You can rip and retain, but that complicates an already complicated clearence during a stress filled event. Most trainers (myself included) would rather strip the mag out, leaving our hands clear to rack the slide, clearing the trapped case and then just reload with a spare mag.
CC, how many spare magazines do you carry?
- Thread starter Kimio
- Start date
- Status
kilimanjaro
New member
In addition to my revolver, I carry two magazines, a rolled up copy of National Geographic and another, Gun World, just in case I run out of ammo.
Up until the point you actually defend yourself. At that point, you should be the aggressor, until the threat is negated. Of course, that assumes you want to prevail.
I understand some places still require this (its not where I live), but this is one of my peeves with the thought process of some. Once things start, your main focus should be on solving the problem, and prevailing (assuming you want to win and survive). Not interrupting your own OODA loop, with worry that has no place in being there. Once youve determined force is necessary, then fight. Worry about worrying after you win.
Again, I understand the thought, but do you worry about the thoughts of others in the moment, to the point of deadly (yours) distraction, or do you focus on solving the problem?
Im not saying you shouldnt understand the rules of engagement, far from it, IM simply saying, once you have decided force is necessary, you need to focus on winning (or, in different wording, stopping the threat, for those squeamish about the "winning" word) and doing so.
Same thing, different wording, or at least, its what I meant.
If I believe that I need to draw and fire my weapon in response to someones actions, then "as forcefully and violently as you possibly can" applies.
If you die for lack of trying, because your heart really wasnt in it, or youre more concerned what someone else may think afterwards, and allow that to interfere with what youre tring to accomplish, then whats the point in even trying?
My definition of "win" is surviving.
That's it. That's all it will take for me to prevail in a violent encounter. And I'm not taking anything off the table in order to make that happen.
I don't have to shoot him to the ground or put him in the ground. I don't have to hand him over to the authorities or stop him from running away. I don't have to make sure it's "one story, end of story" by stalling before I call the authorities after he's down, nor do I have to commit any of the quasi-illegal "tactical" myths gun owners tell each other. I don't have to teach him a lesson, or stop him from attacking someone else next year, or feel vindicated by killing a bad guy.
All I have to do is survive. That's a win.
When the definition of victory includes "shoot him to the ground" and similar sentiments... well, that's not a good tactical plan, in part because it puts the innocent victim into a suboptimal, non-survival mindset during the event and leaves the survivor in a suboptimal legal situation when the shooting is over. It reduces the odds of survival during the event because it takes some potentially viable solutions off the table, and absolutely refuses to consider every possible way to survive the situation. After the event, the legal system can and does look at the survivor's mindset (what was your intent when you fired the deadly weapon?) as a measure of guilt or non-guilt for the outcome. That's why the legal situation becomes dicey for those who haven't guarded their mindsets before their event.
If I ever kill someone, it will be because I had no choice. It will be because there were no other viable ways to save an innocent life. And that's the ideal end of the story.
pax
"Bill Jordan, in his excellent book _No Second Place Winner_, says there are no second place winners in a gun fight. I submit to you that there are no first place winners, either. The only true victory is deterrence. Anything else is just damage control." — Massad Ayoob
That's it. That's all it will take for me to prevail in a violent encounter. And I'm not taking anything off the table in order to make that happen.
I don't have to shoot him to the ground or put him in the ground. I don't have to hand him over to the authorities or stop him from running away. I don't have to make sure it's "one story, end of story" by stalling before I call the authorities after he's down, nor do I have to commit any of the quasi-illegal "tactical" myths gun owners tell each other. I don't have to teach him a lesson, or stop him from attacking someone else next year, or feel vindicated by killing a bad guy.
All I have to do is survive. That's a win.
