Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 9th, 2012 #61
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
For the deterrent effect, i.e. a blinding wound, of blasting someone with #12 birdshot the .410 + short-barrel concept works well. Very well. In fact, the designers' original intent was that: One snapshot at a car-jacker's face and get the hell outta dodge.

Unfortunately the combination makes an ineffective killer. The ballistics suck.

http://www.410handguns.com/410_gel_results.html

The pellets must penetrate an attacker's body deeply enough to be able to pass through a vital cardiovascular structure to cause rapid fatal hemorrhage to quickly deprive the brain of oxygenated blood needed to maintain consciousness. And that, ever since the FBI's first wound-ballistics meeting in 1987, is mandated as a minimum of 12 inches of penetration in test-gelatin.

The .410 + short-barrel combination fails the test, and can't be relied upon for effective self-defense outside a very specific set of circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTPTT View Post
You're an idiot who apparently has no knowledge of firearms or the proper self-defense firearm loads.

No one is going to put #12 birdshot in a .45LC\.410 revolver for self-defense. Hunting small game, yes; self-defense, no. Don't confuse bird shot with buck shot.

Did you read the information on the Federal Premium .410 Handgun 4-Pellet 000 Buck 2-inch shells? I bought a box of these very shells yesterday for my 3" Taurus Judge. Here's the results this shell being fired into a 10x10x12-inch block of ballistic gel at a distance of 10 yards (30 feet) with a velocity of 1012 fps from a Taurus Judge with 3" barrel.

If you think the Taurus Judge or even the S&W Governor firing a .410 shotgun shell like the Federal 4-Pellet 000 Buck 2-inch shell are ineffective why not let me use you for a test subject and let's see if your hypothesis stands the test in the real world? I'll supply the ammo and testing range, you can wear your winter clothing but no Kevlar. Deal?

One thing I did see from those tests found here is that the Winchester PDX1 wasn't as effective as the Federal 4-Pellet 000 Buck 2-inch shells with the former only achieving about a 7.5 inch penetration. I'll be putting the Federal shells in the Judge now instead of the PDX1.

Of course the PDX1 has a velocity of only 750fps just a bit slower than a .45acp whereas the Federal shells show a velocity of 1200fps according to their respective boxes. With everything considered this is how I have my Judge loaded:

Chambers 1-5:
1. Winchester PDX1
2. Federal 4-Pellet 000 Buck
3. Winchester PDX1
4. Federal 4-Pellet 000 Buck
5. Federal 4-Pellet 000 Buck

The Judge is great for the nightstand at home or for any close combat situation when loaded above, or with all Federal 4-Pellet 000 buck shot. Within a 21 foot radius it's deadly.

It's not a revolver I'd carry though since I wouldn't want to hit an innocent bystander if I had to take down a violent, murdering bad guy. It also has only five chambers. For carry I prefer a .45acp auto loader with at least 41 rounds of ammunition. That translates to one in the chamber and a full magazine in the pistol with two spare magazines fully loaded.
OK - apples and oranges? The birdshot was for "deterrant" at close range, incapacitate, or as Roy said, ".....a blinding effect".....as in non-lethal. Roy also went on to say that the ballistics for such a load is complete trash for killing.

You jumped his shit - when all you really did was expand on why the ballistics for such a load is complete trash for killing, and said to use 000 buck shot for real self defense (lethal) in close quarters. Basically, you agreed with him, explained why, and called him and idiot in the process?

Confused

I've repeatedly heard the "bird shot" theory from liberal artards who are proponents for "non-lethal" self defense. Problem is - like you both said - it's non-lethal for the perp, but will probably end up getting you killed in the process.

Or am I totally missing something here?
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #62
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Roy Wagahuski
Default

I know the difference, man. What's important is at the site I gave, if you hadn't noticed, those two showcased rounds tested didn't fully meet the FBI's test requirements which include the gelatin being covered in four layers of denim.

The other, underpenetrating loads, were shot into covered blocks, but not those two.

Their results are illegitimate.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #63
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Roy Wagahuski
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson View Post
OK - apples and oranges? The birdshot was for "deterrent" at close range, incapacitate, or as Roy said, ".....a blinding effect".....as in non-lethal. Roy also went on to say that the ballistics for such a load is complete trash for killing.
I was unclear in the following sentence where I meant to address the buckshot ballistics. I apologize. Should not post under the influence of low blood-glucose.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #64
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

No. It's not apples and oranges. He went out of his way to discuss a shell that no one would ever use for self-defense to kill the idea of using a .410 revolver for self-defense.

Who here shoots to blind someone using any caliber firearm? Really, who in their right mind shoots an attacker to blind him? That WILL get you murdered.

If your life is in imminent threat of bodily harm or death you shoot to kill. You don't shoot to blind or wound.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson View Post
OK - apples and oranges? The birdshot was for "deterrant" at close range, incapacitate, or as Roy said, ".....a blinding effect".....as in non-lethal. Roy also went on to say that the ballistics for such a load is complete trash for killing.

