Master Blaster 2
Moderator
bostwana
You seem pretty experianced on concealed carry. What pistol and how?
You seem pretty experianced on concealed carry. What pistol and how?
Do you really need more than 5?
- Thread starter .40cal
- Start date
Man, I'm losing track of my posts. I can't remember if it was this thread or another that I talked about my CCW intentions.
No CHL yet, just something I have looked into a lot. Also, paying attention to what has been said on various threads and maybe challenging my preconceived notions. The people here have done a great job of disabusing me of some assumptions I had made about concealed carry.
My plan was to eventually get a pocket auto, probably a .380, as my wife would flip if I was walking around with a .45 all the time. Still, she may yet come around, I'm just easing her into the idea.
I have a Jericho in .45 ACP, 10 round single stack magazine. If I were to carry this daily, I would still have a reload.
If I buy a Glock 19 for CCW, I will carry an extra magazine.
My intention was to get one of the various .380 autos, which typically have 6 shots, and call it good. However, due to another thread here I've decided if I go that route I may end up carrying an extra magazine after all.
In short, whether my gun holds 5,6,10, or 15 rounds I am going to carry a reload. I will never have less then 10 rounds on me if I decide to do defensive carry.
My information is out of date, but I used to research the various calibers extensively. I won't bore you with why, but in the late 90's, the .357 Magnum was king. It even performed better for one shot kills due to the .44's tendency to overpenetrate. That said, in a snubbie you lose any sense of accuracy and the recoil concerns me. Though I did look hard at a Ruger SP101 3" barrel for a possible BUG at one point. However, since then more information is available for the 40 S&W and .357 SIG and I have no idea how they truly stack up.
No CHL yet, just something I have looked into a lot. Also, paying attention to what has been said on various threads and maybe challenging my preconceived notions. The people here have done a great job of disabusing me of some assumptions I had made about concealed carry.
My plan was to eventually get a pocket auto, probably a .380, as my wife would flip if I was walking around with a .45 all the time. Still, she may yet come around, I'm just easing her into the idea.
I have a Jericho in .45 ACP, 10 round single stack magazine. If I were to carry this daily, I would still have a reload.
If I buy a Glock 19 for CCW, I will carry an extra magazine.
My intention was to get one of the various .380 autos, which typically have 6 shots, and call it good. However, due to another thread here I've decided if I go that route I may end up carrying an extra magazine after all.
In short, whether my gun holds 5,6,10, or 15 rounds I am going to carry a reload. I will never have less then 10 rounds on me if I decide to do defensive carry.
My information is out of date, but I used to research the various calibers extensively. I won't bore you with why, but in the late 90's, the .357 Magnum was king. It even performed better for one shot kills due to the .44's tendency to overpenetrate. That said, in a snubbie you lose any sense of accuracy and the recoil concerns me. Though I did look hard at a Ruger SP101 3" barrel for a possible BUG at one point. However, since then more information is available for the 40 S&W and .357 SIG and I have no idea how they truly stack up.
Last edited:
Strafer Gott
New member
I'm not suggesting an arms race. Neither am I suggesting a 400 round loadout.
But if I need a get me the Heel out of here gun, It has to be adequate.
If I consider the recent criminal developments in my neck of the desert, keeping a high cap pistol handy may only prove prudent.
But if I need a get me the Heel out of here gun, It has to be adequate.
If I consider the recent criminal developments in my neck of the desert, keeping a high cap pistol handy may only prove prudent.
OldMarksman
Staff
If in the rare circumstance that one isattacked, the chance that there will be two or more is not at all insignificant, and since it would not be prudent to not mitigate the risk that the second will not run, that sounds reasonable to me.
That leaves two questions: (1) how many rounds would that likely take, and (2) what kind of a safety margin would one want?
I currently think 10 is OK in total. But then, for a long time I carried 5.
OldMarksman said:
What one thinks, believes, or otherwise makes them feel comfortable has everything to do with it.
Face it, most of us will go to our graves after dying of something other than an attack by someone else. In the end, the lucky masses find out they really hadn't needed to carry anything.
The unlucky few who do get into altercations may well find out they weren't carrying enough no matter what they had on them.
There's no way to use scientific, or any other means, to determine what anyone needs to carry. It's all about personal comfort level.
Life is a crap shoot. If you go to bed at the end of the day healthy and happy all is well. If you needed your handgun that day then you're certainly glad you had it. If you didn't need it, don't beat yourself up over carrying it anyway. Who knows, you may need it tomorrow.
OldMarksman
Staff
Well, it has everything to do with how one feels--up to the time when one has to shoot. After that, it is completely meaningless.
That is true. The question "do you really need more than five" becomes pertinent only when one has to fire the weapon. And that does happen.
That is true. One will never know how many rounds are sufficient before the event. And should a certain number turn out to be sufficient for one event, that number will not necessarily be sufficient if there is another one. It's impossible to predict the number that may be needed with any certainty, and one must base the risk management decision on informed judgment.
Only if you never have to use it.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If you mean that you can't come up with ONE number that is perfect you are correct. That doesn't mean you cannot use the scientific method to examine the risk continuum and make reasonable decisions about cutoffs for likely outcomes.
Gun folks seem to have personality quirk to demand a no-doubt, black or white, dichotomous answer. Doesn't work that way.
One can look at the types of incidents and decide a risk cutoff. I think that for most situations, one reload of a standard semi will probably be a good cut off point.
