Gun Advice

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

OK here is a quote from a cop friend of mine this AM ( my nephew )

"I've heard stories of people surviving all kinds of rounds until their body literally only fail due to actual hydraulic failure (blood loss) so the best thing to do to assist that is to use a round with a lot of energy transference and expansion like a Federal Hydro shock round. But truth be told you can survive anything if you have the will to survive and fight."

He knows nothing of this conversation or this board

With all due respect to your nephew and his "I've heard stories...", there are decades of "real world" data from folks who've had first hand experiences, performed extensive studies, and know WAY more about this stuff than you, I, or your nephew ever will. I'm not into this stuff anymore like I was as a teen, but folks like Jeff Cooper, Elmer Keith, and General Julian Hatcher et al were "experts" on this subject matter, and they simply did not agree with your nephew's assertion. His last statement is simply false and if you think about it carefully, you will see that I'm correct in calling BS on that one. THINK about it...seriously! Does your nephew REALLY believe that a human could take a .44 mag directly in the heart and survive because of their "will"...ask him

[joeyb]

These are links to an FBI paper on handgun wounding factors and effectiveness:

part 1:

http://www.pointshooting.com/fbipart1.htm

part 2:

http://www.pointshooting.com/fbipart2.htm

If you're the type who just wants the conclusion, here it is:

Conclusions

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed."(42,43)

Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet. (44)

[afterburn 549]

Superman I tend to agree with ..like I said in a prior post the sound will make them deaf from the concussion 1 sneak around behind them and push them over and let their reflexes twitch.
I do not need to defend his comment, He deals with the s$%^ way too much........needless to say he is not employed by the State lazy Patrol.
What I think I know is a head shot will more then stop most things...esp with a 45 !

[KFC911]

You will not change my mind, nor will I continue this "never ending debate" amongst the "experts" (I'm certainly not one). That last statement says it all from my perspective (I didn't read the links, as I said, I was into this stuff 30 years ago, but not so much any more). My earlier statement about not comprehending why one would opt for a 9mm still stands and the very last sentence sums it up nicely.

[Az911]

Originally Posted by KC911

You will not change my mind, nor will I continue this "never ending debate" amongst the "experts" (I'm certainly not one). That last statement says it all from my perspective (I didn't read the links, as I said, I was into this stuff 30 years ago, but not so much any more). My earlier statement about not comprehending why one would opt for a 9mm still stands and the very last sentence sums it up nicely.

So you reject the facts and insert your own reality?

[KFC911]

Yes . Backed up with a .44 mag or .45 ACP, and I'll take my chances... What's your choice, 9mm or .4x?

ps: I don't put the same faith in "studies" or "papers" that you seem to, and reality is what it is...not mine.

[KarlCarrera]

The Para or the Springfield XD are very good choices. Springfield will be less expensive $ for $, and like for like. I have both and would agree that the Para is heavier than the Springfield. I have found both to be very accurate (at least by my standards), trouble free, & easy to take down and clean. There definatley is recoil but that's just part of the game with this caliber. No matter your selection, get extra factory clips and lots of rounds.

Karl
88 targa

[afterburn 549]

Well I read over the FBI report and they agree with what my nephew says

[KFC911]

Can't always believe what you read (especially on the Internet...my posts ) and from anybody with an "agenda". Experts have been debating this stuff since I was a kid (one can find lots of data to refute either side), and the "reality" is that many LEO agencies, military types, etc. have seen the shortcomings of smaller (.38, 9mm, .357) cartridges when forced to use them, hence the move in recent decades to a "compromise" somewhere in between. Personally, I don't care what any report might say in "theory" if it maintains that a direct shot to the heart with a .44 magnum and the subsequent "stopping power" is simply a myth, but that's just "my reality" I suppose .

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

Sup,

Why a semi-auto? Revolvers are MUCH less prone to jamming. Get a .357 and you can shoot .38 specials through it all day long! Anyway, revolvers are easier to handle, less tricky to operate, and will be easier to shoot for a novice shooter (not that you are a novice).

Yep, I'm going to get flamed for it, but check out revolvers. Did I also mention they are usually less expensive to purchase???

[KFC911]

Just my .02 again, (I have both a .357 and .44 mag), both very high quality revolvers, and though they have their places, I'll grab my .45 ACP if the crap hits the fan. The recoil is MUCH less on the semi-automatic and it's much more compact and carriable (is that a word?). Since the .45 ACP has "almost" as much stopping power as the .44 mag (which recoils like a freakin' mule), and isn't near as likely to pass through several walls before dissipating, imo, it's much more preferable as a defensive round. I always clean my guns after every use, and only shoot high quality ammo...never had a jam or mis-fire in any of them over three decades. There are very few "absolutes", but jamming a well maintained, high quality semi-auto, using quality ammo isn't something I personally worry about.

ps: the .357 recoils a LOT more than the .45 too FWIW (of course, I'm talking about using magnum rounds).

[porsche4life]

Get a revolver and then when you blast someone into the next dimension you dont have to worry about finding the brass. Not that you would ever do that but....

