"The science of winning a gunfight" Topic

The article linked to below was up on our noticeboard in the staffroom. I thought it might be of interest…

link

Obviously, most of the entertainment comes from reading the comments at the bottom, as usual!

Hmmm. I get a list of topics on electricity.

Ditto. Perhaps it means that the best way to win a gunfight is to not be there in the first place…?

Oops – try this one:

link

That'll teach me to be TMPing as well as sending revision emails to sick students…

You teach your students how best to win in gunfights?

>>You teach your students how best to win in gunfights?<<

He should teach them how to lose in gunfights? (-:

Taken from various repetitive websites:

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap – life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket."

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

16. Don't drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)

19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4".

25. You can't miss fast enough to win.

>>24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4".<<

I agree, in principal, with most of what was written, except that the writer seems to have forgotten that .357 Magnum begins with 3.

Also, it's a whole lot different when its real bullets not buttons.
They make you see the situation in a whole different way

"In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived"

Ha, thats a blantent lie, and anybody in TMP will know it.
Not only TMP but any serious western aficionado has been in alteast 10 descussion weather Wyatt Earp used his buntline SAA or Schofield at O.K corral.

And how many have commented on how good Wild bill was and how deadly he was with a .36 cap & ball gun

>>>>"In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived"<<<<

>Ha, thats a blantent lie<

His comment is very strange. It's hard to know what he's trying to say. Does he mean that everything "text book" goes out the window in a "real world" situation? I *thought* that one of his points was that it doesn't matter what caliber you use if it gets the job done, but then he goes on to say "Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4", which is in itself doesn't make sense considering that the Sig 226 chambered for the .357 Sig cartridge has all of the benefits of a high cap magazine, will create more than enough hydrostatic shock, and has better penetration than the .45 ACP. I dunno. It sounds like he's being kind of smug and preachy. But in this case he's talking about the "average Joe" in a gunfight, not somebody famous, and that's why he's saying "nobody will remember the details".

Gunfreak explains the reason behind his moniker….

I'm not sold on the .357 sig, it's borderline weather it can be used in a pistol with out wearing out the gun very fast, anyboy that has had a .357 magnum pistol knows the magnum calibers are just to powerfull for recoil operated guns.

There is a reason 99% of magumguns are revovlers, they just take the force better.

Now the sig is deffenelty less forcefull then the magnum calibers, but still I have doubts, the caliber is just to new to know,
Also more penetration power is not a good thing, a 9mm as much more penetration power then a .45 but thats deffenetly not a good thing for it,
Also the recoil in the 357 sig is "harder" then a .45 but I don't feel the extra recoil is worth it. the .45ACP does a very good job still a 100 years after it was invented and the recoil is very easy to get used to.
I realy don't see any let downs of the .45 other then less ammo, but the time it takes to chage a pistol mag is iniscule, I'll take my 7 rounds of .45 in a 1911 over 12 rounds of .357 sig in a Glock ANYDAY

Gunfreak

The *point* is that you don't need a caliber that begins with "4". The .357 Sig will certainly do the job. Penetration can be a bad or good thing depending on the situation. If you need a round that will go through a car door a metal jacketed .357 will do it.

How will this study affect the "Han shot First!" fanboys? Do they have another think coming?

Is this old west using single action black powder revolvers, or modern gang-bangers going at it down at the corner?

I am dubious of taking gun fighting advice from a dude in that sweater.

- Bob

I'm not sure where I read this, maybe in the "Once Upon A Time In The West" gunfight rules I played years ago, but I always thought that if the guy who 'went for his gun' first actually killed the other then he could be charged with murder. So it wasn't a good idea to make the first move, if you survive the shootout you end up being hanged. Conversely the guy who waited until the other had made the first move could claim self defence if it came to trial.

as long as there were any witness, o course.

