Big Guns

[youbeyouibei]

Nice looking guns, both of you. A little heavy on some of the non-essentials/toys for my tastes but they look good, lol! Not knocking either one of them, to each their own just not what I would necessarily need or want. And what's an AR but a build-a-Barbie for guys?! Hahahahaha! I wouldn't trade my VTAC sling for anything. That thing is great and the single best accessory I put on my Rock River. Mine wears Dueck Defence co-witness iron sights that mount on the right quad rail at a 45 degree angle and an AimPoint Pro red dot with a 3x magnifier for barricaded subjects or moderate range work (I work in law enforcement, hence the barricaded person statement). The Dueck Defense sights are a little different. They don't flip down land are always up and ready. Tilt the gun on your shoulder in the event the optics fail, Murphy strikes and the batteries go or you go from range to CQB and don't have time to flip up your front and rear folding sights. Mine are zeroed at 50 meters and function just like normal irons; they just take a little getting used to but once you have it down, they're a snap. The MagPul magazines with the Ranger Tabs are excellent in terms of durability and ease of use and I buy them like my wife buys shoes, lol! I still carry a few of the standard GI mags on my tac vest but have more of the polymer mags than the steel. You have any issues with your double mags failing to seat a round properly? I know that was an issue some of our guys had with them, trying to carry two on the gun like that. Too much weight and the rounds weren't seating properly or failed to feed entirely. Same issue that's been noted with the SureFire 60 rounders on some guns.

As to the 9mm round. Carry the largest caliber round you can shoot accurately. To borrow a line from Springfield Armory: Bring enough gun. We carry .45's as our duty rounds and while they're an excellent round, they have drawbacks. Less carry capacity in terms of numbers of rounds, a tendency to frangible on a windshield if you shoot into a vehicle, at least with hollow point rounds, as well as the recoil being an issue for some of the personnel on my agency. My wife carries a 9mm Glock 26. She shoots it well, is comfortable with it and it suits her. I wouldn't push a .40, .45 or .500 S&W on her just because it's the latest and greatest or someone said it's the best for _________. Carry what you're comfortable with and what you can afford to train with. THAT matters more than the bore diameter or the numbers after the period prefix. Familiarity and unconscious competence with whatever weapon you entrust your life to, not the manufacturer or the caliber. Nice looking weapons and glad to see there are still people who support the 2nd Amendment, in spite of the idiotic leadership in some states.

- - - Updated - - -

Personally I go for the larger bores myself. I use a 40 Glock as a carry and a Springfield XD 45 for home defense. Everyone has their personal choice I just like the idea of making a bigger hole. Not to step on anyone's choice but the shotgun is really not a great home defense weapon. Granted it will stop anything but in close quarters it is hard to work with.

As for more rounds in the 9, how many do you need? Don't misunderstand I'm not knocking you but there is more than enough in my 40 or 45 for any home invasion. It only takes one or two to take out an intruder and even if you miss a couple of times there's still plenty left.

As someone else mentioned it's all about shot placement anyway with either weapon. Even the 38 Special will drop a man pretty quick.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I would respectfully disagree with that. If you're toting a 28 inch barreled upland bird or waterfowl gun, absolutely. A Remington 870 Junior Express Magnum, in 20 or 12 gauge persuasion, is a devastatingly lethal weapon at close range. Another thing to consider is what's on the other side of the drywall or plaster wall you're about to smear with the innards of the idiot that broke in. Most ball ammo, even in pistol calibers, will penetrate much farther than what will a shotgun pellet or even a .223 round, for that matter. Something to consider if it's your loved one on the other side of the wall you're shooting into and you whip out the trusty .40 or whatever caliber you carry.

And as to one or two rounds being sufficient, again, I would politely disagree with that. Most gunfights take place at a range of 7 yards or less and typically last 5-7 to seconds in duration. You get some idiot who's hopped up on meth/bath salts/take-your-pick-of-the-newest-chemical-melt-your-brain-cocktail-that's-being-brewed-drug and you shoot them once, you're going to be in a world of hurt in a hurry. Studies show it takes an average time span of 4.6 seconds to bleed out to the point of loss of consciousness leading to death from a single gunshot wound to center mass from a typical handgun round (.38 caliber to .45). I'm trained to shoot until the aggressive action ceases, not fire once and check things out or hope that all the Hollywood movies with the guys getting blown back twenty feet from a pistol shot to the chest were true to life. Pay the insurance and make sure if it comes down to having to use deadly force.

I don't have them handy at the moment but there are numerous articles and/or pictures (graphic, mind you) of subjects who engaged in shootouts with law enforcement. One that comes to mind the individual took 14 rounds of .40 S&W, all center mass, all "good" hits and was able to stay in the fight and kill two officers before being shot in the head by an arriving backup unit. Instant incapacitation through massive disruption of the central nervous system is the only guarantee. Anything else is luck of the draw as far as center mass hits being effective or not. Talk to a combat vet, if they're willing, coming back from Iraq. The enemy hopped up on adrenaline, soaking up 5.56 rounds in spades and staying in the fight until a head shot or other CNS hit was made to finally take them out. Just throwing it out there, take it or leave if as you will.