Defensive Carry banner

141 - 160 of 262 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,611 Posts
Discussion Starter #141
You mean you don't carry a Desert Eagle? What's wrong with you? :rolleyes:

Toxic masculinity? No, not as far as I know, I don't believe in that. I don't feel the need to prove anything to anybody, and don't much care who does what. Except toxic stupidity. That does tend to bother me.
They are owned by Kahr....Hmmmmm....:smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
You mean you don't carry a Desert Eagle? What's wrong with you? :rolleyes:

Toxic masculinity? No, not as far as I know, I don't believe in that. I don't feel the need to prove anything to anybody, and don't much care who does what. Except toxic stupidity. That does tend to bother me.
I only carry the .380 when my Wildey Survivor .475 Magnum is in the shop. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,950 Posts
I stopped obsessing, long ago, about the nth degree of difference between relatively similar defensive cartridges. I reckon that .380 would be much like standard-pressure .38 Special, so, is an effective minimum cartridge that I would want to use for defensive purposes.

One of my hands has not aged as well as the other, which has caused some changes in the pistols I use. Shooting a G19, for example, started causing pain, and very-visible swelling, in my right hand and wrist, in late 2017. This effectively ended the utility of the “compact 9mm” category of pistols, for me*. (Larger, heavier, duty-sized pistols, firing relatively mild cartridges, remain tolerable, for now.) This has caused me to shift attention to locked-breech .380 pistols, such as the G42 and, perhaps, the Shield EZ. I have a G42, and may well be about to add a Shield EZ. We shall see how this sorts itself out. (An alternative would to shift to lefty primary, perhaps with handedness**-neutral revolvers.)

I doubt that .380 ACP, or standard-pressure .38 Special, would be able to effectively penetrate into such things such as motor vehicles, and equivalent cover. So, there are times I will want to have something with more power, than .380 ACP. Being retired from LEO-ing has, thankfully, reduced my perceived need for penetrating opponents’ cover.

*I had stopped using any .40 S&W pistol, in 2015, when I retired my P229R, as soon as my chief authorized 9mm as an alternative duty cartridge. Being able to transition to a “kinder, gentler” G17 duty pistol extended my career.

**I am, actually, a natural left-hander, but, unusually, right-armed. Drawing a weapon, especially a heavy L-Frame, from the then-mandated low-slung duty rig, felt natural enough righty, and was a reason I decided to carry at 0300, in 1983. I found the long-stroke DA trigger pull, which I was learning, for the first time, to be left/right-neutral.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
No one has said they don't want to be shot with a .380 yet???

Seriously you guys (and gals)...

I'm disappointed.




:hand15:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
I know I don't. Hey, there's a new thread waiting to happen. How many of you gunslingers here have actually been shot once or multiple times? I have, By Gum.
I've been shot MULTIPLE TIMES...

with spitwads and BB's... does that count?


:hand15:



Seriously though, if you were shot in service to the USA (Purple Heart?) I thank you muchly!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,950 Posts
To add a bit, after my above post: If I felt compelled to engage an active, mass-casualty-event shooter, across 50 or so yards of a Whatever-Mart parking lot, with a realistically-concealable firearm, I would rather have a GP100, with 4” or longer barrel, and adjustable sights, loaded with full-Magnum-level JHPs, than any other handgun.

This does not mean that I always carry one of my three GP100 revolvers, that meet the above description, but that the better weapon, in my hands, gives me more tactical options, in a wider variety of circumstances. When I choose to carry a G42, on the other end of the scale, my tactical-response options are fewer. Every time I step outside the front door of our home, I choose my salvation.

I specified a revolver, because I shoot a suitably-gripped medium/large-frame revolver more consistently better than anything out there, the pre-Hogue factory GP100 grip is most suitable, my eyes do better with high-profile sights, and, the .357 Magnum shoots quite flat, for a handgun round, with reasonable recoil. (My days of abusing my hands, with big-bore Magnums, fired from revolvers too large for my K/L/GP100-sized hands, ended with the Eighties.)

I can shoot a 1911 as well as such a 4” GP100 or K/L revolver, on a good day. Not all days are good days. I have shot a P229, at least once, up to the level I could shoot a suitable revolver, or 1911, but, that, too, was on a good day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
I dont buy into the bullet technology argument. The laws of physics still apply. Give me velocity and mass.
Well, yeah, OK.
But it's nice to know that your speedy, massive bullet will also expand within its, um, target.