Hi

Shadow, .22 are overwhelmingly represented in kills. That said, 357 has not produced real world results that match the assertions. The higher velocity of both this and the 9 and "hydrostatic" shock don't seem to produce the wound channels they do in gel.

If you have a "4" pretty much you have reached the point that if the pistol didn't do the job, no pistol would. With smaller, there is always the doubt that you didn't use enough pistol.

Bob, I am unsure about your point. One irony of the discussion is that black powder rounds are usually leaving the barrel faster than their modern loads with smokless. It is a complex result of internal pressures and …I won't go on geeky here.

The really short version is that historically "big and slow" regularly out peforms "smaller and faster" in one hit results. This is why SF and others CHOSE 45 when allowed over anything smaller.

Cal: there is no accounting for how the "rules" work in a movie. It is difficult to find gunfights in the old west where people started with holstered guns and "outdrew" someone. The common issue is that people start gun in hand and blaze away usually missing.

And commonly, someone asserting "I'm gonna get my gun and kill you" when it results in "you" getting your gun and shooting him first in the back, is still usually not considered "murder". About 30 years ago, a federal agent undercover was killed in Rock Springs, Wyoming by a local cop. The cop was confronting the supposed drug dealer(fed) and shot him dead. His defense was "I could see he was about to go for his gun in his eyes, so I shot first". In MODERN Rock springs, this was considered a valid defense and the cop was called "not guilty".

Rocky

I remeber watching Die hard or Leathal Weapon which were made at the hight of the wondernine years, I remeber when I started to shoot I just HAD to get a beretta 92FS, just like John McClane had, ofcourse the gun is realy quite ty even when compeard to other wondernines.

Real police and real soldiers choose to keep the .45 and they were proven right, 7 rounds of .45 beats 20 rounds of 9mm anyday, becasue if you havn't hit anything after 7 shots, you probebly won't hint anything with the 13 you have left, and even if you hit something the 9mm might not do the job.

Little Bill Daggett: "Look son, being a good shot, being quick with a pistol, that don't do no harm, but it don't mean much next to being cool-headed. A man who will keep his head and not get rattled under fire, like as not, he'll kill ya. It ain't so easy to shoot a man anyhow, especially if the son-of-a-bitch is shootin' back at you. "

>>Shadow, .22 are overwhelmingly represented in kills.<<

I have no idea what that means.

>>That said, 357 has not produced real world results that match the assertions. The higher velocity of both this and the 9 and "hydrostatic" shock don't seem to produce the wound channels they do in gel.<<

I'm lost here too. Are you saying that a .357 won't blow as big a hole as a .45 will in a human being? If that's what you're saying, I agree because the .45 is larger round. If you're saying that a .357 will not produce as much hydrostatic shock as a .45, I don't know, but it doesn't matter as a .357 magnum will produce *enough* hydrostatic shock to stop anyone, *and* it will penetrate barriers that a .45 ACP will not. How *effective* a round is depends on what you're trying to accomplish. The two biggest problems with the .357 is that it might have too much penetration for the situation and someone that you don't want to shoot might get hit, and up until the mid 1990's there weren't any .357 cartridges that would operate in a semi-auto pistol. But that's no longer an issue with the .357 Sig which was produced for semi-automatic pistols. Sig 229's chambered for the .357 Sig are carried by the American Secret Service and many other agencies. That's good enough for me.

RockyRusso wrote:

[…] Bob, I am unsure about your point. One irony of the discussion is that black powder rounds are usually leaving the barrel faster than their modern loads with smokless. It is a complex result of internal pressures and …I won't go on geeky here.

I'm only trying to determine whether we're talking about drawing single-action Colts six-shooters in a dimly lit saloon (possibly with the effects of smoke on visibility) versus a couple of street toughs striking that sideways limp-wristed pose while they unload their hi-capacity Glocks at each other. I think those are important factors for the discussion about the 'reality' of the shootout.

