I personally would get a 12 gauge shotgun. Sure it's more messy, but if you blow someone's head off, you know they aint gonna get ya.
Of course, this being CA and me living in an apartment in one of the safest cities in the country, a gun is more likely to bring me trouble than safety.
Also, I heard 22 caliber is more deadly because it bounces inside the body. Is that true?
Of course, this being CA and me living in an apartment in one of the safest cities in the country, a gun is more likely to bring me trouble than safety.
Also, I heard 22 caliber is more deadly because it bounces inside the body. Is that true?
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
<< Also, I heard 22 caliber is more deadly because it bounces inside the body. Is that true? >>
Nope. Over-penetration and lack of any appreciable expansion is the typical problem of the .22LR cartridge. It just makes a nice round (but tiny) hole in someone, and keeps on going.... sometimes through a wall or two. Takedown power is mainly a function of how much of the kinetic energy of the bullet which can be transferred to the target, and the .22LR transfers close to none.
OTOH, a cartridge like the .357 Magnum or .40S&W have relatively good penetration/expansion characteristics. Maximum expansion with those rounds is generally at about 8", and cavitation is large (about the size of a large orange with the .40 S&W), which makes it a far superior cartridge, since it transfers a great portion of its energy into the target.
Think of it this way.... take an icepick, and jam it into a side of beef as hard as you can. It will make a nice round hole in the meat, but not much else.... very little energy transferance. Next, take a veal cutlet, and pound on it with a meat tenderizing mallet. Much better energy transference, hence why the meat is much easier to chew when you bite into it. Same principle with handgun cartridges, but the .22 is the icepick, and the .357 the mallet
Stop with the Desert Eagle recommendations already!!!
<< I personally would get a 12 gauge shotgun. Sure it's more messy, but if you blow someone's head off, you know they aint gonna get ya. >>
You still got to hit them in the head. That means spending some time at the range.
<< Also, I heard 22 caliber is more deadly because it bounces inside the body. Is that true? >>
Negative. It is bad because it tumbles in the body, as fast, small bullets are apt to do. However, it doesnt have much total energy, so it cant bounce back and forth. That, and since humans are REALLY thin skinned, excluding bone, there isnt anything to make it bounce inside the body. A 223 Remington is much better (which might be why they use it in the M16 ). All that said, the 22 has virtually no stopping power compared to anything besides a spitball.
<< I personally would get a 12 gauge shotgun. Sure it's more messy, but if you blow someone's head off, you know they aint gonna get ya. >>
You still got to hit them in the head. That means spending some time at the range.
<< Also, I heard 22 caliber is more deadly because it bounces inside the body. Is that true? >>
Negative. It is bad because it tumbles in the body, as fast, small bullets are apt to do. However, it doesnt have much total energy, so it cant bounce back and forth. That, and since humans are REALLY thin skinned, excluding bone, there isnt anything to make it bounce inside the body. A 223 Remington is much better (which might be why they use it in the M16
). All that said, the 22 has virtually no stopping power compared to anything besides a spitball.<< A subsonic .22 round does have its uses. >>
Yup... it does have good terminal ballistics when employeed in a wild safari hunt through darkest suburbia hunting the wild chipmunk. Though using it against a charging rabbit can get hairy.
<< Hehe, you don't understand. A subsonic .22 round only has one use. >>
Oh, it has more than one. My uncle uses them to shoot chipmunks and rabbits going near my grandma's garden all the time. even without a silencer, it isnt any louder than a pellet gun.
Exactly. Look at all the Eastern Europe/Soviet-Era stuff. Very good and very quiet.
<<
<< Hehe, you don't understand. A subsonic .22 round only has one use >>
Silenced weapon? >>
<<
<< Hehe, you don't understand. A subsonic .22 round only has one use >>
Silenced weapon? >>
Nope. Over-penetration and lack of any appreciable expansion is the typical problem of the .22LR cartridge. It just makes a nice round (but tiny) hole in someone, and keeps on going.... sometimes through a wall or two. Takedown power is mainly a function of how much of the kinetic energy of the bullet which can be transferred to the target, and the .22LR transfers close to none.
