Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:13 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Arguably, just this side of perfect... 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Arguably, just this side of perfect...
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:42 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
joelr wrote:
Arguably, by the way, the real buy there in revolvers right now there is the Taurus 605 in .357 (under $300 before tax and shipping.)


Is there a spot on the web site where he lists inventory, offerings or prices? I seem to have missed it.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arguably, just this side of perfect...
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:48 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Andrew Rothman wrote:
joelr wrote:
Arguably, by the way, the real buy there in revolvers right now there is the Taurus 605 in .357 (under $300 before tax and shipping.)


Is there a spot on the web site where he lists inventory, offerings or prices? I seem to have missed it.
Nope -- you've got to do a search, which is basically of his wholesaler's stock -- http://www.davidsonsinc.com/consumers/s ... _id=978710 -- if you order off a search from that link, it goes to discountgunbroker.com.

Spoke with him a couple of times today; nice guy. Which doesn't make him unusual -- there's somebody who I think of as a nice guy at all of the local gunshops.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:55 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
And, in fact, at least theoretically, fatality is undesireable in Minnesota -- if he's dead, he can't be convicted and/or plead out on his criminal attack. If he does, you're protected against a lawsuit for his injuries. (If he's dead, he can't be prosecuted or convicted.)

Not that, in practice, one would have time to think about or do anything, either way, about that. While I've thankfully yet to ever pull a trigger for serious, I've taken my gun out three times ('way high; I'm unlucky -- Mark K. is unluckier than I am, btw) and each time I've been far too busy with immediate concerns.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:12 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
joelr wrote:
Not that, in practice, one would have time to think about or do anything, either way, about that. While I've thankfully yet to ever pull a trigger for serious, I've taken my gun out three times ('way high; I'm unlucky -- Mark K. is unluckier than I am, btw) and each time I've been far too busy with immediate concerns.


Interested in sharing those stories?

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:24 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Andrew Rothman wrote:
joelr wrote:
Not that, in practice, one would have time to think about or do anything, either way, about that. While I've thankfully yet to ever pull a trigger for serious, I've taken my gun out three times ('way high; I'm unlucky -- Mark K. is unluckier than I am, btw) and each time I've been far too busy with immediate concerns.


Interested in sharing those stories?
Well, the first time is rather well-documented. The second was the time in Mark's old shop, when I was worried (correctly, as it turned out) that the three Young Minnesotans Who Needs Must Now Be Addressed were going to hit the place. Nothing terribly dramatic; I just kept my daughter playing quietly in the corner while I watched them and pretended to look at clothes. When one of them lunged behind the counter, Mark had his SIG pointed at the middle of his forehead instantly, and the other two tried to take off. (Mark had to buzz all three of them out.)

I wouldn't have shot them over Mark's money -- or mine -- but I wasn't going to try to walk my kid out past the three of them, not with the hairs on the back of Mark's head pretty much sticking up, and I wasn't interested in either my kid or me getting hurt by these three.

Third one? Eventually. Not soon.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arguably, just this side of perfect...
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:20 pm 
on probation
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:50 am
Posts: 544
Location: minneapolis
joelr wrote:
Andrew Rothman wrote:
joelr wrote:
The Taurus 9mm Ultralite Revolver. Yes, Taurus has it listed as discontinued, but http://www.discountgundealer.com says that they've got 52 left. (It was 53, but I just bought one.)


Price?
$428.07, including shipping and tax. ($384 base price.) Less than $50 more than my usual recommendation... Image
...if it was coming from the same source.

Arguably, by the way, the real buy there in revolvers right now there is the Taurus 605 in .357 (under $300 before tax and shipping.)

And, that said, if I was going to carry something that heavy, I've already got a better choice in that size, more or less -- my Charter Arms Bulldog, in .44 Special.

