Personal protection - (Was part of Africa on a GN250) [Archive]

jrandom

18th December 2007, 14:35

Putting this technicality aside, you might find a glock much more accurate. Accuracy with a revolver is best achieved when the muzzle is in the victim to be's mouth.

Au contraire, sir.

Have you done much pistol shooting? An inch-sized grouping off the bench at 25 yards is quite achievable with most quality 6" revolvers, but a Glock won't do anything like that straight out of the box.

If the subject interests you, pop into Sportways Gunshed in Mt Eden sometime and have a chat with Mike, who won the NZ Service Pistol Nationals in 2006 with a Ruger GP100.

Also, while a Glock is undoubtedly the best choice in terms of automatic pistol reliability, the good old double-action revolver simply cannot be beaten for "goes bang every time" confidence in harsh conditions.

Finn

18th December 2007, 14:45

Au contraire, sir.

Have you done much pistol shooting? An inch-sized grouping off the bench at 25 yards is quite achievable with most quality 6" revolvers, but a Glock won't do anything like that straight out of the box.

If the subject interests you, pop into Sportways Gunshed in Mt Eden sometime and have a chat with Mike, who won the NZ Service Pistol Nationals in 2006 with a Ruger GP100.

Also, while a Glock is undoubtedly the best choice in terms of automatic pistol reliability, the good old double-action revolver simply cannot be beaten for "goes bang every time" confidence in harsh conditions.

Yes, a lot in a previous life and recently at Brookby. Actually looking at taking it up again.

In the context of shooting moving African's, (they're pretty quick on their feet if you look at Olympic records) I would feel more confident with a glock than a revolver. However, tied to a post at 25 yards, a rock would do to.

jrandom

18th December 2007, 14:47

Yes, a lot in a previous life and recently at Brookby. Actually looking at taking it up again.

I've had to put my plans of becoming a competitive shooter on hold due to generally crazy levels of shit going on this year and next, but do keep in touch if you manage to get things off the ground vis-a-vis pistol shooting.

In the context of shooting moving African's, (they're pretty quick on their feet if you look at Olympic records) I would feel more confident with a glock than a revolver.

Yes, a G17 with a 30-round mag would certainly be the way to go in a target-rich environment.

Lucy

18th December 2007, 15:03

I've had to put my plans of becoming a competitive shooter on hold due to generally crazy levels of shit going on this year .

Sounds as though a gun would help solve this actually!
:jerry:

jrandom

18th December 2007, 15:13

Sounds as though a gun would help solve this actually!

I have plenty of guns.

Just not pistols, and I don't shoot competitively.

The Pastor

18th December 2007, 15:22

kevfromcoro

18th December 2007, 15:27

, (they're pretty quick on their feet if you look at Olympic records)

They are quick allright....
think they spend a lot of there time running away from lions

avgas

18th December 2007, 15:28

with a Ruger GP100.
I thought suzuki made that.
"Attempts to drag back on topic"

0arbreaka

18th December 2007, 19:20

Swoop

18th December 2007, 19:48

Wheel guns.
They are ok as a back-up. Primary is different.

jrandom

19th December 2007, 05:15

Personally Id go for the .45 Colt 1911...

Puh-lease. No way is any 1911 as reliable as a wheelgun or a Glock.

9mm is a waste of time imho.

You won't mind if I shoot you with one then?

:eek:

Wolf

19th December 2007, 07:37

Personally Id go for the .45 Colt 1911, mainly because its bloody good accuracy wise and stopping power is pretty decent, as well as being one of the most reliable semi autos around. 9mm is a waste of time imho.
Yehaaaaa! The ol' .45ACP vs 9mm FAWOMFT!

Hasn't quite been around as long as the the Catholic vs Protestant one but is older than the Linux vs Windoze debate.

How about we both get given a strict budget for ammo and we'll see who's more accurate in 6 months, eh? A nine-mil in the centre of the chest is far more effective than a .45 in the shoulder or the forearm...

