jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (09/19/86)
Article: 9:29
My wife and I are each interested in buying a handgun.
My wife prefers revolvers. She is interested in the
Colt Python with a six inch barrel. I am wondering
if the new Ruger GP-100 may be a reasonable choice.
Can anyone make a suggestion?
I am interested in autoloaders in 9mm or 45ACP. I have
only shot automatics in .22 caliber. I am wondering
about the recoil. I have shot .38 Special and .357
Magnum. The recoil of the .38 Special seemed moderate.
The .357 round was fun to shoot occasionally, but would
probably not be very enjoyable if it was used
for all target practice. How does the recoil of the
9mm and .45 compare to these?
Now a question that has probably been asked before: as
I understand it the Colt .45 is single action. It seems
that for a defensive weapon for instance in the home
that double action is almost imperative since a double
action can be stored so that it can be picked up and the
trigger squeezed to fire. I don't think I would want
to store a .45 with the hammer back. The Colt .45
seems to be very popular but because of the single
action I am wondering about the new Ruger 9mm. I
have been sort of going back and forth between the two for a while.
Any ideas regarding this subject will be greatly appreciated
since I am so undecided.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary R. Thrapp
San Diego, CA
UUCP: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!noscvax!thrappjkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (10/10/86)
Article: 10:11 > I am interested in autoloaders in 9mm or 45ACP. I have > only shot automatics in .22 caliber. I am wondering > about the recoil. I have shot .38 Special and .357 > Magnum. The recoil of the .38 Special seemed moderate. > The .357 round was fun to shoot occasionally, but would > probably not be very enjoyable if it was used > for all target practice. How does the recoil of the > 9mm and .45 compare to these? The recoil of a 9mm is comparatively soft (and, of course, a lot depends on the weapon itself). If you're looking for a "first" 9mm, I would suggest the Taurus PT99; it's a relatively inexpen- sive copy of the Beretta M92. Workmanship is excellent, as is performance (I've been averaging 1-1/2" groups at 25 yds. using Federal FMJ's and JHP's without a malfunction in over 600 rds.). Takedown and cleaning is simple; release the takedown lever and the weapon practically comes apart in your hand. The adjustable sights are a nice plus. It, too, is a double action, but the trigger pull in double-action mode is excessive. It makes the succeeding rounds in single-action somewhat uncontrolled (I'm not a fan of double-action autos, nor carrying/storing any weapon in condition 1...being a 'C' programmer all sequences start with 0, right?). Besides, with the hammer down on a loaded chamber in a single-action, you only have to cock the hammer anyway; so you don't gain much in double-action autos. Hope the info helps! ---------------------- Mitch -The "Code" Warrior- Corrado ptsfa!pbcna!mdc
jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (10/10/86)
Article: 10:5 Choosing the right gun is a personal decision comparable to choosing a car. Your wife should have her own gun which which she feels comfortable. The Python is good .357. The GP-100 is not available in this area, so I have no opinion of the gun. Usually, I wait a year whenever any new gun is introduced because I want someone else to discover any production bugs. Based on my experience with the Ruger Security Six, I think the Ruger design is better than the Colt's from a maintenance view, and has nice balance for a duty revolver. Since you live in San Diego, visit the Gun Company north of Friars Road and take a look at the models. Regarding double action vs. single action: if you know what you are doing, there is no safety advantage for the double action. A cocked and locked (thumb-safety on) .45 auto is as safe a gun as any. The stopping power if the .45 is much better than that of the .38 Special. The auto is easier to reload, though if this is a self-defense situation, we hope the confrontation would end without having to fire. My personal choice would be the Colt .45 officer's model or the Commander model. They should cost under $440 a piece. If you are tight on funds, maybe the Astra A-80 or Llama in .45 ACP might be considered. Jon Kaplowitz ihnp4!erc3ba!jfka
jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (10/23/86)
Apparently-To: jkh@opal.berkeley.edu
Article: 10:36
There are a few things to consider when purchasing a "home-defense" weapon.
First, your neighbors. Any kind of weapon firing solid bullets, such as a
handgun or rifle, is perfectly capable of going through 2 or 3 walls in a
typical apartment complex and blowing your neighbor's 2-day-old baby in two.
A shotgun is no garauntee against this, either. A couple of years ago, a
young boy was playing in his garage. A guy across the street fired a 12-gauge
loaded with #00 buck, and one of the pellets penetrated the garage door and
killed the poor kid instantly.
Second, familiarity. EVERYBODY who might be using the weapon should go out
to a shooting range and fire a couple hundred rounds through it, and become
completely familiar with loading, unloading (jettisoning unfired shells), and
cleaning. The point is, if you EVER wake up in the middle of the night and
hear somebody knocking around downstairs, you, and CERTAINLY your wife, unless
she's an ex-FBI agent, are going to be VERY uptight. There's a good chance
you'll forget to flip off the safety or forget to chamber in a shell. Cold
sweat time!