But I'd rather go with this particular 9mm -- it's lighter, it's at least arguably a better design than a Centennial (the docked hammer gives you something -- the hammer -- to push on while reholstering that will keep the hammer from coming back; it's a bit of extra safety), and while I can handle 9mm in a revolver quite handily (I used to have a S&W 940; I foolishly sold it off when I was regularly carrying a semiauto) .357 in a snubby is, in my experience, a bit much.

Another interesting revolver there is the Taurus Tracker in .44 Magnum. If I was going to carry a medium-sized revolver, I'd think seriously about it. 34 ounces -- about ten ounces more than my Bulldog -- but a full four-inch tube, and the option of carrying either .44 Magnum or .44 Special. (There's also the .41 Magnum, but buying ammo for it is a real pain.)
TheTaurus Ultralite Revolver 38 spl. is only 319.95 + tax. I would take the 38 over the 9mm anyday.

_________________
On time out until at least May 2006. PM unavailable; contact this user via email.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:08 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:00 am
Posts: 1094
Location: Duluth
I carry the .41 magnum tracker in titanium with a 4 inch barrel every day and have since I got my permit in 04. Joel's right, ammo is a pain to buy. That's why I got into reloading.

I have every confidence in this weapon as a self defense tool. Unlike Joel I don't carry spare ammo around. In my vehicle yes but not on my person. 5 extra 250 grain solid cores get heavy in your pocket. :wink:

_________________
"I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle" Sitting Bull


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arguably, just this side of perfect...
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:36 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
lastgunshop wrote:
joelr wrote:
Andrew Rothman wrote:
joelr wrote:
The Taurus 9mm Ultralite Revolver. Yes, Taurus has it listed as discontinued, but http://www.discountgundealer.com says that they've got 52 left. (It was 53, but I just bought one.)


Price?
$428.07, including shipping and tax. ($384 base price.) Less than $50 more than my usual recommendation... Image
...if it was coming from the same source.

Arguably, by the way, the real buy there in revolvers right now there is the Taurus 605 in .357 (under $300 before tax and shipping.)

And, that said, if I was going to carry something that heavy, I've already got a better choice in that size, more or less -- my Charter Arms Bulldog, in .44 Special.

But I'd rather go with this particular 9mm -- it's lighter, it's at least arguably a better design than a Centennial (the docked hammer gives you something -- the hammer -- to push on while reholstering that will keep the hammer from coming back; it's a bit of extra safety), and while I can handle 9mm in a revolver quite handily (I used to have a S&W 940; I foolishly sold it off when I was regularly carrying a semiauto) .357 in a snubby is, in my experience, a bit much.

Another interesting revolver there is the Taurus Tracker in .44 Magnum. If I was going to carry a medium-sized revolver, I'd think seriously about it. 34 ounces -- about ten ounces more than my Bulldog -- but a full four-inch tube, and the option of carrying either .44 Magnum or .44 Special. (There's also the .41 Magnum, but buying ammo for it is a real pain.)
TheTaurus Ultralite Revolver 38 spl. is only 319.95 + tax. I would take the 38 over the 9mm anyday.

Each to his own, and as somebody who regularly carries a .38, I'm not going to knock it. And that's a very good price -- I'd probably go to $352 for the S&W 642 instead (I prefer the fit and finish of the Smiths, all other things being close to equal), but I certainly wouldn't sneer at the Taurus Ultralite as an alternative.

On the other hand, the 9mm is, basically, the same bullet diameter (in fact, I've handloaded the same bullets into both 9mm and .38 Special brass) and a standard pressure 9mm is ballistically a hot .38 +P -- do you prefer standard pressure .38 over .38+P?

(And, come to think of it, while there might be feeding/spring/pressure trouble with a 9mm 158-grain semiwadcutter in a semiauto, there wouldn't be any feeding problem in a revolver. A hotter, 9mm version of the famous FBI .38 load? Interesting -- and I know somebody who would be happy to load some up for me, and who I would trust to get at least factory-level reliability out of his equipment.

(Hmmm....)

