Carry Number

Status
Not open for further replies.
i don't carry an extra magazine because i'm an incompetent buffoon who couldn't utilize an extra magazine given a time out and ten minutes to change them out. so i do what i know i can do, carrying a single gun with a single load. if i wasn't just as clumsy as a drunken juggler, i'd certainly think about carrying two.

now, i want an honest, serious answer from yall.

someday your life may depend on having a gun. what in the world could convince you that you shouldn't carry it? someday your life may depend on having a backup magazine or extra rounds.

what crazy excuse will you dig up when saint peter shouts "YOU HAD ONLY A SINGLE MAGAZINE AND IT JAMMED BEFORE YOU FIRED YOUR FIRST SHOT?! THE BOSS WASTED A PERFECTLY GOOD BODY WHEN HE STUCK YOUR BRAIN INSIDE IT!"
 
Brian.. the argument against carrying a extra magazine is it often an exercise in trying to justify an indifferent attitude. It is not always that at all but I have seen it a lot.
 
Half the arguments on this forum are justification that one's choices are the best choices and how dare someone choose otherwise. It can be exhausting.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Mags are the weakest point in any semiauto platform and the thing most likely to fail or cause a problem, That should be the primary reason you carry a spare. The extra ammo is bonus.
 
Tactical reload, if you drill it you need that extra mag.

I guess OP would question a BUG as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
T. O'Heir said:
CCW is not about going into combat.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. CCW is about carrying the means to defend yourself in a possible life or death situation. Someone (or someones -- plural) is/are threatening you with enough weaponry that your recourse is a firearm.

That's combat. It's not the after church social.
 
I carry two spares, same as at work, It's habit. I hope like all get out that I don't need round number 1, much less round number 46, or a BUG if carried, but I would prefer the option.
 
My Glock 19 has a 16 round loadout. Just recently found a pristine/new G19 magazine! Replaced the one in the pistol, so nice to have that installed.

My spare Mag. I always carry, a G17 one. Why? For all the reasons noted!
Plus a bright SurFire flashlight. All on the belt.

The extra 17 rounds? NATO Hardball. Sub gun ammo. Might be shooting into a vehicle? Who knows. Leaking from back and front? Can't be bad.

Purchased a new pistol two days ago. A Glock 43X, Blue box. Why? Well, Murphy was an optimist! The chance of a 10 round limit passing some time in the future, is possible. By that time extra rounds magazines, 12/13? as spares will be made, if not allowed two extra magazines make 31 rounds a good thing.

Even though you know the reality of what is happening, an attack, a lot of times the "This can not be happening to me!" cause's a freeze! No life-saving movement. It might help if you grew up in rough places, and fought a lot, might help with the action, following recognition being natural. But now, an extra tool, my Glock 19 might be a better solution.

My Wife of 25 years is cool under pressure. She has been in the past. So she will follow my lead. Being watchful, never intoxicated, not ever trying any "Recreational? Drugs" in my life, being now 83 YOA. And intending to live longer! Shooting some low life youth, will not be a problem, faced with a definite threat. Other than that, going about our lives in peace and harmony.
 
Last edited:
I hate that argument.

"If YoU nEeD mOrE tHaN X aMoUnT oF rOuNdS tHaN YoU sHoUldN't..."

What if you do? You'll run that line through your head and perish?

It's also not so much as you will *need* those rounds, but if you need to fix a magazine issue. Which we know is the Achilles heel to a semi-automatic firearm.

It's also to top off and asses the surrounding when breaking tunnel vision.

I don't know of a single person who has been in a gun fight(s) who complained about carrying too much ammo.

Granted, I don't think I would carry 3-4 spare mags...wait....I carry 1 spare and 3 spares in bag. So I always at least have 1 spare magazine handy. I stopped carrying 2 spares on person because my attire has change for work.

I wouldn't feel under-gunned with a snub nose 357 and 2 speed strip either. But having spare ammo on tap is cheap insurance and I hope everyone does it.


Along with that, at the very least, I recommend a windlass tourniquet and some quick clot gauze as well.
 
"If YoU nEeD mOrE tHaN X aMoUnT oF rOuNdS tHaN YoU sHoUldN't..."
Click to expand...

Well, you must admit that it sounds cool, and it allows a person to imply that "i'm better because I don't need and won't carry more than minimal weaponry"

Seriously, anyone who has actually pondered what may happen to any depth will realize that chaos is the biggest factor in such a fight. God himself might laugh at what scenarios may happen. if you fumble around so badly that you hit the magazine release and drop it into a sewer grate, you have only a single round. If your gun has a magazine safety, you are totally screwed!

The simple fact is that if an extra magazine is available some of the random chaotic events may be prevented. A backup magazine is the second most important precaution, second only to the decision to carry a weapon.
 
When I am working it is a Glock and two extra mags. When I am not working it is a Glock and one extra mag + a S&W J frame 357 and a speed loader 95% of the time.

An extra mag is for more than the extra rounds. Glocks do upon occasion malfunction.
 
Why one extra magazine and not two?

Why two and not three?

Why three and not four?

At some point the very arguments that are being rallied against become your premises in defense of stopping at 1, 2, 3 or whatever number you stop at.
 
