Regarding carry capacity.

[The Terminator]

Just never saw the point to limit the amount of rounds I can put on BG when todays small semi-auto's are plenty reliable. For instance I carry a Kel Tec PF9, 7+1 of 9mm, plenty powerful and two more rounds than a revolver and still fits comfortably in my pocket


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?

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

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

I do keep plenty of spare ammo in my bug out bag, but that is not for carrying around all the time for potential defense situations.

[SAIGAFISH]

I dont cc but outside city limits I will be oc my new xd m9mm
it holds 19 +1 so if i have to reload i need alot more target practice.


freedom is won by the blood of tyrant,s

[Hkmp5sd]

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



Because of that other 1%. Never plan for what your enemy might do. Plan for what he can do.


When considering a CCW gun, I generally look at physical size and weight of the gun and what you can hide. If the size/weight ratio of your gun lets you have 6 rounds of .40 S&W over 2 rounds of .38, why would you limit yourself to two rounds? In Florida, based on the heat/weather, I sometimes carry a S&W 649 (5-shot .38) and sometimes carry a Glock 17 (20 rounds of 9mm).

If you base your carry needs on statistics, 99% of CCW civilian vs. BG confrontrations could be solved with an airsoft pistol spray painted black (no shots fired).

[SAIGAFISH]

derringers affective range accurately is what about 3ft

fish,hunt,and be merry

[Doublestack]

If the size/weight ratio of your gun lets you have 6 rounds of .40 S&W over 2 rounds of .38, why would you limit yourself to two rounds?


I agree with the above statement. Why would you carry less than what you could carry comfortably? Even when I have a J-Frame revolver in my pocket, 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.

DS

[Double Naught Spy]

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

Man, a single shot straw and spitwad would serve 99% of our CCW needs because at any given time, more than 99% of CCW people are not in need of their firearms in any way, shape, or form except for emotional security. So sure, a 2 shot would be fine so long as you are not in a gun fight of any sort.

And that is a serious answer.

[J.Netto]

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

Who's to say? Who would be willing to take that chance? Not me.

I know one thing for sure, If I'm carrying a gun,(and, I am-all of the time.) I want to be sure I always have ammo to feed it. Whether I think I will need it or not. The gun is useless without it.

Like Doublestack said, it takes no extra effort to carry spare ammo. - Not much anyway, so why not carry it just to be on the safe side? I've said this before, but, It's not being paranoid, It's being prepared.

I don't wear my seat belt when I drive because I want to get into a car accident, I wear it because I might get into a accident. The minute I think the air bag itself is enough, is the day I go flying through the windshield. When it wouldn't have been any extra effort to just put my seat belt on in the first place. Okay, I'll stop now.:D

[BobbyT]

The thing about insurance is that it isn't supposed to be statistically sound and right most of the time, because it involves events that you don't get to repeat 100 times until you come out ahead.

It involves low probability events with very high impacts. Your house probably won't burn down, you probably won't crash your car, and your kid probably won't get seriously sick/injured. But you insure for all of those.

And you don't insure for the "most likely" event within that subset: a pan fire that scorches a wall, a fender bender that will leave you with a bruise, or stitches for your kid. You get a fire extinguisher, have a plan that'll cover your whole house burning to the ground, wear a seatbelt even a block over in the neighborhood, and get health insurance that'll cover an exotic cancer that needs a million bucks in treatment.

99% of the time you won't be attacked. If you are, statistically you'll brandish and the coward will change his mind. If you do have to fire, statistically it will be a couple shots and then over. But I don't want to be protected in "most" cases, because you don't get a do-over.

Thugs tend to travel in packs, and there are plenty of cases of multiple home invaders, muggers, etc. If the worst of the worst happens, you want all your boxes checked: airbag AND seatbelt, insurance for cancer AND organ transplants, cell phone AND flashlight AND full capacity pistol.

[Kreyzhorse]

Point - How many reloads occur during a gunfight between a Citizen and a bad guy?

To your point, I doubt that many civilian gun fights include a reload. I read some place, and I might have the number wrong, but I think the average rounds fired during a civlian shooting is 7. Where that number came from or is it even valid, I kind of doubt it.

It does seem to validate the fact that more civilian exchanges are pretty quick with one party or the other getting the hell out of there (or getting shot) pretty quickly.

Would two rounds serve your needs? At the range, sure, you'll hit your target. To me, the wild card would be a CCW situation. Let's just say that 7 shots fired is actually a valid number of shots fired during a SD situation.

Do you think for a second that all 7 shots are hits? Maybe half are hits? I'd argue that it would likely be much lower than that due to the pressure of the situation. Maybe 10% or 20% is more likely. To me in that type of situation, you could easily miss with your first two shots of the derringer.

In my opinion, the more options you have, the more likely you are to survive a SD situtation. To me, a 2-shot gun, while better than nothing, isn't your best choice.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Good analyses - folks sometimes assume that the average is what always happens and forget about the extremes or the Black Swan event.

Yes, they are rare but when they happen, they have large consequences. It is unlikely you will be in a school or mall rampage. But in an intensive gun fight, you could use all the ammo you carry.

If it is just the single mugger who goes away when you wave your gun - then you can carry unloaded.

[Housezealot]

Really, and I'm being serious here, wouldn't a .38 Derringer, 2 shot, serve 99% of our ccw needs?
I generaly don't worry about a spare mag that being said if size was that big of a factor I would feel better with a little six shot .22 than only having one or two shots with a larger caliber, Just my opinion though

[Brian Pfleuger]

Because of that other 1%. Never plan for what your enemy might do. Plan for what he can do.

There's a logical and necessary limit to that thinking. The Crips and The Bloods could get together and point at a spot on the map, that could turn out to be Lisle, NY (where I am), and they could say "Yep, we's gunna go there and have us a war.", and I'd be up crap creek without a paddle.

Since my "enemy" could do such a thing am I supposed to plan for it? I think that would be a little ridiculous. The sane and sensible citizen HAS GOT TO DRAW THE LINE, SOMEWHERE.

The statistics of past incidents help us to make an informed decision on WHERE to draw the line.If not, we'd all be driving armored humvees and wearing body armor with the wife as the gunner on the 50.

I personally have been thinking lately that what I need is a way to engage a threat using LESS force instead of more. How many people who are worried about whether two extra 18 round mags is enough even have a way of stopping a threat that DOES NOT justify lethal force? (Think pepper spray here, folks) Sure, there is more than one frequent poster here that carry a wide range of items every day but they're generally not the ones asking these questions.

[doh_312]

You cannot account for your mindset at the time of the high stress incident. That being said it is entirely possible you empty your gun with out realizing it and manage not to neutralize your threat. Especially easy if you only carry a five shot. If that were the case you can reload and be smarter with your next round of amo. But if you dont have that reload your stuck thinking "I wish I'd have slipped that extra mag/speed load in my pocket."

More amo will always be overkill untill the day you need it. Then you'll be glad you bothered to carry a reload or two because you get to live another day.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Point - How many reloads occur during a gunfight between a Citizen and a bad guy?