When the definition of victory includes "shoot him to the ground" and similar sentiments... well, that's not a good tactical plan, in part because it puts the innocent victim into a suboptimal, non-survival mindset during the event and leaves the survivor in a suboptimal legal situation when the shooting is over. It reduces the odds of survival during the event because it takes some potentially viable solutions off the table, and absolutely refuses to consider every possible way to survive the situation. After the event, the legal system can and does look at the survivor's mindset (what was your intent when you fired the deadly weapon?) as a measure of guilt or non-guilt for the outcome. That's why the legal situation becomes dicey for those who haven't guarded their mindsets before their event.
If I ever kill someone, it will be because I had no choice. It will be because there were no other viable ways to save an innocent life. And that's the ideal end of the story.
pax
"Bill Jordan, in his excellent book _No Second Place Winner_, says there are no second place winners in a gun fight. I submit to you that there are no first place winners, either. The only true victory is deterrence. Anything else is just damage control." — Massad Ayoob
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by AK103K:
Is it?
If, after I have decided that force is necessary, an attacker runs, surrenders, or is stopped, for reasons either psychological or physical, by the actual use of force before the defender is injured, the defender has won.
Of course, I may well need the testimony of an expert witness to explain that what I did under the circumstances, in accordance with my training (evidence of which I would have to provide), did not exceed what a reasonable person would have believed immediately necessary.
It looks as if pax has said much of the same thing, more eloquently.
What in the world does that mean?
I have no idea what you mean by that, either. I will be using force, in self defense. I do not want anyone else to perceive and testify that I was "the aggressor" during any stage of the incident.
I want to get out of it unhurt. If that's what you mean by "prevail", fine.
Is it?
The latter, but I train and program myself to not do anything stupid or incriminating.
Again, "winning" is staying unhurt, in law and in reality.
If, after I have decided that force is necessary, an attacker runs, surrenders, or is stopped, for reasons either psychological or physical, by the actual use of force before the defender is injured, the defender has won.
Two things:
- I will not draw unless I do believe I that need to fire (that is the law here, but not in all jurisdictions).
- If the need to shoot remains, I will cerainly shoot to stop as effectively as possible , but I will not knowingly and willfully exert one more iota of force than is necessary to do so.
Of course, I may well need the testimony of an expert witness to explain that what I did under the circumstances, in accordance with my training (evidence of which I would have to provide), did not exceed what a reasonable person would have believed immediately necessary.
It looks as if pax has said much of the same thing, more eloquently.
I thought thats what we were discussing all along. Once the decision is made to shoot, you shoot, until there is no longer a threat.
"Shoot them to the ground" is just what it is. If you dont like the term, use something else that means the same, because no matter how you say it, it is what it is. When they are down, and no longer a threat/trying to harm you, then its over. They may not necessarily be dead, but I suspect its going to be a good possibility, as that really is what you train for when you train, is it not? They (not you) started it, by doing something that removed all your predetermined "safeties" and you shoot.
You shoot to kill, stop, end the threat, whatever, and you do so by targeting the areas of the body, most likely to bring that result. You dont shoot to simply maim, disable, etc, you shoot, in no uncertain terms, to kill. If you think that saying it in a politically correct way makes it any different, then I think your deluding yourself.
The other thing with that thought is, how you shoot, or train to shoot. Pistol calibers are notoriously poor "man stoppers", and you need to do two things, quickly place your shots to the best of your ability, and continue to do so, until the threat is down. This all is likely to occur in milliseconds, and you will likely not see any response to the first couple of rounds, as other than a CNS shot, the target probably doesnt even know its been shot either. Do you hesitate after a couple of shots, to evaluate and have a look see? Or do you keep shooting, until they are down, and out? I dont now about you, if they arent down, and still have a weapon in their hands, they keep getting shot until they are, or I am.
I would think all of this would be common sense, just like carrying a spare mag if you carry an auto, or a couple of speed loaders, if you carry a revolver. We carry these tools because we feel some need to do so. Its not something taken lightly, and its serious business, and in all regards. If you arent willing to address the reality of that weapons use, and in all ways (on going and regular training, realistic practice, the mental parts, understanding of the laws etc.), then perhaps its best you dont carry it.
