Time in the fight.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Looking at Tom Givens' latest newsletter, his analysis of capacity struck me as useful. The idea is a good take on the caliber debate. He was talking about capacity and how long you could stay in the fight.

Assuming about 250 milliseconds between shots for the average person - a J frame keeps you in the fight for 1.25 seconds. An 8 shot 1911 for two seconds. A Glock 17 with 18 rounds (one chambered) is 4.5 seconds. That's a long time in a fight.

Given the lack of real differences in stopping power with modern rounds, that's telling.

If I misread it - sorry.

[nycnoob]

Even more interesting, is the question "When did you realize you were in a fight"?
Some people started fighting (MUC/Pre-assault cues) long before others even knew it was a fight.

[Robinson]

I get another half second since I switched to a 9mm 1911!

While I get the point, doesn't this assume the fight will always consist of pulling the trigger until your gun is empty with no pauses between shots?

Still, the point made is a good one.

[Gray222]

More bullets = more time in fight

I want as much time in the fight as possible.

[Randy Harris]

I tell people that capacity simply equals less manipulation.....that and one handed weak handed reloads while injured with the fight still going on really sucks....the more BBs on board the less likely you are to have to reload. Math doesn't take the day off....more is more and less is less. No matter how fast your reload is, not ever HAVING to reload is faster.

If you didn't have to reload then the FAST drill gets a whole lot easier and an inordinately high number of people could do it sub 5 seconds.....

[Tom Givens]

Randy nailed it. The purpose of higher capacity is not to let you shoot more, it is to let you reload less. Every time you have to reload, you have to stop shooting, take the gun out of action for some number of seconds, and hope the other guy takes a smoke break while you do this. If you have 10-15 rounds in the gun to start with, the odds of having to reload go down greatly.

[GJM]

Randy nailed it. The purpose of higher capacity is not to let you shoot more, it is to let you reload less. Every time you have to reload, you have to stop shooting, take the gun out of action for some number of seconds, and hope the other guy takes a smoke break while you do this. If you have 10-15 rounds in the gun to start with, the odds of having to reload go down greatly.

Tom, are you relatively agnostic about caliber these days, as long as it gives you 10-15 rounds of 9/40/45?

[TCinVA]

http://youtu.be/dTs0_q5TJLA

[jetfire]

BRB buying a Five-seveN now.

[Tom Givens]

Tom, are you relatively agnostic about caliber these days, as long as it gives you 10-15 rounds of 9/40/45?

Relatively, Yes. There is far less difference in performance now than a few years ago.

[BehindBlueI's]

Looking at Tom Givens' latest newsletter, his analysis of capacity struck me as useful. The idea is a good take on the caliber debate. He was talking about capacity and how long you could stay in the fight.

Assuming about 250 milliseconds between shots for the average person - a J frame keeps you in the fight for 1.25 seconds. An 8 shot 1911 for two seconds. A Glock 17 with 18 rounds (one chambered) is 4.5 seconds. That's a long time in a fight.

Given the lack of real differences in stopping power with modern rounds, that's telling.

If I misread it - sorry.

I'll keep it brief and general, but that assumes you are pulling the trigger at your maximum cyclical rate. I do see this. People panic and fire as quick as they can until slide lock, sometimes after the first bullet did the job and sometimes for a lot of missing. I would counter with if the first quick hits didn't get the job done, it's time to slow down and start getting better hits. Easier said than done, of course, but it's where realistic training and stress inoculation come into play. Personality may come into it as well, the reason that two cops side by side on a stair well with equal views and equal circumstances may result in one guy firing 2 and one guy firing 9. There are folks out there who've ran through every mag they carry on more than one encounter, and guys who've gotten in done in three or less every time. That is NOT to say that one is without a doubt better than the other, different circumstances, distances, etc....however I tend to listen more to the guys who've gotten it done in fewer rounds.

There is certainly nothing wrong with more capacity, assuming you shoot it equally well...but bullets are bullets and time is time. Both need to be managed in their own way.

