UnintendedConsequences
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Messages
- 105
Generally I lurk more than I post, but something has motivated me to post some comments that I think are of an important nature. They have to do with the results of penetration tests for various loads and firearms and how those who run them interpret their results.
What has me hacked right at the moment is the conflict between results presented from the Box of Truth website versus the results on a DVD that comes from the Valhalla Training Center sent both by the NRA and I believe the SAC regarding personal firearms training and how to deal with self-defense issues. The segment I am talking about is a bonus feature on one of DVDs that has one of the expert instructors talking about what will penetrate through so many walls and open spaces and then recommends you select this or that for a home defense round and gun.
Box of truth, for example, states that birdshot is a poor penetrator and also a poor defense load. the VTC expert stated that because of the minimal wall penetration it would make an excellent self-defense load out of a 12 gauge, but recommended that a 20 gauge or .410 shotgun would be even better.
The VTC also recommended using Glazer safety slugs as your self-defense loads as they were also less likely to penetrate as far as a JHP or a solid lead projectile. Perhaps I am mistaken, but aren't those rounds a little expensive to purchase and practice with so that you know how they perform in your firearm and can be certain they are will work reliably?
I understand being concerned about liability issues and what bullet might do if it misses the attacker or if it exits out the far side, but some of the recommendations for loads by VTC seemed to be a bit on the crazy side.
I also thought it was interesting that the same instructor, in another bonus feature, explained what made the best gun for self-defense, not the one you have in your possession at the time, not the one that you are experienced in shooting and already have, but you have to buy a Glock or Glock-like design that has no hammer, no safety that requires external deactivation and no decocker or such to have it be made ready to fire or to make it safe to reholster.
That same person did not recommend revolvers, anything smaller than 9mm, anything larger than .40 caliber, anything that looked or acted like a 1911 or anything that had a barrel longer than about 3.5 inches or might even be a target configuration and it also shouldn't be mostly steel or alloy, rather it should be lightweight polymer. It was not stated directly, but that is what is indicated by how he talked about the selection of a firearm. I understand the concept of an ideal type of firearm, but individuals, situations and finances are far from ideal.
What this makes me wonder is, how are you supposed to know what is truth and what is opinion or fiction unless you have the time and resources to do your own independent tests? Is Box of Truth wrong or is the VTC instructor wrong or are both right or both wrong? Or is it really just a matter of opinion that can really never have any real answer?
What has me hacked right at the moment is the conflict between results presented from the Box of Truth website versus the results on a DVD that comes from the Valhalla Training Center sent both by the NRA and I believe the SAC regarding personal firearms training and how to deal with self-defense issues. The segment I am talking about is a bonus feature on one of DVDs that has one of the expert instructors talking about what will penetrate through so many walls and open spaces and then recommends you select this or that for a home defense round and gun.
Box of truth, for example, states that birdshot is a poor penetrator and also a poor defense load. the VTC expert stated that because of the minimal wall penetration it would make an excellent self-defense load out of a 12 gauge, but recommended that a 20 gauge or .410 shotgun would be even better.
The VTC also recommended using Glazer safety slugs as your self-defense loads as they were also less likely to penetrate as far as a JHP or a solid lead projectile. Perhaps I am mistaken, but aren't those rounds a little expensive to purchase and practice with so that you know how they perform in your firearm and can be certain they are will work reliably?
I understand being concerned about liability issues and what bullet might do if it misses the attacker or if it exits out the far side, but some of the recommendations for loads by VTC seemed to be a bit on the crazy side.
I also thought it was interesting that the same instructor, in another bonus feature, explained what made the best gun for self-defense, not the one you have in your possession at the time, not the one that you are experienced in shooting and already have, but you have to buy a Glock or Glock-like design that has no hammer, no safety that requires external deactivation and no decocker or such to have it be made ready to fire or to make it safe to reholster.
That same person did not recommend revolvers, anything smaller than 9mm, anything larger than .40 caliber, anything that looked or acted like a 1911 or anything that had a barrel longer than about 3.5 inches or might even be a target configuration and it also shouldn't be mostly steel or alloy, rather it should be lightweight polymer. It was not stated directly, but that is what is indicated by how he talked about the selection of a firearm. I understand the concept of an ideal type of firearm, but individuals, situations and finances are far from ideal.
What this makes me wonder is, how are you supposed to know what is truth and what is opinion or fiction unless you have the time and resources to do your own independent tests? Is Box of Truth wrong or is the VTC instructor wrong or are both right or both wrong? Or is it really just a matter of opinion that can really never have any real answer?
