How Much Force Can He Use?

[Guntech]

Cant shoot him unless your life is in eminent danger. And that doesnt mean outside your house with a gun in CA, because here they will say you should have just hid in your house and called PD and waited for him to come in kill your whole family because people here are ****ed up in the head.

[HowardW56]

Keep the birdshot for the birdies and the skeets. #8 will make a nasty flesh wound, but will not necessarily stop a determined attacker. It certainly won't stop him from shooting back. Why would you ever leave a life and death situation to chance? If you wound an attacker, what's to stop him from sueing you for $millions afterwards?

As the OP said, his brother has a disability, and if it is a spinal problem, I would steer clear of a shotgun. The recoil on buckshot and slugs could prove more than he can handle.

I agree with several posters here, a .38Spl revolver with 4" barrel, loaded with +P rated hollow points should be more than adequate. The recoil is light and managable for most people.

My recommendation of #8 isn't based on instant incapacitation.
It is based on living in an apartment. If you are proficiant

[gun toting monkeyboy]

Glasers and Magsafes are non-effective. Use a proven round. In .38special, that would be the FBI load or the ramped up version of it, the Buffalo Bore load I mentioned. Avoid magsafes and glasers, they will not give you the penetration you need.

As of when? Where exactly are you getting your information from, aside from online chat rooms? And non-effective against what? Remember the Straussburg tests back in the 1990s? They were the most effective round tested. What exactly are you shooting at? And why on earth would you recommend using a round capable of going through several walls when you live in an apartment? Are you really that irresponsible? Or do you just not care that you could kill an innocent bystander, as long as you get to play with your popgun and wag your d!@K about it online later? "Yup. I shot the SOB with (insert favorite round here). In one side, and out the other. He dropped like a sack of rocks. Too bad about the kid though. Oh well, these things can't be helped..." WTF! Growing up, I had a teacher who was missing the thumb on her right hand. We always wondered what happened to it. One day I worked up the nerve to ask her. Her husband had shot a burgler in their house with a .357 magnum. It went right through him, through the wall, and took her thumb off. She told me she was lucky, as it missed her head by less than a foot. This was more than 20 years ago. That has stuck with me. So, again I ask. How can you suggest people do something so incredibly stupid? At least a shotgun or frangible round has a chance of expending the majority of its energy into the drywall. That +++P+++ that you seem to say is needed is going to go through HOW many walls before it stops? And how exactly do you plan on not hitting your neighbors? Dead is dead, even if it is an accident. The eight year old's parents aren't going to care why you accidently blew their daughter's brains out. But hey, you got to shoot the cool load. Wow. Good job!

-Mb (who is sick and tired of mall ninjas saying you need the biggest, baddest round to defend yourself while surrounded by people.)

[PzKfW]

I guess we should use pellet guns, cause those won't penetrate a wall. You are ignorant. Allow me to enlighten you.

Bullets. Are. Designed. To. Penetrate. If. They. Don't. Then. They. Aren't. Much. Good. Because. They. Won't. Do. Squat. To. Mr. Crazed. Felon.

Be. Aware. Of. Your. Background.

If you are worried don't use a gun, use pepper spray.

[PzKfW]

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number3/article432.htm

.45acp MAGSAFE


.45acp Hydrashok


Nuff said.

[gun toting monkeyboy]

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number3/article432.htm

.45acp MAGSAFE


.45acp Hydrashok


Nuff said.

No, not "nuff said" Your pictures are great, but they don't tell the whole story. Yes, you have big holes in the ribs. But what about the effects of the bullet on the much more important things, such as vital organs? That is what the Straussburg tests proved. The one with the magsafe went through, and then would have dumped almost all of its kenetic energy into the tissues inside the ribcage. Turning them into Alpo. Look at the effects in ballistic geletin, and compare the wound channel to that of a hydroshok. Which disrupts more tissue? And another result of the tests was the hydrostatic shock that frangible bullets imparted when they hit, which led to rapid shutdown of the CNS. This effect was present, but not nearly as dramatic in regular JHPs. Does that mean that frangibles are the be-all end-all round for every situation? No, of course not. Don't be stupid. But for the situation described in the original post? The answer there is yes.

