5.56/.223 Defense Ammo - Page 5

5.56/.223 Defense Ammo

This is a discussion on 5.56/.223 Defense Ammo within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN ....

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 75 of 75
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: 5.56/.223 Defense Ammo

  1. #61
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN View Post

    .
    Last edited by sgb; June 6th, 2011 at 05:22 AM.
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition


  2. #62
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,313
    Mornin' sgb;

    You're missing the point here. The observations gleaned through shooting game are a poor indicator of the relative terminal ballistic performance of cartridges/projectiles and their stopping effectiveness however they are a very good indicator of the undeniable fact that living organisms absolutely do not behave to any measurable standard that may be derived from any controlled ballistics tests conducted on any sort of inanimate matter. Such tests, by their artificial nature, are poor indicators of actual results on living organisms. And yes, conclusions may be drawn about .223 defensive ammunition performance by observation of the performance of various "favorite deer loads." That single valid conclusion has to be that both game and, one assumes human assailants, frequently don't cooperate by conveniently "stopping" despite the optimum selection and shot placement of the cartridge/bullet with the best perceived terminal ballistics as derived in some sort of artificial test medium. It follows that all such tests must be taken with a grain of salt by the thoughtful person.

    The very fact that you hold these ballistic tests so close to your heart and cling to your "verifiable data" derived from your "consistent test medium" indicates that you don't get out much. It doesn't make you appear to be particularly savvy to be able to use Google to find and "cut-'n-paste" links to tests. Instead it appears to be excessive dithering over trivialities. The "wide" differences in factory .223 ammunition styles exists mostly in the minds of vacillators extraordinaire. Most discussion of self-defense cartridge performance arises from a combination of dithering by unlearned folks who are insecure with both their shooting abilities and their ammunition choices coupled with the pontificating by other unlearned folks who believe excessively in the fairy tales found within ammo makers' advertising copy along with those found within purported ballistics tests deluging the internet. If the discussion is entertaining then go ahead and enjoy it but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're obtaining some sort of advanced education in terminal ballistics by consuming such discussion.

    If a person will make an ammo selection that is certain to have adequate penetration and then concentrate his efforts on placing it as accurately as possible then he's done his best to provide for effective personal self-defense.

    And if this post isn't pontificating then I don't know what is!
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society "Get heeled! No really"

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  3. #63
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by ssmtbracer View Post
    I just got this one and its pretty sweet its my first rifle as well. Just put a red dot on it and took it out to the range. Man its sweet.
    I looked at the M&P 15 sport myself, great price for an AR platform, ( $659.00 complete at local gun show). I held off though when I saw it didn't have a "forward bolt assist". I don't know if this would be a "big deal" in civilian use or not. I do know it was a HUGE deal on the original M-16's in Vietnam. When the rifle would get dirty the bolt would not fully close making the weapon inoperable??? Have you shot yours enough that it got really dirty? and did it still function properly? I would like to have one. I don't have a ton of $$$ to spend on a SHTF rifle, so I had been thinking about an AK, but this M&P sport is in the same ballpark. Thoughts or advice ???
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  4. #64
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,313
    Hi Stubborn;

    I've owned a Colt SP-1 since the late 1980s. It's been used for lots of entertaining plinking, some bench rest fun and handload development, and has been used by the whole family for high-power competition on the local level. It's been shot a lot and its lack of forward bolt assist has never been missed.

    I used to use Dri-Slide for lubrication on my AR 15 and occasionally after several hundred rounds were fired the rifle could get balky. I don't recall that any malfunctions made me long for a forward bolt assist though.

    I've never used an AR 15 with forward bolt assist to fully close a bolt that failed to close but have some reservations about forcing the issue with a contrary round. I'd be more likely to just pull the charge handle back, removing that cartridge, and try again with the next one up. I'm old-fashioned though and someone else may have other ideas about the expediency of forward bolt assist.


