Help me pick a gun to buy!

[brandon]

I assumed that to stop an attacker you didn't need to kill him but I guess to be 100% sure it's the only way.

You don't shoot to kill. As has already been said several times in this thread, you shoot to stop the attack. If the attacker is a deranged sociopath high on PCP, then you will probably need to continue firing until he is dead. On the other hand, if your attacker is a more civil fellow, one shot may be enough to stop him.

 

[Pericles]

I assumed that to stop an attacker you didn't need to kill him but I guess to be 100% sure it's the only way.

The decision is not entirely yours, as you did not initiate the threat to life. We no longer live in the type of society in which upon being accosted, you might reply-

I'm terribly sorry, but as we have not been properly introduced, so I can no longer speak to your request for my money, or to do as you will with my life, or my daughter. Furthermore, I feel it necessary to inform you, that should you persist in this rather unreasonable behaviour, I shall be forced to notify the proper authorities.

Introducing a firearm into the interaction means that the situation has escalated to the point that you have concluded that the life of you and / or your family is at risk. At that point, it is no longer the time to be nice.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

re: "shooting to wound"

question: if someone is running towards you from 15 feet away, at full tilt with the intent to do you harm, how long will it take him to clear that distance?

(about 2 seconds)

question: if someone is 15 feet away with a firearm and an intent to do you harm, they will NOT be shooting to wound, how long will it take for them to point and shoot vs your trying to aim for the shoulder or the knee you are looking for?

(they will be on target at minimum a full second before you are)

So yeah, clear that notion from your head right away and don't bring it back again. If you are ever, somehow by some miracle, in a situation where shooting to wound somehow IS a viable option, then you will be well beyond the "planning ahead" stage anyway, and your reaction will not be instinctive, but semi-rational. If you try to plan to wound, then you will be dead. That is not a guess. If events are somehow moving slowly enough, and the unique situation is strange enough to actually allow a wounding shot, not only would your case be highly unusual, but you would necessarily have had plenty of time to reason it out after the commitment to violence has already been made, and the effect of adrenaline has been ongoing long enough to compensate.

Point is, while it does happen in real life, it is so rare as to be akin to hitting the lottery. You don't plan ahead to hit the lottery.

 

[AFPVet]

You don't shoot to kill. As has already been said several times in this thread, you shoot to stop the attack. If the attacker is a deranged sociopath high on PCP, then you will probably need to continue firing until he is dead. On the other hand, if your attacker is a more civil fellow, one shot may be enough to stop him.

If the subject does not cease action after COM hits, it's time for a CNS hit.

 

[oyarde]

re: "shooting to wound"

question: if someone is running towards you from 15 feet away, at full tilt with the intent to do you harm, how long will it take him to clear that distance?

(about 2 seconds)

question: if someone is 15 feet away with a firearm and an intent to do you harm, they will NOT be shooting to wound, how long will it take for them to point and shoot vs your trying to aim for the shoulder or the knee you are looking for?

(they will be on target at minimum a full second before you are)

So yeah, clear that notion from your head right away and don't bring it back again. If you are ever, somehow by some miracle, in a situation where shooting to wound somehow IS a viable option, then you will be well beyond the "planning ahead" stage anyway, and your reaction will not be instinctive, but semi-rational. If you try to plan to wound, then you will be dead. That is not a guess. If events are somehow moving slowly enough, and the unique situation is strange enough to actually allow a wounding shot, not only would your case be highly unusual, but you would necessarily have had plenty of time to reason it out after the commitment to violence has already been made, and the effect of adrenaline has been ongoing long enough to compensate.

Point is, while it does happen in real life, it is so rare as to be akin to hitting the lottery. You don't plan ahead to hit the lottery.

Yes , and that would be one "very fast" two seconds...

 

[bwlibertyman]

I think you guys are getting hung up on something that is a bit removed from the topic. If someone attacks you should you do anything in your power to disarm or stop him? Yes. I was commenting that if I had the choice to kill or to disarm the assailant that I would choose the latter. Does this mean that I will point the gun at his feet and most likely miss? I would assume no.

I understand that if this confrontation ever happens that a lethal shot is not only very likely but probably needed depending on the situation of course.

Do any of you disagree that you would rather kill your attacker when there "is" a chance to merely disarm him? I know this might not be the only choice but with the assumption that that choice is there I think that is what I would do.

Now is this all hypothetical "I don't want to kill people if I don't have to"? Probably.

Again, I was merely pointing out that if the option was there I would take it. I am very aware that that option might not be there.

I think this might clear some things up. I think.

 

[osan]

I think you guys are getting hung up on something that is a bit removed from the topic. If someone attacks you should you do anything in your power to disarm or stop him? Yes. I was commenting that if I had the choice to kill or to disarm the assailant that I would choose the latter. Does this mean that I will point the gun at his feet and most likely miss? I would assume no.