I vaguely remember reading an Elmer Keith article from back in the 1970's about the importance of those cool-headed old west gunfighters having expended thousands of rounds in practice before the critical moment. I was left with the impression not that they were slow, so much as took as much time as was necessary to get the killing shot.

My intent isn't to get into weapon technicalities, but rather the clarify the conditions the men were working under! :)

- Bob

">>Shadow, .22 are overwhelmingly represented in kills.<<

I have no idea what that means.

>>That said, 357 has not produced real world results that match the assertions. The higher velocity of both this and the 9 and "hydrostatic" shock don't seem to produce the wound channels they do in gel.<<

I'm lost here too. Are you saying that a .357 won't blow as big a hole as a .45 will in a human being? If that's what you're saying, I agree because the .45 is larger round. If you're saying that a .357 will not produce as much hydrostatic shock as a .45, I don't know, but it doesn't matter as a .357 magnum will produce *enough* hydrostatic shock to stop anyone, *and* it will penetrate barriers that a .45 ACP will not. How *effective* a round is depends on what you're trying to accomplish. The two biggest problems with the .357 is that it might have too much penetration for the situation and someone that you don't want to shoot might get hit, and up until the mid 1990's there weren't any .357 cartridges that would operate in a semi-auto pistol. But that's no longer an issue with the .357 Sig which was produced for semi-automatic pistols. Sig 229's chambered for the .357 Sig are carried by the American Secret Service and many other agencies. That's good enough for me.
"

It means that in death from bullets in america the .22lr has easly stacked up the most.

And the .357 sig is just a 9mm that goes fast, nothing spescial or magical about it. it's not a true magnum round, and a cop out, you want a .357 magnum with less recoil and the ability to use it in a high capacity semi-auto pistol, but in reality you only get a 9mm that goes a little faster, but has more recoil and takes more room in the magazine.

And even a .357 magnum dosn't go though a regular level III kevlar vest, so a 357 sig dosn't either, so more penetration dosn't mean better kill power

Gunfreak

You're confusing the issue. you can't compare a .357 Sig cartridge against a .357 Magnum cartridge unless the bullet heads are of identical weight and made of the same material. EG. full metal jacket, jacketed hollow point, lead, etc. *and* fired from *exactly* the same length barrel. When you can show me such a comparison with all elements being equal that proves that a .357 Magnum is more *deadly* than a .357 Sig I will believe you. Until then here's what Massad Ayoob had to say about the .357 Sig in "Backwoods Home Magazine" :

"Created to duplicate the best ballistics of the .357 Magnum revolver in a semiautomatic pistol, the .357 SIG spits a 125-grain jacketed hollow point at 1300 to 1400 feet per second, delivering 500-plus foot-pounds of energy. Departments which have adopted it are delighted with the performance, reporting a high frequency of one-shot stops. The Virginia State Police, who issue the .357 SIG Model P229 pistol, told me that they were particularly pleased with the number of felons who dropped and stopped fighting after receiving non-fatal wounds in non-vital parts of the body".

I'm sure that you'll agree that Ayoob is an expert in the field.

I don't agree with that, as I don't know who he is

"Created to duplicate the best ballistics of the .357 Magnum revolver in a semiautomatic pistol"

Dosn't mater what it was created to do, in reality it's a 9mm that goes a little faster then a regular one..

And as Rocky said, small and fast has been shown not to preform as good as big and slow when it realy counts

.357 sig is going to be a fad (if a somewhat long lived one) just like the 10mm auto

Gunfreak, I'm all for geeky technical debates, but I'd suggest doing a bit of research before dismissing him so quickly. ayoob.com/AboutMas.html

Then there's the whole issue of *hitting* the target that you've not addressed. Would you rather miss with a big round or hit with a small one? It's the performance in the hands of the individual firing that counts, not bench performance!

- Bob
(who is by no means an expert, but knows a few of the names)

>>>I don't agree with that, as I don't know who he is<<<

Let's let it go at that then.

