Considering a new hand spoon

[Taz's Master]

Saw a sweet 3" model 36 Smith today that was tempting. Temptation verging on regret.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Z-man

Jeff: in your experience, how far away were the animals that you shot, but were unable to take down? 25 to 50 yards? Further? Also - I assume that in most cases you and your target were not in an open field together, so your bullets may not have had a clear path to your target. (twigs, underbrush...etc). These to factors (distance and obstacles) do play a role in the effectiveness of a shot. In a self defense situation, I will likely be aiming for a target that is less than 10 yards away, likely even closer. If there is an obstacle between the perp and I, it will probably be a brick wall or car, and in that case, it is unlikely that any type of ammo coming out of a handgun will be able to sufficiently penetrate the obstacle AND inflict an effective blow to the target.

I would never pull the trigger on any animal if there were any intervening brush of any kind, regardless if I were using a handgun or rifle. This is your inexperience speaking - "brush shots" are virtually 100% ineffective. I read lots of b.s. about the "brush bucking" abilities of one round vs. another, or one bullet shape vs. another, or high velocity vs. low velocity, or light vs. heavy bullets. It's all b.s. - the smallest twig can deflect a 500 grain bullet from a .458 Winchester Magnum enough to cleanly miss a rather large animal on the other side of that brush. No one with any kind of hunting experience would risk shooting through any kind of brush, unless the animal had already been wounded, or was coming after you, or something like that. We just don't do that.

As far as range, I will not shoot at an unwounded animal further away than I can keep each and every round on a standard paper plate from a field position. This varies with the gun - some rifles mean that might be 400 yards; most of my open sighted revolvers mean that will be 100 yards or less. Most of my shots on big game with the revolver have been far, far less than that, though. Many have been less than ten yards. When shooting pests and vermin I'll extend that range, sometimes considerably. Probably unethically, actually. Funny how we view "vermin" differently than "game", but once again, that's another topic...

That said, I'm not sure distance is an important element in handgun lethality, at least for the loads I've settled on. The bullets I use do not expand; I actually go to great lengths to ensure they don't (bullet hardness, shape, velocity). They achieve full penetration on the largest animals I hunt at any range at which I can actually hit them in a vital spot. Effectively, they just drill a full caliber hole all the way through and exit, regardless of range. So, I don't think range is a factor, except in how deep of a hole it burrows in the ground on the other side. It matters in shot placement, yes, but in terminal performance, no.

Originally Posted by jyl

Unless they are a 20 lb rock chuck, according to Jeff.

How many have you shot, and with what?

Until you see a few run off after solid hits from a full house .44 mag load (or a .30-'06, .223/5.56 NATO, .243, .220 Swift, etc.), I'm not sure you have much to say about this. They can be amazingly tough little animals, and that "will to live", or "flight or fight" reaction can be amazingly strong. People can display those same reactions, and we are much, much bigger. I don't ever want to find myself in a position where I have triggered this in someone, they have decided on "fight" rather than "flight", and I'm caught holding an inadequate more or less "display piece".

[jyl]

Chill, Jeff. Your authority on shooting chucks is unquestioned.

My point is, you say a magnum caliber handgun round is inadequate for responsibly hunting even modest size animals. Yet no one, from the FBI on down, has to my knowledge ever concluded that a magnum caliber is inadequate for shooting humans engaged in criminal activity.

So I suspect that, as earlier said, the minimum requirements for hunting animals may not really translate to the minimum requirements for dissuading human criminals.

After all, I don't think most hunters would consider FMJ 223 an ethical round for hunting deer or larger. But FMJ 223 has shown itself rather sufficient for use on humans.

An animal fleeing for its life may have more determination than a human who thought he was going to get away with a quick easy crime. And while hunters care a lot about achieving rapid, one shot kills, our hypothetical Mrs Z is perfectly happy to gut shoot her assailant and leave him to flee then painfully die, or more likely get to an ER and get saved at taxpayer expense.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by jyl

My point is, you say a magnum caliber handgun round is inadequate for responsibly hunting even modest size animals. Yet no one, from the FBI on down, has to my knowledge ever concluded that a magnum caliber is inadequate for shooting humans engaged in criminal activity.

Well, um, no - that's not what I said at all. The point I was attempting to convey is that bullet construction is the most important consideration.

Originally Posted by jyl

So I suspect that, as earlier said, the minimum requirements for hunting animals may not really translate to the minimum requirements for dissuading human criminals.

Agreed - and we covered this as well. The vast majority of self-defense situations involving an armed citizen end with no shots fired. The mere sight of a defensive firearm encourages most would-be robbers, rapists, and such to reconsider. We've already established that and have agreed upon that premise. So, at the risk of belaboring the point, we are delving into what happens when the perp is not impressed, and we are forced to shoot.

When it comes to that, we would really like to make an impression, and quickly. In a worst case scenario, we may have to overcome a nervous system addled with narcotics, or alcohol, or any number of substances (or attitude) that may serve to block or insulate the effects of even fatal hits. Hell, even adrenalin will do that.

Even the FBI was forced to re-evaluate its choice of defensive firearms after several agents lost their lives in the infamous Miami shootout about 20 years ago. Their 9mm's, .38 Specials, and .357 magnums were completely ineffective against a determined adversary who suffered multiple fatal, but not incapacitating hits. We want incapacitating. We don't care if they are fatal.

Originally Posted by jyl

After all, I don't think most hunters would consider FMJ 223 an ethical round for hunting deer or larger. But FMJ 223 has shown itself rather sufficient for use on humans.

Sufficient to wound and remove from the fight, yes. There are tactical reasons for issuing the 5.56 NATO that trump considerations of stopping power. Military requirements are far, far different than an armed citizen nose to nose with an assailant.