Any amount of foot-lbs from bullet to big toe won't kill anything. Killing is a function of putting a hole in the pump room, and if you put a .22 hole in the pump room you'll kill somebody good. The ill effect is that if you miss the pump room, you're more likely to stop somebody with a .45 in the liver than with a .22 in the liver.
That, and you can still move with a hole in your lung for up to a minute (basing this on animals) which makes a stab at you more likely. I understand the ballistics of the m 16 are such that the bullet has erratic performance after hitting a target, so it'll cause more deleterious leg wounds and the like.
Personally, I'll take a nice solid that'll go in a stright line through a body over anything else unless there are neighbors involved. I don't want it to be a small solid, but a solid anyway. I wouldn't trust small caliber hollow point performance to kill immediately if it hits a sternum after going through a couple layers of clothing.
Oh, one other note: I would personally do anything to avoid shooting to kill. Shoot into the floor, shoot right buy him or whatever, but there are serious conscience reprecussions to killing a human being.
Any amount of foot-lbs from bullet to big toe won't kill anything. Killing is a function of putting a hole in the pump room, and if you put a .22 hole in the pump room you'll kill somebody good. The ill effect is that if you miss the pump room, you're more likely to stop somebody with a .45 in the liver than with a .22 in the liver.
That, and you can still move with a hole in your lung for up to a minute (basing this on animals) which makes a stab at you more likely. I understand the ballistics of the m 16 are such that the bullet has erratic performance after hitting a target, so it'll cause more deleterious leg wounds and the like.
Personally, I'll take a nice solid that'll go in a stright line through a body over anything else unless there are neighbors involved. I don't want it to be a small solid, but a solid anyway. I wouldn't trust small caliber hollow point performance to kill immediately if it hits a sternum after going through a couple layers of clothing.
Oh, one other note: I would personally do anything to avoid shooting to kill. Shoot into the floor, shoot right buy him or whatever, but there are serious conscience reprecussions to killing a human being.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
<< Killing is a function of putting a hole in the pump room, and if you put a .22 hole in the pump room you'll kill somebody good. The ill effect is that if you miss the pump room, you're more likely to stop somebody with a .45 in the liver than with a .22 in the liver. >>
I think you misunderstand ballistics, and the effect rounds have in body tissue, particularly cavitation.
Try to think of it in terms of the size and shape of the hole (cavitation) caused by two very different rounds, the .22LR and the .357 Magnum. Essentially, the cavitation caused by the .22 is going to be long, thin, and narrow. Think of a hole the diameter of a pencil being drilled through your body.
The hole caused by the .357 Magnum, OTOH, is going to be broader and shorter than the .22... instead of a hole shaped like a pencil, think of a hole shaped like an ice cream cone, with the bottom tip of the cone being at the point of impact, and the ice cream part about 6-8" deep (or, in other words, in the middle of the chest cavity). Now, make it a really big ice cream cone, where the scoop of ice cream is about the size of a large orange, or small grapefruit, and that's the cavitation caused by the .357 round.
Which size hole would you rather have in your thorax, the long, thin, pencil shaped one, or the shorter, wider, ice cream cone shaped one?
<< Personally, I'll take a nice solid that'll go in a stright line through a body over anything else unless there are neighbors involved. >>
Bad advice when you're trying to incapacitate an attacker, for the reasons stated above.
<< I understand the ballistics of the m 16 are such that the bullet has erratic performance after hitting a target, so it'll cause more deleterious leg wounds and the like. >>
The M16/M4 fires an entirely different cartridge. The M16 fires a .223 Winchester (NATO standard) round, with about 1,400 foot/pounds of energy at the muzzle. Most .22LR are lucky to generate a little over 100 ft/lbs.