Well, I can't answer that question but in the Force-on-Force exercises I've done with Simunitions, reloads did happen on occasion. Considering that the minimum level of proficiency was at least two courses in fighting with a pistol (a total of 48 hours instruction) and additional IPSC/IDPA style competition shooting background and that these were 10 round magazines, I'd say the event is not so rare that it doesn't need to be planned for.

On the flip side, the guy who had to reload first often ended up "dead" anyway. So maybe one magazine is all you need ;)

[christcorp]

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. That is the standard. If you want a semi that carries 18 rounds; have at it. If you need to carry multiple magazines for your own sense of security; go for it. I feel quite fine with my Sig P220 and 8 rounds; or my FEG 32auto and 7 rounds; or my S&W Model 13 revolver and 6 rounds; or my CZ-82 9mm mak with 12 rounds. Whatever the gun comes with, I'm fine with. I spend my shooting time practicing hitting my target instead of reloading. My objective is to STOP the threat. Not to kill anyone. If they die; so be it. If I can shoot 1 or 2 rounds and get away to a safer position; then that too is fine.

[Skans]

Yes. One of my criteria for purchasing a firearm is capacity. That's the main reason I like 9mm - with a +2 extension I can get 20 rounds squeezed in my Glock 17. My EAA 10mm holds 14 rounds. Both of my 45's hold 12 rounds (although only one of them fits my hand nicely)

All I can say is that after I've practiced some handgun drills where you're moving and shooting, I usually go through the first 10 rounds rather quickly and still haven't completed my objective. I've tried this with my 9mm and 10mm. I need two magazines with my 10mm. One magazine at least gets the job done with my 9mm.

I don't know what the heck I would do if I were using a 6 cylinder wheel gun. I guess reload 2-3 times.

[armsmaster270]

You will carry what you will carry, but keep in mind for a true SD situation you have to plan on Murphy's Law and the worse case scenario falling in your lap. Myself I carry a Sig226 .357Sig with one spare Mag 25 rnds total and a S&W 340PD in my pocket as a BUG If I am on a Ride Along with a police agency I add one more Magazine as the liklehood of being in a shooting situation just went up. My last Ride was in Chicago in the Englewood district plainclothes with the Gang Task force and we responded to 3 shooting calls and recovered two guns.

[ZeSpectre]

Nobody ever finished a gunfight and said "darn, I brought too much ammo".
At the same time one has to eventually face the limits of weight and moblility :D

[J.Netto]

Putting as much space between you and your attacker(S) - should be everyones first priority. Just because I'm carrying spare ammo doesn't mean I am going to shoot the place up or try to be a hero. Retreat is my first choice.

My firearm is my last resort. The last line of defense. I don't think that carrying extra ammo makes me Rambo. Like I said, it's just being prepared.

I was also taught that you never shoot to kill, only shoot to stop a threat. But, again - who's to say how many times I would have to shoot to achieve that.

I hope I never have to find out. But, if that day comes, I am going to do everything I can to be prepared for the worst case scenario, and carry spare ammo. And most of the time, a back up gun as well.

Criminals want people that are going to be easy targets, they don't want someone that is going to fight back. I don't ever want to be able to NOT fight back and protect myself or my family because I ran out of ammo, or because something happened to my main carry gun.

[Hkmp5sd]

There's a logical and necessary limit to that thinking.

Of course there is. :rolleyes: Otherwise people would be walking around with select fire carbines, grenades, k-bars, body armor and night vision gear.

[Skans]

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?

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

Even if I don't need a reload for the fight itself, instruction and prudence has taught me that topping off (conditions permitting) might be critical as soon as the known fight is over.

How often are often are CCW civilians going to be involved in one of those significant fire power events and need a reload? Still probably not very often. However, I see carrying a spare mag as no more hassle than carrying a comb, and seeing as I am bald now, I don't need the comb and have plenty of capacity for the extra mag.

[Tucker 1371]

Since my "enemy" could do such a thing am I supposed to plan for it? I think that would be a little ridiculous. The sane and sensible citizen HAS GOT TO DRAW THE LINE, SOMEWHERE.


If ifs and buts were candy and nuts I'd have an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank :D... that would have almost any percievable self defense need I could have covered :D... unless a mugger had an attack helicopter :eek:.

I'll draw my line at any type of handgun I can reasonably conceal and carry with 2 spare magazines. It may be getting cliche but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[Bud Helms]

Let's move to T&T.

[Mannlicher]

how much ammo you NEED is always determined by what happens. When we choose to carry only a few rounds, its a gamble.

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.

Just how lucky do you feel when you leave home? :D

[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.

[Hkmp5sd]

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.


The ODDS of you ever using your CCW are so remote you could go around unarmed. To date, I have carried 24/7 for the past 22 years and never needed a firearm.

If you cannot even predict when you will need your firearm, how can you predict the exact number of rounds you will need?

It is up to the individual to determine what is appropriate for themselves, not to criticize the choices others have made.

[Brian Pfleuger]

It is up to the individual to determine what is appropriate for themselves, not to criticize the choices others have made.

Stating that there are odds to consider is hardly criticism. There are odds associated with EVERYTHING we do, and we most certainly do pay close attention to those odds in our everyday life, even if it is mostly unconscious.


Driving a car is statistically the most dangerous thing most of us will EVER do. Yet we do it anyway because, even though it's dangerous, the odds of a problem on any given day are small. Small enough that we chance it. Some of us carry a gun because, even though the odds are small, we might need it and so we figure it worth the effort. However, there is an event of such incredible unlikelihood that we no longer feel the need to prepare for it. I have no particular preparations for a gang war breaking out in my town, for example, since there is no significant gang activity within 50 miles of me.

Many of us believe that the likelihood of needing reloads in a SD situation is so astronomically small as to be insignificant. That is not criticism of those who carry spare ammo, even if I find it unnecessary. I, and many others, simply choose not to prepare for an event that is unlikely to EVER happen, say nothing of happen to me personally.

[The Terminator]

Donn_N,
I agree with you whole heartedly.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's a misuse of the term 'insignificant' - standards for statistical significance imply that you make an error at a rate that is usually with a p = .05, .01 or even .001.

Thus, depending on your error - you choose the chance of not having enough ammo in a small percentage of the time.

With very large numbers of event - that small error rate can generate a small but noticeable set of events. The Omaha mall (IIRC) is a case in point.

I know that twice in my life, I faced a car with 5 or 6 BGs. Avoidance worked but a J frame would be a little light in that case.

Given that I carry a J and a reload sometimes because it is convenient but with a known risk.

This is really a silly argument if one says this or that is the way to go.

Basically:

1. Most carry for the single mugger deterrent event.
2. Very, very small risk you get into an intensive event - Mumbai, church, mall or school rampage. If you choose not to have a best chance in this one, that's your decision but it is not foolish to consider these Black Swan event.

[Deaf Smith]

I can site several cases where civilians winchestered their defensive handguns and ended up with empty ones. An easy example is Lance Thomas. He had that happen TWICE (his third gunfight he had several large cal. autos hidden around his shop.)

Now alot of defensive use of guns involves just the display of the weapon. A minority involve actual shots fired. But their are definatly some who end up shooting the contents of their weapon and having to reload or run.

