Nine rounds of .380 vs five rounds of .38

[TailGator]

It's easy if you know what to look for

Mr. Pond pointed out that low risk doesn't mean zero risk, and OldMarksman pointed out that the risk of needing to take defensive action is at least somewhat independent of the number of rounds that might be needed.

Without intending to pile on, my question would be, how do you know what you are going to see and encounter when you are still at home gearing up for the day? IOW, even if you know what to look for, when are you going to see it?

 

[OldMarksman]

Full Disclosure

At one time I made it a habit to carry a 642 when I was going somewhere I thought "safe".

Someone pointed out to me that, in the event of immediate need, the degree to which I may have considered an attack likely beforehand would be completely irrelevant.

My chagrin arose from the fact that I had once worked in risk management, and I should have known to consider the conditional probability rather than the cumulative probability.

If two bad people want to jump me, it makes no difference whether they have driven to my favorite neighborhood, where there is loot to be had, or I have ventured onto their turf.

 

[45_auto]

At one time I made it a habit to carry a 642 when I was going somewhere I thought "safe".....

If two bad people want to jump me, it makes no difference whether they have driven to my favorite neighborhood, where there is loot to be had, or I have ventured onto their turf.

It appears from your threat assessment that you believe that 9 rounds of .380 is sufficient to defend you from 2 bad guys while 5 rounds of .38 special is not sufficient.

At 4.5 rounds per bad guy, does this mean that carrying a Sig226 with 21 rounds in it will protect me if I'm jumped by 5 bad guys either in my neighborhood or on their turf?

My own observation (8 years deputy sheriff, over 40 years carrying) has been that capacity is about the LEAST important aspect of carrying a self-defense firearm. Situational awareness, calmness under pressure, and skill (training) make the difference between 5 and 9 rounds irrelevant.

 

[mavracer]

If two bad people want to jump me, it makes no difference whether they have driven to my favorite neighborhood, where there is loot to be had, or I have ventured onto their turf.

You were in risk assessment, what are the odds that these two miscreants are gonna jump the 250# redneck that really doesn't appear to have two nickels to rub together for heat in a community full of soccer moms in up scale SUVs?

If you assess my life and think I need more than a 5 shot snub, then I suspect you prolly shouldn't leave your house in less than an Abrams.

Like 45 auto pointed out, you can 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 30 ain't enough all the way up to belt fed and armor.

Without intending to pile on, my question would be, how do you know what you are going to see and encounter when you are still at home gearing up for the day?

Are you in the habit of leaving the house without knowing where you're going?
I'm not

 

[Radny97]

Just want to point out that if you're comparing 380 buffalo bore to 38 special + P Buffalo bore it's still clear 38 special + P is a substantially more powerful round. That's empirical it's not really debatable. The debate is whether you want five of the more powerful or nine of the less powerful.

 

[DA/SA Fan]

mavracer said

I suspect you prolly shouldn't leave your house in less than an Abrams.

When I carry my 10mil in a shoulder rig I carry 15+1 and 2 20 round backup mags. I'm thinking about going for a better shoulder rig and when I do it will most likely have 3 backup mags. it's about as much as I can be comfortable carrying. Everyone has their own idea of overkill. If Abrams didn't cost so darn much I expect my level would be a little higher!

 

[Carmady]

I'll stick with my Binford Force Field 3000. Under 10 oz and totally invisible.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 45_auto:

It appears from your threat assessment that you believe that 9 rounds of .380 is sufficient to defend you from 2 bad guys while 5 rounds of .38 special is not sufficient.

No, but I do believe that five is really on the low side.

If I fire four at the outset, as many of us are trained to do, that would leave one.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

...what are the odds that these two miscreants are gonna jump the 250# redneck that really doesn't appear to have two nickels to rub together for heat in a community full of soccer moms in up scale SUVs?

I do not know, and it does not matter.

Should the event occur, the question comes down to one of what might it take to prevail.

Period.

 

[45_auto]

I do not know, and it does not matter.

Should the event occur, the question comes down to one of what might it take to prevail.

Since the odds of an event happening don't matter to you then anytime you go out you should obviously be arming yourself in preparation for the worst possible case, similar to going on patrol in a war zone.

Worst case civilian event that I can imagine offhand would be along the lines of being the wrong race and caught up in the middle of a race riot involving several thousand people trying to beat you to death. You really believe that you would prevail with 9 rounds of .380 as opposed to 5 rounds of .38 Special? The Abrams tank mentioned earlier would seem most appropriate.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 45_auto:

Since the odds of an event happening don't matter to you then anytime you go out you should obviously be arming yourself in preparation for the worst possible case, similar to going on patrol in a war zone.

No. That's silly.

In risk management, one decides not only whether to mitigate a risk, but how. The decision about how will depend upon such things as effectiveness, cost, weight, convenience, and the impact on other aspects of life (or on other aspects of the performance of a mission).

To mitigate the risks of a violent criminal attack, most of us will assess what kind of tools and training we would likely need in perhaps the majority of potential incidents, should an incident occur in the first place. That would equip us to face one or two, or perhaps three, assailants at a distance not too far away. That will lead most informed, trained shooters to choose something that won't go on a watch chain, that can be fired rapidly and with control a sufficient number of times without reloading, and that has sufficient terminal ballistics.

