6 Rounds? - Page 3

JC57 · November 12, 2012, 12:13 AM

Based on the concerns listed by the OP in all three of his "not enough rounds" threads, I would have to suggest that he give up on his goal of carrying a revolver as a primary weapon and choose a semi-auto with sufficient capacity to make him feel comfortable in his ability to fend off 5 armed attackers.

The Glock 21 is a fine firearm if you want a high-capacity .45, and then there's also the Glock 17 if you want a full 18 rounds before reloading. As mentioned earlier, there is a 32-round mag available for the Glock 17 which you could carry as a spare in case you exhaust the first 18 rounds and still need to keep shooting.

You might also want to look into similar offerings in the S&W M&P, Ruger SR, and Springfield XD families. All offer rather high-capacity magazines in the full-sized pistols.

Basically - if you feel you are undergunned with an 8-round revolver, then it's really not the right platform for you.

I most often carry a 5-shot J-frame revolver if I carry at all. When I was a police officer for 15 years I carried a 6-shot K-frame revolver. Turns out that was 6 shots more than I ever needed.

warningshot · November 12, 2012, 03:20 AM

Quote:

The only thing that concerns me is 6 shots.

What's the problem? You have 5 more to fix the situation.

dgludwig · November 12, 2012, 01:23 PM

Why I believe the question of weapon ammunition capacity, which kind of bullet, which caliber and even the type of handgun (revolver vs semi-auto) to use for concealed carry can never be entirely resolved nor can there ever be a right or wrong answer for every person or for every situation:

Revolvers are inherently less complicated to operate, less dependent on the type and quality of ammunition and less prone to malfunction. But semi-autos can carry more ammunition and are faster and simpler to reload.

In terms of ammunition capacity, if you need at least one more round in your weapon to survive a shoot-out, you really need it. But most gun fights are (probably) statistically settled with six shots or less.

Everything else being equal, a more powerful cartridge (i.e., .25 cal. vs .44 Magnum to cite an extreme comparison) will stop an adversary quicker than a less powerful cartridge. But more powerful cartridges generally necessitate being housed in a larger and heavier platform; cost more to practice with; generate heavier recoil and noise, making required quick follow-up shots less quick and reduce ammunition capacity in similar sized weapons.

Carrying a pistol with a high ammunition capacity is especially appropriate when it's necessary for a person to be in a high crime neighborhood or in situations where the likelyhood of trouble (civil unrest following a natural disaster or in a riot situation for examples) is more predictable. But concealing the weapon adequately is compromised by having to hide a larger one; wearing attire dictated by hot weather can make the task of concealing a large handgun even more difficult and there is the argument that people are more likely to carry a lighter and smaller weapon all the time than they are to carry a heavier larger one ever (better to have a .32 cal. Beretta Tomcat in your pocket because it's convenient to carry concealed and be armed than leaving a .45ACP SIG 220 on the shelf at home because it's uncomfortable to carry concealed and be unarmed to, again, pose an extreme example).

Even which kind of projectile (hardball vs hollow-point) to use is debatable. Most people acknowledge that, generally speaking, hollow-points (I use the term generically, as I understand that the word "hollow-point" includes a vast array of choices that offer different performance criteria) are better "man-stoppers" and penetrate less in environs (inside residential homes, in areas crowded with people, inside an airliner, for examples) where less is better. But people advocating FMJ ammunition for self-defense argue that hardball sets the standard for extreme reliability in most semi-auto pistols; that there are times when greater penetration is an advantage (when your adversary is wearing heavy clothing or when he is returning fire from cover like an automobile for instances) and that hardball ammunition is much cheaper to practice with than is the pricey and more esoteric hollow-point ammunition.

People simply have to assess their own circumstances, needs and priorities when deciding on which handgun is best suitable for their unique purpose(s). People who are serious about carrying a handgun for self-defense need to understand that no one else can choose for them and that every choice is, by definition, a compromise. And, because no one handgun will ever come close to covering every base, I'm an advocate of having different ones to choose from so as to best accomodate every practical contingency that I might encounter in my every day life.

