Is a single stack enough?

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.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of good observations involved here but I would be cautious about drawing them too far together to a conclusion.

Are people today generally heavier then they were in the 20's and 30's? Yep - I think that statement has enough face validity that we can go with it. However I would argue that heavier is not that meaningful if we are discussing fat vs muscle and I would argue that people in the 20s and 30s likely, in general, had more muscle mass than today.

A pro athlete kind of defies the above statement. Most of those guys have immense muscle mass. I would expect it is far harder to penetrate muscle than fat.
 
If you're a person who is less likely to go where crime is high and you don't participate in risky behavior, then yes.
Click to expand...
That's a commonly held misconception.

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I thought along those liness for a time--and for a number of year, my specialty in the corporate world was risk management.

When on analyses risk, one of the factors hat one considers in deciding whehter to mitigate a risk orto simply accept it is, of course, the likelihood of occurrence.

But when the effectiveness of a mitigation approach is to be evaluated, that likelihood is not longer germane. It one must use a defensive firearm, the risk has already materialized.

And at that point, what one may have "anticipated" no longer counts--at all.
 
Some of you have the skill that a double stack magazine matters and I do not mean that sarcastically.
Click to expand...
The question is, what do you mean?

Many of the people advocating for double stack magazines do not have enough skill to employ the tool they are attempting to use.
Click to expand...
That may well be true, but are you suggesting that those same people have the skill to use a firearm with a single stack magazine?

One or two semi-competent (maybe 3 if fate on my side) and armed opponents I MIGHT get lucky with ...
Click to expand...
You "might get lucky" with one or two--or maybe three? Are you aware that what limited data we have tell us that the chance of being attacked by two or more persons is at least as great as that of being attacked by one? We've been over that and the sources here many times.

"Semi-competent"? Consider this:


The take-way point is that an armed assailant may be very competent indeed.

It seems very much as if you are saying that you do not believe yourself to be adequately trained in the use of a firearm for self defense.

The obvious answer would be to remedy the shortfall.

Choosing insufficient tools to keep oneself safe in today's world does not make any sense at all.
 
That may well be true, but are you suggesting that those same people have the skill to use a firearm with a single stack magazine?
Click to expand...

I am suggesting that if you are attacked by a competent and determined gang your skill level will matter much more than the equipment you are carrying. More equipment than you can skillfully employ does you no good. Less equipment does present a problem as well.
 
For me a single stack S/A would be enough. I live in an area with lots of crime and only carry a five shot J frame or NAA .22 mini revolver. So far, so good.
 
I am suggesting that if you are attacked by a competent and determined gang your skill level will matter much more than the equipment you are carrying.
Click to expand...
That would certainly be true no matter what the situation.

More equipment than you can skillfully employ does you no good.
Click to expand...
"More equipment"? Are you suggesting that you cannot "handle" magazine capacity beyond some level?

You are making no sense.
 
I am going to take total objection to "Many of the people advocating for double stack magazines do not have enough skill to employ the tool they are attempting to use." This statement is stupid & idiotic & false. That I, a new person to Semi autos. have found that practice, pratice, practice by myself & also with with NRA certified pros has increased my level of accuracy beyond what I thought was possible. I can equally shoot my G43(single stack) with almost(98%) the same consistency as with my G19.(15 + 1 ).
The probability of being attacked by more than one individual is near "1 to 30000" chances in the USA. This is not my quess nor my statistic.
Unless you're looking for trouble & go places where you're a complete outsider or to the worst crime ridden neighborhood, your chances of being attacked or getting into the midst of a terrorist attack is super low no matter what you read about or think about. This is plain fear mongering.
 
the people back in the 1920's - 1930's seemed to do OK with revolvers & single stack pistols
Click to expand...

There were very few double stack semi-autos back then but... many did favor a BAR or Thompson (good and bad ones.)

It had more to do with what was available at that time than what they wanted.

Deaf
 
I used to carry a glock 23. In the waist band with a spare 15 round mag (Glock 22 Mag). I got a 43 through blue label. Haven't carried anything since. Capacity is salvageable by carrying a spare mag. I bought a pinky extension for my spare. Still only holds 6, but all together I have 13 rounds. Two 6 round mags and one in the chamber. I feel fine. If I am going to the city i may toss another mag in the car. If I am going to a bad part of the city I'll resort back to the mid size 23 with the full size mag as backup.
 
The probability of being attacked by more than one individual is near "1 to 30000" chances in the USA.
Click to expand...
The probability that a person will be violently attacked on any one day is infinitesimally low. The probability of it happening within any one year is remote.

But the probability that someone will be attacked at least once during his or her lifetime is such higher. For a twelve year old, it is about one chance in two.

That is simple statistics.

Of course, there will be very great variations around that number.

Details of civilian violence are not widely compiled, but they are in some Tennessee locations. We have seen the data here before--the probability of an attack involving two or more attackers is about the same as that of being attacked by one.

That makes sense. The attacker takes on far less risk if he has one or more others with him.
 
do their own risk assessment and go from there
I am always within 5 miles from home in what I consider a very low risk area
If I am going to venture out further or later in the evening I carry an extra magazine or my Glock 19
Know the places, areas, and times to avoid
Click to expand...

Criminals are mobile, unpredictable and not always nocturnal.
 
What kind of criminals operate in your area? Street gangs or lone wolves? Seriously bad dudes or just wannabees?

For day time, my Kahr CW9 with maybe the LCP in the back pocket is enough. When I go out at night, a G33 with extended magazine and an extra 15 round hicap mag go along.

There has been at least a dozen times over the last 40 years that I was glad I carried. Never had to shoot somebody, but it came close, and I think only because the bad guys realized I was serious and not an easy unprepared target.

Twice in AZ I had to resort to defending myself with an M1 carbine or L1A1, that got attention. Both times against 3 or 4 south of the border gang members trying to carjack me.
 
Last edited:
GEE-WIZ, When the 'How Much Ammo Do You Have?' comes up the answer usually is as much as possible unless you are swimming or on fire.
Now this is turning into an argument over single stack is only for the low drag high speed operator?
 
I carry a single stack with eight shots. I would prefer ten or twelve.

I have very little confidence that I would be able to reload in the midst of a violent attack at short range. Yes, clearing a malfunction by dropping a mag and putting in a new one is a great skill to have. I just don't think I'm fast enough. Heck, in a "Tueller" scenario, I would consider myself well off to recognize the situation, move, draw while moving, and score hits timely.

How many attackers? Somehow I just cannot see a single attacker deciding to attack unless he is supremely confident that the can put me out of business before I can react. Would you do that?

As previously stated, I would not select the mitigation tool on the basis of my assessment of the likelihood that an attack will occur. One it has happened, it has happened.

That likelihood, I think, is mighty low, but the stakes are just a tad high for me to want to ignore the risk.

I would not make decisions of any kind on the basis of averages.

The tool is not the most important thing here.

One thing that is important is skill-set, and everyone should realize first-off that practicing shooting at a stationary target placed directly in front of us at seven yards after having planned the drill is portably not very conducive to developing that skillset.
 
I like Old Marksman's earlier post about risk management. Probabilities are wonderful predictive tools about the likelihood of things happening. However, they always coalesce to either zero or one - either the thing being predicted happens during some time interval, or it does not.

For the 0% scenario, you need zero rounds. Either you are not ever in a self-defense situation, or you are in a self-defense situation and there is a better option open to you than use of a handgun.

So you only need to analyze the 100% version, which you would word thus: given that you are in a self-defense situation and the best approach available to you is to use a firearm, what sort of firearm and how many rounds are needed to survive the encounter?

There is, unfortunately, no way to avoid "what-ifs" because you are planning for a future event that may unfold in ways you do not anticipate. You will have to make some assumptions, informed as best you can by any historical information you have, or at least well-reasoned thoughts.

So lets make the following assumptions - you need to survive a situation where there are two armed assailants who have targeted you as a victim. Assumption 2: 3 hits to important areas with an effective caliber is sufficient to stop an attacker (I realize this is subject to what-ifs, but you have to pick something). So in that situation, you need 6 hits. Assume your ability to hit an "important area" with any given round is 50%. So now you need 12 rounds of an effective caliber, that you can deliver to two targets in a short enough period of time that they can't put three effective rounds into you.

I am not saying that 12 rounds is the magic number, it is just what comes out of that particular calculation based on those assumptions. If you want to make different assumptions, then the result is different. If you think 2 rounds per assailant is enough, then you only need 8. If you think your hit rate to important areas is 66% and 2 hits is enough, then you need 6. If it's just one assailant, then you may be down to 3.

Statistically, there are plenty of situations where having ANY gun at all is sufficient (i.e. they see you draw and they break off the attack), or one round is sufficient (you shoot and they break off the attack, whether or not you hit someone.)

So you have to truly determine which scenario you are wanting to have "enough" for, and what your reasonable assumptions are.

Clearly in a real situation, you want plenty of the most effective round that you can deliver to important areas of your assailant(s) quickly enough to cause them to break off the attack, either voluntarily or due to incapacitation.

You have to shade that versus what you will actually be willing to carry. If your analysis says you need a 17-round 9mm then yes, you need a double-stack full-size auto, and you should be willing to figure out how to carry that, if you truly want to be able to protect against that sort of threat possibility.

Most of the time, for most people, zero rounds is enough for their entire lives. If that is the probability you want to prepare for, then don't carry anything at all.
 
JC57 So lets make the following assumptions - you need to survive a situation where there are two armed assailants who have targeted you as a victim. Assumption 2: 3 hits to important areas with an effective caliber is sufficient to stop an attacker (I realize this is subject to what-ifs, but you have to pick something). So in that situation, you need 6 hits. Assume your ability to hit an "important area" with any given round is 50%. So now you need 12 rounds of an effective caliber
Click to expand...

f17ff7c5ef2b35e22d4df1d255bdf97bacd5fce6feffa4a0aeafe1cff9e2e39f.jpg


I attempted to convey the same idea and it is based on real averages.

However, I've found that data like that will never overcome rationalizations based on "good" places, day vs night, and the implied ability to anticipate psychotic / criminal behavior in others.
 
Ok, here's my (totally ignorant about weapons, and carrying) point of view:

A few years ago, in a book I was reading, I came upon this sentence:

"Women that want to make their husbands happy, should ask prostitutes for advice."

And the author's explanation was simple: prostitutes' PROFESSION is to make men happy, so nobody better than them, to know what men like.
So, bringing that idea to this topic, I think the answer is fairly simple. When it comes to carrying, and potential gunfighting, cops are the pros.
Have you seen many cops carrying single stacks (other than 1911's) as their primary weapons? No, you didn't. They carry staggered magazine guns, AND extra mags, because they know they may never have to use their gun, but if they do, it only takes one non-average fight, and you're history.
So I don't carry, because in my country it's against the law. But if I could, I would carry my 17+1 bersa, and at least 2 extra mags. If I never need them, great, but if I do, it makes me no good having them collecting dust at home.
 
So lets make the following assumptions - you need to survive a situation where there are two armed assailants who have targeted you as a victim. Assumption 2: 3 hits to important areas with an effective caliber is sufficient to stop an attacker (I realize this is subject to what-ifs, but you have to pick something). So in that situation, you need 6 hits. Assume your ability to hit an "important area" with any given round is 50%. So now you need 12 rounds of an effective caliber...
Click to expand...
A 50% chance of hitting with any given shot and having 12 rounds on tap doesn't actually guarantee you'll make all 6 hits. The probabilities are a little more complicated than that.

The chance of making a hit with one round is 50%.

If you have two rounds, the chances of making TWO hits is only 25% because there are three outcomes, all with equal probability. Miss with both, miss with the first but hit with the second, hit with the first but miss with the second, or hit with both. Only one of the four possible outcomes give you two hits, so the probability is 1 out of 4 or 25%.

So if you only want to make at least one hit, does the probability double if you get two shots? No, not quite. You still have four possible outcomes, but only 3 of those four give you at least one hit. So the odds of making at least 1 hit with 2 shots is 75%.

You can do the same kind of math with more and more shots, but it gets a little cumbersome to calculate it by hand by the time you're trying to figure out how it works for 12 shots and even more so if you want to alter the hit rate probability.

I set up a spreadsheet to do it awhile back. It will calculate the probability of making 6 hits with 12 rounds given a 50% hit rate for any given shot. To do the calculation it must be assumed that the shooter will get a chance to fire all 12 rounds before being incapacitated and that the shooter will distribute the rounds perfectly--that is, no shots will be "wasted" shooting an attacker who has already been hit 3x and is therefore incapacitated per the assumption that 3 hits = incapacitation.

The probability of making at least 6 hits out of 12 shots given the above assumptions is 61.28%.
 
Ah yes, I see the fallacy of my logic.

Your 61.28 % is exactly right.

I had to dig out my old Probability and Statistics text book from graduate school years ago and read up on binomial distributions, probability mass functions, and cumulative distribution functions.

Playing with the numbers some, if you can get your accuracy up to 66% from 50%, you go up to a 93% chance of getting at least 6 hits out of 12. You have to go up to 17 rounds with a 50% hit ratio to achieve a similar percentage (92.8%).

Sounds like better shot placement beats more rounds. Which is pretty much what everyone knows, but it's interesting to turn the dials on the statistics variables and watch them prove that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top