Do we need Hi-Capacity in everyday Carry?

[OldMarksman]

We take an extremely unlikely event - the use (not display) of deadly force.

How likely the event may be has nothing whatsoever to do with how many rounds may be needed in the event of occurrence.

We then cherry pick out specific case studies (so and so needed 40 rounds) and build our plans ...

"We"? Not I. Too many variables, too few data.

Better to employ simulation and analysis.

...while hiding behind some words and basic observations in statistics.

Hiding?

We give the allusion that doing so assures success

I have never come across anyone who has attempted that.

What’s the magic number of rounds of ammunition I need on me to guarantee I survive should the legitimate use of deadly force arises?

There is no number of rounds that will so guarantee.

There are other very important considerations.

[Brit]

Would not common sense indicate that the actual amount of rounds, present in the firearm
prior to a reload would be the major factor in surviving a self-defence episode?

Followed by the bullet design, and lethality of the bullet impact zone?

[Lohman446]

A factor. Perhaps. I’m not sure when major becomes the correct term. There are a lot of factors before round count - if there wasn’t the PM30 would likely be a benchmark. There is also a limit. For instance even the most “margin of error” argument doesn’t argue for 1000 rounds.

[44 AMP]

Would not common sense indicate that the actual amount of rounds, present in the firearm
prior to a reload would be the major factor in surviving a self-defence episode?

Of course! If there are no rounds present in the firearm it is something of major importance if the firearm is used defensively!

What one cannot do is equate a certain number of rounds with effectiveness.

One cannot truthfully say X number of rounds is enough. Because it simply isn't true all the time. For every example of when X number of rounds got the job done, you can find examples where that same number of rounds did NOT get the job done, and you can find examples where someone had X number of rounds in the gun, and only needed 1 or even none to successfully defend themselves.

Number of rounds held by the gun ALONE is not an important factor, likewise bullet design or "lethality of bullet impact zone" (which I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that..)

The purpose of defensive use of a firearm is to STOP a deadly threat. It is not to kill the attacker, but to make them STOP. IF they happen to die as a result of being stopped, that's their karma.

Due to the complexities of our legal system, and our language, stating that your intent was to kill (not stop, not defend yourself, but kill your attacker) could turn an otherwise valid self defense shooting into you being prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.

In this regard, how lethal a projectile or the bullet impact zone is, is irrelevant, what is important is how effective it is at STOPPING an attacker.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Boulder has that rap but isn't really any more 'anti gun' than the rest of the state.

Boulder is an open carry town(Denver city is NOT), has a GREAT gun store, is serviced by a GREAT Sheriff's department (my CCWP in 3 weeks)..I have not seen or heard of any anti gun anything since I returned in 1993..

I know 3 Boulder PD guys who are anything but 'antigun'...

But they still have a city ordinance banning magazines with a capacity larger than 10 rounds no? I know that Colorado limits mag capacity to 15, but Boulder went even further. Maybe the PD and Sheriff do not actively enforce those?

And if I am not mistaken they had a city ordinance banning "assault weapons" but State law preempted that.

Maybe I am wrong on this IDK, but yes, the city does have an "anti" reputation. Boulder is more than just the city, the county is very rural and mountainous and I am sure there is much less of an "anti" mentality in places like Netherlands.

[Brit]

44 AMP. below.

Quote. Number of rounds held by the gun ALONE is not an important factor, likewise bullet design or "lethality of bullet impact zone" (which I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that.) Shooting to stop?

Two rounds, centre chest I taught, (a Double Tap) Was quite often lethal. Especially with 9mm 147g hollow points. Shooting to stop was bandied about by defence lawyers when badgering Police Officers in Court.

"Did you not shoot to wound, but to kill, my Client, who was not even charged with a crime at that moment!"

"Yes I did, damm right I did, he had just shot my partner of 5 years, in the face, with a shotgun!" Remember, this was Canada before North America became bleeding hearts.

The word Lethality became a non-starter when headshots came into Police training.

I personally came under scrutiny, when I introduced the last two shots of my test being headshots! That was in 1980. The Staff Sgt. in charge of firearms training in Toronto, stated emphatically that the Student who delivered that headshot would be charged with murder, me also, for teaching him.

That died on the vine after they taught headshots from 2004. Toronto PD.

[Aguila Blanca]

Gentlemen -- This is the Semi-Automatic Handguns discussion area, not the Training and Tactics or the Law and Civil Rights discussion area. The topic of discussion is capacity. Let's stay on topic, please.

