Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

gunderwood wrote:

jrswanson1 wrote:

TBob wrote: I'm happy to hear that your palm reading business is thriving. Personally, I don't have the ability to see the future, including when, where, and by what means an attack on me or my familty will come. Don't need to shoot through windshields? This lady probably wishes she could have.

The case histories are replete with examples of bad guys full of light, fast bullets who continued to function long enough to do more harm and beyond. I somehow doubt they'll just stand calmly while you feverishly pull your trigger, but then I still can't see the future. Hope it works out for ya.

Two to the chest, one to the head. It's pretty simple.

And I really wonder about how to justify a windshield shoot to the responding officer. If I can make a shot on someone through a windshield, that means I'm standing in front of the car. I try not to stand in front of cars that are running at me, but maybe I have just too much common sense And if the car is stopped, I'm not justified in shooting the driver. Life isn't a Hollywood movie.

Jim

Your choice of reference frames is the problem. It is far more likely that a private citizen must shoot out of their car rather than into one. E.g. the previously linked story.

The linked story is about a woman whose boyfriend was trying to run her over. Taking out the driver is what I'm talking about.

Jim

jrswanson1 wrote:

gunderwood wrote:Your choice of reference frames is the problem. It is far more likely that a private citizen must shoot out of their car rather than into one. E.g. the previously linked story.

The linked story is about a woman whose boyfriend was trying to run her over. Taking out the driver is what I'm talking about.

Jim

That was poorly phrased. Yes, the story was about a guy trying to run over the lady. The point of the story is that those sort of events, where a need may arise which requires shooting through barriers, do occur in everyday life. I noted that the probability is much higher that you would be in your car and need to shoot out, both scenarios require a bullet that is capable of penetrating the barrier then stopping the threat.

This all started because you asserted that SD shootings don't require barrier penetration. While most don't, some do. Walls, heavy clothing and even cars sometimes need to be shot through. You ignore all of those and focus on one thing and one thing only, a cars windshield. Being attacked while entering/exiting your car in a dark parking lot is a very real threat and statistically are a significant number of attacks (particularly for women). Having to shoot through some part of your car is a very real possibility.

We don't CC because it is likely we will be attacked. The smart CCer would avoid that situation in the first place. However, if it can't be avoided, we have the firearm. Since a confrontation that I can't avoid, by definition, is not at a time or place of my choosing, I don't want to limit my options for defending myself. Focusing completely on barrier performance is just as much wrong as completely ignoring it. The FBI tests (which include bare gel) are not the end all be all. However, they are useful for helping people choose ammo that may work better.

IMHO, a persons bullet choice is their personal choice. If they want to carry a "tactical bonded" bullet, why do you care? You seem set on disparaging a particular potential threat with nothing to back it up almost to the point of trolling.

jrswanson1 wrote:

TBob wrote:

jrswanson1 wrote:I think too many civilians get caught up in the FBI performance stuff. I don't need to shoot through car windows or cinder blocks if I'm in a defensive shoot. I'm not shooting Tangos in the sand box or stopping bank robbers from getting away with the goods. I'm defending myself and my family from dirt bags outside my home with a handgun. Light, fast bullets let me put more rounds into the bad guys and I'll shoot until they're down. If I'm in the house, I'm using a carbine with 62gr soft points.

Jim

I'm happy to hear that your palm reading business is thriving. Personally, I don't have the ability to see the future, including when, where, and by what means an attack on me or my familty will come. Don't need to shoot through windshields? This lady probably wishes she could have.

The case histories are replete with examples of bad guys full of light, fast bullets who continued to function long enough to do more harm and beyond. I somehow doubt they'll just stand calmly while you feverishly pull your trigger, but then I still can't see the future. Hope it works out for ya.

Two to the chest, one to the head. It's pretty simple.

And I really wonder about how to justify a windshield shoot to the responding officer. If I can make a shot on someone through a windshield, that means I'm standing in front of the car. I try not to stand in front of cars that are running at me, but maybe I have just too much common sense And if the car is stopped, I'm not justified in shooting the driver. Life isn't a Hollywood movie.

Jim

I am sorry but I have a lot of common sense and I have been put into the position of shooting through more then one windshield as a Police Officer. I did not stand in front of either of the vehicles but in fact was targeted buy the drivers. Their mistake, and Winchester Western Silvertip ammo in .45 A.C.P. work's very well on straight through shot's on windshields.
Bill

And I really wonder about how to justify a windshield shoot to the responding officer. If I can make a shot on someone through a windshield, that means I'm standing in front of the car. I try not to stand in front of cars that are running at me, but maybe I have just too much common sense And if the car is stopped, I'm not justified in shooting the driver. Life isn't a Hollywood movie.

I have to agree. If a car is driving at you, even if you shoot the driver in the head, that car still has a good chance of continuing on and hitting you. It would be prudent to move.

The case histories are replete with examples of bad guys full of light, fast bullets who continued to function long enough to do more harm and beyond. I somehow doubt they'll just stand calmly while you feverishly pull your trigger, but then I still can't see the future. Hope it works out for ya.

