How many of these myths do you still believe?

[Idaho45guy]

I run into people all the time on internet forums that insist on some of the myths debunked in this article.


https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2016/02/massad-ayoob-gunfighting-fact-vs-fiction/

Sometimes, what seems like good advice at the time is proven later to be not so great. The record shows that decades ago, when more adult Americans smoked than not, popular magazines carried ads in which physicians endorsed this or that brand of cigarette. Brand A was an excellent aid to digestion after meals, one doctor said. The menthol in Brand B was soothing to a sore throat, another physician opined.

Today, of course, we know better. Oncologists who’ve treated patients suffering from throat cancer will tell you that those old claims are bunk. They sure sounded authoritative back in the day, though. Some advice on gunfight survival goes back to the same era. And some of it is just as suspect. Let’s look at a few examples.

Myth #1: A Good Shoot Is A Good Shoot


In the old days, there was some truth to this. When it was reasonably clear that a good guy had shot a bad guy, the criminal justice system ruled it to be a justifiable action, and things were pretty much done with. Oh, there might have been a lawsuit here or there, but it was not common to see a huge wrongful death lawsuit levied on the shooter after a fatal use of force in legitimate defense of oneself or others.

Slowly, things changed. The gun control movement gained traction in the 1960s after the assassinations of President Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King and Senator Robert Kennedy. This time, the mainstream media went in the same direction, gathering a huge momentum that remains through today. From the nation’s major TV networks and the influential big city newspapers and national news magazines, to the groves of academe, it became popular to treat guns and the people who owned them as an embarrassing, dangerous manifestation of low-class stupidity. This also applied for ordinary people who picked up a gun in legitimate self-defense. It was as if the journalists’ style guide automatically decreed that the term “vigilante” be applied to those who saved themselves and others from being victimized.

Today, a good shoot isn’t a “good shoot” until the authorities say so and the last false allegation of a “bad shoot” has been decisively stamped out. It’s a predictable aftermath that must be prepared for, just as the gunfight itself must be prepared for well beforehand.

Myth #2: Aim For Center-Mass


Here the author is centered on the center of mass. He’s happy with this score from his S&W 686 and went on to win this NRA Police Service Revolver match, but he feels the center rings on this B-27 target should be up in the center portion of the chest.
This was a poor choice of words even in the old days, and that’s still true. If you think about it, the center of mass on a standing human is somewhere in his abdominal area. A bullet there may or may not prove fatal later, but is not very likely to instantly disable a violent man now, and the latter of course is what we need to ensure the survival of the good guys.

The way to stop a criminal from shooting at you is to deliver your bullet to a part of the body he needs in order to keep shooting at you, and make that part of his body stop working. I’ve told my students for decades that they should have a copy of Gray’s Anatomy right next to their shooting manuals. Read Dr. Jim Williams’ excellent book Tactical Anatomy, which is available through the website tacticalanatomy.com. An ER physician with extensive experience treating gunshot wounds and intensive firearms training himself, Dr. Williams details the proper points of aim from various angles when the object of shooting is to render a homicidal criminal incapable of carrying out his murderous actions.

Myth #3: He Who Shoots First Wins


In a gunfight, the person who shoots first doesn’t always win. One historic example to prove this point is the famous shootout between Wild Bill Hickok and Dave Tutt. Tutt panicked and opened fire on Hickok when they were some 70 yards apart, but his bullets missed. Hickok stayed calm, aimed carefully and ended the fight by putting a .36-caliber round through Tutt’s heart, dropping him instantly. And while it only took one shot for Hickok, he had plenty of extra ammo on hand.
This is untrue on multiple levels. Gunfights are not won by the guy who makes the first loud noise. They’re not even won by the first guy who gets a hit. In Springfield, Missouri, in the 19th century, Wild Bill Hickok met Dave Tutt in the town square, in what may have been the only time in the Old West that two men actually did have a “walk and draw” contest in the middle of the street. Tutt panicked and opened fire on Hickok when they were some 70 yards apart. His bullets missed. Hickok coolly stood his ground, aimed carefully and ended the fight by putting a .36-caliber round through his antagonist’s heart.

In the more famous gunfight at OK Corral, Wyatt Earp’s brother, Morgan, was shot down by a bullet that went across his shoulders and chipped one of his vertebrae, and Doc Holliday received a glancing wound to the hip from Frank McLaury’s Colt .44. A moment later, McLaury fell dead, killed instantly when Holliday shot him in the chest and the wounded Morgan Earp almost simultaneously shot him in the head.

Hero cop Stacy Lim killed her attacker with four Remington JHPs from her 9mm Beretta, after a .357 Mag bullet hit her heart. She recovered and returned to work.
Even severe wounds may not seriously disable a committed combatant. I have had the privilege of meeting many hero cops who have survived hellacious gunfight injuries and gone on to prevail. One is Stacy Lim of the LAPD. She was shot in the heart with a .357 Mag revolver at the opening of her encounter. She returned fire with her Beretta 9mm, killing her antagonist with four solid hits out of the four she fired. She recovered to return to full duty, and today is one of the nation’s most respected police firearms instructors. Another is Officer Jared Reston of Jacksonville, Florida. He was shot in the face at point-blank range by a gunman armed with a .45 ACP who then fired six more bullets into Reston when he fell. Jared returned fire from the ground with his Glock .40. He killed the assailant and recovered to return to patrol and SWAT duty.

These were the good guys and gals. But the bad guys can be just as resilient, and we would all do well to remember that it took Stacy four dead-on hits to drop her opponent, and Jared had to shoot his would-be murderer seven times before the guy stopped trying to kill him.

Myth #4: If You Can’t Do It With…


“If you can’t do it with six (or five), you can’t do it at all.” There are a whole lot of people who wouldn’t have survived high-volume firefights if they only had five or six cartridges at the time. Let’s look at some of the shootouts we’ve already discussed. Hickok did indeed kill Tutt with a single shot—but he had a second Colt in his waistband to back up the first if more shots had been required. When Holliday shot Tom McLaury at the end of the OK Corral shootout in Tombstone, Arizona, it was his third gun of the fight. Holliday had already emptied a double-barrel shotgun (killing Frank McLaury’s brother Tom), and a Colt SAA before drawing his backup Colt Lightning revolver to shoot Frank. Fast-forward to modern times: Officer Jared Reston, severely wounded, had to unleash most of the rounds in his 16-shot Glock 22 to finish his deadly fight in Jacksonville.

It happens to armed citizens, too. I’ve lost count of the shootings I’ve reviewed over the years where the good guys ran out of ammunition. Rich Davis fired all of the six shots he had and hit all three of the armed robbers he faced while delivering pizzas, but one of them was still up and running and able to shoot and wound him twice. That night in the emergency room, it occurred to him that there had to be something better than one’s own body to stop bullets with, and he was inspired to invent the soft body armor that has since saved thousands of lives.

I spoke at two trials, one criminal and one civil, for an attorney who had to shoot a man who pulled a gun on him in his law office. His nine-shot 9mm was at slide-lock, having delivered nine solid hits, before his opponent slumped and died. He survived both the gunfight and the trials, but it had been terribly close because he had no more ammunition at all when the gun duel ended.

There are other reasons to carry spare ammunition. With a semi-automatic pistol, as many firearms instructors will tell you, a cardinal cause of malfunctions is a magazine problem. Often, this can only be rectified by ripping the bad magazine out of the gun and replacing it with a fresh one. This naturally requires a fresh magazine to be right there on your person.

Myth #5: Your Choice of Gun & Ammo Doesn’t Matter

Should you carry jacketed hollow point (JHP) or full metal jacket (FMJ) ammo for defensive use? Experts have long since decided in favor of the former.
There aren’t a whole lot of gunfight survivors who will agree on that premise. A lifetime of studying these incidents has taught me that the choice of equipment is about fourth down on the list of priorities for survival. It is preceded by mindset, tactics and skill at arms. We all agree that a hit with a .22 beats a miss with a .44 Mag, and so on.

That said, though, you will be better served with a weapon you can shoot well at high speed, and with ammunition that hits hard on the receiving end. I’m not sure who first said, “No gunfight survivor has ever said that he wished he had less powerful ammunition or fewer shots available,” but that sage pretty much nailed it.

