Using antiquated rounds for defense purposes

[1911Tuner]

Fascinating.

I dunno, but it seems to me that...in the unlikely event that I'd have to shoot somebody on a city street in the US of A who is doin' his very best to kill me...I'd tend to want to hit him the hardest blow that I could manage instead of tryin' to worry him to death.

And I know that the anemic rounds like .22 Short and .25 Auto will kill. The graveyards are full of people who would attest to that, could they but speak.

But...

Those same rounds could leave the dead man walkin' with enough vinegar to do you a world of hurt before he realizes that he is, in fact, dead...which could take anywhere from 30 seconds to 30 minutes.

It's a little like taking the field after Alaskan Brown Bear with a .357 Magnum revolver. The problem isn't so much killing him as it is staying out of his way long enough for him to believe that he's lost the fight.

 

[WestKentucky]

45 auto...
On the other hand, if you do your part, the fancy autoloader with unlimited rounds will deliver MUCH more effective hits on every trigger pull after the 5th (or 6th, depending on how you carry your SAA) than the SAA.

At some point having to count rounds may be the difference between defense and retaliation. 6 is plenty in the vast majority of defense situations. Emptying your PMR30 leaves plenty room for question. At what point is it enough? When the threat is over

 

[ugaarguy]

WK, you're assuming that every shot you fire from your revolver will be a hit, and that every hit will be incapacitating. I assure you that both assumptions are false.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Enough gun and enough ammo is one of the few things you can directly influence.

And just what is 'enough gun' and how much is 'enough ammo' kemosabe?

Deaf

 

[Ed Ames]

Strange conversation.

I love me a whole mess of obsolete guns firing obsolete cartridges. I have .32 shorts, .38s&w, .455 Webley, 8mm French revolver, and others.

The only obsolete cartridge I would seriously consider carrying is 7,62x25, and that is out because I don't know of any guns chambered for it I would trust to carry condition 1. Which points out the problem with all of these...even if they are perfect performers, can you get a gun you can trust and won't feel bad about wearing out? Most antique or very old guns got that way by spending 99% of their existence in a protected environment (armory, desk drawer, safe...). Carried daily they won't last.

 

[WestKentucky]

Ugaarguy...I actually assume the opposite. I assume I fire 6 and throw the gun at the guy. The trick is to be empty handed quick enough to pull a backup or a knife if you need to. If your making noise to no avail you might as well try something different. If my gun doesn't put a hurting on someone then I am confident in a 4" fixed blade, or with beating the crud out of somebody if it gets right down to that. This sounds backwards but I was taught to plan for everything to fail at the worst time.
Option 1 drive away.
Can't get to truck, truck won't run, option 2 run like crazy, asthma be damned.
Can't run for some reason gotta stand and fight. Option 3 grip and rip. Whatever you have gets used to its full ability on the threat.
that don't work where's your backup. Is it a reload, a knife, another gun in your boot. That fails too, your down to hands on.
If you fail with the hands on approach there are 2 kinds of insurance, health or life....either I use health or wife uses life.

Assuming someone did decide to go pmr30 as a carry gun. Guy attacks and the gun gets used. Even at .1 second intervals the badguy has 3 seconds before you run out. That's a lot of time. If your getting hits or missing doesn't much matter if the attack continues. You would be better off throwing down a gun that isn't working to stop the guy some other way than to shoot every bullet without moving to plan b.

So...where is that magic number on rounds needed....somewhere between 1 and 100. I'm betting on the low end. Where is that energy number at, or penetration number, or whatever...if we knew we wouldn't be talking about it. My bet is on the low end. Fear is a big factor. Gunshot coming your way changes a mindset. Been there done that, deer hunting wasn't so important that morning. On the offense side...when badguy meets heavy resistance he's probably going to run like a Olympic sprinter in the other direction. On the defense side, a sudden adrenaline dump makes a person stronger, more aware, and more pain tolerant.

 

[S&Wfan]

If this was a debate on knives instead of ammunition to use in a fight, would the debate be "Won't a box cutter get the job done in a mortal fight if you put the blade into the proper spot under stress?"

Why pack a 100 year-old Remington derringer in .41 rimfire when other weapons will get the job done faster and cleaner when an opponent is charging you and trying to put YOU in the ground before you do the same to him?

Sometimes, when I read these kinds of posts here I just scratch my head . . .

 

[ugaarguy]

Fear is a big factor. Gunshot coming your way changes a mindset. Been there done that, deer hunting wasn't so important that morning. On the offense side...when badguy meets heavy resistance he's probably going to run like a Olympic sprinter in the other direction.

