# If accuracy is most important



## PhotonGuy (Aug 2, 2015)

For people who say that accuracy is the most important factor in a gunfight, in that case I would say choose a rifle as rifles are known for their accuracy, or a shotgun which has a much bigger field of fire and while you still do have to aim a shotgun its much easier to hit stuff with it with at least some of the pellets. As for handguns, they're the least accurate of the three so they probably won't do you much good.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 2, 2015)

In what environment? What is the range? What are the fields of fire and the fire lanes? No one firearm is for all situations. Your statement that handguns being the least accurate they probably won't do you much good is inaccurate.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 3, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> For people who say that accuracy is the most important factor in a gunfight, in that case I would say choose a rifle as rifles are known for their accuracy, or a shotgun which has a much bigger field of fire and while you still do have to aim a shotgun its much easier to hit stuff with it with at least some of the pellets. As for handguns, they're the least accurate of the three so they probably won't do you much good.



It's sort of difficult to conceal a rifle or shotgun...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2015)

A shotgun doesn't have as big of a "field of fire" as you would think.....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 3, 2015)

Well then what about a grenade launcher then....remember almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 3, 2015)

Tgace said:


> A shotgun doesn't have as big of a "field of fire" as you would think.....



It would depend on factors such as barrel length and the choke you use as well as the distance you're shooting at. While it might not have a field of fire as big as lots of people might think, its certainly bigger than a single projectile.


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 4, 2015)

Well, it depends on the range and the choke, as you say. In most indoors environments and at the most common confrontational distances, from the shooters perspective the shot is essentially behaving like a single projectile untill after at least five yards with most standard chokes:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 4, 2015)

Chrisoro said:


> Well, it depends on the range and the choke, as you say. In most indoors environments and at the most common confrontational distances, from the shooters perspective the shot is essentially behaving like a single projectile untill after at least five yards with most standard chokes:



And since most defensive SG ammunition is Slug or buckshot.....


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 4, 2015)

Danny T said:


> In what environment? What is the range? What are the fields of fire and the fire lanes? No one firearm is for all situations. Your statement that handguns being the least accurate they probably won't do you much good is inaccurate.



I agree with you on this one.  Depending on the environment and range it's possible for a knife to do more damage than everything that was listed.  Also it's not so much the gun that has to be accurate but the person shooting a handgun. Every gun is built for a purpose and the accuracy that the gun will have is directly determined by the purpose of that specific gun.  I'm not sure where this topic is going and the OP stated it.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 4, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> It would depend on factors such as barrel length and the choke you use as well as the distance you're shooting at. While it might not have a field of fire as big as lots of people might think, its certainly bigger than a single projectile.


Yeah. All are a factor.
Absolute first factor if a firearm is needed is what weapon do you have access to and are able to employ at the moment.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 4, 2015)

If you KNOW you're going to be in a gun fight, bring a rifle.  In fact, bring 2.  Or 3.  Or more.  And a friend or two.  Who should all also be bringing a rifle or two or three... Handguns kind of suck for a lot of reasons -- but they're much more convenient to carry around if you aren't truly planning for trouble..


----------



## Argus (Aug 5, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> For people who say that accuracy is the most important factor in a gunfight, in that case I would say choose a rifle as rifles are known for their accuracy, or a shotgun which has a much bigger field of fire and while you still do have to aim a shotgun its much easier to hit stuff with it with at least some of the pellets. As for handguns, they're the least accurate of the three so they probably won't do you much good.



Meaning and significance can only derived through context. Not "black and white" "facts," because such things don't exist.

A rifle is more accurate than a handgun, sure.
A tank is better than a rifle.
A fighter jet is better than a tank.
An entire army is better than any of that.
So, without using any context, we could conclude that the best thing to do would be to deploy the entire army, navy, and air-force every time you leave your house to go anywhere. That would be a cold, hard fact. But that's not very practical, now is it? Imagine the massive expense and time involved, and -- you know, all of the people who would get really, really mad at you for marching an army around. Or, even driving a tank or carrying a rifle, if you go that route.

Better to use common sense.
Stop thinking in such narrow "black and white" terms. You do this in all of your posts, and it leads you very astray your conclusions. Rather, seek a broader understanding. Consider all sides of the issue. What is happening? Why is it happening? What are all of the variables involved in every aspect of this situation? What are the various ways it might turn out under different circumstances? What might I be overlooking? How you approach the question is far more important than any specific "fact" or "answer" that you can give.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 8, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with you on this one.  Depending on the environment and range it's possible for a knife to do more damage than everything that was listed.  Also it's not so much the gun that has to be accurate but the person shooting a handgun. Every gun is built for a purpose and the accuracy that the gun will have is directly determined by the purpose of that specific gun.  I'm not sure where this topic is going and the OP stated it.


