I Could carry my 9mm Taurus PT917CS with its 20 round mag in an OSB holster.. Then carry 2 extra 20 round mags. As a back up I could use my S+W 327 8 rd 357 in an ITB holster with a couple extra loaded clips in my pocket. Then as a deep cover I could pocket my Boberg XR-9 and my Seecamp 32 in a rear pocket. Finally i can put my 25Cal Braverman Stinger pen gun in my shirt pocket..... BRING IT ON. I got about 100 rounds!!
CC, how many spare magazines do you carry?
- Thread starter Kimio
- Start date
- Status
Ahh. Yes those with more experience all carry extra mags. Yes you make assumptions that i havent been to dangerous parts of the world.
You indirectly say my actions are wrong and you are right.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Moomooboo:
That is illustrated on a small scale by the responses here from those with the more solid backgrounds.
However, those with the training who do make it a practice to travel in dangerous places will tend to carry an extra magazine or two.
I will not say that your "actions are 'wrong' ", but it is clear from your comments and questions that you are making and trying to substantiate decisions without much in the way of understanding of the reasons.
You posts 28, 43, 52, 58, 60, 73, 84, 87, 88, 99, and 115, taken together, make that very clear.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions to which one does not know the answers, but you are continuing to ignore the informed advice that you have been given and are continuing to argue without presenting logical reasons.
Those with more experience in training for defensive pistol shooting, either as students or as instructors, understand the issues, understand the reasons for recommendations to carry extra magazines, can make informed decisions on the subject, and in general, do tend to carry extra magazines.
That is illustrated on a small scale by the responses here from those with the more solid backgrounds.
No one has said that, and where you may have been is completely irrelevant.
However, those with the training who do make it a practice to travel in dangerous places will tend to carry an extra magazine or two.
The decision to carry an extra magazine or two or a back-up gun, or to leave both at home, is as personal as the decision of whether to carry a gun in the first place.
I will not say that your "actions are 'wrong' ", but it is clear from your comments and questions that you are making and trying to substantiate decisions without much in the way of understanding of the reasons.
You posts 28, 43, 52, 58, 60, 73, 84, 87, 88, 99, and 115, taken together, make that very clear.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions to which one does not know the answers, but you are continuing to ignore the informed advice that you have been given and are continuing to argue without presenting logical reasons.
Spats McGee
Administrator
^^^This. Nothing more, nothing less.pax said:
While I'm not going to "spot points to the other side," I'm also not the guy that tries to prepare for every conceivable encounter and winds up carrying a gun, a back-up gun, a back-up to the back-up, 4 extra magazines for each gun, a knife, a sap, three bottles of water and a trauma kit. I fall somewhere between "I'll never need a gun" and "Bring on the Zombies." And while I recognize that, should I ever find myself in an armed encounter, it will be at a time and place of someone else's choosing, I do take into consideration my ordinary course of activities, and the times and places that said course takes me. I don't have the time or funds to run off and do thousands of rounds' worth of training every year, but I have spent (what is in my mind) sufficient time and energy reading articles by folks who know way more than I do on the subjects of armed defense. While I cannot think of any specific names or articles at the moment, I have come away from those articles with the belief that magazine-related malfunctions are: (1) not particularly uncommon; and (2) usually remedied by swapping magazines. And while (as noted above) I cannot do thousands of rounds of training every year, I'm not exactly a stranger at the range, either. I've had a handful of malfunctions that were pretty clearly magazine related. A magazine replacement fixed those problems.
We all have to do the Big Balancing Act, deciding what we'll carry, how often, and to what places. (The last one isn't always up to the carrier, obviously.) To my mind, in my daily routine, an extra magazine or two makes sense. Whatever extra weight or inconvenience may be associated with the extra magazine is outweighed by the following: (1) As I commented above, it balances out my belt, making carry more comfortable. (2) Should I ever find myself in an armed encounter, a 5-shot revolver may prove sufficient. Then again, it may not. (3) In the event I should ever need my pistol, I might have a magazine malfunction. Then again, I might not. (4) I'd rather have extra magazines and not need them, than need them and not have them.
YMMV
This is one forum with a small microcosm of people. I believe this is what they call anecdotal evidence.
Just because one resides among a group of people who think the same does not mean other groups who think differently do not exist in equal or larger numbers.
You have one way to thinking, i have another. You go through risk management i go by statistics to assess. You discount my conclusions and state that i am not listening to reason when there is little evidence that i will ever need a mag. Yours is based primarily off of mitigating a situation which may not occur, mine is based off of situations which have occured.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Moomooboo:
But you are going about it wrong. First, you decide whether or not to carry a weapon, based on assessment of likelihood, severity of consequences, and what would be involved in doing so.
