How many shots is enough
- Thread starter couldbeanyone
- Start date
Thanks for the link, bada61265. Interesting read. For the benefit of those who may not want to read the whole thing, the part that directly related to my question of how common expansion failure occurred was:
The first quoted sentence was in the context that expansion without adequate penetration renders a projectile less effective. I was a bit surprised to learn that pistol rounds fail to expand 30 to 40% of the time, but I also noted that no data or citation was presented, and that no particular brands were discussed. The piece went on to cite impact with bone, glass, and fabric as factors that inhibit expansion.
The points made make sense, but I would like to see the data. There have been a lot of improvements in bullet design since 1989, the date of the report; a re-assessment of currently available rounds would be interesting.
The first quoted sentence was in the context that expansion without adequate penetration renders a projectile less effective. I was a bit surprised to learn that pistol rounds fail to expand 30 to 40% of the time, but I also noted that no data or citation was presented, and that no particular brands were discussed. The piece went on to cite impact with bone, glass, and fabric as factors that inhibit expansion.
The points made make sense, but I would like to see the data. There have been a lot of improvements in bullet design since 1989, the date of the report; a re-assessment of currently available rounds would be interesting.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Update that hard drive. It's 2013 now. You think there wasn't disgusting people when Jeff Cooper was alive? Imagine now. Takes a real cocky person to think that 8 rounds in a 1911 will land spot on to each attacker that will be fighting you. With fists, knives, guns, etc. There is no 1 on 1. There is no "fair fight". Keyword in gunfight is "fight" not gun. If you think you can fight off a few attackers with one gun and 3 bullets, be my guest. Hope you never have to. Cause there isn't a snowballs chance hell you'll live to tell about it.
Sorry, Jeff Coopers quote on that is flawed and outdated like many of the people's logic when it comes to preparing properly.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Statistically a gun fight mean of 1.7 rounds doesn't mean that only happens.
It's a distribution of round fired - take a stat class.
I've heard that if you miss you ain't doing YOUR JOB from a gun clerk commando.
Being at Mumbai, the Navy Yard, the Kenyan Mall, etc. - might convince you that more ammo might be useful.
The reason to carry less is just convenience and playing the odds that you face only the single mugger be gone scenario. But the with other incidents, the low probability event can have an absolute large number of occurrences .
This is seen in medical research. A preventative treatment might only stop a small percentage of problems but given 300,000,000 people, that's a very large expensive number in actuality.
It's a distribution of round fired - take a stat class.
I've heard that if you miss you ain't doing YOUR JOB from a gun clerk commando.
Being at Mumbai, the Navy Yard, the Kenyan Mall, etc. - might convince you that more ammo might be useful.
The reason to carry less is just convenience and playing the odds that you face only the single mugger be gone scenario. But the with other incidents, the low probability event can have an absolute large number of occurrences .
This is seen in medical research. A preventative treatment might only stop a small percentage of problems but given 300,000,000 people, that's a very large expensive number in actuality.
I always find FBI data useful, but even FBI data becomes obsolete over time.
IIRC, the FBI statement regarding average number of shots fired in an incident is old. I can't remember when I first read it, but I believe it was no later than 2005. Based on my research, the number of multiple-attacker incidents since then has risen significantly, both on the street and for home invasions.
I no longer practice one-on-one drills. I now practice multiple-attacker drills. Multiple attackers require more rounds.
IIRC, the FBI statement regarding average number of shots fired in an incident is old. I can't remember when I first read it, but I believe it was no later than 2005. Based on my research, the number of multiple-attacker incidents since then has risen significantly, both on the street and for home invasions.
I no longer practice one-on-one drills. I now practice multiple-attacker drills. Multiple attackers require more rounds.
This is an incredibly broken perspective.
1. False implication that the number of rounds you carry dictates or drives your approach to shooting.
2. False implied link between skilled shooters and an intentional choice to carry fewer rounds.
3. Implies an assumption that an attacker will always be physiologically stopped within a set number of rounds, with that set number being whatever you happen to hit with.
