Do we need Hi-Capacity in everyday Carry?

[Aguila Blanca]

Several posts in this discussion are getting overly personal. Please keep your comments addressed to the topic, leave personalities out of it, or this thread will have to be closed.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

Hey, Aguila Blanca. How would you respond to the below?

Well, that's because we know the outcome. In the scenario itself, we don't.

That'd all have to be gauged while in it. (Unfortunately)

My point is if you have to go live and fight, would you be better off with a higher capacity weapon like a Glock 19 at 15+1 or a 5-shot revolver?

Yes or no. Better off with which one? In that scenario. G19 or Snub nose.

I await your response.

 

[Lohman446]

I think, at some point, we are going to have to discuss the use of the word need.

Is there a point that having too much ammunition or capacity is a problem? Originally I would have said no but I actually need to go with the answer being yes. If you regularly carry so much firearm or ammunition that you start to NOT carry it because it becomes cumbersome you have crossed the line to having too much. Hence the argument to the extreme that even those who most ardently support high capacity in this thread are not advocating for touting around long guns on a regular basis. This will vary for everyone. Some people will routinely carry 60 rounds ready to go and not have it hinder them. Others not so much.

That tipping point aside is there a time when having too much ammunition is going to create a problem for you? I'm going to set aside the theoretical argument that an abnormal amount of ammunition could be interpreted by a jury or a prosecutor as evidence of mindset because I'm not even certain its a great argument but I want to acknowledge it exists. The answer is no. If you needed 1 and had 60 it makes no difference

Now this is actually an interesting point and one that keeps being recycled. It is not wrong. However it is not as tremendously damaging to the counter argument as it is presented to be because it doesn't answer the question of need.

Chances are the majority of us will need exactly zero rounds of ammunition to make it through life as civilians. Some of us, indeed a good many of us on these boards, are not comfortable with the idea of 0.

So if the question is how many rounds do we need to be comfortable given our perceived risk, perceived ability, accepted mortality, or whatever is actually posed it becomes different for each one of us.

 

[shurshot]

If I ever feel that I "need" more than one of my revolvers and a couple of speedstrips / speedloaders full of reloads, I'll have to reevaluate if I even "need" to leave my house and or go to that proposed destination. I'll probably just stay home, as I hate Ninja Assassins and try to avoid them!!! .

I guess I'm spoiled living in Maine, the safest State in the nation. The old Sixshooter is all I hope I'll ever need (and that my life is never endangered enough to cause me to draw it!!). In fact, I'll be carrying in Florida next month on vacation, as I have in the past. No worries.

 

[Brit]

The one thing that is possible, the stick 33 round magazine, and 60 round drum? In all possibility, would malfunction when attempting to fire those pistols! At the very least would be most cumbersome in deploying. As in going prone?

But as this was instant surrender, safest? I wonder who recognised these massive magazines? Joe Biden with his 10 clip statement? Maybe not.

 

[OldMarksman]

Chances are the majority of us will need exactly zero rounds of ammunition to make it through life as civilians.

That is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

So if the question is how many rounds do we need to be comfortable given our perceived....

I interpreted the question as having to do with need, not "comfort".

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As OldMarksman has pointed out, the question for this discussion has nothing to do with comfort. As a reminder, the question was, "Do we need Hi-Capacity in everyday Carry?"

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

I interpreted the question as having to do with need, not "comfort".

Exactly. If there was a scenario that we all know is real and can happen. Given that scenario and you are able to pause like like a video game, for the sake of conversation.

Would you choose the higher capacity weapon just in case you had to fight for your life or would you stick to a low capacity 5-shot revolver?

I'm waiting for someone to realistically answer this. It pertains 100% to the thread and the OPs original question.

The scenario given was posted by me in post #287 and is:

Right here in Miami Florida a few months ago. A man was walking to his car at around 8:30/9:00pm and a car pulled up. Out of it, 2 guys came out from the back doors. One had a 33rd stick mag in a Glock and another had the 50rd drum in his Glock. They both pointed guns at him, he got down, they put a knee in his back and robbed him of all his belongings.

Given that we do not know the ending when we are in it and it could always change for the worse. Would you choose the higher capacity weapon just in case you had to fight for your life or would you stick to a low capacity 5-shot revolver?

 

[Lohman446]

So how do we define need

I proposed the number 5, noted that was unique to me, and it has been fairly poorly received

What about 57? Most people, I expect will say it’s too high but it’s not so high as to be hyperbole (G19, two spare magazines, backup G26). There are likely outlying cases of firefights taking more.

So how and why something in the middle?

 

[TunnelRat]

That is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.



I interpreted the question as having to do with need, not "comfort".

I actually don't think it is irrelevant to the question at hand, despite personally choosing to carry a higher capacity firearm myself. Defining "need" isn't necessarily easy. Obviously we can and people have defined scenarios in this thread. How likely are those scenarios? When you assess risk you look at the potential implications of failing to mitigate that risk and the likelihood of that risk.

