attack.

But according to the FBI, you can shoot someone in the heart and they still can shoot back, and sometimes have. A shot to the heart doesn't empty the brain of blood & oxygen, so the person can still shoot back, if determined.
Right. Read the link I posted.

Can highly trained shooters shoot rapidly and hit? Yes. Can most shooters? Judging from police shootings, the answer is no. Too many cops have fired a half dozen rounds from a few feet away and missed the guy entirely.
You HAVE to learn to shoot rapidly and hit. Because you're GOING to be shooting rapidly. There's very little you can do to prevent that reaction, aside from leaving the gun home! :)

If you can shoot and hit accurately in 0.2 seconds, great. Very few of us will practice enough to do that.
That's really nothing magical. Even a fairly average shooter should be able to make those hits in 0.3-0.4 sec, which will seem like a lifetime.

Shots that miss, or hit thighs or guts, MAY stop the other guy because there are guys who will stop just at the sound of someone shooting back.
Now you just lumped being shot in the gut or thigh with a MISS. That's hardly realistic. Yes, there are the whacked-out high attackers we all use as out basic worst-case model, but for MOST people under MOST conditions, getting shot in any part of the body is a very traumatic experience, and likely to both diminish the will to continue an attack, and make their ability to focus and perform a good shot at you greatly reduced. I don't in any way advocate gut or thigh shots. But the first person to get shot SOMEWHERE is at a grave disadvantage. It is VERY important to get that first hit.

But to be certain of stopping, even within a minute, you need to hit something vital. For most of us, that means taking a little extra time to settle and fire - an extra half second or so. If you, or I, get shot in the brain in that half second...guess God decided to take us home then.
There is really no "certain of stopping" in a gunfight. Shoot as many times as you can as fast as you can make hits. If that means you "zipper" up from the thigh across the chest -- so be it. Even if the drug freak you're facing is one of those precious few who will keep fighting with a hole in his heart, he is far less likely to keep fighting with three or a half-dozen holes through his torso, and you can do that in a second or two.

But there isn't one out of 20 CCW carriers that I'd trust to shoot very quickly and hit anything.
Sheesh, that's pretty bad, but I don't train to and I don't advocate being one of those. That's a poor model for success.

And hitting what you need to hit is more important than getting off a fast shot.
Yes, but there's no either-or here. Hit what you're aiming at and do it as quickly as possible. And do it again and again and again until the threat stops. (You'll find this to be a natural, and probably irresistible, response anyway.)

This is self defense we're talking about, not clearing a room a la the US Army or USMC.
Don't draw distinctions that are fallacious. A gunfight is a gunfight. You train to do the most effective thing whether you're the USMC or a practitioner of defensive shooting.

By definition, when you pull a gun, you are already in deep doo-doo. If you aren't, you aren't justified in pulling the gun out. So yes, you may be shot too. Deal with it. If you survive, hope you have better SA than to get in that hole to begin with.
Uh...what? Does this support or detract from one of our arguments?

Nor does everyone need to plan on panicking. Lots of folks don't. I've been shot at in combat. Mostly, I felt annoyed. Doesn't mean I wouldn't panic tomorrow...we don't ever know the future. But all this stuff about how you'll be near blind with panic is bull pucky. The one time I pulled a gun in self-defense, I was really annoyed. I've met others with the same reaction.
Who's talking about panicking? Panic and rapid decisive action are two different things.

The mentality of shooting as quickly as possible is why so many shootings end up spraying bullets all over without effect.
Actually, that's just reality. People shoot and shoot quickly and often. High stress and danger degrade accuracy by ~75%. The less trained and accurate you are (and yes, there are lots of cops and even average citizens who fall into that category -- which is not something to strive for!) the more likely you are to miss than hit.

If the other guy is running, run in the opposite direction.
Absolutely! Unless he's running AT you...

Or wait until he stops, then shoot.
Wait until he stops? Stops where? Over your corpse? 25 yds off? I'm having trouble visualizing this. ... And then shoot him? That's not very good tactics and sounds like an unjustified shooting in the making.
 
Last edited:
Might as well accept it. You gun isn't a shield. It won't stop you from being shot.
Certainly so, however (absent secure hard cover that he can't flank...) shooting the other guy IS the best way to keep from being shot yourself.
 
