One thing I did learn in Statistics 101...if you plan around the odds, Murphy will send a meteor shower your way. No matter what the dice have been rolling, there is ALWAYS a chance that you will roll all snake eyes for the rest of the day. Previous DGU's have absolutely nothing to do with the DGU that is waiting just around the corner with your name on it.
How Many Spare Mags?
- Thread starter scgunrunner
- Start date
- Status
David Armstrong
Moderator
You can't know, and that is the point. You have to make a decision to play the odds at some point. But you will always be playing the odds. Suggesting your odds are much better at 99.99999% as opposed to 99.9999% is sort of silly.
Yep, just like there is ALWAYS a chance a man-eating tiger will jump through your window and eat you today, and there is ALWAYS a chance a shark will attack you while you are swimming in a farm pond in Kansas. However, that doesn't mean one should devote much energy or effort to preparing to survive those incidents.
starshooter231
New member
I carry 1 spare loaded with the same JHP as my firearm, and I have an extra spare in my car with FMJ.
starshooter231
starshooter231
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Many people have survived situations that "required" a fire arm but they didn't have one.
How many times will you survive a meteor strike? Do you prepare for one? An attack by a pack of wolves? Airplanes crashing into your house? Nuclear Holocaust? They probably all have higher odds than needing a reload.
Let's make a new song! (To the beat of "The Farmer in the Dell")
It's the stakes and the odds, the stakes and the odds, high ho the dairy-o the stakes AND the odds!
I'll ask again, since the question has been ignored at least twice. Can you name a SINGLE incident that the defender in a SD situation was killed or even injured because they did not carry a reload? One single incident? 700,000 DGU per year. Can you name one incident that resulted in a fatality or even injury to the defender due to not having a reload? Surely there would be SOME documentation of such a thing. There are tens of thousands of incidents documented where a reload was NOT necessary.
obviously you don't understand the definition of "required"
why do you have some kind of sick need for somebody to die before you'll admit that having too much ammo is better than not enough?
why don't the 3 out of 482 that "required" a reload count?
how about a case where several guns were emptied
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_163_27/ai_99130342?tag=content;col1
or do you really need sombody to die
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
So, you would say that a situation where an innocent was beaten and raped in an alley didn't require a firearm? I'd say it did require one and yet people survive those incidents on a daily basis.
If you honesty believe that only situations that resulted in the death of an unarmed person actually count as "required" firearms situations then it is you who does not understand the word. I'm allowing for injuries in my question. If there was not at least an injury, what was the requirement for a reload? So, once again, do you know of a situation where a reload was required, resulting in the death or injury of the defender due to not having a reload? Even in the data provided on the 3 reloads (let's face it, 2 reloads, the lion shot with a .32 doesn't count) there is no evidence that the reloads were actually "required". If you fired until empty and the BG was nowhere to be seen, would you reload? Well, yeah. Is it a "required" reload? NOt unless you have to pull the trigger again. Fact is, if you fired until empty what is needed, 99.99% of the time, is a little trigger control, not a reload.
Back on topic, I'm actually comfortable telling people that they don't need to carry a firearm at all if they don't want to do so. Oh my God! What if they get killed!! I'm also comfortable explaining the reasons that they should consider carrying, if they want to hear it. Either way, it's their decision, not mine.
I've spent 32 years of my life without a firearm on my person and never needed one. I have one now because I want one. I seriously doubt I'll ever need one, much less a reload. So, if somebody says "Hey, I carry a XYZ handgun. Do you think I need a reload?" I'll say no, I don't think you do because..." If they choose to carry one anyway, great. If they choose not to carry one, that's great too. I'm pretty comfortable knowing that the odds are very high they'll never need the gun at all and if they do need it, they'll probably not need to fire a shot and if they do fire a shot, it will probably be 1 or 2 and if they fire more than 2, they will probably not need a reload. Also, if they do fire a single shot in SD it will be all over the news. See, things like that are EXTREME rarity (read, has never happened here except between small time drug dealers which doesn't count in my book) where I live. If they weren't, I wouldn't live here, but that's a topic from another thread.
As for your example above, I'm talking about reloads carried on your person. I have reloads available at home and work because there's no reason to not have them. I'm talking about taking reloads out on the street.
Last edited:
Ok, I get it. If all the people who were in gunfights had altered their behavior prior to the fight, they wouldn't have been in the gunfight they ended up in.
Chances are, some of us have avoided gunfights by deciding on one course as opposed to another and never new we avoided the gunfight, car accident, etc.
And if Reggy had had the information that he didn't have access to, he could have taken another route.
David, someone who ignores other peoples' questions and launches into piece by piece rebuttle of every point, shouldn't be demanding that people answer their questions.
However, I'll answer your question anyway. He/she who has the means to recharge one's pistol, without respect to it's initial capacity, is better armed than one armed with the same pistol, who wasn't forethoughtful enough to carry a reload.
Is one better armed with a G17 and no reload than one with a J-frame and two speedloaders? Yes, as long as a malfunction isn't encoutered that requires jettising the magazine on the ground and replacing it from the mag pouch. But not as well armed as with carrying a reload.
What makes for interesting analysis, is that the reasons some have given for not carrying a reload is time saving convenience. I know people who will toss their J-frame in their coat pocket to head for the store, and never think to carry a reload. Better than nothing, but a couple of speedloaders in the opposite pocket, or a mag. for the Keltec, etc. would be my choice.