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 11:50 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 429
Location: Minnetonka
joelr wrote:
AGoodDay wrote:
Hmm, I don't have any actual stats, unfortunately, but I'll ask one of my EMT instructors. He seems to know how much pressure it takes to break most of the bones in the body.

That said, you have a fair amount of tissue to go through with enough energy on the other side to punch an extremely strong bone. Just looking at myself, an for those who've seen me I'm a very thin guy, you have a minimum of 4" - 5" to go through before you reach the forward wall of my pelvis, if you shot me straight on. Again, I don't know what the pelvis takes but it takes approximately 1500 pounds per square inch of pressure to break a healthy femur. The pelvis is not much narrower than the femur, but it's a different shape. I don't know exactly how that will affect it with a bullet strike.

Please. Among things I've been recently reading is an argument about shooting to the pelvis rather than COM, which suggests (from, I think, insufficient data) that it may be a better physical stopper than a shot to COM. (In fact, Ayoob argues in favor of a pelvic shot in many circumstances, and one of his students has taken the leap from that to arguing that it is the best point of aim. I'm not yet convinced, but I'm capable of being persuaded, depending on the data available.) For it to be the right choice, one has to have at least adequate confidence, when compared to shooting to COM, that you'll get a hit in the first place, and greater confidence that either mechanical damage will stop the attack (a hole in the pelvic wall may not; a break through the pelvic bone or sufficient damage to the joint will make it physically impossible for the leg to support weight) or that the pain of a shot to that area will be sufficiently great.

(Which is where Cirillo comes in. He reports that in something around 20 pelvic shots by his stakeout squad, all attackers were stopped. That's obviously too small a number of reporters and incidents to decide the matter, but I find it intriguing, to say the least.)


You know, other than in very special circumstances (that we are astronomically unlikely to encounter as civilians) the idea of shooting low on purpose is rather amusing to me.

Why?

Because if you shoot me in the pelvis and I go down, I am still going to be shooting back at you.

People don't just crumple up and quit because they're bad guys. If you shoot someone up close, you best just keep shooting center mass, and doing it fast.

Don't take my word for it though. I haven't written nearly as many articles on shooting people as Mr. Ayoob has.

:roll:


(FWIW, I took Advanced Stressfire, and I really liked the class. I just disagree with some of the armchair commando crap I continuously hear from people who's real-life experience of stress when shooting is a timer going off in their ear, and I'm a little grumpy after picking up for OT and doing CPR twice already tonight)


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:01 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 429
Location: Minnetonka
AGoodDay wrote:
Alright, just got off the phone with my old EMT instructor. Here's what he said about the gunshot wounds that he's seen to the pelvis. May or may not be of any help to you, but there ya go.

Low power rounds like .22 tend to just richochet around. Probably not much help to you. Round like a .38 tend to stop short of the pelvis or just penetrate a little without busting anything. Rounds like a .45 tend to punch holes. We didn't go into the individual calibers and discuss it a lot, so there's probably a lot of room for invistigation and decision there. Just remember that it has to go through a minimum of 4 " of tissue, often more, then it has to break through a very strong bone.

One of the areas that we discussed was the pelvis' tendency to break in 2 places when it does break because of it's shape. That's what normally causes people to be unable to walk on a busted pelvis. With a gunshot wound to the pelvis, he said that usually it just punches a nasty hole in there, but doesn't actually cause a break that makes the girdle unstable. It's extremely painful because there are a lot of nerves in the area, but he said that if the person is hopped up on something it doesn't really affect their ability to move.

