Using antiquated rounds for defense purposes

[Onward Allusion]

NOTE: Not debating the merits of car guns!

My car gun for the passenger compartment is a H&R top break chambered in 32 S&W. Easy to get to while driving unlike the 357 on my belt. Also, if it ever gets stolen, ammo would not be easy to get. It would be of little use to most people.

 

[Sam1911]

A very great example of WHY this "shoot TO kill" idea is dangerous is the Jerome Ersland case in OKC: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=594815

Mr. Ersland was attacked. His life was in danger. He shot one attacker and the man fell disabled on the floor. Mr. Ersland ran after the other man attempting to shoot him. Failing that, he re-entered his store and then shot the man on the ground AGAIN to make sure that threat was "fully eliminated" as you said.

He's serving a long sentence now, and should be. He felt that since these men attacked him, it was right that they should die, and that he was justified in KILLING them, not just stopping their attack. That belief took him way beyond lawful justification for use of lethal force.

80% of gun shot victims survive. If you defend yourself with a gun, and you have in your mind that the attacker must DIE, then you are set up to pursue that death until it is accomplished. No law in the entire US gives you that discretionary ability.

If your shot(s) stopped someone from hurting you, that is ALL you may do.

 

[Sunray]

"...Using antiquated rounds..." Old stuff like, oh, 9mm and .45 ACP? Makes no difference what you carry if you don't practice regularly with the ammo you intend using for CCW.
"...so he could finish them with a knife..." Grandpa was messing with you. Real combat vets never talk about it. And the bocage country in France was liberated long before any winter.

 

[303load]

A very great example of WHY this "shoot TO kill" idea is dangerous is the Jerome Ersland case in OKC: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=594815

Mr. Ersland was attacked. His life was in danger. He shot one attacker and the man fell disabled on the floor. Mr. Ersland ran after the other man attempting to shoot him. Failing that, he re-entered his store and then shot the man on the ground AGAIN to make sure that threat was "fully eliminated" as you said.

He's serving a long sentence now, and should be. He felt that since these men attacked him, it was right that they should die, and that he was justified in KILLING them, not just stopping their attack. That belief took him way beyond lawful justification for use of lethal force.

80% of gun shot victims survive. If you defend yourself with a gun, and you have in your mind that the attacker must DIE, then you are set up to pursue that death until it is accomplished. No law in the entire US gives you that discretionary ability.

If your shot(s) stopped someone from hurting you, that is ALL you may do.

So double tap is out. Or three?

 

[WestKentucky]

Realistically no. From what little I have seen it usually is based on angle of entry if you shoot a standing man with three quick shots then angle of entry will be pretty much duplicated with each shot. If there is an extra shot at an angle indicating the guy is on the floor then you have problems, or if the guy turns to run or whatever. You might be able to explain the situation but most likely they will say 3 shots in .4 seconds or so, there was no time to notice that the attack ended at .2 seconds when the second shot was fired or at .4 seconds for the third. .6 seconds later and time for shot#4 you saw the guy falling and quit shooting.

 

[JohnKSa]

So double tap is out. Or three?

IMO, it's not a good idea to get in the habit of ALWAYS shooting a certain number of rounds when engaging a target.

After you've had to use deadly force in self-defense, the ideal situation is to be able to truthfully say that you shot as many rounds as you had to shoot to stop the target and that you then stopped shooting.

If you have to admit that you always shoot X rounds (double-tap or triple-tap or whatever) at a target and that's what you did in the real-world life-and-death scenario then you may have to explain why it was necessary to shoot all X rounds as opposed to stopping after some number of rounds less than X. After all, once the attack is stopped, shooting additional rounds is not justified by law.

It's not that shooting more than once is automatically going to cause you legal problems, it's that you need to be able to articulate WHY you shot as many rounds as you did. If it can be shown that the number of rounds you fired wasn't driven by necessity as defined by the specific circumstances of the scenario but was rather done out of habit then you could find yourself in the unpleasant situation of having to justify each individual round you fired.

 

[Sam1911]

So double tap is out. Or three?

No, not at all. A decent shootist can put aimed rounds on target at better than five shots a second (that's only a 0.2 sec. split). Shooting fast multiple shots when confronted by a lethal threat is good practice, and taught by every reputable trainer everywhere. It is unreasonable to expect that you'd check after every shot to see whether the bad guy's really down.