You've been accidentally shot at while deer hunting. I've been intentionally shot at by people trying to kill me. You're comparing apples to walnuts. A determined attacker will keep attacking in the face of resistance. If fear was the ultimate deterrent you could just carry a blank firing starter pistol.

On the defense side, a sudden adrenaline dump makes a person stronger, more aware, and more pain tolerant.

You can't count on that. I've seen people shrink from the adrenal overload and fear, and I've seen people rise to the occasion. You don't know until you've been confronted by. Simulated combat training helps, but isn't a guarantee either.

So...where is that magic number on rounds needed....somewhere between 1 and 100. I'm betting on the low end. Where is that energy number at, or penetration number, or whatever...if we knew we wouldn't be talking about it.

Actually we do know it: twelve to sixteen inches of penetration in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin. We cannot rely on a psychological stop, so we must rely on a physiological stop. Physiological stops involve getting the attacker to run out of blood or air so he's physically unable to continue the attack. So, we need a round that can penetrate deeply enough to reach the vital organs to get the physiological stop, we need it fired from a gun that we can easily make COM hits with so the bullet strikes the vitals, and we need that gun to carry as many of those rounds as possible while still being able to be comfortably carried on the person.

I actually assume the opposite. I assume I fire 6 and throw the gun at the guy. The trick is to be empty handed quick enough to pull a backup or a knife if you need to. If your making noise to no avail you might as well try something different. If my gun doesn't put a hurting on someone then I am confident in a 4" fixed blade, or with beating the crud out of somebody if it gets right down to that. This sounds backwards but I was taught to plan for everything to fail at the worst time.

The whole point of using a firearm is to avoid hand to hand combat by distance. That's why good training teaches one to shoot and move in order to gain distance and/or cover from the attacker. Discussions of hand to hand or knife to hand fighting are irrelevant to the discussion of choosing a proper self defense handgun - not irrelevant to overall self defense, just not relevant to this specific discussion. What you've outlined is a plan to fail, rather than a backup plan in case of failure.

 

[WestKentucky]

Because S&Wfan, people are always pushing for bigger, faster, more of them, in a lighter smaller cheaper smoother more accurate faster cycling whizbanger doomaflotchie special. That's not necessarily a realistic need, but more accurately a techno-gadget want that has manifested itself in the gun world in a manner that is a bit off putting at times. We went from j frame to .380, to wondernine, to wonderforty, to wonderfortyfive, to wonderten, and we as a purchasing power still are not satisfied. This feeds the self debilitating attitude of the modern world because the majority of people say that the world is going to hell in a handbag in a hurry, that anybody who doesn't mean well means harm rather than meaning to mind their own business. On top of that all this talk of zombies on PCP with body armor and a tin foil hat not being taken down by a battleship round from 20 feet so we all need to prepare for battle with this crazed Paul Bunyan character. It's really nice to have a discussion from time to time about realistic scenarios and realistic results by going the other way with the pocket artillery and understanding that they figured out well over a hundred years ago what it took to drop a thug in the street in the highly unlikely event it were to happen.

In many cases the wants, when allowed to overcome the needs, leads to destruction. Long story made short...when debating quitting my first factory job to go to school my dad told me this. "The grass is always greener on the other side, but it's always the greenest over the septic tank". I'm convinced that the attitude of the world is dragging us towards the septic tank.

 

[WestKentucky]

Accidentally shot at while hunting my ass. Walking to my stand on private property I heard voices saying "here comes somebody, get down, and the tree limb over my head shattered about 2 seconds later. I will not compare that to military or law enforcement type events but to say it wasn't an attention getter would be wrong. The sheriff took care of it by giving a warning to the guy who was trespassing and shot at me. Had the bastard been wearing orange the 44 would have been used but at dusk it's hard to find camo in the woods.

And we have seem and heard plenty times that sometimes this puny round works, sometimes this massive one doesnt, so I disagree with your assessment that we know what it takes because we dont. We can use averages and percentages but that's not definative.

Lastly your kinda right in the plan to fail category, but if you plan to succeed then you don't go prepared. Be ready for what comes at you. A gun is a gun be it big or small. It may not work in your favor. If you don't plan for that to fail you don't practice moving to plan b

 

[ugaarguy]

And we have seem and heard plenty times that sometimes this puny round works, sometimes this massive one doesnt, so I disagree with your assessment that we know what it takes because we dont. We can use averages and percentages but that's not definative.