Third, weapon selection. The only solid-bullet piece that is safe would be
a high-velocity, small-caliber weapon such as a .223. These bullets will
disintegrate upon hitting any object of substance. However, if your victim
is wearing heavy winter clothes, you might not accomplish much even if you
did hit him. That brings us to buckshot. One thing to remember here is that
regardless of the size of the shot, the total weight of the load, and thus
its total energy, remains the same. A standard 12-gauge #00 load only has
9 to 12 pellets. If only two or three hit him, you could find yourself in an
exciting situation. Of course, smaller stuff like #7 1/2's won't have enough
penetration, although, they would probably knock him down. I'd suggest BB shot
or perhaps #2's. These give you a much denser pattern (45 to 100 pellets), yet
can penetrate well, and enough of them will hit the target to do the job. It
would be comparable to getting hit in the chest with a bowling ball travelling
about 40-50 mph. If your wife is also to use the thing, she'd probably be
better off with a 20-gauge, which has MUCH less recoil than a big 12, yet is
just as effective. My own "house gun" is an old Sears 20-gauge pump, loaded
with #4's in 3-inch magnum shells and sawed off to 18 inches. Picked it up
at a pawn shop for $100. It's light, fast, and deadly. Good luck.
Ron Morgan
--
osmigo1, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA: osmigo1@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP: ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo1 allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo1 gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo1
seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1 harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (10/27/86)
Article: 10:40
There are a few things to consider when purchasing a "home-defense" weapon.
First, your neighbors. Any kind of weapon firing solid bullets, such as a
handgun or rifle, is perfectly capable of going through 2 or 3 walls in a
typical apartment complex and blowing your neighbor's 2-day-old baby in two.
A shotgun is no garauntee against this, either. A couple of years ago, a
young boy was playing in his garage. A guy across the street fired a 12-gauge
loaded with #00 buck, and one of the pellets penetrated the garage door and
killed the poor kid instantly.
Second, familiarity. EVERYBODY who might be using the weapon should go out
to a shooting range and fire a couple hundred rounds through it, and become
completely familiar with loading, unloading (jettisoning unfired shells), and
cleaning. The point is, if you EVER wake up in the middle of the night and
hear somebody knocking around downstairs, you, and CERTAINLY your wife, unless
she's an ex-FBI agent, are going to be VERY uptight. There's a good chance
you'll forget to flip off the safety or forget to chamber in a shell. Cold
sweat time!
Third, weapon selection. The only solid-bullet piece that is safe would be
a high-velocity, small-caliber weapon such as a .223. These bullets will
disintegrate upon hitting any object of substance. However, if your victim
is wearing heavy winter clothes, you might not accomplish much even if you
did hit him. That brings us to buckshot. One thing to remember here is that
regardless of the size of the shot, the total weight of the load, and thus
its total energy, remains the same. A standard 12-gauge #00 load only has
9 to 12 pellets. If only two or three hit him, you could find yourself in an
exciting situation. Of course, smaller stuff like #7 1/2's won't have enough
penetration, although, they would probably knock him down. I'd suggest BB shot
or perhaps #2's. These give you a much denser pattern (45 to 100 pellets), yet
can penetrate well, and enough of them will hit the target to do the job. It
would be comparable to getting hit in the chest with a bowling ball travelling
about 40-50 mph. If your wife is also to use the thing, she'd probably be
better off with a 20-gauge, which has MUCH less recoil than a big 12, yet is
just as effective. My own "house gun" is an old Sears 20-gauge pump, loaded
with #4's in 3-inch magnum shells and sawed off to 18 inches. Picked it up
at a pawn shop for $100. It's light, fast, and deadly. Good luck.
