How many shots is enough

[MR.G]

For me, a five shot J frame is enough.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Studies have shown the chances for hollow point bullet expansion are so low that your depending on sheer luck . . .

not so much sheer luck but problems with expansion are mostly due to clogged tips especially by bone.

As far as a SD scenario where more than a few rounds may be needed off the top of my head :

A home invasion/robbery by someone who does not want to leave a witness to identify them may likely shoot it out with you rather than leave you alive(especially if you are familiar with them).

A "Madman With A Gun" on a shooting spree. Mentally disturbed or seeking fame (both?).

I am sure someone will think of a few more but the odds are even lower than most SD cases.

But as for me, I see no reason with some of the places I have to go not to be as prepared as possible. At least one Hi-cap or two mags of 7 or I am staying home that day The ghetto takes no prisoners.

[bada61265]

Quote:
Studies have shown the chances for hollow point bullet expansion are so low that your depending on sheer luck . . .

I would like to see a link to the studies you are referring to in that. I agree with your overall point that no one should count on a one shot stop with a handgun, but I am interested in knowing how infrequently and under what conditions modern hollow points fail to expand in the major calibers.


this is a pdf http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf its somewhat based on professional opinion and as I think ive stated that my opinion on the matter is largely based on much of the information included in this report. you can research this all day long and find just about as many opinions on the subject of handguns terminal performance as people have rear ends. Im logical I believe, and this is compelling information. ive read a few other arcticles on the same subject covering much of the same data and have seen much the same conclusions as in the example I linked too. I think its safe to plop the 40 between the 9 and 45 that this discussion was aimed at. though some mention was given to 22lr and high powered rifle. I regret not finding a really excellent topic I read not long ago and have not found it in time to link it as well. it had much the same basic fbi conclusions but had more of the supporting data as well as a more in depth review of actual wound data, ahh well. yes the 45 and 40 make slightly bigger holes. no they can knock a man down by force of there energy.

if you look at many of the knockdown power advocates you always find less supported information as in this example, name and link to this example are
left out as I don't have an axe to grind and cant really see the point in arguing what facts are presented in such articles so its basically an example and not verbatim. ......

basically one officers story,(and ive read many other examples along the same lines) about how he shoots a bg 4 times with a 9mm and ends up getting stabbed, and of course another time when the same officer drops a bg with a 45 with one shot, practically taking him out of his shoes.,,

so theres an example of the stuff myths are made of, I am not calling this guy a liar. Could of gone down exactly as stated as well as some of the other examples ive read. just keep in mind that every situation is different, rarely see all the facts in these stories, like ballistic data or autopsy data. so imo again, I prefer to look at it logically and leave out emotional attachment to your personal choice and when you do you see that what counts most is shot placement far and away above caliber used. I think we all pretty much agree on that one point. bullet caliber is secondary, important but secondary, as a 9mm will with good shot placement do the job, and if the 9 will so will the 40 and the 45 obviously. I do think theres also the undeniable fact that without good shot placement it wont matter which caliber you use. All that supports my opinion that you should go with a gun you can shoot fast and accurately and has as much capacity as you can comfortably carry. My choice is the 9mm not because it has the most power on paper, but because it has enough power with the added bonuses of extra rounds and faster shot to shot times and is not abusive to the average shooter to become proficient with even in the smaller framed hideout guns like the lc9. Anyway hope the link is interesting reading for some, not really out to do a crusade on this subject, I am a little erked when I see a dealer pushing 40`s over 9`s to a newbie and people talking about knock down power should qualify that means on steel plates not people. but other than that just shoot straight.

[SaxonPig]

I have not read all the posts so I may be repeating what's already been said.

There is no way to answer this question. Too many variables. I recall reading that the FBI said the average gunfight involved 1.5 rounds fired. So it would appear a two shot derringer would be perfect. But what if the gunfight you find yourself in isn't "average?" In today's world you may be attacked by a mob or gang. Although, history seems to indicate that criminal gangs are largely packs of cowards and the first shot, or even the display of a defensive sidearm will send them scurrying back to their holes so large ammo capacity isn't all that important.

I have 3 primary carry pistols. A 9mm S&W with a 14 round magazine. I do not want to bother with an additional magazine. The second is a Taurus TCP 380 for deep concealment. I pack one extra 6 round magazine giving me 13 total. The last is an old S&W M40 Centennial revolver. I carry one reload on a "Speed Strip" for a total of 10 rounds available.

So apparently I am comfortable with 10-14 rounds. I figure that would solve 99.5% of the problems I might encounter. You're always going to have that unresolved .5% to deal with.

[Tactical Jackalope]

YouTube robbery incidents. LiveLeak and The Associated Press. You'll see dozens upon dozens that don't go anything shorter than 5 rounds.

Better to be safe than sorry applies in my mindset on a daily basis.


Multiple attackers, bullets don't hit their intended mark, ammo left to top of for when you "think" the coast is clear, etc, etc.

Rather be prepared than not.

This has happened during and maybe after a gunfight: "I wish I had carried more ammo." If the person survived of course.


This has probably never happened during and maybe after a gun fight: "why did I carry so much ammo for? Stupid of me."

[SaxonPig]

Constantine's post reminds me of Jeff Cooper's comment about carrying a lot of ammo. Do so if you plan on missing a lot.

[1911Colt]

Carrying enough rounds is one thing.

Using them is another.

[TailGator]

Thanks for the link, bada61265. Interesting read. For the benefit of those who may not want to read the whole thing, the part that directly related to my question of how common expansion failure occurred was:

However, in no case should selection of a bullet be made where bullet expansion is necessary to achieve desired performance. Handgun bullets expand in the human target only 60-70% of the time at best.

The first quoted sentence was in the context that expansion without adequate penetration renders a projectile less effective. I was a bit surprised to learn that pistol rounds fail to expand 30 to 40% of the time, but I also noted that no data or citation was presented, and that no particular brands were discussed. The piece went on to cite impact with bone, glass, and fabric as factors that inhibit expansion.

The points made make sense, but I would like to see the data. There have been a lot of improvements in bullet design since 1989, the date of the report; a re-assessment of currently available rounds would be interesting.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Originally Posted by SaxonPig

Constantine's post reminds me of Jeff Cooper's comment about carrying a lot of ammo. Do so if you plan on missing a lot.

Update that hard drive. It's 2013 now. You think there wasn't disgusting people when Jeff Cooper was alive? Imagine now. Takes a real cocky person to think that 8 rounds in a 1911 will land spot on to each attacker that will be fighting you. With fists, knives, guns, etc. There is no 1 on 1. There is no "fair fight". Keyword in gunfight is "fight" not gun. If you think you can fight off a few attackers with one gun and 3 bullets, be my guest. Hope you never have to. Cause there isn't a snowballs chance hell you'll live to tell about it.


Sorry, Jeff Coopers quote on that is flawed and outdated like many of the people's logic when it comes to preparing properly.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Statistically a gun fight mean of 1.7 rounds doesn't mean that only happens.

It's a distribution of round fired - take a stat class.

I've heard that if you miss you ain't doing YOUR JOB from a gun clerk commando.

Being at Mumbai, the Navy Yard, the Kenyan Mall, etc. - might convince you that more ammo might be useful.

The reason to carry less is just convenience and playing the odds that you face only the single mugger be gone scenario. But the with other incidents, the low probability event can have an absolute large number of occurrences .

This is seen in medical research. A preventative treatment might only stop a small percentage of problems but given 300,000,000 people, that's a very large expensive number in actuality.

[WhyteP38]

I always find FBI data useful, but even FBI data becomes obsolete over time.

IIRC, the FBI statement regarding average number of shots fired in an incident is old. I can't remember when I first read it, but I believe it was no later than 2005. Based on my research, the number of multiple-attacker incidents since then has risen significantly, both on the street and for home invasions.

I no longer practice one-on-one drills. I now practice multiple-attacker drills. Multiple attackers require more rounds.

[RBid]

Constantine's post reminds me of Jeff Cooper's comment about carrying a lot of ammo. Do so if you plan on missing a lot.

This is an incredibly broken perspective.

1. False implication that the number of rounds you carry dictates or drives your approach to shooting.

2. False implied link between skilled shooters and an intentional choice to carry fewer rounds.

3. Implies an assumption that an attacker will always be physiologically stopped within a set number of rounds, with that set number being whatever you happen to hit with.

4. Extends the assumption about ability to stop within a finite number of rounds to include multiple attacker events, OR ignores these situations entirely.


The statement is akin to saying, "buy a car with built in crumple zones, side air bags, rear multi-point safety belts, and 5 star crash test ratings if you plan on causing a lot of accidents."

[Nanuk]

update that hard drive. It's 2013 now. You think there wasn't disgusting people when jeff cooper was alive? Imagine now. Takes a real cocky person to think that 8 rounds in a 1911 will land spot on to each attacker that will be fighting you. With fists, knives, guns, etc. There is no 1 on 1. There is no "fair fight". Keyword in gunfight is "fight" not gun. If you think you can fight off a few attackers with one gun and 3 bullets, be my guest. Hope you never have to. Cause there isn't a snowballs chance hell you'll live to tell about it.

amen brother!

