Love .32s, but heard this one kicks as much as a 9mm so I don't see the point
extra round or two doesn't matter much when you're already approaching 10 in a small gun
Full agree. Give me a Tanfoglio GT27 chambered in .30SC with a single stack mag. Exact same size as picrel but in .30SC I'd carry that little fricker everywhere
obsessing over capacity is dumb. pocket guns (ones that actually fit in pockets not ones you can barely shove in your blown-out cargos) are always gonna max out at like 8rds and if you need to use a holster you may as well move up to a compact which is gonna have 15rd or better mags.
.30SC proved that capacity only matters when it suits a 9mmgay's argument
Capacity is a meme in the CCW world because the idea that you're going to come away legally clean after magdumping eight, let alone fifteen, rounds at an assailant is wishful thinking at best. The landscape around defensive shootings is completely different today compared to how it was even just twelve years ago before the Trayboon shooting. Something like 72% of defensive shootings end with a median of two shots fired. Legal precedent says you're unironically better off dropping an attacker with one round of 44 magnum like Dirty Harry than to get into prolonged engagements where you will have to account for every single round you fire. It doesn't help that there are 4KHD cameras literally everywhere now to provide footage for gays like ASP on Youtube to monetize and break your fight-or-flight response in the heat of the moment down frame by frame like it's a game of SWAT 4. Ironically, cops are more likely to get away clean from magdumping not only because of qualified immunity and bodycams, but because criminals who get into shootouts with the cops know it's a fight to the death. If you're just an armed citizen, then there's a real possibility you'll be held to a higher standard of ending the fight the moment the district attorney decides that the assailant was "no longer a threat" based on the footage.
9mm is just too good to lose against .30SC. It has good capacity, good expansion, and good penetration with the same recoil in the same sized gun. I bet .40 would have taken 9mm's place for the same reasons if babbies didn't complain about the recoil.
9mm isn't even "good." It's really just "good enough" and cheap, which is all most gun owners care about at the end of the day. There was a study a few years ago that found GSW victims were something like 40% more likely to survive if they were shot with something 9mm or smaller vs a larger caliber round:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536
>Firearm caliber had no systematic association with the number of wounds, the location of wounds
Interesting, since proponents of smaller calibers seem to justify them with capacity and ease of accurate follow up shots due to low recoil.
>Capacity is a meme in the CCW world because the idea that you're going to come away legally clean after magdumping eight, let alone fifteen, rounds at an assailant is wishful thinking at best.
Well if we're arguing realism, no amount of rounds is going to stop Officer Donuts from deciding to shoot you anyway because "you looked like the assailant." CC in general is a meme because if the robber doesn't frick you, the cop will, and if he doesn't, the courts will. So we're effectively arguing what looks cooler in your pocket trinket that will end our lives so efficiently (were it to ever actually need to be used) that you may as well just point it at your own head. I think .32 is pretty good.
>So we're effectively arguing what looks cooler in your pocket trinket that will end our lives so efficiently (were it to ever actually need to be used) that you may as well just point it at your own head. I think .32 is pretty good
NTA but this is an incredibly based & level-headed take. Carry what's cool
> CC in general is a meme because if the robber doesn't frick you, the cop will, and if he doesn't, the courts will.
Show me three examples of what you claim. This is patently false.
Not him, but there was a CCW guy who shot a mass shooter, and was then shot in the back by a cop because he was being a moron and waving the mass shooter's AR around trying to clear it.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/us/concealed-open-carry-guns-police/index.html
iirc there was another CCW guy who shot some schizo after the schizo executed a police officer at a shopping mall or something, and then responding officers shot the CCW guy because he was standing over the dead cop with his gun still in his hand. I can't find an article about it, but I'm sure some anons will remember the incident from a few years ago.
Yeah I’m aware there are a couple rare cases. Im not dumb enough to say it will never happen, but it’s exceptionally rare. I do appreciate actual thought in a response and real examples.
My point was it’s not >use gun and be fricked forever >please don’t defend yourself goyim
And it’s more like >don’t stand around with your gun out after a shooting or you might get shot
There’s thousands of DGUs each year and a handful of fringe cases like these that ever happened.
Anyone saying the former is a certified moron or israelite pushing gun control
>Capacity is a meme in the CCW world because the idea that you're going to come away legally clean after magdumping eight, let alone fifteen, rounds at an assailant is wishful thinking at best.
when some homosexual is trying to murder you the last thing you'll be giving a frick about in that moment is how it'll look in a courtroom when you drop his ass. stressing about "how you look" after the fact is your lawyer's job
The job of a lawyer is simply to analyze the details of what you did and provide an earnest, legally-sound interpretation to the judge so that he may rule in accordance with an also legally-sound interpretation of the law. If you expend every round in a magazine on a mugger, it will look incredibly bad. There's really no jurisdiction anywhere that will look at you expending ten rounds of 10mm and go "hmm yes, this is a reasonable thing to use against a man who confronted you with a knife from several yards away." It would be ridiculous to insist your lawyer stretch the truth to such an extent that it's a guarantee he wouldn't win the case.