You definitely want hollow-point loads designed to expand in diameter and penetrate to optimum depths. Some people like to kid themselves that they’re saving money by buying non-expanding “ball” ammunition at cheap, generic prices. You’re only saving money if you’re getting adequate performance for less cost. I’m not aware of a single major police department in the United States still using ball ammunition in their duty handguns, even though they would certainly be motivated to cut costs anywhere they could in these depressed economic times. We are seeing police departments laying off cops, and even small towns disbanding their police departments, because of budget crunches. Why are they still paying premium prices for hollow-point ammunition? Because a very long history of gunfights has shown that it works more effectively to stop armed criminals more quickly.

Hollow points are also safer for innocent bystanders, whether cops, security professionals or armed citizens fire them. The hollow-nosed bullet’s expansion slows it down and usually leaves it lodged in the opposite side of the opponent’s body and clothing, or lying on the ground a few feet behind him, spent. A 9mm or .45 FMJ round can go through two bystanders and into a third deep enough to leave three innocents lying dead on the ground. Before you ignore that, go to findlaw.com and look up the definition of “deliberate indifference.” Even a soulless sociopath would realize that this could sustain a criminal charge of manslaughter, and a civil suit for wrongful death or injury, and any good person with a three-digit IQ would realize that their own loved ones are the most likely “bystanders” to be present in a home-defense shooting.

It’s become popular on the Internet to claim that there is no difference between chamberings. That the 9mm, for instance, is equal to the .40 S&W or .45 ACP, bullet type for bullet type, in terms of “stopping power.” That is an argument that simply defies logic. A 9mm-diameter bullet weighing 147 grains is the same as a 10mm-diameter .40 bullet weighing 180 grains, or an 11.25mm-diameter .45 ACP +P bullet weighing 230 grains, when they’re all going within 50 feet per second of each other? Really? History, common sense and logic say otherwise.

The 9mm-diameter bullets, well designed and loaded to higher velocities, can certainly give the larger calibers a run for their money. The best 9mm and .357 Mag or .357 SIG loads may well outperform lower-tech .45 ACP and .45 Colt loads in terms of relevant wound volume. The issue is more complicated than it sounds, but the bottom line is that there are more effective and less effective cartridges for defense use, and they’re not all created equal.

If you have to fight for your life with a firearm, I absolutely agree with Mark Moritz that “the first rule of gunfighting is, have a gun.” I’d rather you have a .380—or for that matter, a .22—than no gun at all. I realize that my dress code and my occupation may allow me to carry larger hardware than you. At the same time, convenience and economy must be balanced with the fact that you already decided you needed to be armed, and you need to have a firearm adequate to the task if you are in fact involved in a gunfight.

There are certainly good reasons to use a 9mm instead of a .45. If the shooter is distinctly better at hitting with speed with a 9mm, or feels a need for more smaller bullets rather than fewer larger ones in the same sized gun, we’re looking at good reasons to choose the 9mm. When I travel to other countries, I usually carry a 9mm simply because the ammunition is much more readily available there than the .40, .45, .357 SIG, etc. But if you’re going to choose a smaller-caliber gun, choose it for real reasons, not delusional ones that do not pass the tests of history, logic and common sense.

Common Sense

Crime prevention programs like Neighborhood Watch are part and parcel of a complete home-defense plan to protect your family.
Personal and home defense aren’t just about the gun. The gun is simply one component of a much larger whole. Home security encompasses locks, alarms and hardened perimeters. Your family needs to have a plan for emergencies, whether that emergency is a house fire or a home invasion. Communications and emergency illumination are part of the package. A Neighborhood Watch program can be priceless.

The world of the defensive firearm is rife with myths, and only some of them have been dealt with here. Anyone who keeps a firearm for home defense, or lawfully carries one in public, needs to apply his or her own common sense. We are, after all, literally talking about life and death when we assess these matters.

[Winger Ed.]

The truth doesn't stand a chance against a well entrenched myth.

[dverna]

Like Jack said, "You can't handle the truth!"

[JBinMN]

It seems to me that there is a quote about a publishers adage from an old movie by John Ford with J. Wayne, James Stewart & Lee Marvin in it, called,"The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" that is, "When legend conflicts with the facts, print the legend.", or something like that...

I would not be surprised that it is likely true that some folks prefer a "legend" or "myth", even when the facts are otherwise. Good luck trying to convince anyone who already has their beliefs in place, if they are not open minded enough to think otherwise.

Do "I" believe myths about anything, or even firearms in particular?

Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on whether or not I have had the opportunity to test such things or observe them first hand. At the least, I would have to be in contact with those who have done/seen such things, before I change my mind. That is because I think that many legends & myths are somewhat based in some facts, & although perhaps elaborated on & "garnished" by others, there usually seems to be some little "pearl" of a fact or facts that got the whole thing started in the first place.

Sometimes myths & legends are used to try to explain a phenomena or a belief that is hard to understand. Think of those from early religions like the Romans Greeks & even the Vikings. Tales of their gods that off time defied those folks of those times understanding. An example might be that thunder, or an earthquake is their gods way of warning, an omen, that something bad happening or that they were angry.

Another old one is that "the earth is flat". It still hangs around some groups as a "fact", when there are multiple ways to demonstrate it is not flat. But, try to convince them & change their beliefs? Not likely. like I said, some folks just won't change their minds & beliefs.

I will stop with that opinion/comment, but I must say that you have brought up an interesting topic. One worth my taking time to post anyway.
LOL
;)

[Hickory]

The truth doesn't stand a chance against a well entrenched myth.

This, the left knows and use it quite often.

[RED BEAR]

If something is told long enough it is believed true or not.

[Catshooter]

I try to not believe in myths of any kind. Our world, unfortunately, is chock full of 'em.


And JBinMN, it is easily proven that the world isn't flat: if it were, by now our cats would have knocked everything off the edges.


Cat

[Winger Ed.]

And JBinMN, it is easily proven that the world isn't flat: if it were, by now our cats would have knocked everything off the edges.
Cat



Of course the world is flat.
Just lay a map out on a table and you can prove it for yourself.

[M-Tecs]

Since it's a Massad Ayoob article the one myth that he believes and pushes is that reloads for Self Defense are a legal issue.

[JBinMN]

And JBinMN, it is easily proven that the world isn't flat: if it were, by now our cats would have knocked everything off the edges.


Cat

Hahaha!
:)
:drinks:


Of course the world is flat.
Just lay a map out on a table and you can prove it for yourself.

That is funny too!
:)

:drinks:

[6bg6ga]

Since it's a Massad Ayoob article the one myth that he believes and pushes is that reloads for Self Defense are a legal issue.

This is one the local gun shops try to push to increase the sales of their shelf ammo. Its a myth that can be debunked in any court case where hand loads come under fire.

[RED BEAR]

I have said it many times before that i will agree that it has never been used to determine to charge or not and has never been used to convict anyone. But i have seen lawyer postings that it was brought up at a trial they were involved in and have been told by lawyer in person that while it was debunked at trial it did cost his client money for expert to dispel . Now i didn't read the trial transcript so i can't say for certain but why would they lie there's nothing in it for them. I carry factory ammo because i really don't think hand loads are going to do much better. Factories have more resources to design and test ammo. And god forbid i ever have to use one and end up in court if asked i can say i use the same ammo as the officer over there. If you would rather carry your hand loads then thats what you should carry. Now everyone out there can give me heck as they usually do on this but thats what i believe.

[Burnt Fingers]

I run into people all the time on internet forums that insist on some of the myths debunked in this article.


https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2016/02/massad-ayoob-gunfighting-fact-vs-fiction/

Sometimes, what seems like good advice at the time is proven later to be not so great. The record shows that decades ago, when more adult Americans smoked than not, popular magazines carried ads in which physicians endorsed this or that brand of cigarette. Brand A was an excellent aid to digestion after meals, one doctor said. The menthol in Brand B was soothing to a sore throat, another physician opined.

Today, of course, we know better. Oncologists who’ve treated patients suffering from throat cancer will tell you that those old claims are bunk. They sure sounded authoritative back in the day, though. Some advice on gunfight survival goes back to the same era. And some of it is just as suspect. Let’s look at a few examples.

