CMT Glock Box + Facility update! New India brochure.

[dsen]

[sourabhsangale]

Good job bro !

[partheus]

Certainly a welcome step! But, I do feel their "series" are just marketing labels and don't really imply a business strategy. The brochure calls Glock 36 a best seller already While 357 sig and 40 s&w ammo isn't readily available here, so isn't 380 auto, or 45 ACP for that matter. If I remember correctly, CMT is going to be manufacturing all the ammo for their offerings as well.

[sourabhsangale]

Maybe its a best seller outside india , ammo they may manufacture at the end of year not fixed though . As per current ammo available in market .45 and .22 is best option rest for those who are super rich can afford to shoot .380 and .357,.40 .

[dsen]

Maybe its a best seller outside india , ammo they may manufacture at the end of year not fixed though . As per current ammo available in market .45 and .22 is best option rest for those who are super rich can afford to shoot .380 and .357,.40 .

Yes, you are absolutely right brother! .380 ACP is selling for almost 1000/pop here in Bengal. I've only heard of one shop in Punjab selling .40 a few years back for 1400/pop. Their .22 model (G44) and .45 models (G21, G30, G36) will indeed be the most popular for now. Hopefully, CMT will start manufacturing NP Bore ammo by 2022 or even earlier as they have said below.

Jayarajan said CMT has been given permission to manufacture ammunition of all calibres, ranging from the small .22 LR to the 12.7 x 108 mm heavy machine-gun cartridge used by the army. “We plan to make the ammunition factory operational by the end of 2021,” he said.
( https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... ers%20feel. )

[Shivakr]

any idea how much does a .22 LR ammo cost.. both Indian & Imported..

also the .22 ammunition on this Glock Pistol, IOF Revolver, IOF Rifle & other .22 caliber rifles like Brno etc. we come across in the forum is it same or there are different types.

[pgupta]

I really wonder why a lot of people discount. 22lr as a feeble round. Especially in self defense situation the intent is to stop the engagement and not really to kill. My take is that since the round is feeble one would have a less chance of missing the target and in absolute dire situation one can hit their attacker multiple times and break the engagement and still not take a life unless one really aims at vital organs.

A fat round will be more useful when one intends to kill, which anyway is against the law. So please tell me if my thinking of. 22lr being a perfect self defense round is unfounded.

[dsen]

any idea how much does a .22 LR ammo cost.. both Indian & Imported..

also the .22 ammunition on this Glock Pistol, IOF Revolver, IOF Rifle & other .22 caliber rifles like Brno etc. we come across in the forum is it same or there are different types.

For us Sports shooters, we get imported Eley .22LR ammo for only 11/pop. For non-shooters imported CCI .22LR ammo costs 40-60/pop.

Yes RFI (Rifle Factory Ishapore) .22 + Nidar revolvers, .22 rifle, Glock 44, CZ Brno all use the same .22 LR ammo.

[pran80]

I really wonder why a lot of people discount. 22lr as a feeble round. Especially in self defense situation the intent is to stop the engagement and not really to kill. My take is that since the round is feeble one would have a less chance of missing the target and in absolute dire situation one can hit their attacker multiple times and break the engagement and still not take a life unless one really aims at vital organs.

A fat round will be more useful when one intends to kill, which anyway is against the law. So please tell me if my thinking of. 22lr being a perfect self defense round is unfounded.

Sir I really am amazed with the logic given here by many members of using a firearm just to incapacitate an attacker. Why you need a firearm for it, you can arm yourself with a simple bamboo stick and get the same results. Man you really need to read lots of posts here on the same topic. Coming to your next question on "intending to kill" again this has been debated in extempore here. Please find time to read through the topics which will help you as well as help others whom you might be advising incorrectly.
Thanks

[timmy]

I really wonder why a lot of people discount. 22lr as a feeble round. Especially in self defense situation the intent is to stop the engagement and not really to kill. My take is that since the round is feeble one would have a less chance of missing the target and in absolute dire situation one can hit their attacker multiple times and break the engagement and still not take a life unless one really aims at vital organs.

A fat round will be more useful when one intends to kill, which anyway is against the law. So please tell me if my thinking of. 22lr being a perfect self defense round is unfounded.

First of all, you need to examine what you want to do, why you need a weapon to do this, and what weapon is suitable for the job.