Then you look, independently, at the next tier of risks. In this case, a malfunction.
Let me try to put it simply for you using an example that you should be able to understand.
A fire in the kitchen is very unlikely, right? But you might like to be able to handle it. You might, or might not, choose to keep a fire extinguisher handy. I do.
But would you select one that would likely handle fires in a very limited subset of circumstances, simply because the risk is unlikely to ever materialize?
No. No one would responsibly do so. One does not buy an extinguisher that may not function reliably just base fire are unlikely. Should a fire occur, one will want a very good one.
That's obviously not a perfect analogy, but perhaps it will help get the point across.
Regarding your assertion that you are basing anything on "situations which have occurred", you have no idea at all what has occurred and what has not. No one does. There are only two small data sets containing any details of civilian defensive shootings, and only one can be verified by the public.
There are reasons why the data are not available, and I have explained them.
True indeed.
Even a quick and incomplete review of other fora, established training companies and academies, books, and articles will show rather conclusively that many--not all, but most--of those who "think differently" have simply not made the effort to inform themselves.
That is obvious.
Statistical analysis, performed properly, is the very basis of risk management.
All risk management involves deciding whether, and if so how, to mitigate a situation that may not occur.
But you are going about it wrong. First, you decide whether or not to carry a weapon, based on assessment of likelihood, severity of consequences, and what would be involved in doing so.
Then you look, independently, at the next tier of risks. In this case, a malfunction.
Let me try to put it simply for you using an example that you should be able to understand.
A fire in the kitchen is very unlikely, right? But you might like to be able to handle it. You might, or might not, choose to keep a fire extinguisher handy. I do.
But would you select one that would likely handle fires in a very limited subset of circumstances, simply because the risk is unlikely to ever materialize?
No. No one would responsibly do so. One does not buy an extinguisher that may not function reliably just base fire are unlikely. Should a fire occur, one will want a very good one.
That's obviously not a perfect analogy, but perhaps it will help get the point across.
Regarding your assertion that you are basing anything on "situations which have occurred", you have no idea at all what has occurred and what has not. No one does. There are only two small data sets containing any details of civilian defensive shootings, and only one can be verified by the public.
There are reasons why the data are not available, and I have explained them.
Limnophile
New member
A lot of folks seem adamantly opposed to carrying a spare magazine. The focus of the objection seems to be a spare mag is unnecessary. But, are there any good reasons not to carry a spare?
The reason I have not been carrying a spare mag is it is convenient not to do so. A more brutal way of phrasing my rationale is I am being slothful. Sloth and a minor convenience are not good reasons. In the recent failed self-defense trial in ME the fact that the shooter was carrying two spare mags was used against him as a sign of premeditation, which, despite sounding scary, is not a good reason, because carrying a gun even without reloads could also be deemed evidence of premeditation.
I endorse a person's choice to arm himself or not and to carry as much or as little ammo as he wants. Many good reasons have been offered for carrying reloads, but are there any good reasons (other than non-necessity) to carry no reloads?
The reason I have not been carrying a spare mag is it is convenient not to do so. A more brutal way of phrasing my rationale is I am being slothful. Sloth and a minor convenience are not good reasons. In the recent failed self-defense trial in ME the fact that the shooter was carrying two spare mags was used against him as a sign of premeditation, which, despite sounding scary, is not a good reason, because carrying a gun even without reloads could also be deemed evidence of premeditation.
I endorse a person's choice to arm himself or not and to carry as much or as little ammo as he wants. Many good reasons have been offered for carrying reloads, but are there any good reasons (other than non-necessity) to carry no reloads?
Weird,
I can't do a quote and reply. In response to Oldman.
"Even a quick and incomplete review of other fora, established training companies and academies, books, and articles will show rather conclusively that many--not all, but most--of those who "think differently" have simply not made the effort to inform themselves."
-And again you go saying people are wrong and ignorant because they don't believe in what you have to say. Please stray away from this.
"Statistical analysis, performed properly, is the very basis of risk management."
- Sure, and there are different ways to look and interpret statistics. Statistics are numbers, how you choose to interpret and analyze them are different. You have one, I have another, but you are stating that I am wrong.
"All risk management involves deciding whether, and if so how, to mitigate a situation that may not occur. But you are going about it wrong. First, you decide whether or not to carry a weapon, based on assessment of likelihood, severity of consequences, and what would be involved in doing so. Then you look, independently, at the next tier of risks. In this case, a malfunction.