>It would be ridiculous to insist your lawyer stretch the truth to such an extent that it's a guarantee he wouldn't win the case
NTA but I'm a defense attorney and my court-appointed clients (those are the dumbasses) consistently insist that I do exactly this. According to the ethical code governing attorneys in my state (and every state) I have to argue the case that my clients want me to argue.
>I have to argue the case that my clients want me to argue.
Not really. If your client insisted that you defend his use of CC because we're actually all just one with the cosmos and the (now deceased) mugger's mind is now a part of him, thereby not constituting murder on a spiritual and unprovable basis, you would ignore him and instead try to argue in accordance with the law. If you simply said whatever he wanted you to then lawyers simply wouldn't exist, they would have no use whatsoever.
you're making an extreme generalization about something that depends heavily on case-by-case details. if the attacker falls to the floor and you continue blasting him 10+ times then yeah you'll probably get jail time. if you shoot the suspect 10 times and he keeps coming at you because he just smoked 10 pounds of crack, you'll easily be acquitted of any wrongdoing. it's really simple, if you defend yourself in a reasonable way, the chance that you'll get sent to jail is pretty low. if you do something ridiculous and unnecessary, you'll get sent to jail. if you don't do anything incredibly stupid while defending yourself, any half decent lawyer should be able to handle it for you so you don't need to personally agonize over it
>if the attacker falls to the floor and you continue blasting him 10+ times then yeah you'll probably get jail time. if you shoot the suspect 10 times and he keeps coming at you because he just smoked 10 pounds of crack, you'll easily be acquitted of any wrongdoing.
The salient issue is you've murdered someone. It's as simple as that. There is no legal precedent anywhere, in any state, that suggests the value of property exceeds the value of any human life. You would need to explain extensively why you did not simply hand over your wallet and run away, regardless of whatever substances your mugger happened to be taking, and if the individual in question cannot be questioned (they are dead) then there is really nothing that would suggest you did not simply shoot someone in an alleyway due to blood lust.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Not really
Yes, really. >I'm not an attorney but I know more about this than you
Buddy these arguments got old like ten years ago on this board.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The salient issue is you've murdered someone. It's as simple as that. There is no legal precedent anywhere, in any state, that suggests the value of property exceeds the value of any human life. You would need to explain extensively why you did not simply hand over your wallet and run away
ok now it's obvious that you're trolling. go frick yourself stupid Black person
I accept your concession. But on a more serious note, please do not actually use your CC, the legal climate surrounding it is extremely toxic toward gun-owners. A responsible adult would prepare for the possibility of being mugged, but not by purchasing a loud shiny trinket that will steal more from him through legal fees (or time spent in prison) than a petty thief ever could. I recommend a decoy wallet with fake bills and cards instead.
1 month ago
Anonymous
> the legal climate surrounding it is extremely toxic toward gun-owners
It has never been a better time to be a gun owner in the last 100 years. More than half the states have constitutional carry. The most popular gun in America is an AR-15. There are twice as many guns as people.
Are you pissed your “no don’t shoot your guns or you’ll die from lead poisoning” didn’t get traction so you’re using another angle now? Post guns homosexual.
1 month ago
Anonymous
100 years is a huge stretch since guns were completely unregulated prior to 1934. it is way better now than it was in the 90s though
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah I thought about that too but the only reason I think today is better is because of accessibility. In the 1930s I could have walked into a store and bought a BAR which would have been fricking sweet, however what are the chances the store both has it and I can afford it? Most of the cool things from the era we’d want now were too expensive for people to own. For instance a Thompson was about $200 in 1920 which would be over $3500 today by ~~*official*~~ inflation. The average Joe can get more bang for his buck today. You can disagree but there’s an argument to be made.
And because we were basically an all white country back then we didn’t really need to carry so laws and usage around carrying don’t give us a ton of context or examples from pre WW2. At a minimum it’s better in 2024 than anytime after 1986.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The salient issue is you've murdered someone. It's as simple as that. There is no legal precedent anywhere, in any state, that suggests the value of property exceeds the value of any human life. You would need to explain extensively why you did not simply hand over your wallet and run away
ok now it's obvious that you're trolling. go frick yourself stupid Black person
1 month ago
Anonymous
>im not a defense attorney but let me tell the defense attorney how court case work
Dude > You would need to explain extensively why you did not simply hand over your wallet and run away,
Not true and only leftie homosexuals think like this. Now frick off
you're making an extreme generalization about something that depends heavily on case-by-case details. if the attacker falls to the floor and you continue blasting him 10+ times then yeah you'll probably get jail time. if you shoot the suspect 10 times and he keeps coming at you because he just smoked 10 pounds of crack, you'll easily be acquitted of any wrongdoing. it's really simple, if you defend yourself in a reasonable way, the chance that you'll get sent to jail is pretty low. if you do something ridiculous and unnecessary, you'll get sent to jail. if you don't do anything incredibly stupid while defending yourself, any half decent lawyer should be able to handle it for you so you don't need to personally agonize over it
>if you do something ridiculous and unnecessary, you'll get sent to jail.