Around the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, in China there was a psychopath who went to a school and attacked students and faculty with a knife. While some people were hurt really badly and had to go to the hospital, they all lived, unlike in the Sandy Hook shooting where 26 people were killed. The anti gun crowd loves to point out that in the case in China, since all the attacker had was a knife, he wasn't able to kill any of his victims. If he had a gun no doubt some or all of them would be dead. The thing is, guns are super hard to get in China.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 8, 2015)

Argus said:


> Meaning and significance can only derived through context. Not "black and white" "facts," because such things don't exist.
> 
> A rifle is more accurate than a handgun, sure.
> A tank is better than a rifle.
> ...



Tanks and fighter jets are government issued and you only have access to them if you do a job that involves using them, such as if you're a fighter pilot. The Army is run by the government and is not available for private citizens to use at their discretion. So obviously those wouldn't be practical choices for self defense. Now rifles, most of the time they're less regulated and easier to get than handguns. Anybody with a clean record can buy a rifle and certainly anybody who can buy a handgun could buy a rifle. Now, carrying a rifle in public might not be a good idea but a rifle or shotgun is usually going to be better for home defense than a handgun. That's why its a good idea to use rifles and shotguns for home defense. As for a carry weapon, a handgun would be the most practical choice but if you want accuracy than you might want to carry a handgun with a long barrel. A longer barrel means more accuracy.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 8, 2015)

Nuclear grenade. Ends all discussion.

Davy Crockett nuclear device - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 8, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Tanks and fighter jets are government issued and you only have access to them if you do a job that involves using them, such as if you're a fighter pilot. The Army is run by the government and is not available for private citizens to use at their discretion. So obviously those wouldn't be practical choices for self defense. Now rifles, most of the time they're less regulated and easier to get than handguns. Anybody with a clean record can buy a rifle and certainly anybody who can buy a handgun could buy a rifle. Now, carrying a rifle in public might not be a good idea but a rifle or shotgun is usually going to be better for home defense than a handgun. That's why its a good idea to use rifles and shotguns for home defense. As for a carry weapon, a handgun would be the most practical choice but if you want accuracy than you might want to carry a handgun with a long barrel. A longer barrel means more accuracy.


Not so.  You  can buy a tank or fighter jet.  Arming them fully would take more work, but could be done.
Military vehicles for sale EXARMYVEHICLES.com
Platinum Fighter Sales Warbird and Classic Aircraft For Sale


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 8, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> Not so.  You  can buy a tank or fighter jet.  Arming them fully would take more work, but could be done.
> Military vehicles for sale EXARMYVEHICLES.com
> Platinum Fighter Sales Warbird and Classic Aircraft For Sale


Well the weapon systems are non operational and you can't get any of the ammo such as tank shells.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 8, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well the weapon systems are non operational and you can't get any of the ammo such as tank shells.


There are sources...  I didn't say it easy,  or even 100% legal (that's a whole different conversation. ..) let alone inexpensive, but it COULD be  done...


----------



## Tames D (Aug 8, 2015)

This thread took a turn somewhere LOL
and I'm not so sure that fighter jets and grenades have always hit their targets.
Not to mention Tanks.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 9, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> There are sources...  I didn't say it easy,  or even 100% legal (that's a whole different conversation. ..) let alone inexpensive, but it COULD be  done...


So another words, with the websites you posted, you could buy a tank and then if you had the tools and the mechanical know how or if you knew somebody who did that you could get the weapons systems working? And with the right sources you could get tank shells too?

I do know its possible to own a bazooka, a bazooka is just a pipe and a 12 volt battery, getting the rockets that the bazooka fires however is a whole different story.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 9, 2015)

Tames D said:


> This thread took a turn somewhere LOL
> and I'm not so sure that fighter jets and grenades have always hit their targets.
> Not to mention Tanks.



I don't know if this is true but I once heard about people stopping tanks by using gas grenades of all things.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 9, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Around the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, in China there was a psychopath who went to a school and attacked students and faculty with a knife. While some people were hurt really badly and had to go to the hospital, they all lived, unlike in the Sandy Hook shooting where 26 people were killed. The anti gun crowd loves to point out that in the case in China, since all the attacker had was a knife, he wasn't able to kill any of his victims. If he had a gun no doubt some or all of them would be dead. The thing is, guns are super hard to get in China.


