Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Why when i recently received a mount tool and placed it on my belt it went on 180 from where i keep my mags.

I don't want to be trying to jam my 4 sevens light in the magwell during a fight.

Speaking of 4 Sevens...while emptying the washer, my wife found my light (turned on).
Obviously, I missed it when emptying my pockets.

I put fresh batteries into my freshly laundered light after admiring how clean it looked.

Jake wrote: Speaking of 4 Sevens...while emptying the washer, my wife found my light (turned on).
Obviously, I missed it when emptying my pockets.

I put fresh batteries into my freshly laundered light after admiring how clean it looked.

I'm impressed so far with mine.

I wish I had room to carry two spare magazines. My waist size is a 27 so I really can't carry 2 spares without hindering body movement. Also, the CNS (top of sternum covering lungs in a triangle shape) is the best place to shoot someone. Multiple hits in this area will be your best bet in dropping an aggressor. Pelvis is better If you're ok with making an aggressor bleed out (pelvic area will hold 1 liter of blood ) or your opponent is 500+ lbs, aim for the pelvis. Other than that, aim for the fatal triangle

ArmyMedic90 wrote:I wish I had room to carry two spare magazines. My waist size is a 27 so I really can't carry 2 spares without hindering body movement. Also, the CNS (top of sternum covering lungs in a triangle shape) is the best place to shoot someone. Multiple hits in this area will be your best bet in dropping an aggressor. Pelvis is better If you're ok with making an aggressor bleed out (pelvic area will hold 1 liter of blood ) or your opponent is 500+ lbs, aim for the pelvis. Other than that, aim for the fatal triangle

You are skinny.. Smallest I have ever been as an adult is a 32" waist, 6'1"and now at a 36" waist but going back down slowly. What gun are you carrying again?

9mm glocks

ArmyMedic90 wrote:9mm glocks

I would advise you to consider some 5.11 pants or a Comptac or Raven mag holder.


Your not one of those guys that tries to impress the ladies with your triangle physique are you?

HAHAHA I try to stay in shape because of my military duties. That and I'm aspiring to become a police officer/sheriff's deputy and my biggest pet peeve is out-of-shape LEO's...

I am currently running a Crown Holsters Company Single Magazine Carrier. It seems to be working well. I keep a spare magazine in my car so if both my magazines that I carry break on me, I can always breech load single rounds at a time until I get back to my car... SIGH

ArmyMedic90 wrote:HAHAHA I try to stay in shape because of my military duties. That and I'm aspiring to become a police officer/sheriff's deputy and my biggest pet peeve is out-of-shape LEO's...

I am currently running a Crown Holsters Company Single Magazine Carrier. It seems to be working well. I keep a spare magazine in my car so if both my magazines that I carry break on me, I can always breech load single rounds at a time until I get back to my car... SIGH

If I can carry a full size M&P with two spares during church with out discovery( I have permission), you could carry two. It is all about how you dress.

5.11 has some pretty good options.

Im not much bigger than you and can carry two mags.

The used glock I picked up came with a dual mag holder made by Shark Tac, you can find them at bill good mans shows most times.

Its not that I don't want to dress to conceal my gear, since I wear a cover garment any time I carry. Its that if I carry two spare magazines, it hinders my body movement at the waist. The way I would have to carry them, I would have one situated in front of my hip and one behind my hip. I wouldn't be able to bend forward or backwards, and if I got into a situation where I was grappling, I'd like to be able to move my waist. Also, carrying two magazines would hinder my drawing movements. So with all due respect, the whole "If I can do it, you can do it" argument is kind of... Ya...

I generally agree with the article, and have been preaching the same to any who would listen (so that means nobody... ), but there is one main thing I don't like about the article. He puts numbers, and therefore solid figures, on how many of each round it takes to kill someone. I think this is a reckless section, like stating a 1911 does 3D6 damage, but a Beretta 92F only does 2D6 damage (lol, nerd humor!).

Remove the static figures so we're not fooling anyone into believing "if you have a 40S&W gun, you should practice shooting 6 rounds," and we're left with what is clear common sense. Furthermore, while he talks about how COM hits aren't the end-all, be-all, alpha-omega-etc. of a gunfight, COM hits remain the best odds to hit the important areas of the body and shut down the enemy as fast as possible. People don't consistently die from leg wounds, for example. COM hits are vastly more consistent.

Just wish he had left the "hard numbers" out of his caliber debate.

Vex wrote:I generally agree with the article, and have been preaching the same to any who would listen (so that means nobody... ), but there is one main thing I don't like about the article. He puts numbers, and therefore solid figures, on how many of each round it takes to kill someone. I think this is a reckless section, like stating a 1911 does 3D6 damage, but a Beretta 92F only does 2D6 damage (lol, nerd humor!).

Remove the static figures so we're not fooling anyone into believing "if you have a 40S&W gun, you should practice shooting 6 rounds," and we're left with what is clear common sense. Furthermore, while he talks about how COM hits aren't the end-all, be-all, alpha-omega-etc. of a gunfight, COM hits remain the best odds to hit the important areas of the body and shut down the enemy as fast as possible. People don't consistently die from leg wounds, for example. COM hits are vastly more consistent.

Just wish he had left the "hard numbers" out of his caliber debate.

One thing that I learned while training as a combat medic is that leg wounds are usually survivable. But pelvic wounds are not. If for some reason your BG's upper torso is behind cover and his lower body is not, aim for the pelvis first. Rounds to this area are likely to drop an assailant AND the pelvis on an "average" male human carries at least one liter of blood at any given time. That and the only way to easily stop bleeding from the pelvis is.... Wait. There are no easy ways haha.

But seriously I agree, shoot the BG to the ground. Don't give him/her the chance to keep fighting.

Oh and another point I would like to address (concerning the him/her comment above), I was involved in a combatives tournament while at AIT and I was pitted against girls. I asked my training NCO what I was supposed to do, go easy or full strength. His response was this "If she's big enough to fight like a man, she's big enough to go down like one." Cold-blooded? Maybe. But when it comes down to me or a combative girl, I'm the one coming out on top, ESPECIALLY in armed confrontations...

ArmyMedic90 wrote: One thing that I learned while training as a combat medic is that leg wounds are usually survivable. But pelvic wounds are not. If for some reason your BG's upper torso is behind cover and his lower body is not, aim for the pelvis first. Rounds to this area are likely to drop an assailant AND the pelvis on an "average" male human carries at least one liter of blood at any given time. That and the only way to easily stop bleeding from the pelvis is.... Wait. There are no easy ways haha.

I've always wanted to ask the trauma guys and gals about this:

AM90, from your experience, is this factor affected by the terminal ballistics? in other words, can we expect this possibility to realistically play out for us, with typical defensive handgun cartridges?

Oh and another point I would like to address (concerning the him/her comment above), I was involved in a combatives tournament while at AIT and I was pitted against girls. I asked my training NCO what I was supposed to do, go easy or full strength. His response was this "If she's big enough to fight like a man, she's big enough to go down like one." Cold-blooded? Maybe. But when it comes down to me or a combative girl, I'm the one coming out on top, ESPECIALLY in armed confrontations...

I don't think that's cold, at all. It's one human trying to kill another - just because the bad-person happens to be of the opposite sex, smaller, whatever, doesn't mean that I'm going to consider them any less of a threat.

TSiWRX wrote:

ArmyMedic90 wrote: One thing that I learned while training as a combat medic is that leg wounds are usually survivable. But pelvic wounds are not. If for some reason your BG's upper torso is behind cover and his lower body is not, aim for the pelvis first. Rounds to this area are likely to drop an assailant AND the pelvis on an "average" male human carries at least one liter of blood at any given time. That and the only way to easily stop bleeding from the pelvis is.... Wait. There are no easy ways haha.

I've always wanted to ask the trauma guys and gals about this:

AM90, from your experience, is this factor affected by the terminal ballistics? in other words, can we expect this possibility to realistically play out for us, with typical defensive handgun cartridges?

Oh and another point I would like to address (concerning the him/her comment above), I was involved in a combatives tournament while at AIT and I was pitted against girls. I asked my training NCO what I was supposed to do, go easy or full strength. His response was this "If she's big enough to fight like a man, she's big enough to go down like one." Cold-blooded? Maybe. But when it comes down to me or a combative girl, I'm the one coming out on top, ESPECIALLY in armed confrontations...

I don't think that's cold, at all. It's one human trying to kill another - just because the bad-person happens to be of the opposite sex, smaller, whatever, doesn't mean that I'm going to consider them any less of a threat.

From my experience walking through BAMC and my training, pelvic wounds take longer to heal and the stories I've heard from the wounded generally concern shrapnel (usually not as effective as modern handgun hollowpoints and not traveling as fast BUT the shrapnel was plentiful, think multiple gunshots). They said they got hit and immediately dropped. Now they were carrying A LOT MORE GEAR than the average civilian (usually 50-60 lbs at least...) Did this play a part in their stoppage? No way to know...

But what I do know is this. Even if you pack a bullet wound to the pelvis, the "wound channel" will bleed and bleed. The aorta branches into the femoral arteries in the pelvic region. A round to this area risks severing or tearing any of this life-essential artery and will indeed incapacitate your target within a minute if not seconds. Regardless, it should drop your assailant if you are unable to shoot him/her in the sternum. The only way to effectively stop bleeding from a pelvic wound is to use trauma air pants, something only a paramedic in an ambulance would have.

Basically, to anyone who takes a round (if not multiple...) to the pelvis, I say good luck...