Is a single stack enough?

One can't fire 2.45 rounds of 9mm; on average that is 3 rounds to incapacitate an attacker, if given a "better than average cop" hit rate of 50% it is not unreasonable to consider that it could take 6 rounds (3 hits to stop, 3 misses) just one attacker. It is also not unreasonable that a citizen could face two attackers, based on averages a single stack might be at slidelock before both attackers are stopped.
Click to expand...

A similar bit of reasoning led me to switch from a revolver to a semi a few years back. It used to be that capacity was one of the most-cited advantages of a pistol over a revolver. Nowadays the trend is to smaller and smaller pistols and, depending on the pistol selection, the gap can be narrowed quite a bit. Not that I am trying to sermonize at anyone, because I have a pocket pistol that I carry, too, albeit only at times when IWB carry is problematic.

Interesting discussion, though, I have to say.
 
Some of you have the skill that a double stack magazine matters and I do not mean that sarcastically. Many of the people advocating for double stack magazines do not have enough skill to employ the tool they are attempting to use.

I know my limits. MAYBE I get luck if two relatively competent attackers decide to attack me. Let's say I manage to survive the first round of hostilities and am forced to fight (I take retreat before fight but lets assume I am forced to fight). One or two semi-competent (maybe 3 if fate on my side) and armed opponents I MIGHT get lucky with though certainly not if they are as armed and determined as those in the infamous FBI Miami shoot out.

Past that having more shots really does me no good because I lack the skill to overcome four or five competent, armed, and determined opponents. Having more rounds on me will not overcome that lack of skill. There is a limit to what can do and I cannot train myself to a level that winning that battle is likely.

No reason to carry more ammunition than I can make use of. So for me a single stack is adequate. The question is rather personal in nature though and for some of you it may not be. Some of you lack enough skill overcome the situation.

Its like sitting me down on a 1,000 yard rifle range. Doesn't matter if the equipment is good enough to do it... I'm not.
 
I have owned and shot pistols since I was a young man (Now 81!)
In the UK/Australia/Canada/ now Florida.

Taught firearms, for over 20 years.

Advice on carrying I will give, pick two identical handguns, my case, Glock 19s.
Join a Club that has an IDPA section. Shoot those pistols in IDPA, which is you move, kneel, prone, moving targets. Draw from concealment, gun on table, gun unloaded. So this is also your test of your carry gun, malfunctions? I have not had any malfunction, ever, with everyone of my G19s, but I mostly carry my Gen 4, cause it is the prettiest! Deep black slide, no marks, great TruGlo sights (on my other one as well) so you are confident it (whichever one!) you are carrying, will most likely go bang when you press that trigger.

Now to the max you will need crowd 3? Is all you will need? I can carry my Glock 19, easily, and a spare G17 mag as well. So why would I not? I shoot the Glock 19 really well, every round I carry have gone in and out of a barrel, prior to being loaded into a magazine. And the in the barrel, in the gun round is never reloaded again, into the chamber, no setback here.

What do we call the people who own 20 pistols, and carry a different one every day, hobbyists?

Here is a question, asked by a Deputy, in the Orange County Sheriffs Office, when they vet you for employment, or to even enter the Office as a lowly Volunteer...

"Have you ever been in a fight, as an adult?"
Q2. "Have you ever been in a fight where people have been badly injured, or even killed"
Q3. "Have you ever used weapons, in a fight?"
 
I think most people carry to deal with what they believe are the most likely threats and scenarios knowing they are not and likely can not be prepared for many unlikely though still potential circumstances. It's like a ship going to sea with some light armament in the event of trouble but in no way equipped to withstand a serious, determined attack by heavily armed vessels. Most people weigh the odds and carry enough armament to hopefully extricate themselves from trouble and maybe, to some extent, give themselves the comfort of knowing they are not completely helpless. As Lohmann446 indicated, in most cases people's equipment is more capable than those carrying it. I'm sure that's true in my case. Maybe I should stay home under the bed.
 
No less than a 15-round capacity handgun
backed up by three 20 round magazines.

Of course, that jerk with the 5-shot revolver
might kill you before you expend the
75 rounds.

And then, being a coward, he'll run away.
 
Is a single stack enough?
Click to expand...

Sure.... unless it ain't.

No crystal ball so one never knows what will be needed.

But I say this. No one ever wished for a smaller gun, nor less powerful gun, nor less ammo, once combat has started.

When the fight is actually on one's opinions on what is 'enough' change.

Deaf
 
Well guys I decided what I wanted and bought an M&P Shield!!!! 8 in the gun, and 10 in the spare mag (once I add a +2 extension) makes me feel pretty comfortable. Was going to get the Glock 43, but the shield's price coupled with the current promo made it too hard to pass up. And, for me, it actually felt more natural in-hand. Thanks to everyone for their input during this process. Next up will be a full size .40 or .45!
 