Posted by Deer_Freak: According to the police shooting results research conducted by Marshall and Sanow and published in their seminal book Handgun Stopping Power, the various 125 grain JHP Magnum loads from the major manufacturers achieved "one shot stop" percentages of about 93%-97%. It just doesn't get any get any better than this.
Those works have been discussed here at great length in the past; use the search function. The conclusions are much worse than suspect.

If you want to understand why yourself, reflect Pages 13 through 15 ("THE ALLURE OF SHOOTING INCIDENT ANALYSES") from the link to the FBI study that I provided earlier. It should be quite convincing to the most casual reader, even without any substantiating data at all.

The difference between a wild shot and a good shot is maybe a half second not 2 or 3 seconds.
A half second may prove sufficient in some encounters, but I wouldn't count on it.

In 2 or 3 seconds most proficient shooters can shoot a button off the attackers shirt.
You are confusing the defensive use of force with target shooting, and apparently assuming that the "attacker" is for some reason standing still.

You just need to hit a 8 inch area where the vitals are located.
You may choose to labor under that misconception if you so desire, but do not pass it on for others.

Read the conclusion from the work cited:

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. ...

Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds....

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding.

It would then be useful to consult Gray's Anatomy and see if you can find any "eight inch area where the vitals are located." Look for major blood vessels, the brain stem, tendons or body structure or nerves critical to continuing the attack, whatever. You won't find one.

Physiological topping effectiveness will depend upon what you hit, and when deadly force is immediately necessary, that will be largely a matter of chance. You can improve that chance considerably by firing more shots.
 
Force on force scenarios are very different from self-defense scenarios. Force on force is something the military does, or cops may need to do. My only experience in something like that was a couple of days of training at an Army MOUT site. Happily, I've never had to do that for real.

My son-in-law did a lot of it for real during 2 tours with the Marines in Iraq. Someone asked him what he would do if he was about to enter a really bad part of town. He replied, "Turn around!" That isn't an option for everyone. If someone's work requires them to go into very dangerous parts of town or to actually do real-life force on force stuff, that is a whole different ball game from what I'm discussing.

"As one trainer I knew said, "hide behind the wall of bullets."​

For force on force situations, that is fine. But anyone who mentions after a self-defense shooting that they were trained to do that is going to be in a heap of trouble. I suspect someone who empties a 17 round magazine, and still has 2 more loaded magazines on him when the cops arrive, is going to have some explaining to do. If you are carrying over 50 rounds of ammo in your daily life, you appear to be someone who is looking for trouble. If you serve warrants for work, folks will understand. But if your work doesn't require doing dangerous things, then most will not.

People need to decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to take, and how to deal with it. But people also need to remember that self defense is very different from clearing a house, and that your tactics and weapons may need to be adjusted as a result.

"shooting the other guy IS the best way to keep from being shot yourself"

True. It may be part of my thought is based on my imperfections as a shooter. I shoot around 1500 rounds a year. That is more than some, but far less than others. Since I'm not likely to start shooting 10,000+ rounds a year, I've adjusted my plan to accept some of my limitations.

"Don't draw distinctions that are fallacious. A gunfight is a gunfight. You train to do the most effective thing whether you're the USMC or a practitioner of defensive shooting."​

I obviously completely disagree. If I'm going to clear a house, I won't be taking a handgun to do it. My son-in-law had a machine gun. And in combat, collateral damage is accepted under the laws of war. If you think there is no difference between being a Marine infantryman in combat and a civilian walking in a mall, you are grossly out of touch with reality.
 
Last edited:
Force on force scenarios are very different from self-defense scenarios. Force on force is something the military does, or cops may need to do. My only experience in something like that was a couple of days of training at an Army MOUT site. Happily, I've never had to do that for real.

I learned more about self-defense fighting in 30 seconds of force on force in SouthNarc's ECQC course than I did in several two day handgun courses. Those courses prepared me to do the FoF more successfully, but you learn your body in those few seconds. You may THINK you can draw quickly, and the timer may show it, but your gun will feel glued in that holster when a guy charges you, pins your arm to your side, and knocks you down. Believe me when I say I learned even more while in the air and on the ground fighting over that training gun.
 