And then there's that arthritis issue: Some of us (well, me) can no longer shoot something speedy and massive.
I had to give up my .45 carry guns, and make do with a .380.
It's nice to know that my slow, small .380 bullets will expand as required, since it's all that I've got.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,298 Posts
Expansion is seriously over-rated, IMO.
Yeah man, it’s like, your lungs expand inside your body every time you breath but you don’t die, right?

......my best AOC impersonation, lol
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,798 Posts
Yeah man, it’s like, your lungs expand inside your body every time you breath but you don’t die, right?

......my best AOC impersonation, lol
Exactly! And when you shoot someone in the face with your .380, it's gonna be a fight-stopper, expansion or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G-man*

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,261 Posts
Exactly! And when you shoot someone in the face with your .380, it's gonna be a fight-stopper, expansion or not.
Assuming it's a good, solid square hit into the CNS, then yes, a fight stopper.

Off a little and the bullet finds a bony path underneath the skin to whiz around on, maybe, maybe not - blow off the nose or the chin, maybe maybe not.

And this from a guy who has previously bragged about his LCP being an eye poker and a nose picker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
563 Posts
Expansion is seriously over- rated, IMO.
Yep. Penetration is more important.
I was reading an interesting article in the American Rifleman just yesterday about expansion vs penetration, and how modern high-velocity rounds, being for the military and FMJ i.e. no hollow-points, would produce fairly small, 22 caliber holes in the enemy unless they were travelling fast enough to skid sideways.

Medium velocity: full penetration, through and through, but not much damage, about the same as if someone had fallen on a pencil.

High velocity: full penetration, but the round would immediately start turning on impact, sliding sideways, and doing far more damage before blowing a big chunk out the backside.

skewing=skidding=expansion

Full penetration -- clean through -- both cases

80% of the damage, however, was done through skewing/skidding/expansion, and more than two thirds of the round's velocity is expended in the first 10-12 inches if it is skidding. If it's not skidding, soft tissue doesn't slow it down much at all, not even 20%.

Expansion caused by hollow-points accomplishes the same for lower-velocity rounds that skidding accomplishes with high-velocity rounds.

So, no, penetration is hardly important at all, not if you want to stop the guy.

Expansion (low velocity hollow-points aka .380 ACP, 9mm, .357) and skidding (high-velocity FMJ) are the only way to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,434 Posts
The theory that expansion is overrated represented in a picture.
In that theory whether the bullet (in the center) expands is less important than shot placement, amiright.
expansion.jpg

However, there is no way to guarantee shot placement.
With less than optimal shot placement, the increased diameter of one of those expanded bullets might hit something important.
Given the same shot placement, bigger holes are better. IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,298 Posts
I was reading an interesting article in the American Rifleman just yesterday about expansion vs penetration, and how modern high-velocity rounds, being for the military and FMJ i.e. no hollow-points, would produce fairly small, 22 caliber holes in the enemy unless they were travelling fast enough to skid sideways.

Medium velocity: full penetration, through and through, but not much damage, about the same as if someone had fallen on a pencil.

High velocity: full penetration, but the round would immediately start turning on impact, sliding sideways, and doing far more damage before blowing a big chunk out the backside.

skewing=skidding=expansion

Full penetration -- clean through -- both cases

80% of the damage, however, was done through skewing/skidding/expansion, and more than two thirds of the round's velocity is expended in the first 10-12 inches if it is skidding. If it's not skidding, soft tissue doesn't slow it down much at all, not even 20%.

Expansion caused by hollow-points accomplishes the same for lower-velocity rounds that skidding accomplishes with high-velocity rounds.

So, no, penetration is hardly important at all, not if you want to stop the guy.

Expansion (low velocity hollow-points aka .380 ACP, 9mm, .357) and skidding (high-velocity FMJ) are the only way to go.
Well, the only fly in that ointment is the fact, that the 45 Auto has not only a proven track record, but a history of being a fight stopper with non expanding ammo at low velocities.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,842 Posts
Exactly! And when you shoot someone in the face with your .380, it's gonna be a fight-stopper, expansion or not.
Well, the only fly in that ointment is the fact, that the 45 Auto has not only a proven track record, but a history of being a fight stopper with non expanding ammo at low velocities.
Both are fight stoppers imo.
 
141 - 160 of 262 Posts
Top