Myth #1: A Good Shoot Is A Good Shoot


In the old days, there was some truth to this. When it was reasonably clear that a good guy had shot a bad guy, the criminal justice system ruled it to be a justifiable action, and things were pretty much done with. Oh, there might have been a lawsuit here or there, but it was not common to see a huge wrongful death lawsuit levied on the shooter after a fatal use of force in legitimate defense of oneself or others.

Slowly, things changed. The gun control movement gained traction in the 1960s after the assassinations of President Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King and Senator Robert Kennedy. This time, the mainstream media went in the same direction, gathering a huge momentum that remains through today. From the nation’s major TV networks and the influential big city newspapers and national news magazines, to the groves of academe, it became popular to treat guns and the people who owned them as an embarrassing, dangerous manifestation of low-class stupidity. This also applied for ordinary people who picked up a gun in legitimate self-defense. It was as if the journalists’ style guide automatically decreed that the term “vigilante” be applied to those who saved themselves and others from being victimized.

Today, a good shoot isn’t a “good shoot” until the authorities say so and the last false allegation of a “bad shoot” has been decisively stamped out. It’s a predictable aftermath that must be prepared for, just as the gunfight itself must be prepared for well beforehand.

Myth #2: Aim For Center-Mass


Here the author is centered on the center of mass. He’s happy with this score from his S&W 686 and went on to win this NRA Police Service Revolver match, but he feels the center rings on this B-27 target should be up in the center portion of the chest.
This was a poor choice of words even in the old days, and that’s still true. If you think about it, the center of mass on a standing human is somewhere in his abdominal area. A bullet there may or may not prove fatal later, but is not very likely to instantly disable a violent man now, and the latter of course is what we need to ensure the survival of the good guys.

The way to stop a criminal from shooting at you is to deliver your bullet to a part of the body he needs in order to keep shooting at you, and make that part of his body stop working. I’ve told my students for decades that they should have a copy of Gray’s Anatomy right next to their shooting manuals. Read Dr. Jim Williams’ excellent book Tactical Anatomy, which is available through the website tacticalanatomy.com. An ER physician with extensive experience treating gunshot wounds and intensive firearms training himself, Dr. Williams details the proper points of aim from various angles when the object of shooting is to render a homicidal criminal incapable of carrying out his murderous actions.

Myth #3: He Who Shoots First Wins


In a gunfight, the person who shoots first doesn’t always win. One historic example to prove this point is the famous shootout between Wild Bill Hickok and Dave Tutt. Tutt panicked and opened fire on Hickok when they were some 70 yards apart, but his bullets missed. Hickok stayed calm, aimed carefully and ended the fight by putting a .36-caliber round through Tutt’s heart, dropping him instantly. And while it only took one shot for Hickok, he had plenty of extra ammo on hand.
This is untrue on multiple levels. Gunfights are not won by the guy who makes the first loud noise. They’re not even won by the first guy who gets a hit. In Springfield, Missouri, in the 19th century, Wild Bill Hickok met Dave Tutt in the town square, in what may have been the only time in the Old West that two men actually did have a “walk and draw” contest in the middle of the street. Tutt panicked and opened fire on Hickok when they were some 70 yards apart. His bullets missed. Hickok coolly stood his ground, aimed carefully and ended the fight by putting a .36-caliber round through his antagonist’s heart.

In the more famous gunfight at OK Corral, Wyatt Earp’s brother, Morgan, was shot down by a bullet that went across his shoulders and chipped one of his vertebrae, and Doc Holliday received a glancing wound to the hip from Frank McLaury’s Colt .44. A moment later, McLaury fell dead, killed instantly when Holliday shot him in the chest and the wounded Morgan Earp almost simultaneously shot him in the head.

Hero cop Stacy Lim killed her attacker with four Remington JHPs from her 9mm Beretta, after a .357 Mag bullet hit her heart. She recovered and returned to work.
Even severe wounds may not seriously disable a committed combatant. I have had the privilege of meeting many hero cops who have survived hellacious gunfight injuries and gone on to prevail. One is Stacy Lim of the LAPD. She was shot in the heart with a .357 Mag revolver at the opening of her encounter. She returned fire with her Beretta 9mm, killing her antagonist with four solid hits out of the four she fired. She recovered to return to full duty, and today is one of the nation’s most respected police firearms instructors. Another is Officer Jared Reston of Jacksonville, Florida. He was shot in the face at point-blank range by a gunman armed with a .45 ACP who then fired six more bullets into Reston when he fell. Jared returned fire from the ground with his Glock .40. He killed the assailant and recovered to return to patrol and SWAT duty.

These were the good guys and gals. But the bad guys can be just as resilient, and we would all do well to remember that it took Stacy four dead-on hits to drop her opponent, and Jared had to shoot his would-be murderer seven times before the guy stopped trying to kill him.

Myth #4: If You Can’t Do It With…


“If you can’t do it with six (or five), you can’t do it at all.” There are a whole lot of people who wouldn’t have survived high-volume firefights if they only had five or six cartridges at the time. Let’s look at some of the shootouts we’ve already discussed. Hickok did indeed kill Tutt with a single shot—but he had a second Colt in his waistband to back up the first if more shots had been required. When Holliday shot Tom McLaury at the end of the OK Corral shootout in Tombstone, Arizona, it was his third gun of the fight. Holliday had already emptied a double-barrel shotgun (killing Frank McLaury’s brother Tom), and a Colt SAA before drawing his backup Colt Lightning revolver to shoot Frank. Fast-forward to modern times: Officer Jared Reston, severely wounded, had to unleash most of the rounds in his 16-shot Glock 22 to finish his deadly fight in Jacksonville.

It happens to armed citizens, too. I’ve lost count of the shootings I’ve reviewed over the years where the good guys ran out of ammunition. Rich Davis fired all of the six shots he had and hit all three of the armed robbers he faced while delivering pizzas, but one of them was still up and running and able to shoot and wound him twice. That night in the emergency room, it occurred to him that there had to be something better than one’s own body to stop bullets with, and he was inspired to invent the soft body armor that has since saved thousands of lives.

I spoke at two trials, one criminal and one civil, for an attorney who had to shoot a man who pulled a gun on him in his law office. His nine-shot 9mm was at slide-lock, having delivered nine solid hits, before his opponent slumped and died. He survived both the gunfight and the trials, but it had been terribly close because he had no more ammunition at all when the gun duel ended.

There are other reasons to carry spare ammunition. With a semi-automatic pistol, as many firearms instructors will tell you, a cardinal cause of malfunctions is a magazine problem. Often, this can only be rectified by ripping the bad magazine out of the gun and replacing it with a fresh one. This naturally requires a fresh magazine to be right there on your person.

Myth #5: Your Choice of Gun & Ammo Doesn’t Matter

Should you carry jacketed hollow point (JHP) or full metal jacket (FMJ) ammo for defensive use? Experts have long since decided in favor of the former.
There aren’t a whole lot of gunfight survivors who will agree on that premise. A lifetime of studying these incidents has taught me that the choice of equipment is about fourth down on the list of priorities for survival. It is preceded by mindset, tactics and skill at arms. We all agree that a hit with a .22 beats a miss with a .44 Mag, and so on.

That said, though, you will be better served with a weapon you can shoot well at high speed, and with ammunition that hits hard on the receiving end. I’m not sure who first said, “No gunfight survivor has ever said that he wished he had less powerful ammunition or fewer shots available,” but that sage pretty much nailed it.

You definitely want hollow-point loads designed to expand in diameter and penetrate to optimum depths. Some people like to kid themselves that they’re saving money by buying non-expanding “ball” ammunition at cheap, generic prices. You’re only saving money if you’re getting adequate performance for less cost. I’m not aware of a single major police department in the United States still using ball ammunition in their duty handguns, even though they would certainly be motivated to cut costs anywhere they could in these depressed economic times. We are seeing police departments laying off cops, and even small towns disbanding their police departments, because of budget crunches. Why are they still paying premium prices for hollow-point ammunition? Because a very long history of gunfights has shown that it works more effectively to stop armed criminals more quickly.

Hollow points are also safer for innocent bystanders, whether cops, security professionals or armed citizens fire them. The hollow-nosed bullet’s expansion slows it down and usually leaves it lodged in the opposite side of the opponent’s body and clothing, or lying on the ground a few feet behind him, spent. A 9mm or .45 FMJ round can go through two bystanders and into a third deep enough to leave three innocents lying dead on the ground. Before you ignore that, go to findlaw.com and look up the definition of “deliberate indifference.” Even a soulless sociopath would realize that this could sustain a criminal charge of manslaughter, and a civil suit for wrongful death or injury, and any good person with a three-digit IQ would realize that their own loved ones are the most likely “bystanders” to be present in a home-defense shooting.