I understand that if this confrontation ever happens that a lethal shot is not only very likely but probably needed depending on the situation of course.

Do any of you disagree that you would rather kill your attacker when there "is" a chance to merely disarm him? I know this might not be the only choice but with the assumption that that choice is there I think that is what I would do.

Now is this all hypothetical "I don't want to kill people if I don't have to"? Probably.

Again, I was merely pointing out that if the option was there I would take it. I am very aware that that option might not be there.

I think this might clear some things up. I think.

Points well taken, but be aware that we )or at least I) don't know enough about you, your experiences, etc. to know how to take what you wrote. Since we are mostly looking after one anothers' backs, we respond by pointing out possibly dangerous flaws in one's expressed thoughts. We would greatly prefer the good guys not go and get themselves ghosted or worse. It is a crazy world.

 

[Acala]

I think you guys are getting hung up on something that is a bit removed from the topic. If someone attacks you should you do anything in your power to disarm or stop him? Yes. I was commenting that if I had the choice to kill or to disarm the assailant that I would choose the latter. Does this mean that I will point the gun at his feet and most likely miss? I would assume no.

I understand that if this confrontation ever happens that a lethal shot is not only very likely but probably needed depending on the situation of course.

Do any of you disagree that you would rather kill your attacker when there "is" a chance to merely disarm him? I know this might not be the only choice but with the assumption that that choice is there I think that is what I would do.

Now is this all hypothetical "I don't want to kill people if I don't have to"? Probably.

Again, I was merely pointing out that if the option was there I would take it. I am very aware that that option might not be there.

I think this might clear some things up. I think.

I think that when you mentioned targeting specific body parts in an attempt to shoot less lethally, you triggered some deep concern. You cannot plan to shoot an attacker non-lethally. Period. It is a tactically unsound and dangerous idea. You MUST plan, and practice to shoot to stop the attack. And that means center of mass or head (in the case of body armor). Not the shoulder. Not the hand. Not the knee. You will be lucky to hit your attacker AT ALL even when aiming at the center of mass. If you have not done any shooting with a handgun, you are in for an awakening as to just how hard it is to hit anything. And when you start to think you are getting good, try a moving target. It is common for cops to shoot dozens of rounds at a suspect and miss him entirely. And I can assure you they are not shooting to wound.

Will you kill your attacker by shooting center of mass or head? Maybe. A surprising percentage of people survive gunshot wounds.

Now you seem to be asking the hypothetical question if we would disarm an attacker rather than shoot him if given a chance. Of course the answer is yes. But the probability that you will be given that choice is so small as to be insignificant. And this arose in the context of a very practical question about buying a gun. So you got very practical advice. Shoot to stop the attack. And that means shoot in a way that you are likely to hit your attacker and hit in a way that stops him from attacking you. Center of mass and if that doesn't work or there is body armor involved, head. He isn't going to like it. He might die as a result. That is his problem. If you shoot and miss, it is YOUR problem.

Sorry to be hitting you over the head with this, but it is really important.

 

[bwlibertyman]

I want to say thank you again for the advice. I agree with what you guys are saying and I understand it more now.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Lots of good advice in this thread and I think although the comments may have turned off topic, I think that they are right on topic of having the proper mindset for the purpose of your firearm purchase. Some of the comments may have sounded condescending but I didn’t take them that way and I don’t think they were intended to be condescending.

Ok, now back to the purchase itself. Forgive me if I read through this thread too quickly and I missed it but I didn’t see any mention of buying a hammerless revolver. If concealment is a factor, hammerless may be the way to go. Depending on your method of concealment, a hammerless revolver will more than likely reduce the time it takes to remove it from a concealed position. I am currently in a similar situation as you wanting to buy a handgun for self defense purposes but I already have a 357 revolver, it is just too big and heavy to try to conceal and the hammer acts as a snagging point so if you are dead set on a revolver, I would get one in a snubbed 357 that is hammerless or you could “bob” the hammer, which means cut off the thumb lever and round it off, either way, I think this is what you want.

Here is a good choice for a hammerless;
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
http://www.snubnose.info/docs/m640.htm

and here is a good choice for a small standard revolver;
http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/

and I have always liked the Walther PPK’s for a good concealed firearm but its not a revolver;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Walther_PPK_1848.jpg

 

[Acala]

Lots of good advice in this thread and I think although the comments may have turned off topic, I think that they are right on topic of having the proper mindset for the purpose of your firearm purchase. Some of the comments may have sounded condescending but I didn’t take them that way and I don’t think they were intended to be condescending.

