So how many Rounds on board are "enough"?

[FotoTomas]

There has been some very interesting conversation lately about what to carry and why. The arguments boiled down to Lots'a'ammo or enough to feel comfortable. In between that number is a lot of options.

My question is this...if you will be packing a concealed semi-auto pistol on your belt for a day and carrying a reload for that handgun, What is the minimum roundcount you will feel comfortable with in the gun and in the reload?

In my case I have several pistols I might carry on the belt. A Glock 26, A Glock 30SF and a Beretta 92D Centurion. When on the belt my G26 will have 12 + 1 on board, The G30 will have 10+1 on board and the Beretta will have 15+1. For reloads my G26 will have a G17 magazine with 17 rounds inside, The G30 will have a G21 magazine with 13 rounds inside and the Beretta will have a 15 round spare magazine. I feel very comfortable starting with 11 rounds in the gun and those models with more are a bonus.

I no longer carry my 1911 .45ACP. I do not want to mix and match my DAO guns with a cocked and locked 1911 BUT if I still had a working SIG 220 in .45 I would be happy with 8+1 and a spare 8 rounder. :)

[F-Trooper05]

The more the marry. If you're ever in a situation that requires an emergency reload, you'll likely not find anything about it very "comfortable."

[Johnkard]

hmm, really depends what type of crime you're likely to encounter.

For most people, that means a single aggressor with no armor at under 7 yards, in which case the 5 rounds in a J-frame should me more than sufficient.

Think about the small subset of situations that would require more than 6 rounds, either to stop one drugged out nutter or to take on multiple opponents. Then think about how likely you are to run into these situations where you live, and how many bullets you might waste on drywall and auto-bodies in the heat of a life threatening moment.


Personally, I feel that 12 rounds total is the minimum amount of ammunition necessary to mollify the vast majority of situations I could ever find myself in. This includes rounds I'm likely to whiff under pressure, and is geared towards providing life saving leverage in a single lethal event. 12 rounds fired judiciously should be enough to defend yourself from a threat and discourage an aggressor. Even in the most extreme scenario, 12 rounds should give you enough time to run away or call the police even if you haven't actually taken down every target.

Personally, I prefer to carry 46 rounds of ammo, 15+1 and 2 full mags on deck. Why? There's almost no problem that 46 pistol rounds can't solve, that can be solved by a pistol. is that necessary? Not unless you expect to experience lethal events multiple times per day without respite. More realistically, I do occasionally leave behind my extra mags, I only get religious about carrying them when I know I'm going to be spending time in a shady part of town.

[DocGKR]

Last I looked, a J-frame has 5 holes in the cylinder....

[Johnkard]

Last I looked, a J-frame has 5 holes in the cylinder....

You'll excuse my obvious inability to select between "5" and "6" on the keyboard...apologies.

[Tamara]

My question is this...if you will be packing a concealed semi-auto pistol on your belt for a day and carrying a reload for that handgun, What is the minimum roundcount you will feel comfortable with in the gun and in the reload?

I don't know that this is as much a math problem as a philosophical problem. I mean, "All other things being equal, more is generally better" is not a computable number (To find N, Calculate the number of attackers A, multiply by three, add two shots per attacker to allow for misses or peripheral hits M, double the resulting total to account for fantasy marksmanship...)

When I'd heard of Tom Givens referring to the 1911 as a "two-guy gun" is when I got to thinking. Sure, the odds of me running into three guys who were willing to charge gunfire were vanishingly small, but if I ever did, wouldn't I feel stupid getting beaten senseless with my empty gun, knowing that the reason I was carrying it rather than some high-cap bullet hose was because... well, that's what all the cool guys carried when I was younger, and I just kept toting it all those years out of force of habit.

Here's the thing: One doesn't get to find out how many rounds was "enough" until after the encounter is over. If someone told me that I was going to have to complete a random drill on the range, and I asked them "Which one?" and they replied "I can't tell you ahead of time; you'll just have to keep shooting 'til I blow the whistle," you bet I'd step up to the line with more that a 5-shooter and no reload.

[Johnkard]

I am sorry to say that I hideously over-think everything. Statistics say that in a life threatening situation at 7 yards only 1/10 of a police trained "marksman's" bullets are going to hit his/her target. These are people that can make easy hits on silhouettes, that are probably trained better than most people that carry guns (even if they are not at the level of skill aspired to within this particular forum)

1/10 rounds will hit the target...clearly a lot of our training falls apart when we are getting shot at. If you look through news reports, you'll find that most incidents involving people like us boil down to either a super-deadly close range shootout near point blank range (certainly under 3 yards) or a less than lethal frantic emptying of magazines across a much larger distance with little or no attention paid to the front sight.

It's convenient to think about every round in your weapon as a guaranteed hit, or to write off a conservative number of "fliers" but sadly neither number is likely to be very useful.

It's most important to have enough bullets for your weapon such that once you've come back to your senses after your first frantic spree, you still have a few rounds left to put where they need to go.

For me, I trend towards a Mozambique per target when I'm under pressure, So 12 rounds should give me a 4 tries, which will probably be enough to scare away 4 guys or positively take down 1. If you have not been trained to fire in "bursts" a spare mag is a great idea because it will give you a moment of pause with which to re-attain your senses and your front sight.

That said, I don't think I am good enough to survive a deadly encounter long enough to need say a hundred rounds in my pistol. I Need to treat the weapon as a tool that will help me survive a moment of violence and escape from anything more intensive. Why carry enough ammunition to shoot 10 people, when you know you'd loose in any fight against 10 armed people?

I think an ammunition baseline is important for the same reason that you wouldn't carry an empty gun. A gun in and of itself presents a significant threat, and if you can't back it up with lead every time somebody tests themselves against it, it becomes a bullet attractive paper-weight.

[LSP972]

Here's the thing: One doesn't get to find out how many rounds was "enough" until after the encounter is over..

Bingo.

Of the dozens of shootings/gunfights I have helped investigate, all but two involved less than five rounds fired- by all participants. OTOH, an acquaintance of mine in Texas was involved in a running battle in a strip mall parking lot when he interrupted (by chance) an armed robbery of a grocery store payroll. He fired every one of the 18 rounds on his person, and an additional six from his "spare" ammunition kept in a war bag in his vehicle.

He prevailed, but it was touch and go for a few minutes.

Someone mentioned statistics. Statistics say that the nine in my pistol and ten on my belt will be plenty. Statistics are also used by rascals to impress fools.

IOW, there is no hard and fast answer. But I think most would agree that a low-capacity handgun, with no reload immediately to hand, isn't the smartest approach to this question.

.

[Tamara]

Statistics say that in a life threatening situation at 7 yards only 1/10 of a police trained "marksman's" bullets are going to hit his/her target. These are people that can make easy hits on silhouettes, that are probably trained better than most people that carry guns (even if they are not at the level of skill aspired to within this particular forum)

I am not comparing myself against a police trained marksman. :|

[Josh Runkle]

While I spend the majority of time training at distances around 9-10 ft against a single attacker (where most shootings occur), I spend a smaller amount of my time on a huge variety of other drills. While I am better prepared for the "most likely" threat, I try to be prepared for ANY threat.

Round count kinda works the same way. Most likely you "could" end up in a fight one day against a single attacker, and 5 shots from a J-Frame would stop the threat. But...what if it's the day that you've drawn the short straw from the Fates, and you're fighting off a large group of Yakuza Ninjas?

I spend most time avoiding and mitigating threats. I spend most training time preparing for the most likely threat scenario. I spend a smaller amount of time slowly trying to prepare for anything. As far as round count goes, If it was convenient to carry 18 spare mags, I would. Round count simply becomes an argument of what is the largest number I can carry without it affecting my life negatively or becoming a nuisance. So...I never carry a 33 round pistol mag, I never carry 12 mags, I never carry a gun with a 20 round capacity if I can shoot a gun with a 15 round capacity much better.

Aside from my first rule of thumb: Carry as many as possible without it affecting your life negatively or becoming a nuisance...My second rule of thumb is always this: Carry only what you shoot best. If you shoot a 10/22 pistol with a scope and bipod better than you shoot anything else, find a way to carry that sucker. Now, obviously the answer long-term is to spend more time learning and training with a better gun, but the answer is always to carry what you shoot best now. As far as capacity goes, this would mean that I might carry a gun with an 8 or 13 round capacity over a 15 round capacity if I shot it much better and could reload much faster.

[JHC]

During the class in December, Ken Hackathorn related how he has the opportunity to pour over an extensive database of shooting incidents and stats while training teams from a federal agency. As he presented it to the class in the case of a "shooting" where only one party was firing, the average rounds fired was like 3. In "gunfights" where opposing parties were firing the rounds fired were . . . as many as the gun held.

I take that into consideration and plan accordingly. One or another Glock and generally one spare mag is my typical setup.

[TCinVA]

My rule about capacity is fairly unsophisticated:

Whatever number I can cram into the pistol that suits all my other requirements. An M&P has 2 more rounds in the magazine than my P30, but it doesn't have a hammer I can block. Therefore I'll give up those two extra rounds of capacity which may or may not matter in a gunfight I may or may not get into, to gain an extra margin of safety for the reholstering which I know with certainty I'm going to be doing thousands of times per year.

[Tamara]

Round count simply becomes an argument of what is the largest number I can carry without it affecting my life negatively or becoming a nuisance.

This. This right here.

I wear mom jeans and an unbuttoned chambray shirt, baggy pullover, or shoot-me vest. It's no big deal for me to carry a service-sized auto.

Someone else may have different considerations.

[JDM]

Full gun. Reload.

I usually have a full magazine or two in my bag, but I don't really count those.

[ToddG]

Whatever number I can cram into the pistol that suits all my other requirements.

This.

If I switched tomorrow from my G17 to a G19 or back to my beloved and much-missed P30, I wouldn't think twice about losing two rounds. But if I had to carry a gun that size and weight that held only 8 rounds, I'd be scratching my head asking myself why?

Given the possibility of misses under dynamic conditions of lighting, movement, and stress along with an understanding of how often BGs may need to be shot before they decide to stop acting improperly and the rate at which I send bullets out of the gun, I generally think of six as my magic number: every six shots in the gun equals one BG. I'd like to be able to handle two BGs without a reload, assuming everything works out according to my unscientific voodoo-like plan. So if I remember kindergarten math properly, six times two equals 12. And sure enough, 12 is where my kneejerk emotional response goes from "not enough" to "plenty."

More is better... I've still never met a single person who said he wished he had fewer bullets once the gunfight began.

Less, under some circumstances, is acceptable. But 12 in the gun is my threshold if I have a choice.

[JeffJ]

Whatever number I can cram into the pistol that suits all my other requirements

This - which, for me - I am not judging other's choices and don't wish to start a war - but, for ME is why I don't carry a revolver or single stack - if I'm going to take up that much space in my pants already I choose the hi-cap 9 - The Glock 19 fits the bill perfectly for me, I can carry it with everything I wear - office attire, casual, even a suit for the 3-5 x a year that I wear a suit.

As far as odds go - the odds aren't that you are most likely to be attacked by one guy at 7 yds or less or whatever -- the odds are that you don't need a pistol, once you choose to ignore that statisic why start cherry picking. And FWIW, Tom Given's told my class that you have a 50% chance of being attacked by more than one attacker (not 2, more than 1)

So, I carry a G19 with 17 reload, I've got at least one more 17 reload in the truck and sometimes a long gun in there too. I hope that all of them are more than enough and that when I'm 95 I won't have needed any of them.