And for those that say they never felt undergunned, well have you actually used it to defend yourself where actual gunfire was needed? Do that first before you feel so confident with just a J frame .38.

[easyG]

Everyone plays the odds, even those who choose high-cap handguns....

If you choose to carry a Glock 17 without a reload, you're banking on the odds than you will not need 19 rounds.

And if you choose to carry a Glock 17 with an extra magazine, then you're banking on the odds that you will not need 36 rounds.

I'm banking on the odds that I will not need more than 5 rounds.


We're all playing the odds.
But I'm playing the odds while carrying a 17 ounce handgun.
Some are playing the odds while carrying about 40 ounces of handgun and extras on them....which is way too much weight to lug around for me.

[ImprobableJoe]

Stating that there are odds to consider is hardly criticism. There are odds associated with EVERYTHING we do, and we most certainly do pay close attention to those odds in our everyday life, even if it is mostly unconscious.


Driving a car is statistically the most dangerous thing most of us will EVER do. Yet we do it anyway because, even though it's dangerous, the odds of a problem on any given day are small. Small enough that we chance it. Some of us carry a gun because, even though the odds are small, we might need it and so we figure it worth the effort. However, there is an event of such incredible unlikelihood that we no longer feel the need to prepare for it. I have no particular preparations for a gang war breaking out in my town, for example, since there is no significant gang activity within 50 miles of me.

Many of us believe that the likelihood of needing reloads in a SD situation is so astronomically small as to be insignificant. That is not criticism of those who carry spare ammo, even if I find it unnecessary. I, and many others, simply choose not to prepare for an event that is unlikely to EVER happen, say nothing of happen to me personally.

Amen brother. The odds of even needing a handgun for SD are small. The odds of needing a few extra rounds and not being able to reload are even smaller. The odds that a few extra-capacity mags are going to make the difference is even smaller than that.

Knowing that, I have actually had people claim in all seriousness that they needed the extra rounds in case of being attacked by a medium-sized street gang in their own home... which is pretty much a scenario that only exists in those old Charles Bronson movies!

BTW, if you're even in Florida I'll hook you up with a couple of pizzas to kill... :D:D:D

[thesecond]

I always liked this quote:

"It's not about the odds, it's about the stakes."

[ImprobableJoe]

I always liked this quote:

"It's not about the odds, it's about the stakes."I wonder about that... if the stakes are so high, wouldn't it be better to pick a safer "game"?

At some point, it should become less about being prepared for a situation, and more about avoiding that situation. Maybe you can't avoid a mugging, or a home invasion... but I would think you could almost certainly avoid a prolonged gunfight with multiple attackers?

I remember long ago, back in the 1980s, reading one of the more popular gun-enthusiast magazines... it might have been Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement. Anyhoo, the guy writing the article made a comment along the lines of "if you need more than six shots, you need to call for backup." Like other people here, I wouldn't fault anyone for carrying more if convenient, but I just have a hard time understanding why.

[thesecond]

One should carry what one feels necessary.

Improbable, Joe? Perhaps one doesn't wish to play, but the 'game' may find him, nevertheless. Thus, the 'stakes' can be high, even where one makes all the decisions necessary to minimize the 'odds' of risk.

Folks wouldn't be here, if they thought a 'call for back-up' were, in all cases, so readily available, and .... timely. (Fortunately, they needn't make you understand before proceeding to decide what's best for them.)

[bababooey32]

This thread is maddening!! I cannot for the life of me understand the argument that carrying a 5 shot weapon is somehow inherently smarter than a higher cap weapon. The marginal cost (in weight, effort, size, money etc.) of carrying the extral ammo is virtually nil. The potential benefit is orders of magnitude larger than said miniscule cost (even if the probability of realizing that benefit is also miniscule). Given the stakes (your life, loved ones' etc.) it seems silly to argue that fewer shots is better than more shots.

If I could, with any certainty, tell you [I]why I might need XX rounds, I could certainly avoid that situation and therefore need 0 rounds (making the case for carrying AT ALL null and void). But I cannot, with any certsainty, tell you when, where, or how many rounds I will need. Given that uncertainty it seems best to be prepared for the worst.

Note that I am not criticizing one's choice NOT to carry extra ammo, I am criticizing the argument that it is a superior strategy to carrying extra. It is demonstrably not: There is no situation you can handle with 5 shots that I will be prevented from handling because of my higher capacity. There are situations I can handle with my higher capacity that you cannot handle with 5 shots.

[erwos]

Someone made an interesting observation, which was that, hey, 20 rounds might not be enough, either. At some point, you've got to draw the line at what you can carry comfortably. Tempting as it is to some of you to carry a combat knife, BUG, and regular CCW, plus a rifle on your back and two extra mags for all of them, it's just not going to be a reasonable option for day to day usage unless your job is "prosecute the war in Iraq or Afghanistan".

Much as I hate to say it, if you find yourself in a situation where 10-15 rounds isn't enough, you're almost certainly screwed even if you had reloads.

[bababooey32]

Much as I hate to say it, if you find yourself in a situation where 10-15 rounds isn't enough, you're almost certainly screwed even if you had reloads.

If you find yourself in a situation where you need 1 round, you may very well be screwed...so maybe leaving the gun at home is best?

All else equal, more rounds are better than fewer rounds. Yes, I am not going to wear a tactical vest and carry 12 magazines, but if I have a choice between 2 guns of similar size, why would I choose the one with fewer rounds (again - all else equal)?

[erwos]

If you find yourself in a situation where you need 1 round, you may very well be screwed...so maybe leaving the gun at home is best?
If you can't tell the difference between the kind of situation that requires five rounds to be fired and the kind of situation that requires fifty, I'm really not sure what to say to you. But just to give an example: if you get jumped by a dozen gang members, it's probably not going to matter if you've got 15 or 50 rounds.

All else equal, more rounds are better than fewer rounds. Yes, I am not going to wear a tactical vest and carry 12 magazines, but if I have a choice between 2 guns of similar size, why would I choose the one with fewer rounds (again - all else equal)?
Except all things aren't equal. Smaller capacities at least imply a smaller gun, and those have some of their own advantages in terms of concealment and "carry-ability", if I could invent a word. The bigger the gun, the less likely someone is to carry it on a regular basis.

[bababooey32]

If you can't tell the difference between the kind of situation that requires five rounds to be fired and the kind of situation that requires fifty

I can't tell which situation I'm going to get into. Like I said, If I knew, I wouldn't get into it. It is scary that you think you know. More rounds isn't only for more BGs. Could be a malfunction, could be that you're simply pinned down and have no escape. Who knows? I'd rather have 18 rounds left in my gun and not need them then only have 5 and wish I had 6.

Except all things aren't equal. Smaller capacities at least imply a smaller gun, and those have some of their own advantages in terms of concealment and "carry-ability", if I could invent a word. The bigger the gun, the less likely someone is to carry it on a regular basis.

I understand (and I invent words all the time! :D)...I'll put it to you this way: Why carry a 6 or 7 shot SW686 when you can carry a 19+1 XDm (assuming you are comfortable with both and can shoot both well)? Sizes are similar, unloaded weight is advantage XDm. I understand that extra ammo = extra weight, but I've already decided to carry around an extra 2lbs, what's a few more bullets, really? I cannot compare the loaded XDm to a Scandium snub-nose .38 or a seecamp - I understand that tradeoff, and I make that tradeoff myself (pocket carry an LCR when necessary).