If you want to use anything that costs more to feed than a nine mil, start with a nine mil, burn up shit-loads of cheap ammo until you're accurate and then get the other weapon and but a couple of hundred rounds through it - you'd already be accurate and all you'd have to do is get the feel for the new weapon, it'd cost you less than a few thousand rounds of the calibre of your choice - hardly sounds like a nine mil is a "waste of time" to me.

Unless, of course, you're one of those "The .45ACP/.357Mag/.44Mag/.454 Casull/.50AE/whatever is a magic wand and will kill a person if they look at it" idiots who doesn't believe that bullet placement has any bearing on the matter.

Romeo

19th December 2007, 07:41

So, carrying a big shiny expensive piece isn't going to make you an attractive target to these thug soldiers? I've seen people ruthlessly hunted down and killed over less bling. Strap a skanky old AK-47 to your back and they'll avoid you like the plague.

<img src="http://motivationalimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/ak47.jpg" alt="AK47 - When you absolutely, positively, have to kill every orc in the room" />

Lias

19th December 2007, 08:03

It's probably related to spending too much time around wolf but I'm starting to quite like the BMW touring bikes.. so my choice would be a R1200 GS, combined with a colt anaconda .44 with ivory grips with sledgehammer logo :niceone:

pritch

19th December 2007, 14:40

My vote goes to the Glock 21, but I'm biased.

I thought most Africans (too many anyway) already had a Kalashnikov...

0arbreaka

19th December 2007, 15:06

Yehaaaaa! The ol' .45ACP vs 9mm FAWOMFT!
Unless, of course, you're one of those "The .45ACP/.357Mag/.44Mag/.454 Casull/.50AE/whatever is a magic wand and will kill a person if they look at it" idiots who doesn't believe that bullet placement has any bearing on the matter.

Believe me im a firm believer in bullet placement, Ive done enough shooting to know that a well placed smaller caliber bullet is just as effective as a larger caliber bullet.

Wolf

19th December 2007, 15:45

If Lias had been spending too much time around me he'd be choosing a small, light chicken-chaser instead of the biggest bike BMW makes...

My preferred weapons for the task:

Pic1: Yamaha XT225 - nice and light, able to go nearly anywhere off-road at a decent clip (Lois Pryce used one to distance herself from a couple of fake cops on a rutted donkey-track in South America - to great effect)

Pic2: Generally, the only weapon I need - has served me well for a large number of years. Can't be taken off me and used against me in a fight and I've always got it on me when I need it.

As far as weapons go, it's pretty effective. It was all Ted Simon, Lois Pryce, her husband Austin Vince, Sjaak Lucassen, Jo and Gareth Morgan and a large number of other bikers have needed to use in some of the (reputedly) most dangerous countries in the World.

But if I were ever in a position where I had to carry a firearm to protect life and limb, I'd get one of these:

Pic3: Walther P99 in 9mm - loaded with 115-gr Cor Bon +P rounds. After I'd put a couple of thousand rounds through it under various conditions and was confident I could hit an actively hostile target with it.

And it'd still only be a secondary weapon - the primary being the one in Pic2.

As to P99 vs the Glock, I find the ergonomic profile of the P99 better suited to my hand than the Glock. Both are excellent weapons and the Glock holds more in the mag but that advantage is kind of nullified by the fact that I'd find it harder to shoot accurately than the P99.

Wolf

19th December 2007, 16:22

Believe me im a firm believer in bullet placement, Ive done enough shooting to know that a well placed smaller caliber bullet is just as effective as a larger caliber bullet.
Then your previous comment on 9mm being a "waste of time" is quite surprising, given that it is just as effective as the .45 - as well as being cheaper to buy and lighter to carry.

Personally, I see the benefits of a .22lr pistol as being even cheaper to feed than a 9mm and, while it won't teach you as much about recoil control and lessening your return-to-target times as a 9mm or .45, it'll still teach you the all-important aiming skills and muscle control required for maintaining steady performance. So I wouldn't even deem the ever-so-humble .22 as "a waste of time", let alone a proven military/police/self defence/target round such as the 9mm.