[NickA]

And sure enough, 12 is where my kneejerk emotional response goes from "not enough" to "plenty."
I hadn't thought it out as well as Todd, but have the same reaction. 10-12 just seems right, and his "voodoo math" makes sense to me (though I may be being optimistic, given that he can probably solve any shooting problem in fewer rounds, due to our wildly different skill levels.)
That's the main reason I just bought a G26 instead of something like a PPS or PM9, and will explore different carry options over going for the smaller gun with less capacity, and will probably dump my j-frame soon (along with the 3913 that I thought was going to be my carry gun).
A more skilled shooter may be able to drop 2 BG's with 6-8 rounds, but I very well may need the extra margin of error.



Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[David Armstrong]

I'm fairly simple about it all. Whatever I am carrying I would like to have the capability to reload it once, although I may not carry the reload on my body. If that happens to be a 642 then 10 or 11 rounds is enough for me. If it is a single stack then 14-18 rounds is enough. If it is my G17 then 34 rounds are enough. I don't care much about capacity as I've never seen it to be a significant factor in the outcome of CCW/self defense situations once one gets away from the one and two shot guns. I do care about being able to recharge.


from Todd...
More is better... I've still never met a single person who said he wished he had fewer bullets once the gunfight began.
More is not better, more is more. I see this rather strange cliché a lot and like to propose the other side, which is I have never met a single person who said that they would have stopped their attack if only the other guy had been carrying more bullets with him.


from JeffJ...
the odds are that you don't need a pistol, once you choose to ignore that statisic why start cherry picking.
Depends on how you look at those odds. Assuming randomness, the odds of a person needing to use a firearm for self defense are about 1 in 200. After thta is when it really starts getting waaaay out there. The chance of having to actually shoot, then the chance of actually needing to hit the target, then the chance of the target continuing to attack, and so on quickly get to the level of winning the lottery. But the odds of needing a gun aren't that rare.

[JAD]

The more the marry"

only in Utah.

While absolutes are difficult, I'm generally comfortable with the idea that you should carry as much as the gun will hold, and you should when possible carry a reload, which should also be as loaded as it will get. I think that how much merit someone attaches to capacity , which might influence either whether they carry a second magazine or even a different handgun, is pretty individual; I feel the same way about caliber. I do think that's separate from whether one carries a reload at all.

[Tamara]

I have never met a single person who said that they would have stopped their attack if only the other guy had been carrying more bullets with him.

I was unaware that Mr. Suspect Remains At Large stuck around for the AAR. :confused:

;)

[LHS]

When I first started carrying, the AWB was in effect and I was a poor college student who couldn't afford pre-ban hi-caps. I had the choice between carrying 8+1 rounds of .45, or 10+1 rounds of 9mm. At the time, I was still very much in the old-school Gunsite mindset of 'never carry a pistol whose caliber does not start with 4', and I figured giving up 2 rounds for the magic stopping power of the glorious .45 was worth it, so I carried my 1911 and two spare mags.

Fast forward a few years to the sunset of the ban, and suddenly I'm buying 15-round Beretta mags for $15 each, half the price of the 1911 mags and twice the capacity. Now my choice is between 8+1 of .45 or 15+1 of 9mm, and I've learned a lot about real terminal ballistics from something other than The Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip. At that point, the balance shifted and I started carrying the 92 with a single spare mag. Looking at other more modern 9mm pistols, I see some that hold 17 rounds, but to me giving up the ergonomics and familiarity of the 92 just aren't worth 2 extra bullets in the magazine. Likewise, I'm giving serious thought to switching to a 92 Compact, which holds 13+1, but can use the 15-round mags as spares. Dropping 2 rounds off my total loadout isn't all that big a deal, especially when a 15-round reload is a second or two away.

So I went from carrying 25 rounds total with my 1911, to 31 in my Beretta, while taking up less space on my belt.

[markp]

There has been some very interesting conversation lately about what to carry and why. The arguments boiled down to Lots'a'ammo or enough to feel comfortable. In between that number is a lot of options.

My question is this...if you will be packing a concealed semi-auto pistol on your belt for a day and carrying a reload for that handgun, What is the minimum roundcount you will feel comfortable with in the gun and in the reload?

....



My SOP is to carry 1 spare magazine.

[DocGKR]

For CCW/off-duty I want at least 25 rds with me. Typically that means one spare mag in 9 mm or .40, while .45 ACP needs two extra mags. For LE duty, I want to carry double that on me--about 50 rds (2 extra 9mm/.40 or 4 spare .45 ACP).

[GOP]

I personally won't carry a gun without a 15 round capacity. Not because I have some high standard or think of myself as Rambo, but just because I want to have 30 rounds on my body and that gives me the ability to do that with 2 mags instead of 3. As a college student, concealment is critical for me.

If I find myself needing more than 30 rounds, I'm probably shooting it out with several thugs or some very highly trained adversaries. My odds of survival would be pretty low at that point and my best chance might be to haul tail out of the area as fast as possible. 30 rounds gives me the ability to keep some heads down while I get myself and any 3rd party out of dodge.

[jetfire]

I reckon I don't carry a gun because I'm an optimist, so that mindset applies to how many bullets I carry as well. Like Todd, I have a number that I feel better if I'm carrying more than that, my number though is 8 in the gun plus a reload.

[GJM]

In most of the lower 48, I am more interested in capacity than caliber, and prefer a hi cap 9. In the summer in the mountain west, and in Alaska, because of creatures, I rate caliber over capacity, and 9mm is below my minimum caliber.

[DocGKR]

Concur--9 mm would not be my first choice in Alaska.

[GJM]

Not sure that 40/45/10 is enough, but at least it makes me feel like I am trying when we are in a mix of town and out and about. My wife has made a decision to carry her Glock 29 instead of a .44 magnum, because she shoots Glock pistols almost exclusively, and feels like her proficiency with the Glock trumps the greater power of the .44.

[David Armstrong]

I was unaware that Mr. Suspect Remains At Large stuck around for the AAR. :confused:

;)
Not all suspects remain at large.:)

[JonInWA]

When carrying concealed in an urban environment, I feel comfortable with my Glock (either G17, G19, G21 or G34) and one spare magazine.

In a wilderness environment, my threshold would probably begin at .45 ACP (again, probably with my Glock G21), but would up the number of spare magazines to 2, and would likely carry 50-100 spare rounds. My carry magazine would likely be hollowpoints, but at least one spare magazine would be ball, for greater penetration if needed. An alternative Glock for wilderness carry might be my G34, or G17 with Winchester Ranger 127gr +P+ 9mm hollowpoint cartridges (again, with 2 spare magazines).

A revolver alternative for wilderness carry would be my stainless steel Ruger Security Six, likely with 158gr .357 Magnum semi-jacketed flat point rounds, at least t2 speedloaders in a dual speedloader case, and possibly a loose speedloader carried in an outside jacket pocket and probably an additional Bianchi Speed Strip in an outside pocket.

For any single-stack magazine guns, I'll normally carry 2 spare magazines, with slightly thicker basepads to expedite reloading.

In the wilderness, I'd be carrying additional cartridges for possible emergency signaling (3 shots fired together). Due to their combination of light weight, weather imperviousness, high capacity and low lubrication requirements, a Glock would seem to be the best "jack of all trades" gun.

Best, Jon

[DonovanM]

Here's the thing: One doesn't get to find out how many rounds was "enough" until after the encounter is over. If someone told me that I was going to have to complete a random drill on the range, and I asked them "Which one?" and they replied "I can't tell you ahead of time; you'll just have to keep shooting 'til I blow the whistle," you bet I'd step up to the line with more that a 5-shooter and no reload.

Post of the month right here... well said.


And sure enough, 12 is where my kneejerk emotional response goes from "not enough" to "plenty."

When I first started reading this thread and got to thinking, I reached the conclusion that I was happy with the 12+1 I usually carry in my 357 SIG P226. A 13/15rd reload on top of that? Even better.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

The only pistols I have are 9mm Glocks, and they are a 19 or a 26, I just carry 2 spare 17 round mags, and the gun in a various configuration as I please.

As both are set up the same way, NY1/3.5#-Orange HD sights, it makes my life simple...and I'm starting with a minimum of 11/max of 18 in the gun.

[CCT125US]

Spare mag for several reasons.... 1. More ammo 2. Better weight distribution 3. It evens out the belt line which stops printing on me

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/CCT125US/Mobile%20Uploads/2012-03-25_155023.jpg

I am not saying a magic number but mine is somewhere between 15 and 30.....

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/CCT125US/Mobile%20Uploads/2012-03-25_154700.jpg

[David Armstrong]

This may be a thread hijack, and if so moderator please break it off into its own thread, but it seems to go with the topic. Assuming you have these uber-BGs that insist on pressing their attack in the face of them and their friends being shot, how many BGs do you realistically think you can shoot down before being overrun, given the fact that most encounters are going to be up close and personal?

[TGS]

Hmmm....kind of a tough thing to put a fixed number on.

I carry a P2000, which has 13 round mags. I think that's fine, but I still like to carry more in the gun if I can....I actually own some German Police Model mags for my P2000 that are 16 rounds, and I carry those when wearing the appropriate clothing to conceal the "elephant foot" style base plate.

Since my sister is an accomplished sculptor (ever been to the rainforest in the NYC museum of natural art? yeah, that's her doing), I'm going to have her make me a mag well funnel for my P2000 so I can use P30 mags and have a full grip. At that point, I'll probably just use P30 mags for everything. I'm coming to find that I would rather have the flat baseplate of the P30 mag.

So, more the merrier, but I'm not a capacity whore. There's more important things to me than capacity. I'm even too lazy to carry a spare mag. At the other end of the spectrum, I was never particularly thrilled about carrying a 5 round gun in NPE's, though I was certainly happy to still have the option/ability to be armed.

[TGS]

This may be a thread hijack, and if so moderator please break it off into its own thread, but it seems to go with the topic. Assuming you have these uber-BGs that insist on pressing their attack in the face of them and their friends being shot, how many BGs do you realistically think you can shoot down before being overrun, given the fact that most encounters are going to be up close and personal?

facepalm.

[LHS]

Spare mags are also a good idea in case of a magazine-induced malfunction. Yeah, we should all check our mags frequently to make sure they're still good, but anything can and will fail eventually. If my mag is causing issues, I want a spare on me.

[LHS]

This may be a thread hijack, and if so moderator please break it off into its own thread, but it seems to go with the topic. Assuming you have these uber-BGs that insist on pressing their attack in the face of them and their friends being shot, how many BGs do you realistically think you can shoot down before being overrun, given the fact that most encounters are going to be up close and personal?

Ask Dean Caputo about that.

[Tamara]

how many BGs do you realistically think you can shoot down before being overrun, given the fact that most encounters are going to be up close and personal?

Wait, I thought "most" encounters only had 1 bad guy? I'm so confused about what "most" encounters are going to have, now... :o

[LtDave]

For CCW/off-duty I want at least 25 rds with me. Typically that means one spare mag in 9 mm or .40, while .45 ACP needs two extra mags. For LE duty, I want to carry double that on me--about 50 rds (2 extra 9mm/.40 or 4 spare .45 ACP).

My feelings exactly. 1 double stack spare or 2 single stack spares CCW/off duty. 25 rounds is my comfort zone. I think I still hold the record at my PD for the most pistol rounds fired in a shooting incident at 14.

