Thread: Gun advice needed

Originally Posted by HamburgO

Some good good and helpful points mentioned in this thread are:

1. The need to develop proper mindset, which I would define as clarity of intent and consequence, when carrying any weapon.
2. The need for effective, extensive and ongoing training with any weapon that one intends to carry. (heavy clip) ...

I'm standing next to Hamburg on this one. I worked on the other end of the barrel. I've seen my share of knife and gun club incidents in the bloody side of the meat locker. For the most part, balancing all the results I've seen, BALL ammo, in a pistol, is the most effective. It shatters things, it wanders around inside all the soft parts and winds up in the strangest places where the surgeons use words I can't print here.

Hollow points require a lot of speed and energy to deform. Most don't from the distances that typical shootings occur, therefore in my experience, they are no better than ball. But they look cool. Now, if you want to talk about frangible rounds, or Glasers (you should hear the surgeons cuss those) or the now banned Black Talons or other soft shelled copper clad types, there are exceptions to my general rule. They can leave bits and pieces all over the place. If you live, you'll carry pieces the rest of your days.

High speed rounds, like the vaunted .357 and other supersonics, tend to go through the body, expending all their ballistic energy some where else. Unless these were head shots or struck some large blood vessel they were all survivable wounds.

Large ball (by weight or mass) at slower speeds tends to remain inside the body delivering all that ballistic energy and doing a lot more damage. Hell, even Dirty Harry used .44 Specials in his Magnum. That got lost in all the other dialogue. Why, because it was slow and big and controllable. But, on the contrary side, the lowly .22LR is highly controllable and five or six of those little puppies in the same hole or nearby are equal to 200 grains in one big ball wandering around, and going in different directions. Even one of them in the squash is enough.

Back to the beginning. Intent first, last and always. If the shooter cannot accept that they are going to hurt someone and take the responsibility, they are better off not shooting. The same for striking someone with your fist or spray or taser or a chair or...well you get the idea.

If you intend to shoot, then be smooth and accurate and lethal. Examine deep into yourself and learn to live with it. This is not something learned by one day, or even several, on the range. It's not something learned in any academy or basic training. This changes people and the herd will not think you are comfortable to be around. In the end, this is not about the object (pistol, rifle, tool) it's about human behavior. "A man's (or woman's) got to know his limitations..."

Originally Posted by HamburgO

Other points I don't find quite as helpful are:

...

2. The age-old argument over which caliber has the most "real-world stopping power". The success or failure of any defensive action with firearms is only marginally dependent on the caliber of the bullet used - factors such as shot placement, the amount of hits to vital areas and the aggregate trauma as well as specific damage these cause weigh far more heavily.
...

I'm feeling argumentative this morning, so let me counter your excellent point with the observation that trained marksmen give great consideration to bullet caliber and "stopping-power" (what ever that is.). There is a reason the FBI switched to the .40 S&W. There is a reason some of my SF friends prefer a .45 ACP. The Army switched from a .38 cal to the .45 cal because of a perceived lack of "stopping-power" while fighting in the Philippines. Everyone from Jack O'Connor to your friendly neighborhood Navy SEAL will tell you that shot placement is the key to effective conflict resolution, but, all else being equal, a more consistently efficient firearm is preferred by the Pro's.

I've heard rumblings that the USMC is looking at returning to the venerable .45 ACP after using the 9mm in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade. (On a personal note, I always felt a bit under-gunned while carrying my Beretta in Afghanistan. I qualified expert and, at pistol distances, can put a round where I want, but I'd rather carry a .40 or .45. Still, when you are paying for the gun, you don't get to pick what you carry.)

With my lifestyle, I find that I can avoid getting into situations where deadly force is necessary (with the exception of Afghanistan). At home I keep a 12 ga. available--usually in a safe, but if my personal Threat Con changes. I occasionally receive work-related threats and feel that a defensive weapon may be useful. This is rare, but real.

If I am out and about, I'm relying on my SA (situational awareness), a small can of pepper spray, and a cell phone. Avoiding the conflict, is step one in my book and it seems to have worked out pretty well so far. I tend to be more concerned about the hassle of carrying and potential legal consequences of using a firearm, than the remote potential need to have one.