0arbreaka

19th December 2007, 16:56

When I said I thought it was a waste of time I was referring to the stopping power in which the 9mm round offers in comparison to that of the .45acp, In many if not most cases it takes more than two rounds to completely stop an assailant, while with .45acp it usually does not require more than two rounds to completely stop an assailant. Need I say that .45acp is also a proven and often highly recomended round for the various military/police/self defence/target uses.

Even with well placed shots, stopping power does play a large part completely stopping an assailant. Think about it this way, what would you use to stop a charging bull? I know I wouldnt use a .22lr or a 9mm.

If you want an example then look into the Steven Wallace case (http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=28532), it required 4 rounds to stop his assault against the attending officer.

sAsLEX

19th December 2007, 17:03

I like the P226........

And a R1.......

Wolf

20th December 2007, 00:58

Think about it this way, what would you use to stop a charging bull?
A swift side-step and a length of 2x2 usually does it.

As to "stopping power", that has more to do with how well the bullet traumatises tissue and induces shock (thus sapping his will to pursue the fight, failing an outright kill) than mere calibre - a 115-gr +P 9mm Jacketted Hollow Point has more "stopping power" than a .45ACP hard-ball and a friend of mine demonstrated experimentally that a .22lr hollow-point filled with mercury from a cheap thermometer can vapourise the back of a round strainer post so I'd hate to think what that'd do to human tissue.

Of course, mercury rounds are not "kosher" so far as personal protection goes but a good 9mm with a decent well-designed self-defence round generally has quite sufficient "stopping power" when it comes to seriously fucking up a human's equilibrium. Likewise a .45ACP with a well-designed self-defence round has quite sufficient "stopping power" in that respect. Any weapon with a poorly-designed round will fail, even a .50AE.

Of course, placement is essential - a good self-defence round in the arm is only likely to enrage an assailant but one or two in the bread basket can give him/her more pressing concerns than the logistics of dealing to you.

Note: I am crediting you with having the intelligence to be talking about true "stopping power" rather than the Hollyweird version wherein a heavy, high-powered round brings a charging man to an abrupt halt in his tracks and knocks him over (yet somehow fails to throw the shooter sixty feet backwards).

Of course, you're entitled to a contrary opinion to mine - but try telling someone who has a 9mm loaded with 115-gr Cor Bon +P JHPs levelled at your chest that he's wasting his time as it's not going to stop you...

And if you're really worried about stopping power, get a .357 Magnum revolver and load up with Federal 357B (.357 Mag 125-gr JHP) - it'll piss over the .45ACP and any other defensive handgun on the market. (And the good news is, you can feed it a diet of cheap .38 special ammo when practising at the range.)

Mr Merde

20th December 2007, 06:33

... Putting this technicality aside, you might find a glock much more accurate. Accuracy with a revolver is best achieved when the muzzle is in the victim to be's mouth.

Sorry to burst your bubble but revolvers are more intrinsically accurate than semi auto pistols.

Less moving parts, much tighter lock up and much less to go wrong with them.

First shot with a revolver is much faster.

Only in highly trained and skillful persons does a semi come into its own and also that semi needs to have some serious work done to it.

As an example of high skill revolver use.

BTW -- In the days when I was required to carry a pistol on me, my item of choice was a revolver. Chambered for .44 Special and holding 5 shots. It had a 3 inch barrel and weighed 19oz. Sat in the small of my back and was very comfortable. At 25 metres this pistol was capable of putting all 5 rounds in a group that measured 1" in diameter (if I did my part).

In 1934 Ed mcGivern fired 6 shots from a revolver in 45/100 ths of a second. The target was 10 feet from him and all bullet holes coud be covered with our 50 cent piece. This has not been beaten to this day. He used a stock stndard revolver double action.

Wolf

20th December 2007, 07:17

First shot with a revolver is much faster.
Can you qualify in what way and why?

Mikkel

20th December 2007, 07:37

I think you'll find that shooting Africans is illegal these days. If not, it is definitely frowned upon. Putting this technicality aside, you might find a glock much more accurate. Accuracy with a revolver is best achieved when the muzzle is in the victim to be's mouth.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that at least 15 African nations are currently in some kind of civil war, so as long as you shoot the right africans you'll be fine.
Ie; shoot rebels in government held areas and vice versa.