Now if you "zipper" your attacker with 2, 3, 4+ shots (many/most defenders tend to empty the gun, without even realizing it), and he goes down, that's a logical stopping point. If he's running out the door and you're putting shots into him as he flees? If he's on the floor (or his knees) and still breathing and you decide you haven't "eliminated" him so you put another round or three in him? That's where you go from defense to murder.

 

[TestPilot]

A cop buddy said recently he'd seen more people killed with .32 and .380 in the 'hood where he works than any other caliber. Apparently they're still effective.

That's becaues those hood idiots use them more, not because it is better.

One gangsta on gangsta shooting scene I examined invloved a 22 short. The man who got hit only found out he was hit after someone told him so.

It has been proven that rounds like 22 short, 25ACP does not reliably even penetrate skull.

There are decent choices now with even pocket gun size from 380ACP and up. Believe what you want to believe, but that is not because of misguided crave for power. It is so because we know better now.

Wyatt Earp did not take a 22, 25, or even 32 to O.K. Corral.

 

[TestPilot]

Why not? If the goal in shooting something is to kill it, and a particular round does that, as stated by Hexhead's cop buddy, then "effectiveness" and "lethality" are essentially synonymous, in the context we'd be using the terms.

Let me explain the difference between "effectiveness" and "lethality."

If you got your head chopped off by a guy with a machette, the fact that the guy died a week later in a hospital by a 25ACP you shot him with won't matter much to you.

In that case, 25ACP was "lethal." But, it was not "effective" in keeping you alive.

 

[TestPilot]

So double tap is out. Or three?

You are confused about that the subject is.

The subject is not about how many times you shoot. The subject is about intent.

You can doublt tap, or empty a whole drum magazine of a Tommy Gun, all you want as long as there still is a threat and your intent is to stop it.

You cannot shoot even one round more, if you know that the threat has ceased to exist.

The guy in Sam1911's example is guilty, not because the number of rounds he shot, but because he executed a person who no longer posed a threat.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Sam1911: A decent shootist can put aimed rounds on target at better than five shots a second (that's only a 0.2 sec. split). Shooting fast multiple shots when confronted by a lethal threat is good practice, and taught by every reputable trainer everywhere. It is unreasonable to expect that you'd check after every shot to see whether the bad guy's really down.

Exactly!

To illustrate that, let's consider a "Tueller" situation with a violent criminal actor coming at the defender very fast.

The defender will not be able to shoot deliberately as if at the range. Rather, he or she will have to draw, present, and start shooting very rapidly as the attacker rushes closer and dangerously closer.

Nor would we expect any immediately noticeable "stopping" effect after one shot. Rather, the attacker is likely to continue while the defender shoots as rapidly as possible, while moving to the side and if possible, trying to get behind something.

I have never participated in a Tueller simulation with a moving target, but in the ones I have seen televised, the defender usually shoots four or five or six shots in about a second while the attacker travels perhaps fifteen feet. And I, for one, do not like the idea of concluding what may only be the first act with an empty gun in my hand

 

[Dr.Rob]

I'm not so sure the 'caliber' is so much in question as the age of the ammo and the quality of the arm launching it. IE a hundred year old dubious Belgian 32 with a heeled rimfire bullet loaded in 1902 might indeed be lethal, it also might not be reliable.

While I don't doubt my .32-20 could DO the job, there are better choices.

I have the luxury of other choices, some don't.

 

[Combat Engineer]

"Grandpa was messing with you. Real combat vets never talk about it." [Sunray]

My experience is different with vet friends who fought in WW2, etc. thru to the Sandbox. And that includes 3 Canadian vets, (I see you are from London, Ontario), one who was wounded at Monte Cassino, another who was awarded the Victoria Cross (re: Uedem), and one who fought in Vietnam, yes there were Canadians (volunteers) in the Vietnam war. All three told their tales with a smile, all talked about it.

" And the bocage country in France was liberated long before any winter. " [Ibid]

Yes indeed.

As for using antiquated ammo, if you have the cojones and the marksmanship, you have a fighting chance at survival.

Personally, I prefer a 240 gr 44 cal.