There is no 1 right answer for what to carry, but the maxim that "more is better" (relative to capacity) should be applied when weighing the choices.

[matolman1]

Ladies and Gentleman, you carry a spare magazine not solely for the reason that you might be attacked by a mob of people and will need all of the ammo during the fight.

You also carry a spare magazine because your primary magazine might be ejected during an attack where the enemy is able to press your magazine release and your magazine drops to the floor.

For instance, in a fight that is within zero distance between you and the attacker (or in a retention scenario), the attacker might/will try and wrestle your firearm away.

If he/she or you manages to accidently press the mag release, your better have a backup to reload with.

if not, your gun is simply a paperweight or a club.

So, to review...
You carry a spare magazine for 2 reasons:
1) Extra ammunition in case the fight is prolonged or you need to engage multiple attackers (and yes, in a combat situation, 18 rounds in a glock goes real fast)
2) In case your primary magazine fails or is ejected during a close engagement



Ben Goldstein
Head Instructor

Israeli Protective Service LLC
&
IsraeliCombatTraining.com

www.israeliprotectiveservice.com

www.israelicombattraining.com

[thesecond]

I agree that more rounds is better, all else being equal.

On the choices, I MIGHT take a 686 4" barrel (with speed loaders) and 180grains of lead semi-wad cutter hollow point OVER a grip safety XD. If there's more than six (with guns themselves), you're likely gonna take some hits. But the ones in front .... crazy devastating injuries.

[ImprobableJoe]

One should carry what one feels necessary.

Improbable, Joe? Perhaps one doesn't wish to play, but the 'game' may find him, nevertheless. Thus, the 'stakes' can be high, even where one makes all the decisions necessary to minimize the 'odds' of risk.

Folks wouldn't be here, if they thought a 'call for back-up' were, in all cases, so readily available, and .... timely. (Fortunately, they needn't make you understand before proceeding to decide what's best for them.) :D

The minute that you have to fight off an entire gang of criminals by yourself, you email me and let me know, OK?

[bababooey32]

I MIGHT take a 686 4" barrel (with speed loaders) and 180grains of lead semi-wad cutter hollow point OVER a grip safety XD. If there's more than six (with guns themselves), you're likely gonna take some hits.

Or you could use 19+1 124g +P JHPs and just stop them all!!! :D

[csmsss]

Sweet baby Jebus. I can't believe y'all are arguing over this. Carry what you want, with however many reloads/spare magazines you want/can carry. How hard is that?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The gang of people is a rare event - it is a Black Swan event - but it can happen as can a high intensity gun fight.

Reginald Denney - a one in a million event but it happened to him.

Being in a mall rampage as the officer was in Omaha with limited ammo.

Being in a school shooting with more than one attacker (Columbine and Jonesboro) with the fight being at some distance.

Having a car full of racists, hooligans, or whatever decide to come for you. Seen that twice.

So rather than dismiss the risk - it is better to say that it is a small risk and you choose to not to worry about that one. But to say, it can't happen is foolish.

Also, it is not hard with modern equipment to carry a semi with an extra mag or two and be comfortable.

Thus, the odds argument as presented here is usually a misinterpretation of statistics and risk analysis. You set a reasonable criterion and stick with it.

The reasonable level is usually a primary and a reload. Dress can suggest the J frame or a speed loader but it's not hard to do a reasonable semi and a mag.

You probably will never need any of these.

[matolman1]

You always carry the spare for the reasons I listed. You do not "simply carry whatever you want" as this will lead you to lazyness and you will not end up carrying a spare magazine.
"2 is 1 and 1 is none"

You must be disciplined and carry for the worst case (realistic worst case) scenario.
This does not mean (obviously) that you walk around with a level III vest on, full combat load and an M203. Rather, you carry for the event that you will have to fend off a gang or an active shooter that is better equipped than you.

[csmsss]

You always carry the spare for the reasons I listed. You do not "simply carry whatever you want" as this will lead you to lazyness and you will not end up carrying a spare magazine.
"2 is 1 and 1 is none"Don't recite dogma as established fact. Of course it's better to have a spare magazine, but suggesting that not having one is equivalent to having no firearm whatsoever is ludicrous.

[armsmaster270]

It is if your Mag malfunctions. But I always dress for the worse case scenario.

[csmsss]

It is if your Mag malfunctions. But I always dress for the worse case scenario. For the record, I carry four magazines whenever possible, so obviously that is my own personal bias as well - but I object to the inference that a firearm without a reload is equivalent to no firearm at all.

[thesecond]

Also, a spare mag for mag-related 'failures'. (armsmaster270 and Mr. Goldstein beat me to it, but it's probably been mentioned, can't even remember .... :( .... :D)

What I don't understand is how one comes up with a reason NOT to carry an extra mag (where one already has decided to wear from 6-7 oz. up to and above 30-40 oz. of rectangle, and where an extra magazine is only an additional fraction of that volume and weight) OR a speed loader, strip, or some 'loose change' (in the case of revolvers).

What other items or reasons would take precedence? A flashlight? A candy-bar? A sippy cup? Not wanting to look fat in those pants?

(This thread's been done so many, many times. Next time, I'll let it digress and die a natural death.)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well said, Mister Goldstein.

:)

[matolman1]

"Don't recite dogma as established fact. Of course it's better to have a spare magazine, but suggesting that not having one is equivalent to having no firearm whatsoever is ludicrous"

ludicrous is a strong word.

A person who devotes his life to the "combat mindset" and makes every effort to be ready for when the inevitable violent confrontation occurs (it might never happen but it might also happen as soon as you step outside your door) will automatically undertstand the concept of "2 is 1 and 1 is none".

It is not a ridicule to someone who chooses to carry a pistol with no spare magazine. It is simply a fact that said person is making a conscious decision to NOT carry something that can be absolutely vital to his life when the need arises. That person is not truly in the zone necessary to overcome the infamous Mr. Murphy when his ugly head arises.

Instead of being absolutley ready and confident that he can handle the situation if his magazine gets ejected from his firearm or he is attacked by multiple armed assailents or is faced with an aggressive active shooter armed with an AR15 and 10 magazines, he is 'OK' with the bare minimum needed to make him feel comfortable in a low intensity fast attack scenario.

He knows all of the statistics and reads over and over again how "most gunfights last a few seconds" and the "majority of the time the person attacked never changes his magazine due to running out of ammunition from his primary magazine."

To this person I say "Please come and hear the reasons why we always carry a spare magazine." This person needs to make a decision right now.

Question: Why are you carrying a firearm?

Answer: To protect myself and my family from violent life threatining attack

Question: What if you are attacked from close range/point zero and your attacker, while grabbing for your firearm to take it away from you, manages to eject your magazine from your firearm?

Answer: I better have the ability to make my firearm useful and the only way this will happen is if I am able to reload it with a spare magazine.

The answer is obvious to those that care to see it. To those with a true real world combat mindset, the answer is plain as day.

Bottom line: You are either ready for the Unexpected worst case scenario or you are not.