Yes, a lot in a previous life and recently at Brookby. Actually looking at taking it up again.

In the context of shooting moving African's, (they're pretty quick on their feet if you look at Olympic records) I would feel more confident with a glock than a revolver. However, tied to a post at 25 yards, a rock would do to.

African national - :laugh: - there is no country called Africa... There are like 3.5079 billion countries in Africa. I think the term you are looking for is negros - or as they are known in more colloquial terms niggas. :dodge:

In 1934 Ed mcGivern fired 6 shots from a revolver in 45/100 ths of a second. The target was 10 feet from him and all bullet holes coud be covered with our 50 cent piece. This has not been beaten to this day. He used a stock stndard revolver double action.

:eek: Crikey that's insane! :crazy:

Finn

20th December 2007, 08:10

Only in highly trained and skillful persons does a semi come into its own and also that semi needs to have some serious work done to it.

Thank you. In a close range hostile exchange of gun fire, I would feel much more comfortable with say a Glock with 30+ rounds.

Mikkel

20th December 2007, 08:28

Why settle for less if you can afford an UZI?

jrandom

20th December 2007, 08:30

Why settle for less if you can afford an UZI?

Because it'll jam.

Mikkel

20th December 2007, 08:32

Because it'll jam.

Make it a double and add some grenades!

Mr Merde

20th December 2007, 10:00

Thought that I better add my thoughts to this thread.

Taurus revolver chambered for .30 Carbine with soft projectiles. 4" barrel

holds 8 rounds and the 30 carbine round in a handgun is quite nasty.

Nothing that I would need two hands to operate, so no uzi's or such.

Revolver is my preference as there are no safeties that need to be operated so first shot is just draw and squeeze. faster than draw, disengage safety then squeeze as most autos have.

30 carbine loads would be stoked up quite considerably as revolvers are very strong in their actions and tend to be able to withstand higher pressures that semi's.

Personally I detest the Glocks. They made a name as a "plastic fantastic" but all those I have handled have been f#@king horrible until a lot of work has been done on them

jrandom

20th December 2007, 10:06

Personally I detest the Glocks. They made a name as a "plastic fantastic"...

They were designed in response to a military RFT for a service pistol, with the primary (only?) considerations being reliability, magazine capacity, and ease of use, and the G17 probably nailed those design requirements better than any other semiautomatic pistol has to date.

It's hardly surprising that cops and soldiers like them.

Guys who think of Glocks as target pistols, though, need their heads examined. I too detest the stock Glock trigger, and I am not a fan of the ergonomics.

Wolf

20th December 2007, 11:54

and I am not a fan of the ergonomics.
Yeah, you and me both. Dunno about the trigger as I've never actually fired one, but the angle of the grip blows goats. Ugly ones, with halitosis.

The M1911, the Luger, P-38, P99 and loads more besides all have a far more natural point.

Dunno if they just decided to throw a few hundred years of practical ergonomics out the window "just to be different" or whether it was a design constraint due to other parts of the weapon but, whatever it is, it's not particularly comfortable to aim.

Mr Merde

20th December 2007, 15:07

Yeah, you and me both. Dunno about the trigger as I've never actually fired one, but the angle of the grip blows goats. Ugly ones, with halitosis.

The M1911, the Luger, P-38, P99 and loads more besides all have a far more natural point.

Dunno if they just decided to throw a few hundred years of practical ergonomics out the window "just to be different" or whether it was a design constraint due to other parts of the weapon but, whatever it is, it's not particularly comfortable to aim.

Dont forget the CZ75 and later variants. Been copied by so many other makers. A natural feel to it. But one shouldnt exect much else as the CZ75 itself was based on a design by the "MAN". John Moses Browning and the Browning semi auto pistol of 1934. Same man designed the 1911.

sAsLEX

20th December 2007, 16:11

Revolver is my preference as there are no safeties that need to be operated so first shot is just draw and squeeze. faster than draw, disengage safety then squeeze as most autos have.