There will always be statistical outliers where a round that generally performs poorly will perform well, and a round that generally performs well will perform poorly. However, that's no reason to intentionally choose a gun that fires a round that generally performs poorly, is harder to use, and has lower capacity. That is reason to choose a gun that fires a round that fires a round that generally performs well, makes it easier for the shooter to sustain rapid well aimed fire of those rounds, and has the highest capacity of those rounds which one can comfortably carry.

We can stack the odds significantly in our favor, despite all the assertions to the contrary. We also live in a time where extremely reliable plastic frame pistols are cheap and common. For the price of a used S&W 6 shot .38 special revolver you can buy an equally reliable and accurate new S&W 17 shot 9mm pistol that's thinner and lighter. Why would I not choose the thinner and lighter gun with nearly three times the capacity when price, reliability, accuracy, and effectiveness of cartridge are the same? Or the same gun in the even more effective .40 S&W cartridge with the capacity reduced only two rounds to fifteen, which is still two and a half times the capacity of a revolver.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by WestKentucky: The trick is to be empty handed quick enough to pull a backup or a knife if you need to.

WHAT???

An empty firearm is better than a knife???

Option 1 drive away.

If that option had been available, you should have used it before drawing.

So...where is that magic number on rounds needed....somewhere between 1 and 100. I'm betting on the low end. Where is that energy number at, or penetration number, or whatever...if we knew we wouldn't be talking about it.

Regarding capacity, that's off topic from the original question, but consider the following:

• It is likely to take more than one hit to stop a violent criminal actor.
• Some proportion of a defender's shots are likely to miss.
• A defender may find it prudent or necessary to fire four or more shots very rapidly, and without assessing results, while moving at an attacker who is approaching at fifteen feet per second from close range.
• Experience related on this board indicates that if one is attacked, the odds are that there will likely be two or more attackers.
• Most of us would like to have some margin of safety.

You make your assumptions about the number of hits needed, the hit to miss ratio, the number of attackers, the number of shots you will likely fire at the first attacker, and how many rounds you would like to have remaining. Then do the math.

We have been through the calculations on this board many times. Each person will choose his or her answer. For me, I do not like fewer than 7+1. And more are better.

Regarding penetration, that was answered in Post #133. Should you doubt it, refer to the FBI report on Handgun Wounding and Effectiveness.

Generally speaking it will lead one to choose any modern service round from .38 Special on up--with modern defensive ammunition. One would surely not choose the round that was deflected by President McKinley's coat button.

 

[19-3Ben]

There will always be statistical outliers where a round that generally performs poorly will perform well, and a round that generally performs well will perform poorly. However, that's no reason to intentionally choose a gun that fires a round that generally performs poorly, is harder to use, and has lower capacity.

Exactly. David beat Goliath, but I don't think it's the way a betting man would have gone if he were putting money on the fight.

 

[303load]

David is a good story. His kinfolk and friends ridiculed him but shot placement in this scenario def won huh.

 

[19-3Ben]

David is a good story. His kinfolk and friends ridiculed him but shot placement in this scenario def won huh.

That's right. But there's a reason that David and Goliath is a proverbial story. It's the long shot, the dark horse, etc...
If David had body armor and an M14, you can bet he'd have used it!

As has been said many times before in this thread, it's all about stacking the odds in your favor as much as possible. Modern firearms give very substantive advantages. Shot placement counts no matter which gun you use. But certain guns allow for more a greater probability of making those shots.
Again, if Vegas were around in those days I highly doubt many people would have bet on David.

 

[Jenrick]

I agree that in a practical sense you should carry a weapon that provides a reasonable chance of surviving a life threatening encounter. The problem is I have no clue what your gun fight will be, heck for that matter I don't have a clue what my gun fight is going to be. Is a derringer is .22 short the best answer for the VAST majority if gun fights, no. However if might be the best answer for a given gun fight. I do believe that ANY gun is better then no gun (even when a cast iron skillet is available).

A pistol of any type provides a mean of extending the range of a confrontation. Regardless of how effective (or ineffective) a given round is, you can engage a threat from 10-15 yds rather then hands on distance. This is a MASSIVE advantage compared to carrying some other force option such as a knife, stick, or skillet.

Are there better options for both the caliber and pistol out there if all we care about is terminal ballistics? Sure, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting carrying a G20 or S&W M29 for general carry, or for that matter a T/C Encore in .30-06. However we don't choose pistols for terminal ballistic reasons alone. We select guns that feel good in our hand, that we shoot well, that we like the look of, that have an interesting history or feature. Just like a car, we don't buy them solely based on gas mileage.

