Ammo capacity in CCW firearms: Getting a little carried away?

[MLeake]

I have yet to read a good reason why I should prefer to have less ammo, assuming carrying extra isn't too arduous.

 

[armoredman]

i agree with the fact that everyone should have the right to carry just like i feel like everyone should have the right to drive a car

but we don't let someone purchase a car then drive it around without practicing first....

Ahem, I hate to bring this up, but there is no right to drive, it's a right to travel, and we elected to let the government regulate our driving. You don't have to drive - shoe leather was in use for a long time before the automobile hit the world.
No correlation with a Constitutionally enumerated fundamental right.

What you should be doing is trying to get programs like Arizona's Gun Safety Program in your area, link copied here from azleg.gov, http://www.azleg.gov/ars/15/00714-01.htm , and implement this in your schools at the same level as Drivers Ed. I'd be willing to be this would help in many ways.

Oh, one last poke, you said that putting a different round capacity magazine if altering it. I changed from a standard 18 round mag to a 16 round one...wonder what a prosecutor would do with that...

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
If a certain firearm, component, or ammunition is commonly used, even by police, that does not guarantee that it won't be brought up in court. Also, 33 round magazines are available as Glock factory mags, so it is just as much a 'stock' component as the spare 17 round magazine that you can buy.

Also, by your own logic, someone who simply uses a different brand of magazine like Mec-Gar or Chip McCormick in his gun is setting himself up to be crucified by a prosecutor for "modifying" his firearm. The point is there comes a point at which effectiveness must outweigh liability. It makes little sense to say that 6 rounds is inadequate, 15 rounds is perfect, and 33 rounds is "excessive" because any of the three could be argued to be "excessive" by an overly zealous prosecutor.

i invite you to please quote where i said that using the same equipment LEOs use will make me immune to prosecution

during your search for this, make sure you don't skip the post where i said that if this precaution didn't protect me from going to jail, that i would 'rather spend 10 years in prison than eternity in a grave'

In post #137, you stated the following:

not to mention that if i have to use a weapon with a 33 round magazine, i'm concerned with the fact that a prosecutor may say 'look, there's no reason for all those rounds, he was looking for trouble!!'

it's the same reason i'd never carry a reload...

'look, he spent time measuring the powder and casting the bullet so it did the most damage, he's blood thirsty!!'

do i agree with either of those stances? not at all, but it's something a prosecutor could present...

Then, in post #162 you stated this:

again, you're right, but i don't know of any law enforcement agencies that use 33 round magazines, and i do know of ones that use 15 round magazine (and 17, and 19 even)

i feel confident that if i'm carrying a pistol and using a stock magazine, i can successfully argue 'i'm not blood thirsty, i was simply prepared'

if that doesn't work, so be it, as the guy i mentioned in a story earlier in this thread said, i'd rather spend 10 years in jail than an eternity in the grave

On one hand, you say that a 33-round magazine is a bad idea because a prosecutor can use it to paint you as bloodthirsty, but that a 15-round mag is OK because that's what cops use. I pointed out that JHP ammo, like the cops use, was brought up by the prosecution in the Fish case. My point is that anything you use might be brought up by a prosecutor. I didn't say that police using something made it always undefensible, nor always defensible.

More to the point, however, you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say that modifying your firearm in any way, shape, or form opens you to increased likelihood of prosecution and/or liability but then you turn around and say that you'd rather "spend 10 years in prison than forever in the grave". So, if you truly need all the capacity you can get, why are you refusing to carry the 33-round magazine? If more rounds can keep you "out of the grave" then why are you so worried about the prosecutor who might send you to prison? Again, you're trying to defend a less than me=idiot but more than me=lunatic type of mindset.