Guess who determines what's "ridiculous and unnecessary?" Twelve rubes from your local population.
[...]
I accept your concession. But on a more serious note, please do not actually use your CC, the legal climate surrounding it is extremely toxic toward gun-owners. A responsible adult would prepare for the possibility of being mugged, but not by purchasing a loud shiny trinket that will steal more from him through legal fees (or time spent in prison) than a petty thief ever could. I recommend a decoy wallet with fake bills and cards instead.
>But on a more serious note, please do not actually use your CC, the legal climate surrounding it is extremely toxic toward gun-owners. A responsible adult would prepare for the possibility of being mugged, but not by purchasing a loud shiny trinket that will steal more from him through legal fees (or time spent in prison) than a petty thief ever could. I recommend a decoy wallet with fake bills and cards instead.
This but unironically. Don't OC and don't sleep on something like pepper spray as a way to diffuse an engagement and stay out of court.
To add on, you’ll never fine a case where the specific type of gun used or how many shots were fired resulted in a conviction. Its always going to be other factors like shooting someone who was unarmed and not deemed a threat, or shooting them in the back after the attack, or shit like that.
This is true, but, all things being equal, it's beneficial for (You) as the defender to end the confrontation as quickly and with the fewest number of rounds fired possible to avoid potential injury and legal repercussions of shooting the fleeing assailant in the back or having a stray round hit something it shouldn't, for example. I recall defensive shootings like pic related and the Houston taco shop shooting getting Monday-morning-quarterbacked because the CCW users kept shooting under questionable circumstances. Thankfully, neither of them were charged with anything.
>Firearm caliber had no systematic association with the number of wounds, the location of wounds
Interesting, since proponents of smaller calibers seem to justify them with capacity and ease of accurate follow up shots due to low recoil.
Not to either agree or disagree with your point but I'm concerned that 7.62x39 was randomly included in this study. Including a rifle caliber "pistol" is going to throw off the mean significantly.
>If you're just an armed citizen, then there's a real possibility you'll be held to a higher standard of ending the fight the moment the district attorney decides that the assailant was "no longer a threat" based on the footage.
The DA's whole job is to be a vicious moron, you shouldn't give a shit about the DA. If you're going to care about anyone, care about the jury.
>If you're going to care about anyone, care about the jury.
Yeah and ending a fight in one or two shots looks a lot better to a jury than magdumping. Thanks for proving my point.
I asked on Wednesday for any examples of the numbers of rounds fired or the gun used being the reason for a conviction. I’ve asked this same thing for years. This doesn’t happen and is pure fuddlore. But go ahead and try and prove me wrong.
>There was a study a few years ago that found GSW victims were something like 40% more likely to survive if they were shot with something 9mm or smaller
You moron, that's not what the study says. At the beginning of the study, 9mm is listed as a medium caliber round. >These 367 cases were divided into 3 groups by caliber: small (.22, .25, and .32), medium (.38, .380, and 9 mm), or large (.357 magnum, .40, .44 magnum, .45, 10 mm, and 7.62×39 mm)
The 40% statistic you speak of is for small caliber rounds, not 9mm, which is a medium caliber round as per the study >The result is a 39.5% reduction in the probability of death, implying an equal reduction in the gun homicide rate if the same shootings had occurred but with small-caliber weapons, rather than the actual mix of small, medium, and large calibers.
>costs twice as much >only two guns chambered in it >one of them is a $3900 Nighthawk >recoils the same as 9mm >has a 52k psi chamber pressure which has to be incredibly enjoyable in a 3” carry gun barrel >50% increase in pressure over 9mm >37% increase in pressure over 9mm+P
Yeah capacity is the only argument. No other reasons whatsoever.
>has a 52k psi chamber pressure which has to be incredibly enjoyable in a 3” carry gun barrel
9mm is not "enjoyable" out of a 3" barrel >50% increase in pressure over 9mm >37% increase in pressure over 9mm+P
That's a good thing
9mm is just too good to lose against .30SC. It has good capacity, good expansion, and good penetration with the same recoil in the same sized gun. I bet .40 would have taken 9mm's place for the same reasons if babbies didn't complain about the recoil.
>costs twice as much >only two guns chambered in it >one of them is a $3900 Nighthawk >recoils the same as 9mm >has a 52k psi chamber pressure which has to be incredibly enjoyable in a 3” carry gun barrel >50% increase in pressure over 9mm >37% increase in pressure over 9mm+P
Yeah capacity is the only argument. No other reasons whatsoever.