Pepper spray is, in my mind, more likely to be useful than a firearm. I've never seen anyone stand up to a face full of OC/CS spray. Part of my decision to carry pepper spray is that I do not anticipate being in situations where deadly force is required or even justifiable. On the other hand, it does not seem unreasonable that pepper spray could give me a little time and space to seek assistance from the LE community to deal with a potentially dangerous situation where escape is not immediately available. Truth be told, there were situations in Afghanistan where I wish I had been carrying pepper spray instead of my M9 (also carried an M4 with an ACOG).

Each of us has different needs, and no one defense solution will work for everyone. Still, while I am very much in the gun-rights camp, I think the decision to carry a firearm should be made very carefully. And screw the expense. If you can drop $200 for a razor, you should be willing to shell out $600 for the purse gun that best suits your needs and will be reliable should that fateful choice to employ deadly force arise.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something that has gotten me flamed in a few gun discussion (in other places, not here).

Police experiences with both firearms and non-lethal defense (spray, taser) can not be extrapolated to civilian defensive use of firearms/non-lethal defense. The reason is simple, police and civilian encounters with criminals are vastly different. A cop is trying to subdue and arrest. A criminal does not want to be arrested/confined/handcuffed/restrained. His actions, when properly viewed from this perspective, can be seen as an effort to escape. If he is attacking the arresting officer it is not because his aim is to hurt the cop, but he views the cop as the weakest point through which he is able to escape*. Cops may taze or pepper spray a suspect several times, but a panicking man is capable of quite a bit of physical output under some extreme conditions. In many cases where a suspect has thrown off several officers it has been found that he was in cardiac arrest at the time. Panic and adrenalin, and fear of death, not angle dust, is what drives people into these rages. We all remember Rodney King. It took many and several cops to subdue that guy. Why did he keep getting up? He said why in an interview, "I thought they were going to kill me".

In contrast to what the police encounter, a criminal who is targeting a civilian (for whatever crime they have in mind) is doing so with the hope or expectation that they have found an easy target. No mugger hides in the shadows waiting for the biggest and most obviously armed man to walk by to rob. He waits in the shadows looking for the most vulnerable person. As soon as that vulnerable person shows themselves to be armed then the attacker will generally do what seems most logical, to beat a retreat. A great way to be overpowered by an attacker is to prevent their escape. When using a firearm defensively it's important not to stand in the only exit. YOU are not responsible for taking the guy into custody, that's a cop's job. If you don't kill the attacker immediately (which you probably won't) you want to give him a direction to run, because he most certainly will. This is why caliber is not nearly as important for defensive firearms as it would be for a police officer. Having said that, I don't think I'd use anything below .38, but I'd rather have a .22 than nothing.

I agree with HamburgO about Tasers. You have to be too close to use one and they aren't even that reliable. If the attacker is wearing thick clothing they won't work at all. I don't completely agree about the pepper spray, though. It is a VERY effective weapon for defense with the caveat that you aren't defending yourself against a person who you've previously pissed off or who has targeted you personally (grudge, stalker, crazy ex-husband, you need a gun for all of those, I imagine). In other words, it's effective against a purse snatcher, mugger, rapist. The biggest problem with pepper spray is that the person using it is likely to be almost as incapacitated as the person on whom it's being used.

I also have to agree with HamburgO about grip size. Thin grips hurt. I don't know that painful grips would make me hesitate to shoot someone. By then, I think the discomfort of my grips would be the last thing on my mind, but it would probably increase my flinch.


*There are, of course exceptions. A few criminals have overpowered and killed police even after opening up their avenue of escape.

Originally Posted by Nix

If I am out and about, I'm relying on my SA (situational awareness), a small can of pepper spray, and a cell phone. Avoiding the conflict, is step one in my book and it seems to have worked out pretty well so far. I tend to be more concerned about the hassle of carrying and potential legal consequences of using a firearm, than the remote potential need to have one.

Outstanding point.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

she is not an inexperienced shooter.