It’s become popular on the Internet to claim that there is no difference between chamberings. That the 9mm, for instance, is equal to the .40 S&W or .45 ACP, bullet type for bullet type, in terms of “stopping power.” That is an argument that simply defies logic. A 9mm-diameter bullet weighing 147 grains is the same as a 10mm-diameter .40 bullet weighing 180 grains, or an 11.25mm-diameter .45 ACP +P bullet weighing 230 grains, when they’re all going within 50 feet per second of each other? Really? History, common sense and logic say otherwise.

The 9mm-diameter bullets, well designed and loaded to higher velocities, can certainly give the larger calibers a run for their money. The best 9mm and .357 Mag or .357 SIG loads may well outperform lower-tech .45 ACP and .45 Colt loads in terms of relevant wound volume. The issue is more complicated than it sounds, but the bottom line is that there are more effective and less effective cartridges for defense use, and they’re not all created equal.

If you have to fight for your life with a firearm, I absolutely agree with Mark Moritz that “the first rule of gunfighting is, have a gun.” I’d rather you have a .380—or for that matter, a .22—than no gun at all. I realize that my dress code and my occupation may allow me to carry larger hardware than you. At the same time, convenience and economy must be balanced with the fact that you already decided you needed to be armed, and you need to have a firearm adequate to the task if you are in fact involved in a gunfight.

There are certainly good reasons to use a 9mm instead of a .45. If the shooter is distinctly better at hitting with speed with a 9mm, or feels a need for more smaller bullets rather than fewer larger ones in the same sized gun, we’re looking at good reasons to choose the 9mm. When I travel to other countries, I usually carry a 9mm simply because the ammunition is much more readily available there than the .40, .45, .357 SIG, etc. But if you’re going to choose a smaller-caliber gun, choose it for real reasons, not delusional ones that do not pass the tests of history, logic and common sense.

Common Sense

Crime prevention programs like Neighborhood Watch are part and parcel of a complete home-defense plan to protect your family.
Personal and home defense aren’t just about the gun. The gun is simply one component of a much larger whole. Home security encompasses locks, alarms and hardened perimeters. Your family needs to have a plan for emergencies, whether that emergency is a house fire or a home invasion. Communications and emergency illumination are part of the package. A Neighborhood Watch program can be priceless.

The world of the defensive firearm is rife with myths, and only some of them have been dealt with here. Anyone who keeps a firearm for home defense, or lawfully carries one in public, needs to apply his or her own common sense. We are, after all, literally talking about life and death when we assess these matters.

By directly quoting a copywrited article you've placed this forum and it's owner in legal jeopardy.

[Tom W.]

But, but, what about gravity? If the earth is spinning so fast why do things fall down instead of getting launched into space?[smilie=1:

[Wag]

^^ Quoting an article shouldn't be a problem under fair use doctrine AND since the link to the original was included. Another myth, perhaps? :-)

TL;DR For something as dynamic as a firearm discussion (caliber wars, anyone?) there are far more variables than we can ever hope to address in order to determine what is "better" in terms of surviving a gunfight or choosing a gun or ammo. On any given day, all we can hope to do is mitigate risks to the best of our ability and understand that one choice today will have a better or worse effect tomorrow vs. the effect that same choice has a week from now.

----------------

The problem with belief is that most people don't know WHY they believe as they do. Fords are better than Chevy's, Glocks are better than Sigs, Libertarians are better than Republicans, ad infinitum. The reality is that we have to accept a lot of our beliefs from others because we simply don't have the ability to test every belief that comes down the pike. As a result, we all tend to be somewhat dogmatic about every belief we have. Even if we did have the opportunity to test some of them, if for no other reason than because new things are invented and new discoveries are made which may convert belief to fact but that's another discussion entirely.

Mostly, we derive our beliefs during early childhood while we're bouncing on the knee of either of our parents. I've heard it a thousand times, something along the lines of, "My daddy always voted Democrat so I'll always vote Democrat!" Often said with venom and always without realizing that they are voting against their own conservative beliefs. (As an aside, it's always been a mystery to me how the deep South of the U.S. votes Democrat so frequently when they are, in fact, very conservative on most issues. The mystery, of course, being explained in part by my other comments herein.)

Anyhoo, so long as we don't desperately cling to our beliefs dogmatically and without consideration that there may be realities in life that are true, though contradictory, we can slay many dragons in our own minds and adopt better precepts going forward.

As for something as dynamic as a firearm discussion (caliber wars, anyone) there are far more variables than we can ever hope to address in order to determine what is "better" in terms of surviving a gunfight or choosing a gun or ammo. On any given day, all we can hope to do is mitigate risks to the best of our ability and understand that one choice today will have a better or worse effect tomorrow vs. the effect it has a week from now.

--Wag--

[Der Gebirgsjager]

I read through the article, and then read it again. My conclusion: I really can't find anything to argue about. I think the author is exactly right about everything he discussed. His truths are generalities, and he allows for exceptions, flukes, abnormalities, but overall his truths are truths. Good article. There are no hard and fast truths in gunfighting, but some things emerge as truths-in-general: Fast is good, but keeping your head is invaluable, bullet design is important, bigger is usually better, a reload may be necessary but the first round or several usually decides the issue. And of course, you have to hit what you're shooting at, which involves practice. Good article.

[RED BEAR]

I once saw something i think Jeff Cooper said your only out gunned if you miss.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I once saw something i think Jeff Cooper said your only out gunned if you miss.

I sure do miss reading his monthly column in the back of one of the shiney covered magazines.

a quote of his (on my favorite list) that kind of fits into this thread...

"A smart man only believes half of what he hears, a wise man knows which half"
-John Dean "Jeff" Cooper

[JBinMN]

I am reminded of the saying, "Trust. But verify.". Prez R. Reagan used it a lot, but it is actually, from what I understand, a Russian "proverb". Anyhow, in reading this topic, it came to mind.
;)

[Idaho45guy]

By directly quoting a copywrited article you've placed this forum and it's owner in legal jeopardy.

LOL...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[Burnt Fingers]

I'm on a couple of other forums whose legal teams have told them to not allow direct quoting of ANY copywrited material. There are a couple of shysters out there who are suing forums that allow it and they are winning some pretty heavy judgements.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Count me in as a myth-believer then (except for #5, which I agree with but don't believe ever was a myth). This article is an example of cherry-picking anecdotal evidence to support your point while ignoring a mountain of evidence that would discount your position.

Myth 1. I don't care. I would still rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. If you die you lose everything.

Myth 2. Yep. Aim center mass. If you miss small you still hit something. Sure a head shot would be almost 100% effective at stopping the attack, a head-miss is about completely useless, and far more likely.

Myth 3. I don't think I've ever heard the He who shoots first wins. I've always heard something more akin to "he who hits first wins". Well, here the author cites a few examples to support their claim, but doesn't account for a zillion other stories where the guy who scores the first hit causes the second guy to miss, then first guys is able to follow up with more hits.

Myth 4. Again, a few examples where more than 6 shots were needed, but ignore the thousands where the situation ended after 3 shots or less. The myth is usually used to justify a revolver's limitations. After owning both, I can see why some would recommend a revolver. There are some practical advantages.

Myth 5. I don't disagree with the author. In fact I don't recall reading or hearing anyone say that gun and ammo don't matter. It's just not a myth. Sure there are some currently that are saying caliber doesn't matter (as much as people thought) - but those same people are very emphatic that choice of ammo (bullet selection) is very important. So myth #5 is nothing more than a straw-man. Way to knock 'em down!

[jimb16]

Myth #2. I always told my students to imagine a basketball being held in front of their chest. Aim for the middle of the basketball. High, low, left or right, they are going down.

[T_McD]

K well some of those statements aren’t myths. A good shoot IS by definition a good shoot regardless of ones definition of “good”.

And trying to aim for “vitals” is laughable in a self defense situation. Get rounds on target and you will be better than average.

