Is a single stack enough?
- Thread starter Jacket67
- Start date
And this is what scares me. I think in most situations a few shots are more than enough and I can easily get away...but if we are talking about mass shooters and crazy's, who knows. What if you are stuck in a movie theatre or some enclosed area? Is that 380 with 6 shots enough? I mean we will never know unless we are in that situation but I know I would rather have more in that situation.
I work for a university and if I am teaching or in my office they want us to barricade the door in the event of a mass shooter. Its a bunch of BS and I cannot carry on campus due to state law, which hopefully is changing soon based on rumors and the general direction campus carry is heading. If there was a fire we have sprinklers, an alarm, and extinguishers, but if there is a mass shooter we have nothing and they won't allow me to protect myself. Having said that, I don't feel my bodyguard 380 is enough in that situation. I feel like I might need a lot more if 1 or more determined attackers are trying to get into a classroom that I am sitting in with my students. A locked door with the lights off just doesn't cut it and that's what they want us to do. We don't even have a security officer in the building and anyone can walk in, no IDs, nothing. When I worked for DoD you had to walk through a metal detector and have an ID scanned to just get in the building and you need a thumb print to get to my part of the office.
It sounds like the university thinks you are expendable.
Hopefully, the state law will change soon.
Something like this might be of interest to you.
NIGHTLOCK
https://nightlock.com/classroom-workplace-emergency-lockdown/
Good luck.
Hopefully, the state law will change soon.
Something like this might be of interest to you.
NIGHTLOCK
https://nightlock.com/classroom-workplace-emergency-lockdown/
Good luck.
adamBomb, I understand your frustration with the current state of things. I am not a teacher by profession, but I spent a very large amount of time as a volunteer with some school programs, over a period exceeding a decade. I traveled frequently with groups, but because the travel was a school activity, I could not be armed under the rules of my state. I often thought, "If ever I wanted to be able to handle a violent problem, it is now, with these beloved kids around me. And I can't because I follow the rules."
OldMarksman
Staff
I agree with John's comment on Constantine's opening words, "In my opinion, we prepare for when things go wrong, not right ".
Short, simple , and to the point.
That is a very fundamental tenet of sound risk management.
It applies to a lot of things---the first aid kit, the fire extinguisher, extra meds, runduntbnt systems in vehicle, a battery backup for the sump pump, the design of the company's system of internal controls....
But back to the specific subject of the thread, everyone else that Constantine said in that post is worth remembering, also.
Short, simple , and to the point.
That is a very fundamental tenet of sound risk management.
It applies to a lot of things---the first aid kit, the fire extinguisher, extra meds, runduntbnt systems in vehicle, a battery backup for the sump pump, the design of the company's system of internal controls....
But back to the specific subject of the thread, everyone else that Constantine said in that post is worth remembering, also.
I took this pic last spring when long sleeve t-shirt & shorts was comfortable.
That is a Glock 19/23/32 and it is well concealed, no printing even if I lean forward, pictured.
Kevin Rohrer
New member
To answer the OP's title question: a single-stack is plenty for anything less than the Zombie Apocalypse.
Why limit yourself in any way, if you can shoot well, conceal well, and the rules of carrying in your state allow it, IE You are not in NY State, dummies 7 rounds, California 10!
Then be like me Glock 19Gen 4 with 16 rounds ready to go, and a spare G17 round for malfunctions. Plus a LED Flash light, use mine all the time.
Forget single stack! The only time you need less ammo. If you are on fire or drowning.
Then be like me Glock 19Gen 4 with 16 rounds ready to go, and a spare G17 round for malfunctions. Plus a LED Flash light, use mine all the time.
Forget single stack! The only time you need less ammo. If you are on fire or drowning.
OldMarksman
Staff
On what do you base that assessment?
Have you ever availed yourself of any good defensive pistol training?
I'll have to admit - I have a fondness for revolvers. I have J-frame 5-shot for pocket carry, and a 2" K-frame 6-shot for belt carry.
