Gun heresies I need to unload ...

Food air and water I'll agree with. People went without clothes for a few thousand years though. Wether or not They are needed Is a societal issue. In fact, Most of my best times were without. Just like +p ammo. If you shot an attacker with standard ammo and their thick clothing slowed the bullet to the point of not incapacitating, you may well have needed +p.

I don't use it myself though. I'll carry more gun before I'll beat up mine with higher pressures.

Many silly conclusions that don’t make any sense, because they are based on false premises.

+P ammo may or may not be better than standard, but it isn’t the extra powder that makes the difference in price. It is the technically superior bullet if so equipped. And you don't shoot very many of them, so the added cost is de minimis.

A .45 ACP cartridge doesn’t weigh twice what a 9mm weighs. More like a little over 1.5 times. You have to compare the lightest common examples of each and the heaviest of each. You can‘t compare the lightest 9mm to the heaviest .45 ACP. That is silly.

WVGunman said:

I could not agree more. It is one of the greatest things that irritates me about being into guns, in fact. So much of what passes for knowledge is merely b.s. repeated ad infinitum.

Click to expand...

This is true in general. For example the media is a perfect example. Better to just stick to reliable individuals that you determine through trial and error--thus the media may be untrustworthy but specific reporters may not be. This avoids the ecological fallacy of what is true at one level of analysis is true at the macro level. Same thing works for internet posters, websites, etc.

Michael Crichton, famous author and Harvard MD btw, coined the Gell-Mann Amnesia Hypothesis (Murray Gell-Mann was a famous physicist btw).

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

boom boom said:

For example the media is a perfect example. Better to just stick to reliable individuals that you determine through trial and error--thus the media may be untrustworthy but specific reporters may not be.

Click to expand...

Overall an excellent point - one other thing to remember. Competency in one area does not equal competency overall. A reporter who proves themselves reliable on, say, firearm issues might not be at all reliable on, say, political issues.

These days I try to look for "trade" publications for news if I really care about the issue. Thanks to the internet such things are much more broadly available.

boom boom said:

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

Click to expand...

I had that experience at a young age. I was fascinated by military aviation as a kid (I grew up in the landing pattern of a combined naval air station and air national guard base, plus a big aerospace factory). When I was about 13 years old, an A-7 attack jet crashed into an apartment complex. While the reporters were mostly focused on the tragic loss of 2 lives, I was very distracted and bothered by the numerous fundamental technical errors the journalists made. It didn't take me long to come to the same realization that Crichton describes - to people who know the subject, general journalists are always making comical errors.

The press of the 1980's and 1990's and 2000's caught a lot of flack for this, and for their inadvertent biases. The hope of the critics was that the journalistic community would redouble their efforts and make fewer such errors. Unfortunately, we now see that the response from the (remaining) press has mostly been to conclude, "can't win, don't bother trying. Fly your bias flag high, and make any error without concern as long as it supports the narrative."

boom boom said:

This is true in general. For example the media is a perfect example. Better to just stick to reliable individuals that you determine through trial and error--thus the media may be untrustworthy but specific reporters may not be. This avoids the ecological fallacy of what is true at one level of analysis is true at the macro level. Same thing works for internet posters, websites, etc.

Michael Crichton, famous author and Harvard MD btw, coined the Gell-Mann Amnesia Hypothesis (Murray Gell-Mann was a famous physicist btw).

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

Click to expand...

We here in Texas area seeing that now with the antics between our speaker of the house and a certain pro-gun activist.

"Given that a .45 ACP cartridge weighs literally twice what a typical 9mm round weighs and is much bigger, cutting your ammo capacity in order to carry a .45 makes no sense. The same logic applies here that led the U.S. military to get rid of 7.62 caliber for 5.56: Two smaller/lighter bullets are ultimately more effective than a single big one."

Yes, but that assumes you actually GET two hits. My experience is that performance degrades by about 90% in combat.

It also assumes that the man with the .45 for some reason CANNOT fire a second shot -- but given equal skill, he's just as likely to get two hits as the man with the 9mm.

WVGunman said:

The point is not getting two hits, it's that you double your chances of getting a hit. According to this table here, 21.5 Kg of 7.62 is only 280 rounds, while the same weight of 5.56 is 600 rounds If your chances of getting a hit are 10% (after degrading 90%) a soldier firing 600 rounds of 5.56 will have landed 60 hits, 100%+ more hits than a soldier carrying 280 rounds of 7.62. Pretty big difference in hit probability. And that's not even considering that a smaller, lighter round is inherently easier to shoot accurately because of lower recoil. "Equal skill" is NEVER a given.
All of the above also applies to the 9mm versus .45 debate. If I had to choose between a Browning Hi-Power with 13 rounds and a Colt 1911A1 with 7, it's a no brainer: the Browning.

Click to expand...