If you have a sentimentality for some weapon and/or cartridge, then there's your answer. For instance, many of my choices are simply because I like them, and the bases for these choices is either the history of the piece, the intriguing nature of the mechanism, or both. I don't believe that one needs to meet the requirements of someone else to own a gun. If you want it, the reason is personal and that's as far as the reasoning needs to go.

BUT you have specifically mentioned self defense. If the intent is to use a firearm to bully or threaten someone, either aggressively or defensively, then such a person has no reason or justification for owning or possessing a firearm, in my opinion. Simply going down this line of logic shows me that such a person is unfit to own firearms, due to their mental inclinations.

A firearm for self defense is ALWAYS the method of self defense that is a last resort, used when no other method will suffice. Think of the idea that a kukri must not be unsheathed without the shedding of blood -- this is the right idea. The weapon isn't to be unholstered unless it is to be used.

The reason the weapon is to be used is to stop an attacker from a life threatening act. if there's "way out," then that solution is always the appropriate one. If negotiation or talking can be used, then that method is to be used, not bringing a weapon into the situation.

However, if there's a life threatening situation and the weapon is the only method available to defuse the threat, then it is appropriate to deploy and use the weapon. Note here, a hypothetical: The attacker tries to kidnap a child. Does one think, 'this attacker only means to sexually abuse the child, not kill him"? Emphatically, this is wrong thinking. Whether the motive of the attacker is only to molest or to molest and kill isn't the risk the armed person should assume. If the threat is genuinely there, then the risk as to the attacker's motives is his. He makes a threatening move, and it is the attacker's risk as to whether the defender will respond with deadly force is the attacker's, not the defender's.

Your logic expressed in the statement

the intent is to stop the engagement and not really to kill

is true enough, but it ignores the fact that in almost any situation, the defender is not going to be in a situation that permits the delicacy and precision of brain surgery. Instead, the method that gives the best assurance of defusing the situation and keeping the defender safe is also the method that incorporates deadly force. A .22 CAN be deadly, but it is not RELIABLY so. Of course, more powerful rounds are not guaranteed to be deadly, but they are more reliable and offer a much more likely possibility of stopping an attacker.

It should be obvious that the most reliable way to stop an attacker is to immediately and permanently remove them from circulation. If this is offensive or violates the morality of a person considering carrying a weapon for self defense, then my opinion is that such a person has no business carrying a weapon for defense in the first place. It must be obvious that even taking a weapon in hand, much less producing it in a situation, and even more, discharging it, carries some probability that someone is going to get killed. This is the first lesson of gun safety. Failure to address this fact and assuming that brandishing a firearm or wounding with it will settle the matter is a disqualification for gun ownership, in my opinion. My experience in this matter has been that such a person only furnishes a weapon to a criminal, which also ought to be against the sensitivity and/or morality a person considering carrying a weapon.

Note that all of these considerations that I've enumerated here are not the sort of thinking that can be done on the spot of an attack. They must be determined beforehand. There is unlikely to be a split second to think about these things. The determination must be made in one's mind before hand.

Aiming for a knee or some other supposedly non-lethal point on an attacker's body is not wise. it is, in fact, foolishness caused by ignorance or, worse yet, stupidity. (No offense here is intended: I use "ignorance" here to indicate the state of not knowing something. I use "stupidity" here to indicate the state of willfully choosing not to know something.) Generally, only a person with little or no experience in shooting a firearm, especially a handgun, would subscribe to such thinking. It isn't easy to shoot a handgun. It requires a lot of practice, and it requires more practice than one can get in India, considering the ammunition quotas that are imposed, to use a handgun with proficiency.

Also consider that shooting at a supposedly "non-lethal" portion of an attacker is a fallacious way of thinking. Gun safety recognizes that any bullet is potentially lethal. Sever an artery or vein while attempting at a supposedly non-lethal wound could very well allow the person shot to bleed out. Does one's morality allow considering that one "didn't mean to" excuse the act? Perhaps by some convoluted thinking to some, it might, but it's not likely to furnish a legal excuse.

Add to basic proficiency the need to respond to surprise, the surge of adrenaline, being in a disadvantageous position or situation, and many other factors, and it is obvious that attempting to disable by aiming for the easiest target (almost always the most potentially lethal one), rather than the trickiest one, is the best way to address a life-threatening attack.

