Regarding carry capacity.

[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...

[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 [if not negligent] to argue that fewer shots is better than more shots.

If I could, with any certainty, tell you 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! )...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.)

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!!!

[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.