Force on force scenarios are very different from self-defense scenarios.
I'm talking about SELF-DEFENSE force-on-force. Not military exercises. FOF is an important part of defensive training and practice. It helps disabuse folks of fanciful notions about how a gunfight will look and feel, and how they'll have time to draw and place well-aimed shots when the attacker stops and presents a good target. :rolleyes:
 
"Actually, that's just reality. People shoot and shoot quickly and often. High stress and danger degrade accuracy by ~75%. The less trained and accurate you are (and yes, there are lots of cops and even average citizens who fall into that category -- which is not something to strive for!) the more likely you are to miss than hit."

I call that panic. Sorry, but there are many accounts of grandmothers who remain steady and calm while shooting in self defense. If you plan on panicking, you are more likely to panic. Darn it, grow a pair and take good shots. If a grandmother can do it, why can't you?

"Absolutely! Unless he's running AT you..."

If he is running at you, the target is getting bigger. Be thankful he wants to give you an easier shot.

"Wait until he stops? Stops where? Over your corpse? 25 yds off? I'm having trouble visualizing this. ... And then shoot him? That's not very good tactics and sounds like an unjustified shooting in the making."

As I said, if he is running AT you, he is becoming a better target. George Adamson was asked how to shoot a charging lion. He replied, "Wait until 10 yards. Don't miss."

But if he is running sideways, then most shooters have two viable choices: wait until he stops, then shoot before he does (and most guys who have just run will need a second to get off a decent shot while you are just waiting to take one), or run a different direction. If your family started running when you started shooting, then in most cases, option 2 is better. You are not a cop. You don't HAVE to take the guy. You just need to get away, hopefully in one piece. And if you managed along the way to put a round in COM, the guy will be easy for the cops to find.
 
"I'm talking about SELF-DEFENSE force-on-force."

There are almost no cases of self-defense force on force. Please describe a scenario of self defense combined with multiple shooters on both sides fighting it out.
 
Posted by bsms: I haven't seen any videos of gunfights where folks were running around - not SELF DEFENSE gunfights.
What videos you may or may not have seen means nothing.

Consider an encounter in which a violent criminal actor with an edged weapon decides to surprise and overpower you at your car. Might you not reasonably expect him to be running?

Can highly trained shooters shoot rapidly and hit? Yes. Can most shooters?
If they have participated in any relevant defensive pistol shooting training, they have been shown how. Whether they would be able to do so under stress remains to be seen, but their survival might very well depend on it.

If you can shoot and hit accurately in 0.2 seconds, great. Very few of us will practice enough to do that.
Training to shoot five controlled rounds in about a second is highly advised.

But there isn't one out of 20 CCW carriers that I'd trust to shoot very quickly and hit anything.
I have no comment on that.

And hitting what you need to hit is more important than getting off a fast shot.
Hitting what you need to hit timely is vitally essential if you need to shoot at all.

The mentality of shooting as quickly as possible is why so many shootings end up spraying bullets all over without effect.
The objective is to learn how to shoot as quickly as necessary.

If the other guy is running, run in the opposite direction.

Retreat, if retreat is safely possible, is always a good idea.

Or wait until he stops, then shoot.
Why would he stop?

I strongly suggest that you avail yourself of some training in which a rapidly charging target is used. See how quickly you must recognize that an imminent threat is in fact presented; how fast you must draw; how quickly you must fire to get three or four hits; and how it might well be necessary to move to the side and perhaps strike the attacker while it is all going on.
 
If you think there is no difference between being a Marine infantryman in combat and a civilian walking in a mall, you are grossly out of touch with reality.
YOU'RE the one bringing clearing urban areas with a machine gun into the discussion! I'm saying that you should fire as many shots as you're able, as accurately as you can manage, until the threat stops. That's all. It might indeed only take one or two. Or it might take a mag-full. (Whether you've got 50 or 7 on your person really doesn't enter into it.)

"Hide behind the wall of bullets" simply means you can create "virtual cover" by shooting the guy quickly and frequently as you move. Moving is very important -- it helps you create space and be harder to hit. Shooting while moving is even more important -- it helps dissuade your attacker from pursuing you, or shooting you while you move, and hopefully ends the threat sooner.
 
Posted by bsms: There are almost no cases of self-defense force on force.
Oh, come now. If the other guy is not threatening you with deadly force, it is not self defense.

Please describe a scenario of self defense combined with multiple shooters on both sides fighting it out.
Forget the idea of "fighting it out". The mission is to stop the attackers.

Two or more attackers are not at all uncommon, and if they are not armed or do not present a clear disparity of force, what is it that provides you with justification?
 