Ron Morgan
--
osmigo1, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA: osmigo1@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP: ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo1 allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo1 gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo1
seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1 harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo1jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (10/27/86)
Article: 10:46 In article <1490@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >Article: 10:36 > >There are a few things to consider when purchasing a "home-defense" weapon. >First, your neighbors. Any kind of weapon firing solid bullets, such as a >handgun or rifle, is perfectly capable of going through 2 or 3 walls in a >typical apartment complex and blowing your neighbor's 2-day-old baby in two. Very true, though I would quible with the statement that 'Any ...firing solid bullets'; the police use low velocity 38's to reduce (NOT eliminate!) the problem. Any is a very big word. But the substance is true. Walls only slow down and deflect a slug. >A shotgun is no garauntee against this, either. A couple of years ago, a >young boy was playing in his garage. A guy across the street fired a 12-gauge >loaded with #00 buck, and one of the pellets penetrated the garage door and 00 buck is about 25 calibre if I remember right. Those are 'solid bullets' in my book. Use of BB shot or smaller reduces the problem greatly. >Third, weapon selection. The only solid-bullet piece that is safe would be >a high-velocity, small-caliber weapon such as a .223. These bullets will >disintegrate upon hitting any object of substance. However, if your victim >is wearing heavy winter clothes, you might not accomplish much even if you >did hit him. That brings us to buckshot. One thing to remember here is that Bull. The energy of a 223 is enough to go through any (yes, any) mormal winter clothing. (Normal excludes body armour and several inches of leather.) A .223 has more energy than needed to shove the bullet through a couple of boards and do damage on the other side. Try it. The bullet will be badly deformed comming out the other side, but it will still kill you. Military requirments for the .223 *REQUIRE* that it penetrate a helmet at some large range. (I know these are tungsten or steel core bullets, but at short range you don't need the penetrator. Houses are short range.) >regardless of the size of the shot, the total weight of the load, and thus >its total energy, remains the same. A standard 12-gauge #00 load only has >9 to 12 pellets. If only two or three hit him, you could find yourself in an >exciting situation. Of course, smaller stuff like #7 1/2's won't have enough >penetration, although, they would probably knock him down. I'd suggest BB shot In home defence the range will not typically exceed 10-15 yards. At that range the pattern of a shotgun is but a few inches. If you hit them somewhere with one or two pellets, it has to be an edge. If you hit them somewhere vital with one or two pellets, all the others are going to be within the same vital area. (Midline of body +/- 3 inches with a shotgun WILL be lethal. All of the pellets but flyers will hit. Being hit with 2 to 3 00 buck is the same as being hit 2 to 3 times with a 25 calibre handgun. Most people will be badly damaged. Depending on location of hit, a PCP user might not stop. For them try TNT... >or perhaps #2's. These give you a much denser pattern (45 to 100 pellets), yet >can penetrate well, and enough of them will hit the target to do the job. It This is sound advice. This loading will create an area of hamburger about 4 inches in diameter to a reasonable depth. It should be stopped by MOST walls. Get a short automatic or pump shotgun with this kind of loading. Don't bother with the 20 gauge. If the kick is more than you wife likes, use light loads in 12 guage. They will tend to penetrate walls less also. (And anyone who keeps comming after you put a few ounces (one per shot!) of lead in them wouldn't have noticed the higher loading anyway 'cause they must be a ghost already! :-) -- Michael Deux apple!michael 'Things are not always as simple as you might think ...'
jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (10/27/86)
Article: 10:47
> There are a few things to consider when purchasing a "home-defense" weapon.
There are also a few things to consider before purchasing one, like (a) do
you have a way of quickly and quietly getting your family together behind
a locked door, and (b) is there a telephone in the room behind that door.
Home-defense weapons are appropriate only as a desperate last resort in
response to open attack. In most cases it is much safer to take shelter
behind a locked door and call the police; they are *equipped* and *trained*
to deal with such situations. Unless you are under the delusion that
you are bulletproof, it is clearly better to let the professionals do it.
Even if they are so incompetent that they can't do a better job than you
could -- and they can, if only because there is only one of you -- you
will find attending the funerals of a couple of policemen a whole lot less
disagreeable than being the guest of honor at a funeral yourself. Let them
take the risks; it's their job.
There is something to be said for being able to defend yourself against
dangerous intruders, in the event that the police aren't available or
can't get there quickly enough. But note, "defend". Unless you truly
believe that your possessions are more important than your life, your
best move (situation permitting) is still to hole up in a well-protected
location and use your weaponry only if the intruder(s) mount a determined
attack. There are lesser reasons for this, like the courts taking a dim
view of you shooting someone except in such a dire emergency (no, the law
is *not* automatically on your side if you shoot a prowler), but your own
survival seems sufficient reason all by itself.
These tactical considerations may well influence your choice of defensive
weapon. More important, if you are buying defensive guns before having
given any attention to these issues, you are acting without thinking.
