Is 6 Shots enough?

[9mm]

Statistically speaking, you are more likely to encounter deep water than someone who needs to be shot at 40 times ...... are you buoyant with all that strapped to you?

I doubt I or anyone would need to shoot one person 40 times........ There isn't much water around, and I don't worry about that.

Other reasons for carrying ammo, is if something happen (house fire) etc... I have a good amount on me and feel very safe.

You only have 6 in a gun but the BD has 17 in his Glock and his pal has a reload for his rusty 5 shot snuby. Not good....

Sure 6 shots is all you might need, but how many times did you miss? I be scared crap-less if I ran out of ammo in a self defence shooting. I might use 6 in my Glock with another 9 left in the magazine.

 

[jimbob86]

I doubt I or anyone would need to shoot one person 40 times........

Note I said "shot at" ..... folks that anticipate missing as much as your average NYC policeman (7% hit rate, IIRC)might be wise to carry a couple pounds of lead....

I ask the buoyancy question because though I have only been Carrying 5 years, I have found out through experience that strapped with a 1911 and 16 rounds of ammo, I do not float....... I could swim, but even with a lungful of air, it required considerable effort to keep my head above water....... and the odds of you falling into water are much greater than you needing anything like 40 rounds .....

 

[MLeake]

Has anybody heard a survivor of a gunfight say either of the following?

1) "I wish I'd had a smaller gun, my carry gun was too easy to use."

2) "I wish I'd had less ammunition, since I didn't use all I had."

 

[kst8fan]

6 shots would be more than enough for me. I carried a SP101 for years without hesitation and it only held 5 shots. If I can't take down an attacker in a defensive situation with 5-6 shots, maybe I don't need to own a gun. Just my opinion.

 

[mordis]

Alright, mleake so in your august opinion what should people do with there revolvers then? Hunting sure, but at what point do you think they should be switching from revo to semi? Should S&W stop making K and L frame and only stick to J/n/x framed revolvers?

Sure more capacity is good, but the people of this board tend to practice more, and have more training then your average joe. Sure people of this board wont spray and pray with a auto, and have good accuracy, but joe average is likely to. When i was younger i was tuaght on the very revolver im carrying now, so you can understand my devotion to them. Very early on, i switch to autos only and found my self pulling the trigger way more then i did on the revolver. It was subconsious, i didnt even think of doing it, it just happend. Something about knowing i had 17 rounds of ammo made me focus less on the basics and more on the shooting. Of course i have 12 years of practice onme now, so that is a non issue, but i feel for regular joe blow average, a revolver is more then adaquate.

 

[Crow Hunter]

Alright, mleake so in your august opinion what should people do with there revolvers then?

Not Mleake, but I would advise at a minium a 2nd identical revolver and realistic training. Make sure you can make the hits that you need to make within your "safety zone". Standing on a range thumbing back a hammer making single shots and inspecting the damage is not what I mean.

Off hand shooting, retention shooting, shooting from cover, movement, etc.

I have heard that Tom Givens has a very good class on using a revolver.

Make sure that you can transition quickly between targets and get back on target quickly after firing and don't train for shoot and look. Keep shooting until the threat is down. Do pushups/jumping jacks/running in place or something to get your heartrate up and make you a little shaky. Shoot with a friend and put some money/beer/lunch on the line. Stress test yourself, make sure that you can really make all 5 or 6 of those shots effective.

If you do that and you feel comfortable with your carry weapon and can work within your limitations to be effective, drive on.

But please no one just slip a gun in their pocket and expect it to be a magic talisman that will protect you.

 

[CajunBass]

Depends on how willing your assailants are to take causalities.

 

[Skadoosh]

But, if you want to be objective, then justify your claim that revolvers are generally more accurate.

The advantages of the sight being affixed to the barrel and that the fixed barrel allows for tighter harmonics aside, a properly set up revolver is at least as accurate as a quality semi-auto. So, objectively, a semi-auto does not have any advantage over a revolver in that regard.

As far as simplicity of operation, with my M&Ps or PPS, draw, aim or point, pull trigger. With my 442, M13, M65s, draw, aim or point, pull trigger. So I'm not giving you simplicity, either. Not unless you can objectively justify it.

I think that ease of use between the two has been discussed ad nauseum: You point out semi-autos that do not have some kind of safety. If you carry a semi-auto that does, manipulating it during a high stress situation, which has been proven to have a dramatic affect on fine motor skills, the revolver wins. Many times I have seen shooters completely FORGET to disengage the safety in even mildly stressful situations.

Semi-autos are also ammo-sensitive. A FTF, FTE or dud round can take a semi-auto out of action for a relatively long period of time in order to clear the problem. A revolver is much simpler to use because all the shooter needs to do is move on to the next chambered round by simply squeezing the trigger again.

Reloading... well, in my experience, a loaded magazine is much simpler and faster than a speedloader (and much more concealable), and is many times faster than a speedstrip.

Youre missing the point of this thread entirely by bringing this point up.

 

[OldMarksman]

The TV show The Best Defense is good source of information, recommendations, scenario demonstrations, and informed opinions on subjects ranging from hardening one's home to recognizing and avoiding potential problems before getting into trouble. This week's episode on multiple attackers is very relevant to this thread.

Posted by kst8fan: If I can't take down an attacker in a defensive situation with 5-6 shots, maybe I don't need to own a gun. Just my opinion.

Sounds reasonable to me, if you train. In the episode mentioned above, host Mike Seeklander demonstrates shooting fewer than six shots into one of three attackers, and again into a second attacker, saying that hopefully the latter would not be necessary.

Many people seems to contemplate single-attacker scenarios; visualize shooting them as if they were stationary targets at the range; and assume that a couple of shots with a handgun will stop them quickly. The likelihood that one will ever need to draw and fire is very remote, but should the need arise, the likelihood that one will be attacked by one person and be able to stop him by firing a couple of aimed shots is insufficiently high to bet one's life on it if there is an available alternative.

One more time--people really should avail themselves of some really good training. In the mean time, the aforementioned episode on multiple attackers is worth watching.

And reflect on Crow Hunter's advice in Post # 86.

 

[Skadoosh]

I watched that episode...and I seriously doubt, even armed with a high-capacity semi-auto, that the average citizen would even have a chance to draw his/her weapon in situations as demonstrated.

So we're back to, in this case Michael Bane's claim, that most mugging attacks will be from multiple bad guys. Where is the factual proof behind his claim? What are the actual numbers? Is the statistical data that has already been presented here by other posters incorrect as the number of shots fired?

 

[jason_iowa]

Any officer who takes a handgun to a gunfight has already lost. Any situation where you have a reasonable chance of having to return fire you need a rifle! Handguns are carried for convenience not for effectiveness.

Autos offer some advantage over revolvers but imo are not superior overall.

 

[Crow Hunter]

Where is the factual proof behind his claim?

My brother had an incident at work awhile ago. A man was accosting a coworker in a bad part of town. My brother radioed the coworker to move quickly back to his position while keeping an eye on the guy and my brother would call the police. The coworker walking quickly away and kept telling the guy to leave, he was trespassing on private property and he didn't have any cigarettes. The guy kept following and asking to bum a butt until they reached my brother. My brother lit him up with a Surefire and drew his Glock 30 (actually my old G30) and told the guy to stop he had a gun and wait for the police. From the shadows to the left, a 2nd previously unnoticed assailant dropped something that went clang and took off running.

They weren't expecting my brother to be there or be armed. The 1st guy was unarmed (the police frisked him), it is unknown if the other guy had a gun, we assume not.

Luckily, no shots were fired. But my brother did comment that:

#1 He was very comforted that he had 11 rounds on tap plus a 13rd spare vs the S&W 442 that he often carried.

#2 He decided that he would definitely replace the old night sights that I had on it that had gone dim like I told him to.

Now, this could also be construed to be an example of why 6 rounds would be enough.

However, that is not how my brother felt. He now carries his G19 or M&P 9c.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Skadoosh:...and I seriously doubt, even armed with a high-capacity semi-auto, that the average citizen would even have a chance to draw his/her weapon in situations as demonstrated.

At least some of us train for it.

More should.

So we're back to, in this case Michael Bane's claim, that most mugging attacks will be from multiple bad guys. Where is the factual proof behind his claim? What are the actual numbers?

You could ask him. He is a member here.

However, since we're talking about risk management, I would place the burden of proof on anyone who would claim that a multiple attack is so unlikely that it does not pose a credible risk.

Is the statistical data that has already been presented here by other posters incorrect as the number of shots fired?

The only statistical data that have been presented here were provided in post #27.

More relevant data can be obtained here. I recommend it.

I also strongly recommend the training available at Rangemaster.

You could ask Tom Givens for his opinion. Of course, if you discount Michael Bane's views, you are unlikely to listen to Tom, if his views differ from your preconceived notions. By the way, they do.

 

[Skadoosh]

<sigh>

Mr Bane made the claim. The burden of proof is on him to prove it. As far as you trying to steer the argument, again, getting back to the facts as have been presented via the data in post #27, six shots is more than "enough".

