Handguns: One shot stop vs double tap... which is better???

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by Six6Six

 

Let us know how that works out for a woman with a 200 pound attacker.

Good point.

Better yet, a woman attacked by a 200 pounder with a GUN!
There is a reason that they call guns equalizers.

@Six6Six: 21 feet (average combat distance in a gunfight) separate your from your handgun-armed attacker.....
You throw your scalpel. He shoots you. End of story.

Don't bring a scalpel to a gunfight.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by guppy

 

Having participated in several round-table discussions with law enforcement higher ups and attorneys, even state attorneys, all you really have to be able to articulate is that you feared for your life. No more and no less. In fact, the less you say to anyone the better.

Those are great points to know. Luckily, I did know those points beforehand:

1. You were in fear for your or a loved one's life
   
2. Comment you did not remember what happened because it all happened in a blur -- which will be true for most
   

As for the amount of information you give, it depends on who you're dealing with. But it is safer to err with "less is better". Because you can always give more information if investigation goes deeper.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Now, if you fired two shots then paused before firing the rest you've got yourself some trouble.

Not necessary. It can result from your training -- Plan B. You had no choice. The attacker was on the ground giving him a better, stable position to continue his attack with a gun.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Squeezing to slide-lock as long as you "feared for your life" is perfectly acceptable.

I think that's debatable depending on your peers, lawyers and judge. As for myself, I'd rather not fire repeatedly at a target. There's no control over that. Your are liable for every bullet. And I'd hate to have one stray and hit a bystander. That's why I prefer opening up with a "Controlled Pair" for 1vs1 scenarios. That is my philosophy. But it is good to read other doctrine.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The cops all hated that reality but eventually did concede it was the truth. Man, cops really just want to nail somebody, anybody on anything. Out of their own mouths they dont care about the circumstances or details that dont help them haul your ass in. If you're in a self-defense situation don't say anything to them at all. If they keep pressing say you want to go the hospital and take that time to calm down and call your lawyer because cops by their own admission to my face on several occasions just want to stick something to somebody and they dont care what or who. A reality which consequently shattered my faith in the system. I cannot believe without reasonable doubt that any felon or offender is actually 100% guilty. There are always those voices in the back of my head reminding me of what those cops and lawyers said during those meetings casting doubt on every conviction or convict I happen to run across.

That is a darn good point. It has given food for thought which I will think on. Yet you can not generalize that all cops are like that.

Personally, the cops I do know are the opposite. They like it when people cooperate. With cooperation, those cops will go the extra mile to help out the true victim in these shootings, not the criminal who got shot by a person defending himself. Problem arises when they see the shooter not cooperating and intentionally withholding information. That makes cops more suspicious. It will motivate to interrogate further to find out the truth.

My advice is there's no absolute advice to give in these situations. Each person will have to go with that they feel is right. Is the cop taking the report a jerk? Or is the cop sympathetic? Make the judgement for yourself when the situation arises.

Heaven forbid any of us get into an actual shooting. I sure don't want to be in one. My training has taught me that.

Originally posted by Skewed
I am a firm believer in one shot one kill, but I do not think one is any better than the other.

I think I will let the situation dictate which method to use.

I too hope to achieve the ‘one shot, one kill’. But if it is a one-on-one firefight and ammo is not a concern, especially in close range environment…. Double tap till it drops. Surely within 4-6 rounds, it is dead. Now if the enemy is more than one, conserve and relax… make every shot count. Of course, you won’t have the time to align your sights as if you were at a range. Then again, any avid gun lover with any shooting experience will let the adrenaline kick in and immediately calculate the enemy to ammo ratio.

Originally posted by Six6Six
Always someone with a gun thread....so disappointing that people are now so detached from
life that using a gun is the preferred method to kill. So plain, so cowardly, so borrrrring!

Was this sarcasm? Please tell me you were being sarcastic. Its hard to read people's emotions across the digital web. Usually someone tags their emotions, like so "". Because if you were serious, you opened a can of replies that may offend you, like so...