Nice! Welcome to the Shield Club.
The only complaint I have is how difficult it is to load the magazines.

Make sure you pick up an UpLula loader.

Amazon has a terrific price on them right now - $18 and change for the black one.


Oops - forgot.

Yeah, I'm ok with a single stack.
If I need any more than 5 shots I'm sure I'm in over my head.
 
I do not understand your reply? Sgt. Pepper.

(Yes, because a double stack isn't.)

Seems like you are a Beatles Fan? I worked at the Cavern Club in Liverpool, 1960 Till 1964. On the Door.
 
It seems competent women can get the job done against multiple assailants, even if some of you don't think it is possible.

https://www.policeone.com/internati...in-attacks-Hero-cop-killed-4-terror-suspects/

That argument against carrying more ammo and an extra mag is the most pathetic one I've seen. I understand the concealment and comfort argument. I understand the mistaken statistical argument of the average always happens. I don't understand the argument that I'm incompetent or don't have a chance argument, thus just accept it.

Tell that to the spirits of the sailors of Taffy 3. Just my opinion.
 
It seems competent women can get the job done against multiple assailants, even if some of you don't think it is possible
Click to expand...

I would argue she is apparently more competent then I am. You have not really damaged my argument with the example. I've already acknowledged that for those more competent than myself a double stack pistol may make sense. She has demonstrated ability beyond what I believe myself to possess and as more firearm orientated training then what I currently do is not within the limits of my lifestyle I accept the limitations of my ability.
 
Single stacks like XDS Glock 43 and Shield for me? No.

Not because of round count but because the thin grips don't fit my hand and how I carry (IWB) they offer zero concealment advantage over my Glock 26.

Now, 1911, Sig 220 and Sig 245 single stacks, those work fine for me.

Mostly I carry a Sig 229 or Glock 17 since those are what I shoot best/fastest.
 
Accepting that you are so limited, as the limit what you carry to reduce the chances of defending yourself is just mind boggling. As repeatedly pointed out, carrying something like a G19 is not hard. I do understand the comfort issue, though. When we go that route, we accept the risk. I guess we will disagree on how to deal with competency and critical situations.
 
the people back in the 1920's - 1930's seemed to do OK with revolvers & single stack pistols

it seems the bad guys these days are harder to stop than the old days? people these days can take numerous hits before going down?

maybe because humans are bigger , heavier, thicker in modern times, and also high on drugs, requiring something with a little more stopping power to take them down?

people in the 1920's - 30's were probably at least 50 - 75 lbs or more lighter and thinner than someone today.

I think a person's body size & mass , strength could have an effect on how they react to getting shot

I remember seeing an old police video and a police fired numerous shots at a violent attacker that was also a former pro football player or some type of athlete? and he was able to get back in his car and drive away.
 
Last edited:
I would argue she is apparently more competent then I am. You have not really damaged my argument with the example. I've already acknowledged that for those more competent than myself a double stack pistol may make sense. She has demonstrated ability beyond what I believe myself to possess and as more firearm orientated training then what I currently do is not within the limits of my lifestyle I accept the limitations of my ability
Click to expand...

Lohman 446: I have no clue about your competence or the competence of the Woman Cop in Spain who put down 4 of 5 terrorists.

The only reference I have is "What is the typical training and practice round count for USA LEOs ?"
It may very well be the average TFL member is as competent as the average LEO.

Pure speculation on my part,She might be Spain's Julie Golob,but I'd GUESS it was more that she had the GLANDS .
A lot of heros are ordinary people who find themselves in an exceptional situation and they rise to it.

I recall an old line : "Argue for your limitations and you WILL KEEP THEM!"
 
I carry a single stack 380 around the house, and when a double stack is not a good option. The rest of the time I carry a compact double stack 9mm for a variety of reasons. The biggest reason is I can shoot it better with either hand, both faster on target and more accurately. The second reason is I prefer 9mm for self-defense. The third reason is capacity. I don't know if the difference in 10+1 and 6+1 will matter or not, but I've studied the data enough to know it might.

Lohman I understand that you and I, and many others do not have the skills of an active special forces operative. That doesn't mean we don't have the skills and intelligence to make the best of what we have. Having more rounds than needed in a violent encounter is not a negative. Having less is a very different story.

I am fine with anyone carrying a small pocket gun. What I find offensive is the attitude that anyone who chooses a bigger gun isn't competent enough to get the job done with a couple of rounds or is some kind of mall ninja. Carry what you want and leave the judgemental rhetoric for the anti-gun folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top