What exactly did it solve? What problem or shortcoming was there with small pistols that the existence of .30 Super Carry fixed?
Almost right. The .30SC going nowhere shows that people only care about hypothetical advantages as long as it's convenient and, most importantly, popular online personalities advocate for it. Compare the release of the P365 to the .30SC cartridge. With the P365, everyone was worshiping it just because it had 3 more rounds than a Shield. Well-known individuals like Taran Butler were calling it the best concealed carry pistol ever made while it was still having problems with the firing pins breaking. That was definitely Sig's backroom shenanigans at work, but Federal should have known that. Instead, we got a few guys saying that .30SC feels just like 9mm but with two extra rounds in a mag. That's being honest, and unfortunately, that won't do in the modern firearms market. You have to be able to convince scared people that if you don't have X, Y, or Z product, their life is at risk. That's why people feel the need to carry a pistol with a weapon light and red dot sight, but would choose a button mag release over a paddle mag release.
This would be more interesting if it was a necked down .380 instead of .32.
1 month ago
Anonymous
.32NAA is necked down .380
But I do agree with you
1 month ago
Anonymous
>same mag capacity >smaller bullet
what's the point
1 month ago
Anonymous
Bullet goes faster, easier feeding.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>higher velocity gives more consistent expansion (.380 frequently fails to expand) >heavier .32 bullets have better sectional density than lighter .380 bullets, causing universally better penetration (expanded .380 has sub-par penetration) >.32 projectiles are universally lighter, providing less recoil (guns chambered in .380 suck to shoot because they're so tiny) >increased gas pressure at the muzzle makes porting a viable option compared to .380 >bottleneck is cooler
.380 is kinda shit. .32 NAA does everything .380 is supposed to do, but better.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>sectional density
does that even matter with handgun ballistics?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah, probably more than rifle cartridges when it comes to penetration in expanding projectiles. .380 90gr turns into a pancake on impact, while .32 80gr makes more of the traditional mushroom shape. All that extra material behind the meplat helps drive the bullet deeper.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>what's the point
It's neat. Sometimes that's what it's all about
I was just thinking about this failed round. They tried to make niche round that no one needed. The fact that glock hasn't made a .30SC model says a lot. And i'm not a glock fanboy either nor do I own one.
the problem is that it released right at the end of covid when ammo was astronomically high, no one wanted to get into a new caliber when they could barely afford ammo for their normal guns.
I think part of the problem with .30SC is that it doesn't recoil noticeably less than 9mm.
Federal did good when they made .327 Federal Magnum for revolvers. It offers a capacity and recoil advantage over .357 Magnum, and when you factor in the ability to chamber .32 H&R and .32 Long, it also offers an alternative over .38 Special.
.30SC's main selling point is that it holds more ammo in the same package. That can be an advantage, but it is evidently not enough in and of itself.
I think part of the problem with .30SC is that it doesn't recoil noticeably less than 9mm.
Federal did good when they made .327 Federal Magnum for revolvers. It offers a capacity and recoil advantage over .357 Magnum, and when you factor in the ability to chamber .32 H&R and .32 Long, it also offers an alternative over .38 Special.
.30SC's main selling point is that it holds more ammo in the same package. That can be an advantage, but it is evidently not enough in and of itself.
According to Federal, they're making more .327 solely because of the success of .30 SC.
>At no point in its development does anyone point out it mogs 5.7 >cheaper to reload than 9mm or 38 >easy to reload instead of being finicky as hell >just as fast as 5.7 with a heavier bullet out of a shorter barrel >would be faster than 5.7 in a 5 inch barrel >would have the same capacity as 5.7 in a full size frame
It could have been the double stack tok so many people want but better. Instead they forced it into the concealed carry slop market where it doesn't shine
It would be slower than 5.7 if it was necked down. The reason it's faster with a heavier bullet is because you have twice the barrel volume per inch with a 32 cal bullet vs 22. Sabots would be the best way to get more velocity than 5.7 with the same bullets because you aren't losing that efficiency
They should have just made 32acp just a little bit more hotter, made it a little longer to accomodate more powder and keep morons from chambering it in 32acp, and maybe removed the semi-rim, then chambered it in a micro-compact frame for 20+ rounds of no-recoil goodness
To channel Paul Harrell: Accurate statistics on the number of shots required to resolve a citizen involved shooting are hard to come by, but the majority of them are resolved with five shots or less. Any shots over five often become legally dubious as the defender ceases to be in immediate danger and instead begins pursuing fleeing attackers for retribution.
why would you ever need more than one bullet?
why would you ever need more than your words?
why would you ever need more than angry stare?