Hi

I do know who Ayoob is. I haven't been convinced by his various articles on the subject starting back in the early 80s in Guns and Ammo. He produces a lot of "odd" numbers. Partly because he often will use one or two anecdotal examples to "prove" a point.

Some of the anomalies actually apply here. First Ke hasn't proven to be a good indicator of performance in a pistol. The reason is that KE favors velocity (MxVsquared), versus "momentum" (F=MA). KE often results in heat on the target rather than just superior effect. Human tissue, largely water, unlike ballistic gel aborbs the KE as heat.

Anyway, one test is the concept that the target doesn't know the brand of the gun. Thus, Ayoob's first evaluations produced oddities like differnt results between, say .44 spl, 44/40 and 45LC and 45 ACP….when all are the same size and relative velocity. Yet his numbers produced, without context, wildly different ratings.

He talks about his research without recognizing the work done by others. As I said, the military and the Rangers both have huge shooting/effect data bases. I have the opinion that he is using "observer bias" that is he resorts to small samples that fit his paradigm because there is little to be gained by saying "what THEY know is correct".

So, I think history has supported the idea that "4" is a better choice than "3" unless you cannot deal with the weight and recoil. First rule of a gun fight is have a .22.

Historically in the US most kills are by .22 or .38. But we aren't voting by that, but discussing choices for effect.

Rocky

>>Ayoob's first evaluations produced oddities like differnt results between, say .44 spl, 44/40 and 45LC and 45 ACP….when all are the same size and relative velocity. Yet his numbers produced, without context, wildly different ratings.<<

Of course the results will be different as they are *not* the same size, they are close to the same *caliber*, which is *not* the same thing. The sizes and shapes will vary widely in any *one* of those calibers. For instance, typically, at 255 gr. a .45 Long Colt round bullet head will be considerably longer and heavier than a 200 gr. .45 ACP wad cutter. And I've re-loaded several different sizes, weights and shapes of .45 Long Colt too, not to mention trying different powders and powder loads which produced widely varying velocities. In fact, I made a .45 Long Colt cartridge that caused the bullet head to travel so slowly that my friends claimed that they could see it in flight! I don't know if that's possible, but I know that the bullet head retained much of it's shape after hitting a metal target where it should have disintegrated! So, If the cartridges are not all *exactly* the same they will show differing ballistic characteristics. And I know that you *know* that Rocky. So what the heck are you talking about?

Regarding Ayoob, the guy has credentials as long as your arm. He's been around forever and he is a "Master" in *all five* divisions of the International Defensive Pistol Association, which doesn't appear on the *very* extensive resume that Bob linked us to. There's no way that anyone can be *that* good without a *lot* of experience. He's fired every kind of pistol imaginable and he's highly respected in the hand gun world. No offense Rocky, but if he has an opinion, I want to hear it.

>>So, I think history has supported the idea that "4" is a better choice than "3" unless you cannot deal with the weight and recoil.<<

I certainly wouldn't choose a .357 over a .45 because it has less weight or recoil. Depending on the manufacturer and frame a .357 Magnum can be a *much* larger piece than a .45., and conversely, because my S&W .357 Combat Magnum had a comparatively *small* frame, it had *plenty* of recoil. Again, it all depends on the gun and the type of cartridge.

>>Some of the anomalies actually apply here. First Ke hasn't proven to be a good indicator of performance in a pistol.<<

"Performance in a pistol" is a very vague term. I'll stick by what I've already said, that the type of gun and cartridge that's best is determined by what you're trying to accomplish with it.

Hmmm. You guys seem to be comparing the performance of different weapons in the hands of the same individual. What about factors when different weapons are in the hands of different individuals -- conditions much more typical of a gunfight? Well, maybe excepting a very spectacular suicide?