[megasupermagnum]

Myth 1: The foundation of this country is that you are innocent until proven guilty. No matter the attitude of the crazies, if you kill in self defense in accordance to the laws, you will be set free. It will not be fun, and it will cost dearly, but a rightful killing (I hate the term "good shoot") is what it is.

Myth 2: I agree with you. I'm not aiming for the gut. I'm aiming for the heart/lungs or brain. That's mid/upper chest, between the nipples for the 2 legged.

Myth 3: I'm not sure this is a myth. I think most of us agree that a keeping as cool as you can, and making good shots is the most important thing. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.


Myth 4: I'll agree with you, even as a revolver shooter. I always have spare ammo on me. Whether or not 98% of the time 3 shots is enough is irrelevant. Sometimes it's not. You can't prepare for everything, but having a reload on you is easy.


Myth 5: Of course it matters. In the matter of 2 legged it's just so far down the priority list. I wouldn't walk around Alaska with a 22LR pistol if at all possible.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I'm on a couple of other forums whose legal teams have told them to not allow direct quoting of ANY copywrited material. There are a couple of shysters out there who are suing forums that allow it and they are winning some pretty heavy judgements.

Do you have a source for these "pretty heavy judgements"?
My google-fu wasn't able to locate any judgements.

I did find this.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-eus-new-copyright-laws-threaten-to-destroy-the-internet/
apparently a copyright troll got a nasty judgement trying to bring the type of copyright lawsuits that you claim.

[35remington]

The reason I carry a reload is not because I believe I will need it during the shooting event. All the evidence says that is unlikely.

I carry a reload because I don’t want a mostly empty or empty gun after the shooting event. I don’t know how long it will take for help to arrive, or if in fact the shooting event is fully over, and having an empty or empty(er) gun seems to me to be of less value than if it had its full capacity.

[Battis]

My take away on the article - I'm going to start carrying my Colt Navy loaded with .36 pure lead roundballs and practice at 70 yds. One shot, in the heart, while under fire.
I think it was Wyatt Earp who said, "When you're in a gunfight, take your time, in a hurry".

[Idaho45guy]

And for those who choose to continue to believe in these stated myths or argue with the author, you are up against one of the most credentialed gun defense and training experts on the planet...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob

Ayoob has authored several books and more than 1,000 articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, Guns & Ammo and Combat Handguns. Since 1995, he has written self-defense and firearms related articles for Backwoods Home Magazine. He also has a featured segment on the television show Personal Defense TV, which is broadcast on the Sportsman Channel in the US.

While Ayoob has been in the courtroom as a testifying police officer, expert witness, and police prosecutor, he is not an attorney; he is, however, a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position.[3][4] His course for attorneys, titled "The Management of the Lethal Force/Deadly Weapons Case", was, according to Jeffrey Weiner: "the best course for everything you need to know but are never taught in law school."[4]

Not saying he's absolutely perfectly correct about everything, but if you think one of the most respected experts in the world is wrong about almost everything in the article, well, maybe it's not him?

[FergusonTO35]

I carry reloads in all my defensive handguns and rifles, simply because I don't like most factory ammo. Also, for ammo I do like, there is no guarantee it will be available and/or affordable. One plus for factory ammo I will say, is that premium defensive ammo is probably going to have a higher chance of going bang the first time and properly feeding and ejecting compared to reloads. Ammo companies spend million$ on R&D and are staffed with people who do this for a living. They also have access to just about any components they want and do their own QC on them which I am not capable of; being that I am dependent on whatever is available at retail. I will be the first one to admit that myself, the hobby reloader in his basement, just can't match their resources. Really the only two advantages I have are A.) my ammo is made to my specs for my specific guns and is tested thoroughly, and B.) I load each round one at a time and can inspect it at each stage of the loading process.

[Drm50]

I don't pay much attention to myth or fact these days. Especially those by armchair commandos. For fact they will stretch something into a situation were it could occurr just about as often as you can win the lottery. I have seen "myths" busted the same way. When listning to advice on gun fighting check out the guy and see if he's ever been near a gunfight. I have seen clips on instructing people how to drop to the ground when shot at. Very stylish and keeps their Dockers from undue smudges. Any one who has been shot at needs very little instruction on hitting the dirt. I feel sorry for people who actually are wanting the training and some even pay for it from these type programs. There are to many shysters that have got into SD & HD just to make money.

[reddog81]

Hollow points are also safer for innocent bystanders, whether cops, security professionals or armed citizens fire them. The hollow-nosed bullet’s expansion slows it down and usually leaves it lodged in the opposite side of the opponent’s body and clothing, or lying on the ground a few feet behind him, spent. A 9mm or .45 FMJ round can go through two bystanders and into a third deep enough to leave three innocents lying dead on the ground.

Where do you find these 9mm bullets with enough energy to take out 3 people? If you're shooting innocents does it matter if you take out 1 or 3? Any evidence of FMJ rounds going through a perp and then taking out an innocent or 2 or is all that just a bunch of myths?

[shdwlkr]

The one thing to remember if you are ever in a shooting event, 1 don't dump your ammo as fast as you can, 2 aim each shot and have an idea of where it is going, 3 having a firearm in a gun fight beats anything else, 4 caliber is based on so many things, age, eye sight, ability to move, health, strength, etc. So for some a .22lr just might be the right caliber while for others something large might be right. 4 do everything you can to stay safe and out of harms way always. As to where to aim upper body is best if you can see it, other wise it is what is visible to you. Know your 6 and surrounds and stay safe

[bmortell]

But, but, what about gravity? If the earth is spinning so fast why do things fall down instead of getting launched into space?[smilie=1:
well gravity is a myth depending on what you call gravity. Its been replaced by theory of relativity for some time now. If by gravity you mean a force then its a myth. Falling from gravity is traveling a straight line on curved space theres no forces happening on the object.

[M-Tecs]

And for those who choose to continue to believe in these stated myths or argue with the author, you are up against one of the most credentialed gun defense and training experts on the planet...

Not saying he's absolutely perfectly correct about everything, but if you think one of the most respected experts in the world is wrong about almost everything in the article, well, maybe it's not him?

I used to drink the Ayoob Kool-Aid pretty hard. I have been reading him since the first issue of American Handgunner in the early 70's. I have a very good friend that is his neighbor and they shoot together weekly. I still have a get deal of respect for him but the issue of reloads being a legal issue for self defense is not based on actual court cases. It is based on ONE case the was badly mishandled. Easy enough to prove by the lack of actual court cases that using a reload was an issue.

Ayoob (like all gun writers) is in a position that pushing purchasing new products has financial benefits for him.

When you take one of his classes you use factory ammo period. That is based on below average abilities of some reloaders. Spend some time at a public shooting range and you see it all the time. Ayoob doesn't want himself or his paying customer wasting time with reloaded ammo issue during his class.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

And for those who choose to continue to believe in these stated myths or argue with the author, you are up against one of the most credentialed gun defense and training experts on the planet...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob

Ayoob has authored several books and more than 1,000 articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, Guns & Ammo and Combat Handguns. Since 1995, he has written self-defense and firearms related articles for Backwoods Home Magazine. He also has a featured segment on the television show Personal Defense TV, which is broadcast on the Sportsman Channel in the US.

While Ayoob has been in the courtroom as a testifying police officer, expert witness, and police prosecutor, he is not an attorney; he is, however, a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position.[3][4] His course for attorneys, titled "The Management of the Lethal Force/Deadly Weapons Case", was, according to Jeffrey Weiner: "the best course for everything you need to know but are never taught in law school."[4]

Not saying he's absolutely perfectly correct about everything, but if you think one of the most respected experts in the world is wrong about almost everything in the article, well, maybe it's not him?

I wouldn't say he doesn't know what he's talking about. I would say he's creating straw-man myths that aren't really out there. I've never, ever, heard anyone advise that the first person to make his gun go boom wins. I've never, ever heard that "if you can't do it with 5 or 6, you can't do it at all.". And I've never ever heard that choice of gun and ammo doesn't matter. I have heard "aim for center mass", but as a hunter I've been taught, and practice "aim for center of vitals". In fact that is what has been drilled into my head so much that I just naturally thought that is what is meant by "center mass". So I question whether there's anyone advocating for gut-shots.

