Ever been shot with a 410? I'd be willing to bet money it'll pierce your thick clothing and drop you to the floor.
One of THE most painful things I've ever felt was having an eyebrow plucked. I screamed bloody murder. That being said, I'd rather hurt REALLY BAD than have a 10mm slug punching a big hole through me. And with adrenaline running, "hurt" may not hurt.Statistically speaking, most gun fights take place less than 7 yards apart so I firmly believe a 410 shot would hurt pretty bad.
I don't like "a good chance, maybe, as long as everything goes right". I like "this is ABSOLUTELY my best chance of survival . . . and my family will survive." I dunno, man. "Good chance" just isn't good enough for me.If I feared for my life (and not just my TV), there's a good chance the 2nd (45) round would hit the intruder before he can hit the ground.
Promise? Willing to bet your LIFE that something that "hurts" will make someone stop attacking you?The good thing about not breaking in to a house is you know it. You're not fumbling into things and have the element of suprise (in most cases).
As for the 380, unless you're jacked up on meth or PCP, a round or 2 WILL hurt and cause you to stop attacking me.
WHO SAID THAT???? I don't know who these people are who like to bet on statistics, probabilities, and "we thinks", but I hope they're not on MY side in a gunfight. I want the people who say "I picked the best bullet design in the biggest caliber I can safely handle, and I've put 5,000 rounds through this gun to get my technique down . . . screw probabilities." When it comes to MY safety, "bare minimums" are for the other guy to depend on. I want everything in my favor.Kinda like the camera saying (the best one is the one you have with you), a 22 would suffice for most cases.
When I lived in Tennessee, we could openly carry. I didn't need to worry about being sneaky. I carried a Glock 20 easily within reach. I'm in Florida now, so I'm forced to carry concealed, but even then, I'm going with my "minimum" i.e. a Glock in .357 Sig or .40 SW. Still, though, I'm not betting on a "minimum" carry gun.If someone wants to kill you, they'll catch you off gaurd and squeeze a bullet in the back of your head. CC is all about hiding your weapon and having it readily accessible if needed.
No offence, but my wife has 2 different daily carry 10 round .45's, and she's "little". Most likely you need a much better carry rig or a better gun selection. She's got a couple of good rigs that can make a big gun hide. I'll tell her to get on sometime.Ballistic, JHP, etc rounds are all great. A 45 is great, but for me it's too big and heavy. It hinders my daily operations and therefore would sit in my car most days....not very effective.
Something else to think about...
Why do people rob? To get money or things of value, right? Do you wear nice rings, necklaces, watches? That shiny $500 gun looks pretty appealing to a would be mugger. Now he's a murderer. Guns are easy to sell or perfect for bad guys looking to rob more people.
His dope man would probably give him a month's supply for that Glock 45.
@joshw0000 I just responded with why I feel that way, a few great books I've read on the subject of concealed carry and I happen to agree with the author (Massad Ayoob).
I love and carry my .45 fairly concealed and it's light enough to wear I carry an extra mag as well.
My one argument with that line of logic, is that you are probably "more" likely to run into issues with CC than you are with open carry.
With the weapon concealed, the person may just assumed you aren't armed at all and "give you a try". Of course, this would be their folly, but it makes little difference...they still may have made the attempt.
When it's carried in the open, there's no mistaking that you're armed and the mere visual presence of it is as likely to act as a deterrent to an attack as it would be in defence of one as well. Two forms of protection, instead of just one....if you will.
I disagree with this whole heartedly. If someone is going to attack me, they're probably going to start a fist fight. If I'm being robbed, they'll hold me up at weapon point. Either way I will react like I normally would and have the advantage that my attacker doesn't know I'm armed.
If someone wants to attack you, they see your weapon. So instead of holding you up at gun point to take your wallet and leaving you the element of suprise to possibly put a round or 2 in them, they just shoot you and take you wallet...and gun.
Better. Got shot with a 12 gauge in the "back" (end) during a dove shoot. It hurt, I got mad, and I turned to shoot back at the guy before being grabbed. It hurt, I bled, and the pellets penetrated A LITTLE into me. I was a KID and I was ready to shoot back.
Lol, you missed the whole point.Can't say your logic is 100% sound either.
For starters, not many people are stupid enough to pick a fist fight with an armed person...I don't care how brave they are. That iron strapped to their thigh makes any potential fist fight an automatic loss in the mind of the potential aggressor who decides to bring fists to a gun fight and that's a deterrent as far as I'm concerned. Point in the open carry favour.
As far as potential robbers go. If they're determined to rob you, they're more than likely going to be at the ready, holding you up at weapon point right from the get go. Unless you're clairvoyant, they're going to get the drop on you whether you conceal, or not. No visible fire arm IMO is going to increase the chances of them trying something, since the odds are more in their favour, giving them a 50/50 chance of that their potential victim is armed. Seeing that open carry on the other hand tells them with 100% certainty that you're armed and they may just decide they'd be better off going for an easier mark....like oh...I don't know....perhaps the CC guy who doesn't appear armed? Besides...seeing a $500+ pistol on a persons side may make the score look more attractive, but I'm betting that the increased possibility of now taking $2.50 worth of slugs to the head and chest if things don't go their way curbs that impulsive behaviour dramatically.
Besides, once they've approached you with their weapon up and out already, it's going to be too late for you no matter where on your person you're carrying your gun....so I don't really see the advantage to concealment in the case of a determined robbery? Having it concealed just makes it that much harder and slower to get to. Whether he shoots you in the head right from the get go because he see's your openly carried weapon, or he shoots you in the head when you try to make a move for your concealed one....dead is dead and he still makes off with your belongings.