[LtDave]

This may be a thread hijack, and if so moderator please break it off into its own thread, but it seems to go with the topic. Assuming you have these uber-BGs that insist on pressing their attack in the face of them and their friends being shot, how many BGs do you realistically think you can shoot down before being overrun, given the fact that most encounters are going to be up close and personal?

Working LE patrol, I always figured that a carload of 4 was probably the likely upper limit.

[lamarbrog]

From the perspective of someone who primarily carries while working in a gun store.



I currently am carrying a Glock 19, so 15+1 in the gun, and then a reload of 15, for a total of 31 rounds.

Prior to this, I carried a Beretta 92FS, 15+1 in the gun, and then a reload of 15, for a total of 31 rounds.


I have had customers question, or sometimes even mock, my decision to carry a spare magazine. Apparently, they are convinced no one will ever rob a gun store while people are there, and that carrying a reload is a pointless waste of weight/effort. While that is certainly one way of looking at it, I think of it differently...

It is very unlikely, I would say, that anyone is going to try to rob a gun store during business hours. However, if it were to take place, I see no way it would not occur suddenly and violently. They'd likely be armed with long guns, putting us at a disadvantage to begin with, and given the circumstances you can bet they're going all-or-nothing with every intent of either complete success or a trip to the morgue trying. Body armor would not surprise me at all. So, I figure that I either need to carry a pistol and plenty of ammo... or not even bother.

For me, 30 rounds is "feel good zone". If I had a better pocket gun than a Jennings .25, I'd probably stick that in a back pocket for insurance.

[DocGKR]

Within the last year or so, a west coast agency had a shooting where officers fired about 140 handgun rounds at an armed and violent single suspect inside a stationary vehicle at a distance under 25 yds; the bad guy was NOT physiologically incapacitated and chose to surrender rather than keep on fighting--bet those patrol officers were wishing they had more ammo, not less...

[JHC]

This may be a thread hijack, and if so moderator please break it off into its own thread, but it seems to go with the topic. Assuming you have these uber-BGs that insist on pressing their attack in the face of them and their friends being shot, how many BGs do you realistically think you can shoot down before being overrun, given the fact that most encounters are going to be up close and personal?

How many AK armed opponents did that twice wounded SEAL take out with his pistol and multiple reloads all inside the same room?

Now to head off the avoidance manuever from anywhere that we aren't in a war zone . . . A. that has no bearing on the actual question posed and B. some members are/have been/will be.

Plus it's worth revisiting that amazing Sailor's amazing feat of gunfighting.

[CCT125US]

This may be a thread hijack, and if so moderator please break it off into its own thread, but it seems to go with the topic. Assuming you have these uber-BGs that insist on pressing their attack in the face of them and their friends being shot, how many BGs do you realistically think you can shoot down before being overrun, given the fact that most encounters are going to be up close and personal?

To quote the internet "better to have and not need, than need and not have" - Sumdood

Now I am not a mathmagician or anything fancy but I know I have a better statistical possibility of surviving a fight with 5 doods if my gun carries more than a J frame :)

And it all is about stats and liklies.... those are great odds.

[TCinVA]

Within the last year or so, a west coast agency had a shooting where officers fired about 140 handgun rounds at an armed and violent single suspect inside a stationary vehicle at a distance under 25 yds; the bad guy was NOT physiologically incapacitated and chose to surrender rather than keep on fighting--bet those patrol officers were wishing they had more ammo, not less...

This, more or less.

Ammo on board gives me the opportunity to handle a larger range of problems than less ammo on board. Realistically my reaction to an up close and personal threat is probably going to be doing my best impression of an MP5 until I'm aware that the dude is no longer in a position to hurt me. Under stress i can dump some rounds...and if I burn a dude down I'd like to have some bullets left in the gun in case there is more to be done whether that more is more bad people or just one particularly stubborn dude who didn't realize 5 shots was supposed to be enough.

[Josh Runkle]

Your Fates are much more interesting than mine. I too follow the more is more better line of reasoning, though.

My point was merely to make as ludicrous an example as possible. It's incredibly unlikely that I would ever fight off a group of terrorists in a mall. While I spend very little time preparing for that scenario, and a much larger amount of time preparing against the "most likely" scenario, I like to be aware of and exposed to a wide variety of scenarios, even the very, very unlikely ones. The larger variety I am exposed to and can prepare for, the more likely I can respond to a similar, but unknown threat.

Someone, somewhere in the next five years will undergo that scenario, whether it's in the Philippines, India or Boston. While I continue to learn, I not only am more prepared or an event, but I am also more likely to mitigate my exposure to an event, and more likely to mitigate my chances of being "selected" by a BG. Obviously, this decreases my odds of being in any sort of event.

Prepare for as much as you have the time and funds to do. Carry as much ammo as you can without it negatively affecting your life or your choice of what you can shoot best.

[JAD]

--bet those patrol officers were wishing they had more ammo, not less...
-- why is that? They dumped 140 rounds into the target (and surrounding area) and were exactly as effective as they would have been by not shooting at all. I've already noted several posters who are prioritizing capacity to make up for misses; does anyone see a moral issue with that? Does having more capacity make you more likely to plan to fail? Does that affect outcomes?

[UNK]

-- why is that? They dumped 140 rounds into the target (and surrounding area) and were exactly as effective as they would have been by not shooting at all. I've already noted several posters who are prioritizing capacity to make up for misses; does anyone see a moral issue with that? Does having more capacity make you more likely to plan to fail? Does that affect outcomes?

Dumping 140 rounds is a great plan. Somebodies head is going to be down under cover unless they want to be dead. And he gave up. Do you think he would have given up if no rounds were fired? The military uses this all the time. Usually with the intent someone is moving under covering fire to a more advantageous position.

[TGS]

-- why is that? They dumped 140 rounds into the target (and surrounding area) and were exactly as effective as they would have been by not shooting at all. I've already noted several posters who are prioritizing capacity to make up for misses; does anyone see a moral issue with that? Does having more capacity make you more likely to plan to fail? Does that affect outcomes?

Having limited firepower and ammunition definitely worked out so well in the past for west coast LE involved in standing gun battles with rifle armed opponents.....it's not because of any specific experiences they've moved to high cap semi-autos, and more firepower inside a squad car in general.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Dumping rounds is NOT part of my plan.

Shooting people who need to be shot a lot of times is part of my plan because I use a pistol, which is an under powered, short ranged, hard to shoot & sucky in all respects except it's ability to be carried without notice.

I also plan on using this insignificant weapon in a situation in which i'll be really freaked out and not at my best (like...in a lethal force situation) against motivated, malevolent and mobile adversaries who will probably present bad shot angles to me, and will work hard to make sure they don't get shot by the guy with the gun - me.

That plan requires ammunition to work as planned, because I can not shoot a lot if I do not have a lot.

[GOP]

-- why is that? They dumped 140 rounds into the target (and surrounding area) and were exactly as effective as they would have been by not shooting at all. I've already noted several posters who are prioritizing capacity to make up for misses; does anyone see a moral issue with that? Does having more capacity make you more likely to plan to fail? Does that affect outcomes?

Yes, because you were there and all.

Do you think that you will have a 100% hit rate in live combat? I'm hoping you realize that even guys like Kyle Defoor, Kyle Lamb, and Larry Vickers have probably all missed many times in combat. I hold myself to really tight accuracy standards, hit a 4.79 FAST yesterday, and am going today to practice on more 3x5's at 25m, but I also know that if I am in a mall when some Hezbollah douchebags armed with AK's start taking shots, it might be best to have more rounds in my little pistol and I might simply have to keep their heads down while I evac me, my lady, and whoever else wants to follow us. I also need more ammo because pistol rounds suck at killing people occasionally, and I may have to pump a lot of lead into some bad guys.

[LOKNLOD]

I always liked the statement that "There's no such thing as carrying too much ammo unless you're drowning or on fire."

Beyond humor/hyperbole, arguing about it is kind of silly. It will always be personally and situationally dependent.

I think we can all agree that in a vacuum, having more ammo available is better. But increasing capacity comes at a price of larger/thicker guns, increased weight, less comfort, and being more difficult to conceal. Everyone will have to reach a personal equilibrium of all those factors where they feel "okay" versus the perceived threat level they feel likely to face.

If you're cool with a J-frame and no reload, so be it. If you think you need a G17 with a +2 basepad and 3 more 19-rounders on your belt, more power to you (and I hope you're on my side if crap goes down, at the very least I can resupply off your corpse).

Like most things, there's probably a happy medium somewhere in between. I personally think the sweet spot is probably somewhere around a modern semi-auto pistol and one spare mag, but I'll admit to omission of the mag on occasion. I'd like to get a flatter, smaller gun for situations where a P30 jammed down my britches is still a bit too conspicuous, and when I do, I'll have to accept the compromise of less rounds.

[David Armstrong]

Ask Dean Caputo about that.
Been a long time since I've been where I could talk with Dean, but I assume you are referring to the one where Dean was able to take out 3 BGs with a single stack 1911? The one where he ended up in the hospital, gut shot? The same one that, IRRC, he solved with <10 rounds? that the one??

[David Armstrong]

Wait, I thought "most" encounters only had 1 bad guy? I'm so confused about what "most" encounters are going to have, now... :o
One shouldn't be confused about what is within the expected parameters of a gunfight, at least if one is planning on accurately preparing for that problem. Not sure why any of that should be confusing. Yes, most incidents involve one BG, and in most of them the shooting is pretty close. That, of course, has nothing to do with the question asked, which was how many BGs one realistically thought they could handle in a particular situation.

[David Armstrong]

Within the last year or so, a west coast agency had a shooting where officers fired about 140 handgun rounds at an armed and violent single suspect inside a stationary vehicle at a distance under 25 yds; the bad guy was NOT physiologically incapacitated and chose to surrender rather than keep on fighting--bet those patrol officers were wishing they had more ammo, not less...
OK, as I understand it after 140 rounds the guy apparently got tired of these guys missing him and volunteered to stop fighting? I'm not sure that is a good argument for carrying lots of ammo.:confused:

[David Armstrong]

Working LE patrol, I always figured that a carload of 4 was probably the likely upper limit.
Thanks, LT. That seems to agree with most scenario testing I'm aware of, that 3 or 4 opponents is the maximum one can reasonable expect to engage.

[David Armstrong]

To quote the internet "better to have and not need, than need and not have" - Sumdood
To which I generally respond that while that is a nice turn of words it really doesn't make much sense in reality, as one cannot carry around everything they might need at any time. We all have to compromise based on what we think is realistic. It may be better to have a bunch of shark repellent while cutting wheat in Kansas just in case you get attacked by a Great White, but I just don't see much sense in doing so.

[David Armstrong]

but I also know that if I am in a mall when some Hezbollah douchebags armed with AK's start taking shots, it might be best to have more rounds in my little pistol and I might simply have to keep their heads down while I evac me, my lady, and whoever else wants to follow us.
Sometimes I really wonder if folks have thought things out beyond the "I will take heroic action" point. Do you think that popping rounds off to "keep their heads down" will (1) actually keep a bunch of Hezbollah douchebags armed with AK's heads down, and (2) do you think that popping off rounds at them will make them pay less attention to you and the lady and whoever else is following you, or pay more attention?