4. Extends the assumption about ability to stop within a finite number of rounds to include multiple attacker events, OR ignores these situations entirely.
The statement is akin to saying, "buy a car with built in crumple zones, side air bags, rear multi-point safety belts, and 5 star crash test ratings if you plan on causing a lot of accidents."
Tactical Jackalope
New member
I appreciate the people showing support. Means a lot. Thank you brothers! I'm happy others feel the same way. I'm extremely passionate about helping out the good guys.
Let's all stop and consider a few other things for a moment. It seems that the biggest argument for high capacity/multiple reloads is a multiple attacker situation. However, what I think that many of the people making this argument are overlooking is the time and distance that will most likely be in play in such a situation.
It is a pretty well established fact that the vast majority of defensive uses of handguns take place at relatively short distances, distances which are usually better measured in feet rather than yards. Even if we assume a "best case scenario" in which only the defender has a firearm, the defender will have, at most, a few seconds before the aggressors are upon him/her if said aggressors are determined enough to brave gunfire to accomplish their goal. If one is perceptive and lucky enough to recognize a threat at greater distance, then said person would be well-advised, and in some jurisdictions legally required, to attempt to remove himself/herself from the situation before gunfire becomes necessary.
Now, to one degree or another, a firearm is a weapon of distance and thus when range decreases to a certain point, the effectiveness of a firearm also begins to rapidly decrease. At contact distance, a convincing argument could be made that a handgun is no better, and possibly worse, than an edged weapon like a knife or ax. This is because, at such close distance, a firearm can be wrestled away from its user and perhaps even rendered inoperable. Therefore it seems to me that one's best hope when using a firearm defensively is to stop the attack before it can reach you.
So, the $64,000 question seems to be how fast can you draw your gun and fire with a sufficient degree of accuracy against multiple determined attackers? Speaking for myself, I'm realistic enough about my skill level to realize that I cannot draw and fire more than a few rounds in the few seconds I'll have if attacked regardless of what type of handgun I'm using and I doubt that very many people could do much better. Therefore, I arrive at my previous assertion that I'm far more likely to run out of time and distance than ammunition.
So, It seems to me that one's two best hopes for surviving an attack from multiple aggressors are as follows: either the gun's mere presence or first few rounds fired causes the aggressors to re-evaluate their life choices and seek their goals elsewhere or the defender's fire can cause the aggressors to pause, duck, or seek cover thus buying the defender enough time and distance to remove himself/herself from the situation. I honestly don't see more than 5-10 shots being necessary to accomplish either of those outcomes and if one of those two can't be accomplished, well most people are probably sorry out of luck anyway. Anyone who thinks that simply blazing away like some sort of action movie hero will save them if confronted by multiple determined attackers isn't being realistic and I hope, for their sake, that such a situation never presents itself.
Now, if it makes you feel better to carry dozens of rounds of ammunition, by all means go ahead. I don't see that doing so would substantially reduce your odds of survival unless you're trying to swim at the same time. However, please don't fool yourself into thinking that all that ammunition is some sort of magic talisman that will automatically save you from the screaming barbarian hordes either; your odds of surviving an attack from multiple people willing to risk being shot are pretty grim regardless of the capacity of your gun. Likewise, please don't be so arrogant as to assume that none of us who have chosen different equipment haven't thought things through thoroughly, I assure you that many of us have. As I said before, capacity is only one piece of the puzzle and it's not necessarily the most important piece.
It is a pretty well established fact that the vast majority of defensive uses of handguns take place at relatively short distances, distances which are usually better measured in feet rather than yards. Even if we assume a "best case scenario" in which only the defender has a firearm, the defender will have, at most, a few seconds before the aggressors are upon him/her if said aggressors are determined enough to brave gunfire to accomplish their goal. If one is perceptive and lucky enough to recognize a threat at greater distance, then said person would be well-advised, and in some jurisdictions legally required, to attempt to remove himself/herself from the situation before gunfire becomes necessary.
Now, to one degree or another, a firearm is a weapon of distance and thus when range decreases to a certain point, the effectiveness of a firearm also begins to rapidly decrease. At contact distance, a convincing argument could be made that a handgun is no better, and possibly worse, than an edged weapon like a knife or ax. This is because, at such close distance, a firearm can be wrestled away from its user and perhaps even rendered inoperable. Therefore it seems to me that one's best hope when using a firearm defensively is to stop the attack before it can reach you.
So, the $64,000 question seems to be how fast can you draw your gun and fire with a sufficient degree of accuracy against multiple determined attackers? Speaking for myself, I'm realistic enough about my skill level to realize that I cannot draw and fire more than a few rounds in the few seconds I'll have if attacked regardless of what type of handgun I'm using and I doubt that very many people could do much better. Therefore, I arrive at my previous assertion that I'm far more likely to run out of time and distance than ammunition.
So, It seems to me that one's two best hopes for surviving an attack from multiple aggressors are as follows: either the gun's mere presence or first few rounds fired causes the aggressors to re-evaluate their life choices and seek their goals elsewhere or the defender's fire can cause the aggressors to pause, duck, or seek cover thus buying the defender enough time and distance to remove himself/herself from the situation. I honestly don't see more than 5-10 shots being necessary to accomplish either of those outcomes and if one of those two can't be accomplished, well most people are probably sorry out of luck anyway. Anyone who thinks that simply blazing away like some sort of action movie hero will save them if confronted by multiple determined attackers isn't being realistic and I hope, for their sake, that such a situation never presents itself.
Now, if it makes you feel better to carry dozens of rounds of ammunition, by all means go ahead. I don't see that doing so would substantially reduce your odds of survival unless you're trying to swim at the same time. However, please don't fool yourself into thinking that all that ammunition is some sort of magic talisman that will automatically save you from the screaming barbarian hordes either; your odds of surviving an attack from multiple people willing to risk being shot are pretty grim regardless of the capacity of your gun. Likewise, please don't be so arrogant as to assume that none of us who have chosen different equipment haven't thought things through thoroughly, I assure you that many of us have. As I said before, capacity is only one piece of the puzzle and it's not necessarily the most important piece.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Under stress of fighting for your life with your gun, an entire magazine goes in seconds, you can't even recall how many rounds you fired after the fact unless you count to see how many rounds you left. If you even have any rounds left...
Microgunner
New member
For concealed carry I carry a minimum of 5 and usually a maximum of 7+1.
There are exceptions on the high side sometimes but never less than 5 on the low side.
There are exceptions on the high side sometimes but never less than 5 on the low side.
Waspinator
New member
Well....
I only recently started to carry at 36 years old. Before that I had none, now I have five shots (SP101). I think that is "enough", considering its better then none
I think the answer would be "what ever you have". Honestly, if everyone here had the choice of none or a 1-shot derringer, I think everyone would say one is better then none.. right?
I only recently started to carry at 36 years old. Before that I had none, now I have five shots (SP101). I think that is "enough", considering its better then none
I think the answer would be "what ever you have". Honestly, if everyone here had the choice of none or a 1-shot derringer, I think everyone would say one is better then none.. right?
Strafer Gott
New member
My thinking on this is developing as recent events unfold. Capacity is good, but is no substitute for marksmanship. Practice often, and make an effort to pack that extra mag is where I'm going. I'm rotating a 226,229 and 224 as appropriate.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
That's an enormous "if" and far from being anything remotely close to happening. Since we don't have that "if" present. There's no news to settle to a handicapped stage in terms of capacity!
Congrats by the way of carrying. Never too late.
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Not all?
If you say "odds are" I will leave you with your odds, but give me some meat with the potatoes when making an argument other than your perception of other peoples ability on average compared to yours. A gun in the hand can be used even if they make contact. Even if bigger and stronger. Advanced training is always an option.
A whole lot of big hope and assumptions. I respectfully disagree on the basis of experience and training with this statement in it's entirety. In reality if you ever need your firearm, you won't get to choose the scenario for which it is needed.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
While rare - it has happened that a rampage can have multiple attackers who are distributed. Mumbai is an example. Kenya also is one.