Quote:
You obviously do not understand the effects that certain drugs have on the human body, a person does not flinch from what he cannot feel. You can poke him with your finger, fist, gun, or anything you like, but if he doesn't feel it you're wasting your time.

and you're obviously basing your arguments on terrible logic, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.

through probably 10 posts towards each other, you've still not posed a situation where i won't have my hand pinned against something and not be able to withdraw my weapon a very small distance

Yes I have, you're just burying your head in the sand and repeating "no it isn't, no it isn't" over and over. You tell me that I should be preparing for multiple attackers, no matter how remote that situation may be, because I can't guarantee anything in a gunfight, but then you turn around and tell me that you can guarantee that you will always, as in 100% of the time, be able to leverage an attacker off of you regardless of his size or strength and fire your semi-auto repeatedly without jamming it.

Also, lets be frank here, I very much doubt that, in the heat of the moment with someone on top of them and stabbing/choking/beating them that the average person is going to have the presence of mind to be able to pull off your complex leverage the attacker off and fire from retention drill. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Shoving the muzzle of the gun against the attacker and yanking the trigger seems to me like a much more natural human response to such events. Maybe you are some sort of martial artist/gunfighter that can accomplish such things, I don't know because I've never met you, but I simply do not believe that the average person can accomplish what you suggest and I'm certainly not going to bet my life on the notion that I will be able to do it if/when the balloon goes up.

that's what this entire part of your argument is based on, the fact that i said that if you were so worried about a giant attacker getting on top of you, you should learn some techniques to remove him from you

you assert that no matter what, he's going to be high, impervious to pain, and a solid mass of muscle that you are unable to move no matter how much effort you expend

No, I'm asserting that because of the number of uncontrolled variables that may or may not be involved in the situation, there is no way that I can guarantee that I'll be able to move him. Maybe I can and maybe I can't but I won't know until it happens and that's just about the worst time to find out.

Quote:
First off, a semi-auto need not be shoved anywhere near 5" to push it out of battery. Secondly, if the cylinder of my revolver is grabbed I'm no worse off than if the slide of a semi-auto was grabbed (of course an already cocked revolver could still fire one shot, but for the sake of argument we'll say it's not already cocked). Grabbing the the barrel of the revolver, however, would not render it inoperable. Most semi-auto slides run the entire length, or very nearly the entire length, of the pistol. Grabbing a semi-auto anywhere on the top end allows one to push it out of battery.

i didn't say that it did, i said that i would need to shove it 5" into a guy's stomach to do it

Well, I'm not letting anyone shove a gun into my side, loaded or not, for any reason. However, I did just try shoving the muzzle of both my CZ-75 and S&W 1911 (which has a full-length guide rod) into a rather soft pillow and both only had to be pushed 2-3" before the hammer wouldn't strike the firing pin or the trigger mechanism was deactivated entirely. Sorry but 2-3" just isn't that much.

Quote:
First, if my attacker is far enough away that I actually have time to fire 5 shots at all, then he is also far enough away that I can attempt to retreat, seek cover, and/or reload. As I said before, I have absolutely no intention of standing still blazing away like Wild Bill in the streets of Deadwood if I can help it.
man, they should give you your own hotline...

your attacker is 7 yards away, you know the distance that you said could be covered in 1-2 seconds (which is true), with a knife.....you fire one shot and hit the attacker in the arm, he keeps coming and makes contact with you, stabbing you in the chest.......you pull your trigger 2 more times, hitting him once in the hip and again in his armpit, he stabs you again.........you pull the trigger to more times, hitting him once in the ribcage and once in the ear, he stabs you again

you had no way to move out of the way because after your first shot he came into contact with you

if i'm in that same situation, i have 6 more shots to put inside that gentleman before i'm completely out....

Or, once my attacker gets to me with the knife he slashes/stabs the arm/hand that is holding my gun. Now, with an injured arm/hand, I cannot hold my gun as firmly and, if I'm armed with a semi-auto, I'm more likely to cause a malfunction due to my poor grip, particularly since I'm craning my wrist at an odd angle to keep from pushing my gun out of battery. If a knife-wielding attacker gets withing slashing/stabbing range, keeping my gun operational is a much bigger priority than the number of shots in it.

Quote:
Secondly, the more powerful rounds of my revolver are more likely to stop the attacker in fewer hits than the less powerful rounds of most semi-autos. If the individual is as large as I fear he might be, the common service calibers may not have enough penetration to reach vital structures particularly if I must shoot him at an oblique angle or through an extremity. You can say the extra capacity of a semi-auto gives you more chances to hit something vital, but people can and have taken numerous bullets and failed to stop because none of them hit anything vital. Michael Platt was shot 12 times but failed to stop because all 11 of those bullets either missed vital structures all together or did not have enough penetration to reach them. Simply firing as many shots as one can and hoping that they hit something vital seems like a rather lackadaisical plan to me.

If the individual is not so large, then the ammunition that I prefer for my revolvers is quite likely to pass completely through him, creating more holes from which he can bleed. Assuming that all shots hit their intended target, 15 .45's that stop inside the attacker has caused 15 holes while six .44 Magnums that pass completely through have created 12 holes. Taking this into account, the .45 has just gone from creating 300% more places to bleed from to only creating 25% more.

didn't you tell me we're not talking about what 'should' happen?

you REALLY don't see how absurd it is to tell me that i may not hit anything vital while asserting that, because your cartridge is more powerful, you WILL hit something vital in half the shots?

Friend, you have serious reading comprehension issues if you truly believe that what I meant. My point was that the more powerful cartridges of a revolver are more likely to pass completely through and make two holes with each bullet that strikes the opponent. The 12 vs. 15 hole example was assuming that the opponent was struck by all shots with both the revolver and semi-auto. If you start reducing hit percentages, the gap narrows even more (8 .45 holes vs. 6 .44 Magnum holes, 5 .45 holes vs. 4 .44 Magnum holes and so on), but then again I think we both know that already.

Quote:
Well, I've never seen nor even heard of this happening, but if it did I'd be a no more of a disadvantage than if some part of a semi-auto like the magazine catch or guide rod was damaged.

well, i've never seen nor even heard of a revolver jamming, but there have been a few examples of that in this thread

and i actually DID say that there was no way for me to be immune to that same danger and that i was more likely to experience it

By your own admission, revolvers jam less. I fail to see how a platform that jams less is no less likely to malfunction than one that jams more and is equally susceptible to parts breakage.

 

[Webleymkv]

continued

Quote:
No, I said I'm more likely to be attacked by a single large individual than by a group of people. Several people in the same place at the same time is quite different than a group of individuals all focused on killing one particular person. By your own logic, perhaps I should move to your neighborhood where people bigger than me don't exist.
there you go predicting things again....

you have absolutely ZERO idea who is most likely to attack you, none whatsoever

however, i'm willing to bet that you see groups of people more frequently than you see people that are close to 6'3" / 300lbs....

that's the point of my post, that you seem to think that you're more likely to be accosted by something you see less frequently than you see something else

if i constantly see pit bulls in my neighborhood, and i hardly ever see rottweilers, i'm not more likely to be attacked by a rottweiler just because it's a bigger dog and i'm a bigger individual

Actually, I have a much better idea who is likely to attack me than you do because you're unfamiliar with the demographics of my area, the places I frequent, or what I do on a daily basis. Likewise, I would expect you to have a much better idea of who is likely to attack you than I would because I'm unfamiliar with the demographic of your area, the places you frequent, or what you do on a daily basis.

Single attackers are exponentially more common in my area than multiple ones and single attackers nearly always prefer victims that are perceived as weaker than the attacker. From that information, it's not difficult to understand why I'm more likely to be attacked by a single, large individual (and individuals larger than myself who act aggressively towards others are not particularly rare in my area). To say that I cannot be certain who will attack me is correct, but to say that I have no idea who is likely to attack me is presumptuous and absurd.

i'm saying that, since nobody knows what circumstances they will be attacked under, they should do their best to select a plan (in this case a weapon and a way to carry that weapon safely and comfortably) that will most effectively cover ALL POSSIBLE circumstances

No single item can effectively prepare you for all possible circumstances, it is impossible. This seems to be the key concept that you are either unable or unwilling to grasp.

Quote:
There are several things which someone unfamiliar with firearms can do to cause a malfunction. Not holding a semi-auto with a firm enough grip can cause a failure to cycle properly. Placing the thumb of the off hand over the web of the shooting hand can impede the rearward movement of the slide and cause a failure to cycle, not to mention a very painful injury to the shooter. If you've never seen or experienced these things, then either you're quite lucky or the shooter's you describe aren't quite the novices you describe them as. I, on the other hand, have witnessed these things and am not so naive as to believe that everyone who buys a gun knows better, or will remember better during a stressful life-or-death situation.

i saw a guy shoot a Ruger P89 one time.......he held it so loosely that when he pulled the trigger, the recoil knocked the pistol out of his hand and onto the ground below.......he picked the pistol up, pointed it back at the target, and put another round down range

i've never in my life personally seen anyone limp wrist anything, ever.

I've seen a Ruger P95, Makarov, Walther PP, CZ-75, and Glock 36 jam from being limp wristed. Just because you've never seen something, that doesn't mean that it never happens.

it's also contrary to logic to think that, in a stressful life-threatening situation, someone's grip would be loosened rather than tightened

Is it so inconceivable that in a life-threatening situation someone might not be able to fully grip their handgun before they're forced to fire? Is it completely inconceivable that a person in a life-threatening situation might have to fire a gun with an injured hand or arm?

Quote:
If your gun can fire, you at least have a chance of hitting, or at least scaring off, your attacker. If the gun doesn't fire, your only hope is that your attacker is so frightened by the mere sight of a gun that he runs away.

and unless my hand is pinned against something and pressed far enough into my attacker to move the slide to the rear far enough, my gun IS able to fire

Yet you cannot guarantee that no one will ever be forced to take a contact shot. So, because you may be able to do something, that means that everyone else can do it too. That's rather closed-minded thinking if you ask me.

Quote:
No, my logic is that if someone is not going to maintain their car, they are best served by the car most tolerant of neglect. Likewise, if they are not going to maintain their firearm, they are better served by the firearm most tolerant of neglect: a revolver. You are attempting to take my argument to the logical extreme, your car/bicycle analogy would be more akin to saying that someone who doesn't maintain their firearm is better served by a baseball bat, something I've never said or advocated.

wait, i'm not allowed to take something to a logical extreme, but you're allowed to assert that every contact shot will push the slide out of battery?

makes sense.

I invite you to find where I've stated that a contact shot will always, as in 100% of the time, push a slide out of battery. I've said that it can push a slide out of battery and that's true. I've also said that it cannot push a revolver out of battery, and that's also true.

Quote:
Revolvers are much more tolerant to improper technique than semi-autos are. A revolver can't be limp-wristed and does not require as much empty space around it to work properly as a semi-auto does.

obviously, the technique i'm referring to is the one that allows you to place a round where you're aiming it, which is what matters in the end

if James has trouble doing that, he will need as many tries as he can get, and that's afforded to him by a semi-automatic firearm, not by a revolver

all you have to do to fire a semi correctly is grip the gun and pull the trigger, both things that are required for the shooting of a revolver

No, that's not true. By the very design of their mechanism, a semi-automatic handgun must have at least some degree of stability to function properly. The frame of the gun has to be more resistant to movement than the slide, period. Some semi-autos are certainly more tolerant to unstable platforms than others, but none is completely immune to it. Unless you can absolutely guarantee that everyone will always be able to provide a steady enough platform for any semi-auto they might be using, there is no way that you can logically assume that a semi-auto is no more sensitive to improper grip than a revolver.