 

[BSA1]

y car gun for the passenger compartment is a H&R top break chambered in 32 S&W. Easy to get to while driving unlike the 357 on my belt. Also, if it ever gets stolen, ammo would not be easy to get. It would be of little use to most people.

It is totally useless for self-defense.

A few years ago there was incident where a young rapist followed a elderly lady who was walking home into her house. When the police arrived they found a unconscious attempted rapist laying on the kitchen floor with the elderly lady standing over him with a kitchen knife in one hand and a flying pan in the other. It seems one blow of the flying pan to his head put the lights out.

My point; use a proven tool for self-defense. Cast iron skillets work very well.

 

[BSA1]

IMO, it's not a good idea to get in the habit of ALWAYS shooting a certain number of rounds when engaging a target.

I dunno.

Ammunition management has always been a issue in self-defense shootings. It is very well documented of LEO's emptying their gun at the threat and thinking they only fired two or three rounds. One only has to look at the recent event in Missouri.

I don't know if it is possible to ingrain the habit only shoot two or three rounds in a self-defense situation. Fear is powerful force, especially of one's life. However, generally speaking the fewer number of rounds fired the better.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BSA1: I don't know if it is possible to ingrain the habit only shoot two or three rounds in a self-defense situation.

Whether or not it is possible. I don't think it would be a good idea at all.

Why would one assume that two or three hits would suffice, much less two or three shots?

I agree with John--trying to ingrain a habit of shooting a specific number of rounds is a poor idea.

One who is charged in a Tueller scenario will likely fire as many rounds as possible before being overcome, while at the same time trying to get away. Firing twice or three times and assessing the charging threat at bad-breath distance could prove fatal.

One who is engaged in a somewhat longer range (though equally threatening) circumstance by someone who falls or turns and runs will stop firing as quickly as possible when the threat dissipates. Continuing to shoot would lead to serious trouble.

However, generally speaking the fewer number of rounds fired the better.

The minimum reasonably believed necessary is best.

 

[BSA1]

Like I said I don't know if it is possible to ingrain the habit of only shooting two or three rounds but in today's lawsuit happy society every round fired has your name on it.

Regardless I regard all handgun rounds to be poor stoppers and recognized the need for more than one shot.

 

[Onward Allusion]

BSA1

Quote:
<SNIP>H&R top break chambered in 32 S&W. Easy to get to while driving unlike the 357 on my belt. Also, if it ever gets stolen, ammo would not be easy to get. It would be of little use to most people.

It is totally useless for self-defense.

Wow, I can't believe that you are implying that a frying pan is better than a 32 S&W coming out of a top break.

I guess you would rather have a rock than something with a short barrel chambered in 22LR, 22 Mag, or 25 ACP, or even 32 ACP, eh?

 

[BSA1]

Wow, I can't believe that you are implying that a frying pan is better than a 32 S&W coming out of a top break.

That is exactly what I am saying.

I guess you would rather have a rock than something with a short barrel chambered in 22LR, 22 Mag, or 25 ACP, or even 32 ACP, eh?

You must have very short memory. This topic was discussion in a thread you started on April 14, 2014.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=750229&highlight=22+magnum

and the 22 LR discussion in a thread you started on April 1, 2014;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=748567&highlight=onward+allusion

and the 22 Magnum discussion in a thread you started on February 26, 2014;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=745234&highlight=onward+allusion

You posted on this one about the discussion about the 25 acp;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=750018&highlight=onward+allusion

I have posted pictures of my informal test of the 32 Long in Post 64 using a old double action revolver from the early 1900’s. So far no one has challenged the results of my test.

Tell you what. Let’s face each within a arm’s length. You draw and fire as many 32 S&W rounds as you can from your little gun while at the same time I reach for a cast iron skillet off the stove and whack you on the head as hard as I can swing it.

Want to make a bet who is going to in the hospital the longest?

 

[Kleanbore]

While the .32 S&W was very popular at one time, it was never very effective at all--far less, in fact, than the .32 ACP, which is not much bigger.

The more powerful .32 S&W Long (under the name ".32 Colt New Police") was adopted by the New York City Police shortly after 1900. It was replaced by the .38 S&W Special within a couple of decades.