Since terminal ballistics isn't the end all be all of pistol selection, why not carry a gun that you find interesting, neat, or for that matter "cute." ANY gun is better then no gun, and if that's what it takes to carry then so be it. Sure there may be better options for a hypothetical gun fight, but I don't live your life and don't know the reason you choose to carry what you do, and I'm not going to presume to tell you that you're wrong for carrying what you want.

-Jenrick

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Jenrick: why not carry a gun that you find interesting, neat, or for that matter "cute."

I certainly hope that you are being sarcastic.

 

[WestKentucky]

Kleanbore, I certainly hope your kidding about Jenrick kidding. When did females carrying become more common? When smith put the word "lady" on a model or when a plethora of pink, purple, white, etc guns were offered. How many guys carry brown, tan, camo, etc. That has to play into IF some folks carry a gun at all. We should not be condescending to others either about their comments. I agree with Jenrick. Each day I carry my grandfathers pocket knife and my grandmother's revolver. I guess that I do that out of nostalgia makes thar the wrong thing...not so.

 

[Sam1911]

A pistol of any type provides a mean of extending the range of a confrontation.

That's actually mis-stated. A pistol of any type allows you to engage at greater range -- IF that's the confrontation you are in. Many violent encounters (and some folks will suggest most violent confrontations) occur at contact distance, or even closer (grappling). A pistol doesn't give you any ability to make someone back up and attack you from farther away.

Regardless of how effective (or ineffective) a given round is, you can engage a threat from 10-15 yds rather then hands on distance. This is a MASSIVE advantage compared to carrying some other force option such as a knife, stick, or skillet.

IF you are so lucky.

If, as folks tend to suggest is likely, you are attacked from a close-in threat, ambushed, jumped, whatever you want to call it, all you'll have to rely on is your ability to use that pistol to BREAK that other guy (either his will to continue or his body's ability) as fast and as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

A trap we fall into a lot is to consider defense from the standpoint of imagining situations where we probably could respond successfully with whatever gun we like to carry.

Hey, if the guy is coming at me from 15' away and I'm quick with my .32 Colt I could probably get off several shots, as long as I have both hands free and those would probably at least scare him off if he's sober...

A wiser approach is to pick whatever we have the greatest chance of succeeding with in all of the possible (or at least likely) situations.

Each day I carry my grandfathers pocket knife and my grandmother's revolver. I guess that I do that out of nostalgia makes thar the wrong thing...not so.

As long as they are what you would fight best with, nostalgia isn't an actual drawback. (Except for losing them to the police evidence room for a year, or maybe forever.)

This is your LIFE, or your wife's or your kids' lives you're talking about defending. Nothing short of defense of life is a valid reason for using a weapon on someone. It stands to reason, no purpose for CARRYING that weapon is compelling aside from its ability to do that thing -- defend life.

...

The car analogy has another facet: You can drive a 1907 Model T Ford around on a Sunday afternoon if you want, and that's like taking your .32 Colt antique to the range for some nostalgic plinking. But carrying a gun for defense is a bit like the daily slog of commuting through dangerous rush-hour traffic at high speed. And having to actually USE that gun is like a head-on collision with a Peterbilt. It is ALWAYS terribly risky, but in the modern era most cars are built to get you through in one piece, if at all possible. They've got the seat belts, airbags, head rests, shatterpoof glass, crumple zones, collapsing steering columns, etc. that can help you "win" -- by surviving.

Defending yourself with grandma's .32 or great grand-dad's VeloDog is a lot like skidding into that Peterbilt in your Model T. It might be all you need to come through unscathed. Might just save your life. But ...



I'll take the seatbelts (9mm, .45, etc.), airbags (fast reload), crumple zones (good sights), etc., etc.

 

[Jenrick]

I certainly hope that you are being sarcastic.

Far from it, WestKentucky did a decent job of amplifying my statement. If you'd like additional clarification I'll be happy to provide it.

That's actually mis-stated. A pistol of any type allows you to engage at greater range -- IF that's the confrontation you are in. Many violent encounters (and some folks will suggest most violent confrontations) occur at contact distance, or even closer (grappling). A pistol doesn't give you any ability to make someone back up and attack you from farther away.

I'll agree with you, that a pistol doesn't automatically force the bad person off of you if that's the situation. I however stand by my original statement that a pistol provides a means for an extended distance in an engagement. Also in my personal experience and collected data from my area, most confrontations begin well out of arms reach, the victim just doesn't realize until they are physically touched that life is about to get complicated.