I apologize for the long post but this is a very important aspect to daily carry that I feel folks need to take more seriously.

I promised myself that my last words of my life will never be "I wish I had more ammo" or "I wish I was carrying my pistol on me today."

[sm]

Be the "firstest" with the "mostest" - General Nathan Bedford Forrest

Perhaps we need to consider being the "firstest" and "mostest" with ADEE?

Talking with The Indians

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2005/03_StudyDay.htm

Avoid, Disengage, Escape and Example

Yes, wear the darn gun!
Just perhaps not everything defaults to gun, or is best handled by gun or one is going to be able to have gun.
Keeping in mind NPEs (non permissive [weapon] environments).

If you are not where trouble is in the "firstest" place, disengage using interpersonal and social skills "firstest"/ "mostest" , escape "firstest /mostest" keeping in mind "tailgunners" , then vacate the venue thus evading 'firstest/mostest", then the threat was stopped, without having to go to gun.

Being the realist I am, handguns are not magic talismans, no matter what or caliber they are, or type of ammunition they are using.
Anything mechanical, can and will break, and will do so at the worst possible moment.
There will always be more VCAs than one can have ammunition contained in a firearm and have spare ammunition for.


Case in point.
Three VCAs, two with visible guns and one of these two pointed a gun at me just as I pulled into a parking place.

This incident exploded the instant I pulled in to park.

I have a CCW, with 10 rounds, two spare mags, and that day I had a shotgun behind the seat, as I had been out and about running errands, and picking up/delivering this shotgun if you will was with me.

I backed up the truck, got distance, took cover, observed, and took notes on my hand with pen.
Then after the threats left, I made sure the scene was kept clean (not disturbed) , everyone was alright, until officers arrived, then I had pertinent information and shared 'scripts, license tags, and everything else.

Others were in storefronts , or on the sidewalk just gawking while all this played out.







Mister Goldstein, excellent post sir!

[Brian Pfleuger]

That's a misuse of the term 'insignificant' - standards for statistical significance imply that you make an error at a rate that is usually with a p = .05, .01 or even .001.

It's only a misuse if the percentage of needing a reload rises above that threshold. Admittedly, I cannot show that it doesn't rise above that level but I've heard of virtually no civilians incidents that actually REQUIRED a reload. Just because someone DID reload doesn't mean they NEEDED a reload. They may have fired 10 shots when 1 would have done, or any number of other possibilities.

[Hkmp5sd]

It is quite simple: Carry what you think you need.

It is you that gets to live (or not) with that decision.

[Deaf Smith]

Avoid, Disengage, Escape

No no no!!!

Find'em, Fix'em, Fight'em, and Finish'em.

I like that better:-)

[J.Netto]

Find'em, Fix'em, Fight'em, and Finish'em.

= Prison :eek:

[Deaf Smith]

Not if you can't retreat! And in many states you HAVE to retreat if you can safely do so. But in Texas, you can stand your ground if you did not provoke the attack.

The 4Fs come from the U.S. Army.

[easyG]

This thread is maddening!! I cannot for the life of me understand the argument that carrying a 5 shot weapon is somehow inherently smarter than a higher cap weapon.
The marginal cost (in weight, effort, size, money etc.) of carrying the extral ammo is virtually nil.
I disagree that the cost is marginal or virtually nil.
I've tried to CC a larger high cap pistol many times before, and sooner or later, it gets left behind in favor of a lighter-weight and smaller gun.

Going for a little 3 mile jog?
Walking and playing on the beach?
A friendly game of basketball?
A day of rock-climbing and rappelling on the local mountain?
White-water rafting?
Mountain-biking?
Dancing with your girl?
ect...

All of these activities are much better performed with a 5-shot 17 oz snubbie in the pocket, rather than a high-cap autoloader and extra magazines.

As I have said before, I've been down the I'm-going-to-carry-a-high-capacity-handgun-and-extra-magazines-just-in-case road before.....it gets old real fast.
And sooner or later, the larger heavier load gets left behind.
Not to mention that revolvers are simply more reliable than autoloaders.

[Zilmo]

Some of you guys scare me...

[sm]

It is good to be scared sometimes, as that means one is thinking.

Deaf Smith and I are on the same page more than some may think.

I have been discussing "thinking", "shooting", "both" in private with some folks. Which would be better discussed in a roundtable versus online.


Still you gotta know the legal of where you are.
What many J.Q.Public's forget, especially those new to Concealed Carry, is the legal, and the differences in Professionals and Private Sector.

It makes no difference what Texas laws are if you reside , or are visiting Wisconsin, or Maryland for instance.
Nor does it matter what those in the Military or in Law Enforcement "do" if you are J.Q.Public.

Professionals are trained to run toward Serious.

Conceal Carry license/permit for J.Q.Public/Private sector does not mean, one has a license/permit to "Wyatt Earp" and you sure do not get the backing of a Law Enforcement Agency or Uncle Sam.

I am not that old, just started really young. As time has gone on, especially more recent, I see a lot of new Conceal Carry folks share some attitudes and thinking that could use some serious adjustments.

A jury of your peers does not mean twelve persons that are exactly like you.
If you want to really know what the law is on criminal cases, sit in on one.
It might surprise you as to what is the law, and educate you on definitions and interpretations of the law.

[Nnobby45]

Since my "enemy" could do such a thing am I supposed to plan for it? I think that would be a little ridiculous. The sane and sensible citizen HAS GOT TO DRAW THE LINE, SOMEWHERE.

The statistics of past incidents help us to make an informed decision on WHERE to draw the line.If not, we'd all be driving armored humvees and wearing body armor with the wife as the gunner on the 50.


Just a few months ago we had the exact same argument going on for page after page. P. Killa seems to have a lot invested in his argument that, since the odds are against needing one, it isn't necessary to carry a reload.

His call, but no matter what gun you carry, you're better armed if you have the means to reload. And for more than one reason.

As has been pointed out, averages take in stats from both extremes.

Want to play averages? Don't carry a gun because the odds are very much in your favor of not ever needing it. What are those odds? Don't know, but probably about the same as for all the many thousands of Americans who needed one anyway even though the odds said they wouldn't.:cool: Same with reloads.

Don't want to carry a reload? Well, don't carry one and give the rest of us a break.:p

[Sarge]

Last week I went on a dogbite call & couldn't locate either the dogs or the person bitten. I wound up searching for both on foot and eventually located the bitten kid and his folks.

They were soon to get quite a show. I heard snarling and barking off to my left rear and as I turned to face the racket, I saw two large dogs charging me at full speed from the middle of the street. A big Pit Bull was in the lead with a big brown Shepherd mix coming alongside and damn, they were coming fast! As they closed the remaining 20 feet the Pit had lowered its body, preparing to lunge.

I drew my issue Glock 22 and yelled ‘STOP!’ as I blocked the sights on bottom of the Pit Bull’s chest- a smaller target than it sounds like. There was no time to do anything but shoot and I found myself shooting one-handed. At 12 feet I fired two shots, which made it flinch but did not stop the charge. I compensated for the dog’s movement and triggered two more shots. It then started yelping, bleeding and flipping around the yard like a porpoise. It was apparent that the dog was mortally wounded and still suffering, so I shot it once more through the shoulders. The other dog decided discretion was the better part of valor, and had evaporated into thin air.

