The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 22, 2010, 04:11 PM   #101
DanThaMan1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 395
peetzakilla:
Quote:
Then why not prepare for the much more likely event of getting shot yourself? You are more likely to need a kevlar vest than 2 spare mags, and the consequences of not having either of them when they're needed is the same: You die.

There is ALWAYS that next level of threat where someone can say "You've gone this far, why not one step farther?"
You essentially just repeated the second half of my first post. I find the added cost of a few ounces is worth my life... even if the odds of having to use them is virtually non-existent. I'm not sure if the odds of getting shot are higher than having to use my gun, but i have prepared for that by having a nearly comprehensive understanding of first aid.
DanThaMan1776 is offline  
Old May 22, 2010, 06:43 PM   #102
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,843
Quote:
[To base one's risk assessment on variations of what has actually happened in very rare events is really...]...Not the preferred method?
No, and here's why: there aren't enough historical data points to assess the likelihood reliably. There are very few self defense shootings and in those that have occurred there have been many more variables than the number of rounds fired in a single encounter.

The original question was whether there have been real life examples showing the need for "high capacity magazines" (whatever that means); some examples have been given. I simply pointed out that, when there is a relative paucity of actual data relating to situations in which guns have even been fired, and each instance varies from every other one in many ways, an analysis of instances involving the actual use of high capacity magazines would be of little use in arriving at a meaningful conclusion. One has to use other methods of analysis. Simulation and role playing are two possible methods.

Quote:
.... but if your decisions are not based on the likelihood of the event then what is it based on?
I think you missed my point--I do not discount the importance of assessing likelihood, I simply question the usefulness of historical data for that purpose here. To answer your question, however, I would base a decsion on likelihood and the severity of potential consequences and on what would be needed for mitigation.

Again, my point was that while analyzing real world examples may be very appropriate when there are enough data (say, for actuarial projections, for analyzing boating and auto accidents, house fires, warranty cost estimation, whatever), another approach is needed when the history is lacking.

To assess the likelihood of needing either a large magazine or an extra one, one would not rely upon an inadequate historical data set, because one would not get a reliable answer. Rather, FoF training using simunitions, or other role playing, can provide a pretty reasonable idea of not only what may happen but also of how likely each outcome may be.

This problem isn't at all limited to developing civilian shooting strategies; it applies in air combat analysis and training (there are very few actual encounters and many variables)*, manned space flight design, planning, and training (there are very few missions compared to the number of potential variables), strategies for preventing or responding to serious nuclear power plant failures (there have been only two in the world that we know of), disaster control on a submarine, and in other things.

Quote:
If you must take into account ALL variations without consideration of the probability of variation actually happening then the only possible course of action is to spend all the money that you can spend preparing for every possible eventuality.
That's very true indeed, and it's a very key consideration in risk management. One would not armor each infantry tent, carry an excessive amount of supplies into the field, or put four expensive and fuel consuming engines on a commercial airplane that can gain altitude with one engine if two reliable engines can be expected meet the needs, though one maker today will use that factor as a selling point for a four engined plane.

So, regarding magazine capacity, how much is enough? More than five, I think, but that's a personal opinion. I do not expect to ever even fire one shot, but if I do, I think the probably is reasonably high that I will be facing more than one assailant, neither of whom presents a stationary target, that very quick shooting will be required, and that multiple hits per assailant would be needed.

What is the severity of the potential consequences should I need extra rounds that I do not have? Very high indeed, I think.

That brings us to this: what's the cost of having a few extra rounds, or a reload? Very low indeed, as I measure it.

I assess the cost of body armor as being a whole lot higher.

That's the essence of risk management: identifying risks, assessing likelihood, assessing potential consequences, and analyzingf the cost of potential mitigation techniques.

My point is that when situations that enable the analysis of complex variables occur very infrequently, historical data may well not prove useful in assessing any aspect of risk. Again, that's not at all limited to this discussion, and many people spend a lot of time trying to come up with the best mitigation techniques for such things.
*Simulation is widely used in this application today
OldMarksman is offline  
Old May 22, 2010, 08:06 PM   #103
coldpointcrossing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 246
Since this has turned towards spare mags and one's reasoning behind carrying one...

