Jump to content
WildSurvive Forum
oldfatguy

Handgun thoughts

Recommended Posts

i read up on that shooting many years ago, the one thing that sticks in my mind is the fact the 9mm round that didnt kill plat actually did exactly what it was supposed to do. the FBI specified there round to penetrate a minimum distance of 8 inches and a maximum of 12 in. it was designed to not overpenatrate and hit civilians in the background. if you check out the report and do the math the round entered his arm then exited his arm and entered his torso stopping 1-2 inches from his heart. the total flesh it traveled threw was 12 inches i believe. therefore the round can never be blamed for not stopping the fight. even though the round did exactly what it was designed to do, to this day the 9mm has a bad rep because of the polotics around that shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say all the research in the world doesn't mean nothing...some folks are just lucky. I say carry the caliber and weapon you can fire the best in accuracy and comfort.  This will go a lot further than historical events and research

 

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say all the research in the world doesn't mean nothing...some folks are just lucky. I say carry the caliber and weapon you can fire the best in accuracy and comfort.  This will go a lot further than historical events and research

 

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

ive always said a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a 44. mag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned above, I believe Platt was also wearing a leather jacket, which the the round went through three times (in left arm, out left arm, in through body).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say all the research in the world doesn't mean nothing...some folks are just lucky. I say carry the caliber and weapon you can fire the best in accuracy and comfort.  This will go a lot further than historical events and research

 

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

Well said, Fastmover.  I'd rather be a good shot and carry a .380 than a poor shot and carry a .45.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Rockhounder:  I am so old, you qualified expert if you could reload your weapon in less than two minutes.  My first issue pistol had a rock on the side to make sparks.  :hugegrin: happy061.gif

 

 

That right there made me spill about an ounce and a half of irish whiskey through my nose.....You owe me Unca. I figure a fat Churchill cigar and a friendly game of "chip" at the trap range would settle things. I'll get over the "sting" in my nose...... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That right there made me spill about an ounce and a half of irish whiskey through my nose.....You owe me Unca. I figure a fat Churchill cigar and a friendly game of "chip" at the trap range would settle things. I'll get over the "sting" in my nose...... :P

 

This IS an actual photo of me in uniform:

 

cadetcvr.jpg

 

I wasn't bein' quite honest about the flint...  Actually it was pyrites, and you wound up the spring-wheel... The flint came with my later guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that you've sort of narrowed down your focus OFG, have you given thought to the way you're going to carry?  In the waistband (IWB), outside  the waistband (OWB), etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we please try to keep this thread a bit more on topic? 

Thanks - ofg

 

~  SURE!    ON topic  ON topic  ON topic    yeah yeah yeah!

                  ON topic  ON topic  ON topic  yeah yeah yeah!  :punk:

 

                  Got to keep it

                  Got to keep it

                  Got to keep it

 

                    ON 

 

                    TAH

                    PIC!

 

                ::pbjt::      got to keep it going ON.... got to keep it on that

toppity topic

toppity topic

toppity topic

NOW yeah baby..... yeah yeah yeah! 

 

oh, what was the topic again?  :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~  SURE!    ON topic  ON topic  ON topic    yeah yeah yeah!

                  ON topic  ON topic  ON topic  yeah yeah yeah!  :punk:

 

                  Got to keep it

                  Got to keep it

                  Got to keep it

 

                    ON 

 

                    TAH

                    PIC!

 

                ::pbjt::      got to keep it going ON.... got to keep it on that

toppity topic

toppity topic

toppity topic

NOW yeah baby..... yeah yeah yeah! 

 

oh, what was the topic again?  :unsure:

'

It's the thought that counts, Taken.  LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that you've sort of narrowed down your focus OFG, have you given thought to the way you're going to carry?  In the waistband (IWB), outside  the waistband (OWB), etc?

K-Bob  Definitely something to think about.  I will not carry everyday, just when it might be needed.  I like the feel of the Crossbreed Supertuck, which is an IWB.

I am open to suggestions as well.

Thanks - OFG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had a chance to try one, but I have yet to hear the first negative comment on the Crossbreed SuperTuck.  I'm working on getting one myself, plus I'm interested in Dragon Leatherworks' Fugly holster:

 

http://www.dragonleatherworks.com/fugly.htm

 

I've had my share of IWB holsters, and the vast majority have been uncomfortable junk that wanted to move around.  The SuperTuck and Fugly are a pair that I've been wanting to try.  I just recently bought a Bianchi Model 100 IWB holster for my Kimber and Colt .45's, so far it isn't too bad, but I think that either of the other two would better distribute the weight of a full or medium sized handgun.  The main thing I've found is that a full body shield between all the little edges of a gun (hammer, grip safety, etc) is a must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense to me to get a quality handgun, spend the time learning to use it,  then have a cheap ass holster that you aren't comfortable wearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, a good holster is an investment.  I've always carried the full or medium sized autos in a OWB holster, and I haven't skimped on those.  But I've learned that skimping on the IWB holster is just a bad idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i use galco iwb and i have a blackhawk serpa for owb. k bob is absolutly right. make sure there is leather, plastic or a forcefield between the exposed part of the gun and your body. i carried in crappy cheap holsters for the first year i had my ccw. i actually had my gun fall out in the walmart bathroom, nobody was there but that convinced me to buy a good holster. i love my galco but i am looking at the supertuck myself. primarily for my smith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a Pro-Packer holster... but they ain't cheap.  The one I use is very compact and has an extra magazine holder for extra rocks.

