I live in a small studio apartment, and my primary self-defense firearm is a 12ga Mossberg 500 shotgun.
For years, I’ve kept Winchester Super-X buckshot loaded in it, and have had good experience with said ammo at the range. While it certainly has been effective against water jugs and other range targets, the full-power loads really pound my shoulder after a while. Getting back on target is slower than I’d like.
When I was buying powder and primers today, I picked up some of Remington’s “Managed Recoil” slugs and 00 buckshot. The marketing information suggests that they maintain the same effectiveness as full-power loads out to about 40 yards (far more than I need), yet have about half the recoil. Sounds pretty good. I’ll save the slugs for the range and use the buckshot for self-defense at home.
Has anyone had any experience with reduced-recoil loads in a self-defense situation, real or simulated? I’d imagine that they’d be similarly effective at closer ranges, but would love to hear from others.
Non-TASER stun guns like this one are essentially worthless for self-defense. They do make really handy “spark plugs” for igniting the fuel of a potato gun, but that’s about it. Oh, they also look really, really scary.
They can only be used at up-close-and-personal distances, can be easily wrested away from the holder, and don’t penetrate clothing very well.
They do not incapacitate an attacker. Instead, they feel like someone is pinching you quite hard in that area. That’s it.
How might I know this? Well, a friend of mine has such a stun gun that he uses for, not surprisingly, igniting his potato gun. At a small party this evening, some of the more intoxicated individuals decided it would be fun to shock each other. They also insisted that I, as a former military guy, should try it out as well as I’d “be able to handle it”. I originally declined, but eventually succumbed to peer pressure (mostly because I knew I could write this post afterward) and agreed. (Note to self: perhaps I should avoid situations that, if they made the newspaper, would have the phrase “alcohol was a factor”, even if I’ve only had two beers over a few hours.)
Even while being shocked, I was able to move in such a way that broke contact with the stun gun. There were no lasting effects — as soon as the contact was broken, the pain stopped. If I were an actual attacker, I would be able to continue my attack without any issues.
Actual TASERs are quite effective, even against determined attackers, though you only get one shot before needing to reload.
Jacketed hollowpoints tend to send get the “leave me alone” message across loud and clear, and most magazines come with a suitable amount of ammo in case you miss.
In short: if you’re going to buy some product for self-defense, make sure it’ll work. Basic stun guns don’t do that. They look scary as all hell, but they’re woefully ineffective.
I found this in my search engine query logs:
can a silencer chambered in .223 be used on a .22lr
Assuming the silencer is physically threaded the same (1/2x28tpi, I believe, is quite common), then yes.
The .223 can will likely be heavier and larger than the .22 can due to the former having considerably greater powder volume (and thus resulting gas volume).
However, do not attempt to use a .22 silencer to suppress .223. Most .22 cans are made out of lower-strength materials like aluminum to save on weight. Their construction is perfectly adequate for .22 loads, but they are likely to be seriously damaged if used with higher-power rounds like .223.
In addition to having your expensive NFA item explosively self-disassemble in your face, there’s also the issue of having said exploding metal cylinder send sharp pointy bits into your body or the bodies of the people around you. Most people don’t like to be near things that are exploding that aren’t designed to be.
Heck, most people don’t like being near things that are exploding, period.
Why is it that every presidential election I’ve witnessed is always claimed to be “a very important election, quite possibly the most important one of our time”?
Granted, elections are important, but how much influence does a president have on the everyday lives of an everyday citizen? Essentially nil. Whether it was Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II, the role of government in my life hasn’t changed much. Granted, I was born a year after Reagan took office, and my life as an adult is obviously different than my life as an infant, but that’s thankfully not something government had much say in.
More important would be for voters to look at the incredible flow of crap coming out of Congress and see how that affects their lives. I suspect that the effect that the actions of a president have on the lives of ordinary citizens pale in comparison to the actions of Congress.
Folks, we’re electing a president, not a king. Contrary to popular belief, the president is not personally responsible for all of the nation’s ills. A much greater amount of thought and effort should be put into choosing suitable Congressmen to represent you. That, and actually writing to your representatives to ensure that your voice is heard.
Again, elections are important. This one is no exception. But claiming that this election is the “most important of our lives” is silly; that same claim has likely been made about every election in every government since the dawn of governments. Get over it already.
The University of Arizona has just released their annual “Campus Security Report”, describing all the various crimes that took place on campus last year, as well as a bunch of other information.
One of the most foolish things I read in the document was this:
UAPD, in conjunction with ASUA, have available and distribute a combination whistle, light and key chain. The program is intended to give people another method of drawing attention in the event of an emergency. If you feel threatened, or are injured and need to summon help, and you cannot call for help via a cell phone or regular phone, blow the whistle. If you hear a whistle, please call 9-1-1 and report that you are hearing a whistle being blown, and the location from where the sound is coming.
Somehow I suspect a whistle/light/keychain will not be a terrible effective method of preventing crime.
I suspect that if they simply repealed the “weapon-free zone” policy for those holding carry permits, they’d notice that people would be better able to protect themselves if chose to do so. At least they’d have a better chance than if they simply had a whistle.
Another choice quote:
NEVER GO ONTO THE LEDGES outside your window. It?s a long but very quick trip to the ground.
Science, it works.