Someone bent on robbing you isn't going to just assume you aren't armed, just because they don't see a weapon....and unless they're absolutely stupid, aren't going to let their guard down because they don't see one either.
Why not open carry one and conceal another if you want to cover the basis? Then when you get a determined enough criminal who's now busy admiring the first weapon they took off of your person, you can pull the second one while he's got his eyes and hands full, to end their night?
I obviously wasn't there when you got shot as a kid and instead of crying turned around to shoot back but it's clear that you're a natural born killer. Either your shooter was a littler further away than 7 yards or you were wearing a bullet proof vest. Or your skin is made of kevlar. Either way you're f*ing awesome and I want to be just like you.
A gun shot of any caliber THAT PIERCES THE SKIN and punctures vital organs (obviously what you're aiming at) will incapacitate an attacker.
Lol, you missed the whole point.
Yes, if you're robbed at gun point there's a good chance you can shoot them. Like when you give them the money and they begin to focus on running away with it.
Yes, you're less likely to be robbed at gun point if you open carry. The possibility drops somewhere near 0%. Now the criminal has to decide, go somewhere away from you or shoot you in the back when you're not looking (kill you) and rob you. Chances are he'll choose option A. But if he chooses option B, you're dead. At least CC, you have option C, or D. I like having options.
Actually, when I lived in tornado alley in Tennessee, yup, had a reinforced fully furnished basement. And my Mustang has a REALLY nice roll cage and restraints.
You really don't understand much about real world ballistics, do you?I obviously wasn't there when you got shot as a kid and instead of crying turned around to shoot back but it's clear that you're a natural born killer. Either your shooter was a littler further away than 7 yards or you were wearing a bullet proof vest. Or your skin is made of kevlar. Either way you're f*ing awesome and I want to be just like you.
AGREED! I think the point is that the .410 loads in the Judge doesn't have the power to penetrate reliably to GET to the organs. And if it did, the pellets are generally too small to incapacitate.A gun shot of any caliber THAT PIERCES THE SKIN and punctures vital organs (obviously what you're aiming at) will incapacitate an attacker.
So, EVEN THOUGH all the normal test data in the world shows the Judge with .410 shells don't meet MINIMUM FBI performance data to be considered, you still trust it?Yes, there are exceptions. Yes a huge bullet will do more damage. Yes I trust my 380 to my families life. Yes I would trust a judge with my families life. Yes, I trust all of my guns with my families life. And yes I shoot them often enough to trust them. Yes.
I read this three or four times. Did I miss a point, or was there just not one?Cool. Your wife can shoot a big gun. My wife was in the Reserves so I've heard the story of her shooting a 50 cal more times than I care to. Can I carry and/or shoot big guns? Yes, my other CC gun is a Shield 40.
Cool! Good for you and your family. It's good, at least, that you now KNOW the lack of performance of the .410 Judge and can make an informed decision......so back to the whole point of this discussion....yes, I would protect my home with a judge. In fact, this discussion has made me want to buy one even more.
A 410 will not stop a bear. Especially with bird shot. I don't ever expect I'll be held up by a bear.Box O Truth tested that ammo, too:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-53-the-taurus-judge-revisited/
It was bare minimum penetration . . . when it penetrated. It's serviceable, but it's not exactly impressive. I looked over the net at other independent tests, and they ranged from "meh" to "minimum acceptable" on penetration. It rips things up and makes a mess . . . sort of . . . but, eh, do this. Look at some QUALITY 9mm tests, especially some of the new SXT bullets.
It's not that the Judge "won't" kill or isn't effective at all. It's more that it's just not what people THINK it is. It's not a 12 gauge in a pistol, and it's not going to just destroy people with one shot. NO handgun is really going to do that.
I'm sorry you don't like the test data or the facts, but they just kind of are what they are. If the Judge was really magical or something like so many people think, I'd own one. I'm not set on any one caliber, maker, or loading . . . in the least.
You continue to respond as if the only load a Judge can carry is a bird shot. Let's see some proven results with defense rounds and ACCURATE tests (not a home made water jug scale) where it fails this FBI minimum requirement??Actually, when I lived in tornado alley in Tennessee, yup, had a reinforced fully furnished basement. And my Mustang has a REALLY nice roll cage and restraints.
You really don't understand much about real world ballistics, do you?
Small birdshot doesn't have tons of penetration. Look at some of the tests people do. It's not that it doesn't "hurt". It does. It's not that it doesn't penetrate AT ALL. It does. But light birdshot is not going to blow off body parts and puncture deep tissue. If it DID, there would be no point in carrying slugs or heavier loads.
Look at tests man. They're all over. That stuff DOESN'T penetrate.
AGREED! I think the point is that the .410 loads in the Judge doesn't have the power to penetrate reliably to GET to the organs. And if it did, the pellets are generally too small to incapacitate.
So, EVEN THOUGH all the normal test data in the world shows the Judge with .410 shells don't meet MINIMUM FBI performance data to be considered, you still trust it?
Fair enough. Don't know what to tell you.
I read this three or four times. Did I miss a point, or was there just not one?
Cool! Good for you and your family. It's good, at least, that you now KNOW the lack of performance of the .410 Judge and can make an informed decision.
My goal would be to incapacitate (or kill) the attacker and I'd follow the 410 round(s) with hollow point 45 or other self defense rounds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?