At 03:38 PM 9/26/99 -0700, Phil Murphy wrote:
[snip]
>Quick observation that's equally sure to get me into trouble:  .44 Mags
>***SUCK*** as defensive firearms unless loaded with the proper defensive
>(read: "high tech") ammo.

I thought this was common knowledge.


>Back in the late '70's and early '80's, I sometimes carried a
>"police-tuned" (meaning it had been shot umpty-nine million times) 4" Model
>29 for "social intercourse" purposes. Yeah... Thank God for Pachmayrs!!! At
>that time -- with the possible exception of one offering from Super Vel --
>I had only *ONE* choice for defensive ammunition, and it was marginal at best.
>
>And, no, I'm not talking about the ubiquitous 240gr. JHP full-house
>Remington Magnum loads, either. I'm talking about .44 Special Silvertips.
>
>You see, when everyone was heavy into Dirty Harry's "...and can blow your
>head clean off" mantra, I had trouble hitting *anything* after launching
>the first full-blown round down range. But... I could put six .44 Special
>Silvertips into a nine/ten ring as fast as I could reacquire the sights
>without any trouble whatsoever.
>
>Very important, that "hitting what you're aiming at" thing... especially in
>Church.

In "Magnum Force" Dirty Harry revealed that he loaded his big cannon
with "light .44 Special lads".


>Nowadays, both Cor-Bon and Triton offer real-world defensive round
>solutions to the .44 Magnum question. If you're not into frangibles, you'd
>best stay with one of their light and fast (but still 11.5" to 13.5" worth
>of penetration) loads to answer your .44 Mag needs as a defensive gun.
>Lighter = less felt recoil, and modern bullet design = reliable expansion
>without over-penetration. The old 240 grainers "maxxed-out" *NEVER*
>expanded unless you shot a deer lengthwise, and the State Narc who sold me
>this Model 29 had not one but *TWO* horror stories about associates failing
>to drop perps in face-to-face shootouts (both through-and-throughs; one
>with four .44's finding their marks and the other with five shots hitting
>home -- all chest/abdomen hits) because of agents relying on Dirty Harry's
>junk science that bigger is always better.

Right. The bullets probably only lost 400- or 500-fps (maybe less!) in
their passage through the perp's body.

The ammo performance requirements for hunting and the requirements for
self defense are NOT the same. For one thing, in hunting you are
trying to KILL the creature you shoot; in self-defense, you are are
trying to STOP.

For killing, you generally want complete penetration, and don't mind
waiting a bit for the animal to die. But when you are shooting someone
in self-defense, you want then to immediately stop whatever it was
they were doing that caused you to decide you had to shoot them.

For this reason, hunting bullets are generally (not always) hard
cast semi-wadcutter designs (the classic Keith bullet comes to mind).
Self defense bullets are designed to expland, to deliver maximum
shock, and to penetrate no more than about 18-inches. You want to
dump as much energy into the ... er ... shootee's body as possible
to cause them to immediately collapse. If they jump up in 30-seconds
and run away, that's okay, as long as they don't try to continue the
fight (in which case you shoot them again!).

This should be common knowledge, but it doesn't appear to be.


>Today -- were I to still own a .44 caliber anything -- I would be perfectly
>confident loading five or six rounds of the newest "lighter/faster" ammo
>than I was using .44 Silvertips or the deer-slayer 240gr. JHP's. It was a
>weird feeling to know back then -- and which has been born out under
>statistical scrutiny since then -- that my .45 ACP shooting 200gr. Super
>Vels was a *FAR* superior (and nor just for a semi-auto's fast reloading
>qualities) man-stopper than my Model 29 hand cannon.
>
>Just a thought or two for concerned parishioners and for the people in whom
>they trust their and their children's safety.
>
>
>Let the flaming begin,

No flamming required. Everything you said was true.


>Phil
>
>
>"As hard as I try to be sensitive
>  and politically correct, I can't
>  avoid bumping my way into boorish
>  opinions, thus offending those
>  who are truly enlightened."
>         -- The late, great Mike Royko
>            of the "Chicago Tribune"

--
Ken Holder
Librarian, Programmer, Gunsmith