Now, as for your "You're a wuss who wants us to use pelletguns" hyperbole. STFU and read my post before you go mouthing off. Did I say don't use guns? No. I said select the appropriate round or weapon for your environment. And stated reasons why. Since when is using a shotgun considered to be ineffective for home defense? If you don't have a problem killing your neighbors because you want to use the biggest, baddest, hottest load out there in an urban environment, perhaps YOU personally shouldn't have a gun. Because in addition to you disregarding their lives and safety, you also stand to damage our reputation as gun owners in general. Do you think the media would pick up the story as "Neighbor accidently killed by a home owner defending his family"? Or do you think it would be something closer to "Shootout in apartment complex kills sleeping child. Gun nut arrested."

-Mb (basher of internet gunslinger wannabes)

[SVT-40]

You will be judged just like a LEO who uses force.

Use only the minimum amount of force needed to overcome the invader / attacker or threat.

In other words there is no simple answer which applies to every use of force. Every one is different.

Each instance will be judged solely on it's own merits. There are to many factors which could determine what is "reasonable" to give a good answer to the question " How much force can I use?"

My only suggestion is be as reasonable as you can without compromising yours and your family's safety.

[PzKfW]

The terminal performance demonstrated by the MagSafe .45 ACP +P Defender cartridge shows that it is incapable of meeting the challenge of a commonly encountered personal defense situation. The reasons are as follows:

* The # 2 birdshot produces tiny, pin-prick hole sized wounds.
* The amount of birdshot carried in each bullet is too little to produce substantial injury.
* Penetration depth of the birdshot is erratic.
* The diameter of the shot pattern is too large when it hits the upper torso to produce significant injury.

Actually, the pellets didn't even get to the vital organs, Monkeyboy. They pretty much stopped at the ribcage. Proven by the balistic gelatin block BEHIND the ribcage. So much for your theory. You didn't even read the tests that I put up, did you? Stick to your handgun birdshot, I'm sure you're more comfortable with that. End of discussion.

[M. Sage]

The buffalo bore 1000fps 158gr LHPSWC .38spec +p would be the one I would use, and is what is in my nightstand gun.

880 fps is not that speedy. It will probably get the job done, but just for comparison, a .45acp standard pressure 230gr loading is what, about 850 fps? And that is a bullet with 50% more mass and frontal area.

Cheers

Pretty sure the 230 grain standard pressures were doing around 900-1000 FPS from my P220.

My recommendation of #8 isn't based on instant incapacitation.
It is based on living in an apartment. If you are proficiant

It doesn't matter how proficient you are, if the BG is drunk or stoned, he isn't going to notice #8.

Use something effective, not something that'll scratch the guy.

No, not "nuff said" Your pictures are great, but they don't tell the whole story. Yes, you have big holes in the ribs. But what about the effects of the bullet on the much more important things, such as vital organs? That is what the Straussburg tests proved. The one with the magsafe went through, and then would have dumped almost all of its kenetic energy into the tissues inside the ribcage. Turning them into Alpo. Look at the effects in ballistic geletin, and compare the wound channel to that of a hydroshok. Which disrupts more tissue? And another result of the tests was the hydrostatic shock that frangible bullets imparted when they hit, which led to rapid shutdown of the CNS. This effect was present, but not nearly as dramatic in regular JHPs. Does that mean that frangibles are the be-all end-all round for every situation? No, of course not. Don't be stupid. But for the situation described in the original post? The answer there is yes.

Now, as for your "You're a wuss who wants us to use pelletguns" hyperbole. STFU and read my post before you go mouthing off. Did I say don't use guns? No. I said select the appropriate round or weapon for your environment. And stated reasons why. Since when is using a shotgun considered to be ineffective for home defense? If you don't have a problem killing your neighbors because you want to use the biggest, baddest, hottest load out there in an urban environment, perhaps YOU personally shouldn't have a gun. Because in addition to you disregarding their lives and safety, you also stand to damage our reputation as gun owners in general. Do you think the media would pick up the story as "Neighbor accidently killed by a home owner defending his family"? Or do you think it would be something closer to "Shootout in apartment complex kills sleeping child. Gun nut arrested."

-Mb (basher of internet gunslinger wannabes)

Did you read the entire article that he linked to?