    Don't keep up with all the AR 15 clones and their prices but $659 sounds like a deal to me. Was it completely factory original or could it have been a "built" rifle?
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society "Get heeled! No really"

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  5. #65
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    That was NIB...S&W website shows MSRP at $709.00 and the dealer at the show had several at that price. I just have never owned an AR and wasn't sure about how important the forward assist really is...this seems to be one of the very few rifles out there without it. Tactical Rifles - Smith & Wesson

    p.s. Sorry...I didn't mean to hijack someone elses thread
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array PAcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    3,528
    The hi-jack is a welcome change ;^)
    My thoughts on your decision: If I had $700 to spend on either a quality AK or an AR missing quite a few features, I'd go with the AK. That's just how my thinking works. I would rather have the AK that I am totally happy with than the AR that I'm wondering if I should have spent 400 more.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Array beni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    508
    One of the reasons I will be getting the M&P Sport is that a buddy of mine went to recieve professional training in the AZ desert and the carbine they used in the training was an M&P sport. He did not have issues with the rifle chambering rounds and they were out in the AZ desert rolling around in the dirt. Not having a forward assist didn't hinder him.

  8. #68
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,563
    I think the OP's biggest problem is the fact his dwelling shares a double sheetrock wall with his next door neighbors. Any misses with an AR round is going to punch right through that wall with enough energy left to do damage to someone on the other side (both the Box O Truth guy and Clint Smith have conducted tests, and an AR round will penetrate as many sheetrock walls as you care to put in front of them and multiple 1" pine boards). If he can manage it, his firing should be done in a direction away from that common wall.

    As far as what ammo he should choose, I'd go with the heaviest round that will reliably function in his gun. Not totally for the usual reason of penetration (although I do give credit to the FBI, like their criteria or not, they are trying to get the best performing ammo for their agents and have a reasoned criteria), but after doing research, I believe the longer bullets will yaw faster, presenting a larger cross section sooner, and breaking up sooner.

    I don't really care for the forward assist. If a round won't chamber, get it out of there and get a new one in, just like with a handgun. Keep your guns clean, it most likely won't be an issue.

  9. #69
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    I think I'm more confused than ever. My thoughts on this are: I'm buying it for a SHTF weapon (primarily-but for fun also). I figure if the threat is foreign the AK would be the better choice since that is what most foreign troops are carrying, making ammo and spare parts "available" through "battlefield pick-up". Then again if the threat is from within, then we would most likely be facing AR's making them the better choice for the same reasons as above. Or am I just waaaaay over-thinking?
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  10. #70
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    Mornin' sgb;

    You're missing the point here.
    Would appear I'm not the only one.

    The observations gleaned through shooting game are a poor indicator of the relative terminal ballistic performance of cartridges/projectiles and their stopping effectiveness however they are a very good indicator of the undeniable fact that living organisms absolutely do not behave to any measurable standard that may be derived from any controlled ballistics tests conducted on any sort of inanimate matter.Such tests, by their artificial nature, are poor indicators of actual results on living organisms. And yes, conclusions may be drawn about .223 defensive ammunition performance by observation of the performance of various "favorite deer loads."
    I don't disagree that "living organisms absolutely do not behave to any measurable standard that may be derived from any controlled ballistics tests conducted on any sort of inanimate matter" and never claimed such. I have pointed out that humans aren't deer (hunting) and comparing deer to violent individuals (self defense) that are often under the influence of drugs/alcohol is a faulty comparison. I also disagree that comparing different calibers , bullet weights and bullet construction in anecdotal incidents to be a valid form of reaching a quality conclusion.

    That single valid conclusion has to be that both game and, one assumes human assailants, frequently don't cooperate by conveniently "stopping" despite the optimum selection and shot placement of the cartridge/bullet with the best perceived terminal ballistics as derived in some sort of artificial test medium. It follows that all such tests must be taken with a grain of salt by the thoughtful person.
    While I agree with the basic premise of this statement I don't agree with the path you've taken to reach the conclusion. And once again I never stated that ballistic gelatin in any way predicts how anything living will react to being struck by a bullet, it's simply a consistent median that closely simulates human tissues that allows for accurate comparison of bullet performance. That information when compared to actual wound ballistics (on PEOPLE) allows prediction of which bullets will give acceptable performance under the current standards.