[Thundarstick]

Jeff Cooper was asked the "what bullet" question once. He responded, "what time of the year is it? ", and went on to explain that if he was likely the criminal would be wearing a light shirt the JHP, but winter in a cold region where they're likely wearing heavy clothing and a coat that ball ammo gets the nod. He stated that sub calibers should always use ball ammo because the rounds are generally slow and penetration trumps expansion. Who cares if your perfectly expanded bullet only goes 2 inches deep?
I do some IDPA shooting, with a revolver, against the wonder nines, and usually am in the upper mid range of scores. This is with just as good of times and half the ammo! Don't forget, I am responsible for where every round ends up!

Are these a myths? If your expecting trouble, bring a rifle! 30 rounds can get you into trouble, but usually 90 can get you out, and a rifle always trumps a pistol. The determination of your assailant has more to do with shooting outcomes than calibur.

[Idaho45guy]

Where do you find these 9mm bullets with enough energy to take out 3 people? If you're shooting innocents does it matter if you take out 1 or 3? Any evidence of FMJ rounds going through a perp and then taking out an innocent or 2 or is all that just a bunch of myths?

First of all, you are quoting Massad Ayoob and not me. Second, I don't understand why people who apparently get so offended by a statement such as the one quoted don't simply do their own research.

You obviously have a computer and access to the internet.

Why demand that I provide evidence or cases of FMJ rounds going through bad guys and hitting innocents when you are perfectly capable of taking 30 seconds and searching it yourself.

In fact, if you had done that instead of demand that others find the proof for you, then perhaps you wouldn't look so foolish when multiple examples get posted.

[reddog81]

First of all, you are quoting Massad Ayoob and not me. Second, I don't understand why people who apparently get so offended by a statement such as the one quoted don't simply do their own research.

You obviously have a computer and access to the internet.

Why demand that I provide evidence or cases of FMJ rounds going through bad guys and hitting innocents when you are perfectly capable of taking 30 seconds and searching it yourself.

In fact, if you had done that instead of demand that others find the proof for you, then perhaps you wouldn't look so foolish when multiple examples get posted.

I'll have to assume you had as good of luck finding an example where multiple people were killed as I did...

[Drm50]

There is no doubt in my mind that innocent people have been killed by over penetrating bullets. I would bet that more have been killed by stay bullets. To depend on any bullet to stop where you want it can only be done in a
lab. Under ideal conditions in a controlled test. In the real world conditions are anything but and anything can happen. The odds may be long but they are there. The best you can do is use common sense.

[charlie b]

A lot of issues with gun fight information is that nothing is very consistent. One perp will die on the spot and another shot in basically the same place with same or larger caliber will go on to kill a couple more people, or live long enough to get in surgery and be repaired. Same for the 'good guys'. Some people will 'give up' after being shot in a non-lethal location (eg, arm or leg muscle) while another will take hits to vital organs and go on fighting. And, it has less to do with caliber/bullet than it does the person.

Just read some Medal of Honor citations. People were shot multiple times, even having legs or arms severed, and they still manage to continue to fight.

There was a study done of shootings over several years and over a thousand incidents that described as best it could results of caliber (sorry I can't find my link to it). About the only conclusion it made was that shotguns and rifles are better than pistols and pistols less than .380 were marginal (many failures to stop). The problem with the data is the lack of data. There just are not that many cases of someone being shot with a .44Mag for example. So, if one person being shot with a certain caliber weapon and not stopped mean much or was it just because the shot was not placed properly? And much of the data was not very complete, ie, was the shot recorded in the ER the only shot fired or was it one of 20 and that one just happened to hit the person?

I do agree that, everything else being equal, a bigger (and maybe faster) bullet MAY be better than a smaller one. But, is a brain shot with a .380 going to make the person less dead than a brain shot with 00 buckshot? Will a 9mm that severs the aorta be less effective than a .44 that does the same thing?

In my mind the larger, faster bullets make a difference when non-CNS organs are hit. The possibility that the person will react more to a larger, faster projectile is more likely. OTOH, I know of two people who were 'blown off their feet' (their words, not mine) by .38 snub nose revolvers using ball ammo. One was hit in the upper arm, the other in the thigh (no arteries severed).

So, cherry picking an incident to make a case does not seem worthy of making a general conclusion. It is valid as a cautionary tale, that your .500 S&W may not cause the victim to immediately flop over on his back and die.

I do like to bring a gun to a gun fight, since I am not skilled with knife fighting. Which gun? I have several and any one may serve me well if I shoot it accurately. And, yes, I do carry extra ammo :)

[Wag]

A lot of issues with gun fight information is that nothing is very consistent. One perp will die on the spot and another shot in basically the same place with same or larger caliber will go on to kill a couple more people, or live long enough to get in surgery and be repaired. Same for the 'good guys'. Some people will 'give up' after being shot in a non-lethal location (eg, arm or leg muscle) while another will take hits to vital organs and go on fighting. And, it has less to do with caliber/bullet than it does the person.

Just read some Medal of Honor citations. People were shot multiple times, even having legs or arms severed, and they still manage to continue to fight.

There was a study done of shootings over several years and over a thousand incidents that described as best it could results of caliber (sorry I can't find my link to it). About the only conclusion it made was that shotguns and rifles are better than pistols and pistols less than .380 were marginal (many failures to stop). The problem with the data is the lack of data. There just are not that many cases of someone being shot with a .44Mag for example. So, if one person being shot with a certain caliber weapon and not stopped mean much or was it just because the shot was not placed properly? And much of the data was not very complete, ie, was the shot recorded in the ER the only shot fired or was it one of 20 and that one just happened to hit the person?

I do agree that, everything else being equal, a bigger (and maybe faster) bullet MAY be better than a smaller one. But, is a brain shot with a .380 going to make the person less dead than a brain shot with 00 buckshot? Will a 9mm that severs the aorta be less effective than a .44 that does the same thing?

In my mind the larger, faster bullets make a difference when non-CNS organs are hit. The possibility that the person will react more to a larger, faster projectile is more likely. OTOH, I know of two people who were 'blown off their feet' (their words, not mine) by .38 snub nose revolvers using ball ammo. One was hit in the upper arm, the other in the thigh (no arteries severed).

So, cherry picking an incident to make a case does not seem worthy of making a general conclusion. It is valid as a cautionary tale, that your .500 S&W may not cause the victim to immediately flop over on his back and die.

I do like to bring a gun to a gun fight, since I am not skilled with knife fighting. Which gun? I have several and any one may serve me well if I shoot it accurately. And, yes, I do carry extra ammo :)

Very well stated, Charlie.

Myths or facts in this case are more likely than not, based on anecdotal evidence. Just because a plated bullet passed through three people in one scenario doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to always use plated bullets.

In many instances, we also have to beware of outdated information. Referencing another post, it used to be true that .380 ammo should be selected based on the type of clothing people are likely to be wearing but with new ammo technologies, that's a lot less true and we can more reliably use hollow point .380 ammo these days.

Still, the remains as it always was: Risk management. How we make our decisions factors in as many of our perceptions of reality as anything. We're just weighing likelihoods of events. We're minimizing the risks of where we go and when we go there. We're deciding how much ammo we prefer to carry vs. the caliber we use. We decide if we're going to anticipate multiple attackers or not.

Each of these are mere possibilities with the clear understanding that we're never going to encounter the situation we prepared for, regardless. We can hope that we've prepared enough so that if we're ever dumped into an untenable situation, we'll be able to adapt more readily than if we never did prepare at all.

--Wag--

[reddog81]

There is no doubt in my mind that innocent people have been killed by over penetrating bullets. I would bet that more have been killed by stay bullets.

Rifle bullets have the energy to take out 2 people. 9mm rounds might hit someone in the arm and then go onto hit someone else and be fatal, but I have a hard time believing a 9mm bullet is going pass through someone's torso and then have enough energy to pass through another torso and then go into another person deep enough to be fatal as stated in the original article.

[Drm50]

I agree, there is only a tiny chance of that happening. Dwelling on a few odd cases is fruitless. What if, stuff is endless but not practical to worry about.

[M-Tecs]

We have historical data that addresses the maximum penetration. Before the gas chambers the German death camps would line the people up and shoot them. They used both rifles and handguns. Depending on size for the rifle they would shoot 7 or more. For the handgun it was at least three. I have watched some of these on the History Channel and I never could understand why the people never rushed the executioners since the knew with 100% certainty that they would be shot if they did nothing.

