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

Status
Not open for further replies.
On duty I carried a 1911 w/2 spare magazines and never needed to draw it. For carry I like my 6 shot revolvers, I have a speed loader but never use it, I figure if I need more than 6 shots then I am in the wrong place at the wrong time and since I don't carry a battle rifle and a bandoleer full of loaded magazines I feel no shame in retreat or hiding like a man who wants to get older should do.

If you need more rounds than what you have in the magazine in your gun you might want to think about why you are in that place at that time and rethink your need to be there.

Just dos centavos from an old dinosaur
 
When carrying a semi-auto 1 spare loaded mag in case the one in the pistol screws up. Revolver no extra ammo
 
If you need more rounds than what you have in the magazine in your gun you might want to think about why you are in that place at that time and rethink your need to be there.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you dont have the luxury of choice, and Murphy is real.

How many people who were in a firefight do you know that wished they had less ammo along?

Going into the unknown with a "fixed" plan (the rule of threes comes to mind here) and just the ammo in your gun, is like going into a fight with your whole plan and skill set being to kick the other boy in the nuts. That one kick should finish it, right? What if he wont let you? What then? The fight is what the fight is, it goes where it goes, and it wont be over until its over, regardless what you had planned, and it doenst care if youre unprepared. Doesnt matter if its with your hands, or your gun.

If you feel the need to carry a gun, and go to the bother, doesnt it make sense to carry one that gives you the best chance in the worst situation?
 
i've said it before and i'll say it again....

the segment of society that practices concealed carry is a segment of society that believes in 'worst case scenarios'

i can't fathom why someone would admit that they may need to use a pistol to defend themselves, but refuses to admit that there may be a reason that they'd need more than a few shots

you're willing to prescribe to the notion that even though things probably won't get bad it's better safe than sorry, which is the reason you're carrying a pistol, but you're saying 'oh, it won't get THAT bad'

would i feel safe carrying a 5-6 shot revolver? definitely, if i'm confident enough to carry the gun, i'm confident in my abilities with the gun.....

will i ever carry a 19+1 pistol? probably not, too big.....

but if they somehow made a 19+1 pistol that was the same size as these 8-9-10+1 pistols, i'd be one of the guys carrying it

i don't really think i'd ever be in a situation that i'd need to put 20 rounds into a bad guy (or have a group of bad guys big enough to need that many rounds), but if it's 'better than safe than sorry' when carrying a pistol at all, then it's 'better safe than sorry' when choosing the capacity of my weapon
 
Something to consider: I see a lot of people citing the rationale behind their carry choice (a hi-cap semi-auto more often than not but that's beside the point) as wanting to "be prepared for the worst possible situation." So, ask yourself what is worse: five pistol wielding gang members at 20 feet or a single 400lb knife-wielding biker on top of you? I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that both situations are equally bad.

A hi-cap semi-auto would arguably be better suited to the first situation because of both capacity and reload speed while a magnum-caliber revolver would be arguably better suited to the second situation because of power and contact shots. In both instances you're behind the curve and at a disadvantage already.

So now, we have two equally bad situations that are dealt with best by two separate platforms, so which do you choose? Picking a revolver will put you at an even greater disadvantage with the gang and picking the auto will put you at an even greater disadvantage with the biker. It seems to me that the best choice is probably the platform most optimally suited to the more likely attacker, no? I try to be optimally prepared for the worst situation that I am likely to find myself in, but I understand that I cannot realistically be optimally prepared for every possible situation.

After careful thought and consideration, I've come to the conclusion that I'm far more likely to find myself underneath the 400lb biker so I carry a revolver. If, however, you find that you're more likely to be accosted by the gang members, then you're probably better served by the semi-auto. What's best for one person isn't necessarily best for another.
 