Some people have decided that the likelihood of certain risks isn't at a point where they need greater capacity. That's an individual decision. It's in part why I said, way back, that "need" is a loaded word. If someone decides their potential risk requires certain armament then I'm on of the opinion he or she should be able to do what seems best. The same even applies to why there are varying levels of insurance. Certainly more capacity/coverage offers a better capability to deal with the risk, but people always make choices. I get that some here are seemingly frustrated that others won't accept that more capacity means more capability, but at a certain point in a conversation maybe you just agree to disagree. Or you can argue forever.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[OldMarksman]

So how do we define need

I proposed the number 5, noted that was unique to me, and it has been fairly poorly received

Assessing a number is not the same as defining a need,

 

[Cosmodragoon]

So in other words:

- "need" is dictated by the individual defensive scenario.

- What scenario might befall us cannot be known in advance.

- Preparedness is a matter of covering the largest number of possible scenarios with what we can reasonably carry around with us.

- Since capacity can be a factor in some scenarios, it must remain an option for those who can accommodate it.

- Attempts to ban "high capacity" are both immoral and detrimental to public safety.

 

[Brit]

Seems like the original question? Did not cover this robbed Gentleman.

He did not have a pistol, or any ammunition, no 5 rounds, no 16! And quite possibly, no cell phone now either! And that's the reason I have visited that City only twice in the 15 years I have lived in Florida. But both times, I was all Glocked up.

Would I have deployed that Gen 4 G19? Now there is a question? The TruGlo night sights would have worked. As both times I was picking up people from the Airport. Stop, load up gone! Not on no carpark.

After reading that news report? No number 3 visit is very likely.

 

[Lohman446]

I get that some here are seemingly frustrated that others won't accept that more capacity means more capability

I actually accept the statement but within a limit and that limit would be, if simply added to the above, “within the ability of the user”.

 

[SATRP]

Here's my 2 cents: how many rounds a person deems necessary is his business and only his business.

I would not post opinions on a public forum that posit limiting handgun ammunition capacity. Our words will be used against us by enemies of Amendment II.

If I were unable to avoid traveling to gang claimed areas (South Central LA), and if it were legal, I'd figure out a way to conceal a Tommy Gun with spare 100 round drums. Heck, a few RPG's and an APC might be the only way to assure survival ;-)

On the serious side (humor is therapeutic), I'd want a standard capacity semiautomatic with as many standard capacity mags I could carry.

On the practical side, I'm pretty ingenious when it comes to avoiding places plagued with elevated likelihood of trouble. Avoid, avoid, and if that doesn't work, go with avoidance.

How many rounds of ammo a person decides to carry must remain his business and only his business.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

How many rounds of ammo a person decides to carry must remain his business and only his business.

Fact. Thanks for that. I just try to help based on the stuff I've seen and training I've taken.

With that said and as TR said:

I get that some here are seemingly frustrated that others won't accept that more capacity means more capability, but at a certain point in a conversation maybe you just agree to disagree.

So on that note. At the moment I'm carrying:

Glock 17 at 17+1 and my spare mag is a stock Glock mag with a tried and true Taran Tactical +6 extended basepad which now holds 23 rounds.

Combat Quick Clot Gauze
SOF Tourniquet
Surefire E1D Defender
Benchmade 810 Contego
Wallet
Keys
Phone

And my Vertx EDC Ready Bag is 1ft away from me. The contents will take too much time to write up right now.

Agree to disagree.

 

[TunnelRat]

I actually accept the statement but within a limit and that limit would be, if simply added to the above, “within the ability of the user”.

While I understand what you're saying I don't agree with the manner in which you are incorporating skill (which is my interpretation of the use of the word ability in this context) into this equation. Absent skill this discussion is moot, regardless of capacity. Even with skill, if a person doesn't have enough capacity to actually stop the threat then he/she better have an alternative to use of the firearm.

Your repeated argument that even if you had more capacity that your ability wouldn't let you take use of it comes across to me as fatalism run amok. By the same token, I think Jackalope is too concerned in proving something he accepts as true to a person/people that are going to keeping doing what they've been doing regardless. Even I don't care what he carries on his person even if I agree with carrying more than 5 shots. I'm baffled we're on page 13 frankly. However, this forum is for everyone and if people are still enjoying the discussion then what I think doesn't really matter.

Not wanting to get pulled into this vortex, I'm going to see myself out.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

Jackalope is too concerned in proving something he accepts as true to a person/people that are going to keeping doing what they've been doing regardless

Guilty. lol, but hey now. That's in the past.

 

[Brit]

Tactical Jackalope.

Your loadout is great for a working LEO, which you are, the quick clot gauze, the Benchmade 810 Contego. Love the widow breaker, my 940 (a present from my Son) is missing the window breaker. Which I think they should have fitted one to the 940.

My newest purchase, and everyday carry, the 43X with Ameriglow night sights, good in low light, but great in daylight! That front sight, with a hi-vis red circle, fabulous.

And as a retired firearms Instructor, I taught for over 25 years. This Grandad (8 Grand Children) has come to lighter to carry, fast from the holster, great recoil control.

And in my own mind, from where I am in my life, 11 rounds, with a spare, belt-mounted magazine. And Surefire, very bright flashlight, both just in case.

Is enough. Until it is not!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If I were unable to avoid traveling to gang claimed areas (South Central LA), ...

I wasn't aware that gangs have taken over south-central Louisiana. Do you have links to any articles discussing this issue?