... Wha?... ??? Huh?!... What?! Wait, WHAT?! What the family! Have you ever heard of the saying, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight"? Because I like to extend that saying with:

Never bring a knife to a gun fight
Never bring a handgun to a rifle fight
Never bring a rifle to a tank fight

If you like taking the rough road, be my guest. Just let me know who you are. Because when TSHTF, I would like to be on the opposing team.

That being said. I don't believe knives should be taken out of any person's self defense arsenal. Its great to have options. Because you never know when Mr. Murphy pays you a visit.

Originally posted by Six6Six
I prefer the use of Number 7 scalpel (two of). Or a gutting knife, Serrated on one side.

Again, you can apply the same technique as the gun,,,,

Knife techniques bare no resemblance with gun techniques. Please explain so I can understand.

Originally posted by Six6Six
No gun needed. Much more inventive this way.

You take the inventive way, despite guns being engineering marvels compared to knives. Just make sure you're in-shape and within 21 feet of your attacker.

BTW, in court, you have greater disadvantage when killing with a melee weapon or bare hands than with a firearm.

Every time i comment i seem to stop a thread dead in its tracks so sign me up for the one shot stop


regards
threadkiller

I would say that people practice shooting with out aiming with a pull from what ever they carry their weapon or wherever they keep it.. No way to practice with your adrenalin up, unless you have access to a setup like the military uses or FBI have, the mock up room/house setup.

I know this is a one shot or 2 shot. As long as he is standing, shoot. 2 makes it harder 3 shot and 3 shot.
Some times I am forced to carry a 380 that I use gold dot ammo. I have 6 clips for it, but we get into changing clips. I would prefer my S&W Model 66 357. My hands are too small to use wide double stack 9mm. I want to be able to use one hand if needed. Shoot them in the foot. I could never under stand why the TV or movies do not do that if you can while behind something that will let you do so.

I would prefer a shotgun if I could, but that is off topic. Sorry if I got carried away.

always aim for the spinal cord (the throat) i was told....doesn't matter what the brain says to do if the body cant execute the action

wow,

This is the most ridiculous thread I have ever seen!

Shoot until the threat is nuetralized. (please note the "period")

Originally posted by Papagrune
I would say that people practice shooting with out aiming with a pull from what ever they carry their weapon or wherever they keep it.. No way to practice with your adrenalin up, unless you have access to a setup like the military uses or FBI have, the mock up room/house setup.

I know this is a one shot or 2 shot. As long as he is standing, shoot. 2 makes it harder 3 shot and 3 shot.
Some times I am forced to carry a 380 that I use gold dot ammo. I have 6 clips for it, but we get into changing clips. I would prefer my S&W Model 66 357. My hands are too small to use wide double stack 9mm. I want to be able to use one hand if needed. Shoot them in the foot. I could never under stand why the TV or movies do not do that if you can while behind something that will let you do so.

I would prefer a shotgun if I could, but that is off topic. Sorry if I got carried away.

There are slimmer semi-auto handguns out there that might work well for you. Just about any Kahr pistol has a very slim frame. They are also available in several calibers. Or a Walther PPK in .380. Also very slim.

Using magazines might be a better option than a revolver and speedloader or moon clips.

reply to post by DaddyBare


Interesting topic....loved the chart! I subscribe to the theory of "empty the magazine." And of course, carry more than one magazine, also don't leave home without a knife...

I think the best summation to this question comes from an old military saying. "Life is expensive. Ammo is cheap. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice."

Originally posted by Papagrune
I would say that people practice shooting with out aiming with a pull from what ever they carry their weapon or wherever they keep it.. No way to practice with your adrenalin up, unless you have access to a setup like the military uses or FBI have, the mock up room/house setup.

Not entirely true. Granted there is no way to simulate true Combat stress. There are ways to up your adrenaline while practice shooting.

1. Hard exercise before shooting (take caution your mind is still working to maintain the 4 firearm safety rules)
   
2. Competitive shooting -- participate in friendly competitions or with just your friends; added urgency to finish first helps simulate "pressure"
   
3. Throw in time pressure -- hard pressure, like 1.25 seconds to draw from holster and fire a controlled pair at target; requires a precise stop watch.
   

(there are more ways but you get the idea.)

Firing until out shows a lack of training and skill...
a firearm is a specialized tool... one that requires training and practice to use...
there are other places besides the NRA to learn to shoot and have fun...like IDPA
youtu.be...