[gwpercle]

I still believe in Santa Claus

[Mr_Sheesh]

I know of a case where someone has such horrid arthritis that they hurt from shooting a .22LR pistol (and they're a criminal defense lawyer...) Shot placement and accurate shooting count for a lot too. Misses don't stop your opponent from hurting you.

[charlie b]

One other comment on bigger calibers. Maybe there is someone out there who said, 'I wish I had carried my 9mm instead of the 10mm.' Why might they say that? Maybe that person could have fired off that third shot with a 9mm (two shots to torso, one to the head) but the recoil of the 10mm meant only two shots were fired and the victim was able to recover and fire back.

Yep, training might have made a difference, and it may not.

Or the smaller caliber may have meant more rounds available and one more may make a difference. Or a larger caliber may mean a center torso shot takes out the spine and you don't need another shot.

If it was just a matter of bigger is best then every combatant out there would carry a .500

So many variables to consider.

These are not simple questions with simple answers.

[NWPilgrim]

Very good discussion, several points I had not considered much. Real life scenarios are complicated that is for sure. I was thinking over my defenses ammo last month and although I have shot at least 200 rds of my current bonded HP through each carry pistol to verify reliability I still have a concern niggling at the back of my mind.

I shoot a few thousand rds every year but 99% are FMJ or LTC/LRN. So I am 1000% confident in that ammo since I shoot it so often and under so many different conditions. I do not have a LEA budget nor get huge discounts on Fed HST so I can not afford to practice often with my bonded HP ammo like some police depts do. Regardless of the relative effectiveness of FMJ/lead versus premium HP, the bullet construction won’t matter if it does not feed or eject properly one out of a thousand times and that just happens to be the one I really need.

To me the priorities seem to be:
- highest level of reliable feeding, firing, and ejection
- reliable penetration, and who knows how much is needed in an unknown circumstance
- affordable to allow frequent practice at various ranges and conditions and likely in multiple pistols
- best possible bullet expansion under various conditions: clothing, barriers, lack of same, frontal entry in body, sideways, arm in the way, etc.
- reduce legal risks if jury trial

I have not changed what I carry yet (Win PDX and Speer GD) but I am finding it more convincing to carry what I practice with all the time. It doesn’t feel right to just shoot a couple hundred rounds initially then maybe a box or two a year afterward to reconfirm reliability. Thoughts?

[FergusonTO35]

I'm with your line of thinking, practice with what you carry. Flat point boolits are dirt cheap, accurate, and function great in all my pistols. A wide flat point will expand some and does more damage than a round nose or a JHP that fails to expand.

[charlie b]

I do put expensive stuff in my carry guns, these days Hornady Defense ammo. I do not practice with it. I do run several magazines to make sure it will function in autoloaders. My experience has been if it will function well after a few mags it will be good when I need it.

I practice with cheap plated bullets or cast bullets loaded to similar power level (hits at same POI).

After 40 years of reloading and shooting the only times I have had cartridge combinations with feeding/cycling problems, those problems showed up almost immediately.

PS I picked the Hornady stuff because it is designed to meet the FBI performance standards for penetration and expansion.

[FergusonTO35]

An addendum: most of the time I am carrying a "marginal" cartridge, either .380 Auto or .38 Special. I don't believe that either of these cartridges fired from a short barrel are going to gain much if any advantage with a premium expanding bullet unless the velocity and pressure are raised significantly. A 90-100 grain .380 doesn't have much more sectional density than a round ball. That is not to say it can't work well, but expansion is probably going to come at the expense of alot of penetration. The typical 150 grain+ .38 Special has the sectional density, but most of these loads only get 600-700 fps out of a snubnose. The bullet really needs to be moving at least 850 fps to get decent expansion. Which means, more pressure and recoil or a lighter bullet. The latter, of course, turns the .38 Special into a slightly heavier .380 Auto and we find ourselves in the same quandary of expanding bullet with low sectional density.

[Idaho45guy]

I do put expensive stuff in my carry guns, these days Hornady Defense ammo. I do not practice with it. I do run several magazines to make sure it will function in autoloaders. My experience has been if it will function well after a few mags it will be good when I need it.

As did I until I actually did accuracy testing with it and discovered that my particular carry gun, although reliable with it, was not at all accurate. In fact, with reloads it would do 2" groups at 25yds, and with the Hornady Critical Defense, it would barely do 8" at 25yds. With a rest. NOT acceptable accuracy for me.

So I now carry my own reloads fine-tuned to meet power levels of the factory defense ammo and using either Speer Gold Dots or Hornady XTP bullets. They are much more accurate and a fraction of the cost.

Yes, I know the arguments against using reloads for self-defense. Mas is very much against the practice. I am comfortable with the statistics.

[FergusonTO35]

If you are at least a competent reloader using factory bullets in new brass, how is anybody going to tell the difference? You are pretty much using factory ammo in kit form: some assembly required!

[charlie b]

The Hornady ammo has been just fine for me. 9mm HK VP9, Python and 9mmMak.

Check out .380 and .38spl ammo. Hornady ammo is specifically made to work at the velocities of the cartridge, ie, the .380 bullet is not the same as the 9mm bullet and the .38spl bullet is not the same as the .357mag bullets.

[Tom W.]

We have historical data that addresses the maximum penetration. Before the gas chambers the German death camps would line the people up and shoot them. They used both rifles and handguns. Depending on size for the rifle the would shoot 7 or more. For the handgun it was at least three. I have watched some of these on the History Channel and I never could understand why the people never rushed the executioners since the knew with 100% certainty that they would be shot if they did nothing.

They did the same thing at Andersonville prison during the civil war, but the prisoners were tied together. As hard as they had it there it was probably a blessing.

[Bigslug]

I think I've been getting a STRONGER belief in "Myth" #5 as time goes on.

Yes, there was the 1980's fad of the light-for-caliber hollowpoint that pancaked on impact and failed to penetrate worth a ****, but when you get right down to it, there seems to be a lot of lily-gilding.

I find it amusing that Ayoob is citing the Hickock/Tutt shooting right before addressing this. If ever there was a case to be made for your choice of gun and ammo not really mattering all that much, it is this shooting. With his .36 caliber, 1851 Navy Colt stoked with round ball, Hickock achieved a 70-yard, 1-shot stop with what amounted to a non-expanding .380 ACP. No pretty mushroom, no jacket expanding outward with fangs, just penetration to something probably within the FBI's currently-desired 12"-18" if gel test results of the classic blackpowder wheelguns are to be believed.

I find it interesting that he's still wringing his hands about over-penetration of bad guys as a leading threat to bystanders, when something like 70-80% of all rounds fired by cops MISS, creating the greater hazard of strays that aren't being slowed down by ANYTHING. Modern duty loads arrived on the scene because the stuff of the past often didn't penetrate ENOUGH. Yes, it's cool that the modern stuff is often stopped by the skin or clothing on the far side, but if a round has enough "juice" to make it through an upper arm on a side shot and still reach the vitals, it by is going to have enough "juice" to punch through both sides of a malnourished meth-head. I also find it odd that after beating Cardinal Firearms Safety Rule #4 (be sure of your target's surroundings and backstop) into everyone's heads in training, we seem to utterly disregard it as soon as we start talking about terminal ballistics.

He also, STILL, as of the 2016 writing, appears to be hung up on the concept of "stopping power", impact energy, call it what you will. Bad guys don't feel any more "impact" on the receiving end than your firing hand gets from recoil. Newton, folks - look him up.

What it's down to is placement, penetration, and maybe diameter, if you can get it without sacrificing the first two. We can generally place rounds much better if they aren't beating the **** out of us; penetration is almost purely a factor of tuning bullet design rather than the cartridge that launches it; and diameter isn't going to vary more than a few tenths of an inch with any gun we'd likely carry. If getting that diameter gives you a harder to control pistol that is either placing your rounds MULTIPLE inches from your intended point of aim, or it slows you down to where you can only drill ONE hole to effective depth instead of two or even three, what does the extra couple tenths actually DO for you?

So while NO, I won't be taking along a Walther PPK full of ball ammo to Alaska for my final defense against Kodiak bears, I no longer regard the concept as suicidally insane as I would have 30 years ago.

