Regarding carry capacity.

[armsmaster270]

If I hear the "bump" at night and I'm dressed I have my Sig 226 & 25 rounds Total on me plus my BUG. If I'm in bed its 12+1 in my hand my wife has her 1911 and a Mossberg 12 ga in the bedroom.

[ZeSpectre]

I've got a question for y'all: Any of you who have ever had to investgate that "sound" in the middle of the night - what gun did you use and how many extra magazines / or if a revolver, extra ammo, did you think to pick up with your gun?

SIG 229 in a cheap shoulder rig that holds 2 spare mags on the opposite side (37 rounds on tap) along with a Night-Ops "Gladius" flashlight. It's the "penny loafer" setup of my gear because it is "easy on/easy off" and goes with almost any situation.

[azredhawk44]

Carry all you can and all you are willing to, guys...

Worst I'm ever at is a 5-shot snub with no reloads.

Most I've ever carried is a CZ-75 with 2 magazines. That got heavy really quickly. I don't do that anymore.

Typically, it's a ~25 ounce gun with 1 reload, either a magazine or a revolver speedstrip, depending on the carry gun.

I find that once I reach a certain weight threshold I get frustrated with the concept of "carrying" interfering with plain old "living." I'm an active guy and I like to do all sorts of fun things throughout the day; I don't want 5 pounds of various and sundry gunmetal to stop me from doing that.

[Mello2u]

The Terminator

Regarding carry capacity.
Do you think that the amount of ammo in the gun is a real or perceived advantage?

A gun is a tool. To be useful it needs to be loaded.

If you feel the absolute minimum application of force is two or three well place shots to "center of mass", and if you consider that this feat will be attempted in the most stressful of situations and accuracy might suffer; then how many shots will it take you to deliver 2 or 3 shots to center of mass?

2 shots is 40%, 3 is 60% of a 5 shot revolver's load. It might take all 5 shots to accomplish the task of placing two shots to center of mass. You're ok. It might take more. You're not ok.

I believe that a small amount of ammo carried in your gun has the effect of limiting your options in the case of 2 shots or even 5 shots, when compared to 10 shots or 18. More ammunition is a practical way of keeping your options open.

A loaded all steel 5 shot snubbie weighs about 25 oz. (.20 rounds/oz.)
A loaded Colt Delta Elite weighs about 44 oz. (.227 rounds/oz.)

If you are able to drive off an attacker with 5 rounds from either of the above two guns, you have survived and "won". But I'd feel better with some ammo left, rather than have an empty gun and not knowing what other threats may still be in the offing.

In deciding to plan to keep your options open by having more ammo, how much is enough? Carrying 3 pounds of "stuff" as insurance is something I've done for about 30 years; including today when I took my family to a restaurant to eat.

This consists of a Colt Delta Elite, 1 extra mag, 1 Surefire flashlight, an inside the waistband holster and a combo magazine/flashlight carrier.

[Housezealot]

Otherwise people would be walking around with select fire carbines, grenades, k-bars, body armor and night vision gear.

If I could do it legaly i would always carry a KBAR. not for defense though. that way I would have a knife, a hatchet and a hammer, better than a swiss army IMHO

[Double Naught Spy]

Now considering that you have a greater chance of winning the lotto than being assaulted, most folks luck out and its never really an issue.

I am fairly sure you got that backwards.

In 2007, there were 856,000 victims of aggrevated assault alone in the US. That doesn't include rape (another 90K) or murder/manslaughter (another 17K)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html

[easyG]

I read this quote earlier, in another post. I have never felt undergunned with a 5 shot 38. I carry autos also, but not for reasons of capacity. Do you think that the amount of ammo in the gun is a real or perceived advantage?

I think that high capacity handguns are both a real and a perceived advantage.
It's a real advantage for those who engage a target (or targets) and cannot end the situation with just a few rounds.
And it's a perceived advantage for those who engage a target (or targets) and end the situation with just a few rounds.

Point - How many reloads occur during a gunfight between a Citizen and a bad guy? I don't think that reloads happen often.

In actual non-military shoot-outs, reloads are very rare.

The old saying that you can't miss fast enough is certainly true. However, if you can hit the target, do the umpteen round 3 spare magazines really help, in reality?

Maybe.
Even if you do hit your target, there is no guarantee that the target will have the decency to stop attacking you.

Really, and I'm being serious here, wouldn't a .38 Derringer, 2 shot, serve 99% of our ccw needs?

Maybe.
I don't really know because I've never owned or fired a 2-shot Derringer.

Having said all of that....

All handguns are a compromise.
We carry handguns because carrying a long-gun is usually not a viable alternative.

And we each must decide how much weight, and how many bullets, and how large of a gun we are willing to tote around all day vs the risk we actually might face at any given time.

I'm perfectly fine with carrying just a 5-shot snubbie in my pocket, and without extra rounds too!
I am willing to sacrifice more rounds, a longer sight radius, and quicker reloads in exchange for a more reliable, more compact, and lighter weight handgun that I know I will be able to carry everyday.
I'm willing to make that compromise.

I'm betting my very life on the notion that I will most likely never even need a gun, and if I do need a gun I will most likely not need more than five shots to get me out of a bad situation.

And if I'm wrong....
Well, I've always got my fist and my feet, and I'm usually carrying a knife as well.

[2cooltoolz]

I can usually get to town and back on 4 gallons of gas.

[Skans]

The few times that I've had to grab my gun and search my house (inside and outside), I was awaken in the middle of the night. I grabbed my firearm which is near my bed. There's no way I'm going to grab an extra magazine or additional ammo - so whatever is in the gun is what I've got and that's it.

A one-piece self-contained defensive tool with 20 chances and night sights that goes BANG every time I pull the trigger - that's all I want.

[ezenbrowntown]

I have a Kahr PM9, which holds 6+1. If I carry an extra extended mag, it holds 7, which puts me at 14 rounds. If I need fourteen rounds to end the conflict, I should already have been shooting my way back to a rifle or an escape route.

Let me not make any bones about it, I'm not looking to eliminate multiple bad guys and win hero of the year. I just want out alive. If they fall, great. If they don't, OK, as long as I can get out unscathed. If I've had to reload, you can bet I'm working on an exit with that second magazine. I've got a family I want to go home to. That's priority number one.

This all is assuming I'm out and about. Home defense is an entirely different scenario than self defense away from home.

[bababooey32]

With all else being equal, there is certainly no downside to my 19+1 XDm 9mm.

I think the question is: if you shoot the 7+1 (marginally) better than the 19+1, would you carry the higher cap gun for its own sake?

By "marginally better" I mean yoiu shoot 5 inch groups with the 19+1 and 3 inch groups with the 7+1...

For me, I'd prefer the "insurance" of the extra ammo. While I'm not

looking to eliminate multiple bad guys and win hero of the year

, that situation may be thrust upon me (however unlikely it may be). Given that my XDm is no larger than the 1911 there is no downside at all to carrying the extra 13 rounds!

[ECHOONE]

It didn't concern me as much as it does recently with the manufacturers coming out with all these high capacity pistols. I use to be a firm believer in shot placement,but lets face it,there's alot of nut jobs out there and anyone of them can be carrying an Xd with 19+1 or a Glock with 30 and he doesn't have to be a very good shot with that many rds spraying and praying while your butt is running off the x trying to put a rd where it counts,you better have enough ammo now a days!!Welcome to the future

[raftman]

I'd prefer a large ammo capacity to a large caliber. That is, I'd feel safer with an H&R 9-shot 22LR revolver than a derringer with 2 rounds of .357 mag. 2 shots may be enough for most civilian situations (actually, no shots is usually enough in a civilian situation), but why limit oneself if one doesn't have to? Why carry 2 rounds if it's no more difficult to carry 7?

[markj]

You can get 30 rd mags for most rugers..... a thompson with a 200 rd drum? kinda heavy tho.

Ammo is weight, how much do you need to carry? 2 extra mags for the 1911 should be enough I would imagine, not going to war or anything, the weapon carried is only to enable me to get to safer grounds not to clear out a ammo dump or anything like that......

[bds32]

Well, I guess it could be argued to carry 3 18 round 9mm magazines. That's more than a box of ammo. And with the logic some people have, that could be 1 less round than you need. So, what is the limit? Personally; a traditional revolver is 5-6 rounds.

For general defensive purposes, I like to carry a five shot revolver with one speedloader up front and one speed clip of five rounds in the back pocket. That's fifteen rounds. I think that is reasonable. I probably wouldn't need it but I don't like probabilities.

For autoloader folks, one spare magazine on the belt should get the job done. That would generally give you 15 to 39 rounds depending on your choice of pistol. The spare mag serves much more of purpose than just being extra ammo. Murphy has a way of finding his way into your life threatening situation and you never know if that spare magazine is all that you have after the first one falls out of the gun or breaks or whatever.

[Donn_N]

I have a couple of speed strips on my belt. It just never occured to me to leave the house with only 5 rds. Can't really explain it. My XD-45 holds 14 rds., but I always have one spare magazine on my belt when I am carrying it. Again, it just seems right, and requires no extra effort.

So it seems you're comfortable with 15 rounds of ammo for your snubby, but require 40 rounds for your XD-45. Why is that?

[Donn_N]

If for a moment we assume that concealed carry is on the rise in the US (which I believe it is from everything that I have read) and we note the number of overly violent events involving well prepared gunmen and/or psychopaths, then this notion of how often civilians need reloads in a gun fight is going to cross roads with some significant firepower events where indeed civilians will need reloads in a gun fight.

I think I see what you're saying, but does a well prepared gunman or psychopath actually require more rounds to bring down than an unprepared gunman?

[Donn_N]

I guess I'm just curious what type of scenario those who feel they need to carry dozens of rounds of ammunition are preparing for.

[easyG]

I'd prefer a large ammo capacity to a large caliber. That is, I'd feel safer with an H&R 9-shot 22LR revolver than a derringer with 2 rounds of .357 mag. 2 shots may be enough for most civilian situations (actually, no shots is usually enough in a civilian situation), but why limit oneself if one doesn't have to?