I've had a mag dump the floorplate, spring, ammo, and follower while practicing. The chances of something like that happening are very slim but it can happen. "Stuff happens". That is one reason why I prefer carrying a spare whether its a single or double stack.
__________________
CPC
coldpointcrossing is offline  
Old May 22, 2010, 10:22 PM   #104
Mutatio Nomenis
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 168
"Confucius say...

Better to have extra rounds and not need them, than to need extra rounds and not have them."

Brilliant!
Mutatio Nomenis is offline  
Old May 23, 2010, 02:51 AM   #105
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
3x3x3 rule, "giving up", shooting to kill & tactics...

In general, I think the 3x3x3 rule applys to most armed citizen/armed professional(PI-EP agent-bank guard-security etc);
3 rounds in 3 seconds at a range of approx 3 feet.
Let me be clear; I do NOT mean every use of force or lethal force encounter will meet these standards or that it means you do not need large cap magazines or to train at 25-30 feet etc. It is just something to consider.
As for the "shotgun" or "spray" method, I disagree with it too as a tactic. I see more problem with the reduction of loads more than the death or injury of a violent felon but the "what if they give up" issue is valid. In my opine(based on what I saw & read in US gun press articles, books websites and from working sworn LEOs, licensed security and active duty military service members(OIF-OEF, Desert Storm) have said; in a real critical incident, they shoot until the armed subject(s) either; go down & die on scene, stop fighting or are unarmed/have weapons removed. A sworn LE officer told me; "we don't say FREEZE POLICE! We would shoot the felon and then disarm/contain the subject. A real bad guy/gal would not see your impressive Colt Officer's model or Glock 19 and pee themselves, they'd either flee or start shooting at you!
It's not uncommon for cops or armed security guards to pull multiple weapons off subjects either, . Just because they "give up" does not mean they can't pose a major threat or have other weapons!

That said, I do take issue with the "shoot to kill" or as the late author Robert Boatman said in a Youtube.com; learn to fire as soon as you draw & shoot to kill. As many soldiers/Marines/LE officers will tell you, you will carry or draw down on subjects or be in events where you ready your sidearm more then use it on the street or in the field.
There are 1,000s of US LEOs who worked 20/25/30 years without 1 lethal force event. Have these cops ever drawn or pointed firearms at violent subjects? Sure, did they shoot or kill them? No.
In closing, I'd say it's always a good idea to carry at least 1 spare magazine or if that isn't practical, a BUG/2nd gun. You don't have to look like a SWAT cop or super-commando but you should be ready to deal with a use of force event in a swift, smooth level-headed way.

Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old May 23, 2010, 07:52 AM   #106
Mutatio Nomenis
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 168
^ Arigato, Clyde-san.

Unless you're really in a gun battle or against a really violent person, then killing the moment you draw your weapon is not always the best option.
Mutatio Nomenis is offline  
Old May 23, 2010, 06:35 PM   #107
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Peetza,

The probability wheel. Sure we can take this line of thinking furthur and furthur. Soon it would have us staying home or carrying rifles or shotty's. My point is that for virtually the same effort more probabilties can be covered with high capacity.

I still haven't heard a single logical reason not to.........besides the law in some states.
threegun is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 03:37 AM   #108
WhyUse2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2010
Posts: 4
High-Capacity Magazines/Rounds

My father had several automatics which he kept loaded for about 5 years. When he died, the springs were rusted and fully collapsed. I have a friend who is a metalurgist and discussed this with him and here is the gist of what we uninformedly (new word?) agree. (Please comment, which I am sure you will )

To save my magazines, I rotate my three or four magazines for each gun on a weekly basis but only carry a max of six shots - one in the chamber and five in the mag. This leaves space for three rounds in the Mak, 12 spaces in the Glock-17 mag, five in the .40 and four in the .45 cal mags. When I fire on the range, I only load five at a time in each mag to "check them out." On a rotating basis, depending on how much range practice I can get, I clean out the mags and let the empty mags' springs "breathe" sometimes leaving them unassembled for a day or two. I keep a loaded second magazine on the "active gun-of-the-day" handy."