[blues]

Everyone has their own view of these things but 9mm still has a valid claim on the sweet spot between effectiveness and capacity when used with proven ammo. (Not claiming to be a ballistics expert. Just expressing my own point of view.)

[BillSWPA]

Picture the situation of being out with young kids when the problem arises. You have one hand to control kids and one hand to run the gun. This makes capacity more important.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BJXDS]

Very interesting, I agree it makes perfect sense to me. If I am forced to fight, and I can only hope that never hapens, I want the ability to stay in it and stop it on my terms. I am afraid the anti's, mag limit people don't see it that way, and neither do a large percentage of people that think that just because they have a gun, they are safe. I value their opinion about as much as they value mine.

[Hambo]

If I carry a pistol with 15+ and end a fight using only three, there's no penalty for having ammo left over.

[Gray222]

Picture the situation of being out with young kids when the problem arises. You have one hand to control kids and one hand to run the gun. This makes capacity more important.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...and how many people have trained this...?

[Casual Friday]

...and how many people have trained this...?

I did, after walking through a sketchy parking garage at Harborview hospital with homeless drug addicts everywhere, holding a 3 year old's hand while carrying an infant and a diaper bag. I felt like an idiot at first, but I would hold one of my daughters large dolls and work on dry fire, mag changes etc. It was humbling.

[Colt191145lover]

...and how many people have trained this...?

Have used a small backpack with enough weight to simulate my child .A smaller bag of cat or dog food work as well.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

11014

At Givens. We've run baby, kid savior scenarios at matches every once in awhile. Note, throwing the baby quite a few feet to land behind cover was a penalty. Also, I have taken one handed, injured shooter classes.

The puff of hair out of my cap in the back, is a nice fashion touch.

[Paul Sharp]

...and how many people have trained this...?

Right here dude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jetfire]

...and how many people have trained this...?

I know a dude who literally teaches a class (http://www.defensivetrainingsolutions.com/student-level-firearm-courses/contextual-handgun-the-armed-parent-guardian-course) about it. I've heard it's pretty good.

[Colt191145lover]

You beat me to in Caleb , thanks for posting it .

[BillSWPA]

...and how many people have trained this...?

The NRA range had an IDPA stage that involved carrying a doll simulating an infant during one stage of a match.

I have taken training in strong hand only and weak hand only shooting, reloading, and malfunction clearing. Although I can do any of the above, including clearing a double feed with my weak hand, I don't necessarily want to do it while being shot at, so the need for a reliable, high capacity pistol is especially apparent.

What I have not trained in is doing it while kids that are completely scared and likely not fully appreciating what is happening around them react unpredictably as bullets are flying.

Edited to add: the training on this subject I have been exposed to was based on one child, while many of us would be dealing with more than one child.

[Surf]

I like capacity and modern 9mike is not only effective, but is more "user friendly" over a wider range of users that an agency or organization might have.

As for training, we multi use several CPR babies and the larger half torso CPR manikins (child size) that we also use for firearms handling and manipulations training, especially in force on force scenarios with SIMS.

[BillSWPA]

Very interesting, I agree it makes perfect sense to me. If I am forced to fight, and I can only hope that never hapens, I want the ability to stay in it and stop it on my terms. I am afraid the anti's, mag limit people don't see it that way, and neither do a large percentage of people that think that just because they have a gun, they are safe. I value their opinion about as much as they value mine.

If you are talking to someone who is at least willing to consider the issues, I have found the argument about the need for high capacity while defending kids to be particularly effective.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The kid argument, injured hand argument and now time in the fight argument is always troublesome for the unchambered, I'm a super-duper Israeli crowd.

I also am amused by some folks who say that more capacity is not needed as they don't go to dangerous places or if faced with some kind of high end incident, they lack the ability to be useful - thus why bother to have a higher cap gun.