Originally Posted by jyl

An animal fleeing for its life may have more determination than a human who thought he was going to get away with a quick easy crime. And while hunters care a lot about achieving rapid, one shot kills, our hypothetical Mrs Z is perfectly happy to gut shoot her assailant and leave him to flee then painfully die, or more likely get to an ER and get saved at taxpayer expense.

The assumption here (fervent wish?) is that once shot, the assailant will break off the attack. Some will. Some won't. Stories abound of crooks getting shot and not giving up, but rather continuing to inflict harm. I would rather they not be faced with the decision to stop or not - I want to make that decision for them, when I pull the trigger. I want every advantage in that regard.

[jyl]

I hear you Jeff, but note the FBI is going back to the 9 mm, from the .40 SW. They have concluded that the most important things for a pistol round is (1) to be fired accurately, and (2) to penetrate 12 to 18 inches. All the stuff about bullet expansion, secondary wound channel, stopping power is a "myth" when taking about handgun calibers, per the FBI, and that is pretty consistent with what you said. Apparently the bureau now thinks modern 9 mm penetrates as well as the larger calibers, and officers are more accurate with it.

[Rick Lee]

[jyl]

Another thing - most of the data (anecdotal and otherwise) on humans getting shot by handguns is from when police are shooting criminals. Seems to me the criminal then has the maximum motivation to fight on - police have him cornered, there isn't a "fight vs flee" choice, only a "fight vs surrender". A criminal who finds his intended victim shooting back might face a clearer "fight vs flee" choice, since the criminal knows if he flees the victim isn't going to pursue him.

[flatbutt]

Tangent comment : Z man, good luck with your choice. As a fellow sufferer I'd be interested in hearing how you fare with the permit process. My last one took 4 months.

[techman1]

Direct feedback for the Walter PPK.
Have had mine, early manufacture Interarms from around the '70's, for about 25 years.
Likes:
Never had a ftf or jam. Very accurate, relatively cheap ammo to stay proficient. Slim, IWB holster easy to conceal. Pocket holster also easy carry.
Dislikes:
IWB carry, the hammer serrations...Little heavy compared to modern .380's , might need more than 7 rounds. BEWARE of the slide bite, later models had a semi beavertail. Without it, inexperience can have the slide coming back and cutting 2 grooves in your hand.

Concern about the number of rounds and stopping power led me to change to .40 for a CCW.

[Z-man]

flatbutt: Paperwork submitted mid-November, 2014. This was only for an address change - I moved one town over, same county (Passaic county). Since my original FPID was issued less than 2 years ago, there was no need to re-do the mental background check.

New FPID issued 04-15. Reason for delay: the original letter sent to my company to verify employment and verify that I am mentally capable of owning a firearm was never sent back. Letter was sent 12-15-2014. The town police called me with a follow up in late March. I advised them to send the letter directly to my HR representative. Letter sent and returned in less than a month.

So I could have gotten my FPID sooner, had the letter not gotten lost at work.

When I applied for my original FPID, it took 9 months for the entire process! Apparently then it was held up by the state mental background check: I guess the one person (?) who processes that either had a lot of vacation time or sick time that year...

I have heard other stories of paperwork lost, and other delays to the FPID process.

techman1: Thanks for the input on the PPK. I'm looking for the Smith & Wesson variant licenced by Walther. As you state, that PPK/S has an extended beavertail to help prevent slide bite.

-Z

[jyl]

Thanks, this reminds me I need to renew my CHL in the coming year.

[Z-man]

I am sure folks here have had experience with Gunbroker. Trustworthy site? Are there any hidden costs?

Let me know...

-Z-man.

[aschen]

This discussion reminds me of a funny cartoon y'all have prob seen




Im no expert but for self defence and carry, this thing seems to make alot of sense

[Jrboulder]

I am sure folks here have had experience with Gunbroker. Trustworthy site? Are there any hidden costs?



Let me know...



-Z-man.

It basically eBay for guns. I only buy from FFL dealers. Everyone's got a story about some yahoo sending the gun to their house but I've had nothing but good legal transactions and really good deals.

[targa911S]

this discussion could go on forever..

[targa911S]

gunbroker ..good but NJ has some funny rules. Do not do anything that is not through an FFL.
With you being a lefty, shell ejection will be a problem for you. Most semi autos eject right. Walther PPK/S are nice but I find them to be at the least ammo specific and unreliable.Look for an Ulm or Zella made gun. The interarms ones can be sketchy. I have an older Walther PP in .32 that is the only one of 3 I have owned I would stake my life on. Yes it's a .32, ok laugh. Now who of you will now volunteer to stand in front of it? ....I thought so. If you go semi I have always found the easiest way to chamber a round its to hold the slide with your left hand and push the frame forward with your right hand, instead of trying to pull the slide. The frame has a handle the slide does not. I think you should look at revolvers in .38 special. Keep in mind a target gun and a CC gun are two different animals. One is for short range 15-30 feet at most. A gun that can fill both target and defense is a hard find. Gonna take two guns to do that I think..

[BeyGon]

I really liked my Colt Mustang .380 but since they stopped making them maybe I was the only one.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

That 9mm looks way better than the .45 that I leave at home because it's too big and heavy.

[porsche4life]

Still a big hole that 9mm makes.... Place your shots right and nobody is getting up after that

[Hugh R]

One of my BILs is a San Joaquin County Deputy Sheriff, he says they switched to .40 from 9mm, because the 9 didn't do the job. No expertise here.

That chart.... energy = 1/2 mass times velocity squared. Its not the meat, its the motion, so to speak.