Let's quantify "better than a sharp stick."

[Nushif]

Following these forums for a little bit now, I've found this trend when people bring up less than ideal tools for the job which usually is SD, when ti comes to this argument. This can range from PGO shotguns, over the usefulness of mouseguns up to differences in sights.

Now, the term "better than a rock" or "better than a sharp stick" often gets used here and as most of us should be aware of, there is a rather large spectrum in between fending off a person intent on killing you, robbing you, or merely wanting some easy prey to mess with.
Now enters the tool used for the job. And that's where it gets complicated.
(Ironically on a personal note, I find on this board (naturally) people are very centered on their guns. But even in the tactics section hand to hand fighting gets skipped an awful lot.)

Now, when it comes to these arguments, posters often make blanket statements without quantifying exactly how much better than a rock or sharp stick a self defense weapon is.
Specifially in the pistol section leaving the house without carrying anything short of a hi cap, at least .45, with six extra mags and two backups is considered suicide, or lack of preparedness.
My one encounter with the shotgun forum equated using a pistol gripped shotgun in a hallway the same as poking ye olde Bad Guy with quite literally a sharpened stick and nothing short of a fully stocked 12 gauge semiauto with an extended tube and a belt full of additional shells will ever work.

Now, I'm not asking for people to drop their opinions here, but I would like to see a bit more of a discussion of degrees os usefulness.

Care to chime in on this?

 

[Sam1911]

What?

Is this somehow related to the old gem of logic, "If a .22 isn't sufficient for defense why don't you let me shoot you with one?"

Seriously, I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for?

What is the BEST for some specific defensive scenario?
What is ok, if you can't have the BEST?
What is sufficient, if you're lucky?
What might work, sometimes?
Or maybe, what things are proven NOT to work?

I don't want to be a downer, but I'm not sure how this avoids being a caliber/platform war.

Help me (us) understand your question more clearly.

 

[hardworker]

It's not specific to guns. There are just plenty of people who believe more is always better. 45 does pack a stiff punch, but that doesn't mean a 9mm or a 38 doesn't. Go to a car forum and they'll always suggest the biggest crate motor that'll fit in your car and anything else is for little girls. Go to a guitar forum and those same people will say anything less than a 2000 dollar Fender or Les Paul with some super whiz bang pickups is inadequate and akin to playing a cigar box banjo. The world is full of people that own a $1500 guitar and can't do anything with it while there are plenty of people playing awesome music with a $200 Yamaha.

People do this because it's easier to blame shortcomings on hardware than software. Back in the day, most folk's didn't own more than one or two guns. A pistol and a rifle or shotgun. Often times it just a "lowly" 38 and a 22 rifle. Yet, they managed to put food on the table every day with it. Nowadays, a 22 is barely considered adequate for anything tougher than a beer can.

Of course, you can't blame it all on the people. There are more choices now than ever before. Stuff costs a lot less, so instead of learning to use what you have, you just buy something else and try that for a while.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

posters often make blanket statements without quantifying exactly how much better than a rock or sharp stick a self defense weapon is.

"Better than a sharp stick" a form of the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives.

Inherent in that fallacy is the proposition that you have only two alternatives, a sharp stick or whatever gun is being touted.

Now, since we are in a debate -- not an actual shootout -- we have the luxury of planning for the future. We're not stuck with either the sharp stick or the .22 short single-shot derringer (or whatever.) We have can examine many alternatives and pick the one that best suits our personal conditions -- in terms of affordability, perceived threat, concealability, power, and so on.

Instead of answering the "better than a sharp stick" argument, recognize it for what it is and ignore it. It doesn't deserve an answer.

 

[22-rimfire]

Usefulness is much in the eyes of the beholder. It is a judgement. 22 rimfire handguns and rifles for that matter are often cited as better than a sharp stick or rock. I also have made statements about shooting proficiency at close range being exaggerated as I can usually hit a man sized target at 5 yds (room distance) with a rock if I had to. Most anyone in my opinion who has shot much can hit a 15" area or the size of the chest area of an adult man or woman at 5 yds with a firearm.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Usefulness is in the reality of the situation, not in the eye of the beholder. A gun that doesn't get the job done when your life is on the line is a failure, despite any arguments beforehand.

In actual combat, discount your range proficiency by 90% or more. Most shots fired in gunfights miss, and those that hit are often marginal hits. Plan accordingly.

 

[Nushif]

Let me clarify.

I am looking for a breakdown if you will of this continuum of self defense effectiveness.
As an example I'll just provide some scenarios, I guess.

I am wanting to explore this "continuum" of self defense. Meaning that there are people out there who have defended themselves with things ranging from a pocket knife, over a improvised club, a .22 derringer, a no-reload .38 snubbie they never even fired, and of course the proverbial, six reload carrying .45 minimum caliber IDPA shooter.
This is a rather large spectrum or continuum of self defense viability.

What I would like to see a discussion on is at which point of this spectrum self defense is viable and doable and at which point it's ineffective, as well as where it's simply overkill.