[Sparks2112]

Carry the maximum number of rounds for your firearm that you can comfortably conceal without adversely compromising your mobility, pretty simple. Today for me that equals 35 147gr HST 9mms. Some days it's more some days it's less. 17 is generally my minimum feel good number, which is based off nothing other than when I carried primarily a 1911.

[CCT125US]

Wow... what a fun thread this has become. Based upon overwhelming evidence I am going to sell all my automatics and buy myself that J frame I was thinking about. But don't worry, I only plan on loading two rounds. Why two you ask? Because based on statistics and sumdood I may never need my gun, but if I do the very action of showing it should work, but if that fails I have one round to make a CNS hit. And hit I will because sumdood said I would. Oh but wait I still have one round.... isn't that overkill? My answer to that is of course it is. Since we all know that bad people never do things together and never "gang" up on others and statistics are always right and there are never any outliers then I guess I need to rethink that 2nd round. I am going to the pawn shop now..... I used to think that those high priced boxes of 20 rounds were costly. I wonder what one bullet is going for nowadays

[GOP]

Sometimes I really wonder if folks have thought things out beyond the "I will take heroic action" point. Do you think that popping rounds off to "keep their heads down" will (1) actually keep a bunch of Hezbollah douchebags armed with AK's heads down, and (2) do you think that popping off rounds at them will make them pay less attention to you and the lady and whoever else is following you, or pay more attention?

I have no idea how you got the idea that I would take heroic action.

I think that a pistol generally sucks as a self-defense weapon compared to a rifle. I think that popping off rounds in a safe manner (I.E. not hitting innocents) will disrupt and/or inhibit an adversaries ability to shoot me as I'm getting off the x. This is proven repeatedly in combat and FoF. It doesn't matter if the enemy is suicidal or not, even the highest trained individuals can become less accurate while receiving incoming fire. Having more ammo simply gives me more options. I'm not playing a hero, I'm weighing options that could save me and a loved one's life. If running like heck and keeping the pistol holstered is the best option, then that will be the course I take. I think you may be confusing having the ability to do something (like engaging an enemy), with actually doing something (like running if I need to). I am training myself to be able to think under-pressure and weigh options, I don't apply to the "you need to only do X under pressure as your brain function/motor function/wee wee function will be greatly diminished" line of thinking.

[Comedian]

Wow... what a fun thread this has become. Based upon overwhelming evidence I am going to sell all my automatics and buy myself that J frame I was thinking about. But don't worry, I only plan on loading two rounds. Why two you ask? Because based on statistics and sumdood I may never need my gun, but if I do the very action of showing it should work, but if that fails I have one round to make a CNS hit. And hit I will because sumdood said I would. Oh but wait I still have one round.... isn't that overkill? My answer to that is of course it is. Since we all know that bad people never do things together and never "gang" up on others and statistics are always right and there are never any outliers then I guess I need to rethink that 2nd round. I am going to the pawn shop now..... I used to think that those high priced boxes of 20 rounds were costly. I wonder what one bullet is going for nowadays

Agree. Im going to ditch my G17 for a Derringer. That should cover me for most situations, statistically speaking.

[FotoTomas]

Agree. Im going to ditch my G17 for a Derringer. That should cover me for most situations, statistically speaking.

While the two shot derringer might well be all you need...it is not part of the discussion. I simply was looking for a general consensus of how many rounds for a semi auto and reload make most people happy. I pack a semi most of the time and always when on duty. I have carried a two shot derringer on occasion many years ago but that is not the focus. The duty gun, a SIG 229 DAK in 9mm has thirteen on board with two more 13 rounders on the belt. 39 rounds total per policy. Off duty is where I feel comfortable with less. I admit however that off duty I might well need more. Life is a compromise.

[JHC]

I have no idea how you got the idea that I would take heroic action.

I think that a pistol generally sucks as a self-defense weapon compared to a rifle. I think that popping off rounds in a safe manner (I.E. not hitting innocents) will disrupt and/or inhibit an adversaries ability to shoot me as I'm getting off the x. This is proven repeatedly in combat and FoF. It doesn't matter if the enemy is suicidal or not, even the highest trained individuals can become less accurate while receiving incoming fire. Having more ammo simply gives me more options. I'm not playing a hero, I'm weighing options that could save me and a loved one's life. If running like heck and keeping the pistol holstered is the best option, then that will be the course I take. I think you may be confusing having the ability to do something (like engaging an enemy), with actually doing something (like running if I need to). I am training myself to be able to think under-pressure and weigh options, I don't apply to the "you need to only do X under pressure as your brain function/motor function/wee wee function will be greatly diminished" line of thinking.

I knew exactly what you meant. It's no different than tritium and a white light. It's all about options. OTOH lets not make heroism sound like a character flaw. ;) (here it comes)

[jetfire]

Heroism isn't a character flaw. Recklessness is.

[JHC]

Heroism isn't a character flaw. Recklessness is.

+1 Excellent!


The Hezbollah reference was like a metaphor or something; for a worst case scenario is all.

[David Armstrong]

I have no idea how you got the idea that I would take heroic action.
I think it had something to do with the "if I am in a mall when some Hezbollah douchebags armed with AK's start taking shots, it might be best to have more rounds in my little pistol and I might simply have to keep their heads down while I evac me, my lady, and whoever else wants to follow us" phrasing.


I think that a pistol generally sucks as a self-defense weapon compared to a rifle. I think that popping off rounds in a safe manner (I.E. not hitting innocents) will disrupt and/or inhibit an adversaries ability to shoot me as I'm getting off the x.
Not real sure you can pop off rounds in a safe manner while also shooting at the Hezbollah AK guys in the mall to keep their heads down.

This is proven repeatedly in combat and FoF.
And it is also proven repeatedly in combat and in FoF that shooting at other people tends to attract attention from them and usually encourages them to shoot back at you. If there are a bunch of them with rifles and you with your pistol, I suggest that is not a good idea.

[David Armstrong]

Wow... what a fun thread this has become. Based upon overwhelming evidence I am going to sell all my automatics and buy myself that J frame I was thinking about. But don't worry, I only plan on loading two rounds. Why two you ask? Because based on statistics and sumdood I may never need my gun, but if I do the very action of showing it should work, but if that fails I have one round to make a CNS hit. And hit I will because sumdood said I would. Oh but wait I still have one round.... isn't that overkill? My answer to that is of course it is. Since we all know that bad people never do things together and never "gang" up on others and statistics are always right and there are never any outliers then I guess I need to rethink that 2nd round. I am going to the pawn shop now..... I used to think that those high priced boxes of 20 rounds were costly. I wonder what one bullet is going for nowadays

Not sure where you would get any of those ideas from this thread, as nobody has suggested anything close to that, AFAIK.:confused:

[JodyH]

So how many Rounds on board are "enough"?
All of them.

[David Armstrong]

Agree. Im going to ditch my G17 for a Derringer. That should cover me for most situations, statistically speaking.
Yes it should, and if that is where you choose to make your compromise point, more power to you. It's not where I would, nor do I think many would suggest it as a particularly good point as it is rather close to outlier positioning, but if you are comfortable with it and understand the advantages and disadvantages to your choice, great.

[TGS]

Yes it should, and if that is where you choose to make your compromise point, more power to you. It's not where I would, nor do I think many would suggest it as a particularly good point as it is rather close to outlier positioning, but if you are comfortable with it and understand the advantages and disadvantages to your choice, great.

You understand he was being sarcastic, right?

[GOP]

I think it had something to do with the "if I am in a mall when some Hezbollah douchebags armed with AK's start taking shots, it might be best to have more rounds in my little pistol and I might simply have to keep their heads down while I evac me, my lady, and whoever else wants to follow us" phrasing.


Not real sure you can pop off rounds in a safe manner while also shooting at the Hezbollah AK guys in the mall to keep their heads down.

And it is also proven repeatedly in combat and in FoF that shooting at other people tends to attract attention from them and usually encourages them to shoot back at you. If there are a bunch of them with rifles and you with your pistol, I suggest that is not a good idea.

Thank you for your repeated input in this thread.

Hyperbole is a failure when the other party takes everything as straight on fact. I could say something like the "Hezbollah terrorists" reference was simply a worst case scenario and highly unlikely, but why bother.

[UNK]

Heroism isn't a character flaw. Recklessness is.

Thats good. Really good. Quote of the month material.

[LHS]

Been a long time since I've been where I could talk with Dean, but I assume you are referring to the one where Dean was able to take out 3 BGs with a single stack 1911? The one where he ended up in the hospital, gut shot? The same one that, IRRC, he solved with <10 rounds? that the one??

It's been a few years since I heard him relate the story, but if memory serves, there were six bad guys, he had to reload at least once, and he got three or four of them while the others beat feet at some point during the gunfight (one of which was apparently bleeding). At the time of the telling, he mentioned that it made him seriously reconsider carrying single-stack pistols, though you'd have to ask him what he carries now. He also mentioned that the thugs were preparing to execute his friends, who had adopted a passive approach after being caught by surprise and surrounded. It was not a time to simply display a weapon and hope the bad guys tucked tail and fled.

Now, did the fact that he had to reload result in his being wounded? I'd have to ask him. But when you have six armed bad guys, you'll be lucky enough to win in the first place. What you don't have is a spare second or two to change mags or use a speed-loader.

[FotoTomas]

...snip...
Now, did the fact that he had to reload result in his being wounded? I'd have to ask him. But when you have six armed bad guys, you'll be lucky enough to win in the first place. What you don't have is a spare second or two to change mags or use a speed-loader.

According to you he did have the spare second or two to change magazines or reload.

[LHS]

According to you he did have the spare second or two to change magazines or reload.

And wound up in the hospital next to one of the perps.

We can play all day with the 'if then' game, but I think we can all agree that it's better to not have to spend precious seconds reloading a gun if you don't have to.

[Comedian]

Yes it should, and if that is where you choose to make your compromise point, more power to you. It's not where I would, nor do I think many would suggest it as a particularly good point as it is rather close to outlier positioning, but if you are comfortable with it and understand the advantages and disadvantages to your choice, great.

I guess i should have added some kind of smiley face, after my sarcasm. Like this. :confused:

[JAD]

[sarcasm] Having limited firepower and ammunition definitely worked out so well in the past for west coast LE involved in standing gun battles with rifle armed opponents.....

Without sarcasm: I presume you aren't referring to Hollywood, where they were armed with 92s and later decided they needed patrol rifles because nobody could make a headshot.

I'm really surprised by the tone of responses to my post; it's atypical of this forum. People did present a lot of well-reasoned arguments for "popping off rounds," though.

Ow8, forgot: /sarcasm off.

[KeeFus]

My barber asked me this very question the other day. As far as "enough"...thats hard to say. Enough to deal with any array of situations that may pop up.

31 rounds of .45 when I'm at work. I have more 'in the car' but 31 is what I carry on me. 00 buck and slugs in the rack above my head...all told 15 rounds of each for the shotgun.

Off-duty, a G-19 or M&P 9 with one spare mag. If I am carrying the 45 I carry a minimum of 1 spare mag. If I happen to have the S&W 442 on I have one reload. Not really comfortable with that but i'd rather have that tucked away and accessible than nothing at all.

As far as firing warning shots or "popping off rounds"...while it may sound like a good idea I; (1) wouldn't do it because theres a lawsuit attached to every round you fire and miss; (2) our policy forbids it.

[GOP]

Apparently I'm at least partly responsible for this thread drift.