[Joe in PNG]

The kid argument, injured hand argument and now time in the fight argument is always troublesome for the unchambered, I'm a super-duper Israeli crowd.
I also am amused by some folks who say that more capacity is not needed as they don't go to dangerous places or if faced with some kind of high end incident, they lack the ability to be useful - thus why bother to have a higher cap gun.
There is also the assumption that because one is able to make accurate hits at 25 yards on a static range target, they will be able to duplicate the same feat under stress on a moving target under poor conditions. Yeah, there is sometimes a grain of truth to "kilt on da streets".

[Tamara]

I know a dude who literally teaches a class (http://www.defensivetrainingsolutions.com/student-level-firearm-courses/contextual-handgun-the-armed-parent-guardian-course) about it. I've heard it's pretty good.

Yup. They've really put together a solid curriculum; I had to eat my words. In the first open enrollment class, I watched a student who was having difficulty keeping them on the backer on day one finish up day two by passing their "baby-in-arms" modified version of the FBI qual. From concealment.

[Hambo]

Not having kids I never really thought about what to do with one in a gunfight. Capacity aside, that's a total shit sandwich: you can't leave them behind and risk taking fire while carrying one.

[nalesq]

Not having kids I never really thought about what to do with one in a gunfight. Capacity aside, that's a total shit sandwich: you can't leave them behind and risk taking fire while carrying one.

I've actually wondered a bit about the wisdom of trying holding onto one's kid while actually engaged in a gunfight. First of all, you're not going to fight as effectively while having to manage a possibly screaming squirming kid. Secondly, based on my own limited experiences in combat, the tendency seems to be for combatants to fixate on the nearest perceived threat. In other words, if I'm shooting at someone, that someone is likely to fixate on shooting at me as well. So why would I want to be holding onto my child whilst someone is shooting at me?

On the other hand, what shithead is going to pay any attention to a non-threat child while I am shooting at said shithead?

[BillSWPA]

I've actually wondered a bit about the wisdom of trying holding onto one's kid while actually engaged in a gunfight. First of all, you're not going to fight as effectively while having to manage a possibly screaming squirming kid. Secondly, based on my own limited experiences in combat, the tendency seems to be for combatants to fixate on the nearest perceived threat. In other words, if I'm shooting at someone, that someone is likely to fixate on shooting at me as well. So why would I want to be holding onto my child whilst someone is shooting at me?

On the other hand, what shithead is going to pay any attention to a non-threat child while I am shooting at said shithead?

Dependingnon the age of the child, holding on to one arm while leaving the feet on the ground may allow you to keep them in at least a partially shielded position while keeping them from running into traffic.

If they are younger and less mobile, I may just try to get them to a reasonably safe place and then focus more completely on the threat.

Don't discount the possibility of your child being shot as a way to force you to change priorities, particularly if you are behind cover and your child leaves cover.

In the case of an older child, I might instruct them to run to a place of relative safety while I do everything I can to ensure that they are not followed.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ST911]

Training to manage kiddos in confrontation is also part of SA, avoidance, and escape. It's not just a gun problem. I have had to grab and maneuver my kiddos through aggressive panhandlers, drunks, and undetermined-types. Same play, different circumstance.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

To the recent posts - I recall incidents or heard of them where the innocent child of the good guy defender has been targeted deliberately. I might not have this totally accurate but I recall an Ayoob story of a cop who saw a gang brawl in a mall (or something like that) and put the kid in a safe place to engage the gang members. The kid was found, and killed. There was another somewhere but memory fails.

The best strategy with your kid is to get the hell out of there at full speed. Engage who you need to accomplish this. If I got this correct, the shitheads did pay attention to the kids.

Terrorists have deliberately gone after kids, if they expect to die - they just make the statment at risk to themselves.

[nalesq]

To the recent posts - I recall incidents or heard of them where the innocent child of the good guy defender has been targeted deliberately. I might not have this totally accurate but I recall an Ayoob story of a cop who saw a gang brawl in a mall (or something like that) and put the kid in a safe place to engage the gang members. The kid was found, and killed. There was another somewhere but memory fails.

Since I'm not a police officer, it's very difficult to imagine why I would ever interfere with a gang brawl, especially if I had kids in tow, (I certainly wholeheartedly agree that with kids in tow, if at all possible, it's best to simply flee with the kids), but I would be very interested to read about the specific details of these incidents you mention.

