When President Reagan was shot wasn't he actually shot in the arm with a .22 and the bullet actually bounced it's way into his chest cavity barely missing his heart. Kinda gives credence to the tumbling bullet theory. ( if I remeber correctly).
Evadman
Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 30,990
- 5
- 81
Has anyone else seen This? It is a Nuke50. I know it is just a skit, but is that "handgun" in the movie really one that is made? It looks like a handgun that fires a 50 cal machine gun round.
I know very little about handguns, but is that gun actually made? I would like to take that out to a range
Pay no attention to the skit being played out
I know very little about handguns, but is that gun actually made? I would like to take that out to a range
Pay no attention to the skit being played out
Wow! So many people responding to this... I like it!
But some of you guys have just seen too many movies. Okay I won't say any more on that.
But some of you guys have just seen too many movies. Okay I won't say any more on that.
Evadman-
Yeah, that's for real... I've seen the thing:Q
A .50 BMG handgun! ya want stopping power, there ya go! Muzzle blast alone will kill them! HA!!! LOL
Yeah, that's for real... I've seen the thing:Q
A .50 BMG handgun! ya want stopping power, there ya go! Muzzle blast alone will kill them! HA!!! LOL
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.
I take great offense at that.
First, you're neglecting your classical education. Take the most prolific elephant hunter: WDM "Karamojo" Bell. Know what round he used most often? A jacketed .303. He often took elephants with as little as a .256. Not all in the brain. I'm sorry to say, but a bullet hole in the aorta or in the heart--even if it is a .22--will kill you dead. Elephants are particularly difficult because of the sponginess of their heart muscle, wo Bell aimed just above the heart.
Point being, you don't kill elephants with ice cream cones. You kill them with pencil holes, and yet they fall dead. If killing power were merely a function of ft-lbs, elephants would be unshootable. If you want the numbers, I'll dig them up.
You don't incapacitate intruders. You shoot them dead. Now if you know of some reason why a pencil through the heart will let you live and/or continue to fight, then you should tell the rest of the world because the medical profession would really like to know.
Furthermore, I consider anyone who wouldn't give immense thought to killing someone in dire need of a reevaluation of the importance of life. Just because I wouldn't like to kill someone doesn't mean I wouldn't do it. I find your claim to some sort of perch from whence you can claim to make such grandiose statements tenuous at best. I own firearms. I will continue to own firearms. I do *not* pose a danger to myself, and unlike people who would fire before thinking of the reprecussions, I also do not pose a danger to society at large. People in my house don't deserve to die. People threatening my life or the life of my loved ones do not deserve to die, they need to die. I am capable of making that distinction.
The facts agree with me--the number guns used in self defense dwarfs the number of guns used to kill people in self defense.
In short, do not preach to me or to anyone about my willingness to take a human life.
I take great offense at that.
First, you're neglecting your classical education. Take the most prolific elephant hunter: WDM "Karamojo" Bell. Know what round he used most often? A jacketed .303. He often took elephants with as little as a .256. Not all in the brain. I'm sorry to say, but a bullet hole in the aorta or in the heart--even if it is a .22--will kill you dead. Elephants are particularly difficult because of the sponginess of their heart muscle, wo Bell aimed just above the heart.
Point being, you don't kill elephants with ice cream cones. You kill them with pencil holes, and yet they fall dead. If killing power were merely a function of ft-lbs, elephants would be unshootable. If you want the numbers, I'll dig them up.
You don't incapacitate intruders. You shoot them dead. Now if you know of some reason why a pencil through the heart will let you live and/or continue to fight, then you should tell the rest of the world because the medical profession would really like to know.
Furthermore, I consider anyone who wouldn't give immense thought to killing someone in dire need of a reevaluation of the importance of life. Just because I wouldn't like to kill someone doesn't mean I wouldn't do it. I find your claim to some sort of perch from whence you can claim to make such grandiose statements tenuous at best. I own firearms. I will continue to own firearms. I do *not* pose a danger to myself, and unlike people who would fire before thinking of the reprecussions, I also do not pose a danger to society at large. People in my house don't deserve to die. People threatening my life or the life of my loved ones do not deserve to die, they need to die. I am capable of making that distinction.
The facts agree with me--the number guns used in self defense dwarfs the number of guns used to kill people in self defense.
In short, do not preach to me or to anyone about my willingness to take a human life.
Nothing beats a PIG for home defense. When its starts to 'oink', criminals start to $hit their pants. Along with anyone else in the general area.