I do this for several reasons. First, a revolver only has about 5 or 6 rounds and is difficult to reload during a "crisis," especially HD/SD. Secondly, I am a damned good shot, even taking into account the incapacitating real life idea of being invaded by an armed idiot, though I know I will not be perfect. Thirdly, my wife and I practice scenario's with wooden guns we made. Lastly, I think a court would look unfavorably on someone who pumped seventeen rounds into someone from less than 30 feet. If my first six shots don't count, then it is over for me anyway. I would appreciate any feedback on that, which I am sure i will get.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE fully loaded magazines, I just think it looks weird for me to have 17 rounds and not in a LEO or related capacity. I simply cannot afford to continually purchase magazines on a regular basis because of loading a weapon I hope never to use. I figure one box of jhp will last me a lifetime, I pray. I pray I don't use one at all!!

Addendum: I sometimes load my Glock high-cap mags with ten and carry two spares same load when going out to dinner like at Luby's.

Last edited by WhyUse2; May 24, 2010 at 03:43 AM.
WhyUse2 is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 05:50 AM   #109
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
If the springs were rusted, THAT was the problem and the reason they collapsed. And I promise you that having the springs fully-compressed wasn't the reason they rusted.

Do what you want, but a) springs don't need to "breathe" or otherwise recover from a period of compression, and b) as long as you don't over-compress the springs and exceed their elastic limits, leaving them fully loaded isn't going to shorten the spring life one iota.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 08:31 AM   #110
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,843
Posted by ScottRiqui:
Quote:
Do what you want, but a) springs don't need to "breathe" or otherwise recover from a period of compression, and b) as long as you don't over-compress the springs and exceed their elastic limits, leaving them fully loaded isn't going to shorten the spring life one iota.
Very true--the idea that keeping a magazine loaded will weaken the spring is a very old but still rather prevalent misconception. I labored under that erroneous belief for years.

Posted by WhyUse2:
Quote:
I am a damned good shot, even taking into account the incapacitating real life idea of being invaded by an armed idiot, though I know I will not be perfect. Thirdly, my wife and I practice scenario's with wooden guns we made.
How much of that skill, and how much of that practice, is applicable to a realistic SD encounter?

Quote:
If my first six shots don't count, then it is over for me anyway.
How many hits does it take to stop a determined violent criminal actor? How many shots does it take to hit and stop a rapidly moving attacker? Maybe three, maybe six, but how can you be sure? Do you really want to be left facing his accomplice with an empty gun?


Quote:
Lastly, I think a court would look unfavorably on someone who pumped seventeen rounds into someone from less than 30 feet.
That really shouldn't influence one's choice regarding magazines.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 11:24 AM   #111
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Lastly, I think a court would look unfavorably on someone who pumped seventeen rounds into someone from less than 30 feet.
What if it does? If you stop before the threat is ended and die as a result then court concerns are moot anyway. If you fight only until the threat is ended it should be easy to articulate the need for so many rounds.

I kept shooting because the scumbag was still advancing knife in hand.

Forensic evidence should support your story.

Now if you "pumped" rounds into an adversary after the threat they posed had ended it would surely displease the court.......even if it was only a handful of rounds.
threegun is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 11:22 PM   #112
danez71
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 2, 2009
Posts: 426
Quote:
Then why not prepare for the much more likely event of getting shot yourself? You are more likely to need a kevlar vest than 2 spare mags,
(edited to save those cute little bits and bytes)

Your posts have been very much about risk management based on odds (and cost and convienence).

Id really appreciate you revealing the supporting data of that statement.
danez71 is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 01:03 AM   #113
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Real deadly force incidents, training; rapid fire, Youtube; race guns...

I agree with & disagree with some of the recent posts here.
I'd agree that proper training and tactics can help you address real issues like target ID, rapid reloads, shoot to stop drills(aka: Mozambique drills) etc.
This live fire skill training will help you know & understand how/what your selected firearm will do in a fluid, high stress environment.
As I posted before, in a real event you really should not "spray & pray" but you may also fire 5/10/15 rds very, very fast. Any member can watch a skilled target shooter work a single action 1911a1 pistol or Glock 21/17/32/22 semi auto so fast it looks like a machine pistol.
If you were in a deadly force incident in a mall/supermarket parking lot and a armed felon attacked you to steal your vehicle and you shot a 15/16/18 round service pistol to slide lock would you still feel the same way about shooting a high # of rounds? I'd doubt it.
Like my FATS training incident in the early 1990s, you can't predict exactly how or what a violent felon will do.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 03:57 AM   #114
Lokpyrite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2009
Posts: 361
Of course, one could argue that my logic can be stretched further. Why not defy the near null odds of the Russians invading with tanks and planes in the middle of the work day? Why not have a few RPGs on hand in the office?



