Graduation Gift. Beretta Px4 Storm & 200 Winchester full metal jacket rounds

[Vuk]

If a 9mm hand gun is lethal within the ranges typically people endup in a shooting. Then it is sufficient for self defense.

If you did a database crunch on most self defense shootings they probably are going to be:
Within 10m
In confined spaces ie indoors, in a car, an alleyway, a shopping centre or the largest area a carpark.
Dark
Confusion... Most muggers will probably not challenge you to go for your gun thu will either have a knife or a gun in your gut before they demand a wallet.

If these are the typical scenarios then a small firearms would be much better then a weapon made for a long range firefight.

Yeah, but the 9mm is not nearly as effective as other rounds. Also, its short range limits it. Sure, most self-defense scenarios may happen at absurdly close-ranges, but not all. Why bother with the limitations when you could add 2 inches onto the barrel and change the caliber? A .45, a 357, a .50 AE with frangible rounds, all of these would be better options for self-defense. They would kill better, and still could be used in a short enough pistol as to make it ideal for self-defense. Sure, a DE would take a split-second longer to draw, so you may not want it, but why not a 45 Super or a 357?
9mm does not kill consistently enough with the first shot for me to trust it with my life. I'll stick to my .50 AE and my .45, thanks.

[Vuk]

Vuk, you missed his point. Everyone knows and agrees upon the failings of the 9mm round, but Pape was explaining why those failings don't matter in a typical self-defense scenario. Against a car-jacking, home invasion, mugging, or even the fabled 'save the 7/11 clerk from the armed robber' scenario, a 9mm will do just fine--and, in fact, almost any pistol is more ideal for those situations than some kind of rifle.

I wasn't arguing for rifles though. My argument to Sarmatian was that a tiny 9mm pistol is not something someone who wants to go getting in a gun war with the police is going to buy, as the only possible reason you would buy it is self-defense. I then made a side-point that it is even not as well-suited to self-defense as other weapons. I agree that most times any pistol would do (even a single-shot .22 lr is probably gonna be enough most times in single-attacker scenarios if you have good shot placement), but I was arguing that I believe your chances of survival would increase more with other weapons, and therefore a small 9mm isn't necessarily better than other handguns for self-defense.

[Vuk]

I agree. That's why I bought a .38, which will put a large hole in someone at any reasonable self-defense range. However, 9mm handguns aren't all that bad. For self-defense purposes, it will still get the job done--and with less possibility for collateral damage than other kinds of rounds. True, it has trouble peircing any kind of body armor, but for most self-defense situations that is a non-issue. For target shooting, 9mm pistols such as a Beretta seem tailor-made--low recoil, cheap rounds, etc. The difference in recoil between a Beretta M9 and my little .38 Revolver is night-and-day--the first time I took my .38 target shooting I gave myself a big fat blister/sore/thing on my thumb, something which never happened with an M9 no matter how much I shot it.

Basically, 9mm weapons have their uses and are still perfectly serviceable for a self-defense situation. And for target shooting, they are fantastic. For a concerned city-dweller, the pros of 9mm outweigh the cons.

I agree, but I always prefer the larger ones, since I also like to target shoot on my property and like the increased range and accuracy. My largest pistol is currently a .45, but I want to get a desert eagle .50 AE one day. The way I see it is that being equiped with frangible rounds means I won't have to worry about damaging civilians behind my intended target, and it will still be one hell of punch to anyone in body-armour. (not that I am horribly concerned about that scenario, but if I ever was ever being attacked by a wacko like the one in Colorado, it would be nice to have something that would be effective)

[Xiahou]

Why a .38 and not a .357 magnum? It can shoot the cheaper .38 rounds but still have the magnum's stopping power when you want it.

JHP in .357mag is a pretty great self-defense round. But, if you're looking to keep a gun around the house for defense, I don't think you can do any better than a 12 gauge shotgun.

[Montmorency]

Fear and pain only work on sane people who are not on substances, and the chances of your attacker being on substances, or not being a very sane individual are pretty high.

What leads you to believe that a statistically significant proportion of (potential) felons or petty thieves would in the event experience a psychotic episode due to drug use - not really such a common thing - to the extent of berserker insensitivity? In reality, most criminals will retreat as soon as someone brandishes a firearm.

[Vuk]

What leads you to believe that a statistically significant proportion of (potential) felons or petty thieves would in the event experience a psychotic episode due to drug use - not really such a common thing - to the extent of berserker insensitivity? In reality, most criminals will retreat as soon as someone brandishes a firearm.