Quote:
Also, I don't quite buy the "legendary reliability" of Glocks. I have, on two separate occasions, seen unreliable Glocks. The first was a G23 that couldn't make it through a 50-round box of Remington 180gr FMJ or Fiocchi 180gr FMJ without multiple failures to feed I suspect due to a weak magazine or recoil spring (the problem persisted in the hands of multiple shooters) while the other was a fairly new G36 that couldn't make it through a 50-round box of Federal 230gr FMJ without a failure to feed because the shooter was limp-wristing it (the problem didn't repeat itself with other shooters). In both of these cases, everyone who tried the guns in question was at least moderately experienced with firearms.

that's nice and all, but it's irrelevant to my point, which was that magazine springs and recoil springs don't wear out nearly as often as you're implying they do

and even if they did, like someone else in here said, it will be noticed by someone who uses their weapon on a regular basis before it becomes a problem

Really, so what is your method to predict exactly when the first malfunction from a weak spring will occur? If it happens the first time at the range, no big deal, but if it happens the first (and quite possibly last) time while you're using the gun to defend yourself, well that's a big deal indeed.

Quote:
And yes, I feel that 12" groups are better than no group at all because the gun doesn't work.
a 12" group from a static position on a static target is MUCH easier than a 12" group on a moving target while moving

people who shoot 2" groups from a static position on static targets can't even hit a moving target while moving, much less position their shots 'well'

it's actually getting fairly tiresome that you continue to assume that just because someone doesn't clean their semi, that means it's not going to work at all

I don't assume anything. However, someone who doesn't maintain their semi-auto is much more likely, though not guaranteed, to experience a malfunction that someone who does. Likewise, a semi-auto that has been neglected by its owner is much more likely, though not guaranteed, to malfunction than a neglected revolver.

you're taking these events that are relatively rare (and when i say relatively, i mean that it's rare that someone is attacked and their pistol doesn't work cause it's dirty) and trying to say that because of these relatively rare events, one should just do something else

How exactly is that any different than saying because I might be attacked by multiple people, no matter how remote that possibility may be, I should just carry something else?

it makes absolutely no sense to assume that someone who doesn't shoot their pistol enough to be profecient with it would have a dirty firearm, because there's not much going on to make it a dirty firearm

So a gun that has 100 rounds through it over a period of 10 years without being cleaned will be less dirty than a gun that has 100 rounds through it in an hour without being cleaned? Talk about something that makes absolutely no sense.

it also makes absolutely no sense to assume that someone who does shoot their pistol enough to be profecient with it would not understand the fact that it needs cleaned every once in a while

I invite you to cite where I've ever made that assumption.

again, i don't care what your choice of carry for a firearm is, i've even stated that i'm looking for a revolver to carry myself, but that doesn't change the fact that a semi-automatic is still the best option in most scenarios, because the most likely thing to happen is the CCW holder is going to miss their target

Apparently you do care because you've spent several very long posts trying to convince me that your gun is better suited to my needs than mine is. I've never once suggested that a semi-auto isn't the best choice for you because I have no way of knowing that one way or the other, just like you have no way of knowing that a semi-auto is the best choice for me.

you even post after this one that i'm quoting and state that, if cops that are trained have poor hit rates (and they do), that it's reasonable to assume most people will do worse (and that's true as well)

I stated no such thing. I stated that you should not assume that a cop's poor hit percentage will translate to anyone else because not everyone trains or practices the same. My point was that you can't make assumptions about hit percentage at all because there are too many uncontrolled variables.

but you still assert that, despite the fact that you will more than likely need a large number of rounds, it makes more sense to carry a smaller number of rounds because it MIGHT be more reliable

You have absolutely no way of knowing how many rounds I will need nor even how many rounds I'm likely to need because you don't my area, my circumstances, how I train, my skill level, or all that much of anything about me. Similarly, I have absolutely no way of knowing how many rounds you're likely to need because I don't know much about you either. I can't tell you what's best for you, and I'm not so arrogant as to try. However, you cannot tell me what is best for me either.

 

[Webleymkv]

I have yet to read a good reason why I should prefer to have less ammo, assuming carrying extra isn't too arduous.

Simply put, because the other attributes of a gun that carries less ammo fit your needs better than one which carries more. If every attribute of the highest capacity gun fits your needs well, then there is no reason to carry anything else.

 

[MLeake]

Webleymkv, the only time that is true is when I am effectively limited to pocket carry (IE running shorts and a t-shirt), in which case it's a 442.

Otherwise, I can almost always carry a mid-size to full-size service auto with minimal difficulty.

With regard to the weapon potentially being pushed out of battery... that's yet another reason why some martial arts training can be a good thing. You'd be amazed at how easy it is to generate and maintain a little bit of space, if you really need to.

And if that arm is injured... well, if I am carrying an auto for my strong hand, there are decent odds the 442 is somewhere accessible to my weak hand. (It's really hard to beat a J-frame as BUGs go.)

 

[AZAK]

You have absolutely no way of knowing how many rounds I will need nor even how many rounds I'm likely to need because you don't my area, my circumstances, how I train, my skill level, or all that much of anything about me. Similarly, I have absolutely no way of knowing how many rounds you're likely to need because I don't know much about you either. I can't tell you what's best for you, and I'm not so arrogant as to try. However, you cannot tell me what is best for me either.

Well, we all pay our monies and takes our chances.

And more directly addressing the OP:
A question, have you ever been shot at? By one, or multiple attackers, and been very suddenly placed into a defensive role? Bullets literarily whining past your head?

I have talked with a number of folks who have been there, and have heard many different thoughts and heard about many different reactions. Never have I heard anyone say anything remotely close to, "Dang, why in the world did I bring all of this ammo?!" Or, "There are only two of them, why didn't I pack my Derringer today?"

We can all rationalize our choices, well because they are "our choices" after all. Some folks are comfortable carrying a mini-revolver chambered in .22lr (hey, folded up it sits great in my pocket) up to Y or Z with XX number of extra rounds. Some don't have any plan or weapon at all, and are comfortable with that.

Again: Well, we all pay our monies and takes our chances.

And, as someone who has been shot at by multiple gunmen (meaning more than two) at the same time (in this country) and heard the whine of bullets sailing past my head, I can assure you that I do carry a minimum of one additional magazine; I was at the time. I can also assure you that at that point I did not think, "I wish that I had brought my j-frame or even my .44 mag 629 instead."

My thought process was, "Get the heck out of here... cover and escape... NOW!" Did just that, then contacted LEOs to deal with them.

Exact same thought process and results years later when I was shot at by a lone gunman. In both of these encounters, at the time, I believed that I had a good chance of "getting away" (close cover, enough distance from aggressors, and escape route) and it turned out that I was right. Both encounters had me holding a pistol in hand as I escaped, second encounter I had two additional mags on my belt. First encounter I "took up the rear" as there was one person fleeing in front of me, second encounter there was only the one gunman and myself.

In both situations, this was just unprovoked "random" violence; the first mixed with a bit of alcohol/drugs on their part, the second who knows. You may think that you know what you "might" be "up against"...

YMMV

 

[SwampYankee]

AZAK,

This was my point that was mostly ignored- it did not matter how much ammo you had because you ran for cover. So what happened, did you fire any shots, how many did you fire? Once you are under cover (the smartest thing to do) it actually becomes harder to justifiably return fire. You certainly can but now you need to convince a prosecutor that it was smarter to return fire than just stay under cover and call the cops. In the state of Rhode Island, I can get a state trooper (and probably three) on site anywhere in the state in less than 10 minutes which is probably long enough to hold out.

If we really want to talk about how much ammo you need, we can always default to "more is better", carry 8 extras mags and put on our tinfoil hats but if we were to look at justified CCW shootings, how many rounds were fired in the vast majority of these?

At this point I have yet to see any data, it's all just speculation or my friend had a friend who knew a guy anecdotes.

 

[Master Blaster 2]

I have carried with my CCW for over 38 years. Only have carried firearms with 6 or less rounds. Never have had to kill anyone. Hope nerver have to as it will be the only reason I expose my gun. Sad thing about it is that odds are i will give up everything I own to legal fees if an event ever happens.

 

[MikeNice81]

College student saves ten

I can't find the original article. If I remember correctly the student fired six or more times. A J frame would have been insufficient. A guy claiming to have worked the call posted on GA Packing that there were 8 or more shots fired.

 

[American Eagle]

First of all, the articles said that the criminals fired back...so if there were 8 shots fired then I'm sure they all didn't come from the student. Second, the criminals were bolting out of the house as soon as the student fired at them.

notoriously dangerous neighborhood of College Park in Atlanta, Georgia

Third...as the article says, this is a very dangerous neighborhood, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was some gang going after someone in the house who had gotten on their bad side.

I do my best to avoid notoriously dangerous neighborhoods. Why go asking for trouble??? But if I am in a less than reputable place, I do arm myself accordingly. It just depends on where I am.

But to argue that revolvers are useless or not enough for your average Joe in your typical suburbia setting (like some of you are trying to argue,) that's just plain silly.

 

[excelerater]

thread seems kinda usless to me......its personal prefrence weather you carry
6 or 60

 

[MikeNice81]

The guy on the GA packing website made it sound like there were eight shots from the one guy. That is my fault for not being clearer.

Third...as the article says, this is a very dangerous neighborhood, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was some gang going after someone in the house who had gotten on their bad side.

The rape and murder of ten people because one person got on their bad side? Really? So, somebody asks for an article, it get's posted, and then you dismiss it as gang related because of the neighborhood.

I work for a PD. Let me tell you something I know from personal experience. Bad stuff happens to good people at random times. You don't have to be a gang banger, a drug dealer, or a Hell's Angel for your number to get called. People in some of the nicest schools and neighborhoods get robbed and beaten. They get stabbed and shot.

But to argue that revolvers are useless or not enough for your average Joe in your typical suburbia setting (like some of you are trying to argue,) that's just plain silly.

I never said they were useless. I've just seen a lot of reports over the last six months. From reading them I have decided that I am not comfortable with only five shots. A five shot revolver will honestly be more than the average person ever needs.

The chance of actually needing your gun are between 0.33% and 1.5% depending on who you listen to. However, in my life I have had to draw my CC three times. I have had to pull out a rifle once. I have never had to shoot. So, based on my experience I could say that an empty gun is as good as a loaded gun. I don't think any of us would argue for carrying unloaded.

Since carrying more rounds is just as easy as carrying less - for me - I carry more. If you feel fine with five go for it. I can can carry a P-07 just as easy as a 3" revolver. So, I don't see the point in giving up capacity.

I know they make shorter barrel revolvers. A 3" is as short as I am comfortable with for velocity, control, and sight radius. When it comes down to a 3" revolver or 3.8" semi-auto with 16 rounds, I'll take the semi-auto. No need to short change myself on capacity.

 

[bikerbill]

Dress is what my carry decisions revolve around ... always ...

I'm retired, so aside from my volunteer job at the local library, I'm in cargo shorts and a t-shirt or tank top every day ... hey, it's central Texas, pushing 100 days of 100+ weather this summer ... so I carry a Kahr PM9 in a pocket holster when I'm out, an NAA Pug if I'm at home with a 1911 always nearby ... When it cools off and I can wear some sort of cover garment, I switch the PM9 to a paddle holster or carry my Kimber UCII ... I always carry a spare mag, more as failure insurance than thinking I might need more than the 7 or 8 rds in the gun ...

I practice with the PM9 every time I go to the range, at least 50 rds ... I do as much as I can, given the range's rules against rapid fire and drawing from holster ... I have also taken four professional training classes over the years ... I feel I'm as prepared as I can be, given the strictures of money available for training and the weather conditions I have to deal with ...