"Dumping kinetic energy" is a wounding factor? Really? I was under the impression that blood loss and CNS damage, along with broken bones (somewhat: I've read of sober people shrugging off broken bones in gun fights) were the main wounding factors. Here's another write-up demonstrating the Glaser's failure to penetrate deep enough:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Brassfetcher_evaluates_9mm_Glaser_Safety_Slug.pdf

The Glasers averaged 7.8" of penetration, which the FBI found out the hard way (with dead agents) is an insufficient amount. Interestingly, this test suggests that a Glaser's performance is actually up to snuff only after penetrating an interior wall before hitting the target, and then it'll leave a sub-par wound track, though at least penetration might finally meet the needed minimum. Take special note of the varying depth of the pellets in that test. Only a couple went to 7.8".

Glaser, RBCD, and all the rest of the snake-oil loads are not something that I'd be willing to bet my life on, or something I'd suggest anybody else bet theirs on, either.

Also, welcome to Calguns. Please don't go around proclaiming yourself to be the "basher" of "wannabes" in reference to other members, or tell other members to "STFU".

You will be judged just like a LEO who uses force.

Too much! Can't. Stop. Laughing!

[dilligaffrn]

Remember though that the assailant needs to actually enter the house and no further retreat is possible and can only shoot to stop the threat. Being that your brother is handicapped, he is already limited in retreat options.

I agree with hawk1, a handgun seems a better solution due to maneuverability.

Perhaps a .38 snubbie (big fan of revolvers due to simplicity), a copy of How to own a gun and stay out of jail to better outline the rules of engagement and a restraining order?

No duty to retreat in your home in CA.

[BillCA]

First: Did the girlfriend-victim file a complaint against her boyfriend for battery? If not, this might make getting even a TRO more complicated and difficult.

Second: A simple, reliable .38 Special revolver will be sufficient, especially if used with the proper loads. Given the circumstances as described, as soon as the boyfriend entered the back yard and exhibited a rude, angry or hostile intent near the back door he'd be dog food.

Third, with regards to Monkey boy's post:

But what about the effects of the bullet on the much more important things, such as vital organs? That is what the Straussburg tests proved. The one with the magsafe went through, and then would have dumped almost all of its kenetic energy into the tissues inside the ribcage. Turning them into Alpo. Look at the effects in ballistic geletin, and compare the wound channel to that of a hydroshok. Which disrupts more tissue? And another result of the tests was the hydrostatic shock that frangible bullets imparted when they hit, which led to rapid shutdown of the CNS. This effect was present, but not nearly as dramatic in regular JHPs.

1. The so-called Strassbourg tests have never been fully released (afaik) and only a very few abstracts were floating around in the pre-internet days. In fact, little evidence exists about who ran the tests, the goals of the tests and where the tests took place.
2. The aforementioned S-tests indicated certain rounds were best for lung shots - not COM shots, not head shots, but lung shots. Such a recommendation negates 98% of the current shooting doctrine that preaches COM.
3. "Hydrostatic shock", according to wound ballistics experts and ballistics experts, does not form until projectiles exceed velocities of approximately 1900 fps. There are zero defensive handgun rounds available with this kind of velocity out of commonly used barrel lengths.
4. The fastest way to shut down the CNS is a head shot. The next way is a hit to the spinal column, preferrably above the 5th thoracic vertebrae. Other major strike points are the aortic arch above the heart (behind the top 3" of sternum) as well as the major arteries/vessels that flank the spinal colum at the back of the body. This is why you need the deep penetration not offered by specialty pre-fragmented loads.
5. The so-called Strassbourg tests contradict the large base of knowledge built upon the work of Maj. Julian Hatcher and his colleauges in the early 20th century.
6. Failures of Glaser/Magsafe type ammo are legion. A friend worked with a disabled CA peace officer shot point blank in the face (under the chin) with a Glaser who survived (with serious disfiguring wounds). Had it been a real bullet, it would have scrambled his brains like eggs (his words). A former Oakland cop is alive because the perp's stolen gun had Magsafe loads which barely penetrated his heavy leather patrol jacket from 8 ft.
7. There are no magic bullets with a 99% record of one-shot stops. Stopping power, energy dump, incapacitation indexes (using temp stretch cavities) and such theories are hokum.

The two biggest factors in surviving a gunfight are bullet placement and a bullet that penetrates through the entire body or sufficiently to reach the back of the body. Fancy bullets that fragmemnt or mushroom won't make up for p***-poor accuracy. Likewise you can be spot-on target but if your load can't reach the vitals.

