I like Ayoob's writing a lot, really. But have any of these "in cases" actually ever happened?
For that matter, what about the counter-argument: "He was carrying the same ammo as the police. He clearly thinks of himself as a kind of policeman!"
| Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://ellegon.com/forum/ |
|
| Police Ammo http://ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2295 |
Page 2 of 4 |
| Author: | squib_joe [ Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I still see a lot of cops buying good 'ole Silvertips |
|
| Author: | oscar [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was talking with a friend about ammunition recently, and he said that even though Federal Hydra-Shoks are touted as "personal defense" type ammunition, it is a very "offensive" type of ammo in the eyes of a prosecutor?? TRUE?? If true so, what is a good "defensive" type ammo for .40 cal?? |
|
| Author: | Pinnacle [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Any ammunition in the hands of a cvilian is Offensive to a prosecutor. I offer this - no matter the bullet - brand - configuration - number of shots - if you are justified - you are justified. We dont want to use deadly force - that is the absolute last resort - but when and if push comes to shove - we want the most effective tool at our disposal... I like BALL ammunition - HP's are great but rarely open effectively anyhow and most popular SD Calibers will make 2 holes anyhow - and that is what you want. |
|
| Author: | DeanC [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Found out last Monday: MN DNR Conservation officers use Federal Hydrashoks in their Glock 22's. Either the 165 or 155 gr load. He couldn't remember. |
|
| Author: | DonL [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Actually, it was Masaad Ayoob, when we were in the same class at Thunder Ranch, that said he recommended carrying the same ammo that your police department did, in case the question came up in court about having "20 megaton man-killer bullets in that gun". Don |
|
| Author: | Andrew Rothman [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like Ayoob's writing a lot, really. But have any of these "in cases" actually ever happened? For that matter, what about the counter-argument: "He was carrying the same ammo as the police. He clearly thinks of himself as a kind of policeman!"
|
|
| Author: | grayskys [ Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andrew Rothman wrote: For that matter, what about the counter-argument: "He was carrying the same ammo as the police. He clearly thinks of himself as a kind of policeman!" Have to agree, any good (and probably even a good number of bad) lawyeres/prosecutors can turn any aurgment on its head. 
|
|
| Author: | DonL [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ayoobs' reasoning was that "if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me". He did have an article in Combat Handguns a while back where he gave examples of six court cases where ammo brand and type were brought up. Myself, I don't want any over-penetration, and have anything end up in my neighbors house. |
|
| Author: | e5usmc [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm probably speaking out of turn here, as I'm probably the least well-versed here on ballistics... I understand that the frangible or pre-fragmented rounds are not only your likely best choice for over penetration concerns, but also quite effective for stopping power (wound channel, soft tissue disruption, etc). Thoughts? Am I off base/misinformed? |
|
| Author: | grayskys [ Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We discussed it a bit here; http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71 |
|
| Author: | Jeff Boucher-Zamzo [ Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
DonL wrote: Ayoobs' reasoning was that "if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me". He did have an article in Combat Handguns a while back where he gave examples of six court cases where ammo brand and type were brought up. Myself, I don't want any over-penetration, and have anything end up in my neighbors house. I remember reading that column, and much of his reasoning seemed pretty sound to me. That said I'm sure a prosecutor will find an argument to use for any type of ammo you use, and the weapon. Heck they could say that all of the additional training you have taken (Thunder Ranch, F-R-I, LFI) is an indication that your some sort of commando looking for trouble...not that any of these arguments can't be shot down with a good defense attorney. The most recent Combat Handguns (Nov 06) has a "Stopping Power Vs Over-penetration" column from Chuck Taylor, that seems to be pretty good, but I'm right in the middle of it at the moment. |
|
| Author: | clydesdale [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I asked two St. Paul police this question on 2-07-07, and he told me and showed me his .40 Hydra shoks. |
|
| Author: | Rem700 [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pinnacle wrote: Any ammunition in the hands of a cvilian is Offensive to a prosecutor. I offer this - no matter the bullet - brand - configuration - number of shots - if you are justified - you are justified. We dont want to use deadly force - that is the absolute last resort - but when and if push comes to shove - we want the most effective tool at our disposal... I like BALL ammunition - HP's are great but rarely open effectively anyhow and most popular SD Calibers will make 2 holes anyhow - and that is what you want. Please help me understand. Other then the cost savings of Ball why not use HP? If HP expands great if not you basically have Ball ammo, If it expands you most likely get pass thru anyway and a bigger exit wound. What am I missing here? |
|
| Author: | Pinnacle [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rem700 wrote: Pinnacle wrote: Any ammunition in the hands of a cvilian is Offensive to a prosecutor. I offer this - no matter the bullet - brand - configuration - number of shots - if you are justified - you are justified. We dont want to use deadly force - that is the absolute last resort - but when and if push comes to shove - we want the most effective tool at our disposal... I like BALL ammunition - HP's are great but rarely open effectively anyhow and most popular SD Calibers will make 2 holes anyhow - and that is what you want. Please help me understand. Other then the cost savings of Ball why not use HP? If HP expands great if not you basically have Ball ammo, If it expands you most likely get pass thru anyway and a bigger exit wound. What am I missing here? Ball feeds reliably - as all guns are designed to feed it - it is cheaper to shoot and practice with - a HP will not likely open up anyhow and will make 2 holes anyhow The thing is this - I want gauranteed 2 holes as entry wounds dont bleed all that much and exit wounds bleed much more profusely. When we have a handgun in use for SD - we are counting on the fact that there will be a bleed out situation and not a complete cessation of holstilities through massive nervous system overload - or the complete destruction of a massive amount of tissue. Basically when someone gets shot with a handgun anywhere but in the good stuff and your chances are slim of hitting the pumphouse - or the Cranial ocular - so you basically have to wait until the bad guy looses enough blood volume to incapacitate him/her. This can take a while and this aint the movies. I dont care what anyone says - take this for what it is worth - remember the rules of shooting - TARGET AND BEYOND this always applies even with the most UBER tactial JHP There is no magic bullet - but there are a few solid reasons for using the most failure free round in your gun. I dont care what ammo is int he mag - if it malfunctions after the first shot - what the hell good is that stack of uber tactical and spendy JHP's? More folsk have bene killed with ball ammunition than with any JHP - I can assure you of that. |
|
| Author: | eLRoy [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm surprised to hear people advocating making two holes. If your bullet passes through the target, it still has energy and thus has not expended all it's energy on the target. I don't think that bleeding out is a necessarily quick way to incapacitate a threat. I'll never forget the demonstration I saw years ago. Two water jugs ten feet away. One .357 revolver with 4 fmj and 2 jhp. The first four rounds (the fmjs) went into the first jug creating 8 holes through which the water was now running out. The 5th round went into the second jug. It exploded throwing water five feet in every direction. After a pause for effect, the sixth round went into the now half empty 1st jug (below the water line) with just as impressive an explosion. I'll take expansion and full energy transfer any day over lots of holes. my .02 |
|
| Page 2 of 4 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|