[Brit]

No one mentioned a coup de grâce on a downed assailant! Back in 1980, capacity was a huge factor in Police circles. As only revolvers were carried.
My training program was tied to capacity, and smooth reloads. In order to emphasise the way an S&W cylinder rotated, and to turn a test score into a number of rounds into a test result. Three full cylinders, = 18, first 6 rounds loaded by hand, next two, speed loaders. Last two, loaded by hand. Making twenty.

The SAS Canada target centre block was 6" across, wide that is. And 18" deep. All rounds to impact that area, at 5 points, equalled 100 points, or 100%.

I might respectively point out that capacity and lethality are twin concerns of any individual, who carries a handgun. Otherwise, why add sights?

A group who I rented my range too, for 16 years, came normally once a month. (Location was Canada) Armed with Browning High Powers. No idea what exercises, or were they train nowadays. But the last exercise of the day, 3 rounds at 15M, the target was suspended from a wire, not a target stand. Advance at speed, use a rather strange stopping motion, the range floor was smooth concrete. To avoid falling.

Last round fired at a 4" ballon, taped to the deck. It was just a static exercise, that emphasized extreme conditions, somewhere.

A group, highly trained, were attached to the NYPD (The stakeout squad) a long time ago, formed to combat murders committed by criminals in robberies, in the City. Headshots were taken, from cover. Handguns, Ithica 37 short shotguns, and I believe a .30 calibre carbine? It worked.

Back to the originally formed blog, discussing capacity I started a lot of pages ago. In my own case, my Pistol of choice, a Glock 19 4th gen.

Has shrunk to that fabulous 9mm Glock 43X for my EDC, night sights, and a spare magazine! 11 rounds. Enough? I don't know.

[OldMarksman]

Would not common sense indicate that the actual amount of rounds, present in the firearm prior to a reload would be the major factor in surviving a self-defence episode?

As 44AMP put it in his example, it would only be a "major" facor if it proved inadequate. An empty gun? Yes. A derringer? Could well be, but at some number, round count would not usually prove a major factor

Followed by the bullet design,....

Penetration is important, and bullet design is one of the facors that drive penetration.

....and lethality of the bullet impact zone?

.No.

Relatively few people die from handgun wounds, and those who do may still be able to deliver a lethal shot or a lethal strike with an edged weapon before they expire. That would not help with the defender's survival.

The "major factors", if avoidance and deescalation do not work, are (1) shooting before it is too late and (2) shooting effectively.

[Tactical Jackalope]

No man, they are still being made, even on sale for around $80:
Striker Control Device

https://taudevgroup.myshopify.com/pr...control-device

Sold out. When you hit the drop down menu for a Gen 3, it says so.

They're not responding to me either. *white flag* lol

[Kevin Rohrer]

You never need a hi-capacity pistol for SD carry, unless you are John McClain retaking the Nakatomi Building from Hans Gruber. For the rest of us, 9 (1911 in .45ACP) to 11-rounds (BHP in .40 cal) is more than enough.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by Tactical Jackalope

Sold out. When you hit the drop down menu for a Gen 3, it says so.

They're not responding to me either. *white flag* lol

man, that blows, I am sorry

[OldMarksman]

9 (1911 in .45ACP) to 11-rounds (BHP in .40 cal) is more than enough.

Usually.

[SATRP]

Hi Brit,

Tell me how many bad guys you might confront and conditions of confrontation, and I'll give you my opinion on whether you'll need standard capacity magazines.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Of course! If there are no rounds present in the firearm it is something of major importance if the firearm is used defensively!

What one cannot do is equate a certain number of rounds with effectiveness.

One cannot truthfully say X number of rounds is enough. Because it simply isn't true all the time. For every example of when X number of rounds got the job done, you can find examples where that same number of rounds did NOT get the job done, and you can find examples where someone had X number of rounds in the gun, and only needed 1 or even none to successfully defend themselves.

Number of rounds held by the gun ALONE is not an important factor, likewise bullet design or "lethality of bullet impact zone" (which I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that..)

The purpose of defensive use of a firearm is to STOP a deadly threat. It is not to kill the attacker, but to make them STOP. IF they happen to die as a result of being stopped, that's their karma.

Due to the complexities of our legal system, and our language, stating that your intent was to kill (not stop, not defend yourself, but kill your attacker) could turn an otherwise valid self defense shooting into you being prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.