I would, but wal mart don't well RPGs yet, and yes I have considered buying some kevlar.
__________________
The more people I meet the more I'm beginning to root for the zombies.
Lokpyrite is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 06:14 AM   #115
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
The argument about preparing for probabilities is almost endless. The point us high capacity is better guys try to make is that the extra capacity covers a few more probabilities for virtually the same weight/size package.
threegun is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 08:45 AM   #116
jbrown50
Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 74
The low capacity/no reload vs. high capacity/multiple reload arguments will continue to rage on into eternity.

The point is to use good tactics, train with your gun and have the gun with you no matter what your reasoning is regarding capacity.
jbrown50 is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 10:01 AM   #117
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,843
Quote:
The point is to use good tactics, train with your gun and have the gun with you no matter what your reasoning is regarding capacity.
Yep!

I've come to realize, after any decades of shooting, that a prerequisite for both using and training for good tactics is being trained by qualified tactical instructors.

Learning how to hold the gun, learning the proper sight picture, and learning and practicing trigger pull are necessary but are likely not sufficient. Learning to hit multiple targets repeatedly and very quickly can prepare one for the kind of violent attack that develops in the blink of an eye and that may well involve more than one fast-moving dangerous assailant. Learning to do that while running will also prove helpful, though I must confess that I haven't gone that far yet myself.

I finally took a nine-hour course in tactical defensive pistol shooting at the beginning of this month. It was a real eye-opener. They used torso-sized steel plates at seven yards, partly to give instant audible confirmation of hits after each shot and partly to dispel the idea that group size is important in a violent self defense encounter.

I strongly recommend that everyone who is serious about defending himself with deadly force should the need ever arise look into the availability of such training and avail himself or herself of it as soon as practical.

It could prove very valuable indeed, and it has the side benefit of being fun for those who like to shoot.

It will likely influence one's selection of a new weapon and holster type, along with the decision of whether to put a second magazine on the other side of the belt.....
OldMarksman is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 10:34 AM   #118
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Marksman
I do not expect to ever even fire one shot, but if I do, I think the probably is reasonably high that I will be facing more than one assailant, neither of whom presents a stationary target, that very quick shooting will be required, and that multiple hits per assailant would be needed.

The problem is that there is no real world justification for that assumption.

Though rare, there have been PLENTY of defensive shootings on which to base a logical argument.

Outside the home or business, there is virtually zero probability of the event that you describe here.

WHY do you believe that there will be "more than one assailant" (that will need to be shot)? WHY do you believe that multiple hits per assailant will be necessary? Real life does not support these conclusions.

In real life, there are almost never more than 2 shots fired in a defensive situation. That is why there are no examples in this thread. I say again, POLICE ENCOUNTERS DO NOT QUALIFY. Police run toward danger. Their job is to insert themselves into bad situations and they are trained and equipped (sort of) to do it. Outside the home or place of business, there is simply no evidence of the need for high-capacity firearms. INSIDE the home or place of business is another matter entirely as there are radically different considerations and options available.

FOF training is highly valuable, of that I have no doubt, but it is NOT a predictor of real life scenarios. I could set-up a FOF scenario involving asteroid impacts and alien invasions but it wouldn't mean that you would need to prepare for such an event actually happening anymore that an artificial scenario involving 3 gunmen and a 5 minute shootout indicates a need to prepare for such an event. FOF is, by it's very nature, ARTIFICIAL. The stress may be real, the reactions and results of the ARTIFICIAL scenario may be accurate TO THE SCENARIO, but there is no justification for believing that such a thing would happen in real life just because you can create it, intentionally, in a FOF training situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by threegun
The argument about preparing for probabilities is almost endless. The point us high capacity is better guys try to make is that the extra capacity covers a few more probabilities for virtually the same weight/size package.
It's not virtually the same size and weight. I suffer a nearly 25% weight increase by carrying a spare mag. I HATE having things in my pockets. I'm NOT going to spend more money on a magazine holster. It simply is not worth it.