[afterburn 549]

Proof on the Internet.... Just watch the Holy Grail ( Monty python ) we will all see a person can keep on going and going and going. LOL

[Superman]

Whoa. You guys had a nice little discussion. I'll settle the argument for you guys:

You're both right. "Stopping power" is not a myth. I know we're talking about pistolas here but I have personally watched a good number of elk get knocked on their asses by a 30-06 projectile. Seriously. Knocked over as if they had been hit by a car. There is such a thing as "stopping power."

I have also seen animals run after they've died. I once saw a deer run about a hundred yards without a heart. No kidding. When we dressed the animal out, the heart looked like a handful of hamburger.

So.......my conclusion is this: If I am going to carry an "effective" weapon, I figure a .45 should do the trick. If some nutcase on PCP attacks my family, I figure he might be so hopped up on drugs that he might not notice being hit by small caliber bullets at first. I bet .45-caliber ones will get his attention. Indeed, I'd guess you could make a guy walk backwards with a .45 ACP, assuming he can stay on his feet.

That Springfield XD looks like a good gun. I want a 1911 for its reputation and reliability, but I'm still gathering information. Thanks, guys.

I don't like revolvers. Too wide, too Neanderthal and only six bullets.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Superman

Whoa. You guys had a nice little discussion. I'll settle the argument for you guys:....

You started it! Hey, we weren't really "arguing", but rather having a nice little Internet discussion, as we're prone to do here . You won't regret a nice .45 semi-auto...there, did I get the last word in?

ps: close the thread, quick!!!

[jyl]

If you're looking for a semi-auto to carry, I think the polymer-frame striker-fired guns have a lot going for them.

- Cheaper than a (good) 1911.
- Lighter than a 1911.
- (Often) more corrosion-resistant that a 1911 (good in sweaty climes)
- (Usually) double-stack so holds more rounds than a 1911.
- (Can be) more compact than a 1911 - for instance, a Glock 36 is smaller than practically any 1911, it will fit in a front pants pocket.
- Simpler to use than a 1911. Like a revolver - point and pull trigger. No manual safety, no "cocked and locked". This makes some types of carry easier - e.g. in a "pocket holster" riding in a pants or coat pocket. (They do make pocket holsters for 1911s, but the cocked hammer will be sticking out there, snagging and bumping.)

I personally like Glocks. They are simple, rugged, reliable, and relatively inexpensive. There are a lot of "performance parts" that simply drop in.

In my opinion, Glocks are also more tried and tested than most new 1911s.

Shocking statement, I know. Here's my reasoning.

Today the "1911" is not one model of gun or even one design, it has become a group of guns made by many different companies, that vary one from the other. Each manufacturer machines its parts just a little bit differently, and some use different extractor, guide rod, bushing, etc designs. Thus one manufacturer's 1911 part won't necessarily work on another's 1911 without gunsmithing. So just because the original 1911 design dates back 97 years and fought in WW1/2/etc doesn't mean that the 1911s produced by XYZ company have 97 years of field use backing them - often its a lot less.

On the other hand, the Glock is one design (in multiple calibers) that has been made by one company for - well, the Glock 17 was introduced in 1980, so nearly 30 years. And since Glocks are on the hips of more cops than any other pistol (>60% market share in US), they've logged vastly more actual field time than any model of 1911 currently being sold. I mean, buffs of XYZ 1911 will say "the XYZ 1911 is tried and tested". But are there 2 to 3 million XYZ 1911s out there, riding in holsters and being fired in anger? Not even close.

I've fired the S&W M&P and it is a very nice pistol too. Never tried the Springfield XD.

[jyl]

Forgot to add, you should go to a range and rent several different pistols to try out. Grips, trigger pulls, etc are all quite personal, so some hate the feel of XYZ gun and others love it.

If you ultimately decide on a 1911 type, and want a super-compact one for concealed carry - I have a Seattle-made Detonics CombatMaster that never gets used . . .

[joeyb]

If you decide on the XD and you're interested in carrying it, I suggest the compact over the service model. It has the same 4 inch barrel, same 13rd capacity with the sleeved magazine and with the shorter 10rd magazine the grip is about an inch shorter making it easier to carry without printing. It's like having 2 guns.

[KFC911]

Very interesting points JYL! John Browning (genius gun designer on par with Ferdinand Porsche imo) designed my Colt . Like I said, I'm not into this stuff as much as I used to be, and I'd never even considered some of the issues you raised...I love this place!

ps: still trying to get the last word in...

[Superman]

Interesting. Well as I say, I am open to the possibility of a non-1911. Having said that, the 1911 is still the front-runner. Besides time-honored reliability the 1911 has safety features I like. I'm not very trusting or casual about firearms. Again, my experience has been with rifles and it's in this context you need to understand the next remark. I have never, ever, transported a loaded weapon. Ever. The idea of having a weapon on my person that's got a cartridge in the chamber and the hammer is drawn......well......I'm not yet comfortable with that. I like the 1911 for its safety features. I like the ducktail safety PLUS the manual safety.

The Detonics seems kinda small and in an article, there was much discussion about ammunition that is reputed to NOT work well in them, jamming happening for some folks and not for others and springs that should be replaced frequently to increase reliability. I want this gun to have reliability similar to a sledgehammer. Gravity. I want this gun to be as reliable as gravity.