Arguing with people about what they carry seems to be a waste of time ... As the Duke said in the classic flick "Hondo," ... "A long time ago, I made me a rule. I let people do what they want to do." Works for me ...

 

[armoredman]

Go ask Evan Marshall about spare ammo. He's been there done that far more times than anyone I know.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by SwampYankee: if we were to look at justified CCW shootings, how many rounds were fired in the vast majority of these?

At this point I have yet to see any data, it's all just speculation or my friend had a friend who knew a guy anecdotes.

As previously posted in this thread, you can get some real world data here for $14.95 plus $2.00 for shipping and handling. The presentation contains detailed accounts of ten encounters selected from five dozen justified self defense shootings, most of which involved incidents that occurred out of doors. I recommend it.

The reason that other data is hard to come by is that, unlike the analysis of police shootings, civilian shooting data are not compiled by the authorities.

IIRC, the mean number of rounds fired was 4.8. No one fired 4.8 rounds! Sone of the incidents required very few rounds, and some, quite a few. It takes what it takes.

However, whatever "the vast majority" means to you, it would be unwise for anyone to basis his or her decision on it--or on the mean, the mode, or the median.

Glenn E. Meyer put it well in Post 120:

So the mean distance as what ALWAYS happens is BS. So is the mean number of shots.

The mean isn't what always happens. Some people need a stat course.

You don't plan that the mean always happens. You have to decide where in the tail of incident intensity you will make your cut on the preparednesss and equipment scales.

And, of course, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results".

 

[jreXD9]

I can comfortably carry my MP9c and an extra mag (25rds) or my XDm9 Compact 3.8 with 2 extra mags (46rds!!) without printing, so why not?

 

[18DAI]

I'm glad we didn't have the internet when I was working robbery homicide in the hood. Imagine how terrified I'd have been wandering around with my 3" 66 and only two speed loaders, if I'd known how bad it is "out there". By myself 80% of the time too!!

How did I manage to avoid those hoardes of doped up super strength felons that some allege are out there? Can some of you gunfighters point me to these incidents where mild mannered CCWers were beset upon by these hoardes and shot their way out with their high cap wunderguns? I'd love to read about it so I can figure out where/how to hide a few dozen mags on my person.

See, all this time I've been laboring under the impression that shot placement is paramount. Being able to accurately place a round where it will do the most good, while under pressure - like return fire and such. You know, gunfighting - 3 shots at 3 feet in 3 seconds. I had know idea that the average Joe faces being so outnumbered.

Sure am glad I found this thread! I need to go get some prices on all these antiquated sixguns clogging up my safe so I can dump them. Should I buy an extra safe to store all the extra mags in too? Tongue firmly in cheek, 18DAI

 

[PT-92]

I really don't understand what the point is in mocking someone that has a different perspective or point of view? To me it shows a blatant arrogance and perhaps latent insecurity.

If you want to carry hi-cap semi's with several extra mags, more power to you--likewise for those that prefer wheel-guns and perhaps have no speed loaders or extra ammo at hand.

People will always come up with 'their' own reasoning which is fine but don't try and convert (or mock) those with opposing views. It's a Democracy (maybe that's now becoming debatable) so everyone is free to make his or her's own choice.

To each his own.

-Cheers

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 18DAI: How did I manage to avoid those hoardes of doped up super strength felons that some allege are out there? Can some of you gunfighters point me to these incidents where mild mannered CCWers were beset upon by these hoardes...

Who said anything about hordes?

See, all this time I've been laboring under the impression that shot placement is paramount.

It is.

Being able to accurately place a round where it will do the most good, while under pressure - like return fire and such.

The question at hand is how many shots will it take someone under such pressure to place a sufficient number of rounds where they will "do the most good" quickly enough whan the attacker is moving?

You know, gunfighting - 3 shots at 3 feet in 3 seconds.

Too slow, by far.

Most of today's LEO training calls for shot intervals of about two tenths of a second, at ranges of three feet to, say, twenty five feet, on two or three targets at once.