I estimate the time from threat recognition, until the last shot was fired, at five seconds tops. My cursory examination of the dog revealed at least three holes in its front chest and shoulders, and the finisher which exited behind the off-shoulder. The load was 165 grain Golden Saber.

Sometime after the melee, it occurred to me that I could have stopped the first dog about as well with my little 5-shot SP101; but if the second dog had pressed the attack with the determination of the first, I would have been screwed. A few extra rounds on board can be a real comforting thing- whether you need them or not.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Just a few months ago we had the exact same argument going on for page after page. P. Killa seems to have a lot invested in his argument that, since the odds are against needing one, it isn't necessary to carry a reload.

Apparently, the "investment" goes both ways, as I see your still making your argument also.



Don't want to carry a reload? Well, don't carry one and give the rest of us a break.

It's really quite interesting that, in both threads regarding this topic, certain members of the "high capacity" crowd are the ones telling the others to essentially "Shut up and go away."

I've personally stated numerous times that anyone who wants to carry a reload should go right ahead and do so. I've also never once told anyone that they should stop discussing their opinions.



Here's another interesting twist (which was also addressed in the other thread):

Who's better armed? The guy with the 5 shot snubbie and 4 reloads or the guy with the 18 shot Glock and NO reloads? If "capacity" matters, then the guy with the snubbie is better off. Except for the dang reload time. Since logic dictates that the same capacity with no reloads should be better, well, I guess all the pro-capacity guys also advocate carrying nothing but high-cap autos?



One other thing: Two threads running over several months time, I've still never seen a single actual link to an incident wherein a civilian actually NEEDED a reload.

[skydiver3346]

You will not be "undergunned" if you are carrying a (5) shot .38 special pistol, (especially if they are +P's.).

Of course you can carry many more rounds in an automatic which is fine. But really, no one can say you are undergunned with (5) rounds. Most altercations take place within 7 yards or closer. Certainly even a 2" barrel snubbie with quality ammo (plus practice with any SD gun you will be carrying) should be sufficient to keep you well protected.

[armsmaster270]

It didn't work for an off duty Sacramento Sheriff's Deputy he emptied his snub nose into an armed robber's chest. then the robber buttstroked him killing the deputy. Robber then left premises and fell through a plate glass window and expired. deputy was using 158 LSWCHP's issue ammo fo the day.

[skydiver3346]

Yeah, maybe so armsmaster270, but I bet that that guy is certainly an unusual "freak of nature" to take (5) 158 grain bullets in the chest and keep on going. I find that very hard to believe. Did he have a vest on or what?
That is the FBI load and certainly should have put him down. Weird!

Anyway, I certainly feel well protected with my S&W model 442 that I carry all the time now.

[pax]

Deaf ~

The legal right to stand your ground does NOT give you the right to hunt down an opponent, nor to finish him off once he has stopped being an immediate threat to innocent life -- even in Texas. And the rules of engagement under which the US Army operates are considerably different from those under which ordinary citizens must labor.

Moderator request:

Please take it over to the "morals" thread if you want to debate anything related to that point, as it doesn't really belong in this thread in any case.

Thanks,

pax

[Deaf Smith]

Pax,

The 4 Fs were the U.S. Army. No one is searching out any bad guys to confront.

In self defense to be attacked ... well you have 'found them' (and you know who is the bad gun and who is not.) Indicators, if you are alert, will give you the tip off.

Once you defend yourself you fix their position .vs. yours (and if you are wise, you move the most advantagious position you can.), i.e. fix them.

Then actual use of self defense techniques, weither H2H or gun or whatever, you 'fight them'.

And once you have stopped them is to 'finish them'. That is the fight is over. Hopfully you can just incapasitate them long enough for the police to come.

[easyG]

It didn't work for an off duty Sacramento Sheriff's Deputy he emptied his snub nose into an armed robber's chest. then the robber buttstroked him killing the deputy. Robber then left premises and fell through a plate glass window and expired. deputy was using 158 LSWCHP's issue ammo fo the day.
Perhaps the deputy should have emptied his snubbie into the robber's head.

After all, he was within "butt-stroke" range, which is plenty close enough for headshots.

[Donn_N]

You also carry a spare magazine because your primary magazine might be ejected during an attack where the enemy is able to press your magazine release and your magazine drops to the floor.


I see this as the ideal situation for a BUG, not a spare magazine. If you are in a life and death struggle over your gun, I simply can't see the BG letting go of the gun and giving you time to reload. Now that I think of it, it also sounds like a great argument for carrying a revolver. A hand over the cylinder may stop the cylinder from rotating, but if you manage to regain full control, the revolver will still be able to fire its full complement of rounds.

[JohnKSa]

Two threads running over several months time, I've still never seen a single actual link to an incident wherein a civilian actually NEEDED a reload.I can only think of two off the top of my head.

Not exactly a typical incident, but the Harry Beckwith shooting involved his reloading an AR15 once, running the second mag dry and then emptying two mags from his S&W 76.

Lance Thomas didn't believe in reloads, he stashed guns at various key points in his jewelry shop where he could access them easily. When he ran dry he would simply drop the empty gun and access another one. He emptied 2 guns and accessed a third in his second shooting. In his third shooting he had to transition to a second gun after the first jammed on the third shot. In his fourth and final shooting, he emptied one gun and transitioned to a second.

I wouldn't say it's common, but it does happen.

[Throne Raider]

New guy here with a twist to throw into the discussion. I'm recently retired LE who made a few enemies on the job and CC for, among other reasons, specific threats on my life. I carry a Glock 27 at all times. Here's the twist. I often travel with wife and two daughters, all of whom know I carry and are ALL reasonably competent with MY Glock in case I become incapacitated and they need help! How many on here are depending solely on themselves to handle the emergency? If you engage and possibly promote a further threat to yourself, you're also promoting that threat on your loved ones. You better make damn sure that they are okay with this, selfish not to think otherwise, and if so, can they protect themselves if you're down? Food for thought.

Along the same vein, if my rotweiler security fails me at home, I have made sure that my wife and kids know the location of stash guns and how to use them.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I can only think of two off the top of my head.

These are compelling arguments for being prepared for a fight. Personally, I wouldn't put them under the "carry capacity" argument, especially Beckwith. The amount of ammo and/or guns I would keep available if I was in a "dangerous" business or had a history of trouble is different, in my mind, than what I feel the need for during a trip Wal*Mart.

Even so, if a staggering 100 people a year actually die in SD incidents due to lack of ammo, it would still make the odds low beyond comprehension. Which goes to my original point that everyone of us, whether we acknowledge it or not, draws a line in the sand and says "I will not prepare beyond this level." and we use the odds we have calculated, consciously or not, to make that decision and that there comes a point, somewhere, that even the most prepared amongst us says "Now, wait a minute, that's a little overboard."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In teaching stat - we teach a couple of decision/risk cutoffs.

The dreaded .05 or .01 level - standard stuff.

It seems we have two common levels here:

1. The J frame and that's it.

2. The semi and a mag or two.

The J with a speedloader is kind of .025, it would seem

So pick it and call it a night.