I wouldnt' expect anyone to throw away their only available weapon in the heat of a shootout because it was the wrong caliber, frame or feed type. Having enough confidence to continue even with that technical disadvantage is something I'd expect to be more important!

- Bob

>>Hmmm. You guys seem to be comparing the performance of different weapons in the hands of the same individual. What about factors when different weapons are in the hands of different individuals<<

While that is certainly a good point. We can't really compare guns and cartridges if we complicate the issue by including human characteristics. My original point is that the .357 Sig is a very viable cartridge.

Hi

Shadow, I know this, you are quibbling. Simply, Ayoob doesn't delve into the details YOU just did on why 44spl might have different characteristics than .45.

I was not, and neither was he talking about hand loading special rounds. Rather he was doing comparisons without context on 3 or 4 shootings without even addressing if these were factory loads or otherwise.

The way he gathers data is flawed leading to bad conditions. His credentials are irrelevant to this discussion for two reasons.

One, WE are discussing his work and our opinions on it. Your "his credentials are good enough for me" is bootless.

And second, it is called special pleading to apply different conditions to my point than yours.

And I guess there is a third. No one ever said a 357 was not viable. My point is that "first have a gun" is viable, and .22s do a lot of killing.

given the choise in a pistol, having a .45 is "never having to say you are sorry" you didn't have a bigger pistol.

Given my druthers, i would rather have a gun or not. Given my druthers, I would rather have a 38 than a 32. Given my druthers I would rather have a 357 than a 38. But ultimately, .45 is the upper limit for a practical pistol.

Which is the point.

R

Rocky

We have to end this discussion as it no longer makes any sense to me. Sorry about that.

And just to clarefy the reason .22 has stacked up the most kill isn't becasue it's a super secret mega weapon that kills even if it hits you in the pinky.

It's simply law of big numbers, the .22lr is easly the caliber that has been in the most firefights/shootings in the last 100 years, most murders in the states isn't ganbanger fireing their forty fives at easchother but wives and husbonds killing of eachother over a divorce ect.
A .22 is just a typical guns laying around a american house, or very cheap to buy if you plan on killing someone, they you have contract killers useing the .22 becasue it's hard to trace and in a silenced gun it makes no noise ect.

All these factors lead to the .22 simply beeing used ALOT more then any other caliber so much so that it has stacked up the most kills, that said, I doubt police are going to use a .22lr when a drugy on Meth is running at them with a chain saw

The guy who has the edge is the guy who has the ability to urder his fellow man. Not many people in Western society have that ability.
Count Natokina.

Hi

Shadow, I apologize. I have somehow offended you. My motive is nothing more than indulging in the same sort of casual conversation I have with friends over coffee about weekly.

In my circle, friends get to disagree with each other's points and stay friends. I am sorry you took offense.

JJ. The problem is that most gun fights have a lot of variables. In the "4" issue, the most famous example that comes to mind is the FBI shootout in Florida some 20 odd years ago which led to the FBI switching to a special .40 design pistol to replace their 9s and 38s and 357s.

It can be argued that the rounds for these have been upgraded since this fight, but there you are.

The drive to the .45 was driven in part, not in the Old West, but in the Philippines. The short version of the story is this: After the US took the philippines from Spain, we had to deal with the problem of Moslem pirates called "moros". These guys would tie constrictor bands around their joints to deal with being wounded but not killed. Using large knives that are almost "swords" called "Bolo" or "Parang"(I have a few of these), they would rush defenders and unless it was a kill shot, get close enough to produce a "loss of body parts" on the defender.

A terror style attack.

At the time, our forces and the newly created "Philippine Constabulary" were carrying .38 smith and wessons and 30/40 Krag rifles.

The supply train from Manila to Bagio City ,at 5300 feet in the mountains, was a prime target and considered "bad duty".