Love .32s, but heard this one kicks as much as a 9mm so I don't see the point
extra round or two doesn't matter much when you're already approaching 10 in a small gun
Double stacks could be thinner
Where can i buy guns that take advantage of this tiny wittle baby bullet
you can get a shield plus, a shield ez, or the most pointless spacegat that hi-point has ever made
If they made a super small single stack mouse gun in it maybe I'd get it as a boot gun, but no, some 1-1/2 stack garbagé
Full agree. Give me a Tanfoglio GT27 chambered in .30SC with a single stack mag. Exact same size as picrel but in .30SC I'd carry that little fricker everywhere
Looking at the SAAMI specs its near .223 pressures in some cases, so that might be a tough pickle for a blowback. Still might be doable tho.
The pressure isn't what is causing recoil, recoil is from the preservation of momentum, which is the bullets m×v
Okay dickweed
love me some gt27s; use the buffalo bore .25 60 grain bullets; they get up to 860FPS
>bullet < .355
No stopping power, you will instantly die if you use this cartridge (more like cringetridge lol, like I'm downvoting it on reddit)
Good option. Id consider it.
obsessing over capacity is dumb. pocket guns (ones that actually fit in pockets not ones you can barely shove in your blown-out cargos) are always gonna max out at like 8rds and if you need to use a holster you may as well move up to a compact which is gonna have 15rd or better mags.
Capacity is a meme in the CCW world because the idea that you're going to come away legally clean after magdumping eight, let alone fifteen, rounds at an assailant is wishful thinking at best. The landscape around defensive shootings is completely different today compared to how it was even just twelve years ago before the Trayboon shooting. Something like 72% of defensive shootings end with a median of two shots fired. Legal precedent says you're unironically better off dropping an attacker with one round of 44 magnum like Dirty Harry than to get into prolonged engagements where you will have to account for every single round you fire. It doesn't help that there are 4KHD cameras literally everywhere now to provide footage for gays like ASP on Youtube to monetize and break your fight-or-flight response in the heat of the moment down frame by frame like it's a game of SWAT 4. Ironically, cops are more likely to get away clean from magdumping not only because of qualified immunity and bodycams, but because criminals who get into shootouts with the cops know it's a fight to the death. If you're just an armed citizen, then there's a real possibility you'll be held to a higher standard of ending the fight the moment the district attorney decides that the assailant was "no longer a threat" based on the footage.
9mm isn't even "good." It's really just "good enough" and cheap, which is all most gun owners care about at the end of the day. There was a study a few years ago that found GSW victims were something like 40% more likely to survive if they were shot with something 9mm or smaller vs a larger caliber round:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536
>Firearm caliber had no systematic association with the number of wounds, the location of wounds
Interesting, since proponents of smaller calibers seem to justify them with capacity and ease of accurate follow up shots due to low recoil.
>Capacity is a meme in the CCW world because the idea that you're going to come away legally clean after magdumping eight, let alone fifteen, rounds at an assailant is wishful thinking at best.
Well if we're arguing realism, no amount of rounds is going to stop Officer Donuts from deciding to shoot you anyway because "you looked like the assailant." CC in general is a meme because if the robber doesn't frick you, the cop will, and if he doesn't, the courts will. So we're effectively arguing what looks cooler in your pocket trinket that will end our lives so efficiently (were it to ever actually need to be used) that you may as well just point it at your own head. I think .32 is pretty good.
>So we're effectively arguing what looks cooler in your pocket trinket that will end our lives so efficiently (were it to ever actually need to be used) that you may as well just point it at your own head. I think .32 is pretty good
NTA but this is an incredibly based & level-headed take. Carry what's cool
> CC in general is a meme because if the robber doesn't frick you, the cop will, and if he doesn't, the courts will.
Show me three examples of what you claim. This is patently false.
Which image of a northeast state would you like me to post?
The one that has examples of what you said happened
Not him, but there was a CCW guy who shot a mass shooter, and was then shot in the back by a cop because he was being a moron and waving the mass shooter's AR around trying to clear it.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/us/concealed-open-carry-guns-police/index.html
iirc there was another CCW guy who shot some schizo after the schizo executed a police officer at a shopping mall or something, and then responding officers shot the CCW guy because he was standing over the dead cop with his gun still in his hand. I can't find an article about it, but I'm sure some anons will remember the incident from a few years ago.
Yeah I’m aware there are a couple rare cases. Im not dumb enough to say it will never happen, but it’s exceptionally rare. I do appreciate actual thought in a response and real examples.
My point was it’s not
>use gun and be fricked forever
>please don’t defend yourself goyim
And it’s more like
>don’t stand around with your gun out after a shooting or you might get shot
There’s thousands of DGUs each year and a handful of fringe cases like these that ever happened.