[Ozark mike]

I don't think they even feel as much force as the recoil because the face of the boolit has Less surface area compared to the grip

[Ozark mike]

As far as stopping power I carry a bfr 4570 and a 1895gs when I'm in the wilderness battling my way thru grizzly territory but when I go in town i feel my 58 remmie is all I need. I imagine c&b revolvers stopped more men in the war than most of these modern million Rd a min autos. so that's all I carry because i like it and is accurate

[bmortell]

Bad guys don't feel any more "impact" on the receiving end than your firing hand gets from recoil. Newton, folks - look him up

bad guys don't get the luxury of a metal block that weighs 80 times more than the projectile to slow down its force. likewise if you were gonna get hit by a train with the same amount of force as a 50 bmg you wont receive equal and opposite forces, you'll just die of old age waiting for the train to arrive.


the original article, I have a hard time taking seriously as soon as I seen them use wild bill kickok as proof that getting shot at first don't have a negative effect. possibly the most obvious case of cherry picking data I've ever seen. whoever wrote it must have been more concerned about hearing their point than passing any scrutiny, so Id say it don't have value other than one persons opinion.

that's enough disagreeing for one morning :p

[FergusonTO35]

What it's down to is placement, penetration, and maybe diameter, if you can get it without sacrificing the first two. We can generally place rounds much better if they aren't beating the **** out of us; penetration is almost purely a factor of tuning bullet design rather than the cartridge that launches it; and diameter isn't going to vary more than a few tenths of an inch with any gun we'd likely carry. If getting that diameter gives you a harder to control pistol that is either placing your rounds MULTIPLE inches from your intended point of aim, or it slows you down to where you can only drill ONE hole to effective depth instead of two or even three, what does the extra couple tenths actually DO for you?

So while NO, I won't be taking along a Walther PPK full of ball ammo to Alaska for my final defense against Kodiak bears, I no longer regard the concept as suicidally insane as I would have 30 years ago.

:goodpost:

[charlie b]

[QUOTE=Ozark mike;4632859..... my 58 remmie is all I need.[/QUOTE]

I used a chronograph with my 58 and found that the ~140gn round ball at 1300fps was close to .357Mag velocities. So, yeah, it does the job.

[Idaho45guy]

I used a chronograph with my 58 and found that the ~140gn round ball at 1300fps was close to .357Mag velocities. So, yeah, it does the job.

If you think that a .36 round ball going roughly the same speed as a modern jacketed hollow-point .357 magnum is equal or even close to having the same capability of said hollow-point to damage tissue and incapacitate an attacker, then I don't know where to begin...

[M-Tecs]

I used a chronograph with my 58 and found that the ~140gn round ball at 1300fps was close to .357Mag velocities. So, yeah, it does the job.

Not a 44 cal 1858 Remmy but I did take one deer with Ruger Old Army with a 143 gr. 45 cal. round ball at just a hair over 1,100 FPS. The wound channel was more impressive than expected. Double lung and about 40 or 50 yard recovery. Not as much as claimed below but way more than I expected.

https://www.shootersforum.com/handguns/4790-ruger-old-army-hot-loads-2.html

Gentlemen I hunt in Florida with a 12 in stainless Pietta 1858 revolver and have had great success. My hunting load is 37 gr of 777 powder, a wad and a .454 ball. I chronograph this load at 1250fps/450ftlbs. This gun and load has proven very effective against wild boar and white tail deer. You can see a few pics of my kills at the yahoo percussion revolver forum and look at the pics with my name (BPpistolhunter).

I have been hunting with cap and ball revolvers for over a decade and they will perform admirable if loaded with 777 powder and ball or bullet. The wound channels are horrendous and the impact shots very dramatic. The soft lead projectile expands quickly producing jagged edges that tear thru flesh rather than push it aside. Would channels are more dramatic than any 357, 44 mag or 45lc that we have ever used. I have never needed a second shot and I make it a rule not to shoot past 50 yards. These guns work very well against wild boar and deer. Elmer Keith state in his book six guns " a 44 or 45 calibre ball driven at a good speed has a killing factor way out of proportion to the calibre" He should know what he was talking about as he did his fair share of hunting and was the father of the 44 magnum. I know they work from experience, I encourage you to check out my pics.

[Ozark mike]

If you think that a .36 round ball going roughly the same speed as a modern jacketed hollow-point .357 magnum is equal or even close to having the same capability of said hollow-point to damage tissue and incapacitate an attacker, then I don't know where to begin...

He said a 140grn rb so that would imply 44. 80 grns for 357

[Ozark mike]

Yes a 45 rb @1200 fps Does some impressive damage

[jmort]

Happened not far from where I am writing this

"While in Springfield, Hickok and a local gambler named Davis Tutt had several disagreements over unpaid gambling debts and their mutual affection for the same women. Hickok lost a gold watch to Tutt in a poker game. The watch had great sentimental value to Hickok and he asked Tutt not to wear it in public. They initially agreed not to fight over the watch, but when Hickok saw Tutt wearing it, he warned him to stay away. On July 21, 1865, the two men faced off in Springfield's town square, standing sideways before drawing and firing their weapons. Their quick-draw duel was recorded as the first of its kind.[25] Tutt's shot missed, but Hickok's struck Tutt through the heart from about 75 yards (69 m) away. Tutt called out, "Boys, I'm killed" before he collapsed and died.[26][27]"
Leftapedia

.36" ball at around 750 +/- fps
Seems effective to me

[charlie b]

Yes, the 58 Remington is a .44. And yes, a pure lead round ball expands when it hits. Not as well as some of the modern hollow points, but, just as well as soft points, so I consider the comparison valid.

[Jtarm]

I am reminded of the saying, "Trust. But verify.". Prez R. Reagan used it a lot, but it is actually, from what I understand, a Russian "proverb". Anyhow, in reading this topic, it came to mind.
;)

I’ve tried to verify my beliefs about SD ammo, but there’s a dearth of volunteers.

[Livin_cincy]

Thanks for sharing the article.

[mickbr]

I always found the biggest debates centred around handguns for some reason. I think its because a lot of purchases are obviously for self defense we don't get to use them for it much(thankfully).Unlike say rifles we are buying for recreational shooting and get to use them a lot for such.

[RED BEAR]

I said many times that i have talked to lawyers who said that the type of ammo was brought up in court it was dispelled but it did cost the client for expert counter. I carry factory ammo in my guns. And as for taking deliberate aim this is just not realistic for most people . Once the excitement takes over you resort to instinct. I watched a video of an officer lose his life because he forgot to reload and just kept pulling the trigger on an empty gun. I practice on a pistol range 7 to 15 yards rapid fire and reloading. because thats the most likely thing to happen. I doubt amy one does the research on there hand gun ammo that the manufacturer does. A cap and ball will definitely do someone in but just hope you don't need a reload. I normally carry a large caliber gun 41 mag but there are times that that just wount work i don't feel under gunned with a 22 ,25, or 32. You can't make up for poor pistol handling with a bigger caliber. Most people will stop doing bad things when shot with anything and for those who don't thats why you don't carry a single shot. All of this is just my opinion not saying i am right or wrong if you don't agree then by all means do what floats your boat. And yes i have been shot at a few times it was not pleasant and don't plan on repeating it if possible.

[Idaho45guy]

I doubt amy one does the research on there hand gun ammo that the manufacturer does.

My reloads for self-defense use a Speer Gold Dot 165gr bullet going 1150fps. Cost is $.30 each.

Speer factory loaded ammunition uses the same bullet going the same speed. Only they cost $1.20 each.

Please explain to me how my reloads are any different from the factory stuff. Specifically, tell me how the same bullet going the same speed will not be as effective as factory loaded ammunition, since you are implying that reloaded self-defense ammo is inferior and not as effective as factory self-defense ammo.

[GARD72977]

I'm glad I finally made it to the end. This is the most worthless thread in all of Cast Boolits......

[RED BEAR]

Idaho45 you are duplicating a factory load therefore it should preform as a factory load. I was mainly referring to some ones pet loads. I should have been clear. Although i still carry factory ammo even if i can recreate it. It may seem like a waste but dog gone it i am worth it just ask the misses.

[Idaho45guy]

Idaho45 you are duplicating a factory load therefore it should preform as a factory load. I was mainly referring to some ones pet loads. I should have been clear. Although i still carry factory ammo even if i can recreate it. It may seem like a waste but dog gone it i am worth it just ask the misses.

Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification!