fewer rounds ok?
- Thread starter 625
- Start date
David Armstrong
Moderator
Contrary to some claims, there is a good foundation for the "typical gunfight" and how it impacts the carry process. The 5-shot snub will be sufficient for virtually all CCW situations. The issue is if you want to concern yourself with worrying about an event with a fraction of a percent probability, and if you do concern yourself with it what is the cost. Environment, employment, situational factors---all can become variables to consider.
Garand Illusion
New member
I should mention that I didn't really mean to question Neel's intentions. My point was that he went beyond simple self defense to engage multiple bad guys in defense of another.
And while I do question the number of rounds fired (I wasn't there so I don't know -- I might have done the same thing if similarly armed and courageous enough) no one was hurt and a life was saved and BG's got their just desserts.
So in my mind, Neel WAS a hero regardless of his intentions or what he was thinking. Anyone who steps out of their way to help another at risk of his/her own life is a hero (or for that matter anyone who does so as part of their job, like a LEO or soldier).
Although I am a VietNam era veteran, I was not unfortunate enough to have to go to Vietnam - I spent most of my Army days in Alaska instead. But I did know a lot of men who had served over there. One of the key infantry tactics that they used in a fire fight was what they called "suppressing fire". They would lay down a heavy barrage of fire that was intended to keep the enemy from being able to fire back effectively.
I bring this up on this thread because in a self defense situation it is not completely unlikely that at some point you might need to do something similar - fire some rounds to keep the bad guys head down - and therefore would need as much ammo as possible.
I bring this up on this thread because in a self defense situation it is not completely unlikely that at some point you might need to do something similar - fire some rounds to keep the bad guys head down - and therefore would need as much ammo as possible.
Garand Illusion
New member
Most modern day commanders talk about "volume of fire." If you can control the volume of fire you can win the day. That's why our forces making "thunder runs" into Baghdad went through so many tens of thousands of rounds.
But again ... as a civilian you don't have the same situation as a LEO or a soldier. Both of the latter have a duty to engage the enemy and stay engaged until the enemy surrenders or dies.
A civilian's "duty" is to defend himself or others until he gets to cover or the BG runs away -- and since the BG's are generally not Russian special forces but rather just some guys who REALLY want to get out of there before the cops (or more cops) show up, the rules are different than for soldiers in combat or cops engaging bank robbers.
If you want to carry a half dozen mags and a primary and backup, more power to you. I'm all for your right to do it, and if it's what you feel you need then it's what you need.
But a civilian with a single firearm has gained the advantage he is seeking of being armed and not defenseless, and more bullets are pretty much just extra weight. A 5 shot is plenty for general self defense,though a speedloader of another 5 can't hurt.
If you know you have mafia hit men/foreign agents hunting you down you could be the exception to the above, but I doubt anyone on this board matches either of those.
But again ... as a civilian you don't have the same situation as a LEO or a soldier. Both of the latter have a duty to engage the enemy and stay engaged until the enemy surrenders or dies.
A civilian's "duty" is to defend himself or others until he gets to cover or the BG runs away -- and since the BG's are generally not Russian special forces but rather just some guys who REALLY want to get out of there before the cops (or more cops) show up, the rules are different than for soldiers in combat or cops engaging bank robbers.
If you want to carry a half dozen mags and a primary and backup, more power to you. I'm all for your right to do it, and if it's what you feel you need then it's what you need.
But a civilian with a single firearm has gained the advantage he is seeking of being armed and not defenseless, and more bullets are pretty much just extra weight. A 5 shot is plenty for general self defense,though a speedloader of another 5 can't hurt.
If you know you have mafia hit men/foreign agents hunting you down you could be the exception to the above, but I doubt anyone on this board matches either of those.
ammo
I struggle with this all the time. I usually choose between a 5 shot revolver with no reloads (5), a glock 32 with no reloads (13), a 1911 (8)with no reloads, or a glock 17 with 2 reloads (19x3). With the first three I can wear IWB and a normal shirt and nobody notices I have a firearm. With the glock 17 and two mags I need to wear a 5.11 vest to cover it up. So do I really need 57 (19x3) rounds? The one time I was violently attacked was in Washington, D.C. where handguns, pepperspray, knives, everything is basically illegal unless you are a criminal. And there were more than 5 attackers and I was beat pretty bad since I fought off the first guy (didn't see his buddies who were behind me). I had no weapons since I was returning from a work function in a federal building that checked for weapons. And I was in the public metro subway system riding back to Virginia.
Anyway I think back to that and wonder if having my 5 shot would have made a difference. I think so in that with these cowards if I shot up the first guy the rest probably would have run instead of stood their ground and fight. There's always a chance some scumbag will stand and fight and so my 57 rounds might come in handy but I think most criminals will high tail it out of there. So my 13 round glock32 or even 5 shot revolver is better than nothing. But if I wear some extra clothing my glock 17 comes with me. can't hurt to have extra ammo. And I'm still pissed off at laws that left my life in the hands of criminals that fateful night.
I struggle with this all the time. I usually choose between a 5 shot revolver with no reloads (5), a glock 32 with no reloads (13), a 1911 (8)with no reloads, or a glock 17 with 2 reloads (19x3). With the first three I can wear IWB and a normal shirt and nobody notices I have a firearm. With the glock 17 and two mags I need to wear a 5.11 vest to cover it up. So do I really need 57 (19x3) rounds? The one time I was violently attacked was in Washington, D.C. where handguns, pepperspray, knives, everything is basically illegal unless you are a criminal. And there were more than 5 attackers and I was beat pretty bad since I fought off the first guy (didn't see his buddies who were behind me). I had no weapons since I was returning from a work function in a federal building that checked for weapons. And I was in the public metro subway system riding back to Virginia.
Anyway I think back to that and wonder if having my 5 shot would have made a difference. I think so in that with these cowards if I shot up the first guy the rest probably would have run instead of stood their ground and fight. There's always a chance some scumbag will stand and fight and so my 57 rounds might come in handy but I think most criminals will high tail it out of there. So my 13 round glock32 or even 5 shot revolver is better than nothing. But if I wear some extra clothing my glock 17 comes with me. can't hurt to have extra ammo. And I'm still pissed off at laws that left my life in the hands of criminals that fateful night.