And with little effort I can find examples of how people took big slow bullets and had time to go home and make tea before dying. Whats your point? I think that would called an outlier. What matters is the average outcome is. And the bottom line is, Penetration, placement, and rounds on target. Just about anything over .380 should get the minimum penetration required, some better than others (IE: 10mm). So after that it's a matter of practicing, both at static targets and in "practical" exercises (IE: moving targets, non standard positions, and shooting from the draw).

I think in most any situation I would always have to go with a Hydra Shok or something similar. If I ever planned to get into a situation that called for armor piercing than I suspect I might need to stop my vigilantism.
The whole point of personal protection is I'll never have to actually use it. Its just backup I never intend to need. I darn sure dont intend to hit the streets Steven Segall style, looking for professional bad guys to whack. And I'm pretty sure darn near any ammo I buy would go through a windshield anyhow. If I could ever find a convenient junkyard with a friendly, understanding owner I will be sure to experiment.

ShortMan wrote:I think in most any situation I would always have to go with a Hydra Shok or something similar. If I ever planned to get into a situation that called for armor piercing than I suspect I might need to stop my vigilantism.

Tactical and bonded bullets are not armor piercing. Barrier penetration is not armor piercing either. All bonded bullets and similar designs do is prevent the copper jacket separating from the lead core. The problem with non-bonded bullets is that even light barriers can cause jacket separation and if that happens the rounds statistically don't penetrate/expand like they are suppose to. That doesn't mean that a non-bonded bullet won't go through a barrier and then stop the threat. Nor does it mean that bonded bullets don't fail either. What it does mean is that a bonded bullet is on average less likely to excessively fragment and not penetrate, particularly if a barrier is encountered before reaching the threat.

Bonding a bullet reduces its fragmentation, it does nothing for its ability to penetrate armor, vests, etc. If a bonded bullet is going to penetrate, then a non-bonded will too. The difference is that the non-bonded is more likely to break apart, while the bonded is more likely to remain whole and reach the threat.

For example of a barrier "blind" projectile that does worse against armor is those new 5.56mm SOST rounds I posted about a month ago. They are designed to be barrier blind by having a solid copper base. The front of the bullet breaks apart, but the rear is solid copper and much stronger so it continues on. However, the actual armor penetrating of the SOST rounds is not as good as the M855 rounds which are not barrier blind.

Soft tissue and light to moderate barrier penetration is more of a function of momentum vs. cross-sectional area and the bullets ability to remain intact (i.e. not fragment). On the other hand, armor penetration is more about breaking the local bonds by overwhelming them with energy. Velocity, small cross-sectional area and hardened penetrators work wonders here.

Edit: Real armor piercing bullets are illegal for us mere civilians.

SgtBill wrote:

jrswanson1 wrote:

TBob wrote:I'm happy to hear that your palm reading business is thriving. Personally, I don't have the ability to see the future, including when, where, and by what means an attack on me or my familty will come. Don't need to shoot through windshields? This lady probably wishes she could have.

The case histories are replete with examples of bad guys full of light, fast bullets who continued to function long enough to do more harm and beyond. I somehow doubt they'll just stand calmly while you feverishly pull your trigger, but then I still can't see the future. Hope it works out for ya.

Two to the chest, one to the head. It's pretty simple.

And I really wonder about how to justify a windshield shoot to the responding officer. If I can make a shot on someone through a windshield, that means I'm standing in front of the car. I try not to stand in front of cars that are running at me, but maybe I have just too much common sense And if the car is stopped, I'm not justified in shooting the driver. Life isn't a Hollywood movie.

Jim

I am sorry but I have a lot of common sense and I have been put into the position of shooting through more then one windshield as a Police Officer. I did not stand in front of either of the vehicles but in fact was targeted buy the drivers. Their mistake, and Winchester Western Silvertip ammo in .45 A.C.P. work's very well on straight through shot's on windshields.
Bill

I stated civilian and you are talking about work as a police officer. See the difference? I'm trying to extricate myself from a situation as a citizen, and you are putting yourself in danger as a law enforcement officer. YOU need the super duper bullet. I can get by without one, but I use them anyway due to personal preference.

Jim

gunderwood wrote:Edit: Real armor piercing bullets are illegal for us mere civilians.

Illegal to make.

Diomed wrote:

gunderwood wrote:Edit: Real armor piercing bullets are illegal for us mere civilians.

Illegal to make.

Technicalities. If no one can make them, then you can't use them can you?

gunderwood wrote:Technicalities. If no one can make them, then you can't use them can you?

Sure you can. No federal laws preventing you from buying loaded AP rounds, or loading pulled bullets. Just because you can't make the projectiles doesn't mean you can't use them if you get them.

Diomed wrote:

gunderwood wrote:Technicalities. If no one can make them, then you can't use them can you?

Sure you can. No federal laws preventing you from buying loaded AP rounds, or loading pulled bullets. Just because you can't make the projectiles doesn't mean you can't use them if you get them.

While decades old mild steel may have been AP then, it hardly is now. Any modern (i.e. real) AP round can not be had.

I still have some KTW armoure pierceing rounds from my years in the Police Dept. and from the SWAT team.
Bill