Yes, by being "high-cap" or carrying spares you are "covering a few more probabilities", but it's not like those probabilities are on the HIGH end of the spectrum. They're on the FAR, FAR, far LOW END of probability.

Going about my day with NO gun prepares me for 99.9% of every day of my life. (100% so far). 12,592 days (roughly) with no problems. If I need to draw my gun tomorrow, it will be a .007% event. Considering that my closest friends and family (let's say 10 people, average 40 years old) have gone through a combined 146,000 days without carrying a firearm AT ALL, if I needed one tomorrow it would be a .00068% event..... and that's just 10 people. I know literally HUNDREDS of people who have never needed a gun AT ALL, and ZERO that have needed one. Zero. By carrying a gun at all I am operating on the raged edge of statistical anomalies.

I don't even carry because I think I might need it. If that was my reasoning, I wouldn't carry at all. I carry because I can and I want to. There is NO logical, needs based argument in my world for carrying a gun. High-cap, low-cap, BUG or Uzi... doesn't matter. Can, want to, do. It's that simple.

Even in areas that we define as "dangerous" the vast majority of residents and passers-through live their entire lives without needing a gun. VAST majority. Most situations requiring a firearm are criminal on criminal. The likelihood of a law abiding citizen needing one is slim, even in the worst areas.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; May 25, 2010 at 11:00 AM.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old May 25, 2010, 11:22 AM   #119
cledro711
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2010
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 4
i see posts that say things like "ive never heard anyone say damn i wish i would not have brought so much ammo" but i have heard some ppl say "damn my back is killing me from lugging around this beretta all day"...at some point we have to prepare ourselves for the possibility for an encounter with criminals that want to make us prey. Do we need to carry around 60 bullets with us everyday? for me no, but it might be different for you. I wont be carrying multiple magazines with 20 rounds each. the best defense is a preventative action. dont put ur self in a situation where u are faced with 3 gangbangers with guns. and for those that keep quoting police shootouts that required 300 rounds, I am not a police officer, nor am I going to be actively engaging with armed criminals as part of my job. Police should carry that many rounds. Civilians dont need to, because 99.99 percent of everyone on this forum will never shoot a criminal.
__________________
Wheelgunner
cledro711 is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 11:30 AM   #120
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
WHY do you believe that there will be "more than one assailant" (that will need to be shot)? WHY do you believe that multiple hits per assailant will be necessary? Real life does not support these conclusions.
Really? It seems to me that multiple assailants are a fairly common occurence. Just a quick read through the first page of The Armed Citizen shows several instances of multiple assailants.

And multiple hits per assailant are probably going to be necessary in the case of a determined attacker, especially if you don't hit the central nervous system. After all, over 80% of people shot with a handgun survive.

I'm wondering what information you are using to reach the conclusion that real life does not support preparation for multiple assailants or multiple hits per assailant.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 11:57 AM   #121
threegun
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2006
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,000
Peetza, You carry for a totally different reason than the rest of us. We carry in preparation for that rare event of having to defend ourselves with a firearm while out in public. Thus we would be kinda hypocritical to argue against needing high capacity, an extremely rare event.

Quote:
I'm wondering what information you are using to reach the conclusion that real life does not support preparation for multiple assailants or multiple hits per assailant.
Bartholomew,

Peetza excludes police shootings and shootings from a homestead
threegun is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 12:15 PM   #122
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
Peetza excludes police shootings and shootings from a homestead
Yes, I got that part; but I'm not aware of any comprehensive database of shootings by citizens that actually gets into the number of rounds fired or the specifics of the gunfight. If that information is out there, naturally, I'd be interested in finding it and reading it.

Peetza seems to feel strongly that two rounds is the maximum number likely to be fired; but I don't know what data he used to arrive at that conclusion - that is the part I am curious about.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 12:20 PM   #123
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,843
Quote:
WHY do you believe that there will be "more than one assailant" (that will need to be shot)?
I do not. Most encounters do not end in gunfire. With luck, the mere presentation of a firearm (when completely justified, or course) will obviate the need for shooting.

