Rethinking some carry decisions

[Echo40]

Zombie thread, I know, but it's back from the dead now, so what the heck?

As a matter of fact, I was carrying .380 ACP as my primary carry cartridge for years to carrying .40 S&W, because late last year there had been a few sightings of wild animals in my area. (Coyotes, Boars, and Black Bears, oh my!) So I decided that maybe I should start carrying something more potent just in case I should ever need to defend myself against an animal, and began searching for a new, more powerful carry gun.

Now I carry a SW40VE loaded with 180gr XTPs. I know that .40 S&W isn't typically considered to be an optimal choice for self-defense against wild animals, but it has been used to good effect by Fish & Game, and with all the crazy good deals on .40cal pistols it seemed to be the most practical, economical choice available.

 

[9adam1]

When I was working a large dog attacked fellow officers who were serving a search warrant. Handgun rounds, at that time 38 special to the head were not effective. A shotgun was used to stop the attack.

 

[fredj338]

When I was working a large dog attacked fellow officers who were serving a search warrant. Handgun rounds, at that time 38 special to the head were not effective. A shotgun was used to stop the attack.

I have a buddy thst was a k9 offcer for a local,SD. His dog was attacked by a pit & he decided to shoot the pit with his 40/180gr ranger. He hit him twice through the top of the shoulders, missing the spine. The pit broke off the attack & limped back to his yard. He told me the dog died later but not immediately. So much for the power of the 40 on a 69# dog & all that energy dump people talk about.

 

[haywood]

A blast of pepper spray saved me once.

 

[max503]

Carry a snubbie, wait till they're close, and aim.

 

[fatcat3]

all horse thieves are Democrats, but not all Democrats are horse thieves. I feel the same about pitts and their owners. instead of outlawing a bread of dog maybe we should start enforcing in laws about dog ownership we have. leash laws for example. or holding accountable owner of trouble animals. I don't care for pitts nor do i trust em. This is just another example of " It's not ...... fault it's the fault of the gun, dog, car, society............

 

[GerSan69]

I'm with fatcat3, except for the part about democrats. I say they either just haven't had the opportunity yet or they don't know which end of the horse is the front.

 

[reccpd101]

In the first tort class in law school, there is a heated discussion over negligence of dog owners, and other domestic animals, it goes like this:

An owner is negligent who fails to control an animal with known vicious propensities. How does the owner know the dog is vicious? He knows the dog is vicious when the dog bites someone so the debate is over "is a dog entitled to the first bite?" since this rule became part of the English common law, there are many places where the rule has been modified by statute. These modifications have taken many forms, leash laws, breed specific legislation, etc, etc. As this thread demonstrates, there is no prevailing answer to the question. Urban areas tend to be the places where the rule is most frequently & severally modified. Rural area problems tend to be more with dogs that have been deserted and reverted to the wild or are the offspring of crosses between domestic dogs & coyotes, etc. Feral dogs in packs are not regarded as domestic animals. Yes, I am a law school graduate. I have also served as a rural deputy sheriff and an urban city police. Before I retired I was a Chief of Police whose department included an animal control unit that enforced the vicious dog laws. The citizens I dealt with who were the most upset tended to be over how their pet got treated.

I am not surprised at the breadth and depth of the comments in this thread. My animal control officers carried pepper spray, battery powered cattle prods, and 357, then 40 caliber handguns with both using rounds highly rated on penetration. Over the 10 years I administered that unit. neither weapon failed to take the starch out of any animal's shirt, although one incident did take multiple hits.