I think the problem here is, Im over simplifying things, and youre going in the other direction.
Im by no means discounting what youre referring to, and I understand and for the most part agree, just that you are more about blowing it up and Im more about reducing it to the fewest parts necessary.
At the point of having to shoot, I will have removed a number of predetermined "safeties" (read that as most all of your thoughts on the matter) that are in place that lead to the final act. All Im saying is, once those safeties are removed, all other things become secondary, and winning, prevailing, coming out on top, how ever you want to say it, is the only goal.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by AK103K:
Have you considered that you have just created permanent evidence that could be used to indicate state of mind if you are ever involved in a shooting incident?
Yes, unless of course you can change the decision timely and safely before shooting if the situation changes.
What?
"Good possibility", yes , but considerably less than likely.
???
"Whatever"? You need to learn some things.
HOGWASH!
Have you considered that you have just created permanent evidence that could be used to indicate state of mind if you are ever involved in a shooting incident?
Bad answer Brother...
The shooting is done to STOP the threat. Period!! If that results in the assailant dying, thats unfortunate.
You dont shoot to kill, its just an unfortunate reality of using enough force to stop his attack.
As to the term "shoot him to the ground". I think thats flawed as well. What if your first shot causes him to drop his weapon? Do you continue to "shoot him to the ground"? That is a recipe for a long stay in the gray bar hotel. With the plethora of video recording devices everywhere these days, its HIGHLY likely there will be video evidence of your SD shooting.
"So, if after shot #1 the attacker dropped his gun/knife, why did you continue to fire an additional 8 shots?"
"Cause i trained to shoot him to the ground"
Thats not going to fly to a US jury. Good luck, see ya in 10-15...maybe 7 with good behavior.
Understood, but at that point, its likely a bit late. It appears youre still working your way through thinking about things, where Im talking about things already having progressed to the point of rounds leaving the gun.
I understand its not the PC term you seem to like, so call it what you like, thats all that meant.
Hmmm, then what are you training/practicing to hit when you shoot? Seriously, COM and head shots are the norm, are they not?
What ever "you" want to call it, since Im not PC correct in my nomenclature.
I guess Im doomed then.
Good, then contrary to all the hand wringing, "the evidence" will show I was justified in my response.
1) The single most likely outcome from drawing the gun is: the assailant runs away.
2) The single most likely outcome from drawing the gun and firing (but missing) is: the assailant runs away.
3) The single most likely outcome from drawing the gun and hitting (but a marginal hit) is: the assailant runs away.
4) The single most likely outcome from drawing the gun and hitting with a good solid center mass, upper center chest hit is: the assailant runs away.
5) The single most likely ouycome from drawing the gun and hitting with a fast series of good solid center mass, upper center chest hits is: the assailant runs away.
It's only in the movies where people drop dead in their tracks. More often, they turn around and start beating feet in the opposite direction. "Oh, my, look at the time! I must be elsewhere now!"
And that's good. That's stopping the threat.
If the assailant plops over dead at your feet, that might be a bonus to some ways of thinking.
But it's not the most likely outcome, even with excellent, speedy, appropriately-aimed shots that hit the guy right in the heart. And if you plan to keep firing until he's dead at your feet (and no other outcome will do in your mind), then you will likely do stupid stuff like chase the bad guy out the door and shoot him in the back as he runs away.
And that's ... suboptimal, both legally and practically.
pax
Arizona Fusilier
New member
A couple of weeks ago, to my horror, I experienced double-feeds with my otherwise rock-solid Sig 229 at the range. Yeah, I had to lock that slide back and drop that mag.
My observation? That top round captive in the mag is riding forward, or sometimes almost stovepiping, to the point it's reckless to try and reinsert it again.
A reliable immediate action drill should involve the insertion of a different, spare magazine.
No Bruce Willis wannabe-fantasies are necessary to come to this reasonable conclusion.
My observation? That top round captive in the mag is riding forward, or sometimes almost stovepiping, to the point it's reckless to try and reinsert it again.