When its starts to 'oink', criminals start to $hit their pants. Along with anyone else in the general area.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
<< Point being, you don't kill elephants with ice cream cones. You kill them with pencil holes, and yet they fall dead. If killing power were merely a function of ft-lbs, elephants would be unshootable. If you want the numbers, I'll dig them up. >>
Any my point is, sure, you CAN kill a grizzly bear with a bow and arrow, but that doesn't mean most folks should. I'd prefer a .44 Magnum, or better yet, a high powered rifle. Just because you CAN kill someone with a .22LR, doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job. Higher caliber rounds are more effective manstoppers, period, and effectiveness generally scales with both muzzle velocity, caliber, and bullet weight (oddly enough, the factors determining energy... yep, those foot pounds).
<< You don't incapacitate intruders. You shoot them dead. Now if you know of some reason why a pencil through the heart will let you live and/or continue to fight, then you should tell the rest of the world because the medical profession would really like to know. >>
Correct. And if you know of some reason why it's easier to inflict a lethal blow to the heart with a pencil hole sized hole than an ice cream cone sized hole, i'm sure medical science would love to hear that even more.
<< Take the most prolific elephant hunter: WDM "Karamojo" Bell. Know what round he used most often? A jacketed .303. He often took elephants with as little as a .256. Not all in the brain. >>
But he did so in a controlled manner where he and his guide dictated the 'terms' of engagement (time and place they would confront an elephant). Now...what do you think Bell would prefer for DEFENSE against an elephant they happened upon unexpectedly at 20 yards?
Hunting is offensive, defense is...well...defensive. Very different things.
<< You don't incapacitate intruders. You shoot them dead. Now if you know of some reason why a pencil through the heart will let you live and/or continue to fight, then you should tell the rest of the world because the medical profession would really like to know. >>
I've had my finger plugging pencil-sized (.25 caliber) holes in a heart while a surgeon is throwing pledget sutures around the hole in an attempt to prevent the patient from bleeding to death before putting them on by-pass. There are only a few sure-fire 'instant death' injuries, and a pencil-sized hole through the heart is not one of them. Any real hunter or trauma surgeon would know that.
Physiologically, the only way to stop a determined individual reliably and immediately, is by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes a little longer. There is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed
<< There are only a few sure-fire 'instant death' injuries, and a pencil-sized hole through the heart is not one of them. Any real hunter or trauma surgeon would know that. >>
<< There are only a few sure-fire 'instant death' injuries, and a pencil-sized hole through the heart is not one of them. Any real hunter or trauma surgeon would know that. >>
I've had my finger plugging pencil-sized (.25 caliber) holes in a heart while a surgeon is throwing pledget sutures around the hole in an attempt to prevent the patient from bleeding to death before putting them on by-pass. There are only a few sure-fire 'instant death' injuries, and a pencil-sized hole through the heart is not one of them. Any real hunter or trauma surgeon would know that.
Any my point is, sure, you CAN kill a grizzly bear with a bow and arrow, but that doesn't mean most folks should. I'd prefer a .44 Magnum, or better yet, a high powered rifle. Just because you CAN kill someone with a .22LR, doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job. Higher caliber rounds are more effective manstoppers, period, and effectiveness generally scales with both muzzle velocity, caliber, and bullet weight (oddly enough, the factors determining energy... yep, those foot pounds).
First things first: When the guy attacking you has a doctor suturing up his hole, we'll talk. But then he's probably not in the best shape to fight back When you've seen a deer with a .223 solid-sized hole through its left ventricle bolt about 30 yards then drop like a sack of doorknobs, you get convinced that a hit to the heart will kill. Of course it's not instant death. I actually worked at a hospital for three years (summers) and I saw a case where a guy took a bullet to the forehead that bounced off the back of his skull and continued down, ending just shy of the corpus collosum, and he lived. Then again, he wasn't in much of a mood to fight back. The human body can live through a whole helluvalot. So of course I'm not a "real trama surgeon." Don't tell me I'm not a real hunter or that I don't know what kills though. You criticize me for taking a dissimilar circumstance in hunting elephants, then you cite an emergency room.
As for elephant hunting being offensive, you're basically right. In his career of shooting over 3 000 elephants and an untold number of cape buffalo, we must assume that some of the animals charged him, as elephants and buffalo are wont to do. We then must assume that it was his insanely good aim that kept Bell alive. Furthermore, I'm going to assume you're not very familiar with elephant hunting. There are any number of books that can set you straight--among them are "elephant hunting in east equitorial africa" and anything by Capstick, really. Capstick in particular will tell you that elephants often charge, and that they're often shot at a very close range--that is, you happen upon them at about 20 yards. He uses a larger caliber, but don't forget that the degree to which his caliber is greater than yours for people is far less than the pct by which an elephant outweighs a human; that is, the ratio is really not in his favor. This is why he uses solids, and this is why every account of elephant hunting across which I've stumbled recommends solids. As to hammer09's comments, I'm not at all aware of the effectiveness of human action after a hole has been put into a heart, but I would assume it is significant. In this case, I would wholeheartedly agree that a bigger blow to the torso beats a smaller hole, hands down.