So if you dispose of an attacker with your J frame and need to flee or hunker down - I would like to have some more ammo.
Yes, it is rare. I work in an environment that could attract multiples (Columbine was one. Jonesboro had two.
Terrorist experts wonder why we don't see firearms based attacks more often. There was one thwarted in the NE.
So I ain't Rambo - but I would like a touch more than available in the single mugger average gunfight will always happen viewpoint.
So if you dispose of an attacker with your J frame and need to flee or hunker down - I would like to have some more ammo.
Yes, it is rare. I work in an environment that could attract multiples (Columbine was one. Jonesboro had two.
Terrorist experts wonder why we don't see firearms based attacks more often. There was one thwarted in the NE.
So I ain't Rambo - but I would like a touch more than available in the single mugger average gunfight will always happen viewpoint.
One of the things that my earlier mentioned probabilistic analysis revealed was that the results were quite "pessimistic" compared to the reality of self-defense incidents. That meshes well with statistical data which suggests that it is quite common for bad guys to give up/disengage/flee without actually being disabled.
My calculations were based on having to disable (per the assumptions stated) both attackers. That turned out to be a dismal proposition. Actually disabling more than one attacker with a typical carry gun (5-7 shot handgun) is NOT something you want to be called upon to accomplish.
So why doesn't reality match the calculations? Simple--the prospect of being ventilated is a very effective means of rearranging an attacker's motives in most cases. So actually disabling the attacker isn't often required.
What that means is that it is not possible to successfully argue against the premise that having a few rounds will often be sufficient for self-defense based on real-world self-defense data. It is often sufficient. Of course, the same statistics indicate that carrying an empty gun, or one loaded with blanks, will be sufficient for self-defense almost as often since it is quite common for bad guys to give up/disengage/flee without actually even being hit by a shot.
What it comes down to is that each person will have to decide what primary strategy they want to take and then do what makes sense based on that decision. That means that it's pointless for the two camps to argue with the other about what makes sense. They're starting from two very different premises and what makes sense to one is nonsense to the other.
If your general philosophy is that you want to try to prepare for the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of having to physically disable an attacker with a handgun, then capacity is a real concern. I would say that an even more critical need for that person is some good training. Especially when faced with more than one determined attacker, you probably won't survive long enough to use all your ammunition if capacity is all you have in your "toolbag".
On the other hand, if your general philosophy is that MOST is good enough (i.e. MOST attackers flee/disengage/give up when faced with an armed defender.) then it's really pointless to discuss capacity or any tactics past being able to get your gun out rapidly so the attacker can see it.
My calculations were based on having to disable (per the assumptions stated) both attackers. That turned out to be a dismal proposition. Actually disabling more than one attacker with a typical carry gun (5-7 shot handgun) is NOT something you want to be called upon to accomplish.
So why doesn't reality match the calculations? Simple--the prospect of being ventilated is a very effective means of rearranging an attacker's motives in most cases. So actually disabling the attacker isn't often required.
What that means is that it is not possible to successfully argue against the premise that having a few rounds will often be sufficient for self-defense based on real-world self-defense data. It is often sufficient. Of course, the same statistics indicate that carrying an empty gun, or one loaded with blanks, will be sufficient for self-defense almost as often since it is quite common for bad guys to give up/disengage/flee without actually even being hit by a shot.
What it comes down to is that each person will have to decide what primary strategy they want to take and then do what makes sense based on that decision. That means that it's pointless for the two camps to argue with the other about what makes sense. They're starting from two very different premises and what makes sense to one is nonsense to the other.
If your general philosophy is that you want to try to prepare for the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of having to physically disable an attacker with a handgun, then capacity is a real concern. I would say that an even more critical need for that person is some good training. Especially when faced with more than one determined attacker, you probably won't survive long enough to use all your ammunition if capacity is all you have in your "toolbag".
On the other hand, if your general philosophy is that MOST is good enough (i.e. MOST attackers flee/disengage/give up when faced with an armed defender.) then it's really pointless to discuss capacity or any tactics past being able to get your gun out rapidly so the attacker can see it.