So you can have your "nice solids that go in a straight line" for your self-defense needs. I, on the other hand, prefer my .40 S&W Cor-Bon 135gr., which generates 526 ft/lbs. as my load. Your .22LR rounds at 116ft/lbs, or my .40s at 526, which would you prefer to be hit with if you were a bad guy?
<< Oh, one other note: I would personally do anything to avoid shooting to kill. Shoot into the floor, shoot right buy him or whatever, but there are serious conscience reprecussions to killing a human being. >>
Nothing personal, but with a mindset like that, you're probably better off not owning a firearm at all. You're simply more likely to be a danger to yourself with a firearm, than a deterrent.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
<<
<< Killing is a function of putting a hole in the pump room, and if you put a .22 hole in the pump room you'll kill somebody good. The ill effect is that if you miss the pump room, you're more likely to stop somebody with a .45 in the liver than with a .22 in the liver. >>
I think you misunderstand ballistics, and the effect rounds have in body tissue, particularly cavitation. Try to think of it in terms of the size and shape of the hole (cavitation) caused by two very different rounds, the .22LR and the .357 Magnum. Essentially, the cavitation caused by the .22 is going to be long, thin, and narrow. Think of a hole the diameter of a pencil being drilled through your body. The hole caused by the .357 Magnum, OTOH, is going to be broader and shorter than the .22... instead of a hole shaped like a pencil, think of a hole shaped like an ice cream cone, with the bottom tip of the cone being at the point of impact, and the ice cream part about 6-8" deep (or, in other words, in the middle of the chest cavity). Now, make it a really big ice cream cone, where the scoop of ice cream is about the size of a large orange, or small grapefruit, and that's the cavitation caused by the .357 round. Which size hole would you rather have in your thorax, the long, thin, pencil shaped one, or the shorter, wider, ice cream cone shaped one?
<< Personally, I'll take a nice solid that'll go in a stright line through a body over anything else unless there are neighbors involved. >>
Bad advice when you're trying to incapacitate an attacker, for the reasons stated above.
<< I understand the ballistics of the m 16 are such that the bullet has erratic performance after hitting a target, so it'll cause more deleterious leg wounds and the like. >>
The M16/M4 fires an entirely different cartridge. The M16 fires a .223 Winchester (NATO standard) round, with about 1,400 foot/pounds of energy at the muzzle. Most .22LR are lucky to generate a little over 100 ft/lbs. So you can have your "nice solids that go in a straight line" for your self-defense needs. I, on the other hand, prefer my .40 S&W Cor-Bon 135gr., which generates 526 ft/lbs. as my load. Your .22LR rounds at 116ft/lbs, or my .40s at 526, which would you prefer to be hit with if you were a bad guy?
<< Oh, one other note: I would personally do anything to avoid shooting to kill. Shoot into the floor, shoot right buy him or whatever, but there are serious conscience reprecussions to killing a human being. >>
Nothing personal, but with a mindset like that, you're probably better off not owning a firearm at all. You're simply more likely to be a danger to yourself with a firearm, than a deterrent. >>
Dude you know too much. Something in your past you need to share with us?
I was just curious and wanted to see some prices on handguns and other firearms, but I can't find any that are on the web.
Anybody have some links?
Anybody have some links?
Have you ever seen high speed film of the M16 firing the 5.56mm round at gelatin used to simulate the consistency of human body tissue? There's more to it than size.
<< to think of it in terms of the size and shape of the hole (cavitation) caused by two very different rounds, the .22LR and the .357 Magnum. Essentially, the cavitation caused by the .22 is going to be long, thin, and narrow. Think of a hole the diameter of a pencil being drilled through your body. >>
<< to think of it in terms of the size and shape of the hole (cavitation) caused by two very different rounds, the .22LR and the .357 Magnum. Essentially, the cavitation caused by the .22 is going to be long, thin, and narrow. Think of a hole the diameter of a pencil being drilled through your body. >>
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
<< I was just curious and wanted to see some prices on handguns and other firearms, but I can't find any that are on the web.