Now, it may be objected that this sort of thinking will get one into legal trouble. This is true. I would point out that, in court, using a 22 instead of 45 isn't going to do much one good when the prosecutor is claiming deadly intent on the defender's part. Merely introducing a gun into the situation will suffice for the prosecutor to demonstrate deadly intent.

The issue here is, is the threat sufficient that one would use lethal force to end that threat, no matter the consequences? If it is not, then there's no justification for using a gun, or even carrying one for self defense.

This choice to carry WILL change thinking and behavior -- at least, it SHOULD. A firm knowledge and determination to only use the power a weapon confers only when necessary is MANDATORY. Always, when possible, avoiding awkward or potentially critical situations is necessary. For instance, entering places where violence can spring up, such as a tavern or an emotionally charged political meeting would be good situations to avoid when carrying a weapon for self defense. There is a PRICE to be paid for deciding to carry a weapon for self defense, and a responsibility to be met. Someone who has not considered what this decision involves as far as the risks and responsibilities is not qualified to carry a weapon.

Now, this doesn't necessary mean that a person who cannot accept the need for deadly force to be used when meeting a life threatening situation shouldn't own a gun. A collector, for instance, has a perfectly justifiable reason to own a gun. There are still responsibilities involved, such as reasonably assuring that the gun or guns are secured from indiscriminate access. The collector, in this instance, meets responsibilities associated with his choices, just like an automobile owner meets his.

So, carrying a 22: if it is all that the person has, it is better than nothing. But in choosing to carry the least effective weapon, the person deciding to carry a 22 has to accept more risk. Firstly, there's the risk that stopping an attack is less sure. If things don't work out right, the attacker may survive long enough to press home his attack. He may gain control of the weapon, and he may use it on the defender or someone else, for instance.

(Here, you need to see that your assumption that an attacker will stop when shot, even if it is a non-lethal wound, is not justified by reality. Many times, attackers are not stopped by just being shot. The prevalence of drug use in modern culture is one example of the fallacious nature of this assumption. in fact, the accounts of Zulu and Moro warriors should give pause to accepting such an idea.)

I would carry a 22, if that was all I had. But, unless I could answer all of the considerations I've mentioned here (and more beside!), I would not carry in the first place.

There is no shame in deciding not to carry, or that one cannot accept using lethal force to defend one's self. It's a choice that each must examine on one's own, because if a time comes to actually use lethal force to defend one's self, it is highly unlikely that the time will be available to hold a debate about the matter. Of course, the person who decides not to accept this also accepts a risk by default: should a situation develop, they have no recourse, but to accept what happens.

Life is like this, and often presents a bewildering range of possibilities. I say this to make the point that one must determine whether to carry and use lethal force in a life threatening situation BEFORE one arms one's self. To do less is the height of irresponsible foolishness.

[casual shooter]

I have no idea how many of you have been in an offensive defence situation, in that massive commotion when adrenalin is at peak taking a aim for knee or shoulder or any non vital organ is very difficult and work of a really cool professional, for me a short barrel shot gun with plenty of pellets is the best weapon for home defence, even if there are more than one opponents you just have to point and fire , every one gets the "gift", and the sound is like a canon, so my vote is for pump action shot gun..

[pgupta]

I really wonder why a lot of people discount. 22lr as a feeble round. Especially in self defense situation the intent is to stop the engagement and not really to kill. My take is that since the round is feeble one would have a less chance of missing the target and in absolute dire situation one can hit their attacker multiple times and break the engagement and still not take a life unless one really aims at vital organs.

A fat round will be more useful when one intends to kill, which anyway is against the law. So please tell me if my thinking of. 22lr being a perfect self defense round is unfounded.

First of all, you need to examine what you want to do, why you need a weapon to do this, and what weapon is suitable for the job.

If you have a sentimentality for some weapon and/or cartridge, then there's your answer. For instance, many of my choices are simply because I like them, and the bases for these choices is either the history of the piece, the intriguing nature of the mechanism, or both. I don't believe that one needs to meet the requirements of someone else to own a gun. If you want it, the reason is personal and that's as far as the reasoning needs to go.

BUT you have specifically mentioned self defense. If the intent is to use a firearm to bully or threaten someone, either aggressively or defensively, then such a person has no reason or justification for owning or possessing a firearm, in my opinion. Simply going down this line of logic shows me that such a person is unfit to own firearms, due to their mental inclinations.