Lohman446 said:
Why one extra magazine and not two?



Why two and not three?



Why three and not four?



At some point the very arguments that are being rallied against become your premises in defense of stopping at 1, 2, 3 or whatever number you stop at.
Click to expand...
Because at some level there's a maximum of what I can reasonably carry on my person and there's a question of if 3 magazines are all going to fail. To me the addition of one magazine isn't burdensome. Yes this argument can be taken to extremes. I don't think one extra magazine is extreme.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
The chance of two magazines failing are the square of the chance of one magazine failing, already a fairly small number. The chance of three failing is the cube.

Carry all you want, or none. But TunnelRat's last point about extremes and burdens is valid and reasonable. Where you place your compromise point is up to you.
 
I'm trying to figure out if "valid and reasonable" are determined on their own merits or because they align with your conclusions and thus must be valid and reasonable.

The odds of needing a firearm to fend off a violent attack are pretty low.

The odds of needing one and successfully using one are lower

The odds of needing one, successfully using one, and needing to fire a shot to be successful are lower

The list goes on but the odds of needing a spare magazine are incredibly small so we cannot be making the argument that extremely small odds are the reason to not carry a second or third spare.

I'm actually in agreement - one spare magazine is efficient enough to carry that its a stopping point and allows me to clear a magazine caused failure (though even those are pretty rare). More than one does not fit in my pocket well, I don't like the magazine carriers I have tried in the past, and it helps balance things out a bit carried off-side (though two would like balance better).

But is that what I chose because it is "valid and reasonable" or is it "valid and reasonable" because it is what I chose. I think in the case of most of us its what we chose but we define it as a logical choice after we make it. That's fine you are free to do as you chose but let's be honest with ourselves about why we chose it.
 
The odds of needing a firearm to fend off a violent attack are pretty low.
Click to expand...
True.
The odds of needing one and successfully using one are lower
Click to expand...
That may be, but it is irrelevant.

The odds of needing one, successfully using one, and needing to fire a shot to be successful are lower
Click to expand...
True.

The list goes on but the odds of needing a spare magazine are incredibly small so we cannot be making the argument that extremely small odds are the reason to not carry a second or third spare.
Click to expand...
That is an invalid statistical analysis.

One starts with determining the odds of needing a second magazine, and being able to use it, once the firearm has come into play.
 
Why one extra magazine and not two?

Why two and not three?

Why three and not four?
Click to expand...

As with anything considered important, you thoughtfully qualify the need of any particular safeguard. The process by which you qualify the need will depend on a number of issues. If you are crossing death valley you might have several spare tires but how many spares do you have for driving around town? Most people are going to have one spare tire in the trunk no matter what.. and by the same token, a person should probably have a spare magazine as a similar safeguard. If you were talking onto a battlefield, the needs and imperatives change and so should your decision regarding the supplies you take into battle.

Carrying one extra mag is good common sense on many levels. Why not 2-3-or 4?.. the simply answer would be for that decision to have come from thoughtful consideration regarding all potential risks involved.
 
Spoke to an ex Police Officer (27 years in Miami) He carries a Mod 92 Berreta, in his truck? Goes out for supper, and still leaves it in his vehicle?

If I am dressed, I carry my G19 and a spare Mag. I have drawn my pistol, 3 times in my life. Not shot anyone. But the sight of a muzzle had the desired effect.

Actually hitting people (Fistfights?) I have no real count. Living in the UK, working in my Dads Pub, bouncing in Clubs for 5 years in Liverpool, etc.
Three years living in Sydney Australia, 30 years in Canada.

Not carrying an (as we called it) a Hi-Capacity Pistol, assanine. Why? Just because. Study attacks by criminals, against not armed people, and armed people? Where are you better off? Wow, that was easy, yes.
 
Why one extra magazine and not two?

Why two and not three?

Why three and not four?

At some point the very arguments that are being rallied against become your premises in defense of stopping at 1, 2, 3 or whatever number you stop at.
Click to expand...

imagine landing 100 miles in from the front line with only two magazines. I wouldn't be happy. being mugged or caught in gang violence isn't like facing down hordes of brain eating bad guys.

imo, having 19 rounds is likely to be perfectly good. imo, having another magazine and another 19 rounds is just the bees' knees. 3 extras? 5? 20? Sure, where do we draw the line between what we take to ihop and what we carry to practice?

there is no linear equation or GUT for gun combat. The carrier has just a few things.

the benefits:

1. The chance of forethought and preparation.
2. A choice of literally millions of tools and unlimited room to combine them.

some of the disadvantages:

1. chaos.
2. impractical systems.
3. absolute freedom to listen to everyone who offers advice, even a three rear old.
4. absolute freedom to make stupid decisions.

i think that your point is good. one extra clean and well maintained magazine is, imo,mandatory.

but, what if i drop the first through the sewer grate and the second jammed on a sunflower seed? uh oh, i need three. maybe i manage to fire all 19 rounds and still havent halted my attacker? should i have brought 4, 5, or even an entire belt loop?

i'm not going to prepare for the one in a trillion chance of full scale war, i'm going to prepare for what i think would be probable
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top