In parallel, during the 1898 Spanish American war, "cowboys" of the "Wild Bunch" "Hole in the Wall" groups were offered amnesty for their crimes if they joined the war effort. Shipped off too late for the war to the Philippines, they were given the "bad duty". And were successful at not getting killed. In short, they had brought their "gangster cowboy" weapons with them. 44/40 and .45s mostly which proved much more effective on the Moro.

The Army hurriedly did a couple things: They re-issued the older .45s SAA out of militia stocks AND they comissioned a study on producing a modern .45 pistol which led to the 1911 design by John Browning.

Now, again, the argument can be made that modern .357 bullet design might produce better results. I haven't seen a movement from the FBI or ops community, however to give up their "4"s.

Rocky

Simply stated, Rocky, the .45 knocks 'em down 19 times out of 20. That's what you want. The bad guy needs to be lying on the ground bleeding rather than still on his feet, capable of offering resistance. You are right about the Army and the PI and the .45.
Count Natokina.

Rocky

I appreciate what you're saying and I'm not offended. I just don't understand the discussion anymore. A friend of mine is a forensics expert in New York City. I asked him what would happen to a man's body if he was hit with a .357 Magnum bullet. He replied that the bullet would make a small entry wound and if it wasn't stopped by a bone or the rib cage it would make a very large exit wound out of the man's back taking a good sized mass of tissue and blood with it.

Admitedly, the following is an anecdote and not a scientific test, but I believe that this statement and others that you might find all over the internet at hand gunning sites say a lot about the .357 Magnum cartridge:

"The .357 Magnum has produced results on motivated felons similar to high power rifle hits. I observed a felon who had been struck by a .357 Magnum 125 grain JHP. The felon had been running and firing over his shoulder at the officer. The officer had returned fire at fifteen yards, on the run. The bullet had struck the point of the jaw where it meets the skull. The offender's eyeballs were blown out by hydrostatic pressure and the top row of teeth taken out by the exiting bullet. On another occasion I chased a large angry mongrel that had bitten the end of a citizens finger off. I fired a single 125 grain JHP at about ten yards. The effect was immediate: the chest wall where the bullet impacted actually caved in and on the opposite side, blood and lung tissue were strewn for six feet or more".

Since that's the case, and practically speaking, I sincerely believe that if I was shot anywhere in the chest with .357 magnum bullet, and pieces of my lungs were now laying on the floor, you could assuredly, officially and decidedly consider me "stopped". I have no reason to believe that after suffering a good sized hole in my stomach, shoulder, arm or leg that I would be inclined to continue to fight, and If I was shot in the head there would be no reason to think at all as my brains would be all over the wall. If anyone can show me proof that a man who's been shot *anywhere* in his body with a 125 grain .357 Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet would still be an effective opponent I would love to see it as that bullet will certainly cause some wicked damage. So the flat statement, "Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4", is an opinion that doesn't hold up. And anyway, whether a .45 bullet will hit you harder than a .357 bullet or not is irrelevant now as you can now buy a pistol in .50 caliber from Smith & Wesson that will hit even harder than a .45 ACP. That doesn't mean that we should "not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than a 5", just because it's available, does it?

And as I've said over and over again, the cartridge you use depends on the application and I doubt that if you were in a gunfight that you would say "Wheew! Thank God that guy only as a .357 Magnum, for a minute there I thought he had a .45".

As for Mr. Ayoob, you are certainly entitled to give your opinion as that's what forums are for. *My* opinion is that anyone that holds the highest title of "Master" in *all five* divisions of "International Defensive Pistol Association" competition knows a *lot* about pistols and ammunition, so when he gives an opinion I will listen very closely.

>>I haven't seen a movement from the FBI or ops community, however to give up their "4"s.<<

The United States Secret Service uses Sig 229's chambered for the .357 Sig.

Wow you guys. All that talk and NOBODY has yet stated the number one "rule" about winning a gunfight, given to us by "the Duke" in his last movie: "It all comes down to, are you willin'? Ya gotta be willin'"….

Well Count Natokina did!