[Chindo18Z]

My .02 from a recent thread about the same topic:

Personally, I like to carry at least one reload (whether revolver, pistol, rifle, or shotgun). On the rare occasions I haven't, I've had a nagging feeling of unease akin to driving without my seatbelt fastened. It's a personal thing and not a hard and fast rule.

However, I'll throw this out with regards to semi-auto pistols...

I have been in a ground fight where the magazine in my CCW holstered pistol was ejected onto the pavement and out of reachable recovery. At that point, I was down to one round (in the chamber), which I briefly considered using.

For that reason alone, I always carry at least one extra magazine (and refuse to carry any semi-auto with a functioning magazine disconnector).

Might that single round have sufficed? Maybe...maybe not. Is a grappling match statistically more likely than a gunfight? I think so.

I prefer a reload. YMMV.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Good point - Chindo - but someone will say - when has that ever happened to a civilian?

I had a polymer holster for my Glock and it had a touch of flex in it. I'm left handed and the gun moved enough when I sat down in the car sometimes that the edge of the holster pressed the mag release and ejected the mag down under the seat.

The holster is now in the box o' holsters in the closet. Wasn't a fight but I could see moving out or in to the car and the mag flopping away or even unseating for nonfunctioning and dropping out.

[Brian Pfleuger]

For that reason alone, I always carry at least one extra magazine (and refuse to carry any semi-auto with a functioning magazine disconnector).

Good point - Chindo - but someone will say - when has that ever happened to a civilian?

Won't be me. That's a completely different scenario. Different, at least to me, than "having enough bullets" After all, in such a situation it wouldn't matter if your magazine held 6 or 600 rounds, what you need is a new magazine not more bullets.

If there are ANY legitimate reasons to be concerned about carrying an extra magazine, the reasons of clearing a jam or losing the primary are far and away the best reasons.

The question is whether or not the odds of needing it are enough to make me care enough to do it. For me, it's not. It's STILL about the odds.

[Hkmp5sd]

It's STILL about the odds.

Then why do you bother carrying a gun at all? The odds are drastically stacked against you ever needing to have a CCW to protect yourself. You are more likely to be hit by lightning.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've been hit by lightning and so I will carry extra ammo. That's as sensible a reason as those postulated in rationalizing why they don't.

[Brian Pfleuger]

It truly blows my mind how much trouble people have understanding this.

It's not JUST the odds.

It's not JUST the stakes.

It's not JUST the convienance, or lack thereof.

It's ALL of those things.

I carry a gun because:

1) I have one.

2) I can.

3) I want to.

I fully expect to never need it. Fully. I don't get scared if I leave the house without it. I don't wonder if today will be the day.

I don't carry reloads or a bug or a flashlight or a tazer. Why?

1)Dont want to.

2)Don't have a bug or a Tazer ( I know, how do I sleep at night?)

3)Don't want to buy them.

4) I see no need.

I don't live in some inner city slum. I don't live even remotely close to anything resembling a "bad neighborhood". I don't even live in a place where a simple burglary is common. I know, lots of people on TFL just live "near" some bad areas, or travel through them. Maybe some people live in areas where these things "sometimes happen". I don't, and it seems like some people don't realize that there even ARE places where crime is exceedingly rare. Murders, muggings, robbery, rape... These things are measured by the decade here and if they weren't I'd leave.

So, you see, not everybody thinks in terms of SHTF scenarios. Could it? Might I die from my appalling lack of preparedness? Yep. I'll take the chance because... really, there are some things that are just beyond the probabilities I care about. Even carrying a gun. Yep, really. I don't carry because I think I'll need it. I carry because I can.

Maybe, someday, I'll be one a the VERY few people who have lived through a situation that will have me saying "Damn, I need a BUG from now on." then again maybe I won't live through it. I'll take my chances.

[Doc Intrepid]

We all take chances every day, just by rolling out of bed each morning.

I carry two J-frames on a Harley, one in the outside left pocket of my riding jacket in a DeSantis pocket holster, the other in the left inside pocket. Same sort of approach - it works both ways:

1. I own two J-frames.

2. I can.

3. I want to.

I don't dick around with reloads for J-frames because when I'm wearing riding gloves they're like 5-shot derringers - reloading them with gloves on under fire would be a freak show. I carry two because

1. It's a lot faster to just pull a second J-frame than try to reload the first.

2. Ten rounds of .38 Spl is preferable to five rounds of .38 Spl.

3. I might drop one.

4. I want to.

On the bike I'm rarely in one neighborhood twice, so previous environmental parameters don't mean squat.

I don't ponder probabilities because from my POV they're irrelevant. I've lived long enough to recognize that sometimes crap just happens.

I carry because no one else is more responsible for my own safety than I am. Additionally, incidents in my life have made it clear to me that there are some serious morons in the world, and they move in random patterns, and you don't know when your path may intersect one of them.

And you get further with a kind word and a .38 than with a kind word alone!

;)

So most of us have our own reasons for why we do what we do; they are not the same; and they may not make sense for other guys - but they make sense to us. And that's really all that matters.

[JohnKSa]

It truly blows my mind how much trouble people have understanding this.As it's a free country, "Don't wanna." is sufficient reason for choosing not to.

Of course in a discussion like this one, personal preference is pretty much pointless. It's silly for ME to make my decisions based on what you do or don't prefer. If I'm going to make a decision based on preference it will be based on my preference--or more likely on the preference of SWMBO. :D

Which means that the issue under discussion is really not whether or not person X should do Y, but rather it is WHY it might be a good or bad idea for person X to do Y.

Most people, if they're truly honest about it, would have to admit that they do the things they do mostly or entirely because they simply want to--because of personal preferences. The problem is that they also then typically rationalize the heck out of their "do/don't wanna" choices to make them seem like scientifically based, logically conceived and statistically sound choices instead of just preferences.

[The Terminator]

Peetzakilla said it the best that I have seen it put.

[Hkmp5sd]

Peetzakilla said It's STILL about the odds.

Peetzakilla said It's not JUST the odds.

The Terminator said Peetzakilla said it the best that I have seen it put.

No, Peetzakilla finally got POed and admitted that is was his personal preference that determines what he carrys, not the odds he may need it. The same thing being said by many others since the beginning, as currently said best by JohnSa:

JohnSa said It's silly for ME to make my decisions based on what you do or don't prefer. If I'm going to make a decision based on preference it will be based on my preference--

[Brian Pfleuger]

No, Peetzakilla finally got POed and admitted that is was his personal preference that determines what he carrys, not the odds he may need it.

No, he didn't. He said it's not JUST the odds, which is what he has always said. It most certainly does, and should, include the odds. Anyone who makes any decision about something important without some idea of success vs failure, life vs death, win vs lose is pretty foolish. The part that is "personal preference" is where you draw the line, what event is unlikely enough that you choose to ignore it. Make no mistake, we are all choosing to ignore events beyond some magnitude. For me, it's any event that requires more than 10 rounds. For others, it might be 20 or 30 or 50 rounds but there's still some threat that remains unaddressed. Why? The "Why?" is because, consciously or not, the guy who carries 50 rounds and a BUG has decided that threats that are unlikely enough to warrant force beyond that level are not worth preparing for.