    The very fact that you hold these ballistic tests so close to your heart and cling to your "verifiable data" derived from your "consistent test medium" indicates that you don't get out much. It doesn't make you appear to be particularly savvy to be able to use Google to find and "cut-'n-paste" links to tests. Instead it appears to be excessive dithering over trivialities. The "wide" differences in factory .223 ammunition styles exists mostly in the minds of vacillators extraordinaire. Most discussion of self-defense cartridge performance arises from a combination of dithering by unlearned folks who are insecure with both their shooting abilities and their ammunition choices coupled with the pontificating by other unlearned folks who believe excessively in the fairy tales found within ammo makers' advertising copy along with those found within purported ballistics tests deluging the internet. If the discussion is entertaining then go ahead and enjoy it but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're obtaining some sort of advanced education in terminal ballistics by consuming such discussion.
    And here you go from intelligent discussion to personally attacking an individual who disagrees with you. It's a week tactic usually deployed when unable to factually support a position. Intelligent discussion challenges the information under discussion, juvenile discussion challenges the character of the provider of the information.

    But just to show you how wrong you can be..... I grew up in Michigan hunting, I've taken all manner of small game, water fowl and Deer with both gun and bow. My last Buck taken in Michigan was with a .45acp HG68 200gr hard cast LSWC out of a Colt Gold Cup at a distance of 7 yards. Bullet went straight through and the buck didn't stagger 10 feet.

    I've served in the Marines, been a Michigan LEO, took a Bullet through the hips in 1991 and am both a NRA and State of Florida Licensed Firearms instructor.

    Seems your internet crystal ball failed you again my friend.


    If a person will make an ammo selection that is certain to have adequate penetration and then concentrate his efforts on placing it as accurately as possible then he's done his best to provide for effective personal self-defense.
    I agree 100%, however nothing yet presented indicates that use of light weight .223 cal varmint rounds using bullets like the VMAX will consistently accomplish that penetration.

    And if this post isn't pontificating then I don't know what is!
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  11. #71
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,313
    My intention is not to attack you personally. Only in an "if the shoe fits..." sort of way and that shoe does fit so very often on forums. You might consider your own personal experiences more and share them rather than only post the inevitable internet ballistics charts and attempt to stand behind them. I'm discerning enough to separate facts from conjecture in personal stories. Even if unverifiable, I'd pay more heed to them than I would to links of supposedly verifiable tests and would certainly enjoy hearing the stories more. I can find references to all the internet sites I could want. I'm looking for the personal accounts on these forums.

    I thank you for your service with the Marine Corps. Have a special spot in my heart for the Corps; know lots of neat Marines, and our youngest son is currently a 0331 machine-gunner in Suicide Charley, 1/7. It's a unique branch of service that has a real family feel for both Marines and Marine family members.

    Can't match your personal slate of experience. I haven't been shot and haven't served in the military or in law enforcement. I've shot competitively, if mundanely my entire adult life and have been an NRA rifle coach beginning in 1981. I've only taken 100-120 deer over some 35 years at 3 to 5 deer per season, depending on the legal limits, using many different cartridges and loads in both rifle and revolver. A host of small game and pests have been laid low through the years as well. Duck hunting is my actual favorite hunting sport though. This all does allow for some insightful conclusions if one is observant.

    "...comparing deer to violent individuals (self defense) that are often under the influence of drugs/alcohol is a faulty comparison."

    Yeah, it is! In the exact same way that comparing ballistic gelatin to violent individuals that are often under the influence of drugs/alcohol, which is equally a faulty comparison.

    I still maintain that the hunting experience is worthwhile if only to illustrate that there is no bullet that will guarantee a certain terminal performance, no matter what any ballistic test claims. I'm still mostly contemptible of endless ballistics "tests," the usefulness of which is severely limited to a bullet's performance in the inanimate matter of choice. There are entirely too many folks "chasing their tails" futilely attempting to extrapolate these test results into their situations and needs and deriving a false sense of security about their choices. tests with their claims successfully markets a lot of boutique ammo but could be said to be a disservice to the shooting community to some extent.

    We're not so far apart anyway as I'm a fan of penetration and not so much a fan of the wonders of expansion. I've never fired a VMAX in my life through a .223. I made the mistake once of purchasing some for handloading into a .220 Swift with dismal results. They don't hold up to the velocities achieved with that cartridge.

    Completely off the subject but just can't resist to share. We just returned from a trip to Twentynine Palms, California delivering the motorcycle that our son ordered back in November while he was deployed on a MEW. We had a big time but, as an ol' dad, I haven't figured out whether to dither about his MOS or his motorcycle the most.
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society "Get heeled! No really"

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  12. #72
    sgb
    sgb is offline
    VIP Member Array sgb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    You don't need to know
    Posts
    2,414
    OT: Congrats to your son on both his occupation and his crotch rocket. I was 0311, my Brother was 0331 and my Father and one of my Mothers Sisters were both 8511(DI). My Fathers Father and my Mother were Navy. I was three years old the first time I went to PI, though I went to boot in SD.

