10mm Question?

[alex4922]

For those who worry over ammo costs in 10mm and own or think about owning a Glock 20 I can honestly tell my story. I read online from a reputable and long posting authority that the Glock 20 will digest .40 SW without a hitch. Being the unstoppable experimenter I had to try. My 1st Gen model 20 had not a bit of trouble with factory .40 or my handloads. The huge extractor on the Glock grabs the extractor grove and holds the round to an acceptable headspace. When I aquired a Gen II it too had no problems with the .40. I got away from the Glocks for awhile because the grip angle was not natural for me but my love for the 10mm didn't go away. I bought a witness 10 in the wunder finish and still have it. It unfortunately does not like .40s so that means more time reloading.

Truly, as to "stopping power" a well trained and motivated warrior with any modern handgun can win the day against evil.

FWIW Alex

 

[Loosedhorse]

I had a friend however who was shot several times while making a SWAT entry into a crack house. He was shot by a teenager through the wall of a bed room. My friend returned fire back through the wall as he was laying on the floor.
I know you are going to say "well he was a swat cop..." All I'm saying is that you just don't ever know.

Your point is illustrative.

Correct: we don't expect the murderous to obey Rule 4. So, the fact that your (I will assume real) friend was shot at through a wall is hardly surprising.

Also correct: you just don't ever know. Like whether an innocent was right next to the shooter, or being used as a human shield. Too bad for them, I guess: acceptable losses.

I can't tell you or anyone whether to take a blind shot to try to stop in-coming fire; it is equivalent to "suppressive fire", shooting into an area without any defined target.

However, if I was doing suppressive fire, I'd prefer a crew-served, belt-fed gun--as well as the sure knowledge that anyone "between the stakes" was enemy.

Perhaps, you will open a thread like, "Rule 4 doesn't always apply" to discuss this topic; given the fresh perspective of someone like yourself who has just discovered the rule, it could be very educational. But in this thread, it seems further discussion of Rule 4 would be off-topic.

 

[hatt]

In the middle of a gunfight you aren't going to be strictly following rule 4. Perps usually aren't going to stand still while you ponder if anyone else could be possible be hurt with the shot.

 

[Loosedhorse]

In the middle of a gunfight you aren't going to be strictly following rule 4.

You are free to speculate on what YOU will do in a gunfight. What I plan on doing (if I can't avoid the gunfight) is exactly what I've trained to do (for just a few years now ), and that includes obeying Rule 4.

Again, gents, feel free to open another thread if this is a worthwhile topic, rather than hijack this one.

 

[pisc1024]

However, if I was doing suppressive fire, I'd prefer a crew-served, belt-fed gun--as well as the sure knowledge that anyone "between the stakes" was enemy.

Well in that situation I know for a fact that my friend, who is very real, would have preferred a tank! But just as you state you would like a crew-served, we don't always get what we want. In the end it's all about doing the best we can with the equipment we have on hand.

 

[pisc1024]

You are free to speculate on what YOU will do in a gunfight. What I plan on doing (if I can't avoid the gunfight) is exactly what I've trained to do (for just a few years now ), and that includes obeying Rule 4.

I guess for some it's all about speculation huh?

 

[Loosedhorse]

I guess for some it's all about speculation huh?

Sure--as long as you believe that the truism "In an emergency, you will do as you have trained" is just speculation?

If you're selling a better brand of speculation than that, let us know.

would have preferred a tank!

A tank's main gun, of course, would endanger not only any innocents in the room, but innocents anywhere down range--even through a house or two. Likely including fellow officers.

I will continue to assume that your friend is real, and add the assumption his desire for a tank is real. That desire does seem to emphasize his disregard for other's safety. I have noticed that in certain segments of the LE community, the phrase "protect and serve" has been replace by "whatever it takes to get me home"--and apparently that includes the reckless endangering of innocents, in the opinion of your friend.

Let's hope his attitude is not widespread.

But just as you state you would like a crew-served, we don't always get what we want.

No: it's about avoiding horrendous, dangerous "tactics." If you don't have what is required for suppressive fire---like an established free-fire zone clear of friendlies--maybe you shouldn't be doing suppressive fire.

Are you honestly so cowardly about your "Rule 4 doesn't matter" attitude that you are unwilling to open a thread on the topic in the general forum? Just hoping that no one beside me will visit a thread on 10mm to challenge you on your ridiculous and dangerous attitude? But I forget: you just found out what Rule 4 is...so that would make you an authority on its many exceptions!

Saints preserve us.

 

[pisc1024]

Sure--as long as you believe that the truism "In an emergency, you will do as you have trained" is just speculation?

If you're selling a better brand of speculation than that, let us know. A tank's main gun, of course, would endanger not only any innocents in the room, but innocents anywhere down range--even through a house or two. Likely including fellow officers.

I will continue to assume that your friend is real, and add the assumption his desire for a tank is real. That desire does seem to emphasize his disregard for other's safety. I have noticed that in certain segments of the LE community, the phrase "protect and serve" has been replace by "whatever it takes to get me home"--and apparently that includes the reckless endangering of innocents, in the opinion of your friend.

Let's hope his attitude is not widespread.No: it's about avoiding horrendous, dangerous "tactics." If you don't have what is required for suppressive fire---like an established free-fire zone clear of friendlies--maybe you shouldn't be doing suppressive fire.

Are you honestly so cowardly about your "Rule 4 doesn't matter" attitude that you are unwilling to open a thread on the topic in the general forum? Just hoping that no one beside me will visit a thread on 10mm to challenge you on your ridiculous and dangerous attitude? But I forget: you just found out what Rule 4 is...so that would make you an authority on its many exceptions!

Saints preserve us.

Wow, just wow dude... That last statement was a real gem. You obviously know a lot more about this stuff then I do so I'll defer to my intellectual superior. Your insight on that incident was eye opening to say the least.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I take it then you decline to try to defend your position on Rule 4. That's fine, and what I expected. Dude.

 

[hatt]

Where can you get the training that allows you to instantly and accurately calculate while under stress that you're not potentially violating rule 4 during a shooting?

Clearly you could never pull your gun on the street unless you could always insure the perp is between you and a stone wall. And then you'd have to make sure the angle was perfect to avoid a ricochet hitting a little girl on her bike down the road. Or in a store, more sheetrock, and who knows what on the other side.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Where can you get the training that allows you to instantly and accurately calculate while under stress that you're not potentially violating rule 4 during a shooting?

Where do you get the authority to say you shouldn't be concerned with Rule 4 in that situation?

"Potentially"? What's that? You're either sure of your target and your environment (what's beyond) or you're not.

Is ANYONE going to end the high-jack of this thread, and open a Rule 4 thread?

 

[Mainsail]

I like girls. I like them a lot.

 

[Art Eatman]

Gone way away from the OP...