There are almost no cases of self-defense force on force. Please describe a scenario of self defense combined with multiple shooters on both sides fighting it out.
WHAT? Are you misunderstanding this term? Force-on-force training is simply putting Simunitions guns (or airsoft) in the hands of a role-playing "attacker" (or two, or three) and a "defender," and letting them work though a violent encounter to be exposed to and learn the dynamics of lethal force events. And it teaches both the participants and observers what things are vital to practice and what things are largely irrelevant or erroneous beliefs.

It is a vital part of many defensive trainers' programs. Craig Douglas ("SouthNarc") is probably now the best known for this style of training but many use it.
 
Force on force training doesn't describe one on one. Maybe your definition differs.

If I'm walking out to my car at night and there is some guy hanging around near my car, I'll move in a different direction, at least long enough to get my hand on my gun. I don't live in a big city with crowded parking. If a guy starts sprinting toward me with a knife, my decision to pull the gun and shoot or turn and run will depend on the situation. Like most CCW holders, getting a gun out when caught flat footed and getting a shot off within a second isn't going to happen.

And even if I could pull my gun from concealment and get a shot off in under a second, it won't prevent him from stabbing me. Therefor, in MANY cases, running is the best option. Or forgetting the gun, and going for a gunless fight to control the knife so I won't get stabbed, or stabbed as bad.

A GUN IS NOT A SHIELD. It doesn't prevent the other guy from doing anything during the next 5 seconds - not unless you shoot him in the brain.

Two or more bad guys is not uncommon. Two or more bad guys who want to get shot IS uncommon. My one self defense encounter was with 8 guys, and I had a 6-shot 22. Not ideal, but I was out hiking. Back in the late 70s, most hikers didn't go armed at all. But when it was clear I was ready and willing to shoot the closest guy, they stopped.

They didn't have to. They could have shouted, 8-6=2, we can take you. They could have rushed me. The closest guy would have been shot in the face at close range. The rest would probably have killed me. I had just finished a long, hard hike and wasn't up to running away. But I wouldn't have died alone. As it turned out, no one wanted to be the one guy who died first, so I ended up driving away a couple of minutes later.

I'm NOT the one acting like I need to kill 8 attackers. If you are rushed by 8 guys, you won't have time to shoot more than 2-3, tops. I'm not the one who said that a gunfight is a gunfight. They are NOT all the same.

In the 35 years since I pulled a gun, I've managed to live without needing to pull one. I keep at least 1/3 tank of gas, so I won't have to stop ANYWHERE for gas. I keep a look around me. I don't go to high crime areas. I don't go out after 9PM on Friday or Saturday. On the rare times I do, I'm picky about where I go and what I carry and how I carry.

My most likely self-defense scenario is at home. I prefer a 44 mag rifle with 44 specials loaded. Backed up by a 686+ and a Ruger Vaquero. I don't think I'm likely to need more than 23 rounds of 44 & 357. But I've got them, if needed.

I find the idea of hiding behind a wall of lead both stupid and immoral. You are responsible for the rounds you shoot, unless you are a cop. Then you can probably shoot darn near anyone and get away with it. But someone who shoots 17 rounds and hits with 3 may have a lot of trouble caused by the other 14 shots. And if that person is found to have written that they will hide behind a wall of lead, then anyone injured by those 14 missing shots will have a GREAT case against him.

No one can be certain they will behave bravely in any future event. I've been shot at and not panicked, but I might wet myself with fear the next time. But I do not understand PLANNING to be a coward. When you carry a gun in public, you assume a duty to consider the public in your tactics.
 
Force on force training doesn't describe one on one. Maybe your definition differs.
Force-on-force is the commonly used term to describe ANY training where two or more participants are practicing using simulated force (fists, impact weapons, blades, guns) on each other. I understand a military context where it may describe pitting two armed FORCES against each other, but that's not what we're talking about here and that's not how the term is used in the defensive training world.

We can call it whatever you want if it help make the point. Simulations, scenarios, role-play actions, etc.

When this stuff is put into practice, in earnest, various educational points are discovered time and again. Such as, the need to shoot quickly, multiple times, and at whatever target you have in the moment.

Your points about situational awareness are spot-on, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, when one practices for drawing and employing a deadly weapon, one is practicing what happens when your situational awareness has failed or been defeated.

If S.A. was the whole game, NONE of us would ever need the guns we carry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top