Anyone saying the former is a certified moron or israelite pushing gun control
>Capacity is a meme in the CCW world because the idea that you're going to come away legally clean after magdumping eight, let alone fifteen, rounds at an assailant is wishful thinking at best.
when some homosexual is trying to murder you the last thing you'll be giving a frick about in that moment is how it'll look in a courtroom when you drop his ass. stressing about "how you look" after the fact is your lawyer's job
The job of a lawyer is simply to analyze the details of what you did and provide an earnest, legally-sound interpretation to the judge so that he may rule in accordance with an also legally-sound interpretation of the law. If you expend every round in a magazine on a mugger, it will look incredibly bad. There's really no jurisdiction anywhere that will look at you expending ten rounds of 10mm and go "hmm yes, this is a reasonable thing to use against a man who confronted you with a knife from several yards away." It would be ridiculous to insist your lawyer stretch the truth to such an extent that it's a guarantee he wouldn't win the case.
>It would be ridiculous to insist your lawyer stretch the truth to such an extent that it's a guarantee he wouldn't win the case
NTA but I'm a defense attorney and my court-appointed clients (those are the dumbasses) consistently insist that I do exactly this. According to the ethical code governing attorneys in my state (and every state) I have to argue the case that my clients want me to argue.
>I have to argue the case that my clients want me to argue.
Not really. If your client insisted that you defend his use of CC because we're actually all just one with the cosmos and the (now deceased) mugger's mind is now a part of him, thereby not constituting murder on a spiritual and unprovable basis, you would ignore him and instead try to argue in accordance with the law. If you simply said whatever he wanted you to then lawyers simply wouldn't exist, they would have no use whatsoever.
>if the attacker falls to the floor and you continue blasting him 10+ times then yeah you'll probably get jail time. if you shoot the suspect 10 times and he keeps coming at you because he just smoked 10 pounds of crack, you'll easily be acquitted of any wrongdoing.
The salient issue is you've murdered someone. It's as simple as that. There is no legal precedent anywhere, in any state, that suggests the value of property exceeds the value of any human life. You would need to explain extensively why you did not simply hand over your wallet and run away, regardless of whatever substances your mugger happened to be taking, and if the individual in question cannot be questioned (they are dead) then there is really nothing that would suggest you did not simply shoot someone in an alleyway due to blood lust.
>Not really
Yes, really.
>I'm not an attorney but I know more about this than you
Buddy these arguments got old like ten years ago on this board.
I accept your concession. But on a more serious note, please do not actually use your CC, the legal climate surrounding it is extremely toxic toward gun-owners. A responsible adult would prepare for the possibility of being mugged, but not by purchasing a loud shiny trinket that will steal more from him through legal fees (or time spent in prison) than a petty thief ever could. I recommend a decoy wallet with fake bills and cards instead.
> the legal climate surrounding it is extremely toxic toward gun-owners
It has never been a better time to be a gun owner in the last 100 years. More than half the states have constitutional carry. The most popular gun in America is an AR-15. There are twice as many guns as people.
Are you pissed your “no don’t shoot your guns or you’ll die from lead poisoning” didn’t get traction so you’re using another angle now? Post guns homosexual.
100 years is a huge stretch since guns were completely unregulated prior to 1934. it is way better now than it was in the 90s though
Yeah I thought about that too but the only reason I think today is better is because of accessibility. In the 1930s I could have walked into a store and bought a BAR which would have been fricking sweet, however what are the chances the store both has it and I can afford it? Most of the cool things from the era we’d want now were too expensive for people to own. For instance a Thompson was about $200 in 1920 which would be over $3500 today by ~~*official*~~ inflation. The average Joe can get more bang for his buck today. You can disagree but there’s an argument to be made.
And because we were basically an all white country back then we didn’t really need to carry so laws and usage around carrying don’t give us a ton of context or examples from pre WW2. At a minimum it’s better in 2024 than anytime after 1986.
>The salient issue is you've murdered someone. It's as simple as that. There is no legal precedent anywhere, in any state, that suggests the value of property exceeds the value of any human life. You would need to explain extensively why you did not simply hand over your wallet and run away
ok now it's obvious that you're trolling. go frick yourself stupid Black person
>im not a defense attorney but let me tell the defense attorney how court case work
Dude
> You would need to explain extensively why you did not simply hand over your wallet and run away,
Not true and only leftie homosexuals think like this. Now frick off
you're making an extreme generalization about something that depends heavily on case-by-case details. if the attacker falls to the floor and you continue blasting him 10+ times then yeah you'll probably get jail time. if you shoot the suspect 10 times and he keeps coming at you because he just smoked 10 pounds of crack, you'll easily be acquitted of any wrongdoing. it's really simple, if you defend yourself in a reasonable way, the chance that you'll get sent to jail is pretty low. if you do something ridiculous and unnecessary, you'll get sent to jail. if you don't do anything incredibly stupid while defending yourself, any half decent lawyer should be able to handle it for you so you don't need to personally agonize over it
>if you do something ridiculous and unnecessary, you'll get sent to jail.
Guess who determines what's "ridiculous and unnecessary?" Twelve rubes from your local population.