A firearm for self defense is ALWAYS the method of self defense that is a last resort, used when no other method will suffice. Think of the idea that a kukri must not be unsheathed without the shedding of blood -- this is the right idea. The weapon isn't to be unholstered unless it is to be used.

The reason the weapon is to be used is to stop an attacker from a life threatening act. if there's "way out," then that solution is always the appropriate one. If negotiation or talking can be used, then that method is to be used, not bringing a weapon into the situation.

However, if there's a life threatening situation and the weapon is the only method available to defuse the threat, then it is appropriate to deploy and use the weapon. Note here, a hypothetical: The attacker tries to kidnap a child. Does one think, 'this attacker only means to sexually abuse the child, not kill him"? Emphatically, this is wrong thinking. Whether the motive of the attacker is only to molest or to molest and kill isn't the risk the armed person should assume. If the threat is genuinely there, then the risk as to the attacker's motives is his. He makes a threatening move, and it is the attacker's risk as to whether the defender will respond with deadly force is the attacker's, not the defender's.

Your logic expressed in the statement

the intent is to stop the engagement and not really to kill

is true enough, but it ignores the fact that in almost any situation, the defender is not going to be in a situation that permits the delicacy and precision of brain surgery. Instead, the method that gives the best assurance of defusing the situation and keeping the defender safe is also the method that incorporates deadly force. A .22 CAN be deadly, but it is not RELIABLY so. Of course, more powerful rounds are not guaranteed to be deadly, but they are more reliable and offer a much more likely possibility of stopping an attacker.

It should be obvious that the most reliable way to stop an attacker is to immediately and permanently remove them from circulation. If this is offensive or violates the morality of a person considering carrying a weapon for self defense, then my opinion is that such a person has no business carrying a weapon for defense in the first place. It must be obvious that even taking a weapon in hand, much less producing it in a situation, and even more, discharging it, carries some probability that someone is going to get killed. This is the first lesson of gun safety. Failure to address this fact and assuming that brandishing a firearm or wounding with it will settle the matter is a disqualification for gun ownership, in my opinion. My experience in this matter has been that such a person only furnishes a weapon to a criminal, which also ought to be against the sensitivity and/or morality a person considering carrying a weapon.

Note that all of these considerations that I've enumerated here are not the sort of thinking that can be done on the spot of an attack. They must be determined beforehand. There is unlikely to be a split second to think about these things. The determination must be made in one's mind before hand.

Aiming for a knee or some other supposedly non-lethal point on an attacker's body is not wise. it is, in fact, foolishness caused by ignorance or, worse yet, stupidity. (No offense here is intended: I use "ignorance" here to indicate the state of not knowing something. I use "stupidity" here to indicate the state of willfully choosing not to know something.) Generally, only a person with little or no experience in shooting a firearm, especially a handgun, would subscribe to such thinking. It isn't easy to shoot a handgun. It requires a lot of practice, and it requires more

Wow! You really took time to put out such a detailed explanation. I agree with you on everything and know that that you have gained my respect.

However one of the issues in India is that people don't get to train a lot, imagine what kind of range time one will have with 50/200 rounds a year. That's why I assume that they will always be surprised by the recoil and feedback from the gun and thus a fat round will kind of always miss the target thus a. 22 kind of round makes more sense for the control it provides and gives the ability to hit target more times. Weapon will kill ultimately as that was the intended purpose but we the carriers have to have responsibility enough to know when to use and when not.

[sourabhsangale]

If you have valid arms license you can join any shooting club and get ammo quota increased upto 5000 per year as per arms rule 2020 .
So in this case .22 is best option one can buy as many and shoot till they ge tired and is cost effective .

[winnie_the_pooh]

Timmy, a well written post. Enjoyed reading it.

For those advocating a .22 'as you can miss with bigger calibres' ,you can miss with a .22 as well. If you can't get enough practise with a .45 due to ammo.restrictions,you can't get it with a .22 either.

[partheus]

Always a pleasure to read your responses, Timmy! Also, I totally agree with Winnie. It's not at all uncommon to see first timers missing the target and hitting the lights, poles and everything else during their break-in period at the range with air pistols, let alone .22s.

This is one of the main reasons I feel current legislations are a hindrance rather than enablers. Restricting ammo quotas after letting people buy guns is just begging for trouble.