Ok, now back to the purchase itself. Forgive me if I read through this thread too quickly and I missed it but I didn’t see any mention of buying a hammerless revolver. If concealment is a factor, hammerless may be the way to go. Depending on your method of concealment, a hammerless revolver will more than likely reduce the time it takes to remove it from a concealed position. I am currently in a similar situation as you wanting to buy a handgun for self defense purposes but I already have a 357 revolver, it is just too big and heavy to try to conceal and the hammer acts as a snagging point so if you are dead set on a revolver, I would get one in a snubbed 357 that is hammerless or you could “bob” the hammer, which means cut off the thumb lever and round it off, either way, I think this is what you want.

Here is a good choice for a hammerless;
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
http://www.snubnose.info/docs/m640.htm

and here is a good choice for a small standard revolver;
http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/

and I have always liked the Walther PPK’s for a good concealed firearm but its not a revolver;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Walther_PPK_1848.jpg

Yes. The downside is that you are stuck shooting double action only. But that is probably not a big deal as you should be practicing defensive revolver shooting double action anyway.

The shrouded hammer revolver has even one more advantage than the hammerless - it can be fired repeatedly while the revolver is inside a purse or coat pocket without having anything block the hammer. This might be a very useful option especially for a woman. It would, for example, allow her to walk to her car with one hand on the gun but still in her purse and, if need be, fire right through the side of the purse. It is such a great tactic, I might start carrying a purse just so I can use it!

Oh, here's another option to consider - laser aiming device. I put crimson trace grips on my 1911 and they are really nifty! Not so great in bright light conditions, but in a home defense situation I think they are awesome.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Speaking of man purses,

don’t use a purse like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXwRLaEM0Gs

and this one is too big;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUJ36nFdOyg

Here’s one that’s just right;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzRqkYM-TlE&feature=player_embedded#at=19

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

357/38 special revolver by s&w
then
12 gauge mossberg 500
then either
.308 or .556/223 battle rifle

then get all the ammo you can and you will be set

 

[AFPVet]

357/38 special revolver by s&w
then
12 gauge mossberg 500
then either
.308 or .556/223 battle rifle

then get all the ammo you can and you will be set

...don't like 870's? Mossberg's good too, but there's nothing wrong with a Remington 870 Revolvers are ok... the only problem is that they are a bit different than shooting an auto. If you don't cock the hammer each time, your rounds are going to be slightly off POI due to the rotating cylinder. Battle rifles are a good thing to have... I agree. I would suggest either .308, 7.62X39 Russian, or .223/5.56 NATO chamberings.

 

[Verrater]

I think you guys are getting hung up on something that is a bit removed from the topic. If someone attacks you, should you do anything in your power to disarm or stop him? Yes. I was commenting that if I had the choice to kill or to disarm the assailant that I would choose the latter. Does this mean that I will point the gun at his feet and most likely miss? I would assume no.

I'm confused as to your statement, if you would clarify I would appreciate it.

If you had the choice to let him put down his knife, club, bat, etc. I personally would find that great, anytime you can prevent a death is great, but take your personal safety into consideration before the attacker. However, if you try to disarm someone wielding a gun, while you are carrying a gun, you are endangering not only yourself, but others. But that, is of course, just my opinion.

 

[bwlibertyman]

I'm talking about 2 scenarios.

1 where there is the option to disarm and not kill.

The other where a body shot to a bodily organ is necessary.

If the first option presents itself I would rather disarm than automatically kill.

If the second option presents itself then obviously there's no other choice.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

The only time I would use force in a situation like that is when it is called for it and I don't really have time to rationalize whether I need to pull the trigger or not. If its you are me, I am going to do whatever I can to make sure I am still standing to defend myself, my family and my home.

Revolvers are great weapons because even if YOU can't load it or if you were hurt, loading and shooting a revolver is FAR EASIER than anyone trying to learn how to eject a clip, load and relock that puppy.

Revolvers and shotguns are the self defenses best friends. Simple, one load at a time if needed, jamming is next to non existent in both applications as well. I like the rem 870's but have always loved the action of the moss 500's

 

[oyarde]

My $.02:

Avoid .410. If you are serious about protecting yourself, you should get a more serious payload.

If you are brand new to shooting guns, get yourself a .22LR pistol and a membership at your local gun range. .22LR is cheap so you won't feel guilty about practicing. It also has very little recoil, so you (hopefully) aren't going to learn bad habits out of the gate. Practice shooting. Get proficient with your .22LR.

Then you will be in a much better position to try out more powerful calibers and find something that you can be comfortable and proficient with.

That said, .357 revolvers can shoot .38spl ammo. They are heavier guns, so less recoil. Suggest you go to a range where you can rent some guns and try them out.

I picked up some nifty .410 rounds yesterday loaded with discs and buck , pretty pricey at $12 for ten .

 

[nolies1776]

Ruger SP101 w/ 3" barrel...

 

[chudrockz]

http://s649.photobucket.com/albums/uu220/NAS-T-MAG/?action=view&current=22Glock30SF.jpg&newest=1