[gun toting monkeyboy]

I will retract the stfu. It was rude and uncalled for. But based on the many tests done by other sources, in a much more scientific manner, the Glasers and Magsafes are not "ineffective", especially for the situation the original poster had described. I am sorry, but while the guys that did your tests tried to be thourough, they did NOT do testing on living systems, monitoring the subect's as they were hit with the bullets. There is a HUGE difference between a couple of people shooting a limited number or rounds through cow ribs into BG and an in depth study in a lab. I mean, really, cow ribs? Are you expecting to have to fight off livestock? Have you ever looked at a cow rib? Next time you go to the restaurant, order some, and then feel your own ribs. Notice anything different? Like say, one is 2-3 times larger and thicker than the other? But the "experts" at that website felt perfectly comfortable basing their test results on that model and then proclaiming that they, keepers of the supreme gun truths, had proven that frangibles don't work. And PzKfW, again, you are trying to say stupid things like "stick to birdshot on your pistol" which is clearly NOT anything remotely like I said in ANY of my responses. I said use ammunition that fits the situation. You just can't seem to wrap your head around that. Your opinion is based on what the current online gun gurus are writing lately. Not personal experience, nor real studies. You are just spouting off stuff that you have seen written by people online in chat rooms, or done by websites run by gun writers who offer people unsolicitated "Tactical Briefs". It isn't based on real study, it is just their schtick. Glasers bad, JHP good. And all you do is site them as evidence, and ape what they are saying. If Glaser and Magsafe are so ineffective, why are they still produced? Why are they able to sell 6 rounds for over 20 bucks? 30+ years of lying to the public? Don't you think that word might have gotten out? Of course there are times that they fail. JHPs do too in some situations. And as I said before, they aren't a wonder round. But if you live in an apartment complex, you don't want massive penetration. There is a difference between protecting your family and recklessly endangering the lives of others, just so you can prove to other people that you were man enough to use the +P++ hamburger-maker in your tiny apartment.

-Mb (who is still unamused in the antics of wannabe gun experts and their minions)

Here is a basic rundown on the tests I am talking about. They may have been done in France as the name suggests, or at the Army's goat lab at Fort Bragg.

"THE STRASBOURG TESTS

This terminal ballistics research project was conducted in secret on live animals in Europe during 1991-1992. The tests were performed, witnessed and documented by a privately funded group of researchers, technicians, surgeons, veterinarians and classified military personnel.

During the tests, 611 adult male French Alpine goats, each weighing between 156 and 164 pounds, were terminated with handguns. Goats were used because of critical similarities to man in terms of size, bone shattering characteristics, lung capacity and thoracic cavity dimensions. Goats, like men, are notoriously hard to kill.

Each animal, perfectly healthy, fully alert and wired with an electroencephalograph to show brain wave activity and a transducer to monitor blood pressure, was shot through the center of both lungs from a distance of ten feet with one bullet. The lungs were chosen as the target because, while not the most lethal shot one could make, it is the shot placement most common in military-police-defense type shootings. A variety of modern handgun ammunition fired through service and concealed carry pistols and revolvers was tested.

The primary standard of measurement was Average Incapacitation Time - the seconds and fractions thereof required for a goat to fall down and not get back up. It should be noted that goats, unlike humans, don’t know they’re supposed to fall down when they’re shot and will not do so until their bodies cease to function.

The Strasbourg Tests confirmed the lethality of large permanent wound channels, or “crush cavities,” caused by hollowpoint bullets. Most importantly, the tests demonstrated in convincing terms that the huge temporary wound channels or “stretch cavities” and the enormous system-wide blood pressure spikes created by very-high-velocity, rapidly expanding and/or fragmenting bullets may be the most reliable instruments of swift death short of a bullet (any bullet) planted in the central nervous system."

I lifted this from the following webpage:

http://www.watermelonshoot.com/

[Riodog]

Just more FUD. I'll not even comment on it except to say read the book and make sure the first words outta his mouth are "I feared for (my) life or whomevers life. I have nothing more to say without my attorney present.
Just get him a S&W 624, 44 special, load it with hp's and forget about it. Not much recoil, big bullet, safe, etc.
Rio

[M. Sage]

I will retract the stfu. It was rude and uncalled for. But based on the many tests done by other sources, in a much more scientific manner, the Glasers and Magsafes are not "ineffective", especially for the situation the original poster had described. I am sorry, but while the guys that did your tests tried to be thourough, they did NOT do testing on living systems, monitoring the subect's as they were hit with the bullets.