1) I shouldn't have used hyperbole. Armed terrorists at a mall is extremely, extremely low on my threat matrix.

2) Nothing in my training calls for "popping off rounds." Today, I did walk back drills on a 2" circle, 3x5 cards at 25m, DT at 7m, and SHO 3x5 walk backs. My accuracy standards are extremely tight. Apparently, though, my phrase has gone viral :)

3) I Didnt mean to cause a flame war. I simply like more bullets to less bullets as long as its easy to carry and concealable.

Considering most of my training has been with active or former Special operations dudes, pray and spray falls around 0% and 0.0001% of a possibility. I'm bowing out now, just wanted to clarify.

[Johnkard]

Hmm, I feel like we've lost the thread of the argument...

We can all agree that more ammo is better, but the purpose of the discussion is to examine a numeric quantity of ammunition necessary to make your gun useful in a firefight. Personally, I take this to mean that carrying less than the minimum is more dangerous than helpful. Anecdote and generalization are great, but could we get some more specific productive commentary?


My opinion:

I think 12 is a good minimum.

15+1 is a more efficient quantity for those that carry a modern automatic.

and:

Extra mags are a luxury only to be enjoyed by those looking for trouble. Most gunfights between top level marksmen and untrained rabble alike won't last long enough for you to reload. The ones that do are both so rare and so dangerous that your extra reloads probably aren't going to count for much.

Legally, reloading in a gunfight is a tenuous action. It implies that there was time for thought, and that the next rounds fired are let loose with purpose and intent. Pulling your gun to defend yourself is one thing, but taking the time to reload and get back on target will temper the opinions of the grand jury hearing your case.

[Jay Cunningham]

Just like the Revolver as Primary thread, I suggest everyone grab some coffee and do some deep breathing.

This forum is a great place for spirited, informed discussion. But if you've already made your point (in some cases several times) then you might want to ask yourself the question: "How important is it for me to win at the Internet?"

[Comedian]

Hmm, I feel like we've lost the thread of the argument...

We can all agree that more ammo is better, but the purpose of the discussion is to examine a numeric quantity of ammunition necessary to make your gun useful in a firefight. Personally, I take this to mean that carrying less than the minimum is more dangerous than helpful. Anecdote and generalization are great, but could we get some more specific productive commentary?


My opinion:

I think 12 is a good minimum.

15+1 is a more efficient quantity for those that carry a modern automatic.

and:

Extra mags are a luxury only to be enjoyed by those looking for trouble. Most gunfights between top level marksmen and untrained rabble alike won't last long enough for you to reload. The ones that do are both so rare and so dangerous that your extra reloads probably aren't going to count for much.

Legally, reloading in a gunfight is a tenuous action. It implies that there was time for thought, and that the next rounds fired are let loose with purpose and intent. Pulling your gun to defend yourself is one thing, but taking the time to reload and get back on target will temper the opinions of the grand jury hearing your case.

The only reason for a reload would be 3 or 4 armed thugs bearing down on me with bad intent. I don't see that as a bad shoot. A local prosecutor probably wouldn't see it as a bad shoot. So no grand jury.

[David Armstrong]

You understand he was being sarcastic, right?
Yes, I understood that quite clearly. Rather than responding in kind I chose to point out there actually was a fair amount of truth hidden in his statement.

[David Armstrong]

Thank you for your repeated input in this thread.

Hyperbole is a failure when the other party takes everything as straight on fact. I could say something like the "Hezbollah terrorists" reference was simply a worst case scenario and highly unlikely, but why bother.
Hyperbole is always a failure in a discussion of facts. My experience in the gun world is that many folks use a lot of hyperbole trying to justify things. I often like to point out that not only is hyperbole rarely effective as a tool for discussion, but also if one has to resort to hyperbole to support a position then that position is probably fairly weak.

[David Armstrong]

It's been a few years since I heard him relate the story, but if memory serves, there were six bad guys, he had to reload at least once, and he got three or four of them while the others beat feet at some point during the gunfight (one of which was apparently bleeding). At the time of the telling, he mentioned that it made him seriously reconsider carrying single-stack pistols, though you'd have to ask him what he carries now. He also mentioned that the thugs were preparing to execute his friends, who had adopted a passive approach after being caught by surprise and surrounded. It was not a time to simply display a weapon and hope the bad guys tucked tail and fled.
Five BGs, 3 shot and 2 ran. Nobody has ever suggested that one should produce a firearm based on hoping it will cause the BG to run away, even though that is the most common response.


Now, did the fact that he had to reload result in his being wounded? I'd have to ask him. But when you have six armed bad guys, you'll be lucky enough to win in the first place. What you don't have is a spare second or two to change mags or use a speed-loader.
IIRC he was wounded before he got to a position of cover and had no need to change mags at all. Don't know if he would have had time to use a speedloader but what we do know is that he DID have time to change magazines, although that did not change the outcome.

[pangloss]

Last I looked, a J-frame has 5 holes in the cylinder....

Unless you're running a S&W 432 like me: 6-shot 32H&R mag with Black Hills 85gr JHP. It has one more round than a .38 and is more reliable than the tiny 380ACP pistols. Most of the time I carry my Glock 26 though (12+1 in the pistol), and I often have a 15 round G19 mag to go with it. The J-frame pockets easily enough that I can carry it also. However, I've only tested that possibility to demonstrate to myself that it is feasible and do not carry two handguns as a habit.

[Serenity]

:pI know how many ISN'T enough for me: 6.

I went on a road trip to a fairly desolate area and at the last chance gas station before 150 miles of nuthin' (but the most BEAUTIFUL country) there was a trio of extremely skeezy fellows, one of whom gave me the outright creeps. I wasted time in the store (and bought hubby an MRE just for fun) until they pulled out; going south. PHEW. I headed north with my trusty loaded 38 special and a box of ammo and decided right then it's higher capacity from now on.

OH yeah, and I'm proud of myself because I shamelessly profiled them even though it went against my cultural training

[farscott]

My very precise answer: It depends.

When I am at home in rural Alabama, I feel comfortable with 15-18 rounds. If I carry a Glock 17, I sometimes will leave home without a spare magazine, giving me 17+1 rounds. If I am carrying a 1911, I will carry a spare magazine, so I have 7+1 +7 rounds. Of course, my wife is with me, with her J-frame and/or K-frame. The extra person and my comfort in my home area allow me to be comfortable with fewer rounds.

When I am traveling or on my way to work in Louisville, I feel comfortable once I cross the sixty-round mark. I have two Glock 19s, each with 15+1 plus two more 15-round magazines. The car bag usually has an additional G17 or G19 with a few more loaded magazines. The trip, combined with the urban area, make me up the round -- and gun -- count.

In other words, I tend to select "enough" based on my perceived threat level and my comfort with the environment, anticipated and experienced.

[Tamara]

Unless you're running a S&W 432 like me: 6-shot 32H&R mag with Black Hills 85gr JHP.

Fist bump (http://cosmolineandrust.blogspot.com/2008/03/sunday-smith-40-model-432-2004.html).

100gr SJHP from Georgia Arms, here. Don't know how well they'll expand; I just like the the idea of a bit of sectional density.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

#1 Extra mags are a luxury only to be enjoyed by those looking for trouble. Most gunfights between top level marksmen and untrained rabble alike won't last long enough for you to reload. The ones that do are both so rare and so dangerous that your extra reloads probably aren't going to count for much.

#2 Legally, reloading in a gunfight is a tenuous action. It implies that there was time for thought, and that the next rounds fired are let loose with purpose and intent. Pulling your gun to defend yourself is one thing, but taking the time to reload and get back on target will temper the opinions of the grand jury hearing your case.

#1 Why do I care about training for fighting "untrained rabble"? I train for a motivated, malevolent person who had decided I am in his way, and it's easier to kill me than to ask nicely in order to get what he wants.

#2 Really? You got any training/info to back that statement up, or are you just making up legal arguments to sound like you know what you are talking about?

Now, I don't know much about law as related to self defense and all that stuff...but it seems to me that because the standards for self defense involve review of your actions under the subjective/objective test, the people reviewing your incident would want to know if your actions were subjectively reasonable to you per your training, and objectively reasonable under the common course of practice for someone carrying a gun according to the training standards of the day...

Standards set by people like...

SIG Academy.
Tactical Response.
Massad Ayoob.
Michael de Bethencourt.

Who all say that after shooting, you reload and make sure not to stand their with an empty gun.

But I'm sure all of them know nothing about anything compared to you...Right?

[Johnkard]

http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.com/2012/03/self-defense-findings.html

Is a good example of what most modern statistics indicate.


As to the first point, my reference is to the defender's experience, not the agressor. Untill you have actually been in combat, you cannot speculate about your reaction. Training (even very good training as provided by SIG Academy, Tactical Response, Massad Ayoob, Michael de Bethencourt, etc...) breaks down as soon as the first shot is fired. The only people that can actually predict and control their reaction under fire are those who have had both training AND experience taking live fire. Neither you, nor I have had such experience...therefore we fall into the breadth of the aforementioned statistics. That means we're most likely to fire 2 shots or just keep shooting till the weapon is empty. In either case, the agressor will almost certainly be dead or fleeing for his/her life after the first few shots. The preconceived notion of a truly malevolent bad guy intent on murder is naive and astronomically unlikely compared to normal thread for events that demand the use of a firearm.

As to the second. according to the above article, 3/482 incidents involved a reload, and considering the fact that most aggressors simply run away after the first few shots are fired, any competent prosecutor is going stress the fact that you paused long enough to reload and keep your senses, but still continued shooting.

I have no way or reason to prove that my experience or qualification validates what I say. In general, I let logic dictate what I type, and if somebody disagrees or comes to a different conclusion all the better, I get to learn something new. I honestly couldn't care less whether I am right or wrong, I simply want to propagate conversation that will develop the original idea, and ideally lead to a conclusion that shows the culmination of a great many members' constructive input.

[Tamara]

The preconceived notion of a truly malevolent bad guy intent on murder is naive and astronomically unlikely...

So is needing a gun in the first place, and yet here we all are.

[Al T.]

#2 Legally, reloading in a gunfight is a tenuous action.

Anything you do in a use of force situation is fraught with peril. Locally, our state grass roots legal representative presented a CLE course to state prosecutors. There was a tremendous amount of ignorance about using a firearm in self defense. I've posted an abbreviated summary of his comments:


I was one of the instructors at two recent continuing legal education
classes for judges, magistrates, and lawyers.

(snip)

There were a couple of issues that came up that I thought you might
find interesting.

1) A lawyer asked me why Jason Dickey's failure to fire a warning
shot should not be held against him.

2) A prosecutor stated that "they" use the fact that the shooter used
two hands to hold the handgun as proof that the shooter acted with
premeditation.

[KravPirate]

For me, I often carry without a spare mag when I am alone. I know lots of people would disagree with this. However, The chances of me reloading are very slim. My pistol is with me as a way to get the hell out of a deadly encounter as quickly as possible. What if my pistol malfunctions? I throw it as freaking hard as I can while I am running the other way! If I am with my family then I take a different approach. With my family, I may not be able to retreat and I may have to stay in the fight. So when I have my family with me, I always carry a spare mag and I will be the most violent animal an attacker or attackers could ever encounter.

[NETim]

http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.com/2012/03/self-defense-findings.html

Is a good example of what most modern statistics indicate.