On the more specific issue of weapon selection, do remember that at
close-combat ranges, the pellets from a shotgun will be in one solid mass
not a lot larger than the bullet from a pistol or rifle. This makes utter
nonsense of the purported no-need-to-aim-accurately advantage of the
shotgun, and greatly reduces its advantages in lethality and minimum
wall penetration. If you doubt this, check over your house to determine
the longest range at which you would plausibly engage an intruder -- good
odds it's something like 10-15 feet -- and the most plausible range -- which
will probably be nearly spitting distance. Then try some target practice
at those ranges to see what the spread is like. It's not much.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henryjkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (11/01/86)
In-Reply-To: <1535@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Article: 10:56 In article <1535@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> you write: > >> There are a few things to consider when purchasing a "home-defense" weapon. > > >There is something to be said for being able to defend yourself against >dangerous intruders, in the event that the police aren't available or >can't get there quickly enough. But note, "defend". Unless you truly >believe that your possessions are more important than your life, your >best move (situation permitting) is still to hole up in a well-protected >location and use your weaponry only if the intruder(s) mount a determined >attack. There are lesser reasons for this, like the courts taking a dim >view of you shooting someone except in such a dire emergency (no, the law >is *not* automatically on your side if you shoot a prowler), but your own >survival seems sufficient reason all by itself. > > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry I do not believe that my possessions are worth more than MY life. Nor do I believe that they are worth the life of another. However, if someone has entered my house particularily at night, I am neither concerned about my possessions or their life. My primary mission is to survive, and consider that the best way to do so is to be behind my water bed armed. The courts' views of course vary. Oregon statutory law bestows the 'right' to use deadly force against a mere intruder into the 'home'. Case law in the state has charted a path of some assumption of danger on the part of the homeowner to justify that. You don't have to be in fear of your life, but be fearful that you could be hurt. If anyone enters my house at night, I would be afraid that I COULD be hurt, and would take all possible measures to kill the intruder. I have the provincial notion that this reduces recidivism. [This sort of macho B***S*** is bound to provoke some flames. Fine, it gets cool in Oregon this time of year, flames welcome.] BC
jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (11/01/86)
To: voder!ucbopal!jkh Article: 10:62 > Article: 10:47 > > > There are a few things to consider when purchasing a "home-defense" weapon. > > There are also a few things to consider before purchasing one, like (a) do > you have a way of quickly and quietly getting your family together behind > a locked door, and (b) is there a telephone in the room behind that door. > Home-defense weapons are appropriate only as a desperate last resort in > response to open attack. In most cases it is much safer to take shelter > behind a locked door and call the police; they are *equipped* and *trained* > to deal with such situations. Unless you are under the delusion that > you are bulletproof, it is clearly better to let the professionals do it. This makes the assumption that you hear someone breaking in. Most people sleep so soundly that the only door or window being forced open that you will hear is in your bedroom. (This is why I have a lock on the bedroom door and keep a .45 next on a nightstand next to the bed. Of course, it is ALWAYS put away before I unlock the door in the morning and let my daughter in.) As an example, the Night Stalker last year in Southern California broke into one house, raped the nine-year-old in her bed, and beat her hard enough to lay open a 30-something stich wound that showed her skull -- and her parents didn't wake up in the next bedroom. This also makes the assumption that the police will respond in any reasonable period of time. I have a friend in Los Angeles who called the police to report a burglary -- but the Harbor Division of LAPD was closed because it was Sunday. Another friend called LAPD in another division to report a fight, and spent 30 minutes on hold before a real person came on the line. > There is something to be said for being able to defend yourself against > dangerous intruders, in the event that the police aren't available or > can't get there quickly enough. But note, "defend". Unless you truly > believe that your possessions are more important than your life, your > best move (situation permitting) is still to hole up in a well-protected > location and use your weaponry only if the intruder(s) mount a determined > attack. There are lesser reasons for this, like the courts taking a dim > view of you shooting someone except in such a dire emergency (no, the law > is *not* automatically on your side if you shoot a prowler), but your own > survival seems sufficient reason all by itself. > The courts don't take such a dim view of this in California, or most other western States. California law makes the presumption that if someone forces their way into your home while you are home, that the intruder intends you great bodily harm. Use of lethal force is therefore acceptable. > These tactical considerations may well influence your choice of defensive > weapon. More important, if you are buying defensive guns before having > given any attention to these issues, you are acting without thinking. > It is my impression also that a lot of people have a firearm as a talisman -- they shoot it once a year, if that. If you are going to have it, you should accept that it will regular practice -- at least once a month -- to be a serious threat to an intruder. > On the more specific issue of weapon selection, do remember that at > close-combat ranges, the pellets from a shotgun will be in one solid mass > not a lot larger than the bullet from a pistol or rifle. This makes utter > nonsense of the purported no-need-to-aim-accurately advantage of the > shotgun, and greatly reduces its advantages in lethality and minimum > wall penetration. If you doubt this, check over your house to determine > the longest range at which you would plausibly engage an intruder -- good > odds it's something like 10-15 feet -- and the most plausible range -- which > will probably be nearly spitting distance. Then try some target practice > at those ranges to see what the spread is like. It's not much. > > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry A valid point. The "shotgun as lead garden hose" is simply not true until you get to 40-50 feet, or if you have an illegally short barrel to enhance the spread. This, and the prospect of using a 30" long weapon at a range of 40" is the reason I consider a handgun the most appropriate home defense weapon -- you've got to get very close to wrestle a handgun away from someone -- a shotgun is another matter. Clayton E. Cramer