 

[bbrian]

I like Michael Bane's ear ring.

 

[OldMarksman]

Mr Bane made the claim. The burden of proof is on him to prove it.

I do not think so, because we have to make our own judgments about accepting or mitigating risks. He's not trying to prove anything. You are.

Common sense tells me that muggers will always prefer to work in pairs or more whenever possible. Less risk.

Most of the news reports in our area, other than some involving bank robberies, speak of multiple assailants.

But why don't you ask Mr Bane why he says that muggings most often involve multiple assailants?

As far as you trying to steer the argument, again, getting back to the facts as have been presented via the data in post #27, six shots is more than "enough".

Not at all. The question was about multiple assailants; the data show that 75% of the incidents involved two or more assailants.

But I would not begin to assume that data showing a mean of 4.7 shots fired (and no one fired 4.7 shots), when all incidents involving less than one had been excluded, demonstrates anything at all about the adequacy of six rounds.

You could but Tom Given's DVD; several of the incidents discussed required several rounds. Or you could take a class with him. I heard him say a couple of things about his data: you have to have yoru gun with you, and "carry a 'real' gun". He refers to capacity.

Back to the episode on The Best Defense: the host said to shoot until the first assailant showed signs of being neutralized. Two questions: (1) do you disagree with that strategy; and (2) how many shots do you think you should have on hand to do that?

 

[pete2]

Is 6 rounds enough

Maybe. It really depends on where you put them and how many bad guys there are. If over a couple you've probably had it anyway.

 

[bapfreak]

My opinion is to have at least 10 shots in a gun for home defense and at least 5 shots for CCW. Seems to me that a "prolonged" gunfight is more likely to occur at home and fleeing is less likely at home.

 

[MLeake]

Skadoosh and mordis, in my august opinion, do whatever you like. Just don't think that because you like it, it makes objective sense.

Skadoosh, you want to throw in complicated operating mechanisms to attack semi-autos... great, but Glock has been one of the most popular guns for a couple decades now, and the M&P line are gaining rapidly. Most (though not all) gunners who choose something more complex - such as a 1911 - tend to be enthusiasts who probably train a bit more.

With regard to ammo sensitivity - that has been addressed. Of course, I run my autos through a lot of testing with ammo, magazines, etc before I decide on a carry system. I've ditched my 1911s for carry, due to sensitivity issues. I have never yet had a failure in my M&Ps, although one could always encounter a dud round (I suppose).

Then again, I had a factory SD round squib in one of my revolvers, once. That'll disable a revolver real good.

I had a friend a few weeks ago shoot some non-brass cased rounds (he didn't remember if they were aluminum or steel) in his revolver. Cases didn't expand like brass, and instead of holding well in the chambers, they tended to slip rearward, and his cylinder kept binding.

I also know people who haven't properly tested their lightweight and scandium revolvers for ammo suitability, and have bought ammo with bullets of non-recommended weights. When the bullets in the unfired cartridges jump crimp, guess what? Cylinders also bind.

Let's see... shooting outdoors in cold weather, I was wearing leather gloves, and the leather of my trigger finger tended to bind up my M29's trigger after each shot, interfering with trigger return.

Same gloves, no problem at all with my M&Ps. And I'd suggest it would be nearly impossible to bind a 1911 trigger, even if they do have more complicated safety mechanisms.

So, in my august opinion, all systems have potential weak points. Many can be overcome through user training, and user testing.

As far as what to do for revolver guys... Well, for Skadoosh and mordis:

1) Enjoy your confidence in statistics that attacks are pretty rare, which they are.
1b) Hope you don't become an outlier.

2) Enjoy your confidence that if you are attacked, it will only be by one assailant. (Statistics for that one don't bear you out so well.)

3) Enjoy your confidence that bad guys will be psychologically stopped. (90% or so of the time, they will, without a shot fired. I tend to train for reasonable worst case, though... and assume attacks will actually continue.)

For the other revolver guys, I'd suggest what I do when I carry a mid or large revolver as primary:

4) Carry at least one other revolver, plus a strip or loader or two. (I like strips, as they can work with both my primary and J-frame, although they are slow.) Edit: this is out the window if I'm out in the woods and carrying a .44 magnum... at least as far as reload compatibility. I still usually have the 442, as well.

However, as noted earlier, my J-frame is normally a BUG to an auto.

 

[Tommy Vercetti]

I'm a huge fan of revolvers

I've never felt that I needed more than six no matter where I went (but then I wear dump pouches that hold extra rounds just in case)