    I still maintain that the hunting experience is worthwhile if only to illustrate that there is no bullet that will guarantee a certain terminal performance, no matter what any ballistic test claims.
    How do you think the ammunition companies test their game specific hunting Loads during development? I think you're confusing the bullets terminal performance with the unpredictability of the targets immediate impact reaction. Identical physical targets with differing states of sensory awareness receiving identical shot placement with identical terminal ballistics will as often as not react differently. To relate this to hunting imagine a bullet destroying the heart of deer that is feeding and unaware of danger, that deer will many times drop like a sack of corn, the same deer feeding nervously due to being alerted to a sense of danger having his heart destroyed by that bullet will often run several hundrd yards before collasping.This however doesn't devalue the bullets terminal ballistics/performance. The bullet having done it's job identically in both cases.

    I'm still mostly contemptible of endless ballistics "tests," the usefulness of which is severely limited to a bullet's performance in the inanimate matter of choice. There are entirely too many folks "chasing their tails" futilely attempting to extrapolate these test results into their situations and needs and deriving a false sense of security about their choices. tests with their claims successfully markets a lot of boutique ammo but could be said to be a disservice to the shooting community to some extent.
    I look at all the information generated and place weight only to those who's expertise is recognized and documented. Men like Fackler and Roberts who have extensive wound ballistic knowledge by which to gauge certified ballistic gelatin testing.


    Regardless of how others may a ballistic gelatin testing in how it relates to predicting bullet performance
    Agreed, as I've said several times ballistic gel testing only relates to evaluating the bullets terminal performance. Just so we're on the same page I use the term "Terminal Performance" in the context of Terminal ballistics being the study of the behavior of a projectile when it hits its target.
    "There is a secret pride in every human heart that revolts at tyranny. You may order and drive an individual, but you cannot make him respect you." William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

    Best Choices for Self Defense Ammunition

  13. #73
    RKM
    RKM is online now
    Distinguished Member Array RKM's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    I think I'm more confused than ever. My thoughts on this are: I'm buying it for a SHTF weapon (primarily-but for fun also). I figure if the threat is foreign the AK would be the better choice since that is what most foreign troops are carrying, making ammo and spare parts "available" through "battlefield pick-up". Then again if the threat is from within, then we would most likely be facing AR's making them the better choice for the same reasons as above. Or am I just waaaaay over-thinking?
    Yes.

    Buy both an AR and an AK, and you'll be set. AK's are cheap. Anybody, even somebody on Welfare could afford an AK.

    And the forward assist is NOT a must have. Forcing a round into the chamber is a bad idea. If the gun jams, clear it and chamber the next round.

  14. #74
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,621
    Quote Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN View Post
    No, it is a plain simple fact. Civilians don't go around chasing people, and shooting at them as they flee, like law enforcement does. Nor do they shoot at people inside automobiles Nor do they shoot at people who have barricaded themselves.

    Civilian self-defense shooting takes place under much more limited circumstances. If you shoot someone outside of those limitations, then you are probably going to be criminally charged.
    That may be the case in your state. Do you have any citations to validate your statement. In Washington state private citizens are granted far wider latitude in what is justifiable use of force than what is granted LEO.
    RCW 9A.16.040
    Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

    (1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

    (a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

    (b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

    (c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

    (i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

    (ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or

    (iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or

    (iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.

    (2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

    (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

    (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

    Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

    (3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

    (4) This section shall not be construed as:

    (a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

    (b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.

    [1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.]

    Notes:
    Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]
    Notice the last line in bold. It means that these are the limitations imposed upon LEO only. Civilian citizens are granted wider latitude and may use lethal force under these conditions IN ADDITION to those outlined in
    9A.16.020 Use of force -- When lawful.
    9A.16.030 Homicide -- When excusable.
    9A.16.040 Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
    9A.16.050 Homicide -- By other person -- When justifiable.