Knife attacks become more common in countries that have no guns.: Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN.com
130 injured with a knife/machete 
Outside the Americas Knives Are Often the Weapon of Choice in Homicides Smart News Smithsonian

One person with a knife can be overwhelmed by multiple attacks, but when you have 10 people with knives attacking then there's no way to really know where the next attack is coming from.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 11, 2015)

I wouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight, except as a backup weapon.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2015)

I wouldn't bring myself to a gun fight or knife fight lol.   But in all seriousness.  I was in the store one day and this guy walked by me with with a concealed gun and I knew he probably feels safe, but the reality of it was:
1. I saw the gun
2. If I had knife or brick and attacked first then his gun would have been totally useless.
I think someone mentioned that the effectiveness of a weapon is based on one's ability to deploy it during the conflict.

I'm just glad that most people who do attack with knives really don't know how to use the knives beyond stabbing and those who attack with guns usually don't have a well thought out plan beyond pulling the trigger. In terms of being able to survive.  I definitely would have better chances of escaping a knife attack (provided that I see it before the first stab attempt), than I would a gun. 

With a knife my chances of survival increases with distance, but with a gun, my only chances to fight back is being within my grabbing range any thing beyond my range means I'll have to move around like a monkey and hope that the person can't shoot straight or that they really don't want to shoot me.  The only thing that would give me a fighting chance is to have a gun and better aim.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 11, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I wouldn't bring myself to a gun fight or knife fight lol.   But in all seriousness.  I was in the store one day and this guy walked by me with with a concealed gun and I knew he probably feels safe, but the reality of it was:
> 1. I saw the gun
> 2. If I had knife or brick and attacked first then his gun would have been totally useless.



Oh? And just how, exactly, do you plan to kill him instantly with either knife or brick? Real world here, not Hollywood.



JowGaWolf said:


> I think someone mentioned that the effectiveness of a weapon is based on one's ability to deploy it during the conflict.



And it's no more difficult to deploy a handgun than a knife. Easier, in many cases, since many (most?) knives carried are folders and deep in a pocket.



JowGaWolf said:


> I'm just glad that most people who do attack with knives really don't know how to use the knives beyond stabbing and those who attack with guns usually don't have a well thought out plan beyond pulling the trigger. In terms of being able to survive.  I definitely would have better chances of escaping a knife attack (provided that I see it before the first stab attempt), than I would a gun.



Even if you don't see it coming, you're more likely to be both alive and functional after the knife wound than a bullet wound (OK, maybe not if they're shooting .22 shorts, but a .380 or larger with modern defensive ammo...).

Drawing on memory from 30+ years in the ER, I will say that the most common knife wound is a 3-4" folder. The most common bullet wounds are 9mm (used to be the .357 Mag...). Given that these will account for the vast majority of knife and gun wounds, I will say unequivocally that a bullet will do more damage than a knife wound to the same general area.
Unless you want to get silly and compare a .22 short to a two handed battle axe...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2015)

Dirty Dog
That's reality.  There's no hollywood in it.  Unexpected people have been knocked out with one punch when they were knowingly attacked:  What makes you think a gun would have made a difference in these attacks? 




2nd.  If a person comes behind you and slices the vein in your neck, what makes you think you'll be in any condition to fight them off long enough to shoot them,  remember you attacker knows you have a gun, now you are bleeding from your neck and you have to struggle to pull your gun out of your holster.  You are also put in a situation where you have to defend against knife attacks while trying to grab your gun from your holster. 

3rd.  If a person smashes a brick to your skull what makes you think that the damage would be less than someone sucker punching you in the face?

Now lets keep it real. The day that I saw the guy with the gun, he had no idea I was staring at his gun, and thinking of how many things could be done to him to not only injure him, but also prevent him from drawing his gun. All of this was within half an arms reach from him. That's what I do as a normal self-defense exercise.  I try to find weaknesses and identify strengths which is how I spotted his gun in the first place. It may seem like I'm the criminal minded one, but I didn't know who that guy was, if he was there to use the gun, or if he was criminal.  The only thing I knew was that the best attack to deal with him would be a surprise attack and that any successful attack would have to also focus on making sure that couldn't remove the gun from the holster.  

A gun is not a guarantee that you can defend yourself from a surprise attack. If you know a person has a gun, then the best attack is a surprised attack. Proof of that




 Many people think stabbing is the most efficient way to use a knife but if you have ever done weapons training with a knife then you would see that stabbing is the last thing that's going to happen.

People who do the stabbing usually have the knife out way before they actually start stabbing someone.  It doesn't make sense to attack someone, then dig in your pockets for a folding knife, then unfold, then attack.  

