Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

duty ammo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hank1
    replied
    I carry Speer Gold Dot 9mm 145 gr. for duty use.

    Be safe,

    Hank

    Leave a comment:


  • Hospital Security Dude
    replied
    I would also explain to he nice lawyer that you were using such ammo as to protect innocent bystanders since the ball ammo tended to over-penetrate.

    Leave a comment:


  • wackenhut hickey
    replied
    Originally posted by UtahProtectionForce View Post
    American Eagle (made by federal) 9mm FMJ Roundtip (yes i know im getting hydrashocks next paycheck ya know 3 mags at 17 rounds is expensive :P)
    http://www.gtdist.com/SearchResults....Category=GUNAM

    Here is a good site with great prices on there ammo. You can't beat 19.00 for as 50 rnd box of gold dots or federals.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    ...

    Right. There is no such thing as "less lethal" and "more lethal" firearm ammunition when it comes to "bullets." There is dedicated less-lethals, which are made of rubber or plastics, and there are lethals, which are made of metal.

    If you shoot at someone, unless you are using specific less-lethal ammunition, you are trying to kill them. Indeed, some states only recognize a sworn law enforcement officer's use of less-lethal ammunition as "non-lethal force," citizens using the rounds are trying to kill someone by statute.

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    [QUOTE=craig333;33425]I agree with you. If I have to shoot I want it to be effective.

    But lets see if I can expand on the reasoning I was given.

    You're in court after killing a bad guy. Lawyer asks you "aren't you trained to use the least amount of force necessary?" "Did you want to kill him?". You answer " It was my intention to stop him from putting my life or anothers in immediate jeopardy or danger" (insert discussion of escalation of force, big six).
    If your instructor taught you to use the "least" amount of force, than he is a true idiot. My response would have been "No, i'm trained to use equal force necessary to stop the threat". "My intentions were not to "kill" him, but to stop the present threat he was causing to my life and others, therefore in fear of my life and that of others, I shot him".


    Lawyer "so if it was your intention to stop him, not kill him, then why did you use a more lethal type of ammunition?".

    My response "There is a "more" lethal ammunition? I didn't know that, the ammunition that I use is per company policy and recommended by our range master/firearms instructor"

    Leave a comment:


  • craig333
    replied
    I agree with you. If I have to shoot I want it to be effective.

    But lets see if I can expand on the reasoning I was given.

    You're in court after killing a bad guy. Lawyer asks you "aren't you trained to use the least amount of force necessary?" "Did you want to kill him?". You answer " It was my intention to stop him from putting my life or anothers in immediate jeopardy or danger" (insert discussion of escalation of force, big six).
    Lawyer "so if it was your intention to stop him, not kill him, then why did you use a more lethal type of ammunition?".

    Of course, what I would carry is going to depend on what the company allows/requires.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy Taylor
    replied
    If one of my officers shows up for work with ball ammo they get sent home. You will be sued for ball ammo, by the family of the innocent bystander you shot after your round penetrated the badguy and traveled another two blocks. It was just such an incident that finally convinced NYPD to switch to hollowpoints.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hospital Security Dude
    replied
    Craig333, your instrutor is an idiot find a new one! I to am a firearms instructor and agree with the other comments concerning the problem with ball vs HP.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hospital Security Dude
    replied
    one shot Motorola MT1000

    Leave a comment:


  • craig333
    replied
    Yes, I can't disagree with you on the basic point of if you have to shoot. But, you won't be sued? Of course you will, no matter how good the shoot. Do it right and you'll win the suit, but you'll always have people questioning it.

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    Originally posted by Minneapolis Security View Post
    As a firearms instructor, I have to tell you, that is some flawed logic. Hollow points have less chance of over penetration, an are more effective at stopping the threat, which is the goal when pulling the trigger. If a shoot is good, its good. There won't be a trial to ask you if you intended to kill the person.
    IMHO, the best thing to have on the uniform is the ink pen. How you write your report makes all the difference in the world. As Minneapolis stated, it's stopping the "threat", not to kill, etc. Everyone will have their opinions, but it comes down to you going home to bed or in a box.

    Most security agencies aren't going to pay for full firearms training, and just give you enough to say you're "trained".

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    You are attempting to stop the threat by reducing the amount of blood pressure to the brain, making them pass out from lack of blood. If they happen, due to this lack of blood pressure due to internal hemorrhaging, to die... That's unfortunate but not intentional.

    This is what people mean when they say "stop the threat." If you fire ball ammo, you have to deal with:

    Over penetration (Did you just shoot the bystander behind the threat?)
    Lack of blood loss (The bullet 'just zips through' without creating massive trauma)
    Bad Guys who 'just don't go down'
    Nathan, it is for that very reason, when I have to carry the .45 it is loaded with 200 grain jacket hollow point, CCI's Lawman.
    There are 100 calibers to an inch. In at .45 and expands to .80 caliber or more. A string of three rounds, two center mass and one to the head.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    You are attempting to stop the threat by reducing the amount of blood pressure to the brain, making them pass out from lack of blood. If they happen, due to this lack of blood pressure due to internal hemorrhaging, to die... That's unfortunate but not intentional.

    This is what people mean when they say "stop the threat." If you fire ball ammo, you have to deal with:

    Over penetration (Did you just shoot the bystander behind the threat?)
    Lack of blood loss (The bullet 'just zips through' without creating massive trauma)
    Bad Guys who 'just don't go down'

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    Originally posted by Minneapolis Security View Post
    If a shoot is good, its good. There won't be a trial to ask you if you intended to kill the person.
    Finally, someone else who understands this. If you are forced to draw your weapon and fire, it's likely for a damn good reason. If someone is trying to kill you, you react in kind.

    Leave a comment:


  • Minneapolis Security
    replied
    Originally posted by craig333 View Post
    In my training I was advised to stay away from the hollow points and such. Kinda surprised as I looked at those as the safer rounds to use. The theory was if you kill someone and have those rounds, they will try and make it look like " what? you wanted to kill this person and not disable them?". I can see the point, after all we are supposed to use the minimum amount of force necessary. On the other hand, if I ever have to shoot someone, I probably won't be to concerned if they live or die.
    As a firearms instructor, I have to tell you, that is some flawed logic. Hollow points have less chance of over penetration, an are more effective at stopping the threat, which is the goal when pulling the trigger. If a shoot is good, its good. There won't be a trial to ask you if you intended to kill the person.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X