However, I believe that if I encounter persons considering attacking me, one such person is less likely to do so than two, simply because the odds of a successful attack would be better with two. Most of the home invasions, muggings, and armed robberies that have been in the news around my area in the last year or so have involved at least two perps. Common sense and simple psychology tell me that, unless one appears infirm or otherwise vulnerable, or unless one enounters a very desperate meth user or someone using an ambush technique, a single perp is less likely to proceed with an attack than one who has an accomplice.

So, I believe that in the rare event that I am accosted, there is a reasonable possibility that there will be more than one attacker.

For the slightly built young lady who is concentrating on texting while walking, for the elderly person with a disability, or for someone who does not appear to be aware of his or her surroundings, that is probably a lot less likely to be the case.

Quote:
WHY do you believe that multiple hits per assailant will be necessary?
From everything I have read about handgun effectiveness, including real life experience, and from my belief (supported by experience in tactical training) that, in the heat of a rapidly unfolding violent encounter, some of my shots will probably not be placed effectively. Read on.

Quote:
Real life does not support these conclusions....I say again, POLICE ENCOUNTERS DO NOT QUALIFY. Police run toward danger. Their job is to insert themselves into bad situations and they are trained and equipped (sort of) to do it.
From the standpoint of tactics and in police officers' having neither the duty nor the option to retreat, that is very true indeed.

However, police experience pertaining to how many rounds it takes to stop an assailant should be very applicable. The physiology and the wound mechanics are the same.

Quote:
Outside the home or place of business, there is simply no evidence of the need for high-capacity firearms.
That probably depends a lot on what one means by "high capacity"--standards vary. I am not at all enthused by ads for guns that say "17+1." I would not be dissuaded from buying a Beretta or Browning with a thirteen round magazine, but at one time (before I realized that what I had learned about self defense from watching television drama is best forgotten), I think I would have thought it excessive. My largest capacity magazine holds twelve 9mm rounds, and I load it with ten.

Quote:
FOF training is highly valuable, of that I have no doubt, but it is NOT a predictor of real life scenarios. I could set-up a FOF scenario involving asteroid impacts and alien invasions but it wouldn't mean that you would need to prepare for such an event actually happening anymore that an artificial scenario involving 3 gunmen and a 5 minute shootout indicates a need to prepare for such an event. FOF is, by it's very nature, ARTIFICIAL. The stress may be real, the reactions and results of the ARTIFICIAL scenario may be accurate TO THE SCENARIO, but there is no justification for believing that such a thing would happen in real life just because you can create it, intentionally, in a FOF training situation.
Simulation is indeed artificial, but it is nonetheless a very valuable method for both the development of tactics and for training--again, as in the case of air combat.

If the scenarios in the exercises involve clearing a house or extended gunfights, they would be applicable to LEO training, but not to my needs. Other scenarios would be much more helpful to me. One designs the scenario to met the needs. Further, one can reasonably determine the operational needs by evaluating what happens in properly designed simulation. That technique is employed in a lot of applications.

Training I recently took was intended for SD situations. By the way, the duration of the multi-shot scenarios ranged from four to ten seconds, depending upon the skill of the participants in reloading.

Reloading was taught primarily to prepare participants for managing a malfunction. The guys with the big magazines were told to reload after having fired six rounds. Same for me, and I had seven round magazines.

Quote:
I don't even carry because I think I might need it. If that was my reasoning, I wouldn't carry at all. I carry because I can and I want to. There is NO logical, needs based argument in my world for carrying a gun. High-cap, low-cap, BUG or Uzi... doesn't matter. Can, want to, do. It's that simple.

Even in areas that we define as "dangerous" the vast majority of residents and passers-through live their entire lives without needing a gun. VAST majority. Most situations requiring a firearm are criminal on criminal. The likelihood of a law abiding citizen needing one is slim, even in the worst areas.
True, the likelihood that one will ever need a gun is remote; the likelihood that one will actually need to fire it is probably less than remote.

However, the potential consequences of not having it when one needs it are very severe indeed, and the inconvenience of mitigation is minimal. So--I do carry a gun, but not because I want to.