[BillSWPA]

It is generally best to leave with or without kids, but the need to carry kids and/or the inability of mobile kids to run at adult speeds may limit the speed with which one can avoid or escape a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drang]

And being childless it would be easy to disdain such training, because of course I'd never be in a position where I was helping someone with kids evacuate...

[Andy in NH]

Picture the situation of being out with young kids when the problem arises. You have one hand to control kids and one hand to run the gun. This makes capacity more important.
...and how many people have trained this...?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7aI62kGvBI

[Tamara]

So why would I want to be holding onto my child whilst someone is shooting at me?

You probably wouldn't.

[Paul Sharp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7aI62kGvBI

Nice drill!

[Hambo]

And being childless it would be easy to disdain such training, because of course I'd never be in a position where I was helping someone with kids evacuate...

Not at all. Just one of undoubtedly many things that have never occurred to me. Helping others with kids evacuate brings up a whole different set of problems. Unless they know me personally I'm not sure how a mom with kids is going to react to a big, bearded dude with a gun telling her it's time to GTFO of the area.

[Gray222]

Next time any of you guys meet me in person, remind me about this thread and I'll show you a pretty good kid on hip knife protocol/fight procedure...

[MistWolf]

It's also a good idea to teach your children what to do during certain situations- codewords, what to do if they get separated from you, how to act when strangers approach them and so on.

From when my sons were young, they were taught STOP if they were ever to get lost-
Stop
Think
Observe
Plan

It saved us a lot of grief. When my son was about 10, we were bicycling in a city my son was unfamiliar with. I cut through a park I used to play at as a kid and got going too fast for him to catch up. No big deal, I thought, I'll just stop and wait for him. After a couple of minutes, it became obvious something happened.

I backtracked and found him by the trail, crying. I bombed through that section so fast, he had no idea where I went or where he should go. So he stopped and waited. When I got to him he said "I didn't see where you went, so I did what I was taught- STOP. I stayed right here."

The point is, teaching kids what to do ahead of time can save everyone a lot trouble. Because my son knew what he had to do and did it, I found him in minutes instead of hours

[Malamute]

Not at all. Just one of undoubtedly many things that have never occurred to me. Helping others with kids evacuate brings up a whole different set of problems. Unless they know me personally I'm not sure how a mom with kids is going to react to a big, bearded dude with a gun telling her it's time to GTFO of the area.

That very thing happened at Westgate Mall.

[Dagga Boy]

Given pure choice....these days if I can I carry a polymer double column 9 mm service pistols purely for less manipulations needed to keep the pistol in a fight. I look at this more based on a manipulations under stress formula. I will almost always have that gun backed up with a snub revolver that shines in every single area the service pistol doesn't, and basically look at them as a complimentary system. Some situations, scenarios, environments, policies and legalities will change that, but it is my preferred route with my urban lifestyle.

[Leroy Suggs]

Given pure choice....these days if I can I carry a polymer double column 9 mm service pistols purely for less manipulations needed to keep the pistol in a fight. I look at this more based on a manipulations under stress formula. I will almost always have that gun backed up with a snub revolver that shines in every single area the service pistol doesn't, and basically look at them as a complimentary system. Some situations, scenarios, environments, policies and legalities will change that, but it is my preferred route with my urban lifestyle.

This is my belief on the matter also
Until recently carried a G17 and a J. Due to spine problems it is a Shield and J now.

[OnionsAndDragons]

I work with the kids every time we go out somewhere. Know the path from the vehicle to where we are going is their priority 1, because the car is our default rally point. If somebody is lost for more than 10-15 mins, everyone meets back at the car. They are old enough that they can GTFO with one or both of us covering. I'm glad for tha, because fighting with a toddler or infant in tow just sounds like a nightmare.

[Kevin B.]

There is certainly nothing wrong with more capacity, assuming you shoot it equally well...but bullets are bullets and time is time. Both need to be managed in their own way.

This bears repeating.