Check out this .38 special video!

[Fer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBc35iwQ8kkPlease let me read your opinions, you think it was +p judging from recoil?
I bet it hurts!. The little .38 deserves more respect!!



Regards,

 

[Russ5924]

OUCH!

 

[CWPinSC]

The little .38 deserves more respect!!

The only people who don't respect it are the ones who have never had it pointed at them. OK, you caliber snobs, where's your .40s and .45s now?

 

[doc540]

That's called the "Lee Harvey Curl" and made famous by a Colt Cobra.

 

[Jim March]

Um....

You're actually looking at a failure to stop.

IF that moron had had a gun, he'd have been firing it. He was still obviously capable of doing so. This was more of a psychological stop than a physical stop, and the former can't be relied on.

 

[Dave Chuppa]

If the clerk would have gone into a Two handed shooting stance and aimed the guy would be dead. That was not a failure to stop in my eyes. He didn't look to threatening after she shot him. You can say what if all you want. Looks like the clerk won and the bad guy lost.

 

[JohnKSa]

This was more of a psychological stop than a physical stop, and the former can't be relied on.

While it can't be relied upon in the strictest sense, it is, by far, the most common kind of stop when handguns are involved.

 

[Jim March]

It was a success only because the guy was unarmed.

John: if that's the case, I'm damned glad I have real monster loads in my 357 . Because if God forbid I ever have to shoot, I want to beat those odds.

 

[JohnKSa]

It was a success only because the guy was unarmed.

That's a bit dogmatic--we can't tell what he might have done if armed. Many armed criminals give up when shot even though they are not physically disabled. So there's a reasonable chance that it could have been a success even had he been armed.

It could have gone either way depending on his mindset.

I want to beat those odds.

I've been reading Keith's autobiography today. In one incident he relates shooting one golden eagle with a .45Colt and having it leave the scene by air. The second golden eagle took 4 shots to kill with the same revolver.

If your .357Mag gives you extra confidence then that's what you should carry. But if a 6-15lb bird can fly off after being hit in the abdomen with a .45LC and another one can soak up four 250gr bullets before succumbing then it seems extremly unlikely that any handgun is going to stop a man in his tracks and prevent him from responding at all based on physical damage unless the defender manages a lucky CNS hit.

Most handgun stops are psychological stops and that's a very fortunate thing for people who use handguns for self-defense.

 

[Melissa5]

Most handgun stops are psychological stops and that's a very fortunate thing for people who use handguns for self-defense.

I hope I never have to fire my gun in self defense and I definitely don't want to kill someone. But, I've been told that if a BG breaks into my house, I should kill him because if I don't, he will come back and sue me for shooting him. I don't think I could purposefully kill him.

Is .38+P good enough for home defense?

 

[JohnKSa]

That's a simple question without a simple answer.

A lot of people have successfully defended themselves with .38spl handguns. There have been some spectacular failures to stop with .38spl handguns. You could say the same of any common handgun self-defense round.

I've recommended that caliber to members of my family for self-defense, if that means anything.

As far as "killing" an attacker, the prudent thing to do is to shoot to stop the attacker. That means shooting center of mass until the attacker stops trying to harm you or until he no longer has the means to harm you. This is, coincidentally a pretty good way to kill an attacker, but that's not the goal of legal self-defense. Legal self-defense is about defense, not about whether the attacker lives or dies and it is certainly not about trying to prevent a future lawsuit.

Deliberately shooting to wound is problematic, especially if you admit that's what you were trying to do. One component of verifying that deadly force was justified is always what the defender believed was absolutely and immediately necessary. Shooting someone when you don't believe deadly force is absolutely and immediately necessary (as evidenced by your comment that you intentionally shot to avoid killing the attacker) could be seen as evidence that deadly force wasn't warranted.

It's best to say that in the event of an attack, once you feel there is no other alternative than deadly force, you plan to shoot center of mass until the attack stops. Getting into whether you intended to kill/wound/prevent lawsuits/etc. is not likely to do anything other than complicate the situation.