Neither does my weapon of choice, other than a slightly heavier first trigger squeeze.........P226 all the way...... only as I have no other choice

Wolf

20th December 2007, 16:44

Revolver is my preference as there are no safeties that need to be operated so first shot is just draw and squeeze. faster than draw, disengage safety then squeeze as most autos have.
Walther P99, Heckler and Koch P7, P226 and quite a few others, including the dreadful Glock, have no manual safety to disengage. Just draw and fire. In the case of most of them the first shot is a "long" double-action pull on the trigger like a revolver, subsequent shots are shorter single action pulls as the weapon self cocks. The P7 is an exception as gripping it cocks it and releasing it decocks it so it's pre-cocked single action all the way (and it's uncocked before it hits the floor if you drop it). They have a decocking mechanism to enable the weapon to be carried safely after loading or firing.

For those who prefer the consistency of a double-action revolver's trigger pull (rather than it changing from first to second shots) and don't like having to remember to uncock the weapon afterwards, there's always the P99DAO ("Double Action Only") which performs as its designation suggests - it does not remain cocked between shots and each pull of the trigger must first cock, then release the striker.

The semis mentioned are just as fast as a revolver, I'm told, and lots of modern semis are safe and reliable, despite the comparative mechanical complexity.

Of course, I'd personally stick with makes known to be reliable and not the fly-by-night outfits.

pritch

21st December 2007, 11:08

Guys who think of Glocks as target pistols, though, need their heads examined. .

That's funny I know someone who recently bought one for just that purpose. He did so because for the intended events it is as accurate as anything else that's available and because of the magazine capacity. It also costs waaay less than anything else that shoots as well.

Remember we are not comparing it to a multiple thousand dollar race gun.
We are talking "Standard" or "Production" here.

I too detest the stock Glock trigger, and I am not a fan of the ergonomics.

The trigger is different it's true, but where there's a will there's a way...
"Practice" would probably be a good place to start.

The ergonomics work just fine thanks :-)

Also I note that the US Army Ballistic Wounds Laboratory spent a considerable amount of time and millions of dollars in recent years discovering something I would have considered obvious. They proved that big bullets are more effective.

What was formerly a matter of opinion can now be considered a matter of fact.

Merry Christmas y'all

jrandom

21st December 2007, 11:19

That's funny I know someone who recently bought one for just that purpose. He did so because for the intended events it is as accurate as anything else that's available and because of the magazine capacity. It also costs waaay less than anything else that shoots as well.

I probably should have specified "apart from IPSC". Glocks do seem to do well there in the hands of skilled operators.

They're not really much chop for bullseye-style shooting, though.

pritch

21st December 2007, 12:48

I probably should have specified "apart from IPSC". <snip>
They're not really much chop for bullseye-style shooting, though.

Well I never heard of anybody wanting to take one to the Olympics. The item referred to is a .45 anyway.

Thing is that the second load tried put 5 shots offhand into all but 2 inches @ 22m, right at the point of aim. They'd have all been tens on an ISSF target.

The first load tried all went into three inches right where it was pointed.

The pistol was new, absolutely untouched - out of the box.

People who tell you Glocks can't shoot don't know shite.

jrandom

21st December 2007, 12:53

People who tell you Glocks can't shoot don't know shite.

Don't get me wrong. Glocks are great tools and I know well that many significant competitive action-shooting results have been achieved with them.

Value for money, I suppose, is the key thing. If Glocks were exactly the same gun at twice the price, I don't think anyone would bother with them, but they hit a very sweet bang-for-bucks spot.

And, of course, a lot of Glock's American fans will be wanting to have their pistol do double-duty as a weekend IPSC shooter and for personal defence carry. If I was in that situation, a Glock would start to look like a far more attractive option.

jrandom

21st December 2007, 12:55

Thing is that the second load tried put 5 shots offhand into all but 2 inches @ 22m, right at the point of aim. They'd have all been tens on an ISSF target.

One of the ROs at Central Shooters put a perfect four-round cloverleaf into the ten-ring at 25 yards with a Hi-Point .45 a while back (he probably still has that target ready to show off somewhere, heh) but I still wouldn't touch a Hi-Point with a bargepole...