>But on a more serious note, please do not actually use your CC, the legal climate surrounding it is extremely toxic toward gun-owners. A responsible adult would prepare for the possibility of being mugged, but not by purchasing a loud shiny trinket that will steal more from him through legal fees (or time spent in prison) than a petty thief ever could. I recommend a decoy wallet with fake bills and cards instead.
This but unironically. Don't OC and don't sleep on something like pepper spray as a way to diffuse an engagement and stay out of court.
To add on, you’ll never fine a case where the specific type of gun used or how many shots were fired resulted in a conviction. Its always going to be other factors like shooting someone who was unarmed and not deemed a threat, or shooting them in the back after the attack, or shit like that.
This is true, but, all things being equal, it's beneficial for (You) as the defender to end the confrontation as quickly and with the fewest number of rounds fired possible to avoid potential injury and legal repercussions of shooting the fleeing assailant in the back or having a stray round hit something it shouldn't, for example. I recall defensive shootings like pic related and the Houston taco shop shooting getting Monday-morning-quarterbacked because the CCW users kept shooting under questionable circumstances. Thankfully, neither of them were charged with anything.
Not to either agree or disagree with your point but I'm concerned that 7.62x39 was randomly included in this study. Including a rifle caliber "pistol" is going to throw off the mean significantly.
Disregard, I'm moronic. It's accounted for.
Tyrone loves his draco
>If you're just an armed citizen, then there's a real possibility you'll be held to a higher standard of ending the fight the moment the district attorney decides that the assailant was "no longer a threat" based on the footage.
The DA's whole job is to be a vicious moron, you shouldn't give a shit about the DA. If you're going to care about anyone, care about the jury.
nvm i realize he's a moron, i fell for the bait
>If you're going to care about anyone, care about the jury.
Yeah and ending a fight in one or two shots looks a lot better to a jury than magdumping. Thanks for proving my point.
I asked on Wednesday for any examples of the numbers of rounds fired or the gun used being the reason for a conviction. I’ve asked this same thing for years. This doesn’t happen and is pure fuddlore. But go ahead and try and prove me wrong.
>There was a study a few years ago that found GSW victims were something like 40% more likely to survive if they were shot with something 9mm or smaller
You moron, that's not what the study says. At the beginning of the study, 9mm is listed as a medium caliber round.
>These 367 cases were divided into 3 groups by caliber: small (.22, .25, and .32), medium (.38, .380, and 9 mm), or large (.357 magnum, .40, .44 magnum, .45, 10 mm, and 7.62×39 mm)
The 40% statistic you speak of is for small caliber rounds, not 9mm, which is a medium caliber round as per the study
>The result is a 39.5% reduction in the probability of death, implying an equal reduction in the gun homicide rate if the same shootings had occurred but with small-caliber weapons, rather than the actual mix of small, medium, and large calibers.
i carry 32 rounds total specifically for a scenario involving multiple black teenagers. simple as.
.30SC proved that capacity only matters when it suits a 9mmgay's argument
>less powerful than 9mm
>more expensive bullets
Hell is hop on the .45 train if 9mm ammo was 30% more than .45, but it's essentially the opposite.
>less powerful than 9mm
False
>has a 52k psi chamber pressure which has to be incredibly enjoyable in a 3” carry gun barrel
9mm is not "enjoyable" out of a 3" barrel
>50% increase in pressure over 9mm
>37% increase in pressure over 9mm+P
That's a good thing
Black person if you don’t like 9mm out of a 3” barrel you’ll despise .30 SC from a 3”
9mm is just too good to lose against .30SC. It has good capacity, good expansion, and good penetration with the same recoil in the same sized gun. I bet .40 would have taken 9mm's place for the same reasons if babbies didn't complain about the recoil.
>costs twice as much
>only two guns chambered in it
>one of them is a $3900 Nighthawk
>recoils the same as 9mm
>has a 52k psi chamber pressure which has to be incredibly enjoyable in a 3” carry gun barrel
>50% increase in pressure over 9mm
>37% increase in pressure over 9mm+P
Yeah capacity is the only argument. No other reasons whatsoever.
What exactly did it solve? What problem or shortcoming was there with small pistols that the existence of .30 Super Carry fixed?
Almost right. The .30SC going nowhere shows that people only care about hypothetical advantages as long as it's convenient and, most importantly, popular online personalities advocate for it. Compare the release of the P365 to the .30SC cartridge. With the P365, everyone was worshiping it just because it had 3 more rounds than a Shield. Well-known individuals like Taran Butler were calling it the best concealed carry pistol ever made while it was still having problems with the firing pins breaking. That was definitely Sig's backroom shenanigans at work, but Federal should have known that. Instead, we got a few guys saying that .30SC feels just like 9mm but with two extra rounds in a mag. That's being honest, and unfortunately, that won't do in the modern firearms market. You have to be able to convince scared people that if you don't have X, Y, or Z product, their life is at risk. That's why people feel the need to carry a pistol with a weapon light and red dot sight, but would choose a button mag release over a paddle mag release.