 

[Melissa5]

Thank you, John. I like your answer about legal self defense. Really, I think I would give the BG the chance to leave the way he came in before taking any other actions. Unless he was armed...

 

[Jim March]

I've been reading Keith's autobiography today. In one incident he relates shooting one golden eagle with a .45Colt and having it leave the scene by air. The second golden eagle took 4 shots to kill with the same revolver.

Wait, what? What the heck was he shooting eagles for?

 

[JohnKSa]

They were killing sheep. It was a very long time ago (about 95 years) and the current laws hadn't been made yet or he didn't know about them or he just didn't care.

After a bit of searching, it appears that golden eagles weren't protected until 1962 when the Bald Eagle Protection Act was amended to include golden eagles. That was about 50 years after the incident in question.

 

[CWPinSC]

Many armed criminals give up when shot even though they are not physically disabled.

That's VERY true. Sometimes merely showing your weapon is enough. Criminals want an easy mark, they do NOT want a gunfight with an armed, determined citizen. How many times have we seen the same scenario but the criminal is driven off by a baseball bat, determined resistance, or even by having stuff thrown at him? The exception is the wacked-out druggie who can't make rational decisions - that's why you can't take the chance.

I don't think I could purposefully kill him.
Is .38+P good enough for home defense?

Melissa, "shooting to stop" aside, if you have to shoot, you are usually required by law to be "in fear of imminent loss of life or grave bodily injury." In this case, shooting with less intent than to kill is dangerous for you. My CWP Instructor told us "if someone attacks you, you must assume they intend to severely injure or kill you - act accordingly." Deliberately shooting to wound leaves you with a BG possibly still capable of an attack.

A .38 spcl. is a good round, especially in +p loads. With modern hollow points and ammo specifically designed for short-barrel guns, it works well for defense, especially in the close confines of a house where most encounters will be "up close and personal". Shot placement is EVERYTHING - in any caliber. Practice until you can nail a fly at 10 feet, and carry a reload for whatever gun you choose. Using a speed loader, you can restock your revolver amazingly fast.

Remember - shooting is not only physical to the attacker, but mental as well, as John pointed out.

 

[RGS]

For the sake of comparison...


Caution, link contains pictures some may consider graphic.
http://shavedlongcock.blogspot.com/search?q=El+Paso+shooting


It is dangerous to assume performance from one incidence. In the case videoed in the first post, everything worked out for the store clerk. In my opinion, a person should use a caliber/handgun combination they can control that is of "suitable caliber". As a rule of course, bigger (or faster) is obviously better.

Another thing. Law enforcement needs run a little different then "civilian" needs. Civilians can leave a cripple at large and flee for safety and be justified. Cops on the other hand may find a need to stroke a time or two more to make sure things are calmed down to a controlled level to secure the scene. Police forsook the .38special as a primary patrol sidearm because of too many failures to stop.

 

[Fer]

As far as "killing" an attacker, the prudent thing to do is to shoot to stop the attacker. That means shooting center of mass until the attacker stops trying to harm you or until he no longer has the means to harm you. This is, coincidentally a pretty good way to kill an attacker, but that's not the goal of legal self-defense. Legal self-defense is about defense, not about whether the attacker lives or dies and it is certainly not about trying to prevent a future lawsuit.

Deliberately shooting to wound is problematic, especially if you admit that's what you were trying to do. One component of verifying that deadly force was justified is always what the defender believed was absolutely and immediately necessary. Shooting someone when you don't believe deadly force is absolutely and immediately necessary (as evidenced by your comment that you intentionally shot to avoid killing the attacker) could be seen as evidence that deadly force wasn't warranted.

It's best to say that in the event of an attack, once you feel there is no other alternative than deadly force, you plan to shoot center of mass until the attack stops. Getting into whether you intended to kill/wound/prevent lawsuits/etc. is not likely to do anything other than complicate the situation.

