I’d say being able to hit an intended target and not just praying and spraying is part of firearm safety. Errant bullets can cause a lot of damage. It’s been over a decade since I’ve owned a firearm but it wasn’t for nothing that one of the four fundamental rules of firearm safety I was taught is “be sure of your target and what’s behind it”.
in the firearm safety course, you learn not to shoot if there’s anything behind the target you do not intend to destroy. Even if you hit the target, the bullet can pass through it. So it really makes no difference for gun safety whether you hit.
5.7 is known to be pretty terrible for its “stopping power” for lack of a better term. Its a handgun round design to penetrate body armor. In doing so it had to make sacrifices in bullet dimensions and weight. It performs similarly to a .22 magnum round which is a frankly wimpy cartridge meant for small game like rabbits.
So 20 rounds to stop a human isn’t stretching the truth too much.
Depends on what you’re defending against! Only people wearing kevlar body armor are cops, militants, and ice hockey goalies. I don’t know much about guns, but from the description you’re replying to this sounds like the right one for personal defense against wannabe fascist militias and overfunded/overarmed police forces. I agree it’s the wrong gun to defend against the defenseless, but shooting the defenseless is not what I think of when someone says “personal defense”.
Its a good gun to carry if you are worried about a spike of mall shooters in your area. Many of the incel mall shooter types commit their shootings in some sort of basic body armor. The 5.7 round would be better in that one case.
Still, just about everyone would be better off just getting a good reliable 9mm pistol of some sort.
In high stress situations people frequently don’t even realize they got shot until after the adrenaline wears off. In my EMR course they trained us that we need to physically check for bullet wounds ourselves if a shooting was suspected because you can’t rely on the victim knowing that they’ve been shot.
That’s why mag dumping is more or less standard practice in survival situations. Sure, 1 bullet may kill the person, but it probably won’t do so for several minutes and until then you’ve only pissed them off. So you shoot and keep shooting until they actually drop. Which, when you’re talking about a particularly wimpy round like the one above, can take far more bullets that most people expect.
I did not know that (I probably should have figured it out though based on the physics and the tiny little bullet) when I professed my love for the PS90…I just thought it was fun at a range… And now I learned I might as well been shooting a money gun.
if it takes you 20 shots to neutralize a threat at point-blank, I don’t think you should be allowed to own a gun
Fun thing in Australia, you don’t need to be able to hit a target to get a gun licence. Licences tests are more focused on firearm safety.
I mean, that’s how it should be. Just like getting drivers license requires you to demonstrate you can drive safely, so should a firearms license.
Drive safely and not hit things even.
So, like the gun test.
In my country we’re required to set an acceptable lap time around the local racetrack.
Local race track, formerly air field, future housing project.
Netherlands?
Finland?
Laughs in Texan
Here you just buy the pistol, and a holster you like, and that’s it.
I’d say being able to hit an intended target and not just praying and spraying is part of firearm safety. Errant bullets can cause a lot of damage. It’s been over a decade since I’ve owned a firearm but it wasn’t for nothing that one of the four fundamental rules of firearm safety I was taught is “be sure of your target and what’s behind it”.
in the firearm safety course, you learn not to shoot if there’s anything behind the target you do not intend to destroy. Even if you hit the target, the bullet can pass through it. So it really makes no difference for gun safety whether you hit.
I’ve been taught “treat, never, keep, keep” as the four rules. How do yours go?
5.7 is known to be pretty terrible for its “stopping power” for lack of a better term. Its a handgun round design to penetrate body armor. In doing so it had to make sacrifices in bullet dimensions and weight. It performs similarly to a .22 magnum round which is a frankly wimpy cartridge meant for small game like rabbits.
So 20 rounds to stop a human isn’t stretching the truth too much.
Sounds like the wrong gun to carry for personal defense
Depends on what you’re defending against! Only people wearing kevlar body armor are cops, militants, and ice hockey goalies. I don’t know much about guns, but from the description you’re replying to this sounds like the right one for personal defense against wannabe fascist militias and overfunded/overarmed police forces. I agree it’s the wrong gun to defend against the defenseless, but shooting the defenseless is not what I think of when someone says “personal defense”.
The post literally talks about a mugger, if you really have armed militas just attacking people you might want to get out of the congo
Its a good gun to carry if you are worried about a spike of mall shooters in your area. Many of the incel mall shooter types commit their shootings in some sort of basic body armor. The 5.7 round would be better in that one case.
Still, just about everyone would be better off just getting a good reliable 9mm pistol of some sort.
The best self defense firearm is a small, dependable 9mm that you won’t be sad about losing forever, should you ever need to use it.
But 20? Like if you get shot once, hell, more than once, wouldn’t you just more or less drop from the pain?
In high stress situations people frequently don’t even realize they got shot until after the adrenaline wears off. In my EMR course they trained us that we need to physically check for bullet wounds ourselves if a shooting was suspected because you can’t rely on the victim knowing that they’ve been shot.
That’s why mag dumping is more or less standard practice in survival situations. Sure, 1 bullet may kill the person, but it probably won’t do so for several minutes and until then you’ve only pissed them off. So you shoot and keep shooting until they actually drop. Which, when you’re talking about a particularly wimpy round like the one above, can take far more bullets that most people expect.
Kind of like how I unload an entire can of bug spray at the wasp that came into my house.
As a European this is my only frame of reference.
Sounds fair, makes sense. I’ll keep this in mind in the (hopefully unlikely) scenario where I need to defend myself with a firearm.
This is one of the most American comments I’ve ever read.
Where one would actually need to use the gun, perhaps adrenaline would come into play?
I’m currently shooting myself periodically with 5.7 in order to boost my immunity to lethal rounds like 10mm.
Make sure you switch to hollow points occasionally. It helps with the lead immunity as well.
I did not know that (I probably should have figured it out though based on the physics and the tiny little bullet) when I professed my love for the PS90…I just thought it was fun at a range… And now I learned I might as well been shooting a money gun.
5.7 is certainly a fun one to shoot and it feels great.
But once you try knocking down steel targets with a 5.7 and you start to realize its limitations
I think is just more of a fear response
Kind of like how people have a hard time taking off airplane seatbelts while panicking