Testing terminal ballistics on a living thing is never "scientific". There are far too many variables involved to allow for a good scientific test method. Shooting animals with bullets can give you some anecdotal data about how things perform, but that's as far as it can go.

There is a HUGE difference between a couple of people shooting a limited number or rounds through cow ribs into BG and an in depth study in a lab. I mean, really, cow ribs? Are you expecting to have to fight off livestock? Have you ever looked at a cow rib? Next time you go to the restaurant, order some, and then feel your own ribs. Notice anything different? Like say, one is 2-3 times larger and thicker than the other? But the "experts" at that website felt perfectly comfortable basing their test results on that model and then proclaiming that they, keepers of the supreme gun truths, had proven that frangibles don't work.

Umm, they were pork ribs. Pigs are actually pretty similar to humans structurally...

Your opinion is based on what the current online gun gurus are writing lately. Not personal experience, nor real studies.

I guess testing done to the FBI's standards isn't good enough... What is? The Strassbourg tests, which might not have even happened?

If Glaser and Magsafe are so ineffective, why are they still produced? Why are they able to sell 6 rounds for over 20 bucks? 30+ years of lying to the public? Don't you think that word might have gotten out?

There are still psychics mediums around the country selling their con game, Houdini debunked the mediums thing almost a hundred years ago now... Word got out, but people believe what they want to be true, or what they're scared is true. Well, some of us, anyway.

Of course there are times that they fail. JHPs do too in some situations. And as I said before, they aren't a wonder round. But if you live in an apartment complex, you don't want massive penetration. There is a difference between protecting your family and recklessly endangering the lives of others, just so you can prove to other people that you were man enough to use the +P++ hamburger-maker in your tiny apartment.

And the test I posted where the Glaser had more penetration after going through an interior wall doesn't make you wonder about the "safety" of these things?

Here is a basic rundown on the tests I am talking about. They may have been done in France as the name suggests, or at the Army's goat lab at Fort Bragg.

Or they may not have happened at all.

http://www.watermelonshoot.com/

So much fail... You know why they use lab rats in experiments? Because lab rats are uniform, they're pure-bred which means they have next to no variation from rat to rat. Using any old goats that are only similar in size... did some have medical conditions, did some have higher fat content, did some have lower cardiopulmonary capacity than others? Of course! What about shot placement, and shot angle?

The "pressure wave" theory of incapacitation and death is something you'll hear nowhere else. Heading to anecdotal evidence of shooting animals with different guns (which seems fine with Strassbourg proponents), I've seen deer that have run 150 yards after being hit in the boiler with a magnum caliber rifle, or a 12 gauge 1 oz slug. I've seen deer that have been hit in the boiler with those calibers and simply stood there and looked around trying to locate the noise until they got bored, started eating again and bled to death. Both of those are capable of producing far more hydraulic effect than any handgun on the planet, but the deers' brains don't get scrambled by that effect.

If "hydrostatic shock" was a wounding mechanism, you'd hear of far more soldiers killed on the battlefield by minor wounds because rifles produce tons of hydraulic pressure.

They don't, because that effect isn't what kills people. Organ failure, blood loss, shock or a CNS hit. Those are what kill. If you can't reach those things reliably, you will not get reliable stops.

If these things worked so well, don't you think the word would have gotten out and police agencies everywhere would be using them? I'll stick to my (police-spec) 230 grain HSTs for home defense, thanks.

[saki302]

Target shot is a bad idea for 2 reasons- at close range, it works like a slug (very good wall penetration- just like a slug if you take it to the range and try it), and at longer distances, it is terrible. At 25ft, it will bounce off a model aircraft wing (tested with 20 ga. skeet loads when I was a kid- we were all surprised!). #1 buck has been tested to be the optimum load for penetration and number of pellets, probelm is you can't find it anywhere. I just stick with 00. Our house has plaster walls which will stop a .38 cold (don't ask how I know!).

+P+ high velocity loads actually penetrate much less than heavy slow loads. The extra velocity makes them fragment more easily, so they may be a good idea after all. I am not sold on frangible rounds for many reasons- especially in autos since there is no way you can test enough rounds to be sure your gun is reliable with it (unless you spend the cost of the firearm in ammunition to test).

-Dave

PS- just felt my ribs- they're thicker than pork ribs, but I'm a big guy