Anybody have some links? >>
Shotgun News
If you can't find it in the Shotgun News (particularly the actual print copy, i don't know about the online version), it probably doesn't exist.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
<< Have you ever seen high speed film of the M16 firing the 5.56mm round at gelatin used to simulate the consistency of human body tissue? There's more to it than size. >>
Happy reading. This man is the world's foremost expert in the field, and he disagrees with the "tumbling bullet" concept.
I disagree with the 'tumbling bullet' theory as well. When the M16 cartridge is fired and the bullet is propelled down the bore, the bore?s rifling imparts a gyroscopic spin to the bullet. This gyroscopic rotation is needed to maintain point forward stabilization of the bullet as it flies through the air.
The bullet?s pointed shape makes it heavier at its base than its nose, producing a center of gravity that is located aft of its longitudinal centerline. When the bullet hits the body and penetrates, the bullet attempts to rotate 180 degrees around its center of gravity to achieve a base forward orientation. This backwards orientation is the bullet?s stable position in tissue because it places the center of gravity forward.
As the bullet yaws through 90 degrees and is traveling sideways through flesh, the stress of tissue resistance to bullet passage can overpower the physical integrity of the bullet. The bullet has a groove around its midsection called a cannelure. The purpose of the cannelure is to permit the mouth of the cartridge case to be crimped tightly against the bullet shank to hold it firmly to the case. The cannelure weakens the structural integrity of the bullet's copper jacket.
At distances of 100 yards and under, when the bullet hits the body and yaws through 90 degrees, the stresses on the bullet cause the leading edge to flatten, extruding lead core out the open base, just before it breaks apart at the cannelure. The portion of the bullet forward of the cannelure, the nose, usually remains in one piece and retains about 60 percent of the bullet's original weight. The portion of the bullet aft of the cannelure, the base, disintegrates into multiple lead core and copper jacket fragments, which penetrate up to 3-inches radially outward from the wound track. The fragments perforate and weaken the surrounding tissues allowing the subsequent temporary cavity to forcibly stretch and rip open the multiple small wound tracks produced by the fragments.
The bullet?s pointed shape makes it heavier at its base than its nose, producing a center of gravity that is located aft of its longitudinal centerline. When the bullet hits the body and penetrates, the bullet attempts to rotate 180 degrees around its center of gravity to achieve a base forward orientation. This backwards orientation is the bullet?s stable position in tissue because it places the center of gravity forward.
As the bullet yaws through 90 degrees and is traveling sideways through flesh, the stress of tissue resistance to bullet passage can overpower the physical integrity of the bullet. The bullet has a groove around its midsection called a cannelure. The purpose of the cannelure is to permit the mouth of the cartridge case to be crimped tightly against the bullet shank to hold it firmly to the case. The cannelure weakens the structural integrity of the bullet's copper jacket.
At distances of 100 yards and under, when the bullet hits the body and yaws through 90 degrees, the stresses on the bullet cause the leading edge to flatten, extruding lead core out the open base, just before it breaks apart at the cannelure. The portion of the bullet forward of the cannelure, the nose, usually remains in one piece and retains about 60 percent of the bullet's original weight. The portion of the bullet aft of the cannelure, the base, disintegrates into multiple lead core and copper jacket fragments, which penetrate up to 3-inches radially outward from the wound track. The fragments perforate and weaken the surrounding tissues allowing the subsequent temporary cavity to forcibly stretch and rip open the multiple small wound tracks produced by the fragments.
(this kinda goes hand-in-hand w/practicing at the range), but make sure you can handle whatever weapon you choose to buy. All things being equal a .45 has more stopping power than a 9mm, but if you can't hit the broad side of a barn w/a .45 then yer better off w/a smaller cal. gun that you can put on target. The best gun for self defence is the largest cal. that you can fire acurately. That said, I agree w/the people who say a shotgun is ideal for home defense.