As to the first point, my reference is to the defender's experience, not the agressor. Untill you have actually been in combat, you cannot speculate about your reaction. Training (even very good training as provided by SIG Academy, Tactical Response, Massad Ayoob, Michael de Bethencourt, etc...) breaks down as soon as the first shot is fired. The only people that can actually predict and control their reaction under fire are those who have had both training AND experience taking live fire. Neither you, nor I have had such experience...therefore we fall into the breadth of the aforementioned statistics. That means we're most likely to fire 2 shots or just keep shooting till the weapon is empty. In either case, the agressor will almost certainly be dead or fleeing for his/her life after the first few shots. The preconceived notion of a truly malevolent bad guy intent on murder is naive and astronomically unlikely compared to normal thread for events that demand the use of a firearm.

As to the second. according to the above article, 3/482 incidents involved a reload, and considering the fact that most aggressors simply run away after the first few shots are fired, any competent prosecutor is going stress the fact that you paused long enough to reload and keep your senses, but still continued shooting.

I have no way or reason to prove that my experience or qualification validates what I say. In general, I let logic dictate what I type, and if somebody disagrees or comes to a different conclusion all the better, I get to learn something new. I honestly couldn't care less whether I am right or wrong, I simply want to propagate conversation that will develop the original idea, and ideally lead to a conclusion that shows the culmination of a great many members' constructive input.

And my understanding is that occasionally there may be some individuals who have previously endured incoming fire don't always respond properly, i.e., their mental wheels may come off, despite prior experience.

Mental conditioning is what most, if not all, good schools try to instill but yes, even then we don't know how we'll respond when the lead starts flying. I don't believe that the ability to keep one's cool can be taught. Regardless there seems to be an amazing amount of people who manage to get the job done when needed and they are in no way associated with any known SEAL team.

Regardless the fight will be what it wants to be and having more ammo on hand harms nothing IMHO.

[JodyH]

any competent prosecutor is going stress the fact that you paused long enough to reload and keep your senses, but still continued shooting.
And any competent defense attorney is going to agree that yes YOU KEPT YOUR SENSES and therefore were acting as a "reasonable man" would act in those circumstances.
Since you were in control and able to make the informed decision to reload then it's reasonable to assume you were also able to make a informed decision as to the threat status and the need to continue shooting to stop that threat.

[Bill Lance]

And any competent defense attorney is going to agree that yes YOU KEPT YOUR SENSES and therefore were acting as a "reasonable man" would act in those circumstances.
Since you were in control and able to make the informed decision to reload then it's reasonable to assume you were also able to make a informed decision as to the threat status and the need to continue shooting to stop that threat.




"Like" Button

[BigT]

This may be a thread hijack, and if so moderator please break it off into its own thread, but it seems to go with the topic. Assuming you have these uber-BGs that insist on pressing their attack in the face of them and their friends being shot, how many BGs do you realistically think you can shoot down before being overrun, given the fact that most encounters are going to be up close and personal?


All of them. And their dog. Anything else is an epic failure in mindset IMHO.

In response to the OP I really want over a dozen in gun with at least that in the spare to start to feel warm and fuzzy. More is better though.

If im carrying 50 rounds and only use 2 I don't lose any points. If ive got five and need more my day has turned into an ever bigger suckfest than it was when the shooting started.

[Serenity]

+1 on the like. That's an angle I haven't seen yet; I like it.

[10mm]

Sargent York took out quite a few enemy soldiers with a 1911 with small sights and a single stack pistol.If you don't miss the target you don't need 50 rounds.A lot of Elite units still use single stack 1911's.I still haven't found any pistols that can shoot under 3 inch at 50 yards consistantly besides a well built 1911.I hear the HK's can but haven't shot one yet.I might get one someday.

[BigT]

Sargent York took out quite a few enemy soldiers with a 1911 with small sights and a single stack pistol.If you don't miss the target you don't need 50 rounds.A lot of Elite units still use single stack 1911's.I still haven't found any pistols that can shoot under 3 inch at 50 yards consistantly besides a well built 1911.I hear the HK's can but haven't shot one yet.I might get one someday.

I believe its a lot fewer elite units than popular internet lore would have you believe.
Unfortunately I'm one of those soft weak guys who doesnt always shoot as well as I do on the range when people are trying to kill me.

[Tamara]

Sargent York took out quite a few enemy soldiers with a 1911 with small sights and a single stack pistol.If you don't miss the target you don't need 50 rounds.A lot of Elite units still use single stack 1911's.

Since I am neither Sergeant York nor a SOCOM operator, I'm going to hedge my bets in case I miss a shot or two, if you don't mind. :o

[JodyH]

I still haven't found any pistols that can shoot under 3 inch at 50 yards consistantly besides a well built 1911.
In 10 years of attending dozens of training classes with hundreds of serious shooters I've only found one or two who can get 3" groups at 25 yards (yup I said 25 not 50) off hand, on demand, consistently.
The guys with the "well built 1911" are usually the ones who can't hit a 4" circle at 5 yards on demand much less live up to the 2" @ 50 guarantee their gun comes with.
Just sayin...

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I have no way or reason to prove that my experience or qualification validates what I say. In general, I let logic dictate what I type, and if somebody disagrees or comes to a different conclusion all the better, I get to learn something new. I honestly couldn't care less whether I am right or wrong, I simply want to propagate conversation that will develop the original idea, and ideally lead to a conclusion that shows the culmination of a great many members' constructive input.

So, basically, you were speaking from ignorance, trying to throw a point into the discussion which you couldn't back up on the off chance that it sounded good?

I see...

Do you have any training in how a use of force incident is reviewed either at the primary investigation stage with law enforcement, or at any secondary stage such as a prosecutor's in office review, grand jury presentation, or defending a case once it's in court?

[jetfire]

If im carrying 50 rounds and only use 2 I don't lose any points. If ive got five and need more my day has turned into an ever bigger suckfest than it was when the shooting started.

If you said this in front of me in real life, I would offer you the fist bump of bros to salute you.

All things being equal, more bullets > fewer bullets.

[David Armstrong]

So is needing a gun in the first place, and yet here we all are.
Not really. It depends on whose numbers you use, but Kleck figures there is about a 1 in 200 chance of being in a DGU, which isn't all that high in comparison with assorted other problems we prepare for.

[David Armstrong]

Regardless there seems to be an amazing amount of people who manage to get the job done when needed and they are in no way associated with any known SEAL team.
This. In spite of the rhetoric, there are a huge number of incidents that are solved quite well by folks with little to no training using what many consider inadequate calibers, fired from inadequate firearms.

[JodyH]

This. In spite of the rhetoric, there are a huge number of incidents that are solved quite well by folks with little to no training using what many consider inadequate calibers, fired from inadequate firearms.
If you are satisfied with being the "lowest common denominator" then more power to you.
If you are trying to convince the rest of us that being the LCD is good enough, then this forum probably isn't for you.

[Gray222]

Interesting thread...

I put 5k through my issued g17 (back in the day) before I carried it on duty, and 5k through my current g21 before I carried it.

I put 1k through my g19 gen4 before I carried it.

Not a single issue was had.

[Tamara]

Not really. It depends on whose numbers you use, but Kleck figures there is about a 1 in 200 chance of being in a DGU, which isn't all that high in comparison with assorted other problems we prepare for.

Kleck's all wet on that number, then. People on "our side" make up bogus statistics, too, and offer up bogus sock puppets to back them up. Mary Rosh could tell us all about it. ;)

Since I live my life trying to be prepared for statistical outliers, I refuse to be made to feel embarrassed for being prepared for statistical outliers. If you've been forced into a position where you need to draw a heater, you're already way in the statistical weeds. Why gamble on your day getting more normal from that point if you don't have to?

It's as easy for me to carry a K-frame as a Government Model as an M&P 9, and so I carry the one with more BB's in the tank. If someone else is as comfortable expending the same effort to carry a pistol capable of solving fewer problems, well, that's cool, too. (I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that my ex-State Department RB 4" 19 or my CCA custom 1911 is way cooler than my M&P9...)

Everybody gets to weigh their own risks in a free country.

[Tamara]

This. In spite of the rhetoric, there are a huge number of incidents that are solved quite well by folks with little to no training using what many consider inadequate calibers, fired from inadequate firearms.

And there are billions of people every day who never need a gun, so why not play the odds? Seriously. I mean, if you're making your argument on statistical grounds, then leaving the gun at home is the way to bet.

[David Armstrong]

If you are satisfied with being the "lowest common denominator" then more power to you.
Don't think anyone said anything about LCD. THe point, which seemed to go right past you, is that a lot of this stuff that some spend so much time worrying about seems to have little application outside of a rather rareified world with little relation to actual serious social use of the firearm.

If you are trying to convince the rest of us that being the LCD is good enough, then this forum probably isn't for you.
Seems as if that is twice you've tried to suggest that I don't belong here on this forum. Go back and read the answer the first time you tried that nonsense...it's still good now.

[David Armstrong]

Kleck's all wet on that number, then. People on "our side" make up bogus statistics, too, and offer up bogus sock puppets to back them up. Mary Rosh could tell us all about it. ;)
No doubt, and I've criticized Kleck on more than one occasion. My point is that the chance of using a gun for self protection, however, is not particularly astronomical, and in certain areas of the country and in certain occupations it is well within the risk likelihood of many other incidents.


Since I live my life trying to be prepared for statistical outliers, I refuse to be made to feel embarrassed for being prepared for statistical outliers. If you've been forced into a position where you need to draw a heater, you're already way in the statistical weeds. Why gamble on your day getting more normal from that point if you don't have to?
Don't think anyone has ever suggested being embarrassed about preparing for statistical outliers. But there does come a point where eventually we are at the needing shark repellent in Kansas level. If one wants to do that, BTW, great and more power to them.


It's as easy for me to carry a K-frame as a Government Model as an M&P 9, and so I carry the one with more BB's in the tank. If someone else is as comfortable expending the same effort to carry a pistol capable of solving fewer problems, well, that's cool, too. (I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that my ex-State Department RB 4" 19 or my CCA custom 1911 is way cooler than my M&P9...)

Everybody gets to weigh their own risks in a free country.
And yet it seems several here don't share that viewpoint and keep wanting to argue their compromise point is somehow better than another compromise point based solely on variables they think are important while rejecting variables others think important.


And there are billions of people every day who never need a gun, so why not play the odds? Seriously. I mean, if you're making your argument on statistical grounds, then leaving the gun at home is the way to bet.
And for most of us leaving the gun at home wouldn't change our lifestyle a bit. But I'm not sure what argument you seem to think I am making on statistical grounds. I haven't argued for any particular position at all. I agreed with a rather factual statement made by NETim: "Regardless there seems to be an amazing amount of people who manage to get the job done when needed and they are in no way associated with any known SEAL team." If somebody wants to discuss that, or my statement in support, on a factual basis maybe we should try that.

[TCinVA]

Violent or potentially violent interaction with bad people isn't neatly predictable. It's beyond question that a number of people who have no idea what color the boat house is at Hereford have managed to kill, wound, or put to flight individuals who qualify as legitimate predators. The exact reasons behind this are somewhat difficult to quantify. It could be that even very bad men when confronted by surprise with a suddenly lethal threat where they expected no resistance react out of blind instinct for self preservation. It could be that most bad guys that people pull guns on are low level predators. It could be just pure dumb luck. In reality, it's probably a blend of a whole lot of different factors which makes it nigh unto impossible to work out a formula that's useful for prediction. Every situation is a tad different if for no other reason than the people involved are different...and those differences matter.