Second, I wholeheartedly that, in two identical cases in which your only option is more ft-lbs or fewer ft-lbs, you will want more ft-lbs. I'm just saying that your best bet is good bullet placement, and it always will be. You seemed to be saying that a .22 was wholly ineffectual, like 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
My argument is simply that musculature is an entirely different matter than vital organs. I would much rather put some .22 rounds into a heart than some .45 rounds into a thigh.
Any my point is, sure, you CAN kill a grizzly bear with a bow and arrow, but that doesn't mean most folks should. I'd prefer a .44 Magnum, or better yet, a high powered rifle. Just because you CAN kill someone with a .22LR, doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job. Higher caliber rounds are more effective manstoppers, period, and effectiveness generally scales with both muzzle velocity, caliber, and bullet weight (oddly enough, the factors determining energy... yep, those foot pounds).
First things first: When the guy attacking you has a doctor suturing up his hole, we'll talk. But then he's probably not in the best shape to fight back
When you've seen a deer with a .223 solid-sized hole through its left ventricle bolt about 30 yards then drop like a sack of doorknobs, you get convinced that a hit to the heart will kill. Of course it's not instant death. I actually worked at a hospital for three years (summers) and I saw a case where a guy took a bullet to the forehead that bounced off the back of his skull and continued down, ending just shy of the corpus collosum, and he lived. Then again, he wasn't in much of a mood to fight back. The human body can live through a whole helluvalot. So of course I'm not a "real trama surgeon." Don't tell me I'm not a real hunter or that I don't know what kills though. You criticize me for taking a dissimilar circumstance in hunting elephants, then you cite an emergency room. As for elephant hunting being offensive, you're basically right. In his career of shooting over 3 000 elephants and an untold number of cape buffalo, we must assume that some of the animals charged him, as elephants and buffalo are wont to do. We then must assume that it was his insanely good aim that kept Bell alive. Furthermore, I'm going to assume you're not very familiar with elephant hunting. There are any number of books that can set you straight--among them are "elephant hunting in east equitorial africa" and anything by Capstick, really. Capstick in particular will tell you that elephants often charge, and that they're often shot at a very close range--that is, you happen upon them at about 20 yards. He uses a larger caliber, but don't forget that the degree to which his caliber is greater than yours for people is far less than the pct by which an elephant outweighs a human; that is, the ratio is really not in his favor. This is why he uses solids, and this is why every account of elephant hunting across which I've stumbled recommends solids. As to hammer09's comments, I'm not at all aware of the effectiveness of human action after a hole has been put into a heart, but I would assume it is significant. In this case, I would wholeheartedly agree that a bigger blow to the torso beats a smaller hole, hands down.
Second, I wholeheartedly that, in two identical cases in which your only option is more ft-lbs or fewer ft-lbs, you will want more ft-lbs. I'm just saying that your best bet is good bullet placement, and it always will be. You seemed to be saying that a .22 was wholly ineffectual, like 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
My argument is simply that musculature is an entirely different matter than vital organs. I would much rather put some .22 rounds into a heart than some .45 rounds into a thigh.
My oppinion derived from over eleven years as a cop, 40 cal. Almost the balistics of a 45 and 10 round (for the civilians in CA) magazines. Some of our officers who used to carry 9mm have switched because a 9mm failed to stop the attacker.
<< 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.
>>My uncles friend made them (he is a handloader). I heard them, and they had just about the same volume as my Crossman 760. I dont know how much powder was in them, but it couldnt have been much, since they barely penetrated into plywood at 10 feet.
Bignate603
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 13,897
- 1
- 0
truthfully, shotgun, maybe even sawed off (lowers muzzle velocity and will help keep it from going through walls). With lighter shot it won't go through walls but will chew up anything in front of it.
<< truthfully, shotgun, maybe even sawed off (lowers muzzle velocity and will help keep it from going through walls). With lighter shot it won't go through walls but will chew up anything in front of it. >>
Yes, but then you have to explain to the police what you are doing with a sub 18" barrel. The police will notice the spread difference between a 10" and a 20" barrel paterns.
I personally have a Glock 40 Caliber model 27.
the nice things about glocks are the fact that they are so popular and you can get alot of accessories for your model. They are durable, reliable, and they don't have a safety to get in the way of a gun fight. Having a safety is a good thing, but not for a gun that I am half awake and need to get off in a hurry. 40 calibur hollow points are a good multi purpose round, it has stopping power, decent availability, (nothing like rounds for a 45 or 9mm though) and good accuracy.
