Think About This

Discussion in 'Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection' started by GlockRenegade, Oct 24, 2013.

  1. GlockRenegade

    GlockRenegade New Member

    603
    0
    0
    So.. some say they will never use a 9mm, only .45 and up. Some say you can't kill a grizzly bear with anything less than 6 shots of 300 Win mag, some say they know someone that put one down with a few rounds of .45. Some people have survived 12 gauge or 7.62 rounds, and some have died from .380's. Some people survive horrible car wrecks, some die in much kess violent ones... The point? I don't know, I guess the point is you never really know.

    What do you think?
     

  2. Anna_Purna

    Anna_Purna New Member

    7,236
    0
    0
    I think with over 7 billion variables in the world, pretty much anyone can die or survive in many different situations.
     
  3. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    1
    0
    that there are no real gaurantees in life. when your number is called, it's time to go. it won't matter if it's by gun shot or passing quietly in your sleep.
     
  4. MrPEZO

    MrPEZO New Member

    41
    0
    0
    I like your point. ;)
    In theory carry a gun, any gun with a good quality round and hope for the best.
    As you pointed out some things happen due to simple causes and other things happen due to extreme causes. There truly is no rhyme or reason to a lot of things in life.
     
  5. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    In the case humans being shot the small calibers are very deadly. The larger more powerful handguns shoot a hole straight thru a thin skinned human and exit.
    The .25,.32,.380 etc enter the body cavity and spend their energy tumbling around tearing up organs and tissues. Wounds from small caliber handguns have a low survival rate. :eek:
     
  6. GlockRenegade

    GlockRenegade New Member

    603
    0
    0
    Yep very good point, I didn't even think about that at the time. When I was a kid my dad told me that's why they shot Jack Ruby in the stomach. Shred organs and tumbles around
     
  7. FernandoTheCommando

    FernandoTheCommando New Member

    1,183
    0
    0
    I don't believe that to be true at all with small calibre bullets. The whole "bouncing around tearing up organs" just doesn't jive with me. The fbi switched to a larger calibre because they needed stopping power. Sure, a .22 has killed many people, but if you do the research, they were hit in the head, spine, lungs, or heart. I would NEVER trust a .22 or .25 auto to penetrate heavy clothing a still reach vital organs. Bleeding out can kill you, but it's the hydrostatic shock from a well placed hollow point that really gets an attacker to rethink their decision to continue fighting. Numerous studies have indicated that anything less than .380 is a toss up when it comes to stopping a threat cold. Now, I don't claim to be an expert or anything, I'm just going on what I've read (which is a lot). Obviously carrying any gun is better than not carrying a gun. But, I just don't believe that a .22 is bouncing around inside the body after traveling through clothing, muscle, and possibly bone. That small of a round just doesn't have the energy behind it. Again, this is all my opinion and everyone knows opinions are like a** holes. Everyone has one and they all stink. :)
     
  8. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    I think I misunderstand hydrostatic shock; could you give me your definition please? I was under the impression that only high velocity rounds like some rifles use would generate significant hydrostatic shock.
    :confused:




    I think we need more live bear testing on the penetration and such. Maybe we could include it in the Jr. High curriculum: "OK students, today we will demonstrate how to best incapacitate a bear. Lil Johnny, would bring me that chainsaw please."
     
  9. eatmydust

    eatmydust New Member

    4,360
    0
    0
    I think that too any people hear anecdotal stories about this or that and accept them as gospel. Then it ends up like the "telephone game" where you whisper it in one persons ear and they whisper it into the next . . . and by the time it gets back around to you, a 5 year old with a popsicle stick stopped a charging rhino in it's tracks.

    With the advent of CGI and Al Gore's internet (the ultimate telephone game) and no accountability for anonymous misinformation, we truly live in a world of illusion, or more correctly, delusion.

    It's fun to escape our little worlds by posting and reading on the net, but when it comes to those things that can and will alter your life forever, do your due diligence.
     
  10. FernandoTheCommando

    FernandoTheCommando New Member

    1,183
    0
    0
    My info is coming from experts books like massad ayoob and others. I'm not reading gun blogs by weekend warriors. If we are talking hydrostatic shock with a semi auto, a 10mm auto generates 10,000 ft lbs of energy...that's pretty impressive. Step it up to larger revolver calibres and I'd say you're getting near some small rifle calibres at sd distances. Granted a rifle is going to have that power out to 100yd and beyond.