Take me, for example. I'm not the same person all the time. If threatened with physical harm when I'm by my lonesome I'm highly likely to seek an avenue of exit without confrontation. If my family is threatened with physical harm, I'm a very different individual. The difference? I'm not willing to go to jail over stupidity...but keeping my family from physical harm isn't stupid. If someone spins up to try and assault me, I'll seek an exit. If I'm driving by and I see my buddy on the PD getting assaulted on the side of the road, I'm going to wade in and split that bastard's skull.

I'm hardly unique in this capacity to react completely differently to more or less the same situation if a couple of factors are changed. Bad guys can do it too.

There are some situations where mere display of an NAA mini-revolver might be sufficient to scare a particular bad guy off. There are others where nothing short of a CNS hit will stop him. I have absolutely no idea which version of the bad guy I'm getting when we're about to exchange hostilities. Similarly, I have no idea ahead of time which version of me will be required ahead of time...the guy who is praying to avoid the problem or the guy who sees grave danger to someone he cares about and is going to go on the offensive to avoid having that ***CENSORED*** awful moment when the docs or the cops tell you that they're gone.

There are times where you can't run away. Those times are not the ones where you want to be reaching for a J frame.

Now if the choice is minimally acceptable gun vs. no gun, minimal gun wins out. If you're not forced to make that choice by circumstances beyond your control, don't. Carry something better.

It's really quite simple.

People aren't reaching for a pistol because it's one of half a dozen legitimate solutions to a particular problem. They're reaching for one because in that moment they're pretty much convinced that it's the last option they've got. When you're down to your last option, how much gun do you really want? Start there and work backward to what you can reasonably have on you.

[98z28]

Q.E.D.

Absolutely beautiful. Thanks TC.

[ToddG]

If im carrying 50 rounds and only use 2 I don't lose any points. If ive got five and need more my day has turned into an ever bigger suckfest than it was when the shooting started.

This. /thread


A lot of Elite units still use single stack 1911's.

I don't know how you'd define "a lot" but name, let's say, five. Also, you should probably define "elite" or expect others to disagree if you name the Saspirilla County Sheriff's Bullseye Team.


I still haven't found any pistols that can shoot under 3 inch at 50 yards consistantly besides a well built 1911.

I haven't found a single person who can shoot a pistol under 3 inches at 50yd consistently at effective speed under stress. So... Idontcare.


This. In spite of the rhetoric, there are a huge number of incidents that are solved quite well by folks with little to no training using what many consider inadequate calibers, fired from inadequate firearms.

And yet we agree that more quality training is better, do we not? We don't limit the number or type of classes we recommend based on what has been adequate on average. Because we know that, for instance, while cops are statistically likely to win gunfights, they sometimes lose... and sometimes lose to even less trained individuals. So while their level of training is adequate on average, imagine what would happen if their training was better.

Ditto capacity. Five may be adequate on average. But sometimes, it won't be enough. And "when your gun goes dry and the BG is still standing" is the wrong time to figure that out...

[LSP972]

Also, you should probably define "elite" or expect others to disagree if you name the Saspirilla County Sheriff's Bullseye Team.



...

ROTFLMAO.

That's just wrong, dude... yet, so right.:)

.

[David Armstrong]

And yet we agree that more quality training is better, do we not? We don't limit the number or type of classes we recommend based on what has been adequate on average. Because we know that, for instance, while cops are statistically likely to win gunfights, they sometimes lose... and sometimes lose to even less trained individuals. So while their level of training is adequate on average, imagine what would happen if their training was better.
There is the area of disagreement. More quality training may be better, but better for what becomes the question along with what should be considered quality training. Much of what we train for as it relates to mechanical skills just doesn't seem to be particularly important, once we reach a certain level, in actual CCW fights.


Ditto capacity. Five may be adequate on average. But sometimes, it won't be enough. And "when your gun goes dry and the BG is still standing" is the wrong time to figure that out...
True, but again one can say that about any number they choose. Sometime 100 rounds won't be enough.

[JodyH]

Hurrah! for mediocrity.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[David Armstrong]

Hurrah! for mediocrity.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
I think you might be confusing mediocrity with adequacy. They are very different.

[BaiHu]

There is the area of disagreement. More quality training may be better, but better for what becomes the question along with what should be considered quality training. Much of what we train for as it relates to mechanical skills just doesn't seem to be particularly important, once we reach a certain level, in actual CCW fights.


True, but again one can say that about any number they choose. Sometime 100 rounds won't be enough.

David,

What are you trying to accomplish here?

I'd like to give an anecdote, so you can see why/how many of us are questioning your process.

I teach martial arts and a large part of my teaching is to younger folks and they often ask me questions like this:

"Well I know you told me that this movement is supposed to be like this and I know that it works, b/c you've shown me how, but what if my movement is just a little bit more like this or that? Will you still fail me? Will that still work? Will this still count? Oh and what about this one I saw on youtube where the guy goes like...."

My response is like this:

"Rather than preparing for the infinitely unknowable variations that may/may not work , why don't you just focus on the one way I told you and we agree on, b/c we know that definitely works?"

Do you see why I ask you the above question??

We can all agree that more gun is better and a higher round count is better, so why elongate the conversation with the polarizing end points of a million rounds vs one round? More training and better training is better than less training or poor training. The answers are in the adjectives.

[David Armstrong]

David,

What are you trying to accomplish here?
I'm not trying to accomplish anything in particular. An issue was presented for discussion, I'm discussing it as are several other people.


I'd like to give an anecdote, so you can see why/how many of us are questioning your process.
Perhaps if you could identify what you mean by my "process" I can respond, as I'm not sure what you mean.


I teach martial arts and a large part of my teaching is to younger folks and they often ask me questions like this:

"Well I know you told me that this movement is supposed to be like this and I know that it works, b/c you've shown me how, but what if my movement is just a little bit more like this or that? Will you still fail me? Will that still work? Will this still count? Oh and what about this one I saw on youtube where the guy goes like...."

My response is like this:

"Rather than preparing for the infinitely unknowable variations that may/may not work , why don't you just focus on the one way I told you and we agree on, b/c we know that definitely works?"

Do you see why I ask you the above question??
No, I don't. We don't know that there is one number of rounds that definitely works and we do know that not all people have the same needs, so the one-size-fits-all philosophy seems to be contradicted.


We can all agree that more gun is better and a higher round count is better, so why elongate the conversation with the polarizing end points of a million rounds vs one round? More training and better training is better than less training or poor training. The answers are in the adjectives.
First, we don't all agree that more gun is always better and that higher round count is better. If that were true we would all be carrying the same gun and the same caliber and so on. And again, more/better training being better sort of depends on what you consider "better" and whether or not the training is applicable to the individual and their needs. For example AFAIK Todd trains students different than John Farnam trains students. Is the training from Todd better than the training from John? Depends on what you are needing and what you are looking for from your training. None of this stuff exists in a vacuum and we all compromise on what and how we carry. I just find it rather silly to try to argue that "my compromise that I picked for my needs is better than your compromise that you picked for your needs."

[JeffJ]

David,

Would you agree that, within the confines of one's chosen compromise, more is better than less?

[JodyH]

I think you might be confusing mediocrity with adequacy. They are very different.

There's superior, adequate and inferior.
Adequate = mediocre.

Hurrah! for mediocrity.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

[Mitchell, Esq.]

You do not know what was good enough till after it's over.

You can plan ahead, wargame it out, and get all the info possible before something occurs; however, you don't know what is good enough till everything is concluded.

That's true in gunfights, job interviews or dating- thus, it's better to overprepare than be caught without ammo, an extra copy of a resume or "protection" when it's needed most.

[TGS]

I'm not trying to accomplish anything in particular.

This is very apparent from the last two weeks worth of comments.

[ToddG]

This is very apparent from the last two weeks worth of comments.

Keep comments on topic and not directed at other individuals.

[Joseph B.]

It’s dependent on where I am, what I am doing and what the threat assessment looks like. General day-to-day I carry one mag in the pistol with 2 extra in my truck (in the go bag). However, if I am going to be away from my truck or in a location where it would be difficult to get back to my truck I will put and extra mag in my pocket. If I am going to a new A/O where I am not aware of the social/criminal issues, or going to a place I know to be a bad A/O I will carry two extra mags in belt mounted pouches.

Current carry guns: G19 (15+1) G22 (15+1) 92FS (15+1) It depends on several factors but most of all my current mood, as to which pistol I carry.

[Wendell]

I think you might be confusing mediocrity with adequacy. They are very different.

x2

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3709-Appropriate-Guns-and-Training-in-latest-ACLDN-Journal

[DanH]

How many are enough? As many as I can carry without my pants getting pulled down. Sometimes, I wear suspenders.

[LSP972]

There are times where you can't run away. Those times are not the ones where you want to be reaching for a J frame.

.

I've been in the LE gig for 35 years; 30 years on the job, and the five years since retirement on the periphery; not commissioned and/or policing, but still working in a support capacity. Much of that time has seen me heavily involved in the simple, yet incredibly complex business of sorting out who did what to whom when citizens, cops, and goblins resort to lethal force against one another; or preparing cops for such fateful encounters.

The above statement is, without doubt, the most succint distillation of proper preparation for a "good guy" I've yet to hear/see.

Bravo, sir. Beautifully said.

.

[David Armstrong]

David,

Would you agree that, within the confines of one's chosen compromise, more is better than less?
Not if I am understanding the question. For example, if you are suggesting that a 10-round K-frame in .22 is better for self-defense than a 7-round K-frame in .357 Magnum I think you might get a fair amount of disagreement.

[David Armstrong]

There's superior, adequate and inferior.
Adequate = mediocre.

Hurrah! for mediocrity.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

Perhaps that is the problem, confusion of terms??? The article referenced by Wendell might help explain the difference.

[David Armstrong]

Keep comments on topic and not directed at other individuals.
Thank you. Makes for a much more productive conversation that way.

[Tamara]

...a 7-round K-frame in .357 Magnum...

Speaking solely as a Smith collector, I would love to get my hands on one of those. :p

[David Armstrong]

Speaking solely as a Smith collector, I would love to get my hands on one of those. :p
Good catch! Should have read "6-round K-frame". A smart computer would have caught that!:eek:

[JodyH]

Perhaps that is the problem, confusion of terms??? The article referenced by Wendell might help explain the difference.

ad·e·quate   [ad-i-kwit] Show IPA
adjective
1.
as much or as good as necessary for some requirement or purpose; fully sufficient, suitable, or fit (often followed by to or for ): This car is adequate to our needs. adequate food for fifty people.
2.
barely sufficient or suitable: Being adequate is not good enough.
I have no confusion.
You're content with being "barely sufficient or suitable".
I'm not.

[GOP]

The better prepared individual is generally harder to kill. If anyone is okay being an easier target, than I am fine with that. Personally, I'll keep shooting 1,000+ rounds a week, carrying an extra mag, improving my strength and conditioning, and improving my combatives/blade/MUC/awareness skills.

[David Armstrong]

I have no confusion.
You're content with being "barely sufficient or suitable".
I'm not.
Secondary definitions, by definition, are not primary definitions.:rolleyes: I'm content with being "as much or as good as necessary for some requirement or purpose; fully sufficient, suitable, or fit."

