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.
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.
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.
The topic had shifted to "what kills," and the answer had become "foot-pounds." I did not, nor will I take the stance that foot pounds are somehow immaterial. I will and did take the stance that the most important facet of any shot is placement. Just a simple note. Not even a contradiction. Just an addition to the debate, meant to focus it on the need for practice being equal to--if not greater than--the need for a good gun.
I took the case of hunting elephant because I've read about it and it's the natural extreme in which a pencil hole does kill. Pardon me if I mistook the caliber; it's been a while since I've read up on the topic though I do remember reading that he took bulls with as little as a .256, and I know for a fact that the quartering rear brain shot was his specialty, but that is not to say he shot all his elephants in the brain. If I were in Africa, I wouldn't hunt with anything smaller than a .375 either. I agree with you. My point was simply that small holes will kill too. I misspoke when I said that it will always kill because there will be the (emergency room) circumstance when it won't kill. Still, it was nothing but an illustrative example.
If I seemed to take umbrage at your citation that I was neither a real hunter nor a real trauma surgeon (presumably the former, as I can tell you with confidence that I'm not even a fake trauma surgeon) it was because I find your grounds to make such a case to be tenuous at best. You certainly do not know whether I have hunted, or how much I have hunted. Since nothing I have said has disagreed with empirical truth--to the best of my knowledge, and Bell's gun caliber notwithstanding--and you have not cited my ignorance (excepting a case now relegated to the history books, which are hardly necessary for [though a fun and worthwile addition to] hunting knowledge) to the contrary--I did not, nor will I ever understand your assumption of the ersatz nature of my hunting experience. In fact, you drew your conclusion from my quote that "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." You misquote me: you reply as though I had said something about "instant death; that is, "There are only a few sure-fire 'instant death' injuries, and a pencil-sized hole through the heart is not one of them." Although "kill somebody good" and "instant death" are certainly related, they are not the same. I would consider death in less than a minute to be severely dead at any rate; certainly within the range (flexible though it may be) of "kill[ed] good." If I had said that a .22 to the heart kills instantly, then I would be ignernt. If I had said that a .22 to the heart is a reasonable expectation for self-defense, I would similarly be ignernt. However, I said neither.
I can't resist debate over the semantics of elephant hunting. I'll take my moral stance here because you cited that "Someone doesn't know much about elephant hunting, and it doesn't appear to be me..." Entirely unwarranted. My understanding of elephant hunting is that one follows tracks and spoor to the elephant. It is not unlikely that, say, around the 40 yard mark you may not know where the vital organs of the elephant are. You might not know where any of the elephant is, though it's not unlikely that you can smell it. You do, in fact, happen upon them, though you are certainly stalking and on the offensive. If I gave the impression that a hunter wantered around and stumbled on an elephant as he was, say, relieving himself, I'm sorry. Still, Precise shot placement is indeed a luxury afforded by time. You are right: this is in no way similar to happening upon an intruder into your home. It is an exmaple to illustrate the importance of proper shot placement. Again, refer to my original claim: that a .22 in the heart will kill (emergency medicine excepted). This does not imply that there is a reasonable chance to aim for the heart in close quarters battle.
For reference, my citation, excepting the part in which I was obviously wrong (caliber and number killed) re: elephants was:
"He (Bell) often took elephants with as little as a .256. Not all in the brain. . . . Elephants are particularly difficult because of the sponginess of their heart muscle, o 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."
We are disagreeing over semantics. While I agree with you wholeheartedly that more ft-lbs is better, and that most of the time you won't be able to stick a .22 hole in a heart (nor should this be your goal in close quarters battle), I am simply saying that in a .22 hole in a heart will kill. I do not think that someone should train to put a .22 in a heart. In no way am I advocating a .22 for home defense. I have advocated repeatedly a 9 mm or a .45, and I agreed with Glenn1 that a 12 ga would be fantastically effective. I think that ft-lbs are great. I think they're effective. I don't think that the gun is somehow a greater factor than the person shooting it though (not to imply that Glenn1 or anyone else for that matter claimed the opposite). Simply posted to reinforce the need for accuracy and pracice. That is it, and it is a small, insignificant point.
I certainly don't consider you to be ignorant or even misinformed. I am sorry if anything I said was construed to imply that; my comment on your knowledge of elephant hunting stems from your comment about Bell stumbling upon elephants at twenty yards; i.e. that he didn't do that. Considering that the misinformed people with whom I have spoken consider elephant huning to be a matter of killing the largest land mammal at great distances, I don't think it unrealistic to assume (nb: I noted it was an assumption) that you were not familiar with elephant hunting. After all, Bell must have--to one degree or another--stumbled on some nasty critters (of which some were most likely elephants) at twenty yards. Again (and I'm sorry for the tedium) I did not mean for this to be construed as a case for small arms in self-defense.
I do think that you read into my post something that was entirely absent, and I do consider your ad hominem attacks to be unwarranted. We are effectively saying the same thing, and every disagreement has been spawned by some offense taken or by a semantic difference.
Since this debate is now in no way related to the best caliber handgun for home use, I'm content to drop it. Again, sorry if I've offended.
Facebook
Twitter