I'm talking about in cases where shooting to kill/incapacitate are your only options. If I only wanted to scare people and had no intention of shooting them, I could carry around a toy! I want a gun that has all options on the table. If intimidation and winging shots fail to stop someone, I want to be able to kill them before they kill me. Quit it with your hypocritical morality.

[Greyblades]

Bah! All you gun boys are a bunch of wussies! Real men dont need guns, when we need to kill something we use our teeth!

[Montmorency]

I'm talking about in cases where shooting to kill/incapacitate are your only options. If I only wanted to scare people and had no intention of shooting them, I could carry around a toy! I want a gun that has all options on the table. If intimidation and winging shots fail to stop someone, I want to be able to kill them before they kill me. Quit it with your hypocritical morality.

When did I ever claim a moral high ground?

The point: For most criminals, revealing your weapon will cause them to abort. For most of the remainder, a wound anywhere on the body, with most any firearm projectile, will cause them to abort. Viking champions are a vanishingly small felon demographic, so arming oneself with them in mind primarily is simply a dangerous mindset.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Teeth can still be part of the arsenal

[Xiahou]

Do they make snub-nosed Magnums? Concealability and practicality were my main concerns when I went gun-shopping. The fact that its a .38 is more a side-product of the weapon's other features that I liked.

They sure do.
I can tell you from experience that a snubby .357 can sting your hands a little when firing magnums out of it.

[Montmorency]

It is those dire straights I am concerned about.

Sometimes though you need more. You carry a gun for those instances.

It is those dire straights I am concerned about.

That's what I'm getting at - these outlier concerns are not warranted... Certainly, equating any firearm to a knife in functionality is an indicator of categorical confusion.

I hope you'll at least maintain vigilance with respect to incoming out-of-control vehicles in future, ready to dive out of the path at a moment's notice.

[Vuk]

That's what I'm getting at - these outlier concerns are not warranted... Certainly, equating any firearm to a knife in functionality is an indicator of categorical confusion.

I hope you'll at least maintain vigilance with respect to incoming out-of-control vehicles in future, ready to dive out of the path at a moment's notice.

No, I am not confused. I was pointing out that you were. A gun's main usefulness and advantage over other weapons in a self-defense situation is its capacity for lethality (whether you can use knowledge of that to intimidate someone or have to use lethal force). Why should that not be one of the most important deciding factors?
And don't worry about me, I am always cautious when crossing the road.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

First of all, I am a firm believer in winging people if you are able, and only if that doesn't stop them shooting to kill. If I don't have the ability to do that, or if doing so will endanger me or those around me (because taking the extra time will allow the other guy to get a shot off), I am gonna pointshoot for a mass I know I can hit as soon as possible (and that will be his vitals), and I am gonna want a gun that can stop him instantly, before he gets a shot off.

What leads you to believe that a statistically significant proportion of (potential) felons or petty thieves would in the event experience a psychotic episode due to drug use - not really such a common thing - to the extent of berserker insensitivity? In reality, most criminals will retreat as soon as someone brandishes a firearm.

Rule one of firearms usage - aim centre of mass.

Don't give me any of this "winging them" crap or "shooting to preserve life" - you're not the Phantom. A human body is a target, the bullets go in the centre of the target, especially when using a handgun.

I can give you three good reasons for this.

1. It's how you trained, even if you're practiced shooting him in the shoulders, you practiced grouping more and you aimed at the centre of the target when you did that. the centre of anything is also where you will naturally point. Trying to "wing" someone is fighting muscle memory and instinct, that means you're thinking, that means you're too slow.

2. You objective is to put him down, whether he dies or not is secondary, the objective is to get the guy on his back, hitting him in the shoulder even at close range might not do that. You've already drawn you gun, someone has to go down now, no take-backsies.

3. You will panic, your aim will suffer. You have more chance of hitting him at all if you aim for the centre of mass, especially with a handgun which is never going to be super accurate to begin with.

I'll give you a fourth.

4. At close range no matter where you hit him trauma might cause shock and death, in which case it will look better if you aimed centre of mass, because then the Police might be more willing to believe you acted on instinct and didn't have time to not shoot him.

He's another tip:

Double-tap, two bullets in the chest will put down a charging man, and even if he has a vest on he will be struggling to breathe.

Personally, however, I never planning on going anywhere where I feel like I need a gun.

[Vuk]

Rule one of firearms usage - aim centre of mass.

Don't give me any of this "winging them" crap or "shooting to preserve life" - you're not the Phantom. A human body is a target, the bullets go in the centre of the target, especially when using a handgun.

I can give you three good reasons for this.