After I've climbed into my IWB and holstered my pistol, nothing is easier than clipping on my Bladetech mag-flashlight combo (I use the Teklock rather than paddle) and being on my way.
Last edited:
and yet the only reason to not have them on the street is you don't want to.
It's not about need, til you need it.
no it did't necessarly require a firearm.maybe just better situatoinal awareness,pepper spray or a stun gun.having a gun is not a magic "talisman"
also I don't concider the criminal fullfiling his act an acceptable outcome even if they let you live.
other than they clearly stated 3 incidences "required" reloads.
Last edited:
azredhawk44
Moderator
In the summer, I carry a 5 shot revolver. I might or might not have a speed strip of .38's with me.
Closer to winter, I carry an autoloader. I have more clothing to conceal it. I also notice folks' tensions are higher in winter.
April historically has been a time of mad clown insanity. VT, Columbine, the American Revolution, many other events. Always in April. I'll carry an extra magazine in April.
Then May comes and I get to carry my little 16 ounce snub again.
Closer to winter, I carry an autoloader. I have more clothing to conceal it. I also notice folks' tensions are higher in winter.
April historically has been a time of mad clown insanity. VT, Columbine, the American Revolution, many other events. Always in April. I'll carry an extra magazine in April.
Then May comes and I get to carry my little 16 ounce snub again.
Couldn't you say that you might need 4 extra magazines so why not have them just in case? But why stop at 4 you could be in a situation where you required 5 extra magazines. Why not carry them? But what about if you are attacked in some type of extended situation that lasts for days, say a hostage situation like "Die Hard" mightn't you need more than 5 extra magaizines of ammunition? Better carry 6 extra.
David Armstrong
Moderator
While that is a distinct possibility, it has nothing to do with the Denny situation. Let's try it this way...if you were driving the truck, and heard on the radio there was a riot in progress and the rioters were throwing bricks at vehicles and beating people up, would you have driven into the riot or found a different route?
If I have missed a non-rhetorical question of yours and did not answer, if you will point it out I will be glad to respond.
That is a nice answer, but it doesn't answer the question asked.
Seems such a simple question, yet so hard to get a straight answer to it. Again, the question does not include any "as long" consideration.
Far more than "better than nothing" it is actually sufficient for virtually any realistic SD DGU incident.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Looks to me like you gave us a case where nobody carried a reload on them yet it worked out fine. Hard to see how that supports the idea of carrying spare mags on you.
David Armstrong
Moderator
I would suggest there is a big difference between a 1 or 2 shot derringer and a 5 or 6 shot revolver. First, note that the normal numbers in a shooting tend to hover around the 2-3 mark for average and mean, thus there is good evidence that you would need 2 rounds or more. Second, the derringer is far less ergonomic (for me) to shoot well. Third, I did carry a Hi-Standard .22 derringer (2-shot) quite often in the past and did not feel particularly endangered.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I didn't say it was "acceptable." In fact, I implied quite the opposite, using it as an example of a "gun required" situation. So, from your perspective, the mythical person who DOES need a reload, actually might NOT really need a reload because they may not have needed the gun in the first place if they'd been more aware or had pepper spray or a stun gun? So what you should be advocating is better situational awareness and then you wouldn't have to worry about a reload OR a gun. NOW we're talking about playing the odds! If you're REALLY aware, you probably won't need a gun at all. Hm, I don't like those odds.
I think that's been established multiple times. The opposite is also true. The only reason to have a reload is because you want one. The statistics do not bear out a reality that makes reloads a "requirement". You either have one because you want to or don't because you don't want to.
BuckHammer
New member
The question of this whole thread was "How Many Spare Mags?" I don't see how your question is related in the slightest. Really think about it.David Armstrong said:
1. Guy with 17 round G17 would be better prepared with one or two spares.
2. Guy with 1911 and two mags is better off than the guy who has only one.
3. Guy with J-frame and speedloaders is better off than the guy without speedloaders.
The question in the thread wasn't about guns, it was about magazines. You can't ask, "Is the guy with one 10,000 round magazine better off than the guy with a J-frame and a couple speedloaders?" Well, you can, but it's ultimately irrelevant to the thread. Yes, more mags/speedloaders will make you more prepared than carrying the same gun without more mags/speedloaders. If I'm missing the point you are trying to prove with your question, please elaborate.
Bottom line is:
BuckHammer said:
I have no doubt, David, that you could for days on end, sit there and casually dismiss any opinion different from yours as irrelevant (you already have). Just as you're about to dismiss this comment with yet another rebuttle.
All in the name of being right that one is not better armed when carrying a reload because the odds of needing it are insufficient.
All in the name of being right that one is not better armed when carrying a reload because the odds of needing it are insufficient.
Last edited:
except the ones it's not.
no from my perspective "required" a reload means exactly that.the person needed a reload, and yes my hindsight is 20/20 also.
that's the problem with your side of the argument. life does not follow your rules.
hey if you don't want to carry a reload fine.just quit trying to tell everybody your just as well armed without a reload.
Para Bellum
New member
11 in the G26, 15 more on the hip
see above
(and a backup knife on the weak hand side in case you get locked by a bigger guy on your weapon...)
see above
(and a backup knife on the weak hand side in case you get locked by a bigger guy on your weapon...)
- Status