    In short Washington state citizens lawful justification for use of lethal force include but is not limited to defense of self, in defense of others, in defense of property, to stop a felony, to stop a fleeing felon, to stop malicious trespass. Add the fact that civilian citizens have no requirement to climb the "use of force continuum ladder" as LEO is required to do. LEO are required to have a certain set of conditions or circumstances to deploy a specific level of force. Civilians have no such requirement. The amount of force necessary is subjective and must be whatever the defender believed was necessary at the time. Better explained in the excerpt below from Stephen Hayne's article SELF DEFENSE IN ASSAULT CASES AND RECOUPMENT OF COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (you can read the entire article using the link)

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Hayne
    The person using the force may employ such force and means that a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances as they appeared to the person, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances known to the person at the time of the incident. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used by the defendant was not lawful.

    “Necessary” is defined in WPIC 17.05 as follows:

    Necessary means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended, under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared to the actor at the time.

    The Washington Supreme Court revised the definition in 1986 to make it clear to the jury that the standard to be applied in deciding what degree of force was
    ”necessary” under the circumstances was according to the subjective perspective of the defendant. In other words, even if the objective intentions of the alleged victim appeared innocuous to third persons, the judge and jury must apply the standard according to the circumstances as they appeared subjectively to the defendant, based on the knowledge and information he had at the time of the incident. See State v. Bradley, 20 Wn.App 152 (1978), WPIC 17.05, (1986 Supplement).

    In addition, WPIC 17.04 defines the lawful use of force even when the defendant is mistaken over the intentions of the alleged victim:

    If a person acting as a reasonable prudent person mistakenly believes himself to be in danger of injury or of an offense being committed against him, he has the right to defend himself by the use of lawful force against that apparent injury or offense even if he is not actually in such danger.

    See State v. Penn, 89 Wn.2d 63 (1977), State v. Miller, 141 Wn. 104 (1926) and State v. Dunning, 8 Wn.App 340 (1973).

    In other words, if the “victim” of the assault had previously attacked the defendant the jury must consider the defendant’s knowledge of that fact. However, evidence that the victim had a history of violence unknown to the defendant would not be admissible since it would have no bearing on the defendant’s subjective view of the circumstances at the time of the assault.

    The defendant is entitled to consideration of his claim of self-defense whenever the evidence supports it, no matter how tenuous:

    . . . only where no plausible evidence appears in the record upon which a claim of self defense might be based is an instruction on the issue not necessary. State v. Adams, 31 Wn.App 393, at p. 396, (1982).

    Self-defense instructions are therefore necessary whenever there is any evidence tending to establish self-defense.

    It is also well-settled law in the State of Washington that whenever a claim of self-defense has been raised by the evidence at trial, the State assumes the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of self-defense.

    In State v. McCullum, 98 Wn. 2d 484 (1983) the Court held:

    As stated previously, there need only be some evidence, admitted in the case from whatever source to raise the issue of self-defense . . . the jury then should be instructed that the State bears the burden of proving the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. (at p. 500)

    See also, State v. Acosta, 101 Wn.2d 612 (1984) and paragraph 4 of WPIC 17.02.

    Remember, the lawful use of force also applies to persons coming to the aid of another about to be injured or in preventing a “malicious interference” or trespass with property lawfully in the defendant’s possession. See WPIC 17.02 and RCW 98.16.020 (3).

    In addition, WPIC 17.05 exonerates the defendant from any duty to retreat when the alleged “victim” advances on him:

    “It is lawful for a person who is in a place where that person has a right to be and who has reasonable grounds for believing that he is being attacked to stand his ground and defend against such attack by the use of lawful force. The law does not impose a duty to retreat.”

    See also State v. Allery, 101 Wn.2d 591 (1984).
    Examples are.
    Some fifteen years ago a 13 year old was climbing through a mans window, with no visible weapons. The 13 year old had his head blown off. No charges were filed ruled justified. It is very old but it made a profound impact on me due to the zombies age and extent of the injury.
    A couple encounter a pair of thugs in their home. The thugs are shot in the back. No charges filed.
    Both stories can be found at Keep and Bear Arms Archives

    A man observed a burglar fleeing from a neighbors house. He grabbed his bow and followed him for two blocks. When the burglar refused to stop he shot him in the back. No charges filed on the shooter. Small blurp here Burglar shot by man with bow and arrow There is another story with an interview with a idiot persecutor somewhere if you want to research it.