1. It's how you trained, even if you're practiced shooting him in the shoulders, you practiced grouping more and you aimed at the centre of the target when you did that. the centre of anything is also where you will naturally point. Trying to "wing" someone is fighting muscle memory and instinct, that means you're thinking, that means you're too slow.

2. You objective is to put him down, whether he dies or not is secondary, the objective is to get the guy on his back, hitting him in the shoulder even at close range might not do that. You've already drawn you gun, someone has to go down now, no take-backsies.

3. You will panic, your aim will suffer. You have more chance of hitting him at all if you aim for the centre of mass, especially with a handgun which is never going to be super accurate to begin with.

I'll give you a fourth.

4. At close range no matter where you hit him trauma might cause shock and death, in which case it will look better if you aimed centre of mass, because then the Police might be more willing to believe you acted on instinct and didn't have time to not shoot him.

He's another tip:

Double-tap, two bullets in the chest will put down a charging man, and even if he has a vest on he will be struggling to breathe.

Personally, however, I never planning on going anywhere where I feel like I need a gun.

Actually PVC, I practice on cardboard human-shaped targets to wing opponents. No, it is not perfect, and of course it will be a lot different, but I have been in life or death scenarios before, and I am fairly confident I can keep my wits about me. If I can't, I'll know at the time, and I'll shoot to kill.
It depends a lot of the scenario, and to rule out times when taking someone alive is possible is just silly. I certainly wouldn't want to have it on my conscience that I killed a man who I could have taken alive. Yes, it may be more risky, but I am capable of and willing to evaluate those risks and make a decision. If I am too panicked to at the time, I'll always fall back on what I know.

[Montmorency]

No, I am not confused. I was pointing out that you were. A gun's main usefulness and advantage over other weapons in a self-defense situation is its capacity for lethality

?

So why is the mostest lethalest the mostest bestest?

I certainly wouldn't want to have it on my conscience that I killed a man who I could have taken alive. Yes, it may be more risky, but I am capable of and willing to evaluate those risks and make a decision.

If you need to fend off domestic dogs, you don't need to carry an elephant gun.

[Vuk]

?

So why is the mostest lethalest the mostest bestest?



If you need to fend off domestic dogs, you don't need to carry an elephant gun.

I've already explained my position to you. I am not gonna repeat myself.

Past fifteen feet or so, especially if you or your target are in any way moving, it becomes really hard to hit a target as specific as a shoulder, or an arm, or a calf, or a head for that matter. Center-mass is the way to go.

Yeah, I understand that, but I am not going to write off the possibility that such a situation could present itself. If it does, I will always try to take advantage of non-lethal means before lethal. I already know most circumstances when non-lethal shots would be possible, and when they would not. If I am ever in a situation where I need to use a gun to defend myself, I'll respond based on the options available to me. You may very well be right that non-lethal options aren't available most times, but when they are, what do I stand to lose by not taking someone's life?

[PanzerJaeger]

Past fifteen feet or so, especially if you or your target are in any way moving, it becomes really hard to hit a target as specific as a shoulder, or an arm, or a calf, or a head for that matter. Center-mass is the way to go.

Indeed, and if you shoot someone past fifteen feet, you're likely going to jail.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Past fifteen feet or so, especially if you or your target are in any way moving, it becomes really hard to hit a target as specific as a shoulder, or an arm, or a calf, or a head for that matter. Center-mass is the way to go.

It's a target, right? not a person.

In most states, the conceal carry maximum caliber is a .45, as it should be

A 50 caliber pistol is a hand cannon. I would hope that you would never consider using that as a home/carry weapon loaded with metal jackets.

IF I were the sort of person who carried a concealed weapon I would think a .40 - what's the point of carrying a weapon if people can't see the bulge in your jacket.

That is what frangible ammunition is for.

Isn't fragmenting ammunition illegal?

I'm certainly not impressed by your cardboard targets, I've used a SAT range with a section marksman weapon, but doubt MRD or GC would want me in a foxhole with them, not least because I've probably only put about a thousand rounds down range with that weapon and for all that I'm a very good shot I'm not a soldier, and neither are you.

[Xiahou]

Rule one of firearms usage - aim centre of mass.

Don't give me any of this "winging them" crap or "shooting to preserve life" - you're not the Phantom. A human body is a target, the bullets go in the centre of the target, especially when using a handgun.

I can give you three good reasons for this.

IMO, PVC is talking sense here. Winging someone is for Hollywood. You run the risk of missing altogether (and hitting a bystander), winging as intended- which may or may not stop a determined attacker, or hitting center of mass anyway- may as well aim there to begin with..... But, I'm not a cop, lawyer, marksman, or anything of the like, so take that for what it's worth.