You jumped his shit - when all you really did was expand on why the ballistics for such a load is complete trash for killing, and said to use 000 buck shot for real self defense (lethal) in close quarters. Basically, you agreed with him, explained why, and called him and idiot in the process?

Confused

I've repeatedly heard the "bird shot" theory from liberal artards who are proponents for "non-lethal" self defense. Problem is - like you both said - it's non-lethal for the perp, but will probably end up getting you killed in the process.

Or am I totally missing something here?
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #65
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OTPTT View Post
No. It's not apples and oranges. He went out of his way to discuss a shell that no one would ever use for self-defense to kill the idea of using a .410 revolver for self-defense.

Who here shoots to blind someone using any caliber firearm? Really, who in their right mind shoots an attacker to blind him? That WILL get you murdered.

If your life is in imminent threat of bodily harm or death you shoot to kill. You don't shoot to blind or wound.
QFT. But litterally - there are some nutcases out there that think the first move in banning firearms - is to make them non-lethal via the munitions.

Yes, there are people out there that stupid - to shoot to bline or injure. They are just as stupid as the white liberals who go to Africa to "save the poor black people" and end up getting repeatedly raped and murdered - then probably raped again as a corpse.
 
Old July 10th, 2012 #66
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,487
Crowe
Default

Anything 9mm or higher caliber should be more than enough to do the job with a head shot. I wouldn't aim for the forehead, seeing as how they are sloped back heavily on niggers, and its possible it might get deflected if the nigger you are shooting has a really sloped head. In which case I'd aim for the eye socket or the face area.
 
Old September 9th, 2012 #67
Jack-Smith
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2
Jack-Smith
Default

Were overlooking a point here!

Why aim to shoot a nigger in the head at all? Why do it the favour of a quicker death. If it has had the audacity to threaten your family (Or whatever its done to warrant being shot) makes its way out as unpleasant as possible, go for the chest.
 
Old September 10th, 2012 #68
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,487
Crowe
Default

When I was 14 I dropped a Deer with a 22lr. The entry wound was right behind the ear, and the exit wound was right through the top of the skull. So basically the bullet entered and probably bounced around several times inside the skull before it finally exited through the top. Which scrambled its brains. And this shot was from about 40 yards away. I'll admit it was a lucky shot, and that deer dropped straight to the ground, and didn't make as much as a twitch.

I've heard of people being shot in the leg by a .22 lr, and the exit wound for the bullet would be the neck area. Small rounds like a .22 lr have a habit of entering, ricocheting off bone and bouncing around inside you.

A well placed shot in the eye socket with a 22lr would mean death, it would go all the way through, ricochet off the inside of the back of your skull, and bounce around in your brain a few times before it finally made an exit.

Don't underestimate a 22lr, it can still kill you deader than hell.
 
Old September 10th, 2012 #69
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Roy Wagahuski
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe
"Small rounds like a .22 lr have a habit of entering, ricocheting off bone and bouncing around inside you.
Show us the science that supports your claim, otherwise you're exaggerating and I can prove how.
__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause."
 
Old September 13th, 2012 #70
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,487
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
Show us the science that supports your claim, otherwise you're exaggerating and I can prove how.
Its already known that .22lr has a tendency to ricochet off bone after penetrating flesh. If you want to prove me wrong, be my guest.
 
Old September 13th, 2012 #71
keifer
Senior Member
 
keifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,216
keifer
Default

Chris Burden has his friend shoot him with a .22 and then calls it art.

 
Old September 14th, 2012 #72
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Roy Wagahuski
Default

My rebuttal precedes me: the "magic bullet" theory, viz. kennedy. Totally debunked. No further explanation on my part is necessary. But I'll summarize the key point...

Bullets may yaw, tumble and/or ricochet off bone when shot into animals. No bullet radically changes trajectory numerous times before exiting/stopping in its path, like a rubber ball inside the body, as your comments illustrate, laughably.

Nothing has changed. The popular misconception of the .22 rimfire as some "best known secret" for self-defense is an old one, and a potentially deadly one...to its adherents. I only wish I had the statistics here to back that up, though they should prove impressively true.

__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause."
 
Old September 14th, 2012 #73
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,487
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
My rebuttal precedes me: the "magic bullet" theory, viz. kennedy. Totally debunked. No further explanation on my part is necessary. But I'll summarize the key point...

Bullets may yaw, tumble and/or ricochet off bone when shot into animals. No bullet radically changes trajectory numerous times before exiting/stopping in its path, like a rubber ball inside the body, as your comments illustrate, laughably.

Nothing has changed. The popular misconception of the .22 rimfire as some "best known secret" for self-defense is an old one, and a potentially deadly one...to its adherents. I only wish I had the statistics here to back that up, though they should prove impressively true.

You didn't post any science to prove me wrong. So it looks like you still failed.

And you are suggesting .22lr sucks for killing, but why have some hitmen and assassins used it for killing? Shot placement is key with just about any round, and that can make the difference between a minor flesh wound, or DRT with a .22lr. A .22lr penetrating the skull and into the brain cavity is just as dead as a .45 ACP.