Your chances of survival are slim if a person, who actually knows how to use a knife, surprise attacks you. Which goes back other statement "I'm just glad that most people who do attack with knives really don't know how to use the knives beyond stabbing"   I'm also glad that the most knife wounds that you saw were from a folding knife. But even an inexperienced person stabbing someone in the neck with a butcher's knife can be deadly.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2015)

By the way I tried to pick out the least graphic examples. My point wasn't to prove which is more deadly. But to piggy back on a previous statement about being able to deploy a weapon. The accuracy of a weapon doesn't mean squat if you can't deploy it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 11, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Dirty Dog
> That's reality.  There's no hollywood in it.  Unexpected people have been knocked out with one punch when they were knowingly attacked:



There is a world of difference between "can" and "will". The vast majorities of these attacks do NOT result in anything remotely resembling immediate incapacitation.



JowGaWolf said:


> 2nd.  If a person comes behind you and slices the vein in your neck, what makes you think you'll be in any condition to fight them off long enough to shoot them,  remember you attacker knows you have a gun, now you are bleeding from your neck and you have to struggle to pull your gun out of your holster.  You are also put in a situation where you have to defend against knife attacks while trying to grab your gun from your holster.



Cutting someones throat is not nearly as rapidly lethal as Hollywood would have you believe.



JowGaWolf said:


> 3rd.  If a person smashes a brick to your skull what makes you think that the damage would be less than someone sucker punching you in the face?



Doesn't need to be less. I've been sucker punched. Didn't knock me out. Last guy that did it did manage to break my nose. But when other staff arrived, it wasn't me that was unconscious.



JowGaWolf said:


> Now lets keep it real. The day that I saw the guy with the gun, he had no idea I was staring at his gun,



Really? You're a mind reader? That's really the only way you could possibly know what he was aware of.



JowGaWolf said:


> and thinking of how many things could be done to him to not only injure him, but also prevent him from drawing his gun. All of this was within half an arms reach from him. That's what I do as a normal self-defense exercise.  I try to find weaknesses and identify strengths which is how I spotted his gun in the first place. It may seem like I'm the criminal minded one, but I didn't know who that guy was, if he was there to use the gun, or if he was criminal.  The only thing I knew was that the best attack to deal with him would be a surprise attack and that any successful attack would have to also focus on making sure that couldn't remove the gun from the holster.



Odd way of thinking. Personally, I can't recall ever trying to figure out how I'd attack someone. I've certainly spent tons of time thinking how I'd respond if THEY attacked, but never how I would attack.

I thought we were discussing self-defense. Not the best way to mug someone.



JowGaWolf said:


> If you know a person has a gun, then the best attack is a surprised attack. Proof of that



I'm not a mugger, so I don't need to worry about how to attack people.



JowGaWolf said:


> Many people think stabbing is the most efficient way to use a knife but if you have ever done weapons training with a knife then you would see that stabbing is the last thing that's going to happen.



Stab wounds are far less messy, but far more lethal, than cuts.

[Remaining instructions how to most effectively assault some innocent person deleted.]


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 12, 2015)

Dirty Dog
Stop assuming. Never assume what someone "will" or "can" do.  I don't know how many times I've heard over the past 2 years how friends and family never thought the person they knew would ever do such a horrible act.  
Thinking about how to attack has nothing to do with being a mugger.  Knowing how to attack and thinking about attacking is a natural part self-defense, especially if some stranger has a concealed gun around you. 

In terms of self-defense, You are most likely fail in defending yourself if you don't know where to attack and how to attack before the conflict starts. You may not think about how to attack someone, but people who are in the military think about the best way to attack, Martial arts is almost entirely based on the best way to attack and defend. Boxing is the same way.  

In terms of a gun fight, as the original post refers to. Knowing where to attack and how to attack with the gun before the conflict starts is more important than the accuracy of a gun. Knowing where to attack could mean that the gunfight is indoors or outdoors, close quarters or open space, are the attackers in a moving vehicle or behind defenses.  Knowing how to attack can range from something a simple as removing the safety, loading a round, aiming, or breaching capability such as what SWAT teams do.  There are so many factors that have to be considered and everything doesn't ride on just accuracy.

As for the knife discussion, I don't want to hijack this thread even though I still have lots to say about your responses. 
So back to the original post.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 14, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I wouldn't bring myself to a gun fight or knife fight lol.


Me neither. But the thing is, usually the fight comes to you not the other way around.



