• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
Muck;2254086; said:
-Finally if you wood forbid you are forced to shoot someone be prepared to go to court. You may not be face legal charges for defending yourself but there's always a chance you'll be sued either by the criminal (if he survives) or his family (if he doesn't). When that attorney holds up your weapon in court what exactly will the people who see it think it says about you? Are they likely to react differently to grand-pa's traditional shotgun than they will to your black uber tactical mall ninja rifle of death? Just something to think about.

Here's my question on the court issue. If you purchase those special rounds, ie Critical Defense, Glaser, etc, etc, wouldn't that make it look in court as you bought them for 1 reason, to kill someone? That's why I've always been hesitant to buy anything other than FMJ rounds.
 
Upvote 0
Hubbard;2254222; said:
Here's my question on the court issue. If you purchase those special rounds, ie Critical Defense, Glaser, etc, etc, wouldn't that make it look in court as you bought them for 1 reason, to kill someone? That's why I've always been hesitant to buy anything other than FMJ rounds.

There really haven't been any major test cases where someone suffered in court for using a quality JHP in a self defense shooting.

Unless constrained by the Hague Convention I personally would avoid FMJ for any potential use against animals/humans. The risk of over-penetration is higher as is the potential number shots needed to bring down the game/attacker.

In that regard a JHP is actually more humane, and that is the counter argument that would be made in court. Irregardless the use of FMJ would likely just bring about a claim of of dangerous 'military grade' ammunition. So really it's probably equals out in the end.

That being said it's probably best to avoid the use of ammunition using over the top marketing campaigns. For example: Hornady Zombie Max. Really? Luckily right now there aren't any loads that you might think of avoiding because they garnered a large amount of negative press attention, such as Winchester Black Talon back in the early 90's.

As far as gimmick frangible loads like Glaser, Extreme-Shock, MagSafe, Quick-Shock etc go...avoid them like the plague. They do not meet any of the criteria that is generally accepted as being necessary to reliably stop a determined attacker. When I mentioned to avoid birdshot loads in shotguns it was because they fail to penetrate deeply enough to reach the vital organs, most of the frangible handguns loads are essentially birdshot except roughly 1/5 the total projectile weight of a 12 gauge load.

FWIW Hornady specifically designed it's Critical Defense loads to feature expansion over penetration so if you are a believer in the '12" minimum' maxim then you might want to avoid that specific product line. On the other hand their LEO targeted Critical Duty line does meet the FBI criteria.
 
Upvote 0
I was an early adopter of using Glasers in small caliber hand guns. For carry or home defense using a small caliber handgun that's the way to go. Just don't use them for practice ammo! :tongue2:
 
Upvote 0
Taosman;2254538; said:
I was an early adopter of using Glasers in small caliber hand guns. For carry or home defense using a small caliber handgun that's the way to go. Just don't use them for practice ammo! :tongue2:

Let me reiterate:

Glasers and other frangible rounds do not meet the generally accepted penetration criteria for physiologically stopping a determined assailant as quickly as possible.

If you wish to pay several times more for ammunition that has performance significantly worse than a standard JHP round, that is certainly your prerogative. It is not however something I would recommend.
 
Upvote 0
Apache;2252474; said:
Best Home Protection:

Trained German Shephard.

Good with kids, wives, families. Bad with intruders.

Even better when they are trained to be home protection.

And you get to think up really cute/cool names.

Great dogs adopt the children as their own and woe be unto the person who tries to hard them.

Until an intruder shoots the dog. Then what?
 
Upvote 0
.45 acp FMJ rounds are very good self defense rounds and are not noted for over penetration like some other smaller caliber/higher velocity rounds but yeah I'd take JHP's in anything other than .45 acp.
Zombie max is just Critical Defense with a green instead of red insert so really no difference. The closest thing I know of to the old Black Talon is currently Remington's Gold Saber.
12 and 20 gauge shells in #4 and smaller birdshot are very effective anti-personnel rounds from the distances most likely to be encountered inside a dwelling and they don't over penetrated sheetrock like buckshot does while still penetrating people nicely.
 
Upvote 0
Wadcutter;2254952; said:
.45 acp FMJ rounds are very good self defense rounds and are not noted for over penetration like some other smaller caliber/higher velocity rounds but yeah I'd take JHP's in anything other than .45 acp.

9mm FMJ on top & .45 FMJ on the bottom:

jua58j.jpg


.45 ball can and will pass through an entire human torso (and that is coming from personal experience).

Zombie max is just Critical Defense with a green instead of red insert so really no difference.
Reread my post. I'm not talking about the round itself, I'm talking about how it's perception can be molded by someone with an agenda. A cartridge with an over the top marketing campaign will be far easier to portray as 'evidence' that individual using it is unbalanced or dangerous.

The closest thing I know of to the old Black Talon is currently Remington's Gold Saber.
Erm Winchester's Ranger T (previously SXT) is essentially evolved Black Talon.