Finally, whichever handgun(s) is/are decided on, there is no substitute for good training and plenty of practice. Far better to be proficient with a .22 revolver and carry it for self-defense than to be packing a 1911 semi-auto pistol that has never cleared leather.

Tennessee Jed · November 12, 2012, 01:34 PM

In the end, for me (ordinary citizen guy), I think the big issue will be running out of time long before running out of ammo. I prefer revolvers because I shoot them better, and I have more confidence in the ammo in my revolvers than what can be used in a semi-auto. Just me, though.

PiperSuperCubPilot · November 12, 2012, 01:55 PM

It's not really that I feel like 6 rounds isn't enough, it's just all these people saying it's not enough makes me question myself. If no one said differently I would have never considered that 6 shots aren't enough.

I shoot revolvers vastly better than semi autos and feel more comfortable with a revolver. I'm thinking that carrying a 6 shot revolver with a 10 shot Glock 26 as backup might be sufficient. After all, if after 6 shots of .357 Magnum I don't have enough time to draw my backup, it's probably just my time to go

fastbolt · November 12, 2012, 03:52 PM

Carrying a 5, 6, 7 or 8-shot revolver isn't going to lead to someone questioning my carrying pistols with 6, 7 & 8-shot magazine capacities, right?

Quote:

I shoot revolvers vastly better than semi autos and feel more comfortable with a revolver.

That's all well & good, as far as "feeling" goes ... but as someone previously commented, such "feelings" might be best considered against some realistic training and experience.

I've seen my fair share of good revolver shooters experience problems when running them in some different training, drill & qual circumstances. These are the guys and gals that can do fine on a slow-fire, target-style range, taking their time to shoot for accuracy, especially using single action ... but then run into problems when required to use them under some time compression situations, using double action (and I'm not talking about reloading manipulation & speed).

On the other hand, I've also seen some revolver shooters run them very effectively when compared against other folks using semiauto pistols under the same circumstances. Depends on the user.

There's something to consider in the perspective of ammunition capacity possibly becoming a moot point if it can't be employed in a timely, accurate & effective manner before the attacker gets his (or her) shots on-target.

This thread has made me remember some instances where another instructor and I were working with some non-LE, CCW licensee folks who were using both revolvers and semiauto pistols for some classes. In a few instances I remember the other instructor commenting that one or another particular shooter ought to seriously consider using their revolvers for actual carry usage instead of their pistols.

Why?

Because they handled and used their revolvers noticeably more confidently and comfortably ... and they were able to get more rapid and accurate hits than when using their pistols.

Sure, some additional training and frequent practice could probably improve their handling and shooting skills with their pistols, but what are the chances they'd have the inclination, time or money to invest? They already had respectable skillsets with their revolvers, though.

I don't shill guns. I just work with whatever folks want to use, or are required to use.

It's all about the user/shooter to me. The particular handgun (revolver, pistol, capacity, caliber, etc) is just an equipment issue.

Suit yourself. The rest of us do.

Hopefully your reasons/reasoning is applicable to real-world circumstances and conditions. (Just like the rest of us tend to hope.

)

**OldMarksman** · November 12, 2012, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Posted by PiperSuperCubPilot: I shoot revolvers vastly better than semi autos and feel more comfortable with a revolver.

What do you mean by "shoot better?"

If, as fastbolt sugeests, you are speaking of group size when shooting at a target at the range, slow-fire and firing single action, that's one thing. And six shots are plenty. You just reload.

But if you are speaking of defensive pistol shooing, where rounds available would be an issue, that's another thing. The training I mentioned in Post 30 will require some variation of hitting each of three torso sized targets twice or each of two targets three times at close range, in a total elapsed time of just over a second. Not to mention reloading very quickly.

Are you vastly better at that with a revolver?

Some people are very good with revolvers--Ed McGivern was very good, and Jerry Miculek is, but the vast majority of serious trainers and competitors choose semi-autos.

Crow Hunter · November 12, 2012, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Whet do you mean by "shoot better?"

I 2nd this.

Personally. I can shoot my brothers 6.5" 686 Powerport more accurately at 15 yards than I can my Glock 19 when I am shooting it slow fire. Even in double action.