Let me try to put it simply for you using an example that you should be able to understand. A fire in the kitchen is very unlikely, right? But you might like to be able to handle it. You might, or might not, choose to keep a fire extinguisher handy. I do. But would you select one that would likely handle fires in a very limited subset of circumstances, simply because the risk is unlikely to ever materialize?
No. No one would responsibly do so. One does not buy an extinguisher that may not function reliably just base fire are unlikely. Should a fire occur, one will want a very good one. That's obviously not a perfect analogy, but perhaps it will help get the point across.
Regarding your assertion that you are basing anything on "situations which have occurred", you have no idea at all what has occurred and what has not. No one does. There are only two small data sets containing any details of civilian defensive shootings, and only one can be verified by the public.
There are reasons why the data are not available, and I have explained them."
-Sure I will agree, all these factors are independent and should be analyzed independently as they are not dependent on the other. However, the chances of all of that happening can be combined to provide the odds of all that happening.
No offense, but please use a different analogy than the fire extinguisher.
So, by your assertion that I have no idea what has occurred due to small data sets, I am wrong in my statistics. Taking your claim that the basis of risk management is statistics, there is no way you can be correct either. The foundation of your risk management is null and void if my statistics cannot be used due to lack of data.
I can't see who wrote this but this is my response.
"A lot of folks seem adamantly opposed to carrying a spare magazine. The focus of the objection seems to be a spare mag is unnecessary. But, are there any good reasons not to carry a spare?
The reason I have not been carrying a spare mag is it is convenient not to do so. A more brutal way of phrasing my rationale is I am being slothful. Sloth and a minor convenience are not good reasons. In the recent failed self-defense trial in ME the fact that the shooter was carrying two spare mags was used against him as a sign of premeditation, which, despite sounding scary, is not a good reason, because carrying a gun even without reloads could also be deemed evidence of premeditation.
I endorse a person's choice to arm himself or not and to carry as much or as little ammo as he wants. Many good reasons have been offered for carrying reloads, but are there any good reasons (other than non-necessity) to carry no reloads?"
On the same note, is there really a good reason to carry reloads? If you're going to say that you'll never know you may never need it, we'll go down this slippery slope of needing a kevlar helmet and bulletproof vest again. Sure it's 1 or 2 reloads, but then again its just a helmet or bulletproof vest. They have some nice unnoticeable bulletproof vest nowadays too and comparing the cost of the vest vs your life, is really, priceless.
On the note of risk management, you might as well never leave your home to mitigate risks, its easy with the internet delivering goods and food to your home. (no offense oldman, I do appreciate your input).
I can't do a quote and reply. In response to Oldman.
"Even a quick and incomplete review of other fora, established training companies and academies, books, and articles will show rather conclusively that many--not all, but most--of those who "think differently" have simply not made the effort to inform themselves."
-And again you go saying people are wrong and ignorant because they don't believe in what you have to say. Please stray away from this.
"Statistical analysis, performed properly, is the very basis of risk management."
- Sure, and there are different ways to look and interpret statistics. Statistics are numbers, how you choose to interpret and analyze them are different. You have one, I have another, but you are stating that I am wrong.
"All risk management involves deciding whether, and if so how, to mitigate a situation that may not occur. But you are going about it wrong. First, you decide whether or not to carry a weapon, based on assessment of likelihood, severity of consequences, and what would be involved in doing so. Then you look, independently, at the next tier of risks. In this case, a malfunction.
Let me try to put it simply for you using an example that you should be able to understand. A fire in the kitchen is very unlikely, right? But you might like to be able to handle it. You might, or might not, choose to keep a fire extinguisher handy. I do. But would you select one that would likely handle fires in a very limited subset of circumstances, simply because the risk is unlikely to ever materialize?
No. No one would responsibly do so. One does not buy an extinguisher that may not function reliably just base fire are unlikely. Should a fire occur, one will want a very good one. That's obviously not a perfect analogy, but perhaps it will help get the point across.
Regarding your assertion that you are basing anything on "situations which have occurred", you have no idea at all what has occurred and what has not. No one does. There are only two small data sets containing any details of civilian defensive shootings, and only one can be verified by the public.
There are reasons why the data are not available, and I have explained them."
-Sure I will agree, all these factors are independent and should be analyzed independently as they are not dependent on the other. However, the chances of all of that happening can be combined to provide the odds of all that happening.
No offense, but please use a different analogy than the fire extinguisher.
So, by your assertion that I have no idea what has occurred due to small data sets, I am wrong in my statistics. Taking your claim that the basis of risk management is statistics, there is no way you can be correct either. The foundation of your risk management is null and void if my statistics cannot be used due to lack of data.
I can't see who wrote this but this is my response.