12 and 20 gauge shells in #4 and smaller birdshot are very effective anti-personnel rounds from the distances most likely to be encountered inside a dwelling and they don't over penetrated sheetrock like buckshot does while still penetrating people nicely.
And once again reiterating...

Research over the past 30 years has shown that there is a strong correlation between a projectile's ability to penetrate at least 12" of ballistic gelatin and it's the likelihood of said project to be able to consistently stop a determined attacker quickly.

Bird shot (BB on down) does not meet the FBI's recommended 12" minimum criteria. Most diameters of bird shot do not penetrate half as deeply (6") in ballistic gelatin.

Yes bird shot can kill at close range but it does not produce the type of physiological injuries that have been shown to be the only way to consistently stop an assailant.

Earlier this year Bahrain troops used bird shot to disperse protestors. Not only did the vast majority of the protestors live, most of them ran to safety after being hit.

The image linked below is of an individual who received a load of bird shot at less than 20'. Once again the average distance for shootings in a home defense scenario is 20'.

GRAPHIC
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9461/birdshottz3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Muck;2254992; said:
9mm FMJ on top & .45 FMJ on the bottom:

jua58j.jpg


.45 ball can and will pass through an entire human torso (and that is coming from personal experience).

Reread my post. I'm not talking about the round itself, I'm talking about how it's perception can be molded by someone with an agenda. A cartridge with an over the top marketing campaign will be far easier to portray as 'evidence' that individual using it is unbalanced or dangerous.

Erm Winchester's Ranger T (previously SXT) is essentially evolved Black Talon.

And once again reiterating...

Research over the past 30 years has shown that there is a strong correlation between a projectile's ability to penetrate at least 12" of ballistic gelatin and it's the likelihood of said project to be able to consistently stop a determined attacker quickly.

Bird shot (BB on down) does not meet the FBI's recommended 12" minimum criteria. Most diameters of bird shot do not penetrate half as deeply (6") in ballistic gelatin.

Yes bird shot can kill at close range but it does not produce the type of physiological injuries that have been shown to be the only way to consistently stop an assailant.

Earlier this year Bahrain troops used bird shot to disperse protestors. Not only did the vast majority of the protestors live, most of them ran to safety after being hit.

The image linked below is of an individual who received a load of bird shot at less than 20'. Once again the average distance for shootings in a home defense scenario is 20'.

GRAPHIC
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9461/birdshottz3.jpg


Hell, .22 LR will produce a pass thru too under the right circumstances (and that is from personal experience) doesn't change what I was saying. In regards to Zombie max I guess if you are worried about perception vs effectiveness of a particular round either hire a better attorney if it comes to that or shoot a more vanilla round. My point was the zombie max is the same as critical defense other than color. I certainly wouldn't rule out crit. def. because it might be perceived as sounding too lethal, effective, scary etc. I don't see how shooting a round that is marketed to be effective against something that doesn't exist i.e. a "zombie" becomes a legal issue unless your attorney is incompetent. Ranger might be evolved Black Talon ( and Ranger is an exceptional round esp. for the price) but from a performance standpoint, specifically how the round acts upon striking the target, the information that I have been able to acquire suggests that Gold Saber acts more like Black Talon than Ranger does. Have to agree to disagree on the bird shot. Most shots fired at assailants are much less than 20 feet, more likely to be about 6 feet. This makes the bird shot even more effective. Short of a ballistic vest bird shot will kill effectively at that distance and won't over penetrate. The picture you attached appears to be from much farther than 20 feet judging from the size of the pattern on the person's torso. The pattern from even a cylinder bore choke should be measured in inches from 20 feet rather than in feet so not sure what that picture represented.
 
Upvote 0
Does anyone own a Glock? Specifically, the G19? Any feedback would be appreciated. (Looking for my first hand gun, I have been to the range twice, planning on getting myself conceal and carry as my Christmas gift to myself):io::oh:
 
Upvote 0
Bucks21;2273308; said:
Does anyone own a Glock? Specifically, the G19? Any feedback would be appreciated. (Looking for my first hand gun, I have been to the range twice, planning on getting myself conceal and carry as my Christmas gift to myself):io::oh:

Yes, I have a 19, 20 and 21. I only own one 9mm, the Model 19. What I like about it is not too small, not too large. Typical Glock reliability and ruggedness. Large enough that it is easy to control in rapid fire mode, still small enough that it can be carried concealed although not as easily as other smaller 9mm's. What else would you like to know?
 
Upvote 0
Wells4Heisman;2273777; said:
Due to recent crime in the area I'm thinking about purchasing a handgun. Any suggestions on a chaper reliable, solid pistol?

In autos, Kel-Tec, SCCY, Kahr, S&W and Ruger make good quality low/mid priced autos. The Taurus makes the cheapest revolvers of the "name" brands but typically have heavy trigger pull weights. Autos will be cheaper as a group than revolvers although you can spend high dollars on certain autos. There are decent autos in the $280-$400 dollar range. Revolvers typically start a little higher, in the #340-$450 range. If you want a revolver Taurus, S&W and Ruger are the big three.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top