But at 7 yards, I can put 6 rounds touching drawing from concealment in less time that I can get 6 shots into a 2" circle with the revolver from low ready.

So I shoot my Glock "better" for a concealed carry gun. I shoot the 686 "better" as a target gun.

FotoTomas · November 12, 2012, 08:29 PM

It's not really that I feel like 6 rounds isn't enough, it's just all these people saying it's not enough makes me question myself. If no one said differently I would have never considered that 6 shots aren't enough.

I shoot revolvers vastly better than semi autos and feel more comfortable with a revolver. I'm thinking that carrying a 6 shot revolver with a 10 shot Glock 26 as backup might be sufficient. After all, if after 6 shots of .357 Magnum I don't have enough time to draw my backup, it's probably just my time to go

Bill Jordan, Mr. Revolver to my generation wrote that he believed the revolver was by far the best choice for day to day law enforcement. He also wrote that having a high capacity wonder nine in reserve might be a good idea.

I think that is reasonable advice. Six for sure and just in case I need a little more sure...

WildBill45 · November 12, 2012, 08:31 PM

With semi-autos it is only ONE ROUND until you clear the jam!

PiperSuperCubPilot · November 12, 2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Whet do you mean by "shoot better?"

If, as fastbolt sugeests, you are speaking of group size when shooting at a target at the range, slow-fire and firing single action, that's one thing. And six shots are plenty. You just reload.

But if you are speaking of defensive pistol shooing, where rounds available would be an issue, that's another thing. The training I mentioned in Post 30 will require some variation of hitting each of three torso sized targets twice or each of two targets three times at close range, in a total elapsed time of just over a second. Not to mention reloading very quickly.

Are you vastly better at that with a revolver?

Some people are very good with revolvers--Ed McGivern was very good, and Jerry Miculek is, but the vast majority of serious trainers and competitors choose semi-autos.

When I fire as quick as I can pull the trigger (double action), I get more hits in better groups, even with .357 magnum (albeit out of a 6" barrel L frame). This is at a still target, though.

Sport45 · November 12, 2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiperSuperCubPilot

It's not really that I feel like 6 rounds isn't enough, it's just all these people saying it's not enough makes me question myself. If no one said differently I would have never considered that 6 shots aren't enough.

Whatever makes you feel comfortable is what you need to carry.

What I, or anyone else thinks is necessary should not enter into your decision. You know where you live, where you go, and what you do better than any of us.

It is all about perception. At the end of the day if you put your gun away without having to draw it in anger you really didn't need to carry it. But having it made you feel secure, just like the blanket you may have drug around as a toddler.

barnbwt · November 12, 2012, 10:38 PM

zzzzzzzzzzz__*snort*...Huh? We still doin' this? j/k

Take Sport's advice. Use what feels right as a basis. Better than starting with something you know feels uncomfortable. As you practice, you'll come to your own informed conclusions as to how to proceed with your self defense choices. When I get to where I can dump 6 rounds accurately out of my .357 before someone could jump me from 4 yards, I'd consider going higher.

I chose the TRR8 because it looks good, feels right, shoots great, is light, and optics can be easily mounted if I feel like being extra ridiculous at the range. The two extra rounds were merely a side effect of it being an N-frame

, and just serve to make the gun "interesting" in my eyes. I'd feel just as "safe" with 5 in the chamber (since I could only get ~4 on target in time

)

TCB

**OldMarksman** · November 12, 2012, 10:40 PM

Posted by Sport45:

Quote:

Whatever makes you feel comfortable is what you need to carry.

Unless one has an informed, objective basis for one's decision--and that should include some high performance defensive pistol shooting training and some analysis of handgun wounding effectiveness and even better, experience in simulations using simunitions--how "comfortable" one "feels is meaningless.

barnbwt · November 13, 2012, 12:16 AM

That a question is asked at all, implies the lack of a sufficiently informed, objective basis to make a judgement on.

Quote:

When I fire as quick as I can pull the trigger (double action), I get more hits in better groups, even with .357 magnum (albeit out of a 6" barrel L frame). This is at a still target, though.