If, as folks tend to suggest is likely, you are attacked from a close-in threat, ambushed, jumped, whatever you want to call it, all you'll have to rely on is your ability to use that pistol to BREAK that other guy (either his will to continue or his body's ability) as fast and as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

I disagree. If you are engaged in a true hand to hand confrontation of the life threatening kind, you should rely on your personal tools first: hands, knee's, elbows, head etc. They are your immediate tool to allow you to: injure/disable the attacker to prevent the further commision of violence on their part, to generate distance to get out a secondary weapon, or to generate an opening that allows you gain separation to employee your handgun out of arms reach.

Going for a gun in a lethal hand to hand fight, without first creating distance is a good way to get hurt worst. A pistol is easily controlled and easily taken. Your whole focus is going to be on either employing the pistol, or not having it taken away/turned against you. You will likely miss your assailant producing their own weapon as you are too focused on your own. Your goal is to hurt the attacker enough to stop them or force them to disengage or cease. Is there a utility to contact shooting, of course, but it's a technique for a particular set of time and circumstances that are more limited then most people realize.

Am I saying that a lemon squeezer loaded in .32 is probably going to be as effective then an XD compact in .45 ACP? Heck no. I am saying that it's not the first option in this type of confrontation. Also if the choice is someone carrying a "neato/cute/interesting/etc." .22lr derringer or no gun, I am totally fine with their justification being "neato/cute/interesting/etc."

-Jenrick

 

[19-3Ben]

Also if the choice is someone carrying a "neato/cute/interesting/etc." .22lr derringer or no gun, I am totally fine with their justification being "neato/cute/interesting/etc."

If the only choice is a person carrying a "neato/cute/interesting/etc." vs. no gun at all, then yeah of course any gun is better than no gun at all.
But you're creating a false dichotomy with your hypo and assuming that if the person doesn't have some whimsical attachment to the gun that he/she won't carry anything.

Considering that not feeling the whimsical attachment to a gun is pretty much the only tradeoff you'd make to get all the advantages of a modern pistol, I can't see not making that choice. Especially when you consider the stakes involved.

 

[Sam1911]

Ok, I accept your point about creating space as perfectly valid. But we're still talking about a little space -- just enough to draw and fire. Not 15' or some other classic "High Noon" standoff distance.

You're creating probably less than a yard and have probably far less than a second to break the other guy's attack. You can try to break him with a Lemon Squeezer .32, but it is just as easy -- if not easier -- to obtain and carry that xDS or Kahr, or Glock 42, or whatever else that would be so much more capable in important ways.

No one here is seriously arguing that they don't have any choice. They have the choice. They're saying they'd choose something that, you know, might work. And they'd do so because of nostalgia or "cuteness." That seems like a hard to support decision.

 

[MCgunner]

Cooldill, I keep my Pietta '58 Remmy hanging on my headboard. .44 cal round ball.

If your eye is good enough, you'll notice that cylinder is a conversion, but I just recently got that, in .45ACP. But, it could be argued that .45ACP is antiquated, too, circa 1911.

 

[Jenrick]

No one here is seriously arguing that they don't have any choice. They have the choice. They're saying they'd choose something that, you know, might work. And they'd do so because of nostalgia or "cuteness." That seems like a hard to support decision.

I'm not disagree with that either. I am saying that something, no matter how imperfect it might be is better then nothing. No one wakes up in the morning and says "self, I'm going to go carry a replica 16th century wheel lock this morning (insert whatever antiquated firearm you'd like, doesn't really matter) instead of my G19" that isn't already willing to forgo carrying a pistol completely. The hows and whys of this are as unique as each individual, but the fact of the matter is that if this is a decision they make, they are also going to have not carrying a gun as an option.

You're never going to see someone who ALWAYS carries have this discussion as anything other then gunboard, or post range bs'ing. It's a mindset difference between the two groups. If you're a casual CCW'er, then what is the negative when choosing between going out without a gun (something you already do), and carrying a gun that is probably less effective then your normal CCW piece?

You can tell people all you want that .44 russian in a break top revolver will probably not solve a life threatening problem. They don't have that thought if they weren't already willing to go without carrying in the first place.

-Jenrick

 

[JohnKSa]

I disagree. If you are engaged in a true hand to hand confrontation of the life threatening kind, you should rely on your personal tools first: hands, knee's, elbows, head etc. They are your immediate tool to allow you to: injure/disable the attacker to prevent the further commision of violence on their part, to generate distance to get out a secondary weapon, or to generate an opening that allows you gain separation to employee your handgun out of arms reach.

That may be what SHOULD be done, but in reality, most people don't have the training or ability to do what you describe.

For most people, what's going to happen is that if they're attacked at close range they're going to have to use their handgun at close range. They're not going to be able to use their hand-to-hand skills to gain separation because they don't have any hand-to-hand skills.