TexasCHLforum.com

2farnorth wrote:I believe the last 2 shots shown were the same shot shown from 2 different cameras. Was it a legal shoot (last shot)? I believe the BG still had possession of the handgun and was still a threat to the shooter and the public. The shot through the doorway at the BG on the pavement made me cringe a little but there again the BG could have rolled over and fired back at the GG. The GG had no way of knowing that the BG's gun was "inoperable".

edit: Went back and looked at the video again and it says 3 angles. So it was either 3 or 4 shots. The middle 2 shots could be the same one also. Hard to really tell without knowing the layout of the facility.

If it was 4 shots then three connected and that makes him a better shot then we though

Kythas wrote:

mdoan300 wrote:Can anybody tell how many shots the old guy fired? From the second article, he got only 3 hits (2 in one BG, 1 in the other BG). And his last shot, one-handed and out the door, had me cringe a little -- did he have a good sight picture and know what was around and beyond his target?

I'm sure his adrenaline level was through the roof, which would have impeded his fine motor skills, vision, and some judgment. In that situation you will not get a 100% hit rate and may take a parting shot like he did.

That's why it's important to train, even if only in your mind, to disengage once the threat is over. If you can train in your mind to not shoot, you will revert to that training in this type of situation.

In the pistol classes I've taken, the instructor has always emphasized establishing a good sight picture, then taking the shot, then checking your second sight picture and shooting again if the threat is not stopped. If the first shot is a miss, then the second shot had better not be another miss. While speed is important, it's still secondary to establishing a good sight picture (and speed will come with training and running drills).

Anyway, good on the old guy for being a sheepdog.

Sorry if this was asked and answered in the first 5 pages... but... does he chamber the weapon after drawing? Looks like he racked the slide.

That's what it looked like to me, too. I wonder if he was pocket carrying w/o holster, and therefore decided to carry on an empty chamber.

RSJ wrote:Sorry if this was asked and answered in the first 5 pages... but... does he chamber the weapon after drawing? Looks like he racked the slide.

RHenriksen wrote:That's what it looked like to me, too. I wonder if he was pocket carrying w/o holster, and therefore decided to carry on an empty chamber.

RSJ wrote:Sorry if this was asked and answered in the first 5 pages... but... does he chamber the weapon after drawing? Looks like he racked the slide.

Nope, look at 54 seconds into the video and you can see he has a holster in his left hand.

RSJ wrote:Sorry if this was asked and answered in the first 5 pages... but... does he chamber the weapon after drawing? Looks like he racked the slide.

I'm not sure he does. It looks to me that he had a pocket holster and when he drew, the holster came with the gun. It looks to me that he was removing the holster. If you look closer you can see that he has what appears to be a holster on his weak hand. That is why he is shooting one handed. He never dropped the holster. Still had it at the end of the video.

I see !! Thanks for the clarification

This is a great example of how you can practice IDPA, drawing, racking the slide, etc but cannot predict how and what conditions will come about IF you ever "actually" use a CCW. Luckily the holster issue wasn't fatal.

After my 68 year-old father watched this, he asked me about getting his CHL too.

tonzofphun wrote:After my 68 year-old father watched this, he asked me about getting his CHL too.

Excellent!

LeonCarr wrote:Who robs an internet cafe?

The gun carrier was still a threat crawling on the ground since he still had a weapon in his possession, and the bat carrier should have had the higher bail for his stupidity bringing a baseball bat to a gunfight.

The CHL holder did good.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Ahh, nobody mentioned a gun fight in the pre-op briefing. It was supposed to be a grab and go.

I've been trying to find out the gun and ammo used in this shooting and came across this: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-mou ... hat-roared" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article mentions that is was a TCP, but not the type of ammo.

Regardless of what folks think of the 380, in this case it stopped the BGs from doing what they were doing.

Lumberjack98 wrote:I've been trying to find out the gun and ammo used in this shooting and came across this: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-mou ... hat-roared" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article mentions that is was a TCP, but not the type of ammo.

Regardless of what folks think of the 380, in this case it stopped the BGs from doing what they were doing.

It's interesting to learn what gun he was using. However, I'm not impressed with some of the comments:

Examiner.com wrote:In the firearms community, a small pocket-sized pistol chambered for the .380 ACP, .32 ACP, .25 ACP or the .22 Long Rifle are generically alluded to as “mouse guns” because of their small caliber and mediocre stopping power. One will find them frequently disdained by “mall ninjas” – the twenty- and thirty-something types who dress in cargo pants, “tactical” vests and other accoutrements associated with internet bravado . . .

Really? "Mall ninjas" . . . "internet bravado?" What a combination of firearms ignorance and arrogance.

Here's another one:

Examiner.com wrote:In short, the .380 ACP may get sneers from keyboard gunslingers, but – as in the case of a load of birdshot fired at close range by a homeowner – nobody is going to volunteer to get shot with one.

What does volunteering to get shot have to do with stopping a deadly threat as quickly as possible? Nothing, that's what!

There may be people and circumstances that make a .380 the only choice, but to imply that they are as effective in a defensive situation as larger calibers is absurd.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Lumberjack98 wrote:I've been trying to find out the gun and ammo used in this shooting and came across this: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-mou ... hat-roared" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article mentions that is was a TCP, but not the type of ammo.

Regardless of what folks think of the 380, in this case it stopped the BGs from doing what they were doing.

It's interesting to learn what gun he was using. However, I'm not impressed with some of the comments:

Examiner.com wrote:In the firearms community, a small pocket-sized pistol chambered for the .380 ACP, .32 ACP, .25 ACP or the .22 Long Rifle are generically alluded to as “mouse guns” because of their small caliber and mediocre stopping power. One will find them frequently disdained by “mall ninjas” – the twenty- and thirty-something types who dress in cargo pants, “tactical” vests and other accoutrements associated with internet bravado . . .

Really? "Mall ninjas" . . . "internet bravado?" What a combination of firearms ignorance and arrogance.

Here's another one:

Examiner.com wrote:In short, the .380 ACP may get sneers from keyboard gunslingers, but – as in the case of a load of birdshot fired at close range by a homeowner – nobody is going to volunteer to get shot with one.

What does volunteering to get shot have to do with stopping a deadly threat as quickly as possible? Nothing, that's what!

There may be people and circumstances that make a .380 the only choice, but to imply that they are as effective in a defensive situation as larger calibers is absurd.

Chas.

Absolutely true!!! I have a Kahr .380 that I bought a couple years back. At one time I thought it would be a good, "better than nothing", gun. I have since found that there is always a way to carry a 9mm at the least, and after the latest movie theater shootings have started carrying my .45 or my .40 Glock at the least. it is just too easy to make slight modifications in my wardrobe to risk not having as much gun as possible if self defense is called for.

I am glad the old feller reigned supreme on his day of bravery but is darned lucky those thugs were not better armed or he would be very dead. Had he been making those same shots with more caliber, his chances of disabling his attackers would have been much greater.

The question should not be "would you want to be shot with a 380". The question should be, "would you rather be shot by a .380 or a .45?".

Wow! Good stuff!