 

PersProPackWx2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my CCW course....

"You don't 'Shoot to kill', you "Shoot to stop the threat'".

 

I have to disagree with that thought, If you are using a weapon to to defend yourself you shoot to kill, never to wound which that statement implies.  I think they told you that for political reasons to counter the anti gun lobby. We had the same problems in Northern Ireland where we shot to kill but the press took this as to mean we use nothing but deadly force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with that thought, If you are using a weapon to to defend yourself you shoot to kill, never to wound which that statement implies.  I think they told you that for political reasons to counter the anti gun lobby. We had the same problems in Northern Ireland where we shot to kill but the press took this as to mean we use nothing but deadly force. 

I think you are missing the point, Adi. 

If you would get into a situation where you did have to use your handgun to defend yourself, the instructor made no bones about it - shoot to kill the attacker.  There was no mention whatsoever of "shooting to wound" the attacker. 

 

What he was saying was that when the police arrived, you should say " I shot to stop the threat.".  If you said "I shot to kill", then some piss head prosecutor could (meaning some have) twist that around and make it sound you were out looking to kill someone and call in to question that what you did was in self defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No i did not miss the point. When you draw your weapon you use deadly force or shoot to kill but to stay with in the nicety's of law, the press and the public you have to sale it as neutralising the treat.

 

The law is not a threat to you as long as you can justify your actions to judge and jury. If you can not justify your actions you deserve a judgement against you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adi - I am simply passing along what was presented in class, based on what has happened in the courts and according to the law in the United States.  Yes, I agree, it is stupid that you have to present it that way, but in such a situation here in the US, doing so could do a lot to protect you under the law.

 

If you were in that situation and wished to say "I shot to kill", that is completely your choice.  Personally, I would use the phrasing as it was presented in class, after consulting with my attourney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never been in a situation where I had to use a firearm to protect myself and if I ever do I will go with the premise I used a firearm because I was scared and felt my and my family's life was in danger.  If the predator who attacked me survives or doesn't.....doesn't matter as long as my family and myself survived the scenario

 

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has always been my intention that if I was faced with having to defend myself from some one trying to kill me That I would end it right there and not let him have another chance. The same holds true from some one vowing to kill me. I would try to judge him right there just how serious he is about that threat. "Lets not wait" would be my response.

 

Survivors will do what it takes and let the law sort it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying and I agree but others with no gun knowledge get confused by the different terms and start to question your actions. Courts will start to ask why didn't you shoot to wound.   This has already happened with cases after the FBI Sniper shoot the pistol out of the guys hands who was sat in the middle of the road threatening take his head off with a lump of hi velocity lead.

 

The FBI and other law enforcement in the states admitted that the footage of the sniper taking that shot was very damaging and will lead to every shooting case in court being asked why didn't you shoot the gun out of his hand. The FBI and many SWAT teams have banned their operatives from taking such shots again.

 

If the course you were on defined the difference between you taking a killing shot and how you respond to questions then that is fine but it is a very fine line. If you shot someone and was in court and the defence team knew that you were told to shoot to stop the threat, if they were worth their salt they would be asking you why you did not shoot him in the leg or shoot the weapon out of his hand.

 

All i am trying to highlight is that comments like that you  were told makes you feel safe and secure in the eyes of the law but once tested in court and having to face the lawyers questions those words you were told will be twisted and used against you and you could be left out in the cold to face a charge against you.

 

If in that situation I would make it very clear that i was taught that if fronted by a threat to meet that threat with an appropriate level of response and if that meant drawing my weapon and firing I was taught to shoot to kill aiming at centre of mass and not to but mine and other lives at risk by shooting for any other reason, meaning if I fire my weapon i am using it to make a clean kill and not waving my weapon around trying to connecting a round to any other part of the body other than centre of mass.  

 

Remember lawyers are paid to mix up your words and make you the guilty party and make their client the victim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this was out of context a bit, Adi, but your thoughts are pretty much the intent of the instructor. If you have to shoot, shoot center mass and continue to shoot until the threat is neutralized.

 

When asked what happened, your resonse would be that you feared for your life and you defended yourself.  If asked if you "shot to kill" your repsonse should be "I shot to stop the threat".

 

There was a considerable amount of time spent in the class going over the legal ramifcations of carrying a handgun (you are not a cop, you do not get involved in something that is none of your business) as well as if you had to use it to defent yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×