Originally posted by guppy
As for the amount of information you give, it depends on who you're dealing with. But it is safer to err with "less is better". Because you can always give more information if investigation goes deeper.

I suppose that may work in the US, but in the UK when we are read our rights it states;

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, anything that you later rely on in court. Anything that you do say may be given in evidence."

Then again we don't shoot anyone in the UK, so it's a pretty moot point.

It depends upon the gun, the load, the skill of the user, the situation. It is very, very rare for the US civilian to have to HIT more than 2 attackers in any one scenario. It is something like 5 to 1 odds that he won't have to hit more than 1, regardless of how many are present. When they see 1-2 of their "homeys" burned down, the rest flee. What is a LOT more common is complete misses of the man, or bad hits, so I recommend that you fire numerous times at the chest, unless you can toss up a soda can, draw from ccw and hit it, 9 times out of 10 tries. If you are not this skilled, or the range is not more than 3 ft, don't try for the head. The skull stops or deflects many bullets, especially if the angle of impact is not the ideal one of 90 degrees.

If you have to think about things like that then you don't practice enough and maybe you should get a bigger bore.

It depends on the scenario.

Any .22 when fired into a skull at point blank range has this propensity to penetrate one side and sort of rattle around, just about ensuring a one shot drop. That is the important thing... to drop your opponent like a sack of potatoes in as little time as possible. If you are scared and sleepy and the light is dim and there are one OR MORE opponents then you want to act as confidently as you can with the appropriate weapon.

My favorite for close up work is a Remington pump 12 gauge model 870 with a wood stock and a mag extender. Over penetration is limited by a lo base 2 3/4" #8 bird shot. You ever see what that does to a one gallon jug filled with water at 15 feet? The sound of a 12 gauge slide being racked is about the scariest noise one can conjure and EVERYONE within earshot knows what that means.

CHIK-CHIK!!!

I can react, twist my wrists up and hit the chest at 10 ft in .50 second or a bit less. you, starting from a standing position, wont cover more than 6 ft in /50 second. 21 ft, only a bruce lee can charge in 1.5 seconds, nearly everyone needs 2.0 seconds to do this. I can react, draw from ccw belt rig and get 5 hits in 2.0 seconds, at 10 ft, which is where you will be (or closer) in the 1 second it takes me to draw and fire, from a ccw belt rig, if you started at 21 ft. I can also jump back as I draw, back up as I fire, buying me the time and space to fire another 3-4 shots. No, 4-5 shots are NOT all that likely to suffice, unless you are both a master shottist at such things and a hardened combat veteran as well. Most shots in combat miss the enemy ENTIRELY, and most hits are poor hits. There is ZERO reason to believe that a shoulder or gut hit will suffice, at least not for a minute or so. Even solid chest hits often take 5 seconds to take effect, especially if you haven't riddled his chest, 10 hits in 2 seconds, which CAN be done, in a couple of ways. :-)

get a $100 electronic shooting timer from ShootingChrony. Stopwatch timing is off at least .2 second, plus or minus, with the SAME guy timing, when he is SHARP. Let him get tired or distracted, and it goes to .3 second plus or minus, and if you have several different people timing events, on a day long match, it will be plus or minus .50 second, which is total bs. I can get 5 hits per second at realistic ranges 5 yds and less, so a full second of "play" will mean the diff between 1st place and 50th place, at a big match. Forget the stopwatch, it's bs.

the foot is likely to have no effect at all, adrenalized men wont even notice that you hit their foot, and it's too small and mobile a target, much too far away from the vitals, too likely to richochet into other people, etc. It's a STUPID aiming point, THATS why you don't see anyone advocate it. ditto the spine, it's MUCH too small a mark. most shots in combat miss the ENTIRE MAN.

My nightstand gun is a .357 Magnum with 125 gr JHPs so I'm hopeful of the "one shot stop". Since I don't have a lot of faith in the OSS any bad guy in my house is going to get 2 or 3 before I stop to assess the damage. Odds are two .357 rounds COM will equal dead bad guy but at least Florida agrees with me intruders in the middle of the night are a threat just by their presence.