I drill from 3 yrds to 50 yrds.
At 3 to 5 yards weak or strong hand I wouldnt know the difference in POI cuz I don't use the sights.
Why would you at 3 yrds? With either hand?
High round counts for civilians
- Thread starter OhioGuy
- Start date
At 3 to 5 yards weak or strong hand I wouldnt know the difference in POI cuz I don't use the sights.
Why would you at 3 yrds? With either hand?
John J. McCarthy Jr
Inactive
I don't care about statistics saying this or that is most likely to happen. Since every fight is different and unique, what may happen to you (or me) will be something that has never happened before.
I carry a 1911 and a .357 revolver (GP100) and I train myself to shoot until reload. I carry two reloads worth of spare ammo.
I will also carry a J-Frame loaded with +P's as a back-up. I will have two reloads ready to go for this gun too.
I carry a 1911 and a .357 revolver (GP100) and I train myself to shoot until reload. I carry two reloads worth of spare ammo.
I will also carry a J-Frame loaded with +P's as a back-up. I will have two reloads ready to go for this gun too.
I think that's kind of a stretch. Asking about or discussing what counts as a sufficient level of preparedness -- as vague as that will always be -- has nothing to do with high capacity magazines.
"I don't feel the need to carry a 30 round magazine when I'm out and about" = "I support crusades to ban 30 round magazines for everyone."
I'm not sure I see the logic in that. Anti-gunners will seize upon such statistics, sure. They seize upon everything. They seize upon the statistic that the vast majority of people go their entire lives without a life-threatening armed encounter to claim that concealed carry is unnecessary and should be replaced with "common sense laws" i.e. no guns for anyone except elk hunters (maybe).
Would my choice to not carry, and my asking how often CCWers have to draw their weapons, mean that I support others' attempts to ban CCW entirely?
Sure, every such discussion is theoretical and even if 100% of all cases were X, it's still possible that Y could happen to me. If I'm present when four terrorists in body armor pull out rifles, my Glock with 8 spare magazines may very well not "be enough." Taking professional driving classes may not be enough to save me from some moron who's driving while Facebooking. But I still think norms can be helpful. We all have to make a decision somewhere about what's enough for ourselves, and it comes down to a feeling more than data. One person feels safe sleeping with unlocked doors, another has guns staged in every room and a video surveillance system. But each "feels" safe. Whether either is "right" can only be known by what happens, or doesn't.
In all likelihood, no gun will be enough for me for the rest of my time on earth. So a 6-round gun gives me 6 more than the nothing I had.
For myself, my feelings of security tend to follow some process of reasoning about what's likely to happen, though I fully know that nothing is guaranteed. I also figure that over-preparing can't really hurt anything, other than creating some inconvenience and expense. I've found I can carry a double-stack with spare mag for almost no perceived difference in comfort than a gun with half the capacity. So why not? My problem is basically solved.
I just see that when these endless discussions start (which I may have restarted!) they usually either (a) are entirely speculations and what-ifs, or (b) appeal to data from police and military encounters. I understand that's often the only data available. But demonstrating that a cop with only 15 rounds found it insufficient in a gunfight with criminals probably (?) doesn't apply to the rest of us, because we aren't going into the situation to arrest someone to begin with.
Anywas, thanks for the responses!
Maybe I can carry a bullwhip. No permit required and people will probably think I'm weird enough that they'll just avoid me anyway
OldMarksman
Staff
You asked nothing about, nor did you attempt to discuss, what might constitute a sufficient level of preparedness.
You asked about "documented cases" and "concrete examples" regarding things that have happened.
Are you proficient in the use of a bullwhip?
Are you knowledgeable about how to use one lawfully?
Do you think you would be able to employ one at the varying distances involved in defensive use of force encounters?
Could you handle more than one attacker?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Your question was about carrying vs. capacity. The antigunner position is clearly that higher capacity magazines and firearms using such should be banned.
In these discussions, there is a constant set of opinions that such larger capacity items are not needed because of the 'average' stats or folks proclaiming if you can't do your job in six, you shouldn't carry a gun. Folks say it is unlikely that a civilian will ever need more.
Thus, the antigunner will see these as admissions that if you do buy into that someone should be able to have a gun for SD, certainly - the higher capacity guns and magazines are NOT needed. Since they are used in horrific crimes, it is not a handicap to the gun owner not to have them. Thus, ban them to reduce massacres. The Australian and UK experiences support that.
It's that simple. I agree that one might carry a J frame for convenience. However, when folks denounce those who carry more or deny their utility, you are supporting the reasonable position that such are not needed and they are too dangerous. Thus, ban them.
It's that simple. By now, folks should get this.
FireForged
New member
I don't give a flip about round count debates, I consider them silly from a Joe citizen point of view. Sure, there is a statistic but I wont base my self defense initiatives on stat nuances. I will carry the largest capacity firearm that I can reasonable carry under the given circumstances. Sometimes its a 7 shot 380, other times its a 8 shot 9mm or 13 shot 9mm.
I am not likely to ever need a firearm to defend myself but I choose to afford myself that option "just in case". Any firefight I find myself thrust into may fall within the statistical norm regarding number of shots fired or it may not. I will not intentionally form a plan around the hopes that my fight happens to be statistically average. I simply plan and train for the "fight" . Any fight is the worst fight and stats don't really matter. If I cannot carry a high capacity firearm then I will simply run what I brung.
yep, I said high capacity. We all know what high capacity mean and what it is commonly referred to.
I am not likely to ever need a firearm to defend myself but I choose to afford myself that option "just in case". Any firefight I find myself thrust into may fall within the statistical norm regarding number of shots fired or it may not. I will not intentionally form a plan around the hopes that my fight happens to be statistically average. I simply plan and train for the "fight" . Any fight is the worst fight and stats don't really matter. If I cannot carry a high capacity firearm then I will simply run what I brung.
yep, I said high capacity. We all know what high capacity mean and what it is commonly referred to.
OldMarksman
Staff
That is true for persons who are nearing the ends of their lives.
The likelihood that a person will be attacked violently on any one day is minicule. Th eliklihooe that a person will be attacked violently in any one year is much higher, buy on a national basis, it is still very remote. But the likelihood, ago speaking on a national basis, that one will be attacked at least once during his or her lifetime is much higher--more than one our of two for a twelve year old. It is much a question of the length of that lifetime.
I am getting along in years. And I have not yet been violently attacked. Btu there have been occasions in which the idea that "no gun....was enough" was simply not true at all.
That's because I have been presented on more than one occasion with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The mere presentation of the gun sufficed.
That sentence does not follow from the one before.
Yes, six is better than five or two. That's not the question. The capacity question must be addressed on the basis of what will likely be needed when the incident occurs.
That's a very basic tenet of risk management.
How many rounds a fight takes is exactly how many rounds it takes.
People have a habit of separating LE gunfights from civilian gunfights. The big difference is how the fight started.
The famous Miami FBI gunfight, who remembers how they got their guns and cars? Oh yea killing the rightful owners and taking them. The same people that will shoot it out with LE are the same people who will kill you without a shrug.
People have a habit of separating LE gunfights from civilian gunfights. The big difference is how the fight started.
The famous Miami FBI gunfight, who remembers how they got their guns and cars? Oh yea killing the rightful owners and taking them. The same people that will shoot it out with LE are the same people who will kill you without a shrug.
OldMarksman
Staff
Yes indeed.
And that has absolutely nothing do do with how likely the occurrence may have been believed to be before the fact.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I have to agree. When folks say they carry more ammo or a bigger gun in a not nice neighborhood, the implicit assumption is that the fight in the nice area will be ' nice'.
How does that follow? Nice attackers fall more easily to gun fire? You shoot better in nice neighbors. Oh, you assume multiple and tougher attackers in 'bad' neighborhoods?
Guns don't jam in nice neighborhoods so you don't need an extra mag to deal with a bad jam?
How does that follow? Nice attackers fall more easily to gun fire? You shoot better in nice neighbors. Oh, you assume multiple and tougher attackers in 'bad' neighborhoods?
Guns don't jam in nice neighborhoods so you don't need an extra mag to deal with a bad jam?
Asking how many rounds of ammunition (or guns) may be required by someone in the course of a successful defensive shooting incident is like asking how many punches or kicks someone may have to perform in order to successfully defend themselves against attack.
What would be preferable to someone defending themselves with "punches"? A series of multiple wild, unskilled swings and efforts? Or, a punch, or punches, performed with skill sufficient to the particular situation and set of circumstances? How to predict?!?
As a LE firearms trainer, I look for quality of skillset and performance of technique, as well as overall knowledge and mental preparation (mindset, if you will) ... not someone's perception of what might be a minimum "threshold" when it comes to "quantity".
How fast a motor vehicle may be able to be driven, and the capacity of it's gas tank, tells us little about how well it might be utilized in various situations, being driven by various drivers.
Lots of folks like to look for "answers" to knowledge/mental & skill questions in the form of "equipment", but equipment is only ever going to be equipment.
The same equipment in the hands of 2, or even 100, different people is going to tell us more about the abilities of the users, than the equipment.
What makes the discussion of "higher capacities" of ammunition seemingly so preferable to many folks is that the "answer" can come in a box. Something they can buy and handle.
Skills, mental acuity and focus don't come in a box.
What would be preferable to someone defending themselves with "punches"? A series of multiple wild, unskilled swings and efforts? Or, a punch, or punches, performed with skill sufficient to the particular situation and set of circumstances? How to predict?!?
As a LE firearms trainer, I look for quality of skillset and performance of technique, as well as overall knowledge and mental preparation (mindset, if you will) ... not someone's perception of what might be a minimum "threshold" when it comes to "quantity".
How fast a motor vehicle may be able to be driven, and the capacity of it's gas tank, tells us little about how well it might be utilized in various situations, being driven by various drivers.
Lots of folks like to look for "answers" to knowledge/mental & skill questions in the form of "equipment", but equipment is only ever going to be equipment.
The same equipment in the hands of 2, or even 100, different people is going to tell us more about the abilities of the users, than the equipment.
What makes the discussion of "higher capacities" of ammunition seemingly so preferable to many folks is that the "answer" can come in a box. Something they can buy and handle.
Skills, mental acuity and focus don't come in a box.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Time to start the related - Why training is unnecessary and I don't train - thread.
Good points.
Good points.
Listening to different folks expound their opinions about the importance of "magazine capacity", or ammunition capacity differences between revolvers and semiauto pistols, is all well and good. Folks, especially ardent enthusiasts, need their hobbies, after all.
However, once we take the "discussion" down-range and require people to perform, especially under increasingly demanding conditions for which they haven't been able to "prepare themselves" by first observing a course-of-fire being performed by someone else, and mentally "walking through it", so they know what to expect ... it's accurate, controlled holes on the intended threat targets that matter.
If higher capacity just means having to identify more misses, it sort of misses the point.
I'm certainly not saying that someone wanting to choose to carry an issued 17+1 9mm is "wrong" for choosing it over a 10+1 .45ACP, or even a 6-8rd revolver.
It's only when someone thinks they ought to offset or compensate for their lower skills by substituting the carrying of more ammunition for working to develop those known lower skills, that I start to wonder about their priorities.
I finished my regular career by carrying a 7+1 4513TSW .45ACP as an issued weapon for my plainclothes assignment. Some time after I'd been serving as a reserve, post-retirement, I traded that 7+1 .45 in for a 8+1 3913TSW 9mm. Why? I liked that single stack 9 (and already owned a 3913 and CS9), and found it nicely balanced, fast-handling and very accurate. (I later bought it when we were allowed to choose one former issued duty weapon for private purchase.)
I finished my reserve time by carrying an issued M&P 40 (15+1), because so many people wanted to choose either the M&P 45's/9's in the inventory, so when it came time for me to be issued one of the new guns, I told the guy responsible for issuing them to just give me whatever wasn't in high demand. It was just a duty weapon, after all. I could use all of them, when it came down to it (and I even owned a full-size M&P 45 of my own, and a M&P 40c). Let other guys and gals choose whatever tickled their fancy.
However, once we take the "discussion" down-range and require people to perform, especially under increasingly demanding conditions for which they haven't been able to "prepare themselves" by first observing a course-of-fire being performed by someone else, and mentally "walking through it", so they know what to expect ... it's accurate, controlled holes on the intended threat targets that matter.
If higher capacity just means having to identify more misses, it sort of misses the point.
I'm certainly not saying that someone wanting to choose to carry an issued 17+1 9mm is "wrong" for choosing it over a 10+1 .45ACP, or even a 6-8rd revolver.
It's only when someone thinks they ought to offset or compensate for their lower skills by substituting the carrying of more ammunition for working to develop those known lower skills, that I start to wonder about their priorities.
I finished my regular career by carrying a 7+1 4513TSW .45ACP as an issued weapon for my plainclothes assignment. Some time after I'd been serving as a reserve, post-retirement, I traded that 7+1 .45 in for a 8+1 3913TSW 9mm. Why? I liked that single stack 9 (and already owned a 3913 and CS9), and found it nicely balanced, fast-handling and very accurate. (I later bought it when we were allowed to choose one former issued duty weapon for private purchase.)
I finished my reserve time by carrying an issued M&P 40 (15+1), because so many people wanted to choose either the M&P 45's/9's in the inventory, so when it came time for me to be issued one of the new guns, I told the guy responsible for issuing them to just give me whatever wasn't in high demand. It was just a duty weapon, after all. I could use all of them, when it came down to it (and I even owned a full-size M&P 45 of my own, and a M&P 40c). Let other guys and gals choose whatever tickled their fancy.
OldMarksman
Staff
I have taken Glenn's suggestion and started a new thread on preparedness.
You will see some of fastbolt's thoughts in it.
You will see some of fastbolt's thoughts in it.
So the earlier reply, about the man who had to fend off robberies at his store, was a pretty interesting set of facts.
I'm honestly not aware of how much data exists. I am aware that anytime someone's gun "goes off" cleaning it, it becomes a national headline advocating for gun control, but stories of citizens defending their homes and lives with firearms are never on the news unless they're "pro-gun" sources that specifically look for those sorts of things. So I don't know how much data is unknown, vs. unreported but still catalogued or available somewhere.
Obviously there's no right answer, because on any give day, any given thing can go wrong. The only answer that makes a reasonable rule of thumb to me is "carry as much as you realistically and practically can, routinely." or something roughly equivalent to that.
Asking whether data is available, so that I could use such data to inform my thinking about adequate preparedness, does not even by a leap in logic feed anti-gunner's thirst for bans on magazines or anything else. They cherry pick data and always will. If they banned all magazines entirely and then someone committed a crime with a single shot, they'd take that as evidence that citizens can't be trusted with single shot pistols. They're looking for a way to lead people into believing their stories. So they'll seize upon anything they can.
Data is data. If it exists, I want to know about it. That's all this thread was supposed to be about.
I'm honestly not aware of how much data exists. I am aware that anytime someone's gun "goes off" cleaning it, it becomes a national headline advocating for gun control, but stories of citizens defending their homes and lives with firearms are never on the news unless they're "pro-gun" sources that specifically look for those sorts of things. So I don't know how much data is unknown, vs. unreported but still catalogued or available somewhere.
Obviously there's no right answer, because on any give day, any given thing can go wrong. The only answer that makes a reasonable rule of thumb to me is "carry as much as you realistically and practically can, routinely." or something roughly equivalent to that.
Asking whether data is available, so that I could use such data to inform my thinking about adequate preparedness, does not even by a leap in logic feed anti-gunner's thirst for bans on magazines or anything else. They cherry pick data and always will. If they banned all magazines entirely and then someone committed a crime with a single shot, they'd take that as evidence that citizens can't be trusted with single shot pistols. They're looking for a way to lead people into believing their stories. So they'll seize upon anything they can.
Data is data. If it exists, I want to know about it. That's all this thread was supposed to be about.
Last edited:
Since there's no compelling reason for such data regarding "civilian" shootings to be accumulated, let alone carefully examined and vetted for some specific purpose, nor any "agency" tasked with collecting and collating such "civilian data", you're probably going to have to be satisfied with whatever minimal anecdotal info may be collected from news sources, second-hand/hearsay experiences, etc. Different instructors may collect and track such things from within their own student base, but that's only going to be available from the perspective of the participants and what's been passed along to the instructors.
If you're trying to determine whether there's some critical "minimum threshold" of handgun ammunition capacity that might exist, and which might be useful to influence individual choice in the selection of a handgun dedicated to that of a personal defensive weapon, you're probably going to be spending many of your leisure hours chasing down myriad rabbit holes.
These sort of questions haven't been definitely addressed and resolved for LE when it comes to service & off-duty weapons, and that's a field where no small amount of documented info has been accumulated over the years. There are still strong opinions, backed up by experience and expertise, for duty and off-duty handguns with ammunition capacities ranging from "low" to "high" ... and the beat goes on.
The question of "How much is enough?" for Training, Practice, Ammunition, Capacity & Caliber have yet to provide definitive "answers" that satisfy everyone.
If you're looking for a consistent "toolset or equipment" answer to such a question, you're may put yourself at risk for trying to put a mistaken amount of emphasis on the "tool", instead of "you", in any unexpected threat situation.
Even back when it wasn't uncommon to find someone carrying a rabbit's foot key chain charm in their pocket, I don't recall anyone asking whether they would be "luckier" if they carried more of them at a time.