In this regard, how lethal a projectile or the bullet impact zone is, is irrelevant, what is important is how effective it is at STOPPING an attacker.

I could not agree more with your well written and well though out post!

As a corollary we could also say that just because you have X number of rounds in your defensive pistol, that does not mean you have to spend all the rounds to STOP a threat.

As you say, as civilians we are legally only allowed to use enough lethal force to stop the threat, NOT TO KILL. Military duty is a different issue.

Thus the discussion should focus on how many rounds are necessary to stop a threat (by incapacitating it, or causing an attacker to flee or desist).

My EDC holds 9 + 1 in the chamber, I think this is enough (unless I ever have to face a whole gang of "Zetas").

[Brit]

My post #258.

A group, highly trained, were attached to the NYPD (The stakeout squad) a long time ago, formed to combat murders committed by criminals in robberies, in the City. Headshots were taken, from cover. Handguns, Ithica 37 short shotguns, and I believe a .30 calibre carbine? It worked.

I wonder how many of this group were prosecuted for Manslaughter, or murder?
As they hid and took headshots, shots that from an average distance of 7M?
(A guess) Shots that were intended not to STOP! But to kill, and any survivors to flee. (well seeing your criminal associates head blown apart by a 12 gauge slug would in most cases cause beat feet to be an automatic and sensible reaction?)

The recruitment of these NYPD Officers was on average, were young, single, and if possible, hunters? Not sure what reason they were disbanded?

Do they still have a swat team? not called that, EST maybe? The carbines had 15 round magazines, a military capacity weapon. (early hi-capacity trend?)

[Tactical Jackalope]

You never need a hi-capacity pistol for SD carry, unless you are John McClain retaking the Nakatomi Building from Hans Gruber. For the rest of us, 9 (1911 in .45ACP) to 11-rounds (BHP in .40 cal) is more than enough.

Crystal ball game is strong!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Kevin Rohrer

You never need a hi-capacity pistol for SD carry, unless you are John McClain retaking the Nakatomi Building from Hans Gruber. For the rest of us, 9 (1911 in .45ACP) to 11-rounds (BHP in .40 cal) is more than enough.

I have to disagree. First, not all 1911s hold 9 rounds in .45 ACP. You are assuming that the gun has 8-round magazines and that it's loaded 8+1. But the original 1911 magazines only held 7 rounds, and many people (including myself) consider 8-round, flush-fit magazines to be less reliable and thus something to be avoided.

You are also assuming a full-size or Commander 1911. My Colt Officers ACP magazines hold 6 rounds, so the best I can do without a reload is 6+1.

Frankly, I don't see a huge difference between 7+1 and 6+1. I carry a spare magazine. I started doing that after the Trolley Square mall shooting in Salt Lake City a few years ago. The person who initially engaged the shooter and pinned him down until the cavalry arrived was an off-duty police officer from another jurisdiction. His personal carry gun was a Kimber subcompact that held 6+1. He only had the magazine that was in the gun and, when he was interviewed afterwards, he said he really wished he had had at least one reload.

[XDforever]

I firmly believe that you should carry what you are comfortable with. If that is a 15+1 with 3 backup mags, then so be it. If that is a 5 shot J frame by itself, then so be it.

I carry Shields in 9 and 45 and Mod 2's in 9 and 45. Shields are single stack and Mod 2's are double stack. It depends on the area I am headed for me to decide which firearm to put in my waistband. I hardly ever carry extra magazines.

Joe

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by Brit

A group, highly trained, were attached to the NYPD (The stakeout squad) a long time ago, formed to combat murders committed by criminals in robberies, in the City. Headshots were taken, from cover. Handguns, Ithica 37 short shotguns, and I believe a .30 calibre carbine? It worked.

As I'm sure you understand, things HAVE changed over the years.

Nowadays, if unarmed persons are shot by a "stakeout squad" and one or more of those persons end up with multiple rounds in the back (apparently done while running away), then one or more members of such a squad might be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder. But if those shot (or killed) were armed and not running away, manslaughter or murder prosecutions would be much less likely.

[Brit]

Walt.

I think in a stakeout, with hidden Officers present in some cases where short distances were the order of the day? If headshots were available? They would be taken.

A friend of mine, a Constable, in 41 Division, close to where I lived in Scarborough, Ont. Toronto. Tony was in court, he was giving evidence, on the arrest.