    " Hydrostatic shock or hydraulic shock describes the observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets through a hydraulic effect in their liquid-filled tissues, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact.[1][2] There is scientific evidence that hydrostatic shock can produce remote neural damage and produce incapacitation more quickly than blood loss effects.[3] Proponents of cartridges that are "light and fast" such as the 9x19mm Parabellum versus cartridges that are "slow and heavy" such as the .45 ACP round often refer to this phenomenon.

    Human autopsy results have demonstrated brain hemorrhaging from fatal hits to the chest, including cases with handgun bullets.[4] Thirty-three cases of fatal penetrating chest wounds by a single bullet were selected from a much larger set by excluding all other traumatic factors, including past history.
     
  11. FernandoTheCommando

    FernandoTheCommando New Member

    1,183
    0
    0
    Again, I myself am no expert. What I do is I find a specific gun related subject. I find multiple articles, videos, etc, and read or watch them all. I form my opinions based on all of their facts and sometimes opinions. If I own the gun or gear, I try my hardest to review it myself in a completely unbiased way. If I don't own the gun/gear, well....then I either had fun and educated myself reading.....or I go out and buy it whilst pissing off my wife in the process lol.
     
  12. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Since when does Ayoob write for the Wikipedia? :p You just quoted the first two paragraphs of Wiki's article on Hydrostatic Shock. I love Wiki for a quick fact check, though.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_shock

    1.Jump up ^ Deadly fighting skills of the world, Steve Crawford (1999) pp. 68–69
    2.Jump up ^ AK-47: the weapon that changed the face of the war, Larry Kahaner, John Wiley and Sons (2007) p. 32
    3.Jump up ^ Michael Courtney; Amy Courtney (2008). "Scientific Evidence for Hydrostatic Shock". arXiv:0803.3051 [physics.med-ph].
    4.Jump up ^ Krajsa, J. Příčiny vzniku perikapilárních hemoragií v mozku při střelných poraněních (Causes of pericapillar brain haemorrhages accompanying gunshot wounds), Institute of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, 2009

    Ayoob ain't in that pile.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2013
  13. FernandoTheCommando

    FernandoTheCommando New Member

    1,183
    0
    0
    Quick info that's why. I'm not going to type out an entire paragraph from a book lol. You asked for a definition of hydrostatic shock and there it is. If I reeealllyyy must quote a book then you'll have to apologize to my fingers as I'm typing on a phone. I'm not trying to argue, just trying to educate. I'm here to make friends and share info with everyone so we can provide the less educated with solid facts. :) I've gained some great knowledge from people here and I enjoy sharing what I've learned.
     
  14. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    No problem.

    I might not believe M Ayoob either, if he claimed hydrostatic shock incapacitation with .45ACP.

    Of course, my favorite SD ammo in my XD45 is.................................Federal Hydra Shock. They look like they would be darn uncomfortable. :D
     
  15. FernandoTheCommando

    FernandoTheCommando New Member

    1,183
    0
    0
    All I did was Google that definition. Come on man lol. The sources sited in that article are reputable were they not? I'm not one of those guys that just posts for the sake of argument or trolling. I believe in thorough research with everything I own. That includes electronics, clothes, cars, etc. Do i know that the speakers that cost more work better? No, not until I read reviews or research it. If you said that the lower ohms make for better speakers, or asked what an ohm even was, I'd have to look up the definition.
     
  16. FernandoTheCommando

    FernandoTheCommando New Member

    1,183
    0
    0
    Well, if we can't believe the experts, then who do we believe? I'm not about to test the shock theory on a live person lol. But I agree, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on the business end of any gun. My point was that it's been proven, by educated experts, that you cannot count on a .22 to "bounce around the body tearing up organs. "
     
  17. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Again, more bear testing is needed. I suggest shaved cubs for their thinner hides.

    I don't think you can "count on" a .22LR to bounce around in the body, but I have doubts about non-magnum handguns generating significant hydrostatic shock.
     
  18. FernandoTheCommando

    FernandoTheCommando New Member

    1,183
    0
    0
    Lol sounds like you have a vendetta against bears. I'd LOVE to go on a bear hunt for sure. Hell, I'd just love to hunt, but in my state the biggest thing in the woods is a small deer or MAYBE a black bear if you head towards ny or ct. I own magnum calibre revolvers and would trust my life to a .357 any day of the week. I also just bought an lc9 for carry. If I didn't have to conceal or worry about weight, I'd have the ruger gp100 .357 with me every day. I'm going to continue researching hydrostatic shock with pistol calibres. It's 're sparked my interest.
     
  19. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Have you considered the Ruger SP101 for carry?

    I don't do concealed carry; we can car carry or open carry without a permit here (adequate for me). We aren't allowed to shoot bears here, not legally.