[JodyH]

By definition you are a boor who has a history of inane arguments that drag forums down to the village idiot level.
I've watched you in action for several years now.
I rarely utilize a forums "Ignore" function but will make an exception for you.

[Tom Givens]

Here's my math on the subject, based on where I live and work. YMMV

The FBI counts four crimes as the "violent crimes". They are Murder, Aggravated Assault, Armed Robbery, and Forcible Rape. I think we can agree that this pretty well sums up the activities that would make us go to guns in self defense. (Burglary often ends up with shooting involved, but it is not included among the violent crimes.)

In Memphis last year there were approximately 12,650 of these four crimes in a population of almost exactly 650,000. That is one violent crime per 51 residents. Thus, I see the odds of needing a gun to be about 1 in 50 on any given day.

1,107 of those violent felonies involved 3 or more bad guys. That is almost 9% of the total. Or, to look at it a different way, that is an average of 3.03 violent crimes each day that involved 3 or more suspects, just in one city.

For years I carried a 1911 and 2 spare magazines. With the increase in gang crimes, we started seeing more and more attacks involving 3-5 gang members. This is why I switched to a Glock 35 about 6 or 7 years ago. In essentially the same size package, I now have 16 rds on board and with 2 spares (which kinda balance the gun) I have 46 rds total. It doesn't cost me anything to carry two spare magazines, so why not?

Given the facts outlined above, the advice I give students is that the primary carry gun should hold at least ten rounds, and you should have at least one reload for it. If your gun holds more, or if you want to carry more spares, that's your choice.

[Comedian]

Secondary definitions, by definition, are not primary definitions.:rolleyes: I'm content with being "as much or as good as necessary for some requirement or purpose; fully sufficient, suitable, or fit."

But your never going to know what will be sufficient, unless you acquire a crystal ball. So why not err on the side of caution?

[DannyZRC]

Here's my math on the subject, based on where I live and work. YMMV

The FBI counts four crimes as the "violent crimes". They are Murder, Aggravated Assault, Armed Robbery, and Forcible Rape. I think we can agree that this pretty well sums up the activities that would make us go to guns in self defense. (Burglary often ends up with shooting involved, but it is not included among the violent crimes.)

In Memphis last year there were approximately 12,650 of these four crimes in a population of almost exactly 650,000. That is one violent crime per 51 residents. Thus, I see the odds of needing a gun to be about 1 in 50 on any given day.

1,107 of those violent felonies involved 3 or more bad guys. That is almost 9% of the total. Or, to look at it a different way, that is an average of 3.03 violent crimes each day that involved 3 or more suspects, just in one city.

For years I carried a 1911 and 2 spare magazines. With the increase in gang crimes, we started seeing more and more attacks involving 3-5 gang members. This is why I switched to a Glock 35 about 6 or 7 years ago. In essentially the same size package, I now have 16 rds on board and with 2 spares (which kinda balance the gun) I have 46 rds total. It doesn't cost me anything to carry two spare magazines, so why not?

Given the facts outlined above, the advice I give students is that the primary carry gun should hold at least ten rounds, and you should have at least one reload for it. If your gun holds more, or if you want to carry more spares, that's your choice.

The math would be 1 in 50 on any given year, not day. If you hand-wave equal distribution, it would be 1/(50*365) or 1 in 18,250.

I'd say that 9% of the time you need any gun at all, you need 3+ dudes worth of gun, means that you should always prepare for 3+ dudes worth of gun. I agree with your post completely otherwise, just that a 1/50 chance per day is 365 times too high ;).

9% of cases are 3+ people, from a planning perspective that's crazy common. Think of a single other eventuality you prepare for only to the 90% level? that's a 1/10 chance of failure. that's balls.

[Chuck Haggard]

Fist bump (http://cosmolineandrust.blogspot.com/2008/03/sunday-smith-40-model-432-2004.html).

100gr SJHP from Georgia Arms, here. Don't know how well they'll expand; I just like the the idea of a bit of sectional density.

Sounds like you have homework to do.

[Chuck Haggard]

I fall into the same basic philosophy as Tam; ***BLEEP*** statistics, I am already in an outlier event to begin with.

What are the odds that a guy will have to deal with an active-shooter in an average LE career?

I've done so, twice.

A recent robbery/agg. burglary spree we had going on locally involved a crew of suspects that would roll up to nine deep. This ended up involving a car jacking/robbery that went bad and turned into a double shooting with one of the victims ending up dead and the other head shot and left for dead. In that incident we eventually found out that all nine bad guys were on board the van when it went down, all were armed, one of them with a shotgun.

What are the odds? Well, we have a population of about 125K, and these guys did somewhere between 30 and 50 major crimes, so some smart person do the math on just this one group of bad guys.


One of the reasons I carry a G17 with +2 base pads, two extra mags and two J frames at work, and a G19 plus two reloads and a J frame BUG off-duty, is that I have the training and skill level to deal with an active-shooter type event, or multiple bad guy event, so it would seem irresponsible of me to not carry gear that is up to my training capability.

It also helps me fulfill Alexis Artwohl's charge to LEOs; "Don't just train to survive, you need to prevail. Then if you can't prevail at least you can try to survive. If you can't survive then you need to take the mothertrucker with you, don't make your family go though a murder trial."


We are all colored by our experiences. I will give Dave the nod that MOST of the time a guy could get by with a J frame, or Baby Browning, and doesn't even really need a loaded gun, however, comma....

In reflection over the past 25 years I can recall the above noted active-shooter events in my personal set of experiences, along with almost 2000 high risk entires, five foiled robbery attempts were I was off duty and had to produce a handgun to sort things out, involvement in three MVAs that were not even close to my fault, being in a helicopter that went down with an engine failure, being in an L10-11 that caught fire on approach to O'Hare, and twice being in vehicles that were struck by lightening.
Farther back than that, when I was 19 years old I once had to cut myself out of a car seatbelt while dealing with having only one working arm, and was once upside-down in a Beamer while sliding down a large hill in Germany where we came to rest on the roof of the car (ever tried to unbuckle a seat belt while upside-down?). Thus you won't find me EVER not carrying a knife on each side of my body unless forced to do so, like on a commercial airplane ride.

Add to all the above Tom Given's data set ref how many "doses" of felon repellent you'll need per bad guy, and I say again, ***BLEEP*** statistics, some of us are just ***BLEEP*** magnets.

[NickA]

It also helps me fulfill Alexis Artwohl's charge to LEOs; "Don't just train to survive, you need to prevail. Then if you can't prevail at least you can try to survive. If you can't survive then you need to take the mothertrucker with you, don't make your family go though a murder trial."
Great quote!
And if I were you I wouldn't leave the house without your above loadout, a helmet, and possibly a parachute. Jeez, talk about bad luck.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Sparks2112]

I fall into the same basic philosophy as Tam; Fuck statistics...

Add to this Tom Given's data set, and I say again, ***BLEEP*** statistics, some of us are just ***BLEEP*** magnets.

You too huh?

[David Armstrong]

By definition you are a boor who has a history of inane arguments that drag forums down to the village idiot level.
I've watched you in action for several years now.
I rarely utilize a forums "Ignore" function but will make an exception for you.
Your personal attack is duly noted, and given all the attention it deserves:


OK, that's all it deserved.

[David Armstrong]

But your never going to know what will be sufficient, unless you acquire a crystal ball. So why not err on the side of caution?
Go ahead. I'm not saying don't carry lots of stuff. My argument is that trying to argue that all that stuff is needed and it makes a difference is rather questionable. People engage in questionable actions all the time. Nothing wrong with that. But that is quite different than saying something is actually needed to accomplish a task.

[Josh Runkle]

It also helps me fulfill Alexis Artwohl's charge to LEOs; "Don't just train to survive, you need to prevail. Then if you can't prevail at least you can try to survive. If you can't survive then you need to take the motherfucker with you, don't make your family go though a murder trial."

Love it!



Add to this Tom Given's data set, and I say again, fuck statistics, some of us are just shit magnets.

We should start a club.

[TGS]

Your personal attack is duly noted, and given all the attention it deserves:


OK, that's all it deserved.

Personal attack or not, he's right. You're ruining the quality that this forum once enjoyed.

[Jay Cunningham]

I'm going to close this thread and temp ban a bunch of you if you don't settle down and dial it back.

Relax and step away from the keyboard.

[ToddG]

But that is quite different than saying something is actually needed to accomplish a task.

But we're back to that same disconnect: what task?

Tom outlined some hard numbers showing that multiple attackers are far from rare. Chuck demonstrated that playing the odds might not be enough.

Can you kill someone with a j frame? Of course. Have people defended themselves against violence with j's? Obviously.

But just as obviously, other choices provide greater capabilities with little or no extra cost.

[Comedian]

Go ahead. I'm not saying don't carry lots of stuff. My argument is that trying to argue that all that stuff is needed and it makes a difference is rather questionable. People engage in questionable actions all the time. Nothing wrong with that. But that is quite different than saying something is actually needed to accomplish a task.

None of us can know exactly what will be needed for the task. All we can do is pack some extras and do our best to come out alive, if the SHTF.

[Chuck Haggard]

We should start a club.

We should.

[David Armstrong]

Personal attack or not, he's right. You're ruining the quality that this forum once enjoyed.
Personally I think that a forum run by todd can handle a diversity of opinion rather than try to demand some silly lock-step elitism. If one can't respond to a contrarian view in a reasoned and logical manner perhaps it is your position that is the problem rather than the person??

[BaiHu]

We should.

You guys shouldn't leave without packing an All State Insurance guy, lawyer and a SEAL team :)

As for David Armstrong and the 'personal attacks':

As tpd223 called himself and people like him a s*&t magnet, you have put yourself in a similar position due to the way you argue your points.

Every time a forum member points out a flaw in your argument, you create a strawman argument or red herring and then you create a new fallacy within those arguments.

People get very frustrated and sometimes angry in a debate when someone isn't willing to answer a line of questions and keep the discussion/debate focused. If you are doing this by accident, people may think that you are not cogent. If you are doing this on purpose, people feel that you have already lost your point and are now making a nuisance of yourself.

Either way, what you've done is lost some credibility and not won anyone to your side of the argument, which is the purpose of most debates-to win.

I only bring this up, b/c it is my understanding that you are quite knowledgeable, but I'm just not getting the knowledge you have in this thread, I'm getting a sense of an expert dodger of well made points.

[David Armstrong]

But we're back to that same disconnect: what task?
Not sure what the disconnect is there. The task is to win the CCW/self defense encounter.


Tom outlined some hard numbers showing that multiple attackers are far from rare. Chuck demonstrated that playing the odds might not be enough.

Can you kill someone with a j frame? Of course. Have people defended themselves against violence with j's? Obviously.

But just as obviously, other choices provide greater capabilities with little or no extra cost.

No disagreement, other than I'm not sure how this argument keeps coming back to J-frames. I thought the discusssion here was how many rounds to carry? If one wants to carry around two or three hundred rounds, great, just don't try to argue how important it is to do that when the data tends to show otherwise.

[ToddG]

I'm not sure how many warnings people expect regarding personal attacks and discussing the messenger rather than the message, but we're past that limit.

For future reference, directions from Staff are not optional. Ignore at your own risk.

[TCinVA]

Guys, please remember to go easy on the profanity. Danke.

Gents: We're closing this thread down because it has spiraled into what we don't really want to see on PF.com. Disagreement can be spirited, but we should always try to be respectful in how we go about disagreeing.