I have a .32 Long revolver. The reason I have it is that a police officer who had used it to fire six fast shots into a criminal had been extremely unnerved by the reaction of the subject who ultimately expired but who could have killed him had he not chosen to run away instead. The shaken officer swore off the .32 on the spot, and my grandfather offered his .41 Long Colt in a trade that was immediately accepted. My grandfather always wanted to get another .41.

I used to shoot the .32 for fun. I was vey unimpressed by its penetration against wooden targets. It once served as a bedside gun for my wife, but no longer.

I would never, ever choose to carry a .32 S&W. I would rather rely on my cane.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Well, I do not want to end up in the hospital nor do I want to end up in prison should I get a lucky shot. I don't doubt you on the penetration or effectiveness of the 32 S&W or S&W Long. Nor am I advocating that someone choose these calibers as their first choice for SD. However, your comments come across as hyperbole. Just like all the other folks who have made statements like "I rather carry a sharp stick than a (insert mouse caliber here)." That is an absolutely ludicrous statement and would only come from some "gun people".

Would one of these calibers be my first choice? Hell no! I carry an 8 shot 357 mag! BUT, if that was all I had at disposal, would I choose a sharp stick or in your case a frying pan over one of these calibers? Um, hell no, again...

Listen, I don't disagree with you on the effectiveness of these calibers, but hyperbole notwithstanding, there's no way that I would want to be shot with one of these calibers. A lucky shot is all it takes to be 6 feet under.

 

[jrdolall]

Wow!
The thread started at using antique weapons/calibers to murder with a frying pan.
"Can't we all just get along".

I have a bunch of "older" guns that are more than capable of stopping an attacker and are reliable and accurate. I choose to carry a pocket rocket semi automatic in either 380 or 9mm. Not really because the 75 year old .357 revolver won't do the trick but because, IMO, something better has come along.

I have a 55 year old tractor that still runs and looks awfully cool but I don't use it to bush hog anymore. Will it? Sure but I have a 3 year old tractor that is better at the job.
I have more than one antique(over 25 years) vehicles with a couple of them having been professionally restored and absolutely beautiful and fun to drive. The 1979 Datsun 280x will turn a lot of heads but I don't usually take it on vacation because it only seats 2 (relatively comfortably).

 

[Combat Engineer]

I'm still driving my 1948 Chevy.

"I guess you would rather have a rock than something with a short barrel chambered in 22LR, 22 Mag, or 25 ACP, or even 32 ACP, eh? " [Onward Allusion]

Yes all of them are better. I shot a Fiocchi 100 gr 32 long out of a S&W M30 at a spruce stud grade 2x4. Penetration...? it actually partially stuck in the wood and could be pulled out like a dart.

However, 22LR, 22 Mag, or 25 ACP, or even 32 ACP, will all penerate thru one spruce stud grade 2x4, in fact S&B 32ACP will make it thru two 2x4s.

The problem is that if you handload a heavy load, that just might seize up and/or destroy your old top-break revolver.

OA, there are older guns that are effective with 32ACP, ie a 1933 PPK or a 1917 Colt M1903, but you really want to re-think carrying standard 32 long in a old revolver.

Buffalo Bore makes hardcast 100 gr 32 long which has decent numbers, but I do not have any.

PS...oops just read your latest post, yes OA, your 8-shot 357 is an excellent choice.

 

[Water Garden]

some projectiles simply do a better job at stopping a violent attacker than others. It all depends on what performance a person considers adequate. Personally I am not going to put much faith in anything smaller than a standard load 38 special for SD but will concede that even the 22 short can be deadly under certain circumstances.

 

[Kleanbore]

Not wanting to be shot by something is not that same thing as wanting to rely upon it.

I choose to not rely upon a .32 S&W Long. I too have shot one at a pine board, and because the board could flex, the bases of the bullets stuck out of the board.

I would never carry a .32 S&W for self defense.

No, I would not want to be shot with one. President William McKinley died after having been shot with one. He succumbed to infection, eight days after the shooting. The assassin's first shot was deflected by his coat button.

Theodore Roosevelt was shot in the chest by a .32 -- a Colt of some kind. He delivered a ninety minute speech afterward.

My comment about preferring my cane was not hyperbole. Within arms' reach or a little more it is effective, and at those or longer distances, the .32 S&W is not.