My model 27 is a compact 40 cal with a 10 round magazine. i shoot targets over 25 feet with perfect accuracy. any gun you get will go through a wall unless you get a .22 pistol load. I use hydro shock loads, which turn your insides into soup.
i will concur with the others though when i say that you need a trigger lock, and don't pull it unless you are ready to cause death.
the nice things about glocks are the fact that they are so popular and you can get alot of accessories for your model. They are durable, reliable, and they don't have a safety to get in the way of a gun fight. Having a safety is a good thing, but not for a gun that I am half awake and need to get off in a hurry. 40 calibur hollow points are a good multi purpose round, it has stopping power, decent availability, (nothing like rounds for a 45 or 9mm though) and good accuracy.
My model 27 is a compact 40 cal with a 10 round magazine. i shoot targets over 25 feet with perfect accuracy. any gun you get will go through a wall unless you get a .22 pistol load. I use hydro shock loads, which turn your insides into soup.
i will concur with the others though when i say that you need a trigger lock, and don't pull it unless you are ready to cause death.
The only Glock I'd buy is a 'grandfathered' Glock 18. For now I stick with my trusty Walther P99.
<< The only Glock I'd buy is a 'grandfathered' Glock 18. For now I stick with my trusty Walther P99. >>
How much are those with, say, 2 of the 31rd magazines?
I'm not too sure exactly. The only one I've been able to find are modified Glock 17s passed off as 18s. I don't know how much a legit 18 will cost. A lot though As will the clips.
As will the clips.My vote is with either a 20ga. or 12ga. sawed off barrel. Pick any load. I wouldn't worry about the legality of owning the sawed off variety. The issue here is protection of yourself/family. Just ask any farmer!
<< First things first: When the guy attacking you has a doctor suturing up his hole, we'll talk. >>
First things first: I've never hunted elephant, I've only the information obtained from a few friends who are avid big bame hunters and who have the $25,000 (trophy fee + trophy prep + export + license + guide + travel + accomodations) to hunt elephant.
As for Bell, no source I know puts the total number of bagged elephants at "over 3000", though the difference between "over 1000" and "over 3000" isn't critical. Nor did Bell prefer the .303, his caliber of choice was the 7mm Mauser (7x57mm or .275 Rigby). He plugged a lot of elephants with the 6.5mm Mannlicher that Fraser had custom built for him. Not that the .303 wasn't widely used in Africa, but Bell preferred the 7mm over all others.
Bell's trademark was the brainshot, which he mastered by getting several natives to make a ruckus, distracting the agitated beast's attention while Bell manuevered to the animal's rear flank for a relatively safe side-rear brain shot. By all accounts Bell's record of instant kills was near 100% and I find no reason to believe Bell ever took a charging bull by choice.
No guide in Africa will allow their client to take a frontal brain shot with anything less than a .375H&H today. In many parts of Africa, it is FORBIDDEN to take dangerous game with anything less than a .375H&H.
Elephants are always taken at close range, preferrably between 20 and 40 yards. But, that doesn't mean unexpectedly 'happening upon' an elephant at 20 yards, which would be an incredibly dangerous situation. This is how numerous professional hunters, guides, and tourists have been killed.
You hunt elephant by using stealth to manuever within 20 - 40 yards for your shot, not by wandering aimlessly through the bush hoping to stumble upon an elephant at 20 yards. Someone doesn't know much about elephant hunting, and it doesn't appear to be me...
Precise shot placement is a luxury of hunting, which Bell was able to do with uncanny success because he was a master hunter who dictated the terms of engagement, not the elephant, luxuries that are rarely afforded when shooting to protect life and limb (stress fire) as when some 250lb felon burst through your back door and catches you in the middle of your late-night snack run.
Talk of 'pencil hole placement' is the exclusive province of those who have never been in a CQB gun fight of the type that is the pertinent topic in this thread. "Home defense" isn't tack-driving from your window at the neighbors acrosss the street. Home defense means CQB, the likelihood of a struggle, 10 feet MAX distance between the defender and intruder.
Not that practice shouldn't be a real priority for the home defender, or any gun owner for that matter, but talking of pencil holes through the heart simply won't be an option in most cases. If you can consistently put three of four rounds through a dinner plate sized target (critical chest mass) at 5 yards point-and-shoot (instinctive shooting), and are mentally prepared for the possibility that you may wind-up in a struggle with the intruder, you've all the skills required to make the best go of a home defense encounter, no matter the gun choice.
<< Don't tell me I'm not a real hunter or that I don't know what kills though. You criticize me for taking a dissimilar circumstance in hunting elephants, then you cite an emergency room. >>
I'll let your ignorance speak for you.
I cite an emergency room because you took the discussion off on a tangent about hunting animals with rifles. I brought it back to the topic, home defense against men, not deer or elephants. There is NOTHING about hunting animals with a 2700FPS rifle that is remotely applicable to home defense.
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