Originally Posted by DocGKR
Of course there is. If they didn't die with an empty gun, running out of ammo was not a factor. Not to keep laboring this point, but investigating shootings, stabbings, and robberies is what I do for a living and I stay pretty busy. Of course one of the things done on any investigation is a work up on every firearm, including if it was functional, if it was loaded, loaded correctly, for revolvers which positions in the cylinder spent and unspent rounds were in, etc.
There are multiple incidents where if you change key facts (IF the guy didn't run IF there was this IF there was that) then the ammo on board wouldn't have been enough. There are waaaay fewer where dealing with the facts as they actually occur required more ammunition.
I think TV and shooting competitions have convinced folks that they will be able to bite off more on the street than they really can. Going up against 3 dedicated attackers likely means your death before you have enough time to empty your gun. From the holster even a great 2-2-4-2-2 drill is what, 6 seconds or so and that's against stationary targets who are even spaced and aren't bothering to try and kill you? The closest I've personally been involved in to a guy fighting off 3 bad guys was a delivery man who was robbed. He never saw #3 who was behind him. Delivery man had a 6 shot revolver, started shooting at the guys in front of him and was promptly dropped by the guy he didn't see. He lived but was definitely out of the fight, and still no empty gun. Again, out of time before out of ammunition.
This is one of the reasons I try to get people to try Simunitions and other FoF training. The gun fight people carry around in their head often has little resemblance to the gun fight on the street.
Time! My shooting partner and I have discussed this topic a lot over the years. I presented the theory that the real issue is time. About the only wrinkle I see is the emergence of the jihadists style active shooter. Its the super outlier scenario for sure but..its the one that makes me consider if I need more than 7+1.
About reality in shooting games, we were talking about this yesterday at an IDPA event. I thought it would be fun to substitute folks with air soft guns for the targets. The shooter would have an airsoft gun. The 'targets' could not move, and if hit before they could shoot, they would be 'out'. Would most folks get through a standard stage 'alive'? I've been 'shot' enough in FOF.
Sounds like the first time I put on gloves after thinking I was good at BJJ. I got my tail (face) handed to me. Completely changed the game for me and my ability to mentally process what was happening and what I should do.
I imagine getting shot at would have a similar effect.
“If you know the way broadly you will see it in everything." - Miyamoto Musashi
There is a lot of truth in that statement.
C Class shooter.
Not that im a super ninja bada$$, yet a thought comes to mind here-we cannot prepare for a defensive encounter objectively, because we have no idea what that will actually be until it happens.
I had an image in my head years ago of packing my Beretta 92 like Mel Gibson, me and Italian steel versus a scumbag one on one in some gritty alley.That image fell apart fast when I had to reach for it at 3 yards in the living room of my parent's home.
Maybe the bad guy runs at the sight of your drawn gun....or maybe you get a bullet in the vitals from a shot fired 150 yards away.Pays your moneys,and takes thine chances........
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
I did this back in the late 90's with a number of people over the course of three or four classes. We'd simply use two IDPA targets and one RP. The student had to put two rounds into each cardboard and then hit the RP. The RP would start shooting as soon as he saw the student begin to turn. Result? Student always had a lot of paint on him. This was El Prez unrealistic with no one moving, etc.
I'd agree with the comment above that if someone is faced with three simultaneous and dedicated/skilled threats, capacity is not likely to be the issue. But there are enough other reasonable scenarios that it seems smarter and smarter to have more and not less. Having "just enough" is fine right up until the point when it's not.
Reply With Quote