Claiming, for instance that the dreaded .22 Derringer is an effective Grizzly bear hunting weapon is on the side of ineffectiveness.
However, claiming that one *needs* to be an IDPA shooter with six mags, two 1911 style guns, one on the ankle and one on the hip to effectively defend oneself from a pot-head asking for a bag of weed is a bit of an overstatement.

Somewhere in between all this, there lies this spot at which point self defense is viable given a situation and a platform.
Now, what I've seen sometimes (and luckily not entirely too often) is this rhetoric that one simply can *never* be prepared enough, that one *always* needs to pack more rounds and *always needs to strive for a bigger and better, (or faster and more penetrating, or whatever) caliber to even remotely have a chance, in case Mary sue throws sand in one's face at the sandbox with the intent to steal one's shovel.

My envisioned endstate of this thread would be a discussion about the difference between the extremes here.

Is that more clear?

 

[quatin]

"If a .22 isn't sufficient for defense why don't you let me shoot you with one?"

Both "better than a sharp stick" and the above quote are provocative phrases. They add no value to a conversation. The "let me shoot you with a .22" is the general response when someone makes the ".22 is better than a sharp stick" comment. A stupid response to a stupid argument.

 

[22-rimfire]

I believe that you will never really know how you will react in a self defense stress situation until you are "in it". One will freeze; one will calmly draw a weapon, aim and fire; another will draw their weapon but are unwilling to pull the trigger regardless of the consequences.... in essence unless you have been there, you never know and there are lots of variables in each situation that helps or hinders your ability to defend youself. Time is a critical factor. For me, I have no idea how I will react for sure regardless of what I might think or say.

Look at the Tucson AZ tragedy, I have not seen anyone say.... if there was someone with a gun, it could have stopped the shooting. I understand that there were in fact folks that were armed in the audience and it still happened.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What I would like to see a discussion on is at which point of this spectrum self defense is viable and doable and at which point it's ineffective, as well as where it's simply overkill.

Why?

In a defensive situation, you don't get to set the terms of engagement, the attacker does. So a reasonable man chooses a weapon that is adequate for any reasonable possibility and doesn't count on facing the minimum threat.

The "let me shoot you with a .22" is the general response when someone makes the ".22 is better than a sharp stick" comment. A stupid response to a stupid argument.

Agreed. Stupid indeed.

The proper response is, "you can shoot me with your .22 after you take a center hit from my .45 (or .357.)"

 

[Dain Bramage]

A Raven Arms MP-25 is equivalent to a fire-hardened stick carved by a boy scout. A Mossberg 500 is equivalent to a Roman Pilum (one of the heavy ones, not the lightened Nancy-boy version). Your homework is to graph all the other firearms along the continuum.

 

[Nushif]

So a reasonable man chooses a weapon that is adequate for any reasonable possibility and doesn't count on facing the minimum threat.

That's kind of my question here. What is considered a "reasonable" weapon then? The answer can vary from "any firearm to scare them" or "nothing short of a .500 with three extra cylinders and only headshots" depending on who you ask.

Where exactly is this "reasonable" spot on the force continuum one should prepare for?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
So a reasonable man chooses a weapon that is adequate for any reasonable possibility and doesn't count on facing the minimum threat.

That's kind of my question here. What is considered a "reasonable" weapon then? The answer can vary from "any firearm to scare them" or "nothing short of a .500 with three extra cylinders and only headshots" depending on who you ask.

Where exactly is this "reasonable" spot on the force continuum one should prepare for?

"Any firearm to scare them" is not a "reasonable weapon" because, while many an attacker has been scared off, you can't count on your attacker being scared.

A "reasonable weapon" is one you can count on when things don't go your way.

 

[Sam1911]

Ohkayeee.

I guess I've never thought strictly in those terms before, werein one gun is a little more effective than another so you should choose something in the middle that is going to take care of your average need.

I think instead of what can I shoot proficiently: accurately, and quickly? What is the most poweful/perceived effective round that I can shoot accurately, and quickly? What's the largest (in other words, "controllable and accurate") weapon I can carry without undue trouble?

What's the largest/most effective gun I WILL carry, thus having it with me in the moment of need?

I'd never tell anyone that a .XX mm is ENOUGH gun for defense. When their moment of need comes, that gun might not be "enough." But more likely, their skill might not be "enough" to stop their attacker.

So maybe my continum looks something like this:

Improvised weapon (pointy stick)
.
Improvised weapon (rock)
.
.22 anything / .25 ACP
.
.
.
.
.
Something as large and powerful as I can (and WILL) carry and shoot well
.
.
.500 S&W X-Frame with over 4" barrel
.
12 ga or carbine

You never have "enough" gun. But more importantly, the more you practice the more you discover that you never have "enough" skill.

Your skills are FAR more important than your equipment -- so long as they are not unduely hampered by that equipment.