I do not expect to ever have to use it. But on three occasions over the years, I have been well served by having a gun to face home invaders bent on mayhem. Never had to fire, fortunately.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 12:21 PM   #124
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
Yes, I got that part; but I'm not aware of any comprehensive database of shootings by citizens that actually gets into the number of rounds fired or the specifics of the gunfight. If that information is out there, naturally, I'd be interested in finding it and reading it.

Peetza seems to feel strongly that two rounds is the maximum number likely to be fired; but I don't know what data he used to arrive at that conclusion - that is the part I am curious about.
Here is one of a number of threads containing and discussing the data referred to as "The Armed Citizen Analysis".

I base my numbers largely on this data, but also on the lack of data showing otherwise. This current thread is one of MANY that I have personally seen in which there is a request made for actual circumstances wherein "high-cap" or multiple magazines was the determining factor (or even played a part) in a civilian defensive scenario. To date, I have seen ZERO.

The lack of evidence to the contrary, coupled with the "Armed Citizen" report seals the deal for me.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old May 25, 2010, 01:49 PM   #125
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
Here is one of a number of threads containing and discussing the data referred to as "The Armed Citizen Analysis".

I base my numbers largely on this data, but also on the lack of data showing otherwise. This current thread is one of MANY that I have personally seen in which there is a request made for actual circumstances wherein "high-cap" or multiple magazines was the determining factor (or even played a part) in a civilian defensive scenario. To date, I have seen ZERO.
Well, I think we should all be grateful to Mr. Werner for taking the time to do that analysis and share the information from it. However, I can see some big problems with using that data to determine probability.

The Armed Citizen is basically a short summary of an existing new story published by the NRA. The NRA's Armed Citizen is a great resource; but limited. For example, today's highlight comes in at 95 words.

From today's example, we can determine the location, the type of crime, the weapon used, that more than one shot was fired, the one known assailant was killed and that there was communication prior to the shooting. However, we cannot determine the number of rounds fired, the caliber used, the location of wounds, or whether there was a reload.

The Armed Citizen publishes around 9-10 stories per month. The analysis you linked to says it covers 1997-2001 (making 482 stories). As someone who has read my fair share of Armed Citizen stories, it seems to me that a lot of those 482 stories are going to be lacking the data necessary to make the assumptions Mr. Werner made.

For example, he states:
"Even small caliber handguns displayed a significant degree of instant lethality (30 per cent immediate one shot kills) when employed at close range."

But we don't know how many of the 482 stories he analyzed had sufficient information. For all we know, that could be a total of 3 incidents and one were it resulted in instant lethality. The data already has significant problems with being non-random and only including positive outcomes; but now we don't even have a good idea of the sample size for specific sets of claims (such as reloads, small caliber, etc.)

He states "Reloading was required in only 3 incidents." Yet, how many stories even discussed the number of rounds fired? For example, take this Clayton Cramer Armed Citizen example from the May 11 Modesto Bee:

Quote:
Police: 1 killed, 4 wounded in Ariz. shootout

Police say one man is dead and three others are wounded after they attempted to rob an Arizona store and got into a shootout with the owner and an employee.

Police say the shooting happened Tuesday night after the four men entered and tried to hold up the Tucson store M&M Customs, which sells auto alarms and stereos.

While the men confronted an employee, the store’s owner brandished a gun and a shootout ensued. At some point, the employee also pulled a gun and fired at the suspected robbers.

Police say one of the robbers was killed, another suffered life-threatening injuries, and two others were not seriously wounded.

No names were released.

Police say the business owner suffered a non-life-threatening wound
Any reloads there? How many rounds fired?

Don't get me wrong, it is a great effort by Mr. Werner and I appreciate it; but I think using it to establish a reliable average number of rounds fired in an average citizen defensive firearm use is probably a stretch. To further emphasize the point, give the first page of Clayton Cramer's Armed Citizen blog a read. How many of those expressly state the number of rounds fired by any participant? In most cases, you have to infer the number of rounds fired based on the newspaper reporting (which we all know is never wrong on guns) - and in many cases, it just isn't possible to say beyond "more than one."
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
1911 , ccw , handgun , high capacity magazine , self-defense

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16697 seconds with 7 queries