An experienced shooter should not need to ask what type of weapon they need to carry, if any. The most experienced shooters know that carrying a lethal weapon often causes more problems than it solves. As my Aikido sensei used to stress, the whole point of defensive training is not to put yourself in situation where you need to defend yourself.
It's different for law enforcement and military personnel, who often have to put themselves in life threatening situations to carry out their job and therefore need to carry a weapon.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

An experienced shooter should not need to ask what type of weapon they need to carry, if any. The most experienced shooters know that carrying a lethal weapon often causes more problems than it solves. As my Aikido sensei used to stress, the whole point of defensive training is not to put yourself in situation where you need to defend yourself.
It's different for law enforcement and military personnel, who often have to put themselves in life threatening situations to carry out their job and therefore need to carry a weapon.

Well, I suppose I could have chosen my words better, but when I said "not inexperienced" I didn't mean to imply "Highly experienced" .

And to further address your post, I am a very experienced shooter but I've never carried, so I would have the exact same questions if I intended to begin carrying a concealed weapon. How to carry and what to carry are important questions, and knowing people with experience doing so would be welcome insight, at least for me (or my friend).

As far as keeping out of situations where you may be called upon to defend yourself, well that's a luxury that some people don't have. Economic times being what they are, people sometimes find themselves taking jobs or living in places where they are much more vulnerable that we would like to be.

Hi,

I like a good and gentlemanly argument! Please see my responses in bold below...

Originally Posted by Nix

I'm feeling argumentative this morning, so let me counter your excellent point with the observation that trained marksmen give great consideration to bullet caliber and "stopping-power" (what ever that is.). There is a reason the FBI switched to the .40 S&W.

Actually, before switching to the .40, the FBI went from the standard issue .38 and 9mm revolver/auto to the 10mm, which seemed like the greatest invention since sliced bread when the caliber first hit the market. Unfortunately, handguns chambered thus were found to be too hard to control (some say especially by the more petite-bodied female agents), and the decision was made to revert to the somewhat less powerful .40 S&W. I own two 10mm Glocks, like them very much, and occasionally carry one of them, the compact G29. The full-sized G20, equipped with a Trijicon RMR red-dot sight, is used strictly for hog-hunting purposes. My main concern with the 10mm is over-penetration on human targets, and I carry the G29 with loads that minimize that particular risk.

There is a reason some of my SF friends prefer a .45 ACP.

I submit that one of these reasons is certainly prevalent gun culture, conventional wisdom, as it were. The 1911 chambered in .45 ACP is still regarded by many as the one and only "true" American fighting man's handgun - courtesy of Colonel Cooper, Hackathorn, Clint Smith, and other men of renown in the old school ways...

The Army switched from a .38 cal to the .45 cal because of a perceived lack of "stopping-power" while fighting in the Philippines. Everyone from Jack O'Connor to your friendly neighborhood Navy SEAL will tell you that shot placement is the key to effective conflict resolution, but, all else being equal, a more consistently efficient firearm is preferred by the Pro's.

Yep, the Moro warriors, armed only with Bolos, gave the US amy a serious run for its money. On amphetamine-like drugs, and with leather strips lashed around limbs and acting as pre-emptive tourniquets, they would take multple hits from .38 revolvers and still keep coming... Finally prompting the Army to switch to .45. The one question I have not been able to find an answer to yet is whether this switch actually made a huge difference in that particular conflict. In modern times, I've studied statistics of real-world shooting incidents and have not found that, over decades and thousands of incidents, a single HANDGUN caliber has consistently outperformed others in the field. (Shotguns and rifles are a different story...) If you can show me otherwise, please do. Meanwhile, besides your friend Jack and the SEALS, statistics seem to confirm that shot placement is indeed the key...

I've heard rumblings that the USMC is looking at returning to the venerable .45 ACP after using the 9mm in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade. (On a personal note, I always felt a bit under-gunned while carrying my Beretta in Afghanistan. I qualified expert and, at pistol distances, can put a round where I want, but I'd rather carry a .40 or .45. Still, when you are paying for the gun, you don't get to pick what you carry.)

I haven't heard this about the USMC, but it may well be true. With all due respect, and my sincere gratitude for your service, I would submit that your sidearm in Afghanistan was more of a backup solution, with an M4 (and lots of ammo) the primary? Anyway, I have several friends who prefer the larger calibers, and have no argument with that, except to say that a larger caliber will not guarantee your success in a gunfight.