[Tactical Jackalope]

I appreciate the people showing support. Means a lot. Thank you brothers! I'm happy others feel the same way. I'm extremely passionate about helping out the good guys.

[Webleymkv]

Let's all stop and consider a few other things for a moment. It seems that the biggest argument for high capacity/multiple reloads is a multiple attacker situation. However, what I think that many of the people making this argument are overlooking is the time and distance that will most likely be in play in such a situation.

It is a pretty well established fact that the vast majority of defensive uses of handguns take place at relatively short distances, distances which are usually better measured in feet rather than yards. Even if we assume a "best case scenario" in which only the defender has a firearm, the defender will have, at most, a few seconds before the aggressors are upon him/her if said aggressors are determined enough to brave gunfire to accomplish their goal. If one is perceptive and lucky enough to recognize a threat at greater distance, then said person would be well-advised, and in some jurisdictions legally required, to attempt to remove himself/herself from the situation before gunfire becomes necessary.

Now, to one degree or another, a firearm is a weapon of distance and thus when range decreases to a certain point, the effectiveness of a firearm also begins to rapidly decrease. At contact distance, a convincing argument could be made that a handgun is no better, and possibly worse, than an edged weapon like a knife or ax. This is because, at such close distance, a firearm can be wrestled away from its user and perhaps even rendered inoperable. Therefore it seems to me that one's best hope when using a firearm defensively is to stop the attack before it can reach you.

So, the $64,000 question seems to be how fast can you draw your gun and fire with a sufficient degree of accuracy against multiple determined attackers? Speaking for myself, I'm realistic enough about my skill level to realize that I cannot draw and fire more than a few rounds in the few seconds I'll have if attacked regardless of what type of handgun I'm using and I doubt that very many people could do much better. Therefore, I arrive at my previous assertion that I'm far more likely to run out of time and distance than ammunition.

So, It seems to me that one's two best hopes for surviving an attack from multiple aggressors are as follows: either the gun's mere presence or first few rounds fired causes the aggressors to re-evaluate their life choices and seek their goals elsewhere or the defender's fire can cause the aggressors to pause, duck, or seek cover thus buying the defender enough time and distance to remove himself/herself from the situation. I honestly don't see more than 5-10 shots being necessary to accomplish either of those outcomes and if one of those two can't be accomplished, well most people are probably sorry out of luck anyway. Anyone who thinks that simply blazing away like some sort of action movie hero will save them if confronted by multiple determined attackers isn't being realistic and I hope, for their sake, that such a situation never presents itself.

Now, if it makes you feel better to carry dozens of rounds of ammunition, by all means go ahead. I don't see that doing so would substantially reduce your odds of survival unless you're trying to swim at the same time. However, please don't fool yourself into thinking that all that ammunition is some sort of magic talisman that will automatically save you from the screaming barbarian hordes either; your odds of surviving an attack from multiple people willing to risk being shot are pretty grim regardless of the capacity of your gun. Likewise, please don't be so arrogant as to assume that none of us who have chosen different equipment haven't thought things through thoroughly, I assure you that many of us have. As I said before, capacity is only one piece of the puzzle and it's not necessarily the most important piece.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Under stress of fighting for your life with your gun, an entire magazine goes in seconds, you can't even recall how many rounds you fired after the fact unless you count to see how many rounds you left. If you even have any rounds left...

[Microgunner]

For concealed carry I carry a minimum of 5 and usually a maximum of 7+1.
There are exceptions on the high side sometimes but never less than 5 on the low side.

[Waspinator]

Well....

I only recently started to carry at 36 years old. Before that I had none, now I have five shots (SP101). I think that is "enough", considering its better then none

I think the answer would be "what ever you have". Honestly, if everyone here had the choice of none or a 1-shot derringer, I think everyone would say one is better then none.. right?

[Strafer Gott]

My thinking on this is developing as recent events unfold. Capacity is good, but is no substitute for marksmanship. Practice often, and make an effort to pack that extra mag is where I'm going. I'm rotating a 226,229 and 224 as appropriate.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Originally Posted by Waspinator

I think the answer would be "what ever you have". Honestly, if everyone here had the choice of none or a 1-shot derringer, I think everyone would say one is better then none.. right?

That's an enormous "if" and far from being anything remotely close to happening. Since we don't have that "if" present. There's no news to settle to a handicapped stage in terms of capacity!

Congrats by the way of carrying. Never too late.