Why carry 2 rounds if it's no more difficult to carry 7?

Because not all calibers are equal when it comes to quickly stopping aggressive humans.

With equal shot placement, I'm willing to bet that two rounds from a .38 special (or larger caliber) revolver will be much more effective than four, maybe five, rounds from a .22 revolver.

But I agree that there's really no need to carry just a 2-shot derringer when 5-shot revolvers are so light-weight and compact these days.

[raftman]

You're probably right, but a .38 special revolver is a different matter altogether. I was stating the opinion that a weaker caliber, but in quite a large capacity (such as a .22LR 9-shooter), is preferable to a larger caliber in an extremely low capacity (such as the 2-shot derringer). I guess I was thinking of some of the other drawbacks of the derringer as well, when I considered it a lesser choice. A .38 special revolver, on the other would have both an ok ammo capacity AND a larger caliber.

But yeah, I think we do somewhat agree on the basic premise. A S&W 637 airweight 38 special revolver actually weighs less than many if not most derringers of the same caliber, plus it has a higher ammo capacity, and is easier to be accurate with. So why would one choose to carry the derringer?

[A_McDougal]

In forum reports about people trying to shoot animals for one reason or another (besides hunting), with shotgun or pistol, they note surprise at how many times they missed.

If you miss with 4 shots of a 3+1 shotgun, time to reload. If you miss with 4 from a 7+1 shotgun, you've got 4 left.

Likewise, if you miss with the first 4 shots of a 5 shot revolver, you'd better get serious with that last shot. If you miss with the first 4 shots from you Glock 17, you still should stop missing but the urgency isn't quite the same.

[Donn_N]

Likewise, if you miss with the first 4 shots of a 5 shot revolver, you'd better get serious with that last shot. If you miss with the first 4 shots from you Glock 17, you still should stop missing but the urgency isn't quite the same.

The urgency may not be quite the same, but I'd be pretty concerned about where all those misses were ending up.

[easyG]

In forum reports about people trying to shoot animals for one reason or another (besides hunting), with shotgun or pistol, they note surprise at how many times they missed.

If you miss with 4 shots of a 3+1 shotgun, time to reload. If you miss with 4 from a 7+1 shotgun, you've got 4 left.

Likewise, if you miss with the first 4 shots of a 5 shot revolver, you'd better get serious with that last shot. If you miss with the first 4 shots from you Glock 17, you still should stop missing but the urgency isn't quite the same.

Yeah, I think that we can all agree that "more capacity" affords one the ability to miss more often and still have ammo in the gun (which might be a blessing or a curse depending upon where those missed rounds are landing), but again, you're making a compromise:
You're trading a lighter-weight and smaller and more concealable gun for a heavier and larger and less concealable gun.

Sure the Glock holds more than the snubbie, but my S&W 637 only weighs 17 oz loaded.
The Glock G17 weighs about 32 oz loaded (31.91 per Glock's website).

For me, 32 oz is a lot of weight to lug around all day, every day.
But I know from experience that the 17 oz snub-nose is something that I have no problem carrying all day long.
And since it's not such a burden to carry, I know that I will have it with me if and when the time comes that I might need it.

Heck, I could carry 2 loaded revolvers and only be a couple of ounces heavier than the loaded Glock 17.



Easy

[bababooey32]

I'm just curious what type of scenario those who feel they need to carry dozens of rounds of ammunition are preparing for.

You could say we're preparing for all the scenarios that those that only carry a handful of rounds are not prepared for:

1) Multiple BGs
2) BG doesn't go down after you're empty
3) malfunction
4) protracted firefight

to name a few

[Donn_N]

1) Multiple BGs
2) BG doesn't go down after you're empty
3) malfunction
4) protracted firefight

I think it is important to to remember that SD shootings happen at close distances. We know that a BG can close with a victim in less than 1.5 seconds from 21 feet and that's long distance for a SD shooting. I find it hard to believe that most folks can reload fast enough to make a difference in the first three examples quoted above. Before the reload can be accomplished the BG will have either run away or started a physical attack.

I'm sure there are tactics designed to give someone more time to make the reload, but how many folks who carry two or three spare mags actually practice them or practice reloading while one or more bad guys are closing in on them? Or do they simply strap on the spare ammo and feel comforted?

I think the above scenarios are more of an argument for carrying a second, readily accessible gun than for dozens of rounds of ammo.

As far as a protracted firefight, I think the odds of the average citizen being involved in a protracted firefight are so infinitesimal that carrying spare ammo in preparation for such a thing is akin to buying insurance against being hit by a meteorite on the 4th of July.

But its all good. I'm not saying that people shouldn't carry what they want to carry. If you want to carry 4 or 5 dozen rounds of ammo, that's up to you. I personally don't see the logic and feel as well or better defended by my six shot snubby and my 7 shot BUG, both carried on my belt. I could even carry a second BUG and still be carrying less weight than someone with a Glock 19 and two spare mags. And if I lose the use of one hand in the initial confrontation, if I need extra firepower I can still draw the BUG whereas reloading one handed might be difficult.