JowGaWolf said:


> But in all seriousness.  I was in the store one day and this guy walked by me with with a concealed gun and I knew he probably feels safe, but the reality of it was:
> 1. I saw the gun
> 2. If I had knife or brick and attacked first then his gun would have been totally useless.
> I think someone mentioned that the effectiveness of a weapon is based on one's ability to deploy it during the conflict.


He needs to get better at concealing if he is going to carry a concealed weapon. Printing can get you in trouble and in some cases you can lose your carry license. Sure, you could take him down with a knife or brick or your bare hands if you attacked first and had the element of surprise. As you said, it depends on the person's ability to deploy the weapon, their skill with the weapon, and it also depends on how alert they are.



JowGaWolf said:


> I'm just glad that most people who do attack with knives really don't know how to use the knives beyond stabbing and those who attack with guns usually don't have a well thought out plan beyond pulling the trigger. In terms of being able to survive.  I definitely would have better chances of escaping a knife attack (provided that I see it before the first stab attempt), than I would a gun.


There is more to knife fighting than stabbing and there's more to gun fighting than pulling the trigger. As it is, people tend to think of knives and especially guns as magic wands without realizing that it takes knowledge and skill to effectively use either of them.



JowGaWolf said:


> With a knife my chances of survival increases with distance, but with a gun, my only chances to fight back is being within my grabbing range any thing beyond my range means I'll have to move around like a monkey and hope that the person can't shoot straight or that they really don't want to shoot me.  The only thing that would give me a fighting chance is to have a gun and better aim.



True enough.


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 15, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Me neither. But the thing is, usually the fight comes to you not the other way around.



No, it doesn't.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Aug 29, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Well then what about a grenade launcher then....remember almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades



Nah, also counts in atom bombs, you can miss by  a mile ... still counts.


----------



## Hudson69 (Sep 7, 2015)

I like the idea of a rifle, they are just too hard to conceal in summer.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 7, 2015)

Hudson69 said:


> I like the idea of a rifle, they are just too hard to conceal in summer.



There are options...

I lived in Spain for three years in the days of Generalissimo Franco. Spain under a dictator was...different...

The Guardia Civil in those days wore a uniform that included a short cape. Which did a fine job of concealing the full auto weapons they carried. Mostly the Uzi, which is, admittedly, fairly small anyway.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 7, 2015)

UOTE="JowGaWolf, post: 1719816, member: 33903"]Dirty Dog
That's reality.  There's no hollywood in it.  Unexpected people have been knocked out with one punch when they were knowingly attacked:  What makes you think a gun would have made a difference in these attacks? 



because there are WAY more cases of people not getting knocked out then the sensational stories put on the news.  They generally dont report "guy gets punched and does not fall down"  Now would a gun make a difference prob not since most of these attacks are hit and run and its generally frowned upon to shoot people that run away


> 2nd.  If a person comes behind you and slices the vein in your neck, what makes you think you'll be in any condition to fight them off long enough to shoot them,  remember you attacker knows you have a gun, now you are bleeding from your neck and you have to struggle to pull your gun out of your holster.  You are also put in a situation where you have to defend against knife attacks while trying to grab your gun from your holster.


Well I know an officer that was shot in the neck who was able to chase the guy down and beat him.  The officer did not shoot him back because the officer said he didnt know he was shot he thought he just got punched. I responded to a domestic incident where the woman had her throat slit with a butcher knife by her husband.  She was able to fight him off and run away. Shes alive and well now.  You dont drop dead just because your cut.  As for pulling a gun from a holster I carry a lvl 3 retention holster and can draw it very quickly and your closes enough to stab me so I dont even need to aim to hit you.


> 3rd.  If a person smashes a brick to your skull what makes you think that the damage would be less than someone sucker punching you in the face?


Ive been hit with a brick in the back of the head, and a bottle, and a chair (Bottle and chair were during the same fight in a bar only a few seconds apart) other then a small scar I wasn't knocked out.  Ive seen people hit with bats, hammers,rocks even shot in the head and not get knocked out.


> Now lets keep it real. The day that I saw the guy with the gun, he had no idea I was staring at his gun, and thinking of how many things could be done to him to not only injure him, but also prevent him from drawing his gun. All of this was within half an arms reach from him.


NO lets keep it real.  you think he had no idea, you think he wasnt coming up with plans in his head on how to defeat you as well?  Do you believe your the only one that has situational awareness and plays the "what next game" in your mind


> That's what I do as a normal self-defense exercise.


So so alot of other people



> A gun is not a guarantee that you can defend yourself from a surprise attack. If you know a person has a gun, then the best attack is a surprised attack. Proof of that


What did that prove? She stabbed him it didnt work he gained distance and drew his gun[/QUOTE]


----------