Personally, however, I never planning on going anywhere where I feel like I need a gun.

I say if you feel like you're going somewhere so unsafe that you think you'll need a gun, you need to ask yourself why you're going there in the first place. However, that's no reason not to carry should you choose to- it's just a caution against thinking you can go into unsafe situations just because you're carrying. That's dangerous thinking...

[Vuk]

I say if you feel like you're going somewhere so unsafe that you think you'll need a gun, you need to ask yourself why you're going there in the first place. However, that's no reason not to carry should you choose to- it's just a caution against thinking you can go into unsafe situations just because you're carrying. That's dangerous thinking...

I hate cities, and everything about them. The noise, the crime, the lack of privacy, the tight spaces, the horrible traffic, etc. But if the only place I can get a job is a city with a lot of crime, as long as there are no prohibiting city laws, I am moving there and I am carrying. I am not gonna pass up a job opportunitty because of crime. Whether I am allowed to carry or not, if I could get a job in a dangerous city, I would jump at it. Things are too desperate right now for me to worry too much about safety or preference.

[drone]

The Px4 Storm comes in 9mm, .40, and .45 cals, and I don't believe Strike has specified which one he got. So can we dispense with the peniscaliber measuring for a while and congratulate the boy on his present. Sheesh.

[Montmorency]

9mm does not kill consistently enough with the first shot for me to trust it with my life.

The purpose of self-defense is not to kill anyone on the first draw who looks at you funny; you're not in an old-timey Western film.

It is worrying to see a weapon in the hands of one who's favored attribute in weapons of self-defense is lethality. To incapacitate is more than enough, so speed, reliability, and ease of use are surely far more valuable qualities.

[Vuk]

The purpose of self-defense is not to kill anyone on the first draw who looks at you funny; you're not in an old-timey Western film.

It is worrying to see a weapon in the hands of one who's favored attribute in weapons of self-defense is lethality. To incapacitate is more than enough, so speed, reliability, and ease of use are surely far more valuable qualities.

You are falling into the widespread lethal trap that many self-defense experts fall into Montmorency, and that is not realizing that they only way to effectively and consistently incapacitate a perp is by physically damaging them till the point they can no longer damage you. Fear and pain only work on sane people who are not on substances, and the chances of your attacker being on substances, or not being a very sane individual are pretty high.
First of all, I am a firm believer in winging people if you are able, and only if that doesn't stop them shooting to kill. If I don't have the ability to do that, or if doing so will endanger me or those around me (because taking the extra time will allow the other guy to get a shot off), I am gonna pointshoot for a mass I know I can hit as soon as possible (and that will be his vitals), and I am gonna want a gun that can stop him instantly, before he gets a shot off.

If a guy is on drugs and/or crazed Mont, putting a few little holes in him will not always stop him from killing you. If you want to stay alive, you need to kill him before he can kill you. Like I say, if you can plug him in the shoulders and make him drop his weapon, fine, but if not, you are gonna need a weapon that puts him down reliably and consistently.

P.S. I love how you assume that I would I am suddenly going to shoot anyone who looks funny at me.

[Vuk]

Also, I should add that I don't carry, because I live in a really rural area and don't feel the need right now. Because of that, my guns are mostly for home defense, so my needs in a pistol are slightly different than someone carrying. (though I think I would still prefer a .45 if I was carrying)

[PanzerJaeger]

Yeah, but the 9mm is not nearly as effective as other rounds. Also, its short range limits it. Sure, most self-defense scenarios may happen at absurdly close-ranges, but not all. Why bother with the limitations when you could add 2 inches onto the barrel and change the caliber? A .45, a 357, a .50 AE with frangible rounds, all of these would be better options for self-defense. They would kill better, and still could be used in a short enough pistol as to make it ideal for self-defense. Sure, a DE would take a split-second longer to draw, so you may not want it, but why not a 45 Super or a 357?
9mm does not kill consistently enough with the first shot for me to trust it with my life. I'll stick to my .50 AE and my .45, thanks.

A Desert Eagle? For carry?? No one really needs anything more than .380 in a carry gun. On the rare occasion that I carry, its a Sig P230.

[Vuk]

A Desert Eagle? For carry?? No one really needs anything more than .380 in a carry gun. On the rare occasion that I carry, its a Sig P230.

Yeah, more than anything just because it would terrify most any perp, and I probably would have to worry less about having to use it then with another gun. I am a pretty big guy, so believe it or not, I can wear one under my coat without it being noticeable. Why not carry it?