It is interesting to me on one other level also. I wonder, out of all the guys who carry such a significant level of weaponry, do you also have 5-point harnesses and racing seats in your cars? Truth is, you are MANY magnitudes more likely to die in a car crash because the typical factory restraint system is not adequate to protect you than you are to ever need all those bullets. Racing seats and 5-point restraints are no more expensive than a gun, they require no continued expense (like target practice), they virtually never need to be replaced and they take only a few more seconds than a regular belt to fasten and unfasten.
I know we can all name some people who have been injured in car crashes, most all of us can name people that would have been injured less with a better restraint.

So:
1)Not prohibitively expensive.
2)Not too inconvenient, especially considering the "stakes".
3)Far more likely to be needed than a spare mag, high cap gun or a BUG.

If those three things are what it's about (which has been the general argument) then how many people have those installed in their cars?

If it's about "choice" then why would you choose to ignore something that is so astronomically more likely to help you than carrying all that gear, which you do not choose to ignore?

[Hkmp5sd]

For me, it is easy. It is called laziness. :) I am willing to undergo a certain amount of discomfort and inconvenience to carry a firearm for the off chance I may need to defend myself. I do not carry extra magazines, CS gas, tazers, batons or other non-lethal weapons, not because I think I may not need them, but because it would be a pain in the butt to carry those concealed in Florida with 100F weather. I do carry extra ammo in my vehicle.

[The Terminator]

I basically carry 3 calibers, and keep a box of each in the vehicle. I always have some type of large knife, and another in my BUG. I keep an extra magazine for the autos. I have some speed strips for the revolvers. I don't always have an extra mag or speed strips on me. I do keep 2 cans of US Army tear gas, it is mixed with capsicum, and whatever else is on the label. One fits on a key chain, the other I keep on the console of the van.

It is my idea that my handgun is for fighting my way back to my vehicle in a big confrontation, and for self defense when needed. In any type of civil unrest, riots or breakdown, if I can get back to my BUG, I have a better chance. When the Rodney King riots came to Atlanta, I carried my BUG, with food and water in it, into the office and back every day. I also had a shotgun with me, everyone else knew exactly what it was, and nobody ever said a word about it. We don't have riots and looting every day in my area, but it seems that some folks are always looking for a chance to have them. I am on the wrong side of town when driving often enough to keep extra things in the vehicle. I usually feel safe when in the building or other area that I am going to work that day. Like pk says, it is a mixture of convenience, calling the odds, and being happy with what you want to do.

[MLeake]

Sorry to ask a stupid question, but are we discussing BackUp Guns, or bug out kits? At least one post seemed to be in regard to a crisis kit of some sort. Not sure everybody is on the same page.

[The Terminator]

Since I started this thread, I think I am on same page as the op. :) Threads kind of morph into their own. We are talking about what we carry every day, how much or how little. I stated that I carry very little, but keep more things in the vehicle.

[MLeake]

... but wasn't sure if BUG had more than one common usage in firearms. Does BUG commonly refer to anything else?

Example of other acronyms that could mean multiple things: CDC

Center for Disease Control if you are a medical type.

Combat Direction Center if you've worked in operations on an aircraft carrier.

Climate Diagnostics Center if you work at NOAA.

Connected Device Configuration if you are a software engineer.

So how's that for a diverging thread? :)

[The Terminator]

Hey, you know what, I just miss typed my word. I was thinking BOB and typed BUG. Well... it happenes don't it. :D

[Deaf Smith]

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-16889_ITM

In Lance Thomas's first gunfight he had just a J .38 revolver. He missed two rounds and stopped the attacker with another shot to the face.

In his second gunfight he had 4 revolvers. The same J Smith .38, a Colt Python, a Smith & Wesson Model 19 Combat Magnum, and a Ruger Security-Six.

He stashed them around his business within easy reach. The three thugs opened fire on him without warning. He went through three of the revolvers. The Security Six, the J .38, and another .357. He fired 19 shots!

After that he went to simi-autos stashed around his business and two other gunfights.

Now if he had just the 5 shot .38 and no reload guess how gunfight number 2 would have ended?

So I suggest it's better to have and not need than to need and not have.

[Donn_N]

Now if he had just the 5 shot .38 and no reload guess how gunfight number 2 would have ended?

So I suggest it's better to have and not need than to need and not have.


First, I don't think that using someone who runs a business with a high robbery risk as an argument for carrying multiple reloads is valid. That is a totally different situation. Personally, in that situation, I'd be more likely to have shotguns stashed rather than handguns.

Second, in point of fact, he had no reloads. What he had was multiple loaded guns. I suspect that if he had a single gun with reloads that the outcome of those engagements where he used multiple weapons might have been different.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I don't ponder probabilities because from my POV they're irrelevant.

Yes you do. Everybody does. When you pull up to a stop sign and there's a car coming, how do you decide to go or wait?

It's the "chances" of getting hit by the car. If the cars is 500 yards away, your odds are darn near zero, so you pull out "without thinking about it", except you most certainly did think about it, it's just nearly instant, almost sub-conscious. Now, as that car gets closer, at some distance, you will eventually decide that you shouldn't pull out. Why? Because the "chances" of getting hit are too high. As the car approaches, the odds climb, 1%-2%-5%-20%, until eventually the car is in such a place that it could not maneuver or stop before hitting you. The odds are now 100%. Your brain automatically inputs any number of "fudge factors", you don't know if the driver is paying attention or half asleep, a 16 year old on their first lone drive or Jeff Gordon. So you don't "know" the odds, as in "the odds are now 20.38% that I'll be safe." but you most certainly do "know" the odds, you know when it's safe and when it's probably not safe.

We all do this every day, all day, pretty well non-stop. To deny it is to deny reality.

It applies equally to what you choose to carry. If you know nothing about crime, nothing about where you are, nothing about history, then you are operating on an entirely made up set of odds. You may think your safe when your not, and place yourself in real danger as a result, or you make think there's a real chance that you need to go through life with a kevlar helmet and flack jacket, looking like an idiot because your made up "chances" have you believing that you might need such things.

There is a truth somewhere in between.


We can simply ignore the odds entirely and carry whatever the heck we fancy, and that's all well and good, go right ahead, but we could be severely over burdening ourselves, and being way down the road of "diminishing returns". That's what the whole discussion is about, really, how far down that road of diminishing returns will you go?

Do nothing and be oblivious: prepared for 95% of every day life.
Pay attention and stay out of bad places: prepared for 99% of every day life
Pay attention, out of bad places, away from bad people: 99.5%
2 and 3 and carry pepper spray: 99.9%
2,3 and carry a gun: 99.99%
2,3,4 and carry reloads or a BUG, whatever: 99.999%


We could also choose to ignore or never learn the odds and be on the "oblivious" side of the argument. Believing that bad things don't happen to us, the police will protect us, guns are "scary", whatever. Then we could do stupid things like be in neighborhoods we shouldn't be in, hanging with people we shouldn't be with, doing things we shouldn't do... whatever, it's a long list of dangers we could put ourselves in.

We all use "odds". It's beneficial to have the right set.