I also have a Glock 26, along with a couple of extra 12-rd mags, plus some 15 and 17-round mags from its bigger siblings, and several nice holsters for it And I shoot it well. I just don't carry it often.
This thread, and the logic behind the probabilities once I looked at it that way, made me realize something. I was carrying with the expectation that I would never need a gun at all.
So from a logic perspective, I was answering the question "Given that you will never need a gun, what gun would you carry?" Well I would carry a gun that I was fond of. I like the looks, styling, feel, and sense of personal history from a revolver. In a sense, it was personal belt-jewelry.
But the question I should have been answering for myself was: "Given that you are going to need to use a gun to save your life some day, what gun would you carry?"
That is a whole different question. The relative likelihood of that EVER occurring, and steps I take to minimize that likelihood, are not germane to the argument. Those ARE germane to making the decision of whether you should carry at all.
I remember from my college probability/statistics class, my professor related a story from when he worked in industry determining probabilities for quality control purposes in a factory. They were doing cost analyses based on error rates, effectiveness of QA, and costs. It turned out that the calculations led to two conclusions. They should either check everything, or nothing. The in-between options, of checking every 10th or 100th item, were too costly compared to the benefit derived. Of course management ignored the recommendation because it was not what they wanted to hear, and they implemented some form of random QA to make themselves feel better.
That anecdote makes me re-think my gun carry completely. I should either carry nothing, because it is very likely that I will never need a gun at all, or I should carry with the assumption that I am sure as rain going to need something, and it's going to need to save my life. It's one or the other. Coins don't land on their edges.
Now I do admit, with firearm carry there is a special case. The case where any gun at all, no matter what it is, will win you the day. That is when a criminal has targeted you as an easy target for crime, and when they find out you have "teeth", they beat feet outta there. And that is the alluring belief that all decent people cling to. When the bad guy sees I can defend myself, they will leave me alone, and nobody has to get hurt. If I am a decent person, and I hope that I am, I don't want to harm or hurt anyone at all. If a burglar kicks the door down, I want to be able to yell "Leave my house, I'm armed and the police are on the way," and they leave. I get the door fixed, police take a report, burglar lives to steal again.
So that is the special case that allows you to carry whatever you are fond of. Either you need nothing at all, or having anything at all is "enough."
And home defense is another topic. You are relatively unlimited in what you might choose to have at hand.
But for carry - it now occurs to me that when I quietly scoffed at those who armed for war, when none was coming - well, they are just better statisticians than me. You do not carry for the times when nothing happens. You carry for when it does.
I also have a Glock 26, along with a couple of extra 12-rd mags, plus some 15 and 17-round mags from its bigger siblings, and several nice holsters for it And I shoot it well. I just don't carry it often.
This thread, and the logic behind the probabilities once I looked at it that way, made me realize something. I was carrying with the expectation that I would never need a gun at all.
So from a logic perspective, I was answering the question "Given that you will never need a gun, what gun would you carry?" Well I would carry a gun that I was fond of. I like the looks, styling, feel, and sense of personal history from a revolver. In a sense, it was personal belt-jewelry.
But the question I should have been answering for myself was: "Given that you are going to need to use a gun to save your life some day, what gun would you carry?"
That is a whole different question. The relative likelihood of that EVER occurring, and steps I take to minimize that likelihood, are not germane to the argument. Those ARE germane to making the decision of whether you should carry at all.
I remember from my college probability/statistics class, my professor related a story from when he worked in industry determining probabilities for quality control purposes in a factory. They were doing cost analyses based on error rates, effectiveness of QA, and costs. It turned out that the calculations led to two conclusions. They should either check everything, or nothing. The in-between options, of checking every 10th or 100th item, were too costly compared to the benefit derived. Of course management ignored the recommendation because it was not what they wanted to hear, and they implemented some form of random QA to make themselves feel better.
That anecdote makes me re-think my gun carry completely. I should either carry nothing, because it is very likely that I will never need a gun at all, or I should carry with the assumption that I am sure as rain going to need something, and it's going to need to save my life. It's one or the other. Coins don't land on their edges.