Oh, yeah, I guess he did at that :)….

Hi

Shadow, your cooments about "whew" and "5" are called straw man arguments. I didn't state or imply either position.

The "winning" rules are half snarkey. Not entirely serious. And while the discussion is "winning a gun fight" it is NOT winning a discussion about gun size.

The first rule of a gun fight is have a gun and be willing to use it. Not the issue.

As for Ayoob, you had an opinion, I have one, I stated why. I am not sure exactly why this does it for you. Citing his credentials is fine but presumes that you think there is no other valid position based on other credentials.

R

>>Shadow, your cooments about "whew" and "5" are called straw man arguments. I didn't state or imply either position.<<

I didn't say that you stated or implied anything. The "wheew" comment was made to point out the absurdity of ruling out the .357 Magnum cartridge in favor of the .45 cartridge when the .357 JHP is such a damaging projectile. The "5" question was posed by *me* to point out the absurdity of ignoring the viability of one cartridge over another simply because one of them is larger.

I have no idea what a "straw man" argument is, and I don't see an argument here. What's happening is that you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

>>The "winning" rules are half snarkey. Not entirely serious.<<

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

>>And while the discussion is "winning a gun fight"<<

No. The discussion is about whether a .357 Magnum is a viable cartridge or not. The topic of the thread is about "winning a gunfight". These are two different situations.

>>it is NOT winning a discussion about gun size.<<

*Our* discussion, as it stands now, is about one comment, which was "Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4"", *not* the thread's *topic*. Which is why I said that your not paying attention to what I'm saying. You're confusing the issue.

>>As for Ayoob, you had an opinion, I have one, I stated why. I am not sure exactly why this does it for you. Citing his credentials is fine but presumes that you think there is no other valid position based on other credentials.<<

I'm sorry Rocky, but your syntax and grammar are throwing me again. Are you saying that I'm ignoring someone else's credentials or yours?

What does "I am not sure exactly why this does it for you" mean? Are you saying that you're not sure why I give credence to what Ayoob writes?

Not to sound y but I think Rocky and Shadow could do the rest of us all a service to take this off topic discussion off line via e-mail, phone, Postal Service, passenger pigeon, or face to face.

Gracias,

Glenn

The Science of winning a gunfight? From behind with a "large enough caliber/accurate enough" weapon applied in a cold-bloodedly efficient manner.

Gracias,

Glenn

Hi

Glenn, you are correct, I apologize.

R

RockyRusso 12 Feb 2010 11:42 a.m. PST
Hi
…….
But ultimately, .45 is the upper limit for a practical pistol.

Which is the point.

*NJH: Ummnnnn, "upper limit," then why are people commercially producing the following pistols?

.454 Casull
.460 Smith and Wesson Magnum
.500 S&W Magnum

BTW – "Pratical" in the business world means the same as "commercially producing." If people will buy it, then it's practical to commercially produce it.

Hi

Norris, actually one of those is produced local to me! And the 454 is a 45!

The issue, like I said elswhere is more stats than anything. I used to consult to the rangers, and got to see their paper on shootings in texas from 1836, the short version is that "big and slow" is the most effective. The big guns above aren't in that catagory. One of the local smiths also chambers the 45-70 in a revolver.

Pretty unshootable to my mind, but it is still a 45! Grin.

Similarly, when doing the government thing, i got to see the studies involving pistol shootings that came to the same short conclusion…. and thus the army going to the 9mm because it causes casualties that need treatment.

I once resolved an unpleasant situation with a .22 auto, but in general, I want a 1911.

I have seen a number of shooters who cannot get their hand to work with the egonomics of the Browning design. My dad was in love with the Lugar. "Horses for courses".

Rocky

Ummnnn, that's like saying the .357 is a .38, you can fire a .45 cartridge in the .454, but you can't fire a .454 in a .45, it won't fit. They're not the same.

In any gun fight go with the big bore and easy reload.