The revolver sounds like a logical enough decision based just on this (unless we're assuming more inaccurate shots equals more hits, now...). If you do better with a semi in simulations shooting simunitions (that's hard to say!

), you may want to change your mind; but I'd bet you wouldn't need our opinions to make that call, though

I know I don't have enough money to spend on tactical courses if I'm practicing enough, even if they do help. Practice more with both, you'll see which you're most effective with. If you have access to such a range where you can rent weapons for the weekend and run courses, that would be a sweet way to quickly figure out what works for you best. But I (most of us?) don't have access to such a Disneyland that doesn't require first joining a faraway country club and paying far out...I would if I could--and I'll leave it at that

TCB

**OldMarksman** · November 13, 2012, 08:24 AM

Quote:

I know I don't have enough money to spend on tactical courses if I'm practicing enough, even if they do help.

The nine-hour course
i took cost less than many mid-to-upper level pistols, and it was a great investment.

Practice is very important, but it is important to make sure you are not practicing bad habits, which I was until I took the course.

November 12, 2012, 01:23 PM	#53
dgludwig Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2005 Location: North central Ohio Posts: 7,486	Why I believe the question of weapon ammunition capacity, which kind of bullet, which caliber and even the type of handgun (revolver vs semi-auto) to use for concealed carry can never be entirely resolved nor can there ever be a right or wrong answer for every person or for every situation: Revolvers are inherently less complicated to operate, less dependent on the type and quality of ammunition and less prone to malfunction. But semi-autos can carry more ammunition and are faster and simpler to reload. In terms of ammunition capacity, if you need at least one more round in your weapon to survive a shoot-out, you really need it. But most gun fights are (probably) statistically settled with six shots or less. Everything else being equal, a more powerful cartridge (i.e., .25 cal. vs .44 Magnum to cite an extreme comparison) will stop an adversary quicker than a less powerful cartridge. But more powerful cartridges generally necessitate being housed in a larger and heavier platform; cost more to practice with; generate heavier recoil and noise, making required quick follow-up shots less quick and reduce ammunition capacity in similar sized weapons. Carrying a pistol with a high ammunition capacity is especially appropriate when it's necessary for a person to be in a high crime neighborhood or in situations where the likelyhood of trouble (civil unrest following a natural disaster or in a riot situation for examples) is more predictable. But concealing the weapon adequately is compromised by having to hide a larger one; wearing attire dictated by hot weather can make the task of concealing a large handgun even more difficult and there is the argument that people are more likely to carry a lighter and smaller weapon all the time than they are to carry a heavier larger one ever (better to have a .32 cal. Beretta Tomcat in your pocket because it's convenient to carry concealed and be armed than leaving a .45ACP SIG 220 on the shelf at home because it's uncomfortable to carry concealed and be unarmed to, again, pose an extreme example). Even which kind of projectile (hardball vs hollow-point) to use is debatable. Most people acknowledge that, generally speaking, hollow-points (I use the term generically, as I understand that the word "hollow-point" includes a vast array of choices that offer different performance criteria) are better "man-stoppers" and penetrate less in environs (inside residential homes, in areas crowded with people, inside an airliner, for examples) where less is better. But people advocating FMJ ammunition for self-defense argue that hardball sets the standard for extreme reliability in most semi-auto pistols; that there are times when greater penetration is an advantage (when your adversary is wearing heavy clothing or when he is returning fire from cover like an automobile for instances) and that hardball ammunition is much cheaper to practice with than is the pricey and more esoteric hollow-point ammunition. People simply have to assess their own circumstances, needs and priorities when deciding on which handgun is best suitable for their unique purpose(s). People who are serious about carrying a handgun for self-defense need to understand that no one else can choose for them and that every choice is, by definition, a compromise. And, because no one handgun will ever come close to covering every base, I'm an advocate of having different ones to choose from so as to best accomodate every practical contingency that I might encounter in my every day life. Finally, whichever handgun(s) is/are decided on, there is no substitute for good training and plenty of practice. Far better to be proficient with a .22 revolver and carry it for self-defense than to be packing a 1911 semi-auto pistol that has never cleared leather. __________________ ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED ...Aristotle NRA Benefactor Life Member