"A lot of folks seem adamantly opposed to carrying a spare magazine. The focus of the objection seems to be a spare mag is unnecessary. But, are there any good reasons not to carry a spare?
The reason I have not been carrying a spare mag is it is convenient not to do so. A more brutal way of phrasing my rationale is I am being slothful. Sloth and a minor convenience are not good reasons. In the recent failed self-defense trial in ME the fact that the shooter was carrying two spare mags was used against him as a sign of premeditation, which, despite sounding scary, is not a good reason, because carrying a gun even without reloads could also be deemed evidence of premeditation.
I endorse a person's choice to arm himself or not and to carry as much or as little ammo as he wants. Many good reasons have been offered for carrying reloads, but are there any good reasons (other than non-necessity) to carry no reloads?"
On the same note, is there really a good reason to carry reloads? If you're going to say that you'll never know you may never need it, we'll go down this slippery slope of needing a kevlar helmet and bulletproof vest again. Sure it's 1 or 2 reloads, but then again its just a helmet or bulletproof vest. They have some nice unnoticeable bulletproof vest nowadays too and comparing the cost of the vest vs your life, is really, priceless.
On the note of risk management, you might as well never leave your home to mitigate risks, its easy with the internet delivering goods and food to your home. (no offense oldman, I do appreciate your input).
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
On the slippery slope, if you really do understand statistics and risk management, you would understand that you establish a reasonable cutoff or critical value for acceptable levels of risk.
The slippery slope is really a distribution of possible incidents and errors. Many experts have decided (you can denigrate experts) that looking at the continuum of possible problems, an extra mag is not so far out to be a silly action to take.
As far as sloth and not being able to do it with comfort, well - that's your choice and many have found they can.
The slippery slope is really a distribution of possible incidents and errors. Many experts have decided (you can denigrate experts) that looking at the continuum of possible problems, an extra mag is not so far out to be a silly action to take.
As far as sloth and not being able to do it with comfort, well - that's your choice and many have found they can.
Uh. No it's not a slippery slope. A couple extra magazines are something that probably all semi-auto owners have. Nobody but you has suggested that sticking a couple mags in a pouch is going to lead to leaving the house in full battle gear to provide for every contingency. If you really believe that there is no reasonably possible situation that could occur that would necessitate carrying them then fine. I, and a lot of people who carry just can't see the resistance to a practice that takes zero effort to accomplish just in case. Like I said in a previous post, "I've gone nearly 59 years without needing a gun." It's easy to carry and it's fun to train. It's a hobby and a lifestyle. I hope no one here ever needs even a single round but even more than that I hope no one here needs an extra magazine and doesn't have it.
Name those experts glenn. Please.
Also i have never denigrated any experts. Please use the proper word.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Moomooboo:
You were claiming to base your assessment on cumulative probabilities that would combine the likelihood of a defensive shooting with the likelihood of a failure to function--both happening at the same time.
You do not have the data and neither do I, but if we had them, we would not use them. That would be the wrong way to go about it.
Read Post #54 again, as many times as it takes you to grasp the basic concept.
In its simplest form, here it is again: You first assess the risk of being attacked, and decide whether to mitigate it by carrying a weapon. Some people decide to do so, and many others decide otherwise.
Then, if you have decided to carry a firearm, you assess, separately, the risk that your firearm may fail.
There are plenty of ways of assessing that marginal probability--the risk that the firearm will fail when you need it most. You could ask some instructors, or devote some time observing some two-day training sessions, or better yet, you could enroll in one.
After making the assessment, you decide whether and how to mitigate that risk. We have discussed two ways.
Capisci?
Here's the process:
No helmet or vest for me, thank you.
You just do not understand.
You were claiming to base your assessment on cumulative probabilities that would combine the likelihood of a defensive shooting with the likelihood of a failure to function--both happening at the same time.
You do not have the data and neither do I, but if we had them, we would not use them. That would be the wrong way to go about it.
Read Post #54 again, as many times as it takes you to grasp the basic concept.
In its simplest form, here it is again: You first assess the risk of being attacked, and decide whether to mitigate it by carrying a weapon. Some people decide to do so, and many others decide otherwise.
Then, if you have decided to carry a firearm, you assess, separately, the risk that your firearm may fail.
There are plenty of ways of assessing that marginal probability--the risk that the firearm will fail when you need it most. You could ask some instructors, or devote some time observing some two-day training sessions, or better yet, you could enroll in one.
After making the assessment, you decide whether and how to mitigate that risk. We have discussed two ways.
Capisci?
That has been the entire subject of this discussion.
You could go through that thought process if you wanted to, and make a decision or two. That would be up to you.
Here's the process:
- Identify the risks
- Assess the likelihood that each of the risks would occur, unmitigated
- Assess the severity of the potential consequences of each of the risks
- Consider potential risk mitgation techniques; look at cost and effectiveness; "cost" means more than dollars--weight, impact on mobility, comfort, convenience.....
- DECIDE
No helmet or vest for me, thank you.
That doesn't make sense to me, but one might prudently decide to not go out when people are coming home after people have been at Superbowl parties, or to not drive when the roads are icy.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by momooboo:
Well, should Glenn happen to believe that that inane request is worth the time of day, we'll see how his list compares with mine:
Claude Werner recently opined that if he had to make a choice, he would rather carry a less lethal weapon than an extra magazine.
Whether you believe that you have denigrated any experts, I think that do you seem to do so.
And that is the proper word.
Oh for heaven sakes!
Well, should Glenn happen to believe that that inane request is worth the time of day, we'll see how his list compares with mine:
- Massad Ayoob
- Frank Ettin
- Tom Givens (carries two)
- JohnKSa
- Kathy Jackson
- Spats McGee
- Glenn E. Meyer
- Mike Seeklander
- Rob Pincus, and all of his instructors
- And most every other qualified defensive pistol instructor I can think of
Claude Werner recently opined that if he had to make a choice, he would rather carry a less lethal weapon than an extra magazine.
Whether you believe that you have denigrated any experts, I think that do you seem to do so.
And that is the proper word.
Ok Old Marksman. I have disparaged experts even though ive said that you can carry extra magazines even though i do not choose to. Seems you guys dont understand what denigrate means, just because i dont believe what you preach does not mean that ive belittled you.
As for these experts. They all fall under the same organizations. At the top is massad and then the armed citizens network. Your claim for them being experts is that theyve simply been shooting and getting trained for years.
Just because ive taken some car driving course and been driving courses, driving for 20 years and am a member of nascar federation does that make me an expert?
These people, some seem to have LEO Backgrounds which indirectly leads to some research. But these arent people who have been poring over cases to come to their conclusion.
As for these experts. They all fall under the same organizations. At the top is massad and then the armed citizens network. Your claim for them being experts is that theyve simply been shooting and getting trained for years.
Just because ive taken some car driving course and been driving courses, driving for 20 years and am a member of nascar federation does that make me an expert?
These people, some seem to have LEO Backgrounds which indirectly leads to some research. But these arent people who have been poring over cases to come to their conclusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Moomooboo:
Are you suggesting that many, most, or all of the people whom pax and I have listed are not experts?
Are you intentionally trying to denigrate them?
Those sentences are contradictory.
I have claimed nothing of the kind.
Several of them were police officers at one time. Others have never been.
What is your basis for that assertion?
Are you suggesting that many, most, or all of the people whom pax and I have listed are not experts?
Are you intentionally trying to denigrate them?
OldMarksman
Staff
On the Subject of Experts
People can and should look into the backgrounds, qualifications, and reputations of "expets" and anyone else when considering their advice.
For the convenience of those who have followed this discussion, I'll list those of just an arbitrary few.
This what one finds on John Farnham's website:
One of John's students is Kathy Jackson (pax, here):
Kathy mentions Tom Givens:
I have left out a lot about Tom, including championships, authorships and so forth, but it is relevant here that he has lectured and written about over sixty real defensive use of force encounters that his students experienced.
I have studied under Rob Pincus. A few highlights:
If you have watched The Best Defense, you have seen Mike Seeklander. If you have not , you should. Search and read about his impressive background.
Massad Ayoob should need no introduction. I have studied under Mas, too.
Understand that this is a business. Some people may try to pass themselves off as experts, but if they cannot deliver, they will not succeed.
Again, I have arbitrarily chosen just a few.
People can and should look into the backgrounds, qualifications, and reputations of "expets" and anyone else when considering their advice.
For the convenience of those who have followed this discussion, I'll list those of just an arbitrary few.
This what one finds on John Farnham's website:
One of John's students is Kathy Jackson (pax, here):
Kathy mentions Tom Givens:
I have left out a lot about Tom, including championships, authorships and so forth, but it is relevant here that he has lectured and written about over sixty real defensive use of force encounters that his students experienced.
I have studied under Rob Pincus. A few highlights:
If you have watched The Best Defense, you have seen Mike Seeklander. If you have not , you should. Search and read about his impressive background.
Massad Ayoob should need no introduction. I have studied under Mas, too.
Understand that this is a business. Some people may try to pass themselves off as experts, but if they cannot deliver, they will not succeed.
Again, I have arbitrarily chosen just a few.
- Status