 

[hammerklavier]

I cringe whenever I read a post of someone, as a first time firearm owner, choosing a .22 LR/.22wmr/.25 auto/.410/Judge/birdshot etc.

However, if they have experience with firearms, and seem informed, then they made a decision and I'm not going to fight with them over that decision.

I also cringe when I read posts from the other side, where they absolutely have to have a .308 and a Saiga-12 for home defense, a hi-cap .45 backed up by a 10mm for conceal carry, etc.

 

[Bubba613]

A Raven Arms MP-25 is equivalent to a fire-hardened stick carved by a boy scout.

And yet I know one case where a police officer wearing body armor died from one. His assailant, hit numerous times with a .40S&W scampered off and lived.

The truth is we over-think this business because we love guns. The "best" gun is the one you have with you when you need it. If it's a .22lr or .25acp, OK. Ronald Reagan famously stopped an attack with an unloaded .45LC single action. That's what he had.
I like what one person posted here once: Shot placement is king, penetration is queen, everything else is angels dancing on the head of pin.

 

[Red Tornado]

Kind of depends on the sharp stick. I imagine bow hunting forums disparage cheap bows by saying, "better than a .22".
RT

 

[LibShooter]

So a reasonable man chooses a weapon that is adequate for any reasonable possibility and doesn't count on facing the minimum threat.

The question is "What's a reasonable possibility?"

Personally, a sharp stick, heck, even a dull stick, would be plenty to fend off any threat I can reasonably expect to face on any given day. My life is just not that exciting. By that measure my .38 snubbie is way more than I need. Sometimes I carry a .22 pistol. And sometimes I even carry a .45. I don't make my choice based on what threat I'm likely to face that day. Basically my choice is based on what I'm wearing, and how big a pain in the butt I'm willing to put up with that day. So it's usually the .38.

I can imagine an unlikely threat for which my .38 would not be enough. I can imagine a threat for which an M4 with a grenade launcher would not be enough. Since the likelihood of either of these actually happening to me pretty close to zero, I don't plan my day around them.

Those of you who can reasonably expect to face a threat that would require 28 rounds of .40 had better carry your Glock and extra magazine. Or maybe you should move.

For the rest of us, I daresay most of us, if we are really honest with ourselves, we choose which gun we carry, if any, based on what we LIKE.

 

[1911Tuner]

Well...It depends. Sometimes a sharp stick can be pretty wicked...so define the stick a little more precisely.

Is it to be a foot-long improvised pointy stick...a 10-foot spear with a flame-hardened point...or a cavalry lance?

The term does sound a little silly, but it has merit and a ring of truth. A .25 Auto may indeed be better than a sharp stick, but...depending on the stick...it may not be. I think the saying has become a witty catch-phrase useful for convincing someone that a mousegun is better than no gun...and it usually is...unless your attacker is coming at you with a lance.

 

[USAF_Vet]

My primary HD weapon is a 12 gauge. As I haven't made the time to schedule a CCW class, I don't have a daily carry pistol, but when I do it'll be a 9mm. Nothing fancy, but simple and generally effective. As of now, my pocket knife, key ring, feet and fists, and most importantly, my wits, are my self defense weapons. In some cases, the "pointy stick" is the best weapon for the given situation because that is what is in the hand. Many men and beasts have have fallen from the pointy end of such sticks over the past few millenia. So, does one absolutely need the biggest caliber gun commercially available? Of course not, and to suggest such a thing is assinine. A single action .22 revolver is a perfectly suitable self defense weapon if that is what is available to you. In a self defense situation, anything is better than nothing.

 

[JohnBT]

"to effectively defend oneself from a pot-head asking for a bag of weed "

Speaking of weed, what kind are you smoking? Who has ever had to defend themselves from a pot-head. What are you protecting, your french fries?

JT

 

[KBintheSLC]

Actually, rocks and sharp sticks are pretty darn deadly weapons. Just ask the US Border Patrol. Heck, I'd rather get shot in the torso by a small caliber handgun than be bashed in the skull with a rock.

Who has ever had to defend themselves from a pot-head. What are you protecting, your french fries?

LMAO big time.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Obviously the goal here is something of a moving target.

My reasonable SD scenario is 1-3 armed assailants without body armor at contact distance to 25 meters.

I've trained to break contact and find cover, while shooting.

I carry either a S&W M36 or M19 loaded with 125gr +p JHP.

I do not carry a reload.

Will I defeat a rifle squad with this?

No.

Is it adequate to my reasonable self defense scenario?

I believe so.

Would a sharp, pointy stick be adequate to my self defense scenario?

No.

QED- my firearm choice and training regimen are better than a sharp, pointy stick.

 

[Bubba613]

My reasonable SD scenario is 1-3 armed assailants without body armor at contact distance to 25 meters.

Why does anyone think 25 meters is a reasonable distance for self-defense?

 

[NMGonzo]

Belt fed recoiless full auto .44 magnum pocket pistol.

Seriously, is the fighter not the weapon what counts the most.

So I carry a magnum something or another.