Most of us would dispense with body armor.

But any time I go out I am armed with a handgun, and I carry a walking stick and a cell phone.

What is sufficient? Consider that not every shot will hit anything that will likely effect an immediate physiological stop, and that one might like a reserve or amargin for error.

JohnKSa posted a rather illustrative analysis here some time ago:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=494257&highlight=multiple+assailants

If you do not like his input variables, use your own.

Something that should illuminate the subject for many people is a session in a virtual simulation facility such as the kind operated at the several Gander Mountain Academies. I cannot find the video right now, but Rob Pincus took part in a scenario that involved two--two, no-more--gun-armed criminals inside a store. Rob, who has quite a bit of skill with a handgun, ended up using the capacity of a double column semi to end the threat. The problem with it is it is that any hit is scored as a stop, and we all know that that's not the way things work in the real world.

 

[Guv]

You make a good point about the likely hood of every round finding their mark. Kind of my feelings about "over penetration" (FMJ vs JHP) , even professionals have bullets go astray and miss their intended target, just watch the late night news! I still would feel better with the Smith though, maybe I have Autophobia?

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Guv:

....even professionals have bullets go astray and miss their intended target, ...

Yes, and it's more than that. Your intended target may properly be the upper chest area, and you may hit it.

BUT---within that area there are vital things and things that would probably not make have much of an immediate effect.

And considering the small sizes of the critical parts, the angles and the three dimensional aspect of the target, movement, and the fact that everything inside is hidden, one cannot determine precisely where to aim.

There is a lot of luck involved, and that's why we are trained to fire several times very quickly.

 

[mavracer]

That would equip us to face one or two, or perhaps three, assailants at a distance not too far away.

You are failing to get the fact that I go days at a time without seeing a single stranger, the odds of them being an assailant is low the odds of them multiplying like gremlins in water is science fiction. When I hear about a plague that turns people to zombies I'll start packing more gun, until then I'm fine running to Quick Trip with a snub.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

You are failing to get the fact that I go days at a time without seeing a single stranger, the odds of them being an assailant is low the odds of them multiplying like gremlins in water is science fiction.

No, I am not.

One more time, and you seem to have failed to grasp this concept, the likelihood that one will encounter trouble is one thing, and what it would likely take to mitigate that risk, should it occur, is something else entirely.

Many people I know do not carry a gun at all. Others carry one only on occasion.

I have made the decision to carry one whenever I can. That does not mean that I assess the likelihood of needing it as any higher than remote, or perhaps any higher than "less than remote". I base the decision entirely upon my evaluation of the severity of the potential consequences.

For most people in most places, and some places are safer than others, the odds of being accosted by a violent criminal actor on any given day are far less than remote. The odds of being accosted in any given year are somewhat higher, but still remote. The odds of being accosted during one's lifetime are quite a bit higher. The decision of whether to mitigate that risk, assuming that one can lawfully do so, is a completely personal one.

If one's decision is to do so, one can make a reasonably objective assessment of how to go about it.

When I hear about a plague that turns people to zombies I'll start packing more gun, until then I'm fine running to Quick Trip with a snub.

There seems to be a preconception among some people that the need a firearm that contains more than five or five or six rounds would materialize only when a defender faces a scary number of violent people.

I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. If I have to deter or otherwise stop two people (or even one), I want more. See JohnKSa's analysis linked above. Watch some of Mike Seeklander's demonstrations involving scenarios in which he deals with one or two assailants on The Best Defense TV. Count the shots fired. Consider whether you would like to have some left.

The QuickTrip? There is a road to it, isn't there? Anyone can drive on it, can they not?

 

[mavracer]

There seems to be a preconception among some people that the need a firearm that contains more than five or five or six rounds would materialize only when a defender faces a scary number of violent people.

It's at least as reasonable as your belief that bad guys just sprout up out of a wheat field.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

It's at least as reasonable as your belief that bad guys just sprout up out of a wheat field.

If you believe otherwise, so do I, and you are correct . They do not "just sprout up out of a wheat field".

They do exist, however, here and there, and I am sure that you are not so naive as to not realize that. They do drive cars and trucks. Sometimes they will engage victims with the threat or use of violence. Sometimes they start off attempting a non violent property crime and end up using violence only if they are discovered. Usually, but not always, they work in pairs, for reasons that should be obvious. Some of them have learned skills while incarcerated. Most of them know to go where the victims are likely to have more.

One's chance of encountering any of them on any given day is extremely low, in most places.

Whether one chooses to mitigate the risk is up to the individual. Most individuals do not.


I do prefer to be prepared, should the need arise.

 

[tallball]

I don't have a dog in this fight.

But there something that has made my life MUCH easier and more pleasant.

I have learned to eventually just be quiet and let the other person be wrong.

 

[Carmady]

^^^^
You should walk around with 10 dogs just in case there is a fight.

 

[mavracer]

They do exist, however, here and there, and I am sure that you are not so naive as to not realize that.

They don't drive 20 miles from the hood to accost the redneck at the Quick Trip that's a block away from the police station, so in reality no they aren't "here"