With my lifestyle, I find that I can avoid getting into situations where deadly force is necessary (with the exception of Afghanistan). At home I keep a 12 ga. available--usually in a safe, but if my personal Threat Con changes. I occasionally receive work-related threats and feel that a defensive weapon may be useful. This is rare, but real.

If I am out and about, I'm relying on my SA (situational awareness), a small can of pepper spray, and a cell phone. Avoiding the conflict, is step one in my book and it seems to have worked out pretty well so far. I tend to be more concerned about the hassle of carrying and potential legal consequences of using a firearm, than the remote potential need to have one.

You'll get no argument from me on this. Outside of the NRA curriculum, I teach a civilian course that focuses on situational awareness, avoidance, evasion, de-escalation, and finally controlled escalation. I believe that a large percentage of potential threats can be eliminated long before the S hits the H, and that weapons are a final resort for the the remainder of time. Unfortunately, we have to spend an inordinate of time training to use resources that have a realtively low probability of having to be deployed...


Pepper spray is, in my mind, more likely to be useful than a firearm. I've never seen anyone stand up to a face full of OC/CS spray. Part of my decision to carry pepper spray is that I do not anticipate being in situations where deadly force is required or even justifiable. On the other hand, it does not seem unreasonable that pepper spray could give me a little time and space to seek assistance from the LE community to deal with a potentially dangerous situation where escape is not immediately available. Truth be told, there were situations in Afghanistan where I wish I had been carrying pepper spray instead of my M9 (also carried an M4 with an ACOG).

I have to say that I like and appreciate your attitude, especially coming from someone who has seen some action, and I concur that in my life as well, the likelihood of a lethal threat is fairly low. Unfortunately, there is still a degree, albeit small, of probability, and it is for this that I prepare. I have myself used pepper-spray in two separate situations, once against multiple attackers, and once against an individual, and it proved effective enough to repel both attacks. However, in both cases, I was fully prepared to escalate to lethal force if necessary... I have witnessed pepper spray fail, not entirely, but enough to still earn the defender a couple of good whacks to the head before the full effect of the spray took hold on the attacker. Had the attacker's weapon been a knife or a gun, the defender would most certainly have been done for . .

Each of us has different needs, and no one defense solution will work for everyone. Still, while I am very much in the gun-rights camp, I think the decision to carry a firearm should be made very carefully. And screw the expense. If you can drop $200 for a razor, you should be willing to shell out $600 for the purse gun that best suits your needs and will be reliable should that fateful choice to employ deadly force arise.

With this, I could not agree more!

Originally Posted by HNSB

A .380 with good hollowpoint ammo has better real world stopping power than a .45 with ball ammo.
The gun I carry most often is a Sig Sauer P238. I love that little sucker.

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the Ruger LCP yet. It's a great little gun, and it fits your budget.
Like most pocket pistols, the recoil is fairly sharp on the LCP but it is accurate, inexpensive, and tiny.

Thank you, HNSB
I just choked on my Oreo's and spit milk on my keyboard.
God Bless ya, if that's what you believe. So long as you carry something.

Originally Posted by HamburgO

... The one question I have not been able to find an answer to yet is whether this switch actually made a huge difference in that particular conflict. ...

I haven't seen anything definitive there either. The Army reverted to using Single Action Colts in .45 Colt in the Philippines. Legend has it that the venerable .45's were more effective, but that is just legend to the best of my knowledge. Nevertheless, the .45 ACP was developed to mimic the .45 Colt, but in a rimless cartridge for the autoloader. I suspect that you are right that the .45 ACP is just believed to be superior because of it's history as a US weapon. But it does have a strong history, and I do wonder if we have a case of "where there's a smoking .45, there's a fire."

I'm off to walk the dogs...with my pepper spray.

Originally Posted by Nix

I haven't seen anything definitive there either. ...

I'm off to walk the dogs...with my pepper spray.

Speaking from experience again...I never had to worry when I walked my Akita. She was as much of a loaded weapon as anyone could ask for.