Interesting thesis and well described. You are assuming the limitation on ammo by weight or perhaps even volume, which is very similar. Perhaps that is true for munitions on an airplane say or a ship. But who of us can carry on a regular basis 30 9mm rounds but not 30 .45 ACPs. The .45 is less comfortable, sure, but we can do it. And of course there would be more mag changes. But so what? And in CCW situations, the difference is more like 1 or 2 rounds, not nearly 100%. So you might have a 7 round 9mm mag or a 6 round .45 ACP mag. Make no mistake, I actually agree with you about 9mm being preferable, but I don't think your thesis holds up as stated. Besides I'm not going to carry any 4.25 to 5" barrel gun to make your Hi Power/Colt comparison realistic.

My normal load out is 25 rounds of .45 ACP with a LW Commander.

When I work the Sig P365 into the rotation I'll be carrying 37 rounds of 9mm.

I have a .45 for my truck gun. I carry a 9mm. My HD is an 870. For these pistols, I prefer BJHP's, not necessarily +P. Something I do differently in my 870 is that the first two rounds are rubber slugs. Maybe overthinking this but, my wife's niece lived with us for several years with her baby. We we're not to sure about her (the baby's) dad, as to what he might attempt. My thought was if he broke in and grabbed my niece, I could shoot a rubber slug to her thigh, making her drop, and hit him with the second one, (not wanting to explain to the baby later on why I had killed her dad), stunning him and allowing me to get close enough to break his jaw with the butt stock. Fortunately, I never had to test this out.

I would think a rubber slug would be lethal at close range. ????

oops, here we go again.."My gun is better than yours" "S&W is inferior to Ruger" Same age old arguments. Have fun...

drband said:

I would think a rubber slug would be lethal at close range. ????

Click to expand...

They are called "less lethal" for a reason.

Old Dog said:

Not any more. The military will, since the adoption of the M-17/M-18, be using JHP ammunition, at least for its pistols.
https://loadoutroom.com/16493/u-s-army-adopts-hollow-point-ammo/

Click to expand...

The M17/M18 pistols came with two ammunition types, XM1152, Ball, a 115 gr FMC truncated cone bullet and the XM1153, Special Purpose Cartridge, a 147 gr HP.

At present, the XM1153 (the HP) is only issued to LE and SF operators, as the name indicates. Hollow points have been authorized for some time for use by law enforcement and security personnel. We'll see if the XM1153 get the go-ahead for general issue.

WVGunman said:

The point is not getting two hits, it's that you double your chances of getting a hit. According to this table here, 21.5 Kg of 7.62 is only 280 rounds, while the same weight of 5.56 is 600 rounds If your chances of getting a hit are 10% (after degrading 90%) a soldier firing 600 rounds of 5.56 will have landed 60 hits, 100%+ more hits than a soldier carrying 280 rounds of 7.62. Pretty big difference in hit probability. And that's not even considering that a smaller, lighter round is inherently easier to shoot accurately because of lower recoil. "Equal skill" is NEVER a given.
All of the above also applies to the 9mm versus .45 debate. If I had to choose between a Browning Hi-Power with 13 rounds and a Colt 1911A1 with 7, it's a no brainer: the Browning.

Click to expand...

However, in my experience in combat,. people getting shot at will get BEHIND things -- so penetration counts. Hitting the log or sandbag in front of your opponent only counts if the bullet goes all the way through. That's why I carried an M1 on my first tour in Viet Nam as an adviser to ARVN Infantry, and an M14 sniper rifle on my second tour.

Now, especially with handguns, I agree that getting a hit is paramount. Once you get the hit, it has to do the job -- you're not guaranteed another. That's why if I had to choose between a gun holding a dozen .22 shorts and a Colt New Service .45 with six rounds, I'd go with the latter.

Vern Humphrey said:

However, in my experience in combat,. people getting shot at will get BEHIND things -- so penetration counts. Hitting the log or sandbag in front of your opponent only counts if the bullet goes all the way through. That's why I carried an M1 on my first tour in Viet Nam as an adviser to ARVN Infantry, and an M14 sniper rifle on my second tour.

Now, especially with handguns, I agree that getting a hit is paramount. Once you get the hit, it has to do the job -- you're not guaranteed another. That's why if I had to choose between a gun holding a dozen .22 shorts and a Colt New Service .45 with six rounds, I'd go with the latter.

Click to expand...

Duh!

And now … a thread that's truly all over the map …

mcmurry said:

I have a .45 for my truck gun. I carry a 9mm. My HD is an 870. For these pistols, I prefer BJHP's, not necessarily +P. Something I do differently in my 870 is that the first two rounds are rubber slugs. Maybe overthinking this but, my wife's niece lived with us for several years with her baby. We we're not to sure about her (the baby's) dad, as to what he might attempt. My thought was if he broke in and grabbed my niece, I could shoot a rubber slug to her thigh, making her drop, and hit him with the second one, (not wanting to explain to the baby later on why I had killed her dad), stunning him and allowing me to get close enough to break his jaw with the butt stock. Fortunately, I never had to test this out.

Click to expand...

. I can't believe I actually read that. I must lead a sheltered life

bobinoregon said:

I can't believe I actually read that. I must lead a sheltered life

Click to expand...

-Having a sister that put out a contract on me and my father because we were getting in the way of her musical career, I can sympathize with the poster... .

Well, don't leave us hanging … did she become successful?

I really like the stuff about the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.