The other thing that we didn't discuss in a lot of detail, but is worthy of consideration, is that damage to the pelvis tends to cause significant blood loss, an average of 1500 cc's dumped. The femoral arteries run through there, after they branch off of the aorta (largest artery in the body about the inside diameter of a quarter) at about the top of the pelvis. You also have the iliac veins and several others. To give you an idea of the amount of blood going through the area you can look at this website at the bottom of the page. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wnor/posteriorabdomen.htm

I don't know for sure what would happen, but the pelvis and the femur are the 2 most painful bones to break from what I've been told. I have heard of people ignoring femur fractures before because of endorphines and adrenaline and the like. I heard a story of one guy who was running a marathon and broke his femur in a pothole. He didn't know he broke it because of the amount of endorphines and stuff running through him, and his muscles actually clamped around the femur through the next 20 miles of the race. Thought he had a cramp. He got to the finish line, his body relaxed, and he collapsed in pain.

I don't know what might happen with a pelvis. I personally have it as a third option in the arsenal. Just some food for thought.

Edit to add: I suppose you have to evaluate what your intent is. In order to physically stop someone you have to interupt one or more of three things IMO. The ability to breath, move, or stay conscious. More passively, add to that the ability to see as well. COM shots tend to be more focused on interupting the ability to stay conscious, which is overall the best way of stopping an attack, again only IMO. Pelvic shots, to me, tend to be more focused on stopping the ability to move, but it only affects the lower half of the body if it works at all. People can still remain conscious after losing 1500 cc's of blood.


Just a few thoughts:

1. The idea that a .38 won't penetrate the pelvic bone is false. Shoot a .38 into ballistic gel sometime and see if it stops in less inches than you have fat and muscle in front of your pelvic bone.

2. 22's tend to penetrate quite well. The whole "ricocheting around" thing coming from an EMT is interesting to me. I guess he's stuck around in the OR and watched them do surgery, eh? It's kind of hard to tell where a bullet went inside the body on an ambulance.

3. Your femoral artery is a helluva lot smaller than your heart, or even your spine, if you want to get technical.



(FWIW, my EMT days are long behind me, so take my comments with however much salt you wish)


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:54 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 1941
Location: N 44°56.621` W 093°11.256 (St Paul)
ETA: Apologies, this thread was about wheel guns and I got side tracked.... :oops:


Last edited by hammAR on Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Arguably, just this side of perfect...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:19 pm 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:55 pm
Posts: 986
joelr wrote:
On the other hand, the 9mm is, basically, the same bullet diameter (in fact, I've handloaded the same bullets into both 9mm and .38 Special brass) and a standard pressure 9mm is ballistically a hot .38 +P -- do you prefer standard pressure .38 over .38+P?


How well did that work? Speer #13 shows the 9mm bullets at .355"/.356" (jacketed/lead) and the .38s at .357"/.358".

I would think that the .355s would be kind of lame out of the .38/357 revolver due to poor gas seal and bad rifling engagement. In theory jacketed .357s could be dangerous in a 9mm barrel that was on the tight side of .355, at best they would leave a lot of lead and copper fouling behind.

Quote:
(And, come to think of it, while there might be feeding/spring/pressure trouble with a 9mm 158-grain semiwadcutter in a semiauto, there wouldn't be any feeding problem in a revolver. A hotter, 9mm version of the famous FBI .38 load? Interesting -- and I know somebody who would be happy to load some up for me, and who I would trust to get at least factory-level reliability out of his equipment.

(Hmmm....)

The 158 grain LSWCs are .358", your 9mm barrel is .355". I'd guess it would work, but you might lead the crap out of your barrel at the same time.

And how long is the cylinder? The .358" 158gr LSWCs are kind of long; could you seat them to a safe depth and still get the cylinder to turn? What would you use for a safe seating depth, anyway? All the data seems to be COL-oriented, not bullet seat depth oriented, so it'd be a big guessing game.

I think you'd be better off carrying factory loads than trying to homebrew .357" bullets into a 9mm cases.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:08 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:06 pm
Posts: 666
Location: St Cloud
Goalie, I understand your arguments. These are not my notions, but the answers to my questions of what an EMT who has a fair amount of experience both in the field and in the ER has generally seen in the past. I was not advocating pelvic shots, I was simply providing information to someone so they could more effectively draw their own conclusions rather than telling them what their opinions should be. There are a lot of armchair commando's out there who will tell people what to think and that their methods are the best methods. Those people irritate me, so I choose not to behave like them. Therefore, if somebody wants to research new techniques (a great way to find more effective methods) I prefer to non-judgmentally provide whatever information I'm able to. With that.