I've killed many coyotes with .22lr stinger rounds, and it never takes more than 1 shot to make them drop dead immediately. Depending on the angle, head shots either enter and stay in the brain cavity, or the exit wound is at a random spot going out of the skull. With a .357 magnum hollow point, it dropped dead, and the exit wound blew the opposite side of the skull off, and the jaw on the opposite side was dislocated and broken.

If someone is standing 50 yards away with a .45 ACP, and I got a .22lr bolt action with stinger rounds, I can drop one right in their eye socket every single time, when a .45 ACP round is probably hitting the dirt at 50 yards when shot from most pistols.

The .22lr is a severely underestimated round. Looking down the barrel of one is definitely no joke, especially if the guy aiming knows exactly where to aim it.
 
Old September 14th, 2012 #74
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Roy Wagahuski
Default

You obviously don't understand what the burden of proof means.

When you assert something as being true, it's not true until disproved. It's true when it's proved. Anecdotes aren't proof, nor is "everybody knows."

But now that your argument has switched its basis to "shot placement" we're closer to understanding the actual science of how bullets kill (not by "bouncing around"), though still not quite there.

Equal bullet-placement doesn't make bullets equal. Even with the very unlikely head-shot.

Terminal ballistics involves a complex of variables that more or less determine the time it takes to incapacitate an attacker, but the conclusion is invariably the same: bigger is better. Where a difference of seconds is vital, anyone under-arming himself is an idiot.
__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause."
 
Old September 14th, 2012 #75
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Roy Wagahuski
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe
I can drop one right in their eye socket every single time, when a .45 ACP round is probably hitting the dirt at 50 yards when shot from most pistols.
When the average drop at 50 yards is 2-3 inches?



http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ba...php?t=46643caa

You know nothing about guns. That's clear enough.
__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause."
 
Old September 15th, 2012 #76
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,487
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
When the average drop at 50 yards is 2-3 inches?



http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ba...php?t=46643caa

You know nothing about guns. That's clear enough.
Kid with the pokemon avatar, you're just here to troll, that is clear enough.

What does the group look like at 50 yards from, from a 1911? And you used an example for one specific ammo type, and different ammo has different trajectory. You used FMJ as an example, most people with a .45 ACP are going to be using JHP rounds, which don't cut through the air as well as a FMJ, which means less accurate range.
 
Old September 15th, 2012 #77
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Roy Wagahuski
Default

My posts are factual and popular because I don't pretend to speak outside of my knowledge. Go shooting, junior, maybe you'll fucking learn some shit.
__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause."
 
Old September 15th, 2012 #78
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,487
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
You obviously don't understand what the burden of proof means.

When you assert something as being true, it's not true until disproved. It's true when it's proved. Anecdotes aren't proof, nor is "everybody knows."

But now that your argument has switched its basis to "shot placement" we're closer to understanding the actual science of how bullets kill (not by "bouncing around"), though still not quite there.

Equal bullet-placement doesn't make bullets equal. Even with the very unlikely head-shot.

Terminal ballistics involves a complex of variables that more or less determine the time it takes to incapacitate an attacker, but the conclusion is invariably the same: bigger is better. Where a difference of seconds is vital, anyone under-arming himself is an idiot.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76438041/T...dd-CRC-2006-WW

Chapter 8 buddy.

And nice straw man argument. Did I ever suggest people underarm themselves or that all ammo is equal?

Also it shows pictures of some .22lr head shots. Not for the faint at heart. These people were DRT. One of them even shows a guy shot in the upper jaw, small entry wound, but it still killed him deader than hell. For that to even be a kill shot, the round would have had to ricochet up into his cranium.

I'm only saying people underestimate a .22lr, and its a fact that you can kill someone immediately with a well placed shot. I'm not suggesting I'd use a .22lr to shoot at a charging bear.
 
Old September 15th, 2012 #79
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Roy Wagahuski
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe
You used FMJ as an example, most people with a .45 ACP are going to be using JHP rounds, which don't cut through the air as well as a FMJ, which means less accurate range.
I actually anticipated this response hours ago. It is that predictable. As far as aerodynamics are concerned, at the velocities most handgun bullets go, and the ranges, drag simply isn't a factor affecting accuracy. Any bullet shape fares the same.
__________________
"Don't underestimate the power of 'evil.' ... The fact is, 'evil' makes women horny and men curious. Use those to further the cause."
 
Old September 15th, 2012 #80
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,487
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
I actually anticipated this response hours ago. It is that predictable. As far as aerodynamics are concerned, at the velocities most handgun bullets go, and the ranges, drag simply isn't a factor affecting accuracy. Any bullet shape fares the same.
The chances of landing a 1 shot kill from 50 yards with most .45 ACP pistols would be nothing short of a lucky shot. I know Glocks aren't worth a shit much past 20-25 yards. Someone using a revolver, or a rifle shooting .45 ACP could hit a target accurately at 50 yards. But .45 ACP are most commonly shot from semiauto pistols.

And you aren't correct about your assumption that all ammo is just as accurate. If you are correct then why did I have to re-sight in my .300 WSM after I started using different rounds? Were talking 300 yard range here. I already know why, but I don't believe you do.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 PM.
Page generated in 0.16362 seconds.