re: Taurus's new Judge

I think the bastard did it on purpose.

quote:

---

I don't think the realistic need for making 1 or 2 controlled followup shots is the same as "spray and pray".



no kidding! I had to laugh at that one.

---

I didn't "say" it was. I simply pointed out that if the person is not trained in the use of the weapon, it pretty much doesn't matter what they are using. There's a lot of lip service given to caliber and gun type on this issue, and very little given to the skill of the shooter.

The problem is usually described as one of an unskilled or unpracticed shooter being armed with a Judge, and then the solution is usually one of a skilled or practice shooter with a more suitable weapon.

That's apples and oranges, and there's plenty of middle ground that gets ignored.

If a person can't shoot a Judge worth a shite, then buying a new gun won't fix their problem. If a person can shoot a Judge well, then it will probably serve them fine. That being said... most people that shoot often, tend to graduate to more sophisticated weapons, don't they? So its a circular discussion.

quote:

---

What am I missing here? His statement is very true. In fact most places train specifically for the dbl tap and move forward.

---

What your missing is that someone called my need for a "follow up shot" the same as "spray and pray".

quote:

---

What your missing is that someone called my need for a "follow up shot" the same as "spray and pray".

---

No. I didn't.

All I'm trying to illustrate is that if it gets to the point where the caliber of your gun is the only difference between you staying alive or not... then you've done a pretty fricking poor job of protecting yourself in the first place.

quote:

---

the Judge

---

Stole his first born...

quote:

---

did I misread something?

---

Yeah. You missed a lot.. here it is again in context...

quote:

---

So you're saying that an untrained person in a dark house is going to hit the perp with that .45lc everytime and there is no need for a follow up shot?



That's they key, isn't it?

Is the argument here, that with a better weapon, that allows an untrained person to sling a lot more rounds down the hall ... we have a superior home defense plan?

I certainly hope it isn't. "Spray and pray" is just as irresponsible advice as anything else I've read in these forums.

---

I'm asking you if you're saying that the same untrained person is going to be "safe" now that he has the ability to hurl more bullets at his target in an untrained manner.

quote:

---

are you freaking serious??? So because I cant stop someone in there tracks with a .22 but I can with a .40 I have done a pretty fricking poor job of protecting myself?? Isn't choosing an adequate caliber that is going to take someone down the quickest one of the biggest parts of the "home defense plan"?

---

Wow. You really like to pick and choose words out of context. Now you're comparing the Judge to a .22? This whole discussion got started because you said it was "THE WORST" and "THE LAST THING YOU'D EVER USE". Hyperbolic, exaggerated comments... and you make them a LOT, in a LOT of threads.

Some interesting reading on self defense scenario details...

LINK

Its a 5 year analysis from the NRA publications. Some conclusions of the analysis are...

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS
1) Even small caliber weapons are adequate to solve the vast majority of incidents requiring armed self-defense.
2) Mindset of the potential victim was far more important than the type of weapon used. All the victims were willing to fight their opponents in order to survive. Although not common, in some cases bridge weapons, such as pens, were used to gain time to access the firearm.
3) Frequently, the defenders were aware that something was amiss before the action started and then placed themselves in position to access their weapons. Awareness of the surroundings appears to be a key element of successful defense.
4) The defenders had some measure of familiarity with their firearms. Although perhaps not trained in the formal sense, they appear to be able to access a firearm and immediately put it into action. At least one defender learned from a previous experience and made the firearm more accessible for subsequent use.
5) Training or practice with a firearm should include a substantial amount of accessing the firearm from off body locations, such as drawers, underneath counters, etc.
6) This analysis does not present a view of the totality of armed self-defense in that non-positive outcomes were not available for inclusion in the database. The analysis may, however, be useful in helping to describe a methodology for successful armed self-defense. This methodology might be described as: 1. be aware, 2. be willing to fight, 3. have a weapon accessible, 4. be familiar enough with the weapon to employ it without fumbling, 5. when ready, communicate, both verbally and non-verbally, to the attacker that resistance will be given, and 6. if the attacker does not withdraw, counterattack without hesitation.

---

Edit: Adding link to study on NRA's own website
LINK

quote:

---

Sure I said it. And I didn't mention a .22 anywhere either. And since this discussion started because of your silly assertion that an untrained person shooting a .45LC is in worse shape than an untrained person shooting something else like a 9mm/.40/.45acp, I don't know why you brought the .22 up either, except that you can't utter a fricking sentence without making it an emotional exaggeration.

---

And a .22 is a caliber someone could choose. I dont see the problem. Didn't know I was only limited to mentioning things you had previously approved for mentioning. My only point about the .45lc was the recoil factor and I made that very clear. Wouldn't you agree that it would be best for the untrained person to at least have a better chance at delivering more than one shot on or around target? Emotional exaggeration...um ok.

Winchester PDX1