Johnksa, In my country if you are atacked by a BG with a knife and you fear for your life (obviously) and shoot in defence, if the BG dies the odds are you go to jail because you used "exesive force", You had an advantage over the perp, he had a knife you had a gun, the judge would asume you clould have prevented killing the bastard be cause you had the upper hand. I know it is STUPID!! at least that is what I have investigated, may be wrong, but if a bastard enters my home I will shoot untill He dont move, If He dies oh well!.

 

[Laz]

Police forsook the .38special as a primary patrol sidearm because of too many failures to stop.

I was under the impression that forsaking the .38 Special was a result of migrating to higher capacity semi-automatics. I grant there were long concerns about the .38 Special stopping power, especially in lead roundnose form, hence the relatively brief flirtation with .357 magnum and .41 magnum revolvers prior to the proliferation of semi-autos. Maybe it was all those things...

 

[Daryl]

Most handgun stops are psychological stops and that's a very fortunate thing for people who use handguns for self-defense.

If that's true, then a .25 ACP would be about as good to carry as a .45 ACP, yet through evidence from many shootings, the larger calibers usually stop a BG more reliably. I carry a .38 special because it's easy to carry, and it's "enough" with my abilities with it to protect myself if need be. It's far more effective than a gun at home or in the glove box. Even so, if I thought I needed a bigger gun, I'd carry one.

I hope I never have to fire my gun in self defense and I definitely don't want to kill someone. But, I've been told that if a BG breaks into my house, I should kill him because if I don't, he will come back and sue me for shooting him. I don't think I could purposefully kill him.

Is .38+P good enough for home defense?

Melissa,

The only justified reason for using deadly force (shooting someone) is "to stop the threat of serious bodily injury or death to you or another IF deadly force is immediately necessary to stop that threat.

In my state, there's a condition of "if a reasonable person would believe that deadly force is immediately necessary..."

State laws will vary to some degree, but most would agree to some extent to that.

That said, killing someone with the idea of preventing them from suing you might be considered murder if said threat had ended before you stopped shooting.

To stop the threat, you need to shoot to kill (NOT to injure), but if the threat ends while the perp is still alive, you can't justifiably shoot them again to kill them.

Therefore, you "shoot to stop the threat", rather than "shoot to kill".

Like you, I hope and pray each day that I never have to use my firearm for self-defense against another person. However, if that decision is forced upon me, then I'm prepared to do whatever is necessary to stop the threat to me and/or mine. If the person lives to sue me, then so be it. If not, it was their own doing that led to their demise, and while I would regret their decision, it's better that their life ended for their choices than for me to suffer and/or die at their hands.

Is .38+p good enough for home defense? Probably, but it'll depend on the situation. I like it for minimal penetration of walls, but I also keep a loaded rifle close at hand at night in case I need it.

Daryl

 

[JohnKSa]

If that's true, then a .25 ACP would be about as good to carry as a .45 ACP, yet through evidence from many shootings, the larger calibers usually stop a BG more reliably.

Ok, so let's take a very simple example and make up some numbers.

Let's say that most stops (say 60%) are psychological and the rest of them are physical.

So (still making up numbers here) let's say a .25ACP gets a physical stop 1% of the time while a .45ACP gets a physical stop 30% of the time.

That would give the 25ACP a rating of 60% + 1% for 61% and the .45ACP a rating of 60% + 30% or 90%.

So, no, the fact that most stops are psychological doesn't mean that there's NO difference in what caliber you choose to carry, it just means that most of the time (about 61% of the time in our made up example) it doesn't make any difference.

The example is massively oversimplified because even in the cases where you get a physical stop, whether or not you get a physical stop isn't purely dependent on caliber--shot placement is a huge factor too. For example, if you shoot a guy through the eye then it doesn't matter what caliber you are using. If you hit him in the spine then any service pistol caliber will offer pretty much identical results. etc.