>What problem or shortcoming was there with small pistols that the existence of .30 Super Carry fixed?
You run out but they still comin.
Already solved
You appear to have mistakenly posted 5.7 FN instead of 7.5 FK. Easy mistake, anyone could have made it.
Weird, I think you meant .25NAA
This would be more interesting if it was a necked down .380 instead of .32.
.32NAA is necked down .380
But I do agree with you
>same mag capacity
>smaller bullet
what's the point
Bullet goes faster, easier feeding.
>higher velocity gives more consistent expansion (.380 frequently fails to expand)
>heavier .32 bullets have better sectional density than lighter .380 bullets, causing universally better penetration (expanded .380 has sub-par penetration)
>.32 projectiles are universally lighter, providing less recoil (guns chambered in .380 suck to shoot because they're so tiny)
>increased gas pressure at the muzzle makes porting a viable option compared to .380
>bottleneck is cooler
.380 is kinda shit. .32 NAA does everything .380 is supposed to do, but better.
>sectional density
does that even matter with handgun ballistics?
Yeah, probably more than rifle cartridges when it comes to penetration in expanding projectiles. .380 90gr turns into a pancake on impact, while .32 80gr makes more of the traditional mushroom shape. All that extra material behind the meplat helps drive the bullet deeper.
>what's the point
It's neat. Sometimes that's what it's all about
Strange, you've misspelled .22pokey.
I was just thinking about this failed round. They tried to make niche round that no one needed. The fact that glock hasn't made a .30SC model says a lot. And i'm not a glock fanboy either nor do I own one.
the problem is that it released right at the end of covid when ammo was astronomically high, no one wanted to get into a new caliber when they could barely afford ammo for their normal guns.
I think part of the problem with .30SC is that it doesn't recoil noticeably less than 9mm.
Federal did good when they made .327 Federal Magnum for revolvers. It offers a capacity and recoil advantage over .357 Magnum, and when you factor in the ability to chamber .32 H&R and .32 Long, it also offers an alternative over .38 Special.
.30SC's main selling point is that it holds more ammo in the same package. That can be an advantage, but it is evidently not enough in and of itself.
According to Federal, they're making more .327 solely because of the success of .30 SC.
Well they are lying.
30sc hasn't sold shit, and 327 fed was dead, they made 30sc solely to use up stock and tooling for the 327 fed bullets
It's funny that S&W even restarted the production of the 632 because they needed other ways to get rid of all the 30sc barrels
Funny theory. Therefore, true!
Solution to a problem no one was asking about
You'll like it until we all start buying them. Then you'll move onto whatever meme caliber is next.
For carry and carry only its a good option. Aside from this, no reason to leave 9mm.
>no reason to leave 9mm
Counterpoint: 10mm
>At no point in its development does anyone point out it mogs 5.7
>cheaper to reload than 9mm or 38
>easy to reload instead of being finicky as hell
>just as fast as 5.7 with a heavier bullet out of a shorter barrel
>would be faster than 5.7 in a 5 inch barrel
>would have the same capacity as 5.7 in a full size frame
It could have been the double stack tok so many people want but better. Instead they forced it into the concealed carry slop market where it doesn't shine
Someone should neck it down to .22 and market it as 5.7 Super just to shit on FN.
It would be slower than 5.7 if it was necked down. The reason it's faster with a heavier bullet is because you have twice the barrel volume per inch with a 32 cal bullet vs 22. Sabots would be the best way to get more velocity than 5.7 with the same bullets because you aren't losing that efficiency
Everything that Ian McCollum shills, fails.
Come back to me when they make Pedersen Devices for modern bolt actions, using this caliber.
probably not a good idea due to the 50kpsi chamber pressure
wait didn't see the part about "modern bolt actions"
This is a pistol round for micro compacts, anon
>"I'll take .312 diameter projectiles for $400, Alex."
.311-.312 projectiles will go down a .308 bore with no issue. It's why you can get a chamber adapter to shoot 32 acp out of 30-30, 308, 30-06 etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device
They should have just made 32acp just a little bit more hotter, made it a little longer to accomodate more powder and keep morons from chambering it in 32acp, and maybe removed the semi-rim, then chambered it in a micro-compact frame for 20+ rounds of no-recoil goodness
How common are situations where 9 shots won't get you out of trouble, but 17 will?
>Are there situations where 2 shots won't get you out of trouble but 9 will?
To channel Paul Harrell: Accurate statistics on the number of shots required to resolve a citizen involved shooting are hard to come by, but the majority of them are resolved with five shots or less. Any shots over five often become legally dubious as the defender ceases to be in immediate danger and instead begins pursuing fleeing attackers for retribution.
Well said.
I always think its weird when ian shills some round and then the round stops getting sold like 2 years later and people have paper weights
.32 caliber cartridges are a meme, they just deflect off bone, 9mm or bigger is standard for a reason
can we test that theory on your femur?