    In another recent story A homeowner shots two unarmed intruders kills one

    If LEO had used lethal force in any of the above circumstances As Ol Dodge Boy used to say they'd be in a heap of trouble. Point being at least in my state contrary to your assumptions citizens have far broader range of conditions that they can use lethal force than LEO. Unless you can provide citations for your state that differ greatly from our state your assumptions appear to be twisted 180 degrees backwards.

    In addition our state has a unique law RCW 9A.16.110 that says in part
    Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.
    (1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.
    (it is however currently under attack by our legislators) that allows anyone wrongfully charged in a shooting with the ability to provide as good a defense as Donald Trump or Bill Gates could. You can hire F Lee Baily, Johnnie Cochran as your lawyers and have Massad Ayoob and Clint Smith or whomever to present expert testimony on your behalf. Because once you prove your shooting is justified the state has to pay all the fees for your defense lawyers and expert testimony used for your defense as well as lost wages. The law helps keep overzealous anti self defense persecutors from pursuing frivolous cases to further their personal anti agendas.

    Quote Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN View Post
    Well, but he was talking about handgun ammo, not rifle ammo.
    In that specific podcast that is correct but it is a reoccurring response Massad Ayoob has to ALL defensive ammo questions regardless of caliber or weapon. His suggested response to any question of why you used LEO ammo is the if it is good enough for LEO to use to defend you and your family life it is good enough for you to use to defend your and your families life. You can write him or take one of his courses on the legal consequence of a self defense shooting to verify that for yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN View Post
    The problem is, though, that there are no zombies or goblins. There are only bad human beings.
    Wrong, Goblins and Zombies are common terminology for BG (Bad Guys). They are not some human being with momentary bad behavior. Auntie May's little Johnny boy who is just about to turn his life around to cure cancer, right after he slaughters my family. They are sick vile evil Goblins and putrid puss infected Zombies. The instant that they attempt to deprive me of my lawful property or endanger the lives and well being of REAL HUMAN BEINGS they ceased being human and have forfeited all consideration as such. They are entitled (because they are so very entitled) to the very same consideration and compassion as rabid dogs, zombies and goblins.

    Point of this rather long tedious post is that contrary to your unfounded assumptions there is no legitimate reason not to use the most effective man stopping defensive ammunition available
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  15. #75
    Senior Member Array AZ Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun, AZ
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by TN_Mike View Post
    Make that +2. Same here.
    Make that +3 on the 75 gr TAP OTM. I prefer this one: http://www.hornady.com/store/5.56-NA...ormance-Match/

    On another note, this whole conversation was based on two assumptions: 1) That the 60 gr Hornady VMAX would be a horrible SD choice, and 2) that the 75 gr Hornady TAP OTM is a serious cause of concern in terms of overpenetration potential. Both of these assumptions are false.

    Take a look at the ballistics straight from Hornady's LE website:

    TAP OTM 75 gr Ballistics - Hornady : Law Enforcement | Products | 223 REM TAP® BTHP - 223 REM 75 GR TAP® BTHP

    Total Penetration: 12"
    Max. Cavity: 5.5"
    Depth to Max. Cav.: 5.25"
    Entry: .5"
    Retained Weight: 21 gr.

    Rem TAP Urban (VMAX) 60 gr Ballistics - Hornady : Law Enforcement | Products | 223 REM TAP URBAN® - 223 REM 60 gr. TAP URBAN®

    Total Penetration: 10"
    Max. Cavity: 5.25"
    Depth to Max. Cav.: 4.75"
    Entry: 0"
    Retained Weight: 23 gr.

    We can see here that the 75 gr TAP OTM actually fragments MORE than the 60 gr Rem TAP Urban (VMAX), and that the only significant difference is the depth of penetration. I think the rest of the stats speak for themselves.
    Move. Shoot. Survive. ― The "Unofficial" Suarez International Doctrine

    “The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress and grows brave by reflection.” ― Thomas Paine

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

.223 defense ammo
,
223 defense ammo
,

5.56 self defense ammo

,
556 defense ammo
,
556 self defense ammo
,

best 5.56 ammo

,
best 5.56 ammo for defense
,

best 5.56 ammo for self defense

,

best 5.56 defensive ammo

,

best 5.56 self defense ammo

,
best ammo for m&p 15 sport
,
best self defense 5.56 ammo
Click on a term to search for related topics.