A reliable immediate action drill should involve the insertion of a different, spare magazine.
No Bruce Willis wannabe-fantasies are necessary to come to this reasonable conclusion.
So ok. I can see why some people carry the mag obviously we are not convincing eachother but it is nice seeing different viewpoints no matter how testy we get at eachother.
Lets say your gun double feeds on round 3. Do we really need that quick change or would 1 or 2 seconds kill us?
Obviously it could be yes or no. Im still at the point of pure statistical numbers where i dont believe ill encounter SD, then have mag problems, then require the quicker 1 or 2 seconds whcih could be solved by an extra magazine.
Go ahead people call me stupid, because you all know me and my life experiences. Im just stating ny viewpoint and the way i see things.
Lets say your gun double feeds on round 3. Do we really need that quick change or would 1 or 2 seconds kill us?
Obviously it could be yes or no. Im still at the point of pure statistical numbers where i dont believe ill encounter SD, then have mag problems, then require the quicker 1 or 2 seconds whcih could be solved by an extra magazine.
Go ahead people call me stupid, because you all know me and my life experiences. Im just stating ny viewpoint and the way i see things.
Not calling anybody stupid....and we DONT know your life experience. Those of us with the "life experence" of carrying and using a pistol (and other deadly weapons), in various parts of this country and around the world, AND who have trained extensively for that "experience" understand the need to have the ability to keep that weapon running in the event it fails.
The statistical probability of it failing is another topic...but IF it fails, then, Yes, seconds count
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by AK103K:
Otherwise it will likely do you in.
One can learn a lot about those subjects, about what witnesses perceive and notice, and what they do not notice, and about how what is shown on video can undermine a valid defense of justification, from this and this.
Invest in them both, sooner rather than later.
And don't worry about what is "PC". Worry about the law, and how the legal system works.
If, and only if "the evidence" --video and eyestiness testimony--
- does not make it appear as if you had been the aggressor in any point in the encounter; and
- ...does not seem to indicate that you had used any more force than had been lawfully necessary to survive, in any point in the encounter.
Otherwise it will likely do you in.
One can learn a lot about those subjects, about what witnesses perceive and notice, and what they do not notice, and about how what is shown on video can undermine a valid defense of justification, from this and this.
Invest in them both, sooner rather than later.
And don't worry about what is "PC". Worry about the law, and how the legal system works.
Theohazard
New member
Sometimes it would be a lot more than 1 or 2 seconds.Moomooboo said:
Like Arizona Fusilier said, sometimes the top round is sticking forward partially out of the feed lips on the mag you just ripped out. In that case you'd have to stop and pull that round out or try to push it back in fully before re-using the mag. And that's on top of retaining the mag while you finish clearing the stoppage.
All that would add a lot longer than 1 or 2 seconds.
griffin12aaa
New member
To the op question about carrying spare mags.
Somewhere in the op i read "its better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it". Or something along those lines. Well the way i see it is this whole time you didnt have it and didnt need it(the gun) so now that you have it you still might not need it so even 5 shots is better than a couple of days when you didnt have it.
Keep in mind i dont have my chl yet and i live in texas and its hot so less is a plus for me
just my honest opinion and nothing more. I plan on getting it in a couple of months though
Somewhere in the op i read "its better to have and not need it, than to need it and not have it". Or something along those lines. Well the way i see it is this whole time you didnt have it and didnt need it(the gun) so now that you have it you still might not need it so even 5 shots is better than a couple of days when you didnt have it.
Keep in mind i dont have my chl yet and i live in texas and its hot so less is a plus for me
just my honest opinion and nothing more. I plan on getting it in a couple of months thoughNot saying that what anyone feels is necessary is wrong but I just can't fathom anyone feeling burdened by "lugging around" a couple of magazines. I can understand the reasoning of those that don't believe they need them, even if I don't agree but if all that weight is the only reason for not carrying them......well that I don't understand.
- Status