"Why were you not carrying your baton?" "Tony said he had left in the sun in the Squad car, and it bent into a big curve" So he was carrying his big D 5 cell flashlight.

The defence Lawyer asked how hard he struck his Client on the top of his head.

"Just absolutely as hard as I could!" The judge had no problem with that answer.

[armoredman]

Originally Posted by Brit

No one mentioned a coup de grâce on a downed assailant!

That has a legal term - murder.

[Brit]

Originally Posted by Brit
No one mentioned a coup de grâce on a downed assailant!

That has a legal term - murder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did notice the time of your post? Someone else who can't sleep well?

I looked back on some of your posts. Saw your birthday one, you have just seen 50 YOA! A mere whippersnapper said this 84-year-old!

Most Police Depts teach headshots nowadays. In extreme close quarters.
It just makes sense.

In holstering a defensive pistol, prior to exiting your abode, in the AM. Where you live is a factor, your mode of transport, lots of known, and not known factors control our lives. As so many have said, "It depends!"
As we, the law-abiding, own vehicles, so do criminals!
So they can be where you are, at any given time of the day or night.

One tool I have used for several years now, Cell phone stays in a pants pocket, Blue Ant earpiece, that weighs nothing, hooks onto my left ear!
Phone rings, I say answer, and it does.

All around people walk and drive with Cell phones in hand. (now illegal in FL)
Driving that is. Totally oblivious. I see several people who do not carry a spare magazine? In this post. In my mind that is an error, as most faults that beset semi-automatic pistols, stem from magazine problems? Carrying a spare one is a no brainer, yes? As we have no plans to do anything later, I am off back to bed. My bedside table has no Glock decoration! Good night!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BRIT

Originally Posted by Brit
No one mentioned a coup de grâce on a downed assailant!

That has a legal term - murder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did notice the time of your post? Someone else who can't sleep well?

I looked back on some of your posts. Saw your birthday one, you have just seen 50 YOA! A mere whippersnapper said this 84-year-old!

Most Police Depts teach headshots nowadays. In extreme close quarters.
It just makes sense.

Center-mass, body shot, head shot, "double tap," "triple tap," "Mozambique," whatever terminology is used, most law enforcement agencies today as well as most reputable "civilian" self-defense firearms trainers teach shooting to stop the threat. Irrespective of where they teach you to put the shot(s), the [expressed] intention is supposed to be to stop the threat, not to kill the adversary. Obviously, this is taught this way for liability reasons. If a shoot is in any way questionable and ends up in court, it comes across to a jury much better to say something like, "I shot to end the threat and, unfortunately, one of my shots was fatal" rather than, "I shot him in the snot locker because that was the best way to end his worthless life."

Irrespective of the above, you used the term "coup de grâce on a downed assailant." That's a different story from making a head shot or a triple tap/Mozambique as the initial engagement. There are a great many trainers today who teach the triple tap (two shots to center-mass and one to the head) as an initial approach, due to the possibility of a perp wearing body armor. If you were trained that way, and if you used that in an armed confrontation, it's arguably defensible to testify that you resorted to a triple tap because that's what your training called for.

That is NOT a coup de grâce.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...e%20gr%C3%A2ce

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster

coup de grâce noun

\ ˌkü-də-ˈgräs
\
variants: or coup de grace
plural coups de grâce or coups de grace\ ˌkü-​də-​ˈgräs
\
Definition of coup de grâce

1 : a death blow or death shot administered to end the suffering of one mortally wounded
2 : a decisive finishing blow, act, or event The decision to cut funding is the coup de grâce to the governor's proposal.

An example of a coup de grâce on a downed assailant might be Jerome Ersland, the Oklahoma pharmacist who shot a would be robber in his store, pursued a second robber out of the store, then returned to the store, switched guns, and shot the wounded first robber five more times. Ersland was convicted of murder and is currently in prison. It is almost universally agreed that his first shot or shots was/were justified and that, if he had left it at that, he would have been regarded as a hero.

But he didn't leave it at that. He returned and administered FIVE coups de grâce to the downed assailant. That's what a coup de grâce is -- it's a follow-up blow or shot after the engagement has ended, it is not an initial blow, stroke, or shot administered in the course of the engagement. The former is defensible; the latter is murder. Making your initial shot a head shot when engaged at close quarters is not the same thing as a coup de grâce.

[shurshot]

Well stated Aquila Blanca!