[skoro]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

I cannot draw and fire more than a few rounds in the few seconds I'll have if attacked regardless of what type of handgun I'm using and I doubt that very many people could do much better. Therefore, I arrive at my previous assertion that I'm far more likely to run out of time and distance than ammunition.

This says it pretty well for probably about 99% of civilian non-LEO critical situations. If you get off a few rounds in those first seconds, the attackers are likely to decide it's riskier than they planned for.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

It is a pretty well established fact that the vast majority of defensive uses of handguns take place at relatively short distances,

Not all?

So, the $64,000 question seems to be how fast can you draw your gun and fire with a sufficient degree of accuracy against multiple determined attackers? Speaking for myself, I'm realistic enough about my skill level to realize that I cannot draw and fire more than a few rounds in the few seconds I'll have if attacked regardless of what type of handgun I'm using and I doubt that very many people could do much better. Therefore, I arrive at my previous assertion that I'm far more likely to run out of time and distance than ammunition.

If you say "odds are" I will leave you with your odds, but give me some meat with the potatoes when making an argument other than your perception of other peoples ability on average compared to yours. A gun in the hand can be used even if they make contact. Even if bigger and stronger. Advanced training is always an option.

So, It seems to me that one's two best hopes for surviving an attack from multiple aggressors are as follows: either the gun's mere presence or first few rounds fired causes the aggressors to re-evaluate their life choices and seek their goals elsewhere or the defender's fire can cause the aggressors to pause, duck, or seek cover thus buying the defender enough time and distance to remove himself/herself from the situation. I honestly don't see more than 5-10 shots being necessary to accomplish either of those outcomes and if one of those two can't be accomplished, well most people are probably sorry out of luck anyway. Anyone who thinks that simply blazing away like some sort of action movie hero will save them if confronted by multiple determined attackers isn't being realistic and I hope, for their sake, that such a situation never presents itself.

A whole lot of big hope and assumptions. I respectfully disagree on the basis of experience and training with this statement in it's entirety. In reality if you ever need your firearm, you won't get to choose the scenario for which it is needed.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While rare - it has happened that a rampage can have multiple attackers who are distributed. Mumbai is an example. Kenya also is one.

So if you dispose of an attacker with your J frame and need to flee or hunker down - I would like to have some more ammo.

Yes, it is rare. I work in an environment that could attract multiples (Columbine was one. Jonesboro had two.

Terrorist experts wonder why we don't see firearms based attacks more often. There was one thwarted in the NE.

So I ain't Rambo - but I would like a touch more than available in the single mugger average gunfight will always happen viewpoint.

[GunGod84]

Until the threat is no longer a threat. I prefer 9mm for concealed carry. I will sacrifice a little take down power for a higher magazine capacity. As long as your using good ammo, a 9mm gets the job done just as good as any other caliber.

[JohnKSa]

One of the things that my earlier mentioned probabilistic analysis revealed was that the results were quite "pessimistic" compared to the reality of self-defense incidents. That meshes well with statistical data which suggests that it is quite common for bad guys to give up/disengage/flee without actually being disabled.

My calculations were based on having to disable (per the assumptions stated) both attackers. That turned out to be a dismal proposition. Actually disabling more than one attacker with a typical carry gun (5-7 shot handgun) is NOT something you want to be called upon to accomplish.

So why doesn't reality match the calculations? Simple--the prospect of being ventilated is a very effective means of rearranging an attacker's motives in most cases. So actually disabling the attacker isn't often required.

What that means is that it is not possible to successfully argue against the premise that having a few rounds will often be sufficient for self-defense based on real-world self-defense data. It is often sufficient. Of course, the same statistics indicate that carrying an empty gun, or one loaded with blanks, will be sufficient for self-defense almost as often since it is quite common for bad guys to give up/disengage/flee without actually even being hit by a shot.

What it comes down to is that each person will have to decide what primary strategy they want to take and then do what makes sense based on that decision. That means that it's pointless for the two camps to argue with the other about what makes sense. They're starting from two very different premises and what makes sense to one is nonsense to the other.

If your general philosophy is that you want to try to prepare for the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of having to physically disable an attacker with a handgun, then capacity is a real concern. I would say that an even more critical need for that person is some good training. Especially when faced with more than one determined attacker, you probably won't survive long enough to use all your ammunition if capacity is all you have in your "toolbag".

On the other hand, if your general philosophy is that MOST is good enough (i.e. MOST attackers flee/disengage/give up when faced with an armed defender.) then it's really pointless to discuss capacity or any tactics past being able to get your gun out rapidly so the attacker can see it.