I guess the point I was trying to make has to do with using the term "need". In 2012 I have not had a tire failure. That means I didn't need a spare. I carried one anyway and didn't complain about the fraction of a mile per gallon it cost me or the extra space I'd have if it wasn't there. It gave me piece of mind knowing it was there even though it would have been little use if a road hazard took out two or more tires. I'm not going to carry two spares to prepare for that event even though it has happened to me before.
That works for you and I have no problem with it. My opinion is different for my situation.
I'm not saying anyone is crazy for carrying more than I do. It's a personal choice and everyone has to decide for themself.
That works for you and I have no problem with it. My opinion is different for my situation.
I'm not saying anyone is crazy for carrying more than I do. It's a personal choice and everyone has to decide for themself.
Again, more poor thinking because the thought process stops at "Click!" or the comment is designed to justify the use of the revolver (in the context of the other comments).
The answer with a revolver is to either pull the trigger again, draw a second gun, or reload.
The answer with a semi automatic pistol is to "Tap, Rack, Assess" (used to be Tap, Rack, Bang), draw a second gun, or reload.
In all cases, drawing a second gun or reloading will likely solve the failure. I use the word "likely" because the second gun may malfunction or the first gun requires a gunsmith to fix.
I will also add that all the above should be done on the move toward cover or behind cover. If cover is not available, then it should be done behind concealment (on the move if possible). If neither cover nor concealment are available, then dynamic movement should be used. Just don't stand there!
Additionally, the well trained man will know how to use a knife, be trained in tactics, and be physically fit enough to run away tactically.
Last edited:
The same goes for martial arts people. They want the uber-move that counters all moves while simultaneously destroying their opponent. I'll take a person armed with a derringer who is well trained in combat shooting, tactics, and movement over a guy with a rifle and no clue.
People can "what if" all day and get nowhere. There is no right or wrong answer except to the degree that a choice improves or reduces the odds of survival. Carrying no reload is silly because people fire their guns dry in the heat of the moment. Carrying one full reload is trivial and getting killed because your gun went dry is embarrassing. Getting killed because you fired 46 shots, scored no hits, and ran out of ammo is also embarrassing. Either way, that person is still dead because they made a series of bad decisions over time. The former was lazy because he or she didn't want to carry another half pound of weight. The latter was also lazy because he or she did not train the skills that are necessary to improve the odds of survival.
Neither has anything to do with gear and everything to do with mentality. The most common mentality that I see is as "sportsman with a gun". This is the problem I have with revolver aficionados advocating their platform. They assume "spray and pray" style shooting from shooters with semi-automatics, yet are just as capable of engaging in the same practice. I see it at the range all the time. They'll claim capacity has no bearing on the outcome and refuse to carry a reload. What does one do when there are more bad guys than rounds in your gun? What if you dump all five rounds into a guy and he doesn't stop? Finally, aficionados tend to completely discount tactics in their posts. Bad guys train too; some received their training in the military and have combat experience. This is the worst offense in these sorts of discussions because tactics are essential to survival.
Last edited:
Since that was my statement and I professed I am a hardcore semiauto guy, I have no idea how that argues for a revolver.
My point is, your weapon should be reliable. Without getting specific, there are certain guns that do not have a reputation for reliability. One of my primary criteria for any weapon is when I pull the trigger I want it to go "bang"
Revolvers are not immune to malfunction. They are mechanically simpler in many regards and so thus have less to go wrong. That said, I have a friend with a Derringer, even simpler still, that has a firing pin out of alignment. Simpler does not mean "it will always work"
My statement about reliability was in direct reference to individual firearm choice. I would not rely on any weapon that I had not taken out to the range and put at least a few hundred rounds of ammunition through to get an idea of how it performs.
Edward429451
Moderator
You are just being paranoid, is something lazy people say to justify their decision towards comfort over readiness. It's not harder to carry a reload. I bet you guys don't carry a spare tire either huh?
One speed strip or speed loader for small revolvers, one Mag on my person, two more in the truck, sometimes a box of ammo under the seat. Call me what you will.
One speed strip or speed loader for small revolvers, one Mag on my person, two more in the truck, sometimes a box of ammo under the seat. Call me what you will.
Absolutely not. Until you do. And when or if you ever do need more than five to prevail in a gunfight, the concept of feeling "comfortable" with whatever makes one believe mere perception will carry the day will come into focus and the attendant reality check arriving too tardy for the sake of survival.
But it's not for me to judge. If one is "comfortable" toting a two-shot derringer, chambered in .22rf, for self-defense, hey, more power to you.
Dragline45
New member
I carry a J frame about 60% of the time, but the other 40% I carry a SR9c. As much as I trust the J frame to get the job done, I cant deny I feel a little better with 10+1 in a platform that I shoot a whole lot better.
I think revolvers are evolving alot, its just not in the same direction as a semiautomatic. Semiautomitics are evolving to higher capacities and more "tactical".
revolvers are evolving in the direction they excels at. They are getting to be more and more powerful and better hunting tools. In the good old days the 357 magnum was the big boy for revolvers, then came the famous 44 magnum touted by dirty harry are the most powerful hand gun. After that came the 454 casull and more recently the 460 and the 500 magnum.
any one that says that revolvers are not evolving and/or going extinct are only fooling them selves. They are just evolving differently than autos.