^ that's a fairly good example, however, i don't think that 5 threats is equal to 1 threat, no matter the size or location disparities (barring something like 5 soldiers with pistols and 1 soldier with a tank)

here's the issue though...

if you're trying to prepare for the 400 pound guy and you decide to pack your 5-shot revolver, but instead you get that gang chasing you, you're really at a disadvantage

personally, i'd rather be prepared for the gang situation and here's why

if i'm carrying my 13+1 Glock 21, then i'm prepared to put 3 rounds in 3 bad guys and 2 rounds in 2 bad guys if that gang decides to jump me

and if that fat guy decides to tackle me, i'd still be able to put 13 rounds of .45 in his torso (though i'm sure after the 3rd or 4th round i'd probably have him weak enough to get a head shot or two, if he's even still on top of me)

if i decided to carry my Smith 360, i'd be able to get that fat guy off of me in 1-2 shots, but i'd only have 1 shot for each one of those gang members

the only logical reason to carry a smaller capacity pistol is because of space constraints or concealment difficulties (assuming you shoot both weapons equally well)
 
Daliff, the logic behind your scenario is that you are assuming the gang will not retreat or take cover and try to flee when they see the first man go down. I don't think too many criminals out for a quick buck will think the risks are worth it when one or two of their buddies fall dead or wounded.

On the other hand, if you are the type of person who has death threats and people genuinely want to kill you at any cost, even if it costs them their life, then yes, I can see why you want higher capacity. This is specially important if you are a crack dealer or a pimp with a lot of enemies, or a well known and controversial attorney, judge, businessman or public figure.

But for the ordinary Joe Blow who's biggest risk is running against 1-3 armed assailants looking for a quick buck by mugging you, criminals will not stick around when they see you are willing to shoot them and defend your $20 and your life. And I have yet to see or hear of more than 3 assailants in a typical mugging or robbery. Your average criminals will tend not to congregate in big groups as that attracts too much attention and brings the cops on them. The exception is the mob, drug gangs, and other organized crime, and your best defense there is not to get caught with that kind of people in the first place, because when they come after you they are willing to die to kill you and no amount of ammo will stop them.
 
Posted by Old Grump: ...I figure if I need more than 6 shots then I am in the wrong place at the wrong time....
Click to expand...
Actually, if you even have to present your weapon without firing, you are in the "wrong place at the wrong time", unless of course you are at home.

So--do you stay home all the time? Avoid parking lots? Avoid ATMs? Avoid service stations?

....and since I don't carry a battle rifle and a bandoleer full of loaded magazines I feel no shame in retreat or hiding like a man who wants to get older should do.
Click to expand...
Retreat, if safely possible, is of course one's duty in many jurisdictions, and it is arguably the best thing to do, tactically and legally, in all jurisdictions.

The problem arises when escape is not safely possible and deadly force becomes necessary as the last resort.

If you need more rounds than what you have in the magazine in your gun you might want to think about why you are in that place at that time and rethink your need to be there.
Click to expand...
If you need to employ deadly force at all, you will not find rethinking your need to be where you are to be helpful at all.

I believe it is not unreasonable for one to expect to be attacked by two or possibly three violent criminal actors,if one is attacked at all. Statistics bear that out.

I do think it would be unreasonable to expect an attacker to not be moving very quickly, if deadly force is justified at all.

I do not think it is reasonable to expect to be able to shoot with any kind of precision in a defensive encounter. I can shoot pretty well at the range, but in defensive pistol training, I have found that getting all of one's shots onto a torso sized target at close range with great rapidity is by no means a sure thing. That is without having my skills highly impaired by the stress of a real attack.

Looking at accounts of real world defensive encounters leads me to believe that it is likely to require two or more shots in the torso of an attacker to stop reliably.

That puts my personal minimum at ten or more rounds.