Lethal
Lethal
In my opinion, the usual scenario imagined in a home defense situation (the one where a burglar breaks into your house in the middle of the night) is not the most probable one. Please feel free to correct me on this, but I think it's more likely that someone would break into your house when you're not home. And because of the chance that you might come home to find a perp in your house, I believe this second scenario is the one that you should have in mind when buying a home defense weapon. Specifically, I think you should buy a handgun that you could legally carry concealed that you would have on your person when stepping through the front door of your house.
I only offer this because I've personally known two people who have been in this second situation. I know no one who has had there house burglarized in the middle of the night.
Any thoughts on this?
I only offer this because I've personally known two people who have been in this second situation. I know no one who has had there house burglarized in the middle of the night.
Any thoughts on this?
For home nothing beats the 12 ga pump. It look deadly and it is. Get something like a Mossburg combo with a 28" field barrel and a 18-20" deer barrel and a standard full stock. Use the short barrel, load it with 71/2 shot--NOT buckshot. At the distance you would be firing, the entire pattern will strike the target, but it will not pass through both sides of a dry wall room divider so you will not kill the wife and kids in the next room. I have seen the results first hand--it works like a charm. R
Oh, it has more than one. My uncle uses them to shoot chipmunks and rabbits going near my grandma's garden all the time. even without a silencer, it isnt any louder than a pellet gun.
It depends on the type of subsonic ammo you have. I have two different brands, PMC Zapper 22 and Remington 22 Subsonic, and both are still fairly loud, though quieter than standard .22LR. They are not, however, as quiet as a pellet gun by any stretch of the imagination.
There are other types of subsonic ammo which basically just have primer or just a tiny bit of powder in them. I am planning on buying some this week to test out soon as a local gun store just started carrying them (it has a Spanish name -- begins with an "A"). Those are useful for killing birds apparently, though I'll be aiming at one particular cat.
It depends on the type of subsonic ammo you have. I have two different brands, PMC Zapper 22 and Remington 22 Subsonic, and both are still fairly loud, though quieter than standard .22LR. They are not, however, as quiet as a pellet gun by any stretch of the imagination.
There are other types of subsonic ammo which basically just have primer or just a tiny bit of powder in them. I am planning on buying some this week to test out soon as a local gun store just started carrying them (it has a Spanish name -- begins with an "A"). Those are useful for killing birds apparently, though I'll be aiming at one particular cat.
This man is the world's foremost expert in the field, and he disagrees with the "tumbling bullet" concept.
Actually, if you read through it carefully, he doesn't disagree with the "tumbling bullet" concept in that the tumbling occurs INSIDE the body, not while in flight, which is a common misconception (ok, so he disagrees with the common understanding of a "tumbling bullet"!). One aspect of his research which fails miserably is that he tests only into gelatin and does not take into account the hardness of bones. One thing I have always understood about the M-16 round (and other similar ones) is that given its light weight, it will not shatter every bone it encounters but will rather bounce off and into another part of the body, thereby increasing its lethality. The older, heavier bullets, like 7.62mm, would shatter the bone and continue on without the ricochet effect.
Perhaps that understanding is incorrect, but those studies in that report do nothing to discount it.
Actually, if you read through it carefully, he doesn't disagree with the "tumbling bullet" concept in that the tumbling occurs INSIDE the body, not while in flight, which is a common misconception (ok, so he disagrees with the common understanding of a "tumbling bullet"!). One aspect of his research which fails miserably is that he tests only into gelatin and does not take into account the hardness of bones. One thing I have always understood about the M-16 round (and other similar ones) is that given its light weight, it will not shatter every bone it encounters but will rather bounce off and into another part of the body, thereby increasing its lethality. The older, heavier bullets, like 7.62mm, would shatter the bone and continue on without the ricochet effect.
Perhaps that understanding is incorrect, but those studies in that report do nothing to discount it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter