It would have to be in there first. :( Haha
Printable View
A wound from a larger caliber will leak blood at a faster rate. That can be signifigant if one does not hit the CNS.
Rick
Take this all with tongue-in-cheek when the speaker mentions a high capacity clip in the vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fLKrkmSToo
Not if you don't hit any large blood vessels. The .22 of 1% that he referred to in the first video deals with this specifically. The minor cross sectional area difference between 9mm and .45 (or even .22 and .45) is insignificant if all you hit us non-critical soft tissue. If you only poke holes in fat and muscle, the amount of bleeding between the two would be negligible.
You need to hit any of the following to incapacitate.
Central nervous system
Major blood vessel
Major structural bone
Knife laws are worse than gun laws.
Knives are looked on as offensive weapons of criminals by the courts and jurors.
Firearms are sanctioned weapons for self protection. The license to carry firearms doesn’t include knives.
Knives require even more training and skill, physical ability and agility to successfully defend oneself.
If your plans are for knife distance, the naa mini revolver isn’t going to miss through inherent accuracy disability.
Get the laws changed and maybe, with proper training I can see some validity to the knife over such a small 5 round revolver.
NAA and derringers have their place for me. I normally have a 357 J frame for self protection. It’s a 5 shot albeit more powerful than a 22 rim fire, even 22 mag.
Different strokes for different folks.
I would not fire an NAA .22 mag at a target further than 5 feet if missing meant risking damage to bystanders or property.
Being effective with a NAA .22 mag at anything further than 'contact distance' would require as much, or more training to be effective with a knife.
We live in a world where in some places it is easier to lawfully carry a gun than to carry a knife. When I am in those goof-ball places, I carry a real gun, not a knife or dillinger. It's a bizarre fact that I can carry a Glock, but not a 4" folder in Phila.
That said, if I were in Phila, or whatever other weird-hole, and I was somehow forced to make the choice between a sturdy knife and an NAA .22 mag for self-defense carry, I would risk the knife.
The knife has nearly unlimited ammo, has pin-point accuracy, and operates at an effective range that is close to that of the NAA .22 mag.
If I get charged for carrying a knife, in a self-defense application, hehehehe... I would fight that shit. Granted, there are no guarantees in life, but I look forward to myself, or someone, challenging the bizarre laws about knife carry.
You said it yourself....... How bizarre is it to say, "I'm legal to carry a gun, but not a knife." WTF?
We need to have the courage to challenge the absurd.
If it ever comes up, point the prosecutor to the 2A, and the fact that the commonwealth has seen fit to permit you to bear other arms, and ... well ... arms is arms.
Ask what damage you could do with a knife that would not be worse if done with a gun, which you're allowed to have.
On second thought, don't do that. That just gives them another argument for banning guns - "The city government has already deemed knives too dangerous to be in civilian hands, why do we allow guns?"
Bah!