November 12, 2012, 08:31 PM	#60
WildBill45 Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2011 Location: Western PA. Posts: 1,630	With semi-autos it is only ONE ROUND until you clear the jam! __________________ ......................................................... "If Ands and Buts were Candy and Nuts, everyday would be like Christmas"

November 12, 2012, 10:38 PM	#63
barnbwt Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2012 Posts: 1,085	zzzzzzzzzzz__snort...Huh? We still doin' this? j/k Take Sport's advice. Use what feels right as a basis. Better than starting with something you know feels uncomfortable. As you practice, you'll come to your own informed conclusions as to how to proceed with your self defense choices. When I get to where I can dump 6 rounds accurately out of my .357 before someone could jump me from 4 yards, I'd consider going higher. I chose the TRR8 because it looks good, feels right, shoots great, is light, and optics can be easily mounted if I feel like being extra ridiculous at the range. The two extra rounds were merely a side effect of it being an N-frame , and just serve to make the gun "interesting" in my eyes. I'd feel just as "safe" with 5 in the chamber (since I could only get ~4 on target in time ) TCB __________________ "I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things." -- Alex Rosewater

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

November 12, 2012, 12:13 AM	#51
JC57 Senior Member Join Date: September 2, 2010 Posts: 375	Based on the concerns listed by the OP in all three of his "not enough rounds" threads, I would have to suggest that he give up on his goal of carrying a revolver as a primary weapon and choose a semi-auto with sufficient capacity to make him feel comfortable in his ability to fend off 5 armed attackers. The Glock 21 is a fine firearm if you want a high-capacity .45, and then there's also the Glock 17 if you want a full 18 rounds before reloading. As mentioned earlier, there is a 32-round mag available for the Glock 17 which you could carry as a spare in case you exhaust the first 18 rounds and still need to keep shooting. You might also want to look into similar offerings in the S&W M&P, Ruger SR, and Springfield XD families. All offer rather high-capacity magazines in the full-sized pistols. Basically - if you feel you are undergunned with an 8-round revolver, then it's really not the right platform for you. I most often carry a 5-shot J-frame revolver if I carry at all. When I was a police officer for 15 years I carried a 6-shot K-frame revolver. Turns out that was 6 shots more than I ever needed.

November 12, 2012, 01:34 PM	#54
Tennessee Jed Member Join Date: July 14, 2010 Posts: 92	In the end, for me (ordinary citizen guy), I think the big issue will be running out of time long before running out of ammo. I prefer revolvers because I shoot them better, and I have more confidence in the ammo in my revolvers than what can be used in a semi-auto. Just me, though.

November 12, 2012, 01:55 PM	#55
PiperSuperCubPilot Junior Member Join Date: November 5, 2012 Posts: 8	It's not really that I feel like 6 rounds isn't enough, it's just all these people saying it's not enough makes me question myself. If no one said differently I would have never considered that 6 shots aren't enough. I shoot revolvers vastly better than semi autos and feel more comfortable with a revolver. I'm thinking that carrying a 6 shot revolver with a 10 shot Glock 26 as backup might be sufficient. After all, if after 6 shots of .357 Magnum I don't have enough time to draw my backup, it's probably just my time to go

November 12, 2012, 08:29 PM	#59
FotoTomas Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2002 Location: Central Florida Posts: 180	It's not really that I feel like 6 rounds isn't enough, it's just all these people saying it's not enough makes me question myself. If no one said differently I would have never considered that 6 shots aren't enough. I shoot revolvers vastly better than semi autos and feel more comfortable with a revolver. I'm thinking that carrying a 6 shot revolver with a 10 shot Glock 26 as backup might be sufficient. After all, if after 6 shots of .357 Magnum I don't have enough time to draw my backup, it's probably just my time to go Bill Jordan, Mr. Revolver to my generation wrote that he believed the revolver was by far the best choice for day to day law enforcement. He also wrote that having a high capacity wonder nine in reserve might be a good idea. I think that is reasonable advice. Six for sure and just in case I need a little more sure...