1.) I never said it would not reach the pelvic bone or that it would not penetrate the pelvic bone. Perhaps I was unclear, but without re-reading my post, I meant to say that what the EMT that I spoke to said was that in the hospital he saw that .38 bullets tended to reach the pelvis then stop in the hard tissue of the front of the pelvis. (The name for it escapes me right now. I haven't needed it to treat people) Perhaps I should have been more accurate and said that it generally failed to perforate the posterior pelvis or cause significant structural damage to the pelvic girdle. Bone is a heck of a lot harder than soft tissue or ballistic gelatin.

2.) Again, he worked in more than one position. EMT's also work in positions in emergency rooms as EDT's (Emergency Department Technician) and a variety of other positions. They are also required to take a fair amount of continuing education, and full time instructors also tend to learn a lot from the desk as well. He worked in a hospital as well as in the field. Kind of hard not to learn a thing or 2 from doctors when you work for them, eh?

3.) I am aware that your femoral arteries, the 4 branches of the iliac veins, and the variety of other smaller arteries in the pelvis (big leg to be supplied from only one artery) are smaller than the heart and aorta in your chest.

Again, I was trying to supply whatever information I could to someone. Don't like it, that's OK. Maybe someone will.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:45 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 429
Location: Minnetonka
AGoodDay wrote:

1.) I never said it would not reach the pelvic bone or that it would not penetrate the pelvic bone. Perhaps I was unclear, but without re-reading my post, I meant to say that what the EMT that I spoke to said was that in the hospital he saw that .38 bullets tended to reach the pelvis then stop in the hard tissue of the front of the pelvis. (The name for it escapes me right now. I haven't needed it to treat people) Perhaps I should have been more accurate and said that it generally failed to perforate the posterior pelvis or cause significant structural damage to the pelvic girdle. Bone is a heck of a lot harder than soft tissue or ballistic gelatin.


Again, it is false. I have seen enough gunshot wounds to disagree and call BS.

AGoodDay wrote:
2.) Again, he worked in more than one position. EMT's also work in positions in emergency rooms as EDT's (Emergency Department Technician) and a variety of other positions. They are also required to take a fair amount of continuing education, and full time instructors also tend to learn a lot from the desk as well. He worked in a hospital as well as in the field. Kind of hard not to learn a thing or 2 from doctors when you work for them, eh?


Not really. I know a lot of EMTs that work in the ER and are great. I also know a lot that couldn't find their own ass if you gave them a map and a one-hand head start. Same goes for my fellow nurses, and to some extent, the physicians, especially when out of their specialty.

AGoodDay wrote:
3.) I am aware that your femoral arteries, the 4 branches of the iliac veins, and the variety of other smaller arteries in the pelvis (big leg to be supplied from only one artery) are smaller than the heart and aorta in your chest.

Again, I was trying to supply whatever information I could to someone. Don't like it, that's OK. Maybe someone will.


People can like to hear whatever they like to hear. I am just calling BS.

BTW, what hospital did the guy work at? North Memorial? Just wondering if I worked with him ever.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Picked up my Taurus 9mm today
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:40 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Doing business with .discountgundealer.com was fine in person. Ran the forms quickly, and handed over the firearm. Nice guy; definitely aware that he's not overly popular with one bricks-and-mortar gunshop.

The Taurus, as predicted, is significantly lighter than 20 oz. I'd guess 14 or lighter (it feels lighter than my S&W 642). Haven't fired it yet, but it dry-fires just fine. The trigger clearly needs a bit of breaking in (most likely), or smoothing (possibly, and it's something I've done before).

So far, so good.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group