I now leave the five shot revolver I bought when I first started carrying at home most of the time. I have no interest in the small single-column pocket semi automatics.
 
it doesn't matter if people are 'more likely' to run away when they see your gun

if 'more likely' is what mattered, you'd not carry a pistol because it's 'more likely' that you won't be accosted at all

the point is, you guys are fine with being over prepared for the 'less likely' situation that you're going to get robbed, but then say it's overkill to be over prepared for that 'less likely' situation of being robbed by 5-6 people

like someone else said, i'd rather carry 13 and need 5 than carry 5 and need 13
 
ALWAYS carry a reload.
You have a permit to carry, why not bring ammo along. Once those 5,6,7,8 shots go thats it! you got yourself a paper weight.
 
Daliff, I am not trying to convince you to change your strategy, my intent with this thread is just to let people voice their opinions and rethink their strategies. If this thread convinces you that you don't need 50 rounds, great, and if this thread convinces you that you need more than 6-10 rounds, that's great too.

Just don't turn into my friend and start carrying 100 rounds of ammo with an FN five seven platform. :D
 
9mm.....^^ True...Very True ^^

For my Beretta 9mm - The most I will carry is one extra magazine.
32 rounds total is enough.

If I run out of ammo, and the bad guy(s) is still not put down. ..."Lord Help me"
 
Last edited:
My thoughts were similar to those of OldMarksman when I made the move to a pistol after several years of carrying a revolver.

We readily accept that pistol cartridges are not reliable one-shot stops, and if we are realistic we should probably acknowledge that we will not shoot at 100% accuracy under the stress of a potentially lethal attack. It is often said of LEOs that they average a 20% hit rate. That means that I have to double the hit rate of LEOs to get a two-shot stop on one person with a five shot revolver. More than one attacker, or a hit rate of less than 40%, or an assailant that requires three taps for a stop, all mean that a five-shot revolver is inadequate.

The weakness of the logic of that argument is the 40% hit rate. Will I do better than that, or worse? I am not going to find out without being in a gun fight, and I would prefer not to be tested in that way. But I chose to increase capacity to account for the possibility that I may be less than stellar in my shooting under duress.

There is plenty of good to be said for the reliability and the close-fighting ability of revolvers. There is no doubt that a person armed with a revolver is better prepared to defend himself than the large majority of the population who go about unarmed. I am only explaining the thoughts that went into my choice - or rationalization, if that is what it is - with full respect for those who reach a differing conclusion.
 
PleaseLeave.jpg



...having said that, that is the gun I usually carry nowadays, with 16 round magazine in it and two spare mags. I don't defend my choice because I don't need to - I can carry what I choose easily, and within my normal mode of dress with no issues. If anyone wishes to carry more or less, and can do so within their limitations, more power to them. I'd rather see people carrying something than nothing, and that four inch Magnum in the safe does you no good whatsoever when you're getting mugged downtown. If a snub 38 Special does it for you with no reloads, go for it. If a 92FS and three spares is your choice, go for it. Good luck to you all.
 
Two Words:

Multiple Attackers.

That's my rationale for carrying a "high-capacity" semi-auto instead of a slimmer single stack.

I carry a reload in case I get a double feed. In which case I'm trained to rip out the magazine, clear it, and insert a new magazine. Plus, another 17 rounds doesn't hurt.

We can play the "what if" and "prepared for anything" game ad infinitum, but at some point you have to make a decision, and I've made the decision at a hi-cap semi auto plus 1 reload.
 
In California 10 round magazines are the limit. When I carry it is either a 5 shot J-Frame .357 magnum, or the 8 shot 9mm single stack. Sometimes it is the J-Frame (I use as primary) and the 9mm as the reload ... not often, but sometimes.

Life is tough, and then you die. Get use to it. I'm old and feable enough that carrying comfortably is more important than figuring how I can out wit any scenario I can imagine.
 
The older I get the more shots I want - I can't run nearly as fast as I used to. Suppressive fire might just save my life since I can't just dive for cover like I could when I was in my 20's.
 
By comparison some hunters use a semi auto w/ 5 round mag (max in many states), 4+1 in a bolt action, or lever with 5 or 6 round capacity.

Others hunt with a Ruger #1..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top