Now I do admit, with firearm carry there is a special case. The case where any gun at all, no matter what it is, will win you the day. That is when a criminal has targeted you as an easy target for crime, and when they find out you have "teeth", they beat feet outta there. And that is the alluring belief that all decent people cling to. When the bad guy sees I can defend myself, they will leave me alone, and nobody has to get hurt. If I am a decent person, and I hope that I am, I don't want to harm or hurt anyone at all. If a burglar kicks the door down, I want to be able to yell "Leave my house, I'm armed and the police are on the way," and they leave. I get the door fixed, police take a report, burglar lives to steal again.
So that is the special case that allows you to carry whatever you are fond of. Either you need nothing at all, or having anything at all is "enough."
And home defense is another topic. You are relatively unlimited in what you might choose to have at hand.
But for carry - it now occurs to me that when I quietly scoffed at those who armed for war, when none was coming - well, they are just better statisticians than me. You do not carry for the times when nothing happens. You carry for when it does.
JC57, your above post is as good as I have ever seen on this subject. Carrying a handgun with the expectation of never needing it can lead us to conclude any gun (or no gun) is probably good enough. Carrying a gun with the expectation that it is just a matter of time before I need it to protect myself and those in my charge requires one to examine both hardware and software a little more carefully. Thanks for the post.
JoeSixpack
New member
I agree that was an exceptionally well composed post.
I too hope if I ever have to draw I get a BG who flee's, That's the best outcome I can think of no matter what Im carrying.
I too hope if I ever have to draw I get a BG who flee's, That's the best outcome I can think of no matter what Im carrying.
Concerned Citizen
Inactive
With the exception of small pocket pistols, when I did carry a semi-auto it was always a double stack. I just don't see any big advantage in using a compact or full size semi for any kind of defensive purpose that is only single stack. I'd rather have the reliability and accuracy of a revolver over the one or two extra shots from a typical single stack pistol.
There are some revolvers that can chamber 7 or even 8 rounds of potent defensive loads, which can approach or equal the capacity of some of the most popular single stacks like the S&W Shield. The Taurus 617, to name but one example, can carry 7 rounds of .357mag/.38special +P and is hardly any more difficult to carry then an equivalent sized 6 round snubbie.
Faster reloads? Sure, for the average non-gun enthusiast, but I feel I can do fairly well using speedloaders, speedstrips and/or moonclips in the rare event that I ever need to reload.
I also much prefer the fatter, more secure grip that a double stack semi provides and I've found them to be not at all difficult to carry concealed as many people claim. I doubt I could tell much, if any difference between a standard Glock or a single stack Glock carried concealed IWB using the method that I carry. So why wouldn't I carry a double stack if I were going to carry a semi?
For me, semi-autos are all about capacity, capacity, capacity, or in the case of small pocket pistols, discreet concealabilty (which I very seldom need). They are nice options to have for sure, but I prefer my revolvers for most applications.
There are some revolvers that can chamber 7 or even 8 rounds of potent defensive loads, which can approach or equal the capacity of some of the most popular single stacks like the S&W Shield. The Taurus 617, to name but one example, can carry 7 rounds of .357mag/.38special +P and is hardly any more difficult to carry then an equivalent sized 6 round snubbie.
Faster reloads? Sure, for the average non-gun enthusiast, but I feel I can do fairly well using speedloaders, speedstrips and/or moonclips in the rare event that I ever need to reload.
I also much prefer the fatter, more secure grip that a double stack semi provides and I've found them to be not at all difficult to carry concealed as many people claim. I doubt I could tell much, if any difference between a standard Glock or a single stack Glock carried concealed IWB using the method that I carry. So why wouldn't I carry a double stack if I were going to carry a semi?
For me, semi-autos are all about capacity, capacity, capacity, or in the case of small pocket pistols, discreet concealabilty (which I very seldom need). They are nice options to have for sure, but I prefer my revolvers for most applications.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Very, very well put, JC.
Very well put.
Very well put.
OldMarksman
Staff
Let me put my spin on this part of it:
If your objective is to be prepared for the unthinkable, when the balloon goes up for real, that is true, as John and Tom Givens and any really careful risk mitigation design process will tell us.
Carrying something that would likely not suffice under those circumstances just to feel good would not be realistic. If one can carry the right tool, one should certainly do so.
But that may not be practical. Perhaps dress requirements would limit one to carrying something smaller than what one would like to have in a serious violent encounter.
Does that mean that one should not carry at all?
I think not!
There is a chance, not necessarily all that insignificant, that three or four shots may save the day, and then there is the the deterrent effect. I have been involved in more than one "DGU" incident, and I have never fired at anyone.
I would much rather slip an LCP into my pocket than leave home without it, if I could not carry what Tom Givens' calls "a real gun" under the particular circumstance at hand.
But that would not be my first choice, otherwise.
I will suggest that those who are enamored with their ubiquitous J-frame snubbies read, JCs post and John's posts in this thread carefully--and than take one out and put it down beside a Ruger SR9c. They will probably be surprised.
I was.
I stopped carrying a five shot revolver as a primary weapon years ago.
Carrying something that would likely not suffice under those circumstances just to feel good would not be realistic. If one can carry the right tool, one should certainly do so.
But that may not be practical. Perhaps dress requirements would limit one to carrying something smaller than what one would like to have in a serious violent encounter.
Does that mean that one should not carry at all?
I think not!
There is a chance, not necessarily all that insignificant, that three or four shots may save the day, and then there is the the deterrent effect. I have been involved in more than one "DGU" incident, and I have never fired at anyone.
I would much rather slip an LCP into my pocket than leave home without it, if I could not carry what Tom Givens' calls "a real gun" under the particular circumstance at hand.
But that would not be my first choice, otherwise.
I will suggest that those who are enamored with their ubiquitous J-frame snubbies read, JCs post and John's posts in this thread carefully--and than take one out and put it down beside a Ruger SR9c. They will probably be surprised.
I was.
I stopped carrying a five shot revolver as a primary weapon years ago.
After reading through the posts, I think it's probably worthwhile to state why I first did the probability calculations and provided the results on TFL.
It wasn't to try to make the point that people who carry very low capacity handguns are stupid or ignorant and that people who carry high capacity guns are smart and well-informed. I sometimes carry a pocket pistol when I can't manage to conceal something bigger and I would like to think that my IQ and knowledge levels don't change when I do that.
It is to help people make an informed decision when they choose a carry gun and to provide them with a realistic perspective on what it can do for them.
It wasn't to convince people that they really need to carry a gun with X or more rounds or they're not prepared. Having a gun (and the knowledge/skill to use it effectively and legally) at all gives you a preparedness level that is much higher than the vast majority of the population. It is to help them understand HOW prepared they are.
I just think it's better if people understand the basics of this topic. Once people understand what's going on, they can do what they want with that information. The difference is that now they have a more informed perspective from which to make decisions.
That perspective might prompt them to change what gun they carry. It might prompt them to get more training. Or they might not change anything and instead re-evaluate their planned strategy in some dangerous encounters.
When I first started running these numbers years ago, one might think that I immediately changed what guns I was carrying. That didn't happen. What did happen was that I immediately began thinking very differently about how I viewed and planned for various self-defense situations/violent encounters. My perspective on what capability I have to deal with multiple attackers when I'm carrying my pocket pistol is now a lot more realistic.
Before looking at the numbers, I had a picture in my mind that if I were attacked by multiple determined attackers, I would, if left with no other option, pull my carry pistol and eliminate the threats with well-aimed shots. After running the numbers, I began to understand just how improbable it is to make enough solid hits to down even two determined attackers with 5 or 6 rounds. Now my strategy is more along the lines of pulling my carry pistol and using it as a tool to help provide an avenue of escape from any remaining threats rather than viewing it as a way to clear the board of threats.
Before I was really impressed with how effective guns are as a self-defense tool. Now I understand that a lot of that effectiveness is really about the deterrent value against criminals whose highest priority is not being shot, not about how easy it is to wield them to neutralize determined attackers.
What I'm trying to say is this:
Don't get bent out of shape because you carry a 5 shot revolver or a 2 shot derringer and let that irritation cause you to dismiss this topic.
Don't get overcome by pride because you carry a full-sized service pistol and a spare magazine and let that smugness cause you to move on without considering all the ramifications of this discussion.
Instead, think about how the realities discussed affect you, the decisions you have made, and the decisions you will make. Even if you don't have any intention of changing what you carry, the information still has value because it helps provide a more realistic perspective and a more realistic perspective is always a very good thing to have.
It wasn't to try to make the point that people who carry very low capacity handguns are stupid or ignorant and that people who carry high capacity guns are smart and well-informed. I sometimes carry a pocket pistol when I can't manage to conceal something bigger and I would like to think that my IQ and knowledge levels don't change when I do that.
It is to help people make an informed decision when they choose a carry gun and to provide them with a realistic perspective on what it can do for them.
It wasn't to convince people that they really need to carry a gun with X or more rounds or they're not prepared. Having a gun (and the knowledge/skill to use it effectively and legally) at all gives you a preparedness level that is much higher than the vast majority of the population. It is to help them understand HOW prepared they are.
I just think it's better if people understand the basics of this topic. Once people understand what's going on, they can do what they want with that information. The difference is that now they have a more informed perspective from which to make decisions.
That perspective might prompt them to change what gun they carry. It might prompt them to get more training. Or they might not change anything and instead re-evaluate their planned strategy in some dangerous encounters.
When I first started running these numbers years ago, one might think that I immediately changed what guns I was carrying. That didn't happen. What did happen was that I immediately began thinking very differently about how I viewed and planned for various self-defense situations/violent encounters. My perspective on what capability I have to deal with multiple attackers when I'm carrying my pocket pistol is now a lot more realistic.
Before looking at the numbers, I had a picture in my mind that if I were attacked by multiple determined attackers, I would, if left with no other option, pull my carry pistol and eliminate the threats with well-aimed shots. After running the numbers, I began to understand just how improbable it is to make enough solid hits to down even two determined attackers with 5 or 6 rounds. Now my strategy is more along the lines of pulling my carry pistol and using it as a tool to help provide an avenue of escape from any remaining threats rather than viewing it as a way to clear the board of threats.
Before I was really impressed with how effective guns are as a self-defense tool. Now I understand that a lot of that effectiveness is really about the deterrent value against criminals whose highest priority is not being shot, not about how easy it is to wield them to neutralize determined attackers.
What I'm trying to say is this:
Don't get bent out of shape because you carry a 5 shot revolver or a 2 shot derringer and let that irritation cause you to dismiss this topic.
Don't get overcome by pride because you carry a full-sized service pistol and a spare magazine and let that smugness cause you to move on without considering all the ramifications of this discussion.
Instead, think about how the realities discussed affect you, the decisions you have made, and the decisions you will make. Even if you don't have any intention of changing what you carry, the information still has value because it helps provide a more realistic perspective and a more realistic perspective is always a very good thing to have.
Triggernosis
New member
OldMarksman, what do you carry as your primary weapon today?
OldMarksman
Staff
That should not require a complete sentence, but it does, because....
I have been carrying a Springfield XDS 9 4.0. I was always a bit conderned about the capacity, but that was my choice. It was a judgment call.
During the course of this discussion, I decided to rethink that decision. I decided to start carrying a compact pistol with a higher magazine capacity.
I ended up choosing a Ruger American Compact 9MM with a 12 shot magazine.
But I'm not carrying it yet. The holster is on order from Crossbreed, and I have not run any ammunition through the gun yet.
So the short answer for right now is "XDS", but I thought you deserved more than that.
Triggernosis
New member
Thank you - just wondering. I like the XDS. I'm not familiar with the Ruger American - I'll have to check it out.