Do we need Hi-Capacity in everyday Carry?
- Thread starter Brit
- Start date
- Status
Walt Sherrill
New member
I missed this the first time I read your reply...
.
I know which of those wishes is more likely to become a reality if the stuff does hit the fan:Lohman446 said:
- In the first case, all you have to do is change your carry weapon to one that has a larger capacity.
- In the second case, you've got to carry that long gun with you whenever you would normally carry a concealed handgun concealed. (It's not only hard to conceal a long gun, it'll likely be illegal to do so in many jurisdictions.) But if you were to openly carry an AR into a box store or a mall, you'd likely make the natives restless.
.
Last edited:
In teaching for over 25 years, Police, Security, and Military to defend themselves with their duty weapon, only two used pistols to defend there lives.
One was working for a company that has been sold, but I remember the incident (use of a 38 Special revolver) one-shot.
This Security Officer, who we will call Mike because it was his name!
Two ATM technicians were going about their jobs, fixing machines that had been reported as faulty. Only one was armed, the other was a brand new employee. And had not had his weapon training.
A fall out over some minor vehicle bump, ending with one of two brothers, who were driving, and drinking rum, at least one of them was. His glass of choice was a pint beer glass! Which glass smacked the new hire, over the ear, breaking the glass. Just the handle in his hand, nasty jagged piece facing forward he advanced on the armed Officer.
As the Brother advanced, using lots of foul language, the revolver was drawn, pointed in a two handhold and the official challenge I taught, was issued. The broken glass was not dropped, and he continued to advance.
A single shot was fired at about 6', 158g Semi Wad Cutter, heart shot, instant collapse. That is the gist of it. The bullet, hardly disfigured, was found on the gurney, at the hospital.
Second, a Brinks Guard, I had trained, had his money bag grabbed, by a gun club member, never had any kind of a criminal charge up to this time, had lost his job, ashamed to tell his wife? And holstered a .45 Colt 1911. And proceeded to become an armed criminal, the Brinks employee suffered a shot to his calf, a pice of a .45 lead practice round, in return my guy fired from prone, at 25 yards, hitting the robber, taking cover behind a telegraph pole.
Center body hit, two rounds fired one hit, one miss. Not fatal, but gunfight over. Again a .38 Special round. Not much-concealed carry in Toronto (like none) so no legally armed citizens there, unlike here!
One was working for a company that has been sold, but I remember the incident (use of a 38 Special revolver) one-shot.
This Security Officer, who we will call Mike because it was his name!
Two ATM technicians were going about their jobs, fixing machines that had been reported as faulty. Only one was armed, the other was a brand new employee. And had not had his weapon training.
A fall out over some minor vehicle bump, ending with one of two brothers, who were driving, and drinking rum, at least one of them was. His glass of choice was a pint beer glass! Which glass smacked the new hire, over the ear, breaking the glass. Just the handle in his hand, nasty jagged piece facing forward he advanced on the armed Officer.
As the Brother advanced, using lots of foul language, the revolver was drawn, pointed in a two handhold and the official challenge I taught, was issued. The broken glass was not dropped, and he continued to advance.
A single shot was fired at about 6', 158g Semi Wad Cutter, heart shot, instant collapse. That is the gist of it. The bullet, hardly disfigured, was found on the gurney, at the hospital.
Second, a Brinks Guard, I had trained, had his money bag grabbed, by a gun club member, never had any kind of a criminal charge up to this time, had lost his job, ashamed to tell his wife? And holstered a .45 Colt 1911. And proceeded to become an armed criminal, the Brinks employee suffered a shot to his calf, a pice of a .45 lead practice round, in return my guy fired from prone, at 25 yards, hitting the robber, taking cover behind a telegraph pole.
Center body hit, two rounds fired one hit, one miss. Not fatal, but gunfight over. Again a .38 Special round. Not much-concealed carry in Toronto (like none) so no legally armed citizens there, unlike here!
Last edited:
Actually looking at the holes in places where there shouldn't be holes at every range I've ever used I'm not so sure I would brag on the average gun enthusiast.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Funny story about those. Those are mostly security guards. You know, the G licencees.
When I worked at a local range and they're instructed to shoot from retention, there is almost ALWAYS someone who arches their back and hits the ceiling. At least 1-2 people per class.
The G licensed Security Officers are on average, not as good as Police in re-qualification shoots. Then you get one like me, the most points I have dropped was this year, scored 237 out of 240. Shooting a Glock 19 4th gen, TruGlo night sights, extended slide release, butt plug. I carry Glock 17 spare mags, standard G19 15 round magazine in the pistol.
Trigger replaced with the smooth one dumped that lined one.
I beat my Son, as usual, he dropped 11 points!
The Instructor said "Your Dad beat you" Mick said "He always does"
I think the test should be like mine in Canada. 20 rounds. But there should be a lot more position shooting, movement, headshots in actual training etc. What's the point of just shooting a test?
Not sure, but I think a Headshot was counted as a miss?
Trigger replaced with the smooth one dumped that lined one.
I beat my Son, as usual, he dropped 11 points!
The Instructor said "Your Dad beat you" Mick said "He always does"
I think the test should be like mine in Canada. 20 rounds. But there should be a lot more position shooting, movement, headshots in actual training etc. What's the point of just shooting a test?
Not sure, but I think a Headshot was counted as a miss?
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
New member
jar said:
A lot of those folks just go out and buy a handgun and start shooting. A remarkably small percentage of them even take a basic gun safety course, (You see the same thing when you take or observe a concealed carry class.)
Just buying a gun doesn't cause me to call the buyer a gun enthusiast. I suspect that many of the shooters on this forum would do better than the average LEO in gun handling and performance at a range.
But as BRIT notes above, just "qualifying" as many LEOs do, doesn't really allow them to demonstrate real skills. And as has been noted the GUN GAMES, while not training, do give you a chance do more than just stand still and shoot at an unmoving target. It's not the same as a real-life conflict, but it is a step in the right direction.
Some agencies use force on force training (something our Special Ops troops do), and others use computer systems which use real guns modified to fire electronic bullets; some of those simulation systems can shoot back. (The range where I shoot regularly has one of the good ones, a somewhat realistic computer simulator using Glock pistols; this system forces you to be very discerning with your shots -- and if you wait too long, the bad guy scores on you.
Last edited:
Bill DeShivs
New member
Brit- You probably could regain those 3 points if you would take the butt plug out.
I know it would affect my concentration.
I know it would affect my concentration.
jetinteriorguy
New member
Glad you cleared that up.
Well, born in the UK, 2 years in Germany, 3 years in Australia, 31 years in Canada, and here, now a US Citizen, for 15 years!
Sitting here armed with my new 43X, and a spare 10 round magazine. Going out for supper at 5-30 PM. Picking up two friends (me driver, at 84!) same old seat, facing the door. At 9-25AM, tomorrow, off to Sacramento for a month!! Don't like the place, but love the Grandkids. See how my Glock Proffesonel hat is viewed? I nearly always beep! My flashlight has a polymer body, but steel lens cover.
The belt is Instructor Frequent Flier model, no need to take it off, no guns! Old people don't need dangerous things like 9mm pistols, Aye?
Sitting here armed with my new 43X, and a spare 10 round magazine. Going out for supper at 5-30 PM. Picking up two friends (me driver, at 84!) same old seat, facing the door. At 9-25AM, tomorrow, off to Sacramento for a month!! Don't like the place, but love the Grandkids. See how my Glock Proffesonel hat is viewed? I nearly always beep! My flashlight has a polymer body, but steel lens cover.
The belt is Instructor Frequent Flier model, no need to take it off, no guns! Old people don't need dangerous things like 9mm pistols, Aye?
It's impossible to say ahead of time what you will need or what will be enough. A violent encounter is a violent encounter whether it takes place in a city ghetto or the parking lot of small rural store. Five rounds might do the job just fine, but it may easily not be enough. This is a strange world and there's crazies out there on weird drugs that make them pretty much impervious to pain. The Smith and Wesson Shield 9mm is the minimum I feel comfortable with.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Lohman446 said:
There's no easy answer to that question, but it's easier to answer THAT question than to answer why you think you'll never be able to use more than 3-5 rounds in any situation you are likely to face.
Carrying a weapon can be seen as a form of insurance: you hope you'll never use it, but you have that insurance because it's a possibility you want to be ready for. I agree that it's hard to come up with a good rationale to justify why 5 rounds is insufficient and 8 rounds isn't. But...
IF the attacker is close and has a firearm and you've not got your weapon in hand:
The number of rounds will likely be irrelevant. And whether you act or surrender will be depend on variables we can't really know. (I've read of a number of such "confrontations" where armed victims simply gave up their wallets and valuables, but never attempted to use their weapons.)
If the attacker is on you and you have had time to get your weapon out and ready:
The number of rounds may be less relevant than retaining your weapon for actual use. If you can control your weapon, and the attacker does not have a firearm, 5 rounds may be enough to gravely damage the attacker- - as many may be contact hits -- but the attacker can still do you harm. But 8 rounds may not greatly change the outcome unless you're able to make a central nervous system hit.
If the attacker is more distant, and you are able to access your weapon and are ready to use it:
The number of rounds available may be very important, as it's foolish to assume that the first couple of rounds you fire will be hits, or if hits, that the shots will deter or stop the attack. It is likewise foolish to assume that the attack will be over in a minute or less. Even if the shots fired are good hits your attacker, even if badly or mortally wounded may still be still able continue the attack if you're not able to stop it quickly. I have seen many discussions of that happening.
For me, it's not just a question of how many rounds are best, but whether the extra rounds have the potential to be useful in situations we aren't likely to predict.
I consider whether I carry a weapon and whether the weapon carried uses 5, 10, or 15 rounds a form of INSURANCE. While I might err in these "insurance" choices I will try to err on the side of a few more rounds, and on the side of a the largest caliber weapon I shoot well.
If I'm wrong in my decisions and don't survive (or otherwise lose in) a self-defense conflict, the extra extra rounds available and my weapon choice will be irrelevant.
If I survive, it may be because of those the extra rounds, even if not used, were an important part of my potential defense that helped me maintain the necessary mindset leading to a successful outcome.
Guns are better than insurance. Insurance merely compensates you after an event, while a gun may actually prevent the event or greatly reduce its consequences. I think of guns as being more like having fire extinguishers or smoke alarms, and like bullets, the more of these you have the better your chances of preventing or mitigating harm.
I'm going to be pedantic for a minute. Fire extinguishers and smoke alarms don't prevent you from experiencing harm. They alert you when that harm is imminent. Fire alarms and smoke detectors can't stop you from being negligent, however. I bring this up because the same is true of firearms. Having a firearm doesn't prevent me from going into a bad situation. In fact for some people having a firearm emboldens them and they take greater risks than they would otherwise. While I have no issue with carrying